Defining Genius....

This was a written form of an internal Dialog i had to dissect my TOK presentation topic. It's quite lengthy... so bear with me.

What defines Genius?
Dran: Genius’s are smart…
Yam: Well… let’s back up, who would we classify as genius?
D: Albert Einstein--the man came up with the theory of relativity. E=mc^2.
Y: So, he was great because of those things?
D: Well, they proved he was an exceptional theoretical physicist.
Y: What about the other physicists in the world? Why aren’t they geniuses?
D: …What did they do?
Y: What do you mean? They are defined to be something worth reading based on what they did?
D: Albert Einstein was.
Y: By your definition, a historian can never be a genius.
D: … Can historians be considered great? What does a historian have to do to be considered ‘great’?
Y: Lord Acton, a historian born in 1834, set out to compose a ‘History of Liberty’. He never did. However he did manage to collect a magnificent library of the history of Liberty.
D: Ah, so then, he created something!
Y: Did he? All he did was put things together, much like our friend Albert Einstein.
D: Ah… well, what about artists? How can they be considered great? Why do people still listen to the Beatles and Chopin? How can people stand to stare at Rembrandt? What makes interpretive dancing worth interpreting?
Y: Well music is probably the easiest to examine. When we listen to music, especially music we listen to over and over again, we are searching for something, right?
D: Well, I don’t know… what do you mean?
Y: Name one of your favorite songs that is popular, or just your favorite.
D: I do enjoy the song “So in this hour” by the Rocket Summer…
Y: Well, why is it your favorite?
D: It speaks to me. It is relatable. It lets me know that my struggles that I was facing at the time weren’t so… inexpressible.
Y: That’s why the rocket summer has the fan base it does. The lead singer--Bryce Avery--reaches out and teaches people in a way that has them temporarily set free from their own issues. Some of his songs celebrate human strength, they appeal to teenagers… but does that make him go down in history as a genius? Along with Mozart, Chopin, the Beatles, Michael Jackson, and Jimi Hendrix?
D: No. Not even close.
Y: Why not?
D: His fan base isn’t large enough.
Y: During Mozart’s time, one commentator stated that his music had “too many notes.” Fan Base may not necessarily determine greatness.
D: I see… well, Jimi Hendix reinvented the guitar. He played it beautifully and without question in a matter that no one had played before.
Y: The key words are “no one” and “before.”
D: Oh?…Oh…
Y: Greatness and Genius may not be subject to fan base, which is based purely on emotion, but on the revolutionary aspects of what was thought before. Jimi Hendrix opened new doors with his playing than ever before. Rembrandt and Vermeer captured an essence of life with paint and brush, allowing people to see with new life and did so in a method that could almost never be replicated. Examine the theory behind anyone of Mozart’s Violin Concertos or Bach’s Partitas, and you see why these names are held in such high regard.
D: That makes sense… But what about the human science? How can someone be a genius at something that simply is?
Y: hmmm… Well, Hitler is the obvious choice for a genius [whether he is diabolical or not is up to you.]
D: K…. he was a politician that somehow managed to get an entire race to believe that it was better than every other race on the planet.
Y: The genius in this instance was his ability to mold the human psyche of an entire race.
D: Alright-- That’s one notable person. But how can their be multiple people in this field? How many people can be considered great for explaining things about people?
Y: It depends on who is explaining what and how they do so. Nietzsche’s “Good and Evil Reconsidered” took people and separated them into three different categories--those with slave morality, those with master morality, and those in between. He describes both slaves ad masters being principled with the only difference being what the morals were and who they benefited. He places both moralities higher than those who are in-between. The “in-betweeners” struggle with both moralities, and face the most turmoil as such. Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism is a great extension of this same doctrine.
D: And these people are great… how? How did they put these things together?
Y: The ways of knowing are Language, Perception, Emotion, and Reason. Hitler used Rhetoric to redefine a race. The Words he used in his speech carried a connotation and a message appealing to the audience--the Aryan’s. His view of people subsequently created six years of an attempted genocide. He changed their reasoning, manipulated their emotions and perception, and even unleashed the power of language--body, political, spoken, what have you.
