Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

What do you think genius is? How would you describe it? Is it potential talent or something else? What genius is, and what isn't? Do you think that genius could be evil? And why? Who among philosophers is genius, and why? Is it defined by IQ or not?
And many other questions that I didn't ask are also welcome...

A genius is somebody that is better in his or her field then 99% of the others. What that field might be is irrelevant, IQ is also irrelevant. Some musicians are geniuses and they are likely idiotic as hell. A genius scientists on the other hand does of course need a high IQ.

better, in what way? I'm asking this because I want to determine the quality that makes some man genius...
I think that field isn't irrelevant, I think that only artists and philosophers can be named geniuses, because, I spoked with allot scientists, and they are great in that field, but none other, but with some philosopher or artist you can speak about everything, including science...
I also think that IQ does matter, because it's a lot easier for man with high IQ to process huge amount of informations very fast so he can discover the truth beneath it, someone who is highiqer can grasp some ideas when he's young while others came to it much later in life, so the difference between them is in quantity not quality...

Genius is when you are in the 99th percentile of your field.I was classified as a potential genius in terms of IQ when i was younger but i lost it-quickly.

Yeah, it's the psychological definition of genius, and it's not perfect, many gifted people were recognised as average, and may I say that many gifted are idiots...

From wiki..

"A genius is a person of great intelligence, who shows an exceptional natural capacity of intellect, especially as shown in creative and original work. The term may also applies to someone who is a polymath or a prodigy. Although the term is sometimes used to denote the possession of a superior talent in any field (e.g., Pelé may be said to have a genius for soccer or Winston Churchill for statesmanship), in many instances the term is used specifically to denote an exceptional natural capacity of intellect in areas of art, music, science and mathematics."

I would describe a genius as someone with natural talent in any field.

Cawley put it aptly in my opinion.

A genius is one who can create something utterly new, who can learn what everyone else learns, but then see in it what no one else saw. A genius is one who can not only work well with the thoughts of others, but who actually has thoughts no one has ever had before. A genius is one who does not recreate the work of others, but actually creates work unlike anything that has gone before. A genius has the power to change the world in a very fundamental way, to revolutionize an area of human thought. A genius can work in, and change any area of human life. Geniuses create, they don' t imitate, they don' t recreate, they create.

Originally posted by Hydrono
From wiki..

"A genius is a person of great intelligence, who shows an exceptional natural capacity of intellect, especially as shown in creative and original work. The term may also applies to someone who is a polymath or a prodigy. Although the term is sometimes used to denote the possession of a superior talent in any field (e.g., Pelé may be said to have a genius for soccer or Winston Churchill for statesmanship), in many instances the term is used specifically to denote an exceptional natural capacity of intellect in areas of art, music, science and mathematics."

I would describe a genius as someone with natural talent in any field.

It's not a precise definition from wiki, it expands on so many things, if we could find out some unique and precise definition of a genius...
I don't know about talent and genius, it looks to me that they are two different things...someone can have some talent and not to be a genius, and genius can do well without any specific talent...

I would picture a genius as someone who can perform any task faster than the average person. It would be like comparing two computers, the one performing faster in a special task. I would describe the one computer as being a genius in comparison to the other. I don't think a genius is someone who has acquired a lot of knowledge, rather someone who is able to acquire that knowledge faster than the average person. Yes, it is a deep question. Just my opinion

Originally posted by Hydrono
I would picture a genius as someone who can perform any task faster than the average person. It would be like comparing two computers, the one performing faster in a special task. I would describe the one computer as being a genius in comparison to the other. I don't think a genius is someone who has acquired a lot of knowledge, rather someone who is able to acquire that knowledge faster than the average person. Yes, it is a deep question. Just my opinion

Many people can do something better then average people, that makes them better in something. Far from a genius, a genius has something unique. The exceptional skill that others lack, to do something that others can't with the same material.

Originally posted by Fishy
Many people can do something better then average people, that makes them better in something. Far from a genius, a genius has something unique. The exceptional skill that others lack, to do something that others can't with the same material.

Interesting... Couldn't it be argued that the ability to gather information at an extreme rate (compared to other humans) is a unique ability? The persons exceptional skill that others lack is the ability to gather information at an amazing speed. I would say that the main thing that makes a genius.

Compare two people. One has studied mathematics for ten years and has gathered 90% of the knowledge. The other person, who has been studying mathematics for 2 years, has gathered 60% of what there is to know.

Is the man that took 10 years to reach 90% a genius in comparison to the man who has gathered 60% in two years?

