> > Anyway, i was merely saying that society, in general, has no independance and seeks to idolize outstanding people (keyword people, like everyone else) because they don't know where else to place their reverance. Everyone is capable of greatness, but its easier to praise someone elses achievements.
>
> So, people who do great things (world statesmen or scientists, for example) shouldn't be idolised, because anyone could do the same thing, and therefore everyone should idolise only themselves? Unless I've misunderstood you, you seem to be preaching hubris.
>
> I think it's pretty resonable for people to idolise those who actually do perform great deeds over those who have the potential to do so but never realise that potential.
>
> > The fact that actors are paid such astronomical amounts is an obvious sign that people feel they need someone to simulate and execute situations in life in order to know how to respond emotionally.
>
> I have to disagree here. I watch a lot of movies, but I don't do so in order to learn how I should respond emotionally if aliens destroy the Whitehouse, or if I'm stuck on a bus that's going to explode if it goes below 50mph, or even if a close relative contracts AIDS. Equally, I don't think filmmakers are in the business of trying to teack people emotional responses.
>
> Instead, I watch movies to be entertained, and I think the vast majority of people do the same. Hollywood is in the business of providing that entertainment. Actors earn lots of money not because they're good role models but because they're good entertainers. After all, Keanu Reeves is one of the highest paid actors out there, and he has less emotional range than almost anyone.
>
> There is a word for people who need to be taught what emotions to feel, or how to express them: "psychopaths".

"I think the vast majority of people do the same."
i have to disagree here.