Legitimacy Through Fame?

Click here to get more!

I have a deep fear that I will die and there will be nothing left of me to live on. Something that might impact and affect future humans in a way that validates some of the things I've accomplished.

I can imagine a world where I am known and well regarded. A world where my personal impression lives on after I die, like the many famous people that I know and continue to learn about after their deaths. Ideally, I would die having made an impact on the world and in so doing give myself a modicum of infamy. 

I am just realizing that this ideation is most likely the result of a lifetime among televisions. There have always been famous people. Aristocrats, actors, musicians, royals, politicians, clergymen, military heroes, and the like have always existed in large enough agricultural societies. Even without agriculture, tribal peoples would tell stories of heroes and gods and spirits that one would look up to. 

While all these people represent some kind of transcendence from the poor, infirm or otherwise lowly existence that the majority inhabit, these roles were not typically within the reach of the masses. Children in the 17th century were not hopeful that they would become anything other than something close to what their father did. They might have wondered at stories of heroes and gods but were not subjected to the mundane infamy of the modern world.

Today, the world's opinions are on display for the world. Experts and novices teaching beside each other and with no oversight. Crazies and geniuses and everyone in between showing us "what they've got!" "Cash me outside," has left its mark on the world and it is hard not to feel that if someone as low as those that are featured on Jerry Springer or Maury Povich are making their marks in some small ways. If we consider anyone who is online socially as capable of generating fame then fame itself is a measure of potential infamy. Extended fame is really the goal of online expression because if your mark lasts then it is assumed that your mark is meaningful.

The future of education had better include how to use the internet to your advantage or else people will be swallowed up in its web of influence and exploitation. It can also be a comforting couch of convenience and decadence. Everything at your hand and your whole life stuck in the world as a set of profiles and visual media.

But what about the futility of fame? In time all information is degraded and eventually lost then why is it so appealing? I think it is related to the initial need for procreation. Fame's appeal is the same appeal that comes to the deep desire to have our genes live on in our progeny. More specifically it is intertwined with the need to stand out and ascend in a hierarchy where the higher the status the more likely the individual will successfully mate and see their offspring live on. So, it all comes down to sex, like so many behaviors.

For one that prides themself on their ability to express themself, it seems like a failure to not do so publicly. To show one's self to the world is a badge of honor and to show up in a trending list means the eyes of the world are upon you. For good or bad you have been seen. Like in Avatar, we just want to be seen. I just want to be seen. To be seen and appreciated. To be validated by the world. For the world to look at you and give you an uplifting nod. 

The need for attention comes from at least two areas, cultural influences and a lack of bonding with parents. I do not want to blame all parents as for some the need for attention can never be satiated, not even by those with well adjusted and affectionate parents. I do not believe myself to be within that camp but I do not care to blame anyone for my self diagnosed issues in a perhaps failed attempt at self psychoanalysis. My need for attention might just be due to my lack of identifying a mainstream vocation that I find satisfying and therefore must look to other means for purpose, namely expressing myself and hoping that someone finds it valuable or at the least interesting.

I do think that the greater one's desire for fame the greater their need for validation. This may be due to a lack of acceptance and validation from childhood or it could be due to a predisposition toward narcissism or any number of things. 

Living in a culture where thousands and thousands of people make a living expressing their opinions on the internet makes it seem like if your not making a living expressing yourself you're working too hard and are just another "cog" in the wheel. 

I have no children. I have no real money. 

The only reason to feel bad about these facts is that I have a desire for these things. I am not sure which one I want more but I do know that some parts of me feel that children and money are a necessary part of seeing myself as an actualized person. I have manufactured a typical American fantasy despite the fact that my parents failed to represent but somehow has been engrained as a norm. Although they both do have a decent amount of money. At least they do now.

My father never made much money on his own and I know that a great deal of my desire for money has to do with my desire to not be like my father but he did marry two women who have been able to acquire quite a lot of money respectively. In fact his current wife, not my mother, probably makes more money than his second wife, meaning that he traded up in a completely lame and unplanned way. Hopefully unplanned. 

If you haven't done something notable enough to make some local media feature or participated in a viral video or gained enough subscribers to exist as an independent contractor then you aren't that interesting. If you aren't interesting then what's the point?

Maybe these are the worries of someone whose life is too easy to warrant any real discomfort or discipline. Maybe this is a cultural impression that I am simply orienting myself to. Maybe it is simply pride and narcissism that I engage in and should work toward feeling contentment in the simple act of existence and stop seeking fame for the sake of superficial attention. Maybe the monk that seeks enlightenment from a lack of desire is on the road toward enlightenment. I doubt it. I think the real answer is acceptance and balance.

