# Genius



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I postulate that genius is a myth and that there is just passion and hard work; high level performance in any field. It should not be limited to Arts and Sciences, for no job is easy.

To be an intellectual one must have skills and knowledge to carry out a task, and have deep thoughts about it.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I postulate that genius is a myth and that there is just passion and hard work; high level performance in any field. It should not be limited to Arts and Sciences, for no job is easy.
> 
> Intelligence is nothing more than having skills to carry out a task, and having deep thoughts about it.


You would be wrong my friend.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

As with most things, I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. 

There are certainly inborn elements to a genius in any particular field. Michael Jordan had to have an abundance of fast twitch muscle, and a frame of a certain size to dominate his field. But then, he also had to work like a maniac to become dominant. 

In music, the ability to hear well, to recognize and replicate pitch, and a certain level of manual dexterity (at least for playing) seem like prerequisites. But then, having parents who nurture these gifts is key, as is just having the personality type to devote thousands of hours to practice and/or composition.

Genius is a title bestowed upon the production of work, not before. And the production of work takes time and effort, not just innate talent.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

The word genius has been explored in many other threads. A genius can be found in any field, like even the prodigious home run hitter Babe Ruth in baseball who sometimes outhit many _teams_, and most often pointed out by their colleagues or peers, not just by the general public.

I do not go along with trying to cheapen or discount the word as if anyone who just works hard enough, is determined enough, is diligent enough, can create on the consummate level of a Mozart or a Bach or a Beethoven. If people can't recognize the mastery, the effortless creativity, the complexity of the ideas performing together, it's not the fault of the exceptional composer of genius.

Now watch such a beautiful simple word be turned into a complete mess of conjecture and meaning. Efren Reyes is a genius at pool and the winner of over 70 international titles. He's called The Magician because of his uncanny ability to make shots that no one else can make without his innate, instinctive ability. Somethings just cannot be learned no matter how much one tries. But it doesn't mean that one cannot make the most of whatever ability that one has regardless of whether he's a Bach or not. It's a beautiful and useful word that cuts right to the heart of someone's uncanny ability.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

MatthewWeflen said:


> As with most things, I think the truth is somewhere in the middle.
> 
> There are certainly inborn elements to a genius in any particular field. Michael Jordan had to have an abundance of fast twitch muscle, and a frame of a certain size to dominate his field. But then, he also had to work like a maniac to become dominant.
> 
> ...


I am also open to the notion that we are born with talents and gifts which predispose us to certain fields.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Larkenfield said:


> The word genius has been explored in many other threads. A genius can be found in any field, like even the prodigious homerun hitter Babe Ruth in baseball who sometimes out hit many _teams_, and most often pointed out by their colleagues or peers, not just by the general public. *I do not go along with trying to cheapen or discount the word as if anyone who just works hard enough, is determined enough, is diligent enough, can create on the consummate level of a Mozart or a Bach or a Beethoven*. If people can't recognize the mastery, the effortless creativity, the complexity of the ideas performing together, it's not the fault of the composer. No watch such a simple word be turned into a complete mess or conjecture and meaning.


It must be the right field for the right person!


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Larkenfield said:


> The word genius has been explored in many other threads. A genius can be found in any field, like even the prodigious homerun hitter Babe Ruth in baseball who sometimes out hit many _teams_, and most often pointed out by their colleagues or peers, not just by the general public. I do not go along with trying to cheapen or discount the word as if anyone who just works hard enough, is determined enough, is diligent enough, can create on the consummate level of a Mozart or a Bach or a Beethoven. If people can't recognize the mastery, the effortless creativity, the complexity of the ideas performing together, it's not the fault of the composer. Now watch such a beautiful simple word be turned into a complete mess of conjecture and meaning.


I think B,B&M are geniuses, no two ways about it. I just think what produced them was a confluence of innate/congenital traits and environmental influences.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

B,B&M aren't even my favorite composers. Debussy is my number 1!


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Genius in the Arts is creating something someone enjoys, even if it's just the Artist him/herself.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

‘Genius’ refers to exceptionally high intelligence and performance. Most of us will never rise to that level.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Just in case anyone needs a debunking primer:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-people-only-use-10-percent-of-their-brains/


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

MatthewWeflen said:


> Just in case anyone needs a debunking primer:
> 
> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-people-only-use-10-percent-of-their-brains/


Thanks for the education.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

yeah, sure, just hard work....


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

I think it would be fair to say that most people direct only ten percent of their _efforts_ even to things they care a great deal about, and that geniuses are perhaps able to better that (with the caveat that they likely have more mental or physical resources to work with).


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Jacck said:


> yeah, sure, just hard work....


Yes, but can he have insights?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I will live my life believing there is nothing mystical to Genius, but am open to the possibility that some are born Geniuses.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

“Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see.” --Arthur Schopenhauer


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I will live my life believing there is nothing mystical to Genius, but am open to the possibility that some are born Geniuses.


you can of course comfort yourself that there are no geniuses, thiking that if you give something enough of time/effort, you will be genius too. But the fact is, that some people are simply born with almost prodigal talents in certain areas. Think Mozart, or Carl Friedrich Gauss (a mathematical equaivalent of Bach). So to become a really towering figure, you need to be genius + put very hard work/effort.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Jacck said:


> you can of course comfort yourself that there are no geniuses, thiking that if you give something enough of time/effort, you will be genius too. But the fact is, that some people are simply born with almost prodigal talents in certain areas. Think Mozart, or Carl Friedrich Gauss (a mathematical equaivalent of Bach). So to become a really towering figure, you need to be genius + put very hard work/effort.


It's not that I don't think there are any geniuses, it's that I equate the word with brilliance. I don't think it's anything more than what it is, which is fantastic! I believe it comes from a childlike purity, a real passion, and putting in the hours!


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Captainnumber36 said:


> It's not that I don't think there are any geniuses, it's that I equate the word with brilliance. I don't think it's anything more than what it is, which is fantastic! I believe it comes from a childlike purity, a real passion, and putting in the hours!


You seem to be all over the map on this because the above is a 180 from the OP. Just sayin'.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

DaveM said:


> You seem to be all over the map on this because the above is a 180 from the OP. Just sayin'.


I think Genius is just a word we can use...that's what I mean when I say Genius is a myth in the OP.


----------



## David Phillips (Jun 26, 2017)

Surely genius is another word for superhuman: Handel writing The Messiah in three weeks, Mozart composing three masterly symphonies in six weeks.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I think Genius is just a word we can use...that's what I mean when I say Genius is a myth in the OP.


But you're being very vague. The word 'genius' is very specific insofar as it describes those whose minds conceive or accomplish things very few others can. Countless composers worked very hard, all their lives to compose the very best music they were able to, but only those on a very short list came close to what Beethoven created. Countless scientists worked their whole lives trying to create or discover something original and meaningful, but only those on a very short list came up with something on the level of The Theory of Relativity and so on.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

DaveM said:


> But you're being very vague. The word 'genius' is very specific insofar as it describes those whose minds conceive or accomplish things very few others can. Countless composers worked very hard, all their lives to compose the very best music they were able to, but only those on a very short list came close to what Beethoven created. Countless scientists worked their whole lives trying to create or discover something original and meaningful, but only those on a very short list came up with something on the level of The Theory of Relativity and so on.


