GENIUS FORUMS

Again, I'm new to this site and am not sure if this was posted previously but I found an interesting resource about common characterisitcs of those that history has defined as geniuses such as Leonardo, Hemingway, Einstein, Hitler, Kant and Schopenhauer. I find the information extremely informative and interesting and I think the person who compiled this data has an impressive amount of truth and accuracy to what he is expounding on.

The site is found here: http://www.ljhammond.com/cwgt/05.htm

Again, I'm interested in hearing what the rest of you think about his analysis.

History doesn't define genius, for a start. Perhaps only Schopenhauer, in your list, had significant genius. All people have some degree of genius, but not enough to be called geniuses, such as the rest in your list.

Hammond's article or essay or whatever it is is poor. For starters, he regards philosophy as either cultural or political. It's neither. He also doesn't really understand genius, but presumes that whoever "society" declares has genius, must be, and then takes his definition from that position. It's completely lacking in insight.

Here are a few obvious mistakes:

"Most geniuses can work in only one field."

"Most geniuses never attempt to work outside the field for which they were born."

"it’s difficult to say precisely where the dividing line is between genius and talent"

"genius is an end, not a beginning."

"Genius can see into the future." [This is not literally true; prescience is a false description, prediction and foresight a true. The consequent ramblings about fate, free will, and madness would have been avoided if he understood this.]

"Genius often oscillates between elation and depression."

"the genius often has an unhealthy mind in an unhealthy body"

"Artistic creation requires an especially high degree of femininity."

"Genius approaches the world with naiveté, as if it were new and strange." [Created things are new every moment, and yet creation is never new.]

"The genius and the child both turn their backs on the real world, and invent worlds of their own."

"Because of their narcissism, geniuses are often solitary and friendless."

I can't go on. I'm halfway through. There are too many errors. The anonymous essay on genius was far better than Hammond's.


.

History doesn't define genius. As Mark Twain said, many geniuses go undiscovered, either by society or by themselves. I do feel that many of the people history have defined as geniuses do meet the criteria however (eg. Van Gogh, Einstein, Darwin, Newton, Da Vinci, Michelangelo etc.)

I still like Hammond's article (it would be too long to break down all the reasons why.)

Out of curiosity, who are some people that you feel have met the criteria of genius?

History doesn't define genius. As Mark Twain said, many geniuses go undiscovered, either by society or by themselves. I do feel that many of the people history have defined as geniuses do meet the criteria however (eg. Van Gogh, Einstein, Darwin, Newton, Da Vinci, Michelangelo etc.)

Did you notice that you contradicted yourself here?

The Introduction and Explanation of the forum, with the subtitle "Please read this introduction before posting" has some elucidating comments on the nature of genius. I hope this helps answer your question.

Thanks for posting the anonymous article in full in the "Genius and Talent" thread. It'd be good to find out the author.


.

I'm saying that history isn't the end all be all in defining genius, but I do feel that they got it right in many cases. Just like in American Idol, who the public votes as the best singer is not necessarily the best singer, but often I agree with them.

I don't agree with the definition of genius proposed in the "Introduction and Explanation" section. We all have our own concept of what defines genius and who's intellegence and creativity has reached that level. To me, Albert Einstein is a genius. The classic definition of genius has always been people with exceptional creativity and often intellegence who create things new and original and open up new fields.

Who can even really define what the ultimate reality is enough to know who has reached it or if we have reached it? It could be too difficult a concept for the human mind to even grasp - like a dog trying to understand quantum physics.

I respect people like Albert Einstein who have dedicated themselves to helping us elucidate even a small part of what the ultimate reality is or might be. It would be a monumental task for any one person to attain this connection to the ultimate reality especially taking into account our limited knowledge within our time periods.

Those are my opinions on the matter at least.
So again, it would be interesting to know your definiton of genius as it likely differs from my own as well as people you feel have reached a level genius (if you don't mind sharing.)

I think the author was Christian Nevell Bovee. But I'm not entirely certain. Even the original source that had the article didn't have the author.

You might be interested in checking out some more material on the nature of genius, as described in David Quinn's explanation. This is a highly recommended link, which opens a real goldmine of thought on understanding the nature of Ultimate Reality (which is the crux of genius):

http://geniusrealms.com/
It's Dan Rowden's site, who is one of the forum administrators. You'll find there: the Reasoning Show, Genius News (a very unusual online newsletter), David Quinn's website, Kevin Solway's website "The Thinking Man's Minefield" (he is the third of the forum's administrators), and the MenoftheInfinite Youtube channel by Dan Rowden and Kevin Solway.

I'm linking you to these sites because they express answers of a quality far richer and more succinct than I could offer in a few lines.


.

lawrencelaica wrote:Again, I'm interested in hearing what the rest of you think about his analysis.

It's shit. Kelly Jones explained why quite well.