Can we be sure of anything from what we know? If I knew Arya in person and she came to me proposing this problem I'd say the same thing as I did before.

I wonder... why go after me Kenneth? Hmmmmmmm?

I went "after" you? Does that mean that if someone voices some disagreement he is "after you"? It seems to me sensible not to dismiss the concerns of others as unfounded unless you have more information than you (or I) have about that person. What do you think?

Who cares if you're "normal"? Name a great, revered person who was normal.... not many come to mind.

Abnormality and freakishness is the spice of life - I feel sorry for the ones who are "normal". Though, it is best to be paid for abnormality, otherwise Nietzsche's warning is worth considering. In this society, if you can get paid for abnormality, the freak is received as smartly abnormal and not just too strange to accept.

The forces of conformity to the norm always surround us, and can take very subtle as well as very overt and brutal forms. Those who have liberated themselves from slavishly following the crowd and its ready-made opinions often feel isolated and "different."

It was Nietzsche who wrote, "He who thinketh differently goeth voluntarily to the madhouse." Independent existence, challenged on many levels, can thus question itself; but if one accepts the need to live an authentic life, and to "be true to oneself," then one must also accept the burden of being seen as "different" and what amounts to social ostracism by generic people. But at the same time, there are those who willingly accept themselves---and more importantly, Others---as different, and it is with those that you should seek friendship.

I am not sure what normality comes to, but even it it is true that many "great, revered person were not normal" what makes you think that they were "great and revered" because they were not normal? Maybe they were so despite their handicaps.

Are you serious?

Martin Luther King, Jr. was remarkably abnormal: he was a brilliant and captivating orator, a man willing to die for his cause yet did not pursue the cause through violence, who created a sophisticated philosophy of non-violent resistance. None of this is normal. And he is not revered "despite" all of this, but because all of this.

Some abnormalities are handicaps, others are enablers for greatness and public benefit. Abnormality and handicap are not synonymous.

People of great genius are clearly not normal. But Einstein, Aristotle, Socrates, Nagarjuna, Nietzsche, and too many others to name are not revered "despite" their abnormal intellect, but because their abnormal intellect.

I think the point was, someone can be abnormal and not considered a "genius". Abnormality isn't a necessary condition for "genius", is it? (I ask this sincerely).

Next, the question was brought up: What defines normality or abnormality?

Can a genius still be, at least in some ways, normal?

And if he/she is in some ways considered normal, when do we begin to apply the label "normal" or "abnormal"?

Also what if they don't apply their genius, unlike the men you spoke of... could they be normal? A quiet, reserved, and unmotivated genius could just appear to be a normal guy (or girl), couldn't he (or she)?

These are subjective labels that only make sense in context. We are not talking about blue or the number twelve, you know?

In my High School there were loads of kids from the lower years who would hang around in little groups, and sometimes in one massive group. In between wrestling each other clumsily to the ground and throwing childish insults at each other with big dumb grins on their faces, these kids would occasionally taunt and throw food at my mates and I. I certainly regard patience as a worthwhile virtue, and so when this sort of thing happened I would simply ask them to stop, sometimes attempting to communicate in their twist on the English language and dropping in a few expletives for effect. This didn't really work, and the 'lunchtime supervisors' did nothing at all, blissfully unaware, although that's another story. The moment I realised they truly were ignorant in their group mentality was when I turned round in another attempt to make them stop throwing food (they had only been previously been throwing when I was looking the other way, then taunting when I turned round and asked them to stop). When I did this, one of the kids eventually just threw his half-eaten sandwich at my chest and guffawed with such fatuity that I half expected him to leap atop the dinner table and urinate openly in pride at his own actions. Whilst this did not happen, it showed that they really couldn't care less about what I thought about them or knew about their actions. Intense apathy.

Indeed. I just find it interesting when people label others "normal" or "abnormal", without specifying what exactly is normal or abnormal about the person they're referring to (This is also why I detest when people call another "weird", usually). This touches on what I was speaking about earlier: Is there really a "generic" person, or a "herd"? It seems to me that, just as you mentioned, there are normalities and abnormalities with all people. For me to immediately label another "generic" or "normal" seems a bit short-sighted, but I've witnessed many people throw this label out without regret. They call these people part of the "herd". Just who are these "herd" people? Does a "herd" exist? And if so, don't we all participate in some way?

I see an elitist position taken by those who consider themselves "different". Surely this isn't true for everyone, but I've recognized a pattern, and this intellectual pedestal is what I'm speaking of.

but none conforms completly to this summing up. Aka: We are under the impression such people exist, yet we will never find then if we search.

Some people have fear or disgust of what is different, leading some people to try to avoid being different.

I think people who are "different" dont consider thenselves intellectually superior because they are different, but because they arent trying to be a "normal".

Yes, and I'm not convinced this "normal" exists, at least not in the sense that I believe it's being hinted at. Those I've come across who consider themselves "different" (note I say consider themselves) seem to use this adjective as an ego booster. "Different" is actively encouraged, embraced, and praised. "Normal" is looked down upon, the ultimate blow to many an intellectual. And I fear there is a discrimination here bearing no master, no one to really blame, and more importantly (and more frighteningly) no "real" subject to protect. It's an elusive discrimination of epic, "What the hell?", proportions.

I see an elitist position taken by those who consider themselves "different". Surely this isn't true for everyone, but I've recognized a pattern, and this intellectual pedestal is what I'm speaking of.

That's a problem all philosophers encounter eventually. People don't like people who are deeper and more thoughtfull than them. Shake it off, let the 'normal' people live their petty lives groveling for their sadistic bosses and coworkers. Enjoy a philosopher's life, being introspective is a good thing. Enjoy the finer side of life, rather than attempting to be someone you are not. Tell those overly-social fools that you aren't one of them, and that's fine. A normal person never makes something of themselves. Use your 'weaknesses' to your advantage, show everyone that they aren't really weaknesses, though don't overdo it because too much attention is bad.
Remember those things, you shouldn't feel bad.

... and the bad things in my view are good in their view ,,,