You assume originality is genius. Not everyone enjoys Beethoven, so then what makes him more a Genius than snoop dogg who also has lovers and haters?

Genius is high quality work in any field, it is synonymous with brilliance and takes strong work ethic. It doesn't have to be original, though I tend to enjoy music that has a strong individualistic voice and feels like a painting to my ears.


----------



## Guest (Jan 28, 2019)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I postulate that genius is a myth and that there is just passion and hard work; high level performance in any field. It should not be limited to Arts and Sciences, for no job is easy.
> 
> Intelligence is nothing more than having skills to carry out a task, and having deep thoughts about it.


I agree with everything above the line break and nothing below the line break. Intelligence covers more than than just 'having skills to carry out a task;' there's great complexity and subjectivity to emotional intelligence, creative intelligence (and other kinds of intelligence) that reducing it to apply only to a society made up of factory-workers shows a worldview that humans are nothing more than cogs in a machine, units meaningless on their own but serve only the purpose of communism or some **** liek tthat lmao


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

shirime said:


> I agree with everything above the line break and nothing below the line break. Intelligence covers more than than just 'having skills to carry out a task;' there's great complexity and subjectivity to emotional intelligence, creative intelligence (and other kinds of intelligence) that reducing it to apply only to a society made up of factory-workers shows a worldview that humans are nothing more than cogs in a machine, units meaningless on their own but serve only the purpose of communism or some **** liek tthat lmao


Let me rephrase, to be an intellectual, you must have skills, knowledge and deep thoughts about the topic you are invested in!


----------



## Guest (Jan 28, 2019)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Let me rephrase, to be an intellectual, you must have skills, knowledge and deep thoughts about the topic you are invested in!


Yeah but what makes that-and only that-'intelligence?'


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

shirime said:


> Yeah but what makes that-and only that-'intelligence?'


It's what intellect deals with, the "left brain" if you will.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

You probably can construct an argument that "genius is nothing but ..." but the list of things that are necessary to meet our understanding of the word is likely to be long and complex, with lots of "and/or"s ... . Yes, genius builds on the insights of others (and often those others are the more original ones) and, yes, genius involves some form of intelligence (it must surely be widely appreciated these days that there are multiple intelligences). And yes hard work, drive and perhaps even obsession are also important. The problem is that every genius is a different combination of these and other qualities so I don't think you could come up with a definitive account to fit all. As for



> You assume originality is genius. Not everyone enjoys Beethoven, so then what makes him more a Genius than snoop dogg who also has lovers and haters?


This seems to be the sort of conceptual mess you get into when you insist that there is no objective value in art (only subjective).


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Maybe in your line of work or field of study Capt'n there isn't much to show for genius, but what it took for Newton or Liebnez to invent calculus is way beyond just hard work. It is divine. It takes intelligence, ingenuity and hard work just to get from point A to point B, in working out some tough integration problems, but to know a point B was possible and through what means in the first place is beyond words.

In Art, genius can be evident like in Stravinsky, Varese, Mozart and Beethoven, while some try to appeal to subjectivity and masquerade as genius. Cage is a genius, not in composing music, but in marketting it as music. Ferneyhough's scores show hard work and attention to detail, but is it genius?


----------



## Marinera (May 13, 2016)

Nikola Tesla for sure. He did the work worth of several geniuses and he had inborn abilities that helped him to achieve this, like eidetic memory, also incredible ability to visualise - he did all calculations, testing, etc in his mind, he saw all he visualised as clear and real, working models in front of him, just like you could see your own hand in front of you. I think even a genius is a bit inadequate word for him, since from what I read about Tesla brings him closer to a phenomenon, genius- yes, but even more than that his all round personality was just on a completely different level.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Marinera said:


> Nicola Tesla for sure. He did a work worth of several geniuses and he had inborn abilities that helped him to achieve this, like eidetic memory, also incredible ability to visualise - he did all calculations, testing, etc in his mind, he saw all he visualised as clear and real, working models in front of him, just like you could see your own hand in front of you. I think even a genius is a bit inadequate word for him, since from what I read about Tesla brings him closer to a phenomenon, genius- yes, but even more than that his all round personality was just on a completely different level.


Tesla was an interesting case for sure. He was an ingenious engineer who single-handedly revolutionarized 20th century by his inventions and pioneering of the alternating current. He was not much of physicist though. He harbored some crackpot ideas about aether and never really accepted relativity theory. He was also a case for a psychiarist. Probably suffered from some severe OCD. He is still a more symphathetic person than Edison. Edison was brilliant too, but not as brilliant as Tesla, but he had a really nasty jealous contemtible character.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Captainnumber36 said:


> You assume originality is genius. Not everyone enjoys Beethoven, so then what makes him more a Genius than snoop dogg who also has lovers and haters?


So you're dumbing down what Beethoven accomplished to the level of snoop dog? I guess you haven't really listened to, or understood, much Beethoven. This isn't just about originality.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

DaveM said:


> So you're dumbing down what Beethoven accomplished to the level of snoop dog? I guess you haven't really listened to, or understood, much Beethoven. This isn't just about originality.


to achieve prominence in any discipline requires first and foremost that you master all the knowledge about the subject of all the previous generations. For example in physics, you need to master generaral relativity, quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, the standard model of particle physics, before you can even start thinking about contributing something original. True, there are many crackpots, who lack the intelligence to master of all that, but are convinced that they are more clever than Einstein and discovered some flaw or other in his theory, and desperately try to draw attention to some crackpot theory of theirs. You would not believe, how many emails professional physicists get from these "geniuses". John Baez actually compiled a rating scale to evaluate the degree of crackpottery
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
but I am diverging. First you need to absorb all of that and then you need to bring in some creative genius to come up with something new. It can't be just anything but it has to respect all the known experimental facts and given that we 300 years of physics experiments, you can imagin, how much constrained you are. So creating genius comes with something new, but he is also terribly constrained.

I guess the same could be said about music. To contribute something meaningful, you first need to acquire all the theoretical and technical skill of a real musician. Or at least it used to be the case. Nowaways a cat walking over a piano can be called artistic genius. Or some artist getting drunk and squirting and dripping random paint on a canvas and claiming that it is "abstract art". This is one of the worst things about modern art. That drunkyards are now held to be artistic geniuses.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Another Captain lightbulb moment. I love 'em.


----------



## RICK RIEKERT (Oct 9, 2017)

Jacck said:


> to achieve prominence in any discipline requires first and foremost that you master all the knowledge about the subject of all the previous generations.


There are, of course, notable exceptions. Ludwig Wittgenstein, who is generally considered to be the greatest philosopher of the 20th century, was largely ignorant of the history of philosophy and never made a systematic study of other philosophers.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

RICK RIEKERT said:


> There are, of course, notable exceptions. Ludwig Wittgenstein, who is generally considered to be the greatest philosopher of the 20th century, was largely ignorant of the history of philosophy and never made a systematic study of other philosophers.


Perhaps thinking about something is different than creating something.