From this, I conclude that a genius has nothing to do with the knowledge you have, rather the speed at which you gather that knowledge or the manner in which you interpret the information (being "unique"

Your interpretation of genius is someone who possesses a "unique" ability. I agree with this.

I've probably made some large assumptions, but this is how i currently picture it.

I would argue that it's not gathering information that makes one a genius, but being innovative with that information. In effect paving the path of new discovery.

Originally posted by Storm
Cawley put it aptly in my opinion.

A genius is one who can create something utterly new, who can learn what everyone else learns, but then see in it what no one else saw. A genius is one who can not only work well with the thoughts of others, but who actually has thoughts no one has ever had before. A genius is one who does not recreate the work of others, but actually creates work unlike anything that has gone before. A genius has the power to change the world in a very fundamental way, to revolutionize an area of human thought. A genius can work in, and change any area of human life. Geniuses create, they don' t imitate, they don' t recreate, they create.

Great, I totally agree...
Someone can have some talent(example for math) but he doesn't have to be a genius. Genius must be original, as you said, not reproductive, he must be an exceptional individual... He must have deep interest in things around him, and have some profound ideas...imagination is also very important, as Einstein said...
He must have very good understanding of human nature, because his works are universal, and includes all people...
He thinks for himself, acts for himself, careless of others thinking, in our world many geniuses had a diagnose of madness, but they weren't mad, the world was and is mad...

I disagree with someone who compared genius with a computer...I know a girl who can take root from any number from 1 to 100000000...in a few seconds, and she is very very untalented in other areas, and NOT smart AT ALL...

Originally posted by argesilen
Great, I totally agree...
Someone can have some talent(example for math) but he doesn't have to be a genius. Genius must be original, as you said, not reproductive, he must be an exceptional individual... He must have deep interest in things around him, and have some profound ideas...imagination is also very important, as Einstein said...
He must have very good understanding of human nature, because his works are universal, and includes all people...
He thinks for himself, acts for himself, careless of others thinking, in our world many geniuses had a diagnose of madness, but they weren't mad, the world was and is mad...

I disagree with someone who compared genius with a computer...I know a girl who can take root from any number from 1 to 100000000...in a few seconds, and she is very very untalented in other areas, and NOT smart AT ALL...

Interesting... What would you call a person that is able to learn at an amazing pace, like a child of 11 doing twelfth grade?

I would call him bright, intelligent child...
Intelligence is separable from genius, of coarse, there is some minimum iq needed, but for example William James Sidis wasn't genius, he was just man with highest iq in the world...

Originally posted by argesilen
I would call him bright, intelligent child...
Intelligence is separable from genius, of coarse, there is some minimum iq needed, but for example William James Sidis wasn't genius, he was just man with highest iq in the world...

I think this is the main area of disagreement. I would call the child a genius.

I don't know why exactly you wouldn't call William James Sidis a genius.

I've never heard of him before but I did a google search and I saw the words "genius" and "William James Sidis" appear many times.
From one site...

"William James Sidis was a genius. He was by far the most precocious intellectual child of his generation. His death in 1944 as an undistinguished figure was made the occasion for reawakening the old wives tales about nervous breakdowns, burned out prodigies and insanity among geniuses."

The way I pictured a genius was someone who could accomplish a task at greater speed than the majority of people. It is similar to unzipping a file on your pc. I picture a genius as someone who can accomplish a goal at an amazing speed. For example… If we have a very complex scenario, a genius who figures it out will be praised for the speed at which he did it. He will be praised for his insight. The average person would take several months to figure it out. I think, for genius to exist, there must be a goal in hand. If the goal is fulfilled, a genius is made. Think of any scenario, the creation of a theory, picture or a philosophical idea. The only reason a genius is different from the general public is that he acquires insights far quicker than the average man. If an average man reaches the same insight as a genius, but takes 50 years, is he now a genius? Let’s take the example to the schooling environment. If a class is faced with a problem and the genius of the class takes 4 minutes and the rest of the class take 4 hours, are the genius’s classmates as smart as he is? (because they came to the same conclusion)

A genius is a person of great intelligence, who shows an exceptional natural capacity of intellect , especially as shown in creative and original work.

I'm not interested in scientific, or biological explanation of genius, and I think you shouldn't care about it either, because this is philosophy forum, and I'm trying to explain genius from that point of view...
I wouldn't call WJS a genius because he wasn't innovative in philosophy or art or science in any way spectacular, he didn't have the entire world in himself like other geniuses, he was just pure intelligence, he was mind, but not spirit, and genius is inseparable from a spirit...
I think I made myself clear...