In the creation of expressive art, one should start with themselves and the personal expression and then see what happens when they share such things. If it is meaningful to the self then it might resonate and find value in others. The real key is not putting the cart before the horse, putting the desire for validation before the expression. The idea that fame creates legitimacy is erroneous and simplistic. No one is legitimate or illegitimate. Value is subjective which means that it depends on the evaluator. Maybe a happy life is living based on one's internally generated values instead of trying to adapt to everyone else's idea of

This doesn't mean that one shouldn't cater to others for the sake of money or some other end. There are plenty of people who do not seek fame or validation through social interaction. People who exist with no desire to express themselves to the world and feel no malaise when the world doesn't care about them. Family, friends, work, and hobbies do not require an extended interaction with the outside world and hold deep meaning for those content with such activities. Maybe those that seek attention should remember not to neglect the simple satisfactions that accrue when one attends to those around them.

There is also a kind of dual outcome to fame which is when the endeavors that result in fame are originally intended to help others. This might be in the realms of education, innovation and personal expression of all sorts. The idea that one's public expressions are put out into the world for the sake of others. This is both selfish and selfless. Someone has to have some sense of self-worth and confidence to think that they have something to offer others and this desire, while seemingly noble, has the added bonus of attracting attention and potential fame. It is the most righteous fame because it hides behind the selfless deed and makes one a kind of saint but it should not be forgotten that those that seek to help others often know that the result may be that of acclaim.

This is not a bad thing in that if there were no positive results from helping other people would have little incentive to do so and therefor those that help others should be given public acclaim. This is really only useful if the public knows the difference between what provides actual help and what acts are designed to give the impression of selflessness. The real challenge to audiences, in a world of infinite choices, is to not waste attention on worthless or deceitful people or to call them out. Now, this requires a certain amount of intelligence and control and ultimately up to the individual based on their subjective values and knowledge.

Maturing is more a matter of accepting yourself instead of fighting self-imposed and needless idealism. Instead of constantly judging myself against the achievements of others I should simply continue working on doing what makes me feel fulfilled, meaningful and happy. 

Hero Problem

The problem with the story of Jesus and any other Hero stories is that we start looking for them in real people today. We look at famous people and categorize them as either the Hero or the Villain because we're so used to integrating stories into our thinking and communication. The truth is that real people are almost never all good or all bad. Stories try to simplify morality in a way that is easy to understand for many ages. The simplest and most effective parables are directed at children. Stories create context without requiring real turmoil and so can teach lessons "the easier way".

Maybe the hero story is meant for children to have someone to look up to. Heroes exemplify the virtue of the culture and teach children the values of the culture. Whether that means to be brave, physically fit, intelligent or trustworthy, children can learn how to be useful adults and understand hierarchies with stories. While these stories are useful for children they can also create a heuristic that models the world in a far too simplistic way. As we mature we should be more and more critical of our tendency to simplify and gloss over important details. We should try to see the world as it is instead of as it might be imagined.

I am sure that those that have interacted with immediate danger will learn a valuable lesson but if you can prepare someone or help them avoid something bad then they are more likely to survive and pass on their genes. Those that listened to stories and comprehended them, as well as applied their lessons, would have had an advantage in our past which has led to a species that is prone to hold storytelling as a major virtue. The vast majority of humans can understand the lessons that come from stories and we value those that write and act out compelling stories. We are primed to seek out stories as they may help us to survive. This is why the entertainment world has amassed so much wealth, especially in the US.

The problem is that stories would be boring and confusing if they were too realistic. Real-life is oftentimes slow and most of the time nothing interesting happens, especially in the relatively safe 1st world countries around the world today. So, stories must be simplified and made interesting and an easy way to do this is to create a hero versus villain scenario. This creates drama, conflict and an opportunity for a lesson to emerge. Some clever writers play with this theme and will have the hero and villain roles swap or become ambiguous during the story. This is difficult to pull off but if done well can become even more compelling as it illustrates some of the actual vagueries of life. If it is done poorly it leaves the audience with nothing concrete to learn and just creates confusion as to who they should root for.

The reason this concept came to me was that I was watching a video about Jordan Peterson "wrecking" people with his words. It seems ridiculous to take a few excerpts from interviews and think of it as some intellectual victory. Even a long debate between two expert communicators may only result in a minor positive effect on the cultural landscape. Taking a few minute-long clips out of context that makes one person look smarter than another is misleading and disingenuous unless your goal is to attempt to idolize them.

Jordan Peterson could be more humble but if he is as qualified as I believe he is then he has every right to state his case as an expert in the fields of study that he speaks on. Also, he is probably in the minority of those with high IQs and so when interacting with most people on earth he will be the more intelligent and since he usually only talks about what he knows about he seems even more intelligent. He is confident and listens intently. He thinks about his responses more than most but he is not a hero or some kind of perfect human. He gives advise that many people need and they are benefiting from it and he has a great deal to say about humans but even he isn't completely aware of all the variables related to how humans behave. No one person can know everything about psychology or philosophy or any other complicated abstract pursuit.