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

DaveM said:


> Perhaps thinking about something is different than creating something.


Typically the former leads to the latter, it's just that philosophers typically back out at the point their thinking has to be tested.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

RICK RIEKERT said:


> There are, of course, notable exceptions. Ludwig Wittgenstein, who is generally considered to be the greatest philosopher of the 20th century, was largely ignorant of the history of philosophy and never made a systematic study of other philosophers.


philosophy is not really a science. I do not mean it in any negative or disparaging or disrespectful manner. But there is no real objective criterion how to separate "right" from "wrong" philosophical theories. I actually read the whole Tractatus-Logico Philosophicus for which Wittgenstein became famous and it is naive. Wittgenstein himself realized this later in his life and spent the rest of his life fighting against his own ideas. He had a naive view that elements of language correspond to some objective elements of reality which is not the case. I view philosophy as some kind of discipline for organizing human thought, or human theories. It is useful and fun, but does not really discover anything. Much of the philosophy of the 20th century tried to find the limits of thought, limits of language, limits of what can be meaningfully said about the world. But the whole program was a failure and nothing has come out of it.

The real philosophy happens in physics, ie what does quantum mechanics tell us about the nature of reality? For me personally, this is the most interesting philosophical problem of the 20th century. If you actually delved into the theory, you would be shocked by how absolutely bizarre it is. And if you wouldn't be shocked, you would not have really understood it. There are some really crazy things such as Bell theorems, delayed choice quantum erasers, or the GHZ experiment. Try to wrap you head around the claim that there is no objective reality. This was not uttered by some madman, but by the most brilliant physicists and experiments forced them to make these claims
https://kantin.sabanciuniv.edu/sites/kantin.sabanciuniv.edu/files/makale/mermin.pdf


----------



## Agamemnon (May 1, 2017)

Red Terror said:


> 'Genius' refers to exceptionally high intelligence and performance. Most of us will never rise to that level.


I think this is a misunderstanding. As 'genius' is quite a romantic notion I go with a romantic view of genius: it has nothing to do with understanding thus intelligence but with willing and creating. A genius is someone with a very strong will who thus is able to impose his will unto matter (like God didn't create the cosmos by understanding but by willing). In art a work of art or genius is about the conflation of object and subject, of matter and will. For the genius he himself becomes the world and the world becomes him. In this way the genius 'absolute' works go beyond understanding.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Genius in the Arts is creating something someone enjoys, even if it's just the Artist him/herself.


Bob Ross is a genius?


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Genius is certainly distinct from, albeit correlated with, intelligence. Of course, just like there are many types of intelligence, there are many types of genius, and I'm not sure how fair it is to compare, say, Gauss to Mozart (it may be somewhat fair, but I'm not sure). Genius is more akin to creativity, although that's still far from a perfect description.

Anyway, genius is 10% inspiration, 90% perspiration as the saying goes.

Or, if you're a temperamental genius, 90% temper, 10% mental.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

For any kind of achievement --sports, music, physics, art, mathematics, business, being a clown -- there is a population-wide spectrum of aptitudes that can be plotted on a bell curve. We tend to call the outliers -- those on the extreme tippy end -- geniuses _if_ they have had the initial training and education to be able to make the most of their aptitudes. Like everything else, it's a combination of nature and nurture, but that makes it no less real. Mozart had the aptitude to be a musical genius, but without the musical education his father saw he received, he might have wound up being an entertainer in a bawdy house.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Yes, and I'd add to that the cultural environment also plays a significant role, if not in accounting for genius then at least determining how it is manifested.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

I’ll never understand the attempt to uncouple the parameter of intelligence from what constitutes a genius. Without a high level of mental functioning (ie. intelligence) well above the average in one or more areas, no amount of other factors will produce a genius and that’s not an opinion, it is fact. However, high intelligence in one or more areas does not guarantee genius.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

How many of those here, setting forth so confidently their definitions of genius, have themselves done anything that even remotely merits the designation?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I postulate that genius is a myth and that there is just passion and hard work; high level performance in any field. It should not be limited to Arts and Sciences, for no job is easy.
> 
> To be an intellectual one must have skills and knowledge to carry out a task, and have deep thoughts about it.


Even though it is a concept that is surrounded by a fair bit of mythologising, I do believe that genius exists. Its less controversial when applied to composers who are by consensus geniuses, moreso when talking about others who are seen to only have produced one or a few works of genius.

The whole business of talking about music is so difficult, precisely because we are not talking about a piece of meat to be graded, weighed and sold. Any sort of objective markers are fluid and have many underlying factors. Saint-Saens put it best when saying "There is nothing more difficult than talking about music." Along the same lines is Vladimir Ashkenazy, "Nobody who has any understanding of what music is about will describe anything about music." If these great minds have struggled to come to terms with such things, which is the essence of their art, so can we here.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> This seems to be the sort of conceptual mess you get into when you insist that there is no objective value in art (only subjective).


It is only subjective.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> How many of those here, setting forth so confidently their definitions of genius, have themselves done anything that even remotely merits the designation?


I work very hard at my composing and have ppl that enjoy my work. To me that is all that matters, regardless of the term you'd like to associate with my musical mind.

https://pino2.bandcamp.com/releases


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> It is only subjective.


Is that an objective opinion?  Is Classical music more sophisticated than popular music an objective or subjective opinion?


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Geniuses are the great solvers of unsolvable problems whose solutions often come from an intuitive revelation and not strictly based on logic and analysis. Who better as a solver of musical problems in his era than Mozart? Sorry, but that’s posed as a rhetorical question. A genius has no opposite because what he does is often considered to be impossible, and that’s the problem with conventional thinking that is only based on logic and not an intuitive revelation as well.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> Is that an objective opinion?  Is Classical music more sophisticated than popular music an objective or subjective opinion?


subjective, surly...............


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Larkenfield said:


> Geniuses are the great solvers of unsolvable problems whose solutions often come from an intuitive revelation and not strictly based on logic and analysis. Who better as a solver of musical problems in his era than Mozart? Sorry, but that's posed as a rhetorical question. A genius has no opposite because what he does is often considered to be impossible, and that's the problem with conventional thinking that is only based on logic and not an intuitive revelation as well.


What musical problems were there in Mozart's era or any era? Art isn't about problems to be solved, or I'd say it wouldn't be art if it was.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> What musical problems were there in Mozart's era or any era? Art isn't about problems to be solved, or I'd say it wouldn't be art if it was.


Unless you are Bach!


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> Is that an objective opinion?  Is Classical music more sophisticated than popular music an objective or subjective opinion?


I know I used to say that, but as you always say, it's non-sense, but the media and Classical fans sure do treat it as such.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The word Genius implies exceptional ability in a certain field - such as Leonardo or Michelangelo in art, or Beethoven or Mozart in music or Newton and Einstein in science. It implies creative breakthrough. Of course, hard work is necessary to develop but then when you are particularly good at something you tend to enjoy doing it.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Genius is just a term and a way to categorize people is what I'm getting at, and we can define the term however we want since we interpret words subjectively anyways for the most part.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

In art I define it as creating something someone other than the artist appreciates and in all other fields it's very high quality work.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Genius is just a term and a way to categorize people is what I'm getting at, and we can define the term however we want since we interpret words subjectively anyways for the most part.