I don't think a high IQ make a genius, if it was like that computers would be geniuses.

Doing calculations faster doesn't make you a genius, but being able to understand why processors and calculators are not intelligent makes you intelligent.

What makes a genius is a high capacity for abstraction, which is the type of intelligence you need to understand abstract concepts and ideas.
It is know that some of these people who can do extremely difficult calculations easily have a big problem doing abstractions.

This is a dangerous word I think. It gets thrown around a lot without real merit.

For example, just name some geniuses off the top of your head and see if they fit the criteria put forth so far.

With my idea of genius these names come up: Einstein, Hawking, Shakespeare and maybe Hendrix.

Genius is an odd word because it sets that person up to be seen only as a means.

My idea anyway. This is true of damn near anyone with great talent. The very mention of genius makes people start sucking toes.

I agree, it's a word that's dealt out all too keenly. It's setting up the person for a reason to become self inflated and deluded, and it can do a lot more harm than good.

The ability to create something new. Intelligent people can learn and improve on what exists. A genius is a person who creates something that has never been seen before.

Yes, I agree there have always been too much fear and hatred about genius...For me only those who expressed their being through art and philosophy are geniuses, they may be good at sciece, even have few discoveries, but that's nothing in comparison to art and philosophy. For me, science is gray, it's interesting but does not have charm, when I'm reading philosophy and studying art, I'm seduced...
Also every scientist including BIG ONES, If they never existed some other scientist would discover that, but no other man could wrote what Plato wrote, or Kant, or Hegel, or Nietzsche, or Beethoven, Mozart, Bach...

Let me create a scenario. If Einstein’s theory of relativity was created before Einstein himself, would he fail to be a genius? If Einstein had spent 13 years to create his theory and the other person took 50 years, Einstein would still remain a genius (even if he was the second to discover the theory). I think associating the words “unique” and “new” with genius is incorrect, in my opinion. If I had to follow your definition, Einstein would have to be immidiatly stripped of his title. So, the only reason he isn’t a genius is because he didn’t discover it first. It is your natural ability to think abstractly, to arrive at a conclusion a lot faster than the bulk of humanity. Many ordinary people can arrive at the same conclusions as a genius; he/she will just take longer. I don’t agree with the view that a genius has to create something new. A genius will be a genius whether he discovers something new or not. Even thinking abstractly is a matter of arriving at a position faster than the bulk of humanity. Lets use Einstein as an example. Many would say that he could think abstractly, he could arrive at those conclusions in his lifetime. Another person could arrive at the same conclusion as Einstein, but take a longer time. The idea itself is not the thing that makes the genius. It is his ability to think abstractly, thus helping him to arrive at a conclusion before the bulk of humanity. You are not a genius because of your idea, rather your ability to create those ideas. Its not how much information you have, rather your processing power, whether it is thinking abstractly or laterally. I don’t agree that a genius must create something original to be a genius. The actual creation has nothing to do with the genius himself. Following your logic, before Einstein discovered the theory of relativity, he wasn’t a genius. I would disagree with this. He was a genius before he discovered the theory.

The IQ itself does not make a genius; the natural ability the child possesses makes him a genius.

No, you got me wrong, following my logic, Einstein wasn't genius even after he proposed that theory But Einstein, because of the nature of his theory, isn't exactly the prototype of scientist that I want to consider, I'm thinking about someone like famous biologists, chemists, because a theory(like E) is just a theory until new come, and the products of natural sciences are facts, and even if the same man discover all biology and chemistry, he wouldn't deserve the title of genius...

Originally posted by argesilen
No, you got me wrong, following my logic, Einstein wasn't genius even after he proposed that theory But Einstein, because of the nature of his theory, isn't exactly the prototype of scientist that I want to consider, I'm thinking about someone like famous biologists, chemists, because a theory(like E) is just a theory until new come, and the products of natural sciences are facts, and even if the same man discover all biology and chemistry, he wouldn't deserve the title of genius...

I think I get you now.

Because we couldn't find similar explanations of this phenomenon, maybe it's better to name some famous man, and consider why he deserved the title of genius, positive and negative aspects...maybe by that method we can find some similarities that all geniuses share, and finally we shall have the ultimate definition of a genius

Originally posted by argesilen
What do you think genius is? How would you describe it? Is it potential talent or something else? What genius is, and what isn't? Do you think that genius could be evil? And why? Who among philosophers is genius, and why? Is it defined by IQ or not?
And many other questions that I didn't ask are also welcome... Great Potential

I don't think it's just great potential, I think it's important to express it trough some sort of creative work that's beneficial to humanity in any way, constructive, or deconstructive(like Nietzsche, but with positive purpose, of coarse)...