D: Oh? So one has to utilize all those ways of knowing?
Y: Not necessarily.. Although Hitler did take full advantage of his ability to manipulate the ways of knowing, scholars may receive considerable merit.
D: Oh…like who?
Y: Lois Lowry wrote a book on the possibility of a sort of Utopia existing. She manipulated perception by using ambiguous language to describe reality and potent language to describe the memories given to the main character, Jonas. Her mastery in language and perception to influence the emotions and reason of the reader earned her the Newberry Award. The book was titled “The Giver.”
D: So it seemed like she utilized all the ways of knowing to create her story… where is the partiality?
Y: Her story, though entertaining and reflective, cannot be called genius. In the literary world, the works of honor are often with a more prestigious award, or are canonized based on the themes they handle. While her work is noteworthy of achievement, what has she done? Has she changed the way people think? Has she done anything to allude to an aspect of reality?
D: Okay… so she didn’t create anything that society to benefit from?
Y: No. However, Nobel-Prize winner Miguel Angel Asturias compiled a romance between an Assassin and the daughter of an enemy of the state in a totalitarian society. His mastery of western literature and the structure of Government and the a society underneath a Totalitarian Rule. The entire could learned from the state of the people in the book. Asturias delved into and unexplored perception of the oppressed subjects of people who went insane, fought insanity, and blurred the lines between reality and the terrors of the mind. Reason became redefined as the effects of a government where everyone was living in fear of the “President.” Emotion and Intuition become the driving source of knowledge for several characters, which either saves them or is their undoing. Angel Asturias goes much more in depth in the ways of knowing, and presents a topic that is delivered so it gives an emotional account of dictator governments.
D: Ah…so… we have the geniuses in the arts, history, sciences, natural sciences, and human sciences defined, but what about Mathematics?
Y: Mathematics centers less around emotion and more around perception and reason. Mathematics is known as the universal language, so the emphasis of genius relies on logic and coloring or perception and reason. Issac Newton--
D: The Physicist--
Y: Invented Calculus, ironically, in order to prove his own theories. Calculus was a pioneering venture, explaining not only how one can accurately examine past occurrences in nature, but also to predict future occurrences in sciences\, human statistics, and such. Genius are given a new name-- Pioneers.
D: What do you mean by that statement?
Y: Let’s review 1st what we can about Geniuses.
D: Alright. We know that Geniuses do not create--they merely identify new ways of processing the world and its phenomenon.
Y: Is that all they do? Let’s not forget Jarvick, the creator of the artificial heart. He is, without a doubt, a medical genius.
D: Was he? I suppose that would merit the work of a genius… the geniuses must simply contribute to society, in a way, that has not been done before. This contribution must also not only be unique but ‘beneficial’ to society.
Y: Hitler--
D: Used rhetoric to distort what would usually be reprehensible into something society would deem to be beneficial. So society must be able to approve of its worth as a contribution.
Y: Alright what else?
D: In order society to approve of the contribution, and thus, recognize the individual as a genius, they must be tutored, either by the individual themselves, or by other individuals capable of deconstructing the methodology of the individual to the masses. Society must understand that which is unknown as it is known by the genius to be.
Y: Correct, anything else?
D: Remember Josef Mengele? The doctor who compiled research on the human eye and made advances in medicine? He was supported by a different genius.
Y: Hitler… what’s your point?
D: Geniuses are often seen as pioneers. They head out to the unknown and, in turn, pave the way for other, different geniuses. Think of all the sociologists and rhetoricians who stud Hitler’s means of controlling the population of Germany. Imagine the world without the Human Genome Project, because of Darw--
Y: Ah yes, Darwin. He was the victim of many persecutions from hi community because of his work.
D: Yes but those who weren’t supportive of his work simply weren’t the right society, which brings me to my next bullet--all these efforts cannot be realized to the wrong society or audience.
Y: That’s believable-- Hitler’s message would not have, and didn’t, fly with the “inferiors” because they were not capable, nor willing, to hear his message.