You can look at it that way if you want, but in a serious discussion on 'genius' that position does not confer much in the way of credibility. There is still a lot we don't know about the human intellect, why some people are blessed with a broadly high level of mental functioning in addition to wisdom and judgment while others have narrow areas of high functioning such as remembering every single day of their life, where they were, what they wore and what was going on in the world, but otherwise are quite 'normal'.

But we do know that there was a Beethoven, an Einstein, a Leonardo de Vinci etc. whose mental functioning in certain areas must have been off the charts. We do have studies using Pet Scans and the like that indicate differences in the brain in some people with high functioning in select areas. It's still not an exact science, but it's enough to know that 'genius' is not just a situation where someone applies oneself better than others. I understand that the word 'genius' has its limitations, but, for the most part, it suffices in general, but not necessarily scientific, discussions until something better comes along.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

deleted post........


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

DaveM said:


> You can look at it that way if you want, but in a serious discussion on 'genius' that position does not confer much in the way of credibility. There is still a lot we don't know about the human intellect, why some people are blessed with a broadly high level of mental functioning in addition to wisdom and judgment while others have narrow areas of high functioning such as remembering every single day of their life, where they were, what they wore and what was going on in the world, but otherwise are quite 'normal'.
> 
> But we do know that there was a Beethoven, an Einstein, a Leonardo de Vinci etc. whose mental functioning in certain areas must have been off the charts. We do have studies using Pet Scans and the like that indicate differences in the brain in some people with high functioning in select areas. It's still not an exact science, but it's enough to know that 'genius' is not just a situation where someone applies oneself better than others. I understand that the word 'genius' has its limitations, but, for the most part, it suffices in general, but not necessarily scientific, discussions until something better comes along.


I think it's easier in Science to identify a Genius b/c there is a great original idea that has massive impact on the field.
In Art, I think it's 100% subjective unless you want to say it's something original.

But originality isn't black and white, it lays on a continuum.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I think it's easier in Science to identify a Genius b/c there is a great original idea that has massive impact on the field.
> In Art, I think it's 100% subjective unless you want to say it's something original.


I'm not so so sure about that. Sometimes (in fact most times) these things are the results of building upon the accumulated work of other people. Sometimes the 'great insights' are lucky breaks; part inspired thinking coupled with knowledge. That's true for a lot of science. The reason you don't hear about single geniuses quite so much these days is because collaborative work is the order of the day with more people getting their due for small increments.

However, there are people who seem to be really hyper-productive. Like the astonishing Thomas Young.

In art..? More tricky. With great talent, guided from an early age in the best of possible situations, and a huge amount of hard work (surely the ingredients behind W.A. Mozart's career) you get to see the cream of human ingenuity.

Lets be clear, there are other people who have had similar gifts who haven't been as celebrated. We choose our 'geniuses'.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

eugeneonagain said:


> I'm not so so sure about that. Sometimes (in fact most times) these things are the results of building upon the accumulated work of other people. Sometimes the 'great insights' are lucky breaks; part inspired thinking coupled with knowledge. That's true for a lot of science. The reason you don't hear about single geniuses quite so much these days is because collaborative work is the order of the day with more people getting their due for small increments.
> 
> However, there are people who seem to be really hyper-productive. Like the astonishing Thomas Young.
> 
> ...


Did you see my edit about OG being on a continuum?


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Did you see my edit about OG being on a continuum?


Yes, I did see that.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I think it's easier in Science to identify a Genius b/c there is a great original idea that has massive impact on the field.
> In Art, I think it's 100% subjective unless you want to say it's something original.
> 
> But originality isn't black and white, it lays on a continuum.


I think it's true that in the sciences and mathematics, the concept of 'genius' is more obvious, perhaps more measurable. One thing that hasn't been mentioned is the tremendous memories these people must have. It's one thing to absorb more, and more complex, information than others, it's a whole other thing to remember what you've absorbed.

In the arts, there is a continuum in the sense that, for instance in CM, there were many composers in the 19th century who created one or more wonderful works, but we don't think of them as 'geniuses'. On the other hand, Beethoven was a whole different story. Originality is a very broad term. Yes, Beethoven was original, but think about how original he was. Examine his use of the instruments of the orchestra and, particularly, the piano. He was creating sounds no one had ever heard before.

A major influence at the time had been Mozart, but, even in the Beethoven early works, you don't hear much of the Mozart influence. And then there was the way he was creating the different sounds. If you listen to -and preferably watch live where you can see the finger work- the piano concertos, the 4th being a good example, you can see and hear some of the countermelodies in the left hand during some of the runs which were quite different than what had preceded Beethoven.

There is nothing quite like the 32 Beethoven piano sonatas in the piano repertoire before him or since. The variation and difference between them is astounding and none of them are a reminder of any of the others.

Beethoven's deafness is well known and much talked about, but I think it is not emphasized enough what a feat it was that he created some of his greatest music in a state of almost total deafness and it wasn't just deafness, but the presence of severe tinnitus. Some dismiss this feat or make light of it on the basis that other composers were known to compose in their head. But they weren't composing the massive (think the 9th Symphony) or complex (think the late quartets) works Beethoven was.

During his deafness, it must have required a tremendous memory of how various combinations of notes sounded and the ability to conjure up what a combination of fingering and double/triple trilling would sound like such as in the #32 Arietta. This was a man with an incredible musical mind which required a particular type of incredible memory and the collating of all sorts of information to create these works. This was genius. I think that many composers who were contemporaries or who followed Beethoven knew and lamented that they didn't have it.


----------



## Ziggabea (Apr 5, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I postulate that genius is a myth and that there is just passion and hard work; high level performance in any field. It should not be limited to Arts and Sciences, for no job is easy.
> 
> To be an intellectual one must have skills and knowledge to carry out a task, and have deep thoughts about it.


I think it's quite an impossible thing to measure personally. It's an abstract idea really. If someone is a prolific innovator, it doesn't guarantee that they will be popular and vice versa.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Sometimes genius is an extraordinary capacity for work. Edison, others of similar ilk.
Sometimes it's just being the first to recognize the obvious--Darwin falls into that category, as does Galileo, and the several fathers of plate tectonics in geology.
Sometimes it's extraordinary quickness of mind: Enrico Fermi was able, having heard of another's mathematical breakthrough in physics, to quickly replicate and even improve upon the other's work, deriving his own and usually simpler and better mathematics to yield the same or more precise results. J. Robert Oppenheimer was able to almost instantly grasp another's new idea, no matter how complicated. He , however, lacked the necessary diligence to create a large body of profound work.
Some, though, do see things that are not at all obvious and represent a profound breakthrough: Einstein certainly. Maybe Mendeleev with the periodic table.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

DaveM said:


> even in the Beethoven early works, you don't hear much of the Mozart influence.


actually you hear quite a lot of Mozart influence spread over his output

Op.111: 



K546: 



Op.111: 



K426: 



K546: 




Op.10 No.1: 



K457: 