I don't believe someone has to accomplish some grand great purpose. There are many people with autism that would be considered genius like.

Originally posted by debbiejo
I don't believe someone has to accomplish some grand great purpose. There are many people with autism that would be considered genius like.

Savant level intelligence isn't genius in my opinion. Genius requires creativity not just impossibly huge stores of information.

The fact there is no concrete understanding makes the word useless and dangerous since anyone labeled a genius, or prodigy of any sort, is used as a means by most people

To me a genius is someone who excels in one or more fields of life. This can be everything from science over arts to philosophy and so on. In my opinion the most brilliant geniuses don't limit themselves to one field. Da Vinci is a good example.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Savant level intelligence isn't genius in my opinion. Genius requires creativity not just impossibly huge stores of information.

Savant level intelligence usually gives insane amounts of creativity.

Originally posted by {{QS}}
Savant level intelligence usually gives insane amounts of creativity.

Not when the person with it is autistic. In some cases it might be true but certainly not the majority.

Originally posted by Fire
To me a genius is someone who excels in one or more fields of life. This can be everything from science over arts to philosophy and so on. In my opinion the most brilliant geniuses don't limit themselves to one field. Da Vinci is a good example.

Good notice...I also think that genius couldn't be just genius in one area, I think that it's characteristic of genius to be able to function in multiple areas, therefor any genius, if he is one, is universal...His genius might appear in one area but he is capable of many...

About savantism: they can not use their ''abbilities'' in any way creative, they can not invent, or do something revolutionary, their ''abbilities'' are useless...

Originally posted by argesilen
About savantism: they can not use their ''abbilities'' in any way creative, they can not invent, or do something revolutionary, their ''abbilities'' are useless...

A normal savant can. Just not an autistic savant

Originally posted by argesilen
Good notice...I also think that genius couldn't be just genius in one area, I think that it's characteristic of genius to be able to function in multiple areas, therefor any genius, if he is one, is universal...His genius might appear in one area but he is capable of many...

About savantism: they can not use their ''abbilities'' in any way creative, they can not invent, or do something revolutionary, their ''abbilities'' are useless...

That is too broad. No one is defining what genius is. We could name all sorts of people we could name geniuses based on these broad definitions. Anytime you are defining genius by using the word genius, it is not good.

Anyone define 'intelligence' yet? Do that, and 'genius' will be easy.

Intelligence does not equate to genius. The word genius is crap anyway.

It's a fantastical hierarchy that does not need to be there anyway.

Originally posted by Mindship
Anyone define 'intelligence' yet? Do that, and 'genius' will be easy.

1. capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc.
2. manifestation of a high mental capacity: He writes with intelligence and wit.
3. the faculty of understanding.
4. knowledge of an event, circumstance, etc., received or imparted; news; information.
5. the gathering or distribution of information, esp. secret information.
6. Government.
a. information about an enemy or a potential enemy.
b. the evaluated conclusions drawn from such information.
c. an organization or agency engaged in gathering such information: military intelligence; naval intelligence.
7. interchange of information: They have been maintaining intelligence with foreign agents for years.
8. Christian Science. a fundamental attribute of God, or infinite Mind.
9. (often initial capital letter) an intelligent being or spirit, esp. an incorporeal one, as an angel.


Genius would be . . . godhood I guess.

Intelligence is a complex characteristic which appears to exist along a continuum, the high end of which is commonly referred to as "genius." That's why, if one defines "intelligence," then "genius" is easier to define, if not necessarily easier to understand.

But there is no clear cut definition of intelligence. I know plenty of intelligent "non educated" folk.

I just defined intelligence for you

Originally posted by chithappens
But there is no clear cut definition of intelligence. It would probably take a genius to come up with one.
...and Mr. Chaos did a rather fine job.

I know plenty of intelligent "non educated" folk. Being intelligent and being educated: those do not necessarily equate.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
1. capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc.
2. manifestation of a high mental capacity: He writes with intelligence and wit.
3. the faculty of understanding.
4. knowledge of an event, circumstance, etc., received or imparted; news; information.
5. the gathering or distribution of information, esp. secret information.
6. Government.
a. information about an enemy or a potential enemy.
b. the evaluated conclusions drawn from such information.
c. an organization or agency engaged in gathering such information: military intelligence; naval intelligence.
7. interchange of information: They have been maintaining intelligence with foreign agents for years.
8. Christian Science. a fundamental attribute of God, or infinite Mind.
9. (often initial capital letter) an intelligent being or spirit, esp. an incorporeal one, as an angel.


