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...
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).
__________________
Shinier than a speeding bullet.
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.
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.
__________________
Shinier than a speeding bullet.
Last edited by Mindship on May 28th, 2007 at 12:29 PM
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).
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?
__________________ "Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it."
KMC Community Forums
May 22nd, 2007 04:45 PM
I like this theory. Most...ingenious.
