Of lunacy and greatness...

[nick]

Adam's suggestion of Adolf Hitler as being a great historical figure (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=73191) has got me musing. Result:-

The margin between genius and lunacy is extremely narrow.

Discuss....

[Cloud]

Genius can be lunacy
Lunacy isnt Genius

If your trying to introduce something completely new and different to people who think they already know the facts then your going to get hailed as a lunatic
Its why developments in science took so long before being majorly supported
However in the modern day its more clear that we dont know the facts and were more welcoming to the truth i feel so the difference is expanding

[CaptainObvious]

I disagree, in that you're wrongly conflating different meanings of the word "great". You use "greatness" here in its literal meaning: huge, indelible, etc. Thus, Hitler was historically "great". However there is another meaning of "great", with positive connotations disconnected from its other meaning. And this type of great is most certainly incompatible with lunacy.

What is fair to say is that great figures are rarely regarded with ambivalence. What is not fair to say is that this polarization reflects some underlying closeness between lunacy and nobility; it is just that those who are infamous and great are generally so for one of the preceding reasons.

[nick]

In the world of arts things are less clear. It seems that some of the best art comes from the very brink, if not beyond of lunacy. Van Gogh for example, Beethoven. In science too, I understand what Calum is saying about people being misunderstood because they are ahead of their time, Galileo perhaps, but many great scientists are distinctly odd people.