Genius would be . . . godhood I guess.

Who can not fit under this?

Or do you mean "godhood" as the definition? The definition is still incredibly broad.

Originally posted by chithappens
Who can not fit under this?

A blind deaf mute semiretarded self empolyed mortal?

Originally posted by chithappens
Or do you mean "godhood" as the definition? The definition is still incredibly broad.

Genius at it's supreme level would be the near equivalent of godhood. Total and absolute understanding or everything.

Originally posted by Mindship


Being intelligent and being educated: those do not necessarily equate.

Yea but genius sets a hierarchy up. People would be very unlikely to call an "uneducated" fellow a genius; likely to be unacknowledged by history.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
A blind deaf mute semiretarded self empolyed mortal?



Genius at it's supreme level would be the near equivalent of godhood. Total and absolute understanding or everything.

And at the level of the "normal genius" it is what?

srug A person who can understand what they learn and create something new.

I think the word is useless since people who are born without some birth defect are capable of achieving this.

Gifted athletes, singers, just happen to be celebs, and so on are treated as a means. People labeled geniuses are treated the same.

It is a fine line. I do agree with you on the fact that the people who can take what they learn and make something new set themselves apart, but the very word seems to take away from the significance of the "common" person.

This might be somewhere we agree to disagree, maybe?

Originally posted by chithappens
That is too broad. No one is defining what genius is. We could name all sorts of people we could name geniuses based on these broad definitions. Anytime you are defining genius by using the word genius, it is not good.

Yes, it's true, genius is word that someone who isn't genius to describe one, those who are geniuses, they spent long time to figure out how is it posible NOT TO BE GENIUS...

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
A blind deaf mute semiretarded self empolyed mortal?



Genius at it's supreme level would be the near equivalent of godhood. Total and absolute understanding or everything.

It's definitely a godhood, or something similar...genius is a microcosms, he has connection with wide range of things, they reflect trough him, and live trough him...

"What philosopher first and last wants from himself? He wants to conquer the time in himself, to become eternal..."- Nietzsche
Same is with a genius...
To resume our previous discussion, in order to get to next step: How to become genius-like...
Popular thinking almost always make a connection between genius and talent, like a genius is highest step of talent, superlative of a talent. And that it can be achieved by summarizing various talents in men. Although there are various steps of genius, they have nothing with so called talent. Someone can be born with math talent, and be capable of very fast learning in that subject, but he doesn't have to be a genius, who is original, individual and productive...Genius is not superlative of talent, there is a whole world between them, talent can be inherited(by some ancestors) but genius never...
Every modern explanations of a genius are biological-clinical nature, like that small amounts of knowledge in that areas are enough to answer the most difficult questions in human psychology...
When we think of some geniuses, first thing we notice is their unbelievable knowledge of human characters. Just remember how many characters Shakespeare or Euripides have described...
And to be able to describe some person we must understand him. And to be able to understand him we must be alike. To understand a human being we must have him in ourselves.
"Every spirit is invisible to person who doesn't have one" Schopenhauer
So, person can understand other person if he have in himself that person, and it's opposite, so genius have a huge number of persons and opposites in him. Goethe said that in his life there was no vice or crime that wasn't burning inside of him.
And in what way genius can express his nature? Only trough art and philosophy, he can be capable in science, but nature, as previously explained, has no other way of expression but art and p.
By this act of creation, genius become eternal, his work become fundus of every being on this planet. We don't need to read Kant, everything that he can learn us, we already have in ourselves...
Now, other question must be answered: how do we become genius-like?

Originally posted by chithappens
Yea but genius sets a hierarchy up. People would be very unlikely to call an "uneducated" fellow a genius; likely to be unacknowledged by history.
I'm not sure what you mean by a hierarchy, but the fact is, given most human characteristics (intelligence, strength, height, etc), there is a continuum (hierarchy?) along which these traits will fall.

As for how most people would regard an uneducated individual...well, just remember that most people are of average intelligence or less... ...or even worse: most people I come into contact with are dominated by the cultural brainwashing of having to be better than the next guy. So, yes, it is unlikely that a money/image/power-hungry PhD will consider someone with "only" a high school diploma intelligent, though in fact, that high-school guy may be naturally much quicker at information recall, working memory, innovative problem-solving, etc.

As for being unacknowledged by history...cultural memory is often fickle.

