Genius: arrogance or reality?

[Kelly Jones]

I've been thinking lately about genius, and how people misunderstand its meaning. While I could write a long piece about it, I don't really feel like it. So this is a short-ish opening post.

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,

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

Can anyone else see that he isn't taking his own medicine?


Kelly

[Philosophaster]

I think that people here like to adopt an uncommon definition of "genius" and apply it to themselves in order to bolster a romantic self-image of themselves as solitary, profound, and misunderstood philosopher-sages.

[Dan Rowden]

Just out of curiosity, what sort of response do you expect from that kind assertion/hypothesis?

[Philosophaster]

Indignation or indifference.

[Dan Rowden]

Hmm, if those are the only options it'll have to be indifference.

[Kelly Jones]

I think that people here like to adopt an uncommon definition of "genius"

Genius means 'spirit of a thing, place, or person'. That's a common definition, that you'll find in most conventional dictionaries.

All I'm doing is looking at things in the context of things, rather than narrowly.

and apply it to themselves in order to bolster a romantic self-image of themselves as solitary, profound, and misunderstood philosopher-sages.

So you're not denying that my definition of genius speaks to a real possibility? You shouldn't be called arrogant if you've reasoned it to be impossible. That'd be quite wrong.

[Unidian]

I think that people here like to adopt an uncommon definition of "genius" and apply it to themselves in order to bolster a romantic self-image of themselves as solitary, profound, and misunderstood philosopher-sages.

I agree, although I wouldn't limit it to people here. That would be unfair. This sort of tendency is seen in a wide variety of cultures and movements. The general idea is to make one's experience seem meaningful by assigning it some special condition - whether it be a condition of exceptional knowledge, skill, wisdom, etc. If one's experience is meaningful in these senses, then a person is justified in assigning themselves worth and value. Because it ignores or denies the basic premise that worth and value are inherent (or should be treated as such), it is basically a way to set oneself apart from others and create a psychologically tolerable self-image.

[Dan Rowden]

You pair are far too enamoured of your psychobabble.

[Kelly Jones]

Because it ignores or denies the basic premise that worth and value are inherent (or should be treated as such)

You might be talking about a version of the popular definition of genius here, I'm not sure. The popular version views a genius as an expert in something, who is given to flights of eccentricity, and engages in unpredictable behaviour to set themselves apart. Like the stereotype mad scientist. Definitely not a genius.

If you aren't, then yes, a genius ignores the popular premise that things are inherently valuable. They do that, because they see that values crop up out of other things. I wouldn't say they do it to posit themselves as inherently valuable, because they see themselves as cropping up out of other things.

[xerox]

...

[Kelly Jones]

Yes, I appreciate the point, xerox.

But aren't you distinguishing between truth and falsehood? In that sense, they're in-dividualised. We could speak of genius as the truth sort of individual.

Which raises an interesting question: is a genius illusory?

[xerox]

...

[Unidian]

You pair are far too enamoured of your psychobabble.

And you bunch are far too enamored of your philobabble. Wait, um... hehe

But really, does any philosophical, spiritual, or religious approach lack a psychological foundation? Do people arrive at beliefs independent of the human mind? Does reasoning take place in a computer with the results uploaded to your brains? I think not.

Psychology is at the center of it all. If we really want to "aim at the very heart of matters," that's where we need to be looking, although doing so is not always comfortable.

[Kelly Jones]

l reckon all is illusion. The question seems to be... how does one cope with it?

The difficulty to cope with is really in your first sentence. The All cannot be an illusion, because there would be no other with which one could contrast and compare 'illusion' with.

To be an illusion, genius would have to be finite, and lack inherent boundaries of its own.

[Kelly Jones]

Psychology is at the center of it all. If we really want to "aim at the very heart of matters," that's where we need to be looking, although doing so is not always comfortable.

Are you saying that humans cannot knowingly express absolute truths, or that they can do so?

[Kelly Jones]

Nat,

Further to your comments on psychology:

It's likely that truly abusive parents will create unusually insecure children, who desire personal safety highly. Such children will try to impose order onto their chaotic world. As adults, if they don't deal with this habitual world-view, they will become the more extrreme type of fundamentalist. Other fundamentalists can come from parents who provide a disconnected and unreliable world-view for their children.

So, yes, there is a kind of absolutist 'thinking' that comes from a damaged psychology.

If these damaged adults have the good luck to meet up with truthful, realistic, down-to-earth folk, then there's a chance they'll see a glimpse of another way of seeing the world. The contrast could entice them to creep out of their deep black crevice, and explore some new options. It depends how early in life they make tracks.

There's no rule saying people with a poor upbringing can't see a glimpse of philosophical truth. But those glimpses will have delusional roots, until they've learnt to immerse themselves in a more relaxed, patient, bright realm. All this takes time, and practising new habits, day after day.

They might manage to "die" to the hell realms, and choose to live in the animal realms for a while. There, they might be learning to be relaxed about the world without much anxiety over any losses. If they're conscious of these psychological dynamics, and enjoy the withering-away of anxieties and anger, then they might head for a more human realm. Eventually, probably after many years, the old need for order and safety won't be distorting their philosophising, should they still have an interest in it.


Kelly