Indeed. In fact, I was thinking in this direction for my one-sentence summary of what I’d call Value Ethics: “The philosopher is obliged to express his appreciation of beings as much as he can in ways they can appreciate, though not necessarily exclusively.” I was especially thinking of beings that make him possible as a philosopher, that make his philosophising possible.
Yes. I would say that they are great insofar as they are pre-forms of the philosopher and/or make him possible, like the man in the street who is a–more or less–valuable member of the society in which the philosopher lives; even the little yappy dog that helps keep some such people’s happiness with their little lives above the minimum level required for that. Though no, I don’t think our friend has a yappy dog.
Yes, but not absolutely, because they are necessary links in the chain of which the great-hearted and the honest, and especially the philosophers, constitute the links that justify the whole chain. I think the philosophers justify the whole chain because the unexamined life is not worth living; the philosophers examine the whole chain and especially the essence of it and of each of its links, and on examining it discover that it is valuable in itself to them.
But you will have to try and develop yours, because the success of our political philosophy may depend in no small part on your courteousness.