I'm very irritated by competitive behaviour of most people, the only things that stimulates their mind are will to overpower, and sexual desire, which is similar...I could not turn my head and not see the arrogant attitude, and somehow everybody value this as virtue, either in active(less) and passive(more) form. I think that arrogance is contrary to self-consciousness...so the more arrogant someone is, i consider him significantly lower on spiritual scale...

HOW TO BECOME A MAN OF GENIUS

Bertrand Russell
If there are among my readers any young men or women who aspire to become leaders of thought in their generation, I hope they will avoid certain errors into which I fell in youth for want of good advice. When I wished to form an opinion upon a subject, I used to study it, weigh the arguments on different sides, and attempt to reach a balanced conclusion. I have since discovered that this is not the way to do things. A man of genius knows it all without the need of study; his opinions are pontifical and depend for their persuasiveness upon literary style rather than argument. It is necessary to be one-sided, since this facilitates the vehemence that is considered a proof of strength. It is essential to appeal to prejudices and passions of which men have begun to feel ashamed and to do this in the name of some new ineffable ethic. It is well to decry the slow and pettifogging minds which require evidence in order to reach conclusions. Above all, whatever is most ancient should be dished up as the very latest thing.

There is no novelty in this recipe for genius; it was practised by Carlyle in the time of our grandfathers, and by Nietzsche in the time of our fathers, and it has been practised in our own time by D. H. Lawrence. Lawrence is considered by his disciples to have enunciated all sorts of new wisdom about the relations of men and women; in actual fact he has gone back to advocating the domination of the male which one associates with the cave dwellers. Woman exists, in his philosophy, only as something soft and fat to rest the hero when he returns from his labours. Civilised societies have been learning to see something more than this in women; Lawrence will have nothing of civilisation. He scours the world for what is ancient and dark and loves the traces of Aztec cruelty in Mexico. Young men, who had been learning to behave, naturally read him with delight and go round practising cave-man stuff so far as the usages of polite society will permit.

One of the most important elements of success in becoming a man of genius is to learn the art of denunciation. You must always denounce in such a way that your reader thinks that it is the other fellow who is being denounced and not himself; in that case he will be impressed by your noble scorn, whereas if he thinks that it is himself that you are denouncing, he will consider that you are guilty of ill-bred peevishness. Carlyle remarked: ``The population of England is twenty millions, mostly fools.'' Everybody who read this considered himself one of the exceptions, and therefore enjoyed the remark. You must not denounce well-defined classes, such as persons with more than a certain income, inhabitants of a certain area, or believers in some definite creed; for if you do this, some readers will know that your invective is directed against them. You must denounce persons whose emotions are atrophied, persons to whom only plodding study can reveal the truth, for we all know that these are other people, and we shall therefore view with sympathy your powerful diagnosis of the evils of the age.

Ignore fact and reason, live entirely in the world of your own fantastic and myth-producing passions; do this whole-heartedly and with conviction, and you will become one of the prophets of your age.

New York American and other Hearst papers, December 28, 1932; reprinted in Mortals and Others: Bertrand Russell's American Essays 1931-1936, v.1, Harry Ruja (ed.), Allen & Unwin, 1975, pp. 148-149.


bertrand russel is probably my favourite philosopher. this is a very OLD essay of his dating to the early part of the last cenury. but its worthwhile to read the words of in my oppinion the greatest thinker of his time and perhaps of all time.

Who among great men do you consider genius of first class? And who is overrated by your opinion?

No one is a genius. It is simply delusion in the eyes of others. Some may see Shakespeare as a genius, but others may see him as pretentious. Some may see Hendrix as a genius, others may see him as a bloke making noise on a guitar. Because the word 'Genius' is subjective, no one can truly be a genius.

Originally posted by pcp
No one is a genius. It is simply delusion in the eyes of others. Some may see Shakespeare as a genius, but others may see him as pretentious. Some may see Hendrix as a genius, others may see him as a bloke making noise on a guitar. Because the word 'Genius' is subjective, no one can truly be a genius.

*high five*

Originally posted by pcp
No one is a genius. It is simply delusion in the eyes of others. Some may see Shakespeare as a genius, but others may see him as pretentious. Some may see Hendrix as a genius, others may see him as a bloke making noise on a guitar. Because the word 'Genius' is subjective, no one can truly be a genius.

Because people subjectively percept some others as genius, it doesn't mean that IT IS subjective...
It would mean that quality of some matter depends on it's viewers, if one, for example do not percept Michelangelo as genius it says much more on his level of consciousness than of Michelangelo...
And let me remind you that philosophy has nothing to do with doxa, ordinary thinking of most men, we are to try to find the essence...