Op.13: 



K457: 




Op.57: 



K475: 



Op.57: 



K475: 









Charles Rosen used the song (Adelaide) to exemplify his claim that, somewhat paradoxically, Beethoven actually drew closer to the compositional practice of his predecessors Haydn and Mozart as his career evolved:

_"With age, Beethoven drew closer to the forms and proportions of Haydn and Mozart. In his youthful works, the imitation of his two great precursors is largely exterior: in technique and even in spirit, he is at the beginning of his career often closer to Hummel, Weber, and to the later works of Clementi than to Haydn and Mozart ... The equilibrium between harmonic and thematic development so characteristic of Haydn and Mozart is often lost in early Beethoven, where thematic contrast and transformation seem to outweigh all other interests. Beethoven, indeed, started as a true member of his generation, writing now in a proto-Romantic style and now in a late and somewhat attenuated version of the classical style, with an insistence on the kind of broad, square melodic structure that was to find its true justification later in the Romantic period of the 1830's. The early song Adelaide is as much Italian Romantic opera as anything else: its long, winding melody, symmetrical and passionate, its colorful modulations and aggressively simple accompaniment could come easily from an early work of Bellini."_

https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...ed-from-k464/D41298CFD2EE4AC1639C8CDB3A887E45
_"Beethoven imitated Mozart's String Quartet in A major K464 more openly than any other work by a fellow composer. Yet critics have never explained his fascination with the fifth 'Haydn' quartet. This article argues that Beethoven responded to a rare and unexplored transformation of sonata form in which the primary theme returns at its original pitch in the secondary area. This preserves the melody of the theme, but reinterprets its harmonic and schematic function. Mozart explored this device with unusual rigour in k464, recalling the primary theme at pitch in both outer movements. The two primary themes share a common chromatic line whose invariant return wittily probes late eighteenth-century tonal conventions.
Beethoven emulated Mozart's harmonic design in his own Quartet in A major, Op. 18 No. 5, and even intensified its more problematic features. He imitated k464 most literally in the finale of the 'Kreutzer' Sonata, which provided a model for similar harmonic experimentation in the Sonata in G major Op. 31 No. 1, the 'Waldstein' Sonata and the first 'Razumovsky' quartet. k464 suggests an important source for Beethoven's use of chromatic elements to problematize tonal and thematic function, a practice most evident in the 'Eroica' Symphony."_



DaveM said:


> There is nothing quite like the 32 Beethoven piano sonatas in the piano repertoire before him or since.


There's nothing like the 2 books of Bach's Wohltemperierte Klavier in the keyboard repertoire and there never has been. Beethoven's set of 32 piano sonatas may be very beautiful on the whole, quite a number of them are sonatinas. (To say that they're all monumental in the way Bach's WTC is like claiming Mozart's 41 symphonies are all monumental even though more than half of them are short Italian overtures of the typical format adhering to the period.)
Also, compared to Mozart's K511, K540, K401, K475, K396, K397, K394, K399, K594, K608, K616

"Beethoven made his own copy of K608 and procured a copy of K.594."
("Automatic Genius: Mozart and the Mechanical Sublime" by Annette Richards)






Beethoven seems more successful in terms of popularity with his keyboard works thanks to the early Romantic development of the piano and the popularity that came with it, and because he organized his collection under the heading, 'Piano Sonatas' more thoroughly.

I don't mean offense in any way, I just want to convince people not to believe in the bs that emotion in music started with Beethoven (which quite a number of people on this forum do.) and I still remember their reaction when someone said 'the finale to Mozart's 41th symphony is nothing like that came before it.'


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

We're really trying to split hairs here. As Potter Stewart said about pornography, "I know it when I see it."


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

In the end it doesn't really matter, it IS just a way to categorize ppl and we gravitate towards what we enjoy. We should just applaud good work instead of trying to make this thing "genius" sound special.

The term is typically used to elevate our own tastes, which is bad.

I also like being around people who are passionate.


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

I don't have any issue with the use of the word "genius" as long as it is applied to people with truly exceptional intellectual ability or talent, creative productivity and eminent achievement. In music, several composers fit the term to me.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Without the word ’genius’ the arts and language would be diminished. It’s the greatest word in the world to describe superlatives, something unprecedented, something exceptional, something miraculous, something that’s never been heard before. It’s a far better word than ‘great’ and it can describe music that can take one’s breath away. But it’s also OK to be a mere mortal and make the most of one’s talent no matter what it is.


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

One can wonder what Robert Schumann meant with "genius" when referring to Chopin after reviewing his Variations on "Là ci darem la mano":

"_Hats off, gentlemen - a genius_".


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I much prefer the term brilliant b/c it is an adjective that _describes_ a person and their work output rather than the word Genius which is a noun denoting a specific _type_ of person.

And in the Arts, brilliance is a subjective appraisal that we can simply discuss intellectually about.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> And in the Arts, brilliance is a subjective appraisal that we can simply discuss intellectually about.


No sir, the more subjective it is, the less easy it is to get an intellectual grip on the matter.

Also, how do we intellectually discuss the brilliance of a diamond?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

eugeneonagain said:


> No sir, the more subjective it is, the less easy it is to get an intellectual grip on the matter.
> 
> Also, how do we intellectually discuss the brilliance of a diamond?


Easily:

- Craftsmanship 
- Light Refraction 
- Shape 
- The way it Makes you Feel 
- Weight (And other scientific ways of discussing the work)


----------



## Brahmsian Colors (Sep 16, 2016)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I postulate that genius is a myth and that there is just passion and hard work;...


Take a look at what this young fellow has to say>>>

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/9-year-old-gifted-college-student_us_5c3cc04be4b0e0baf53fcef0


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I postulate that genius is a myth and that there is just passion and hard work; high level performance in any field. It should not be limited to Arts and Sciences, for no job is easy.
> 
> To be an intellectual one must have skills and knowledge to carry out a task, and have deep thoughts about it.


If you ever are in the presence of genius, you will know it.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, we have to learn how to unlock our own "genius." that's where the work comes in.

Certain things, like voice control, physical size, dexterity, cannot be learned if they are part of your "being".

Yet, there are many different forms of "being." Bob Dylan's "being" in his voice is not something you'd want to put out as competition for all voices; but it is unique to his being. 
His songwriting ability is something that could compete on the large field, but that involved much study, work, & research as it did "innate talent."
Bob Dylan's experience is also something that involved work, & "doing it," rather than being innate.

Certain things can be got by work; other things are innate propensities.

Innate gifts: intelligence, good ears, size, strength, good voice, dexterity, innate propensity for a skill...
Learned abilities: knowledge, depth of knowledge, experience, developed skills...


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Haydn67 said:


> Take a look at what this young fellow has to say>>>
> 
> https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/9-year-old-gifted-college-student_us_5c3cc04be4b0e0baf53fcef0


I got the gist of that, but didn't read the entirety of it. What was more important to me from that article was his teacher's lack of listening to him if he was able to back it up. We should be trained to question and think for ourselves.

