On Genius

Nagel

5:36 AM 15/10/2020

The Myth of Genius

according to the video, the classic Romans thought "genius" is synonymous with "individuality." the phrase "someone is a genius" is the same as "someone is an individual." where it gets more sentimental is in the evolution of the word, where it now refers to "someone of a more superior intellect or skill". Thus we get this sentiment: everyone is a genius (modern version of term).

as to who or what is regarded as "superior in intellect or skill", that solely depends on the person and his valuation of the world. for example, if you throw old man Einstein twenty five thousand years into the past, he won't be regarded as a genius, but as someone who lacks the physical attributes needed to survive in a brutal world of hunting and gathering.

so essentially, "genius" is really just a placeholder for "expert in their field" relative to he or she who makes the judgement. a normal person of a healthy stature, thrown back into the past, is a genius solely because he or she is healthier than everyone else in that period. In contrast, the genius hunter of the past, thrown to our present time, would be a joke.

This is of course a gross simplification, but I think it captures the idea enough.

T Clark

according to the video, the classic Romans thought "genius" is synonymous with "individuality." — Nagel

Emerson uses the word in a similar sense in "Self-Reliance."

I shun father and mother and wife and brother when my genius calls me. I would write on the lintels of the doorpost, Whim. I hope it is somewhat better than whim at last, but we cannot spend the day in explanation. Expect me not to show cause why I seek or why I exclude company.

Nagel

↪T Clark

Ah, nice. While I do not think it is necessarily harmful, it seems to me that there is an ulterior motive to make everyone feel as though they are remarkable through word play. But of course, we can always say that everyone is remarkable in their own way.

TheMadFool

There are two things to consider here. One is genius as measured with an intelligence test and genius in terms of a person's usually groundbreaking work. The two don't seem to correlate as expected or hoped for and the belief or claim that "genius is a myth" lives somewhere in between these two measures, one formal and the other casual, of genius.

In short we have to make up our minds whether we want to put stock in IQ tests or performance in real life and stick to whichever of the two makes more sense. To not do so would be like measuring in inches and reporting the result centimeters.

Pfhorrest

Worth noting here that in the Roman era a "genius" was a kind of spirit (in the modern sense of a magical non-corporeal being) that a person had, not something that a person was. It was more like a "conscience" in modern terms: a tutelary spirit associated to one particular person from birth and through their entire life, guiding them, especially morally, but also more generally. Someone following or obeying their genius would thus be someone not cowed by peer pressure or fear or authority etc, in the same way that someone who "follows their conscience" would be today; hence, individual. And thence, freethinker (intellectually non-conformist), and so creative and insightful and generally smart person.

Tom Storm

This is of course a gross simplification, but I think it captures the idea enough. — Nagel

There are numerous possible uses of the term genius and it is one of those words that is overused and often used poorly when the word 'talented' or 'maverick' would be preferable. For me, the best examples refer to someone who is remarkable and unprecedented and possibly able to embrace a wide range of talents to a prodigious effect at once, like Da Vinci -someone who changes the world in some way though a great talent. But where is the line between a person of prodigious and conspicuous talent and a genius? One person's genius may be another's bete noir.

Pantagruel

Maslow also uses the term genius frequently and equates it with what is most idiographic or unique to the individual. Since we are each completely unique, complete self-actualization is the realization of the unique genius which is you.

Pinprick

Worth noting here that in the Roman era a "genius" was a kind of spirit (in the modern sense of a magical non-corporeal being) that a person had, not something that a person was. — Pfhorrest

:up:

I came across an interesting book on this subject, if anyone’s interested. The link is commentary about the book.

Divine Fury

Nagel

One person's genius may be another's bete noir. — Tom Storm

I encounter this concept a lot in Japanese novels. In Zaregoto: Psychological by Nisioisin, the main theme was how genius always invites contempt for it forces the observer to reflect about their own incompetence relative to the genius. The book tackled this by showing us a juxtaposition between a scientist who worked all his life to get to his genius and a child prodigy who assembled and led a team of talents to cause a worldwide cyber terrorism merely as play. This instigated a sort of technological boom around the globe; people wanted to protect themselves and prevent something like that from happening ever again. In short, the child, merely by playing, advanced the whole world's technological capability.

It is frequently narrated how the scientist finds the child prodigy as distasteful and an insult to his decades of effort. This child prodigy is a sort of Da Vinci, a genius who brought a great impact the world through talent and the scientist, I suppose, represents someone who honed his talent through training and hard work, i.e., someone who is merely 'talented'.

I find this genius-nongenius dynamic very interesting.

Nagel

↪Pantagruel

Personally, I find the individualistic conception of genius as less interesting compared to the genius of someone of great excellence and influence.

On Genius

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions