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.
__________________
"All morons hate it when you call them a moron." - Holden Caulfield
Gender: Male Location: al-Jumhuuriyya al-Yamaniyya
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.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
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.
__________________
Imagination is more important than knowledge... --Albert Einstein--
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...
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
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)...
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
__________________ "Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise." - Thomas Gray
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.
__________________ Be smart, be cool, be sexy = be LIBERAL!
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.
__________________ "Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise." - Thomas Gray
KMC Community Forums
May 13th, 2007 12:08 AM
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...