This slowly becoming the "there is no reality" conversation.

Originally posted by argesilen

And let me remind you that philosophy has nothing to do with doxa, ordinary thinking of most men, we are to try to find the essence...

It has everything to do with the ordinary thinking of most men. This is part of the reason PCP said what he said. It's like you were proving his point

Maybe we're all idiots and people like Newton aren't - that's more reasonable.

Originally posted by pcp
Maybe we're all idiots and people like Newton aren't - that's more reasonable. I like this theory. Most...ingenious.

Originally posted by chithappens
It has everything to do with the ordinary thinking of most men. This is part of the reason PCP said what he said. It's like you were proving his point

or maybe you misunderstood me...

Originally posted by pcp
Maybe we're all idiots and people like Newton aren't - that's more reasonable.

Totally agree...

Originally posted by chithappens
This slowly becoming the "there is no reality" conversation.

maybe because these two things are connected, genius and reality...

Originally posted by Fishy
A genius is somebody that is better in his or her field then 99% of the others.

so if a runner runs faster than 99% of the competition, he is a genius?

Originally posted by Inspectah Deck
so if a runner runs faster than 99% of the competition, he is a genius?

In running, yes.

how?

Originally posted by Inspectah Deck
how?

How what? How I would tell him?

Probably by walking up to him and saying "You're a ****ing genius" or something like that.

If you mean how is he a genius? Well like said he's better then almost everybody else.

Originally posted by Fishy
If you mean how is he a genius? Well like said he's better then almost everybody else.

so whats the difference between a skilled individual and a genius?

i can't see how being fast makes you a genius

Why are some so quick to dismiss the phenomenon of "genius?" Are some people not way faster than others, or stronger, or taller, or more empathic or artistic or, yes, even more intelligent?

Genius: very high intelligence.
Intelligence...now here's something to play with. What's involved? Excellent memory? A keen logical mind? Insightful expression? Some executive function which integrates everything? Whatever it is, "genius" is the high-end version, either in one, some or multiple ways (meaning that "genius" doesn't come in only one flavor).

Originally posted by Inspectah Deck
so whats the difference between a skilled individual and a genius?

i can't see how being fast makes you a genius

Sports is tricky because you don't think it would require somebody to think. But imagine a soccer player for instance, they would have to think about a lot. The greatest soccer players are geniuses on the field. Somebody who knows how to run, is probably a genius with something as well. Besides being a genius does not always have to relate to intelligence.

Originally posted by Inspectah Deck
so whats the difference between a skilled individual and a genius?
i can't see how being fast makes you a genius
Genius: very high intelligence, "intelligence" not being limited to logical reasoning but also encompassing insight/creativity.

Talent: an innate ability to do something very well. This could include intelligence (though usually, then, we say "gifted" or "genius", but could also mean in a physical ability, like running, or playing soccer (in terms of tactics, a soccer player may be a "genius." But "genius" is not really the right word to use for someone who is, simply, a fast/agile runner/kicker. Then we would say talented, gifted or even "blessed".

Skill: this usually implies some level of training to hone one's talent/gift. "Genius" is not a skill, though if one is, say, a musical genius, a certain level of training could help that person improve their methods/techniques/behaviors in expressing their genius.

Here's something interesting. In the official translations of Naruto people with extraordinary skill (in this in combat) are referred to as geniuses.

The meaning is quite clear even though a term like savant might fit better.

Thoughts?

Originally posted by argesilen
What do you think genius is? How would you describe it? Is it potential talent or something else? What genius is, and what isn't? Do you think that genius could be evil? And why? Who among philosophers is genius, and why? Is it defined by IQ or not?
And many other questions that I didn't ask are also welcome...

I'm not sure what you are asking. Genius would more or less be attributed with knowledge/wisdom or thinking in general. Genius in it of itself is nothing. SOMEONE can be a genius and whether or not that SOMEONE is good or evil speaks nothing to whether or not his Knowledge/Wisdom is good or evil (thinking applies as well).

To define what genius would be would be then to identify what the word "genius" is. The word genius is an adjective, and it usually describes someone of "great intelligence, who shows an exceptional natural capacity of intellect, especially as shown in creative and original work. The term may also be applied to someone who is a polymath or a prodigy."

So anybody who "sticks out" for their time would be considered genius'. However relativity plays a big part. To each his own. Like in a recent Albert vs. Newton Argument: "Sure Albert 'found' the theory of relativity, but Newton 'made' Trigonometry!" Ergo, some people would consider Newton a Genius over Albert Einstein.

