Carl: Of what use is it to you?
Simon: Well, aside from getting a good grade in class, I think
Schopenhauer, at least in this fragment, might help you resolve this sort of question:
Carl: I didn't ask for "help" to "resolve this sort of question." I asked you personally
Simon: I'm sorry Carl, but when you ask someone a question, personally or not, it is implied that you either need help, or you are assuming the other person needs help.
Were you assuming I needed your help? Or were you just asking 'for the heck of it?'
Ah, a semantics fest! Actually I was just curious as to what you were getting out of studying Darwin's ideas. Didn't realize this involved one of us seeking the other's help. But yeah, I guess I'm seeking yours, buddy. Help me out and tell me what you're getting from it, beside the school grade (which is profit, btw) (I didn't realize it was an assignment).
By your tone you seem to be implying I'm asking in order to recieve
instruction (or to give it) about the subjects of Darwin, study, or the value of genius generally, and this is not the case.
Schopenhauer: Genius is its own reward; for the best that one is, one must necessarily be for oneself...
Carl: Two unrelated statements, but both essentially true. I take it you are equating knowledge of Darwin's theories of evolution with genius.
Simon: Just because a person has knowledge of Darwin's theories, doesnt mean he is a genius.
So why the bait and switch? I ask you about your Darwin studies and you give me a quote about genius.
Schopenhauer: Further, genius consists in the working of the free intellect., and as a consequence the productions of genius serve no useful purpose.
Carl G: Condradiction: being able to work one's intellect freely would comprise useful purpose. In other words, the second statement does not logically follow the first.
Simon: The working of the free intellect results in a relatively useless person, that is, if we are to define genius and free intellect as I have done.
As you have done where?
And useless relative to what or whom?
And please be careful not to academically take the Schopenhauer quote too literally, and try to see what he is pointing at.
I look between the lines and percieve nothing. What do you see?
Schopenhauer: The work of genius may be music, philosophy, painting, or poetry; it is nothing for use or profit.
Carl G: Not necessarily. The work of genius can be for profit, if it is sold. It can also serve to impart knowledge, or be simply a creative outlet, an alternate type of profitability.
Simon: The products of genius may be sold, and used for profit, but in the genius's opinion, his works are not meant for making profit. The works of a genius are useful for making people useless.
Again, useless to whom? Society? The Universe? I would disagree. Pretty much everything has a use. Use can probably even be equated to effect. There may be higher applications as well, for the idea of use.
In what way do you understand usefulness?
But my main interest in Darwin's work stems from a quality of interest that is quite useless in regards to making a profit or experiencing egotistical pleasure.
Because of my interest in truth, I may do much worse academically compared to the more obsequious academic classmate who is more motivated to be useful to society and women.
Okay, your interest is useless for the applications listed above, but this does not mean useless period. "Because of my interest in truth" belies this. Darwin's work is useful to your interest of truth seems to be the nut of it. You think Darwin's ideas are a good place to look for truth. Fine.
So, what sorts of truths do you think Darwin's ideas suggest? How are these useful to you? Do you think they have anything to do with genius as it is understood at this forum? If so, what; how do they relate?