As far as the label of Genius goes, I find it unnecessary. He has natural talents that have probably been fostered and nurtured by his parents. He is brilliant and knowledgeable about topics he is versed in.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

"Genius" according to the following dictionaries:

Cambridge:
"Very great and rare natural ability or skill, especially in a particular area such as science or art, or a person who has this."

Oxford:
"An exceptionally intelligent person or one with exceptional skill in a particular area of activity."

Merriam-Webster:
"A single strongly marked capacity or aptitude, extraordinary intellectual power especially as manifested in creative activity or a person endowed with extraordinary mental superiority."


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Someone who argues that there is no such thing as a genius is someone who is trying to find a good reason why they aren’t one.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

DaveM said:


> Someone who argues that there is no such thing as a genius is someone who is trying to find a good reason why they aren't one.


That may be a portion of my motivation, but more largely, the claim is coming from wanting my understanding of people to be more inclusive (go figure, I'm a Social Worker). Not that we can't reward hard work, we just don't need silly terms like Genius that are more mythological in their conception and offer very little in substance.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Not that we can't reward hard work, we just don't need silly terms like Genius that are more mythological in their conception and offer very little in substance.


What's so silly about the term genius? It just semantics: remove the word 'genius' and you will still have to come up with a word for a Beethoven, an Einstein and so on. Sorry, but you aren't going to be a Beethoven-level composer or Einstein-level scientist and you are likely not going to excel to the level of those in vocations because of gifts of extraordinary memory and intellect..no matter how hard you work or dedicate yourself.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

DaveM said:


> What's so silly about the term genius? It just semantics: remove the word 'genius' and you will still have to come up with a word for a Beethoven, an Einstein and so on. Sorry, but you aren't going to be a Beethoven-level composer or Einstein-level scientist and you are likely not going to excel to the level of those in vocations because of gifts of extraordinary memory and intellect..no matter how hard you work or dedicate yourself.


I don't think we need a term for them, they are simply high performing individuals that did brilliant work.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I don't think we need a term for them, they are simply high performing individuals that did brilliant work.


Face it, Captain, you're a LOSER! Not really...like me, you have innate genius which may emerge by the time you're 65.  :lol:


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I don't think we need a term for them, they are simply high performing individuals that did brilliant work.


Why does the use of a term that distinguishes those at the top of the heap when it comes to memory, intellect and earth-changing discoveries from the rest of us bother you so much? And no, the existence of these people, both past and present, is not a myth and without substance.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

DaveM said:


> Why does the use of a term that distinguishes those at the top of the heap when it comes to memory, intellect and earth-changing discoveries from the rest of us bother you so much? And no, the existence of these people, both past and present, is not a myth and without substance.


This is not presently the age in which Gods walk the Earth, but if Giambatista Vico was right, the time will come again. In the meantime, let's shame some celebrities.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

DaveM said:


> Why does the use of a term that distinguishes those at the top of the heap when it comes to memory, intellect and earth-changing discoveries from the rest of us bother you so much? And no, the existence of these people, both past and present, is not a myth and without substance.


Because as a society, we place great value in wanting our children to achieve such feats and be "geniuses". Further, since the term only includes Art and Science, it is exclusive and does not foster pride in all fields.

It places an unnecessary bias in terms of chosen field and sense of superiority which I find to only separate the human race.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Because as a society, we place great value in wanting our children to achieve such feats and be "geniuses". Further, since the term only includes Art and Science, it is exclusive and does not foster pride in all fields.
> 
> It places an unnecessary bias in terms of chosen field and sense of superiority which I find to only separate the human race.


That's something in your mind and for you to deal with. Responsible parents don't set being a genius as the unrealistic goal of their children. They counsel them to be the best they can be and as they move through the various school grades, they educate them on the important truism that they may come up against those who seem superiorly gifted and popular, but they shouldn't feel intimidated or 'less than': this is the way of our world. Self-esteem should not be dependent on what gifts one may or may not have, compared to others.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

DaveM said:


> That's something in your mind and for you to deal with. Responsible parents don't set being a genius as the unrealistic goal of their children. They counsel them to be the best they can be and as they move through the various school grades, they educate them on the important truism that they may come up against those who seem superiorly gifted and popular, but they shouldn't feel intimidated or 'less than': this is the way of our world. Self-esteem should not be dependent on what gifts one may or may not have compared to others.


I think we understand where the other is coming from so we can agree to disagree, sir! :tiphat:


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

KenOC said:


> "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." --Arthur Schopenhauer


The above quote seems very appropriate for Einstein. Not that I understand much of his theories, or physics and math in general, but when it was explained to me in a documentary how Einstein eventually came up with his (counterintuitive) ideas and theories, by performing relatively simple but ingenious thought experiments, I believe I had a glimpse of understanding and actually exclaimed in front of the television: "That man was a genius!"


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Easily:
> 
> - Craftsmanship
> - Light Refraction
> ...


1. Beyond doubt (in a well-cut diamond).
2. A matter of fact.
3. A matter of fact.
4. Subjective, and thus not subject to anything much other than opinions and eulogies.
5. A matter of facts.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

eugeneonagain said:


> 1. Beyond doubt (in a well-cut diamond).
> 2. A matter of fact.
> 3. A matter of fact.
> 4. Subjective, and thus not subject to anything much other than opinions and eulogies.
> 5. A matter of facts.


It matters not if it is objective or subjective criteria, they can be discussed and elaborated upon in various ways. For instance, shape can be discussed like clouds, what do you think it resembles in reality? etc.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

What I am trying to communicate to you is not that people can't talk about these things if they want to, but that discussion on this forum shows how difficult it is to talk about subjective matters.

I have now forgotten what all this has to do with 'genius'.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

eugeneonagain said:


> What I am trying to communicate to you is not that people can't talk about these things if they want to, but that discussion on this forum shows how difficult it is to talk about subjective matters.
> 
> I have now forgotten what all this has to do with 'genius'.


You stated that it's difficult to discuss subjective matters and further, asked how can a intellectual discussion be had on a diamond and I showed you.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> You stated that it's difficult to discuss subjective matters and further, asked how can a intellectual discussion be had on a diamond and I showed you.


I remember asking that, but I don't think it was demonstrated.

What has all this to do with genius or absence of it?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

eugeneonagain said:


> I remember asking that, but I don't think it was demonstrated.
> 
> What has all this to do with genius or absence of it?


So, you don't think you can discuss a diamond now? You sprung off my comment that brilliance is a subjective appraisal that we should only intellectually discuss saying that it's hard to do and further, asked about diamonds; we went with the side discussion.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

He's trolling you, Captain!


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

millionrainbows said:


> He's trolling you, Captain!


I'm not actually. Don't keep using that tiresome word old sport, it's not applicable.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> So, you don't think you can discuss a diamond now? You sprung off my comment that brilliance is a subjective appraisal that we should only intellectually discuss why we like and/or dislike something saying that it's hard to do and further, asked about diamonds; we went with the side discussion.


I didn't say that. You can discuss a diamond, but it would be some scientific facts about them - agreed upon stuff - and then a lot of subjective eulogies about how lovely they are.