Interesting thread. I've always wanted to know the accurate definition of a genius, because I am almost one. My IQ is 137, and genius starts at 140. So I'm only "highly intelligent." Kind of in-between.
I could talk before I could walk, I could speak fluently when I was eighteen months old, I could read when I was three, and now faster than others, I rarely make grammatical mistakes (when writing on my 1st language), I always worked up alternate solutions to math problems, could graduate 2 years earlier, speaking three languages (not counting the first), learning the 4th. When I was learning for my history exam, I read it once (from the first caveman to today) and I got a B. And basically, I'm interested in everything. And I am not a genius. So imagine what it would be like one. They are so lucky.
Is it genetic?

Originally posted by Drusilla
Interesting thread. I've always wanted to know the accurate definition of a genius, because I am almost one. My IQ is 137, and genius starts at 140. 3 points is generally not considered a significant difference, as performance can be influenced by other factors (eg, Did you sleep well the night before? Any major changes in your life recently?)

What Intelligence Scale were you assessed with? Different scales sometimes classify levels of intelligence differently. Also, did you get a breakdown as to what specific measures of intelligence you were best in (eg, verbal comprehension, abstract visual reasoning, etc)?

Is it genetic? A strong genetic predisposition is suspected...as with many human characteristics.

I dont think I.Q tests are valid well ive only done online ones, never paid to do one. My i.q has ranged from 173 to 157 to 104 and im possitive I once got a below 100 i.q before... They don't seem very reliable.

Originally posted by Magee
I dont think I.Q tests are valid well ive only done online ones, never paid to do one. My i.q has ranged from 173 to 157 to 104 and im possitive I once got a below 100 i.q before... They don't seem very reliable. Forget online IQ tests. And IQ--as measured by professionally researched and recognized tests--does correlate well with overall achievement (all else being equal, eg, motivation). However, Drusilla also lists other demonstrations of a very capable intellect; she's not laying claim to high intelligence by test scores alone.

Was just saying online I.Q tests seem unreliable and Its quite easy to come across intellectual on the intornetz, if you care.

Originally posted by Drusilla

Is it genetic?

No, it's not genetic, intelligence is maybe determined that way, but genius, which is same with spirit, is individual, not heritable...

My IQ was measured when I first went to my psychiatrist. Yeah, I remember my linguistic and logical was perfect, the weakest for me was visual. Which kind of helped me 'cause I could choose what I wanted to learn. I wanted to be an interior designer, but since the visual is not my strength, I'd be lousy in it.

I think this is out of topic...if you want to discuss about intelligence which is not qualifier for genius start another tread...I would be happy to share my IQ score with you, and talk about difficulties being accepted by friends and surroundings as highly intelligent person...my IQ score is 153, and I'm far far away from being genius, let me repeat once again, FAR FAR AWAY...
so let's not implement intelligence in our discussion again, please...

Originally posted by Mindship
Genius: very high intelligence, "intelligence" not being limited to logical reasoning but also encompassing insight/creativity.

Talent: an innate ability to do something very well. This could include intelligence (though usually, then, we say "gifted" or "genius", but could also mean in a physical ability, like running, or playing soccer (in terms of tactics, a soccer player may be a "genius." But "genius" is not really the right word to use for someone who is, simply, a fast/agile runner/kicker. Then we would say talented, gifted or even "blessed".

Skill: this usually implies some level of training to hone one's talent/gift. "Genius" is not a skill, though if one is, say, a musical genius, a certain level of training could help that person improve their methods/techniques/behaviors in expressing their genius.

Finally someone with the sense of subtlety...

I have read this thread and have found many of the points made to be very interesting. I thought Storms definition was the best but then Hydrono brought up the point of speed and capacity such as a processor.
Yet others point out that speed alone does not equate genius . An example being an autistic savante. I wondered then if Mindships question of intelligence would steer the discussion to a more articulated path. Hairs seem to become split as you question intelligence and then the discussion lost its way. I wonder if genius has constant or can it be a momentary occurance. For example the Aha or Eureka phenomena.
Genius then would indeed occur in different "flavors" as noted by Mindship. Plus it would be explain that genius is not defined by the end but by the cummulation and individual. (not quite sure if I am wording my thoughts coherently here.)
I am not quite sure where my point is going here. Just trying to see if I am grasping the process correctly.
My personal thought was to perhaps think of what genius is not along the lines of what is not intelligence. Perhaps looking at the negative as in Argesilen's Sig would help with the positive.
Just my two cents.