The real key to our success in the modern world is not the efforts of individuals on their own but of individuals working together. We rely on specialization and the integration of a variety of disciplines to gain real insight into reality and in the pursuit to maximize prosperity. This does not mean that the efforts of individuals such as Elon Musk or Thomas Eddison did not have a major impact on the world but they were not alone in their projects and they were and are not devoid of failures.

Real people are fraught with inconsistent beliefs, personal flaws, and other unbecoming attributes. We often neglect these aspects in ourselves and those we deem heroic. We do the opposite with those with villainize. We focus on their flaws and inconsistencies and deem them unworthy. The truth is somewhere in the middle.

The judgment of others is a crucial skill in that we live in a world of both free and compulsory association with others. We must attempt to accurately judge the character of others in everyday life as well as in the more disconnected realms of politics and foreign relations. This article is not an attempt to deny the importance of assessing others' virtues and vices but the understand the gray and unsteady nature of such endeavors. Really, it is in the pursuit of personal understanding that we can see the nebulousness of others. If we can see ourselves more accurately we can see others as having many good and bad qualities and respect the vagueness of judgments.

At some point, we do need to act on these judgments and sometimes it comes down to deeming someone slightly more good or slightly more bad but we should be careful of our confidence in our judgments. We should seek wisdom in our understanding of our own frailties in an effort to understand the frailties of others and we should be wary of our desire to deify and hold others up above the rest. The inclination to idolize others can blind us to reality and create obedience when the moral act would be defiance. The opposite is true of course.

Thoughts on Celebrities and Outrage

One reason there is so much outrage when celebrities, or famous people in general, are caught engaging in corrupt acts is due to the fact that people project their own sense of moral superiority and self-righteousness onto them. The regular, every day, media consumer thinks of themselves as a good person and so they look at celebrities and assume that the reason they are able to amass such wealth, attention, and power must be because celebrities are also good people.

"I'm good and I like this actor, so they must be good?" One might think. Or, "They are popular and successful. They must be good people."

Because they project themselves onto others when the other fails they see themselves as failing. They identified with the other long enough to feel empathy subconsciously for them. But no matter how much empathy they have for their failed celebrity they must distance themselves from them socially. They rebuke them and signal their allegiance to decency based on the current ethics they adhere to and make their position known to others so that they will not be found out to be just as weak, and corrupt as their favorite famous person.

The question to ask when a person is revealed to be an immoral person, after amassing so much of what we all covet, is how did others allow this to happen? Who supported this corrupt individual throughout their career? Should we blame it on all of the consumers that paid for their success or was it their friends, family members and coworkers that allowed them to flourish while inside they were a blight on decency and a disgrace to those that have the moral bravery to do the right thing?

Famous people should be scrutinized in the same manner as everyone else. We should remain objective about others and not make wild assumptions about who they are based on their appearances in popular media. Also, because politicians are famous people they should be scrutinized just like everybody else as well and laws should apply to all equally. It seems that the rich and powerful sometimes skirt the justice system creating another reason for people to see them as superior. This difference generates more jealousy, resentment, and outrage.

No one should be surprised that someone they don't know, at all, turns out to be a "bad person." There are a lot of "bad" people out there and in the case of politics, I can see why a bad person might be drawn to the power there or born into the corrupting nature of power.

Also, we tend to value money and we assume famous people have money. People wish they could be rich, famous and popular so they look at those who have accomplished such things as if they were them. They put themselves into the shoes of their favorite celebrities and imagine that they are them. They want to relate to and become friends with their celebrities. So, when they find out that their favorite famous person did something socially, legally or morally reprehensible they are taken aback because the venire of their idealism has been stripped away.

Maybe others wish they could be as free and powerful as celebrities and they both envy them and resent them and so they display confused and inconsistent stances on celebrity behavior.

Maybe people covet what celebrities have and so they jump on any opportunity to spite and shame them due to their own jealous nature.

Maybe public outrage is just another mechanism to feel included and socially accepted.

I'm not saying people shouldn't be outraged about immoral celebrities but I don't think they should be more outraged about them than anyone else. We should be outraged at anyone that commits terrible crimes or engages in immoral actions. Also, I don't think we should be surprised when someone we don't know is not the person we assumed they were. Maybe it is just easy to jump on the bandwagon of celebrity outrage because the subject of the outrage is well known. I think it important not to deify others and not to pay so much mind to things that have no real effect on you. There are enough things to worry about going on in my neighborhood and around the people I care about that to worry about what Bill Cosby did doesn't seem that important to me.

Maybe we need these famous baddies to teach us a lesson about making assumptions or elevating people due to their status. Maybe we use these public shamings to teach others that no one is safe from scrutiny. Maybe we jump on the famous case of impropriety to showcase our virtue in a way that resounds throughout the land and reinforces our values. Maybe it's just another case of "first world problems" and entertainment. Maybe we revel in any opportunity to display our moral superiority and regain power over the powerful. Maybe the media leeches onto the famous to capitalize on their fame. Maybe pointing out the failures of others distracts us from our own weaknesses and failures.