That is a reflection of how many discussions of art go.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Notice how I used it as a verb. Don't worry, trolling is not an identity, it's just a behavior. He's just acting out an unconscious mechanism that he learned. "He" is not a troll.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

millionrainbows said:


> Notice how I used it as a verb. Don't worry, trolling is not an identity, it's just a behavior. He's just acting out an unconscious mechanism that he learned. "He" is not a troll.


Using it as a verb in reference to a person is a suggestion of your opinion of their behaviour...and 'how they are'.

You have a lot of ideas in your head. If only you would take the trouble to organise them and work on your language skills for expressing them, it might go a lot further.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

No, I really have faith in you, Eugene. Inside, there is a good person.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Outside too. It's possible to be both good and brutally honest.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

eugeneonagain said:


> I didn't say that. You can discuss a diamond, but it would be some scientific facts about them - agreed upon stuff - and then a lot of subjective eulogies about how lovely they are.
> 
> That is a reflection of how many discussions of art go.


Why couldn't you discuss what is agreed upon? Perhaps it could be an estimate of the "facts" such as, "how much do you _think_ it weights?"


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Why couldn't you discuss what is agreed upon? Perhaps it could be an estimate of the "facts" such as, "how much do you _think_ it weights?"


You can. I already said so. Would you want to do that beyond, say, fifteen minutes? I imagine in such a scenario it would already have been weighed and you can just pass on that information. Whereupon you say: 'That's marvellous!' and go for a cup of tea.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

eugeneonagain said:


> You can. I already said so. Would you want to do that beyond, say, fifteen minutes? I imagine in such a scenario it would already have been weighed and you can just pass on that information. Whereupon you say: 'That's marvellous!' and go for a cup of tea.


I never claimed length of discussion to be extended, simply that it can be had.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I never claimed length of discussion to be extended, simply that it can be had.


Perhaps it can. A bit like meeting someone on the bus and remarking: "Did you know that grass is green?"


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

eugeneonagain said:


> Perhaps it can. A bit like meeting someone on the bus and remarking: "Did you know that grass is green?"


It's not that obvious.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Think about it: "I really like how it curves right here, and in this particular light it really stands out. How do you think it would look at the podium on my wedding day? Will it be too extravagant? How do you think it compares to other diamonds you've seen? Do some look better in more types of light than others?" etc.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Think about it: "I really like how it curves right here, and in this particular light it really stands out. How do you think it would look at the podium on my wedding day? Will it be too extravagant? How do you think it compares to other diamonds you've seen? Do some look better in more types of light than others?" etc.


My dear fellow, I already said that if people want to have those discussions they can and will. All subjective discussions are personal opinions about 'feeling' and generally accepted by people who agree (for whatever reason). I'm not saying people don't or can't have these sorts of discussions - they make up the bulk of this site. Aesthetics, as Bertrand Russell once said, is largely 'learned rubbish'.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

eugeneonagain said:


> My dear fellow, I already said that if people want to have those discussions they can and will. All subjective discussions are personal opinions about 'feeling' and generally accepted by people who agree (for whatever reason). I'm not saying people don't or can't have these sorts of discussions - they make up the bulk of this site. Aesthetics, as Bertrand Russell once said, is largely 'learned rubbish'.


But you also think they are obvious, comparing them to saying grass is green. I'm trying to show you more detailed and interesting conversations can be had.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

I'm sure there can.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Genius has both objective and subjective standards just like everything else. :tiphat:


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Larkenfield said:


> Genius has both objective and subjective standards just like everything else. :tiphat:


For clarity (and because I'm too tired to go wading through a lot of previous posts), what are these standards?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I think genius is purely subjective in its origins, and is often ineffable. Genius is a shining forth of "being," and as such, is resistant to objective definition. This is a matter of the "soul" or "spirit."
When you are in its presence (like I was with Itzhak Perlman, James Galway, or Eric Johnson), your being senses it, and a spiritual portal is opened.
You can sense its power, and in best cases, you can feel love radiating from the person. Sometimes you might faint or get light-headed.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

millionrainbows said:


> I think genius is purely subjective in its origins, and is often ineffable. Genius is a shining forth of "being," and as such, is resistant to objective definition. This is a matter of the "soul" or "spirit."
> When you are in its presence (like I was with Itzhak Perlman, James Galway, or Eric Johnson), your being senses it, and a spiritual portal is opened.
> You can sense its power, and in best cases, you can feel love radiating from the person. Sometimes you might faint or get light-headed.


Not everyone resonates with Beethoven's 9th Symphony-->not everyone resonates with the same Art--->there is no objective meaning of "correct sensing" of "its" presence.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

One person may be completely unmoved by the presence of Einstein, you are bringing in a mystical notion with that statement of "sensing it."


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Not everyone resonates with Beethoven's 9th Symphony-->not everyone resonates with the same Art--->there is no objective meaning of "correct sensing" of "it's" presence.


Yes, a barroom full of drunks does not resonate even even when a fantastic musician is playing. The receptor must be clean and unobstructed, because it is an antenna. So in the end, it has nothing to do with objectivity on either end; the transmission of genius is totally subjective, in the final analysis. Even Jesus got crucified by those who could not comprehend.

To be human is to resonate with being, and this crosses all borders. But Human insanity is everywhere, the glass is clouded.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Captainnumber36 said:


> One person may be completely unmoved by the presence of Einstein, you are bringing in a mystical notion with that statement of "sensing it."


Some people are so lost and cut-off from the seat of being that genius could run over them like a Mack truck, and they'd never know what hit them.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

millionrainbows said:


> Some people are so lost and cut-off from the seat of being that genius could run over them like a Mack truck, and they'd never know what hit them.


But it provides evidence against your thought that Genius can simply be felt when you are in its presence.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

People can make up their own arbitrary subjective interpretation of genius all they want. But it’s the same five-part themes in the last movement of Mozart’s brilliant Jupiter Symphony—the notes that he put on the page that are invariable and objectively the same for everyone regardless of how they subjectively interpret them. Those who think it’s not a work of genius are entitled to their opinions, but it doesn’t cancel out those who do consider it a work of genius. The same with Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony. It’s objectively the same on the page for everyone regardless of how they subjectively interpret it or whether they like it or not as a matter of personal opinion. No one can move the notes on the page with their subjective opinions after Beethoven put them there and that’s part of its objective reality.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Larkenfield said:


> People can make up their own arbitrary subjective interpretation of genius all they want. But it's the same five-part fugue in the last movement of Mozart's Jupiter symphony-the notes that he put on the page that are invariable and objectively the same for everyone, regardless of how they subjectively interpret them. Those who think it's not a work of genius are entitled to their opinion, but it doesn't cancel out those who do consider it a work of genius. The same with Beethoven's fifth Symphony: it's objectively the same on the page for everyone regardless of how they subjectively interpret it or whether they like it or not as a matter of personal opinion. No one can move the notes on the page after Beethoven put them in there and that's part of objective reality.


Correct. So since it is so subjective and arbitrary, it becomes a really unimportant term. It would behoove us to discuss the reasons we enjoy something, which is what we are really saying when we call something genius, or dislike something. We get more detail that way, and a more thorough understanding of where the other person is coming from.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

For example: I do hold an opinion that Classical is superior to pop, however, subjectively, not objectively and that makes all the difference. I probably think it's superior b/c it speaks to me more, so I elevate it in my mind. It's tough not to do that, but you don't have to as long as you mind your manners in public about your tastes.

But, I could also provide reasons for my assertion which may be persuasive.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

The greatest musicians in the world discussing Mozart's genius. If that's troubling to his critics who consider him overrated or don't understand what the fuss is about, then so be it.






Bio 2:


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

And not only Mozart. There are a good few composers that even now, after decades of familiarity and familiarity with other (perhaps lesser) composers before and after, who every time I listen I just think "where did _that _come from?". The question matters to me because the "that" is so rewarding to me! With such cases I don't need a 9 page thread to help me recognise genius or even to philosophise it away. Is my judgment in such cases "subjective"? Aside from being really tired of the distinction subjectivebjective (I mean, who cares?), when I see myself aligned with the mass of informed opinion (often over centuries) I tend to think of my perception as factual, just as I do when I see a red house and everyone else around who is not colour blind sees the same thing. Genius exists and we on this thread spend a lot of our time in its presence!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Captainnumber36 said:


> But it provides evidence against your thought that Genius can simply be felt when you are in its presence.


Only if you are aware do you sense genius. This means having the right "psychic antenna" of being, both on the "genius" side, as well as the "receiving" side.

Genius also works in other ways. It's not always an individual thing. Sometimes a group of musicians can have a "collective genius" which works for them.

Genius is also a matter of degree, and in its lesser forms is not always recognized as such. Also, sometimes only select people can sense a particular form of genius, if it is lower-level or very specialized. Sometimes genius is short-term, and very specific.

For example, a certain combination of "beings" will tune in to the genius matrix, such as Cream, consisting of Eric Clapton, Ginger Baker, and Jack Bruce. This particular combination of beings will produce "genius" effects for those who are tuned-in to their frequency, but maybe only for a limited time of 3 years or so.

The genius matrix is like waves, of certain very, very high frequencies. When the right antenna is present, the waves are like the carrier-wave used in making holograms, and turn a normal 2-dimensional image into a 3-D hologram. This higher frequency is the universal vibration of being; some call it God.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

So, Captain, would you be okay with saying that Mozart and Einstein were persons with very great and rare natural abilities, Mozart in music and Einstein in physics — that they had strongly marked capacities or aptitudes manifested in extraordinary creative activity?


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

DaveM said:


> You would be wrong my friend.


The OP is correct. Genius, as we think of it, is largely concentrated repetition that increases the myelin sheath which as we all know is responsible for speeding up impulses which, in manifestation, we then perceive as genius.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

EdwardBast said:


> So, Captain, would you be okay with saying that Mozart and Einstein were persons with very great and rare natural abilities, Mozart in music and Einstein in physics - that they had strongly marked capacities or aptitudes manifested in extraordinary creative activity?


I agree with the gist of what you stated. The part I'm not sure about is "natural." Also, claiming Mozart is great is subjective, since Art is subjective, however, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't there tend to be trains of thought that various Physicists/Scientists follow? Perhaps not all are as influenced by Einstein's thoughts as others?

I know there is subjectivity within science as well, especially in my line of science of mental health which is a soft science.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

edited and deleted.................


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

EdwardBast said:


> So, Captain, would you be okay with saying that Mozart and Einstein were persons with very great and rare natural abilities, Mozart in music and Einstein in physics - that they had strongly marked capacities or aptitudes manifested in extraordinary creative activity?


I also wouldn't hesitate to give the same praise to anyone else in any other profession performing at high levels.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I also wouldn't hesitate to give the same praise to anyone else in any other profession performing at high levels.


Good. If only there were a single word for that kind of thing so we wouldn't have to use long phrases to describe truly exceptional creative minds like Mozart and Einstein and others performing at high levels. Were I such a high-performing individual, for example, one with an extraordinary verbal facility and creativity in using it, I would put my truly exceptional intelligence and abilities to work coining such a term, because it sure would be convenient.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

EdwardBast said:


> Good. If only there were a single word for that kind of thing so we wouldn't have to use long phrases to describe truly exceptional creative minds like Mozart and Einstein and others performing at high levels. Were I such a high-performing individual, for example, one with an extraordinary verbal facility and creativity in using it, I would put my truly exceptional intelligence and abilities to work coining such a term, because it sure would be convenient.


The way the word is conceived of and utilized in society does more harm than good imo. It is also limited to Arts and Sciences, which I disagree with. Also, I'd rather talk about a person's achievements and what they mean for society rather than give a title of genius, it's more meaningful.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

eljr said:


> The OP is correct. Genius, as we think of it, is largely concentrated repetition that increases the myelin sheath which as we all know is responsible for speeding up impulses which, in manifestation, we then perceive as genius.


The OP says, 'genius is a myth and that there is just passion and hard work'. A lot of people have had passion and hard work from an early age and are not geniuses. And at the other end of the spectrum, if the OP and your premise are the simple answers to this question then the simple solution for intellectually underperforming kids in early grades would be to instruct them to have more passion and perform more reps to increase their myelin sheaths.

On the other hand, maybe, just as individuals are often born with physical characteristics that allow them to outperform others, individuals are born with better myelin sheaths, more potentially widely connected neurons and more efficient synapses.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> It is also limited to Arts and Sciences, which I disagree with.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

What about evil genius?


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

millionrainbows said:


> What about evil genius?


They had one of those in Germany during the War. It didn't work out too well but he did seem to have a genius for self-destruction and lowering the property values in Europe. The objective side of his destructive genius can be measured starting in Deutsch Marks.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I also wouldn't hesitate to give the same praise to anyone else in any other profession performing at high levels.


Like a really good street sweeper?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

eugeneonagain said:


> Like a really good street sweeper?


It takes skills and knowledge to do the job.


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> It takes skills and knowledge to do the job.


If all it took was skill and knowledge to become a genius one would think we'd see a lot more liberal application of the term.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> It takes skills and knowledge to do the job.


Skills and knowledge will bring out whatever genius you have. It's not enough to be a genius. It has to be developed through diligent effort and hard work. If one loves something, it doesn't matter whether one is a genius or not; you find out how good you can be, and sometimes that's enough.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> It takes skills and knowledge to do the job.


It certainly does. And often such a person is performing a grand job. Not that it's widely recognised as such. Folk are too busy looking for the geniuses.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

eljr said:


> The OP is correct. Genius, as we think of it, is largely concentrated repetition that increases the myelin sheath which as we all know is responsible for speeding up impulses which, in manifestation, we then perceive as genius.


There is a huge gap to jump from the physiological phenomenon to the complex behaviour, here. And, even if that whole journey between the two had been demonstrated, what would it mean? That something we call genius looks like this at the physiological level. Hardly very meaningful in itself.

But you are also postulating that genius can be created by "concentrated repetition" (of what?) - which is something that I think we know is untrue.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba (Oct 15, 2018)

When genius desires to be mythological then genius is a myth . I cannot imagine this sort of genius to know joyful epiphany . Oh , pity the poor evil genius .


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

The oracle has spoken.


----------

