Basically, people don't understand the nature of genius. They think it is specialised expertise developing from an predisposition - like a talent. But genius means 'spirit' - that which makes a thing clearly itself. So the nature of genius must be a metaphysical understanding, that sees the spiritual side of every thing. It cannot be specialised. Anyone with a specialised knowledge, but not genius, is likely to be an egotist (attached to a finite knowledge).
The consequence of making the popular mistake, is that the real thing is viewed as overblown egotism. Ie. People think genius is a kind of specialised knowledge, so that one ought to lay disclaimers everywhere such as "but this is not absolutely true." Because a genius cannot lay these disclaimers around, they are mistaken as egotists.
Most people, based on the false definition of genius, wouldn't claim to be a genius, quite rightly. But they also believe that the true definition is impossible. So, the comical things is - while claiming that no one can have universal knowledge, they are forced to lay their typical disclaimer around. They add, "But no one should state this with absolute certainty"...
Here is an example,
Can anyone else see that he isn't taking his own medicine?As you watch the conversation in Beyond Belief: Enlightenment 2.0, it might help to know about one of the sources that was helpful to me in formulating the agenda, assembling the cast of characters, and setting the tone for the meeting. I quoted this passage from Humanity: A Moral History of the Twentieth Century by Jonathan Glover (who directs the Centre of Medical Law and Ethics at King's College, London):
"Now we tend to see the Enlightenment view of human psychology as thin and mechanical, and Enlightenment hopes of social progress through the spread of humanitarianism and the scientific outlook as naïve...One of this book's aims is to replace the thin, mechanical psychology of the Enlightenment with something more complex, something closer to reality...another aim of the book is to defend the Enlightenment hope of a world that is more peaceful and humane, the hope that by understanding more about ourselves we can do something to create a world with less misery. I have qualified optimism that this hope is well founded..."
I say Amen to that. If Enlightenment 1.0 took a thin and mechanical view of human nature and psychology, I think Enlightenment 2.0 can offer a much 'thicker' and cognitively richer account - less naïve and also, perhaps, less hubristic. If there's one thing we've learned - particularly from cognitive neuroscience - it is that we need to have some strategic humility about the hobby horses we are inclined to ride.
-Roger Bingham
Director, The Science Network
Kelly