Thursday, April 13, 2006

In Search of Genius?

What a strange and bewildering literature has grown up around the term genius — defining it, analysing it, categorizing it and rationalizing it. Critics have contrasted it with such qualities as (mere) talent, intellect, imagination, originality, industriousness, sweep of mind and elegance of style; or have shown how genius is composed of these in various combinations. Psychologists and philosophers, musicologists and art critics, historians of science and scientists themselves have all stepped into this quagmire, a capacious one. Their several centuries of labour have produced no consensus on any of the necessary questions. Is there such a quality? If so, where does it come from? When otherwise sober scientists speak of the genius as magician, wizard, or superhuman, are they merely indulging in a flight of literary fantasy? And a question that has barely been asked: Why, as the pool of available humans has risen from 100 million to 6 billion, has the production of geniuses—Shakespeares, Newtons, Mozarts, Einsteins—seemingly choked off to nothing, genius itself coming to seem like the property of the past?
Is it only nostalgia that makes genius seem to belong to the past? Giants did walk the earth—Shakespeare, Newton, Mozart, Da Vinci—and in their shadows the poets, scientists, artists and musicians of today crouch like pygmies. No one will ever create a Macbeth or a Mona Lisa, it seems. Yet the raw materials of genius, whatever combination of native talent and cultural opportunity that might be, can scarcely have disappeared. On a planet of six billion people, parcels of genes with Einsteinian potential must appear from time to time, and presumably more than ever before. Some of those parcels must be as well nurtured as Einstein’s, in a world richer and better educated than ever before. Are the latter-day Mozarts not being born, or are they all around, bumping shoulders with one another, scrabbling for cultural scrabs, struggling to be newer than the new, their stature inevitably shrinking all the while. “Giants have not ceded to mere mortals”, the evolutionary theorist Stephen Jay Gould wrote in an iconoclastic essay. “Rather, the boundaries…have been restricted and the edges smoothed.”
Geniuses change history. That is part of their mythology, and it is the final test, presumably more reliable than the trail of anecdotes and peer admiration that brilliant scientists leave behind. The power of genius may lie in the ability of one person to accomplish what otherwise may have taken dozens. Or perhaps it lies—especially in this exploding, multifarious, information rich age—in one person’s ability to see his science whole, to assemble, as Newton did, a vast unifying tapestry of knowledge. ‘Genius’ is a word often, if not mostly, misused or misinterpreted. This is perhaps testimony to the fact that the true nature of ‘genius’ remains as elusive as ever.

25 Comments:

Blogger Subhrajyoti Mukhopadhyay said...

wonderful post !!

Sat Apr 15, 12:07:00 PM 2006  
Blogger Bone said...

this is one of the most interesting article posts i've read ever... a lot of thoughts bubbled into the head as i was reading... they're jostling against each other madly right now... i'll organize them in proper language and come and write a meaningful comment.

Sat Apr 15, 07:32:00 PM 2006  
Blogger erebus said...

what's with the heavy essays all of a sudden?

Sun Apr 16, 08:03:00 AM 2006  
Blogger The Absolutist said...

bored probably...

Mon Apr 17, 12:46:00 PM 2006  
Blogger Aruni Bhattacharya said...

Its would seem irrational to believe that the genius has evaporated into thin air...shakespear's litreture belonged to his age...tolkien's belonged to his...i am not comparing them. the arts have consistently evolved..and so has science.but i have one question, while u concentrate on scientists and artists (Shakespeares, Newtons, Mozarts, Einsteins), why do u choose to ignore industrialists...

Fri Apr 21, 10:42:00 AM 2006  
Blogger The Absolutist said...

I have no patience for industrialists and their kin. I believe their 'genius', if i choose to call it so, is 'inferior' to the genius of the creative artists (which, by the way, includes scientists). I'm sure we can have a good debate on this issue...

Sat Apr 22, 12:19:00 AM 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

never really heard a industrialist being called a genius ..
Ambani the genius ..or Tata the genius sounds awefully bad :(

Sat Apr 22, 05:59:00 PM 2006  
Blogger Aruni Bhattacharya said...

i am not measuring the genius of industrialists or comparing them to that of artists and scientists. infact it is science that gives birth to industries. but are u really telling me that building a whole empire and then running it doesnot take genius......
ps. images - great pic.

Sun Apr 23, 11:32:00 AM 2006  
Blogger Loony Libberswick of Llapland said...

I have to agree with Aruni on both counts here. About Genius evolving with age and also about industrialists. For every Einstein there's a Bill Gates...who also happens to be one of the most successful industrialists in the world...actually all this is very relative. What is genius to you, maybe something else to others. And like you said...the true nature of genius remains elusive as ever.

Sun Apr 23, 11:51:00 AM 2006  
Blogger Bone said...

well, this is what i had to say. there's some saying like a genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration. while the "inspiration" part is gifted, what do we consider "perspiration" - merely working at polishing their talent? most definitely not, i say. if we make a comparative analysis, many works considered "genius" in the past would be a quite ordinary achievement now (i said "many," not "all," so nobody stupidly take up that point for argument). wordsworth's "daffodils," as long as i didn't know the antique value of it, used to amaze me to shit. any introspective 12-yea-old can write a poem like that. we're studying chaucer at school now, and once again, while the author has done massive referential work, the story itself is bullcrap. this is more evident in science in fact. newton became a genius for explaining why an apple falls. a modern-day scientist will probably become a genius if he can explain why the universe does not. the more the achievements keep piling, the harder you've to work to get to the top.

plus, the "perspiration" bit has also always had to do about being in the right place at the right time, and doing the right work. while we had one shakespeare from the english renaissance, 10 more were probably lost because of death in infancy, never being educated, never knowing the right people and/or places, or simply not having the courage to follow an uncharted destiny. talents today don't have to worry about most of that. most of us get food and basic education, we can go to the bookshop and buy "how to be a published writer," if we're lacking on the public skills side we can hire a manager, and society itself encourages us to explore new avenues. which gives us too many equally talented people standing on equal grounds. i do believe we have many shakespeares on this planet right now, but to be a 21st century genius, they have to be more than just a shakespeare, and probably that is where they fall short.

which brings my question - is there a limit to human achievement, in each sphere? and if there is, have we already reached close to it in the traditional spheres?

["traditional" spheres as in spheres that have existed for ages. our age is experiencing genii in industrialism - who are genii in their own spheres i believe - simply because this sphere hasn't existed for long, there is still space for huge leaps. but in cases like, say 100 metres sprint, the record for the fastest man is 9.77 seconds - and doesn't it make you wonder if it's even possible to be a genius in that sphere any more? hasn't it really reached its zenith?]

Tue Apr 25, 02:20:00 AM 2006  
Blogger Bone said...

oh-kay. i wouldn't mind if you inform the guiness book authorities for the longest comment on blogger. but i can't help, had to say all that. each word of it.

Tue Apr 25, 02:22:00 AM 2006  
Blogger Loony Libberswick of Llapland said...

Paddy : it's not fair to compare a Bill Gates with a Mozart. You can however compare say an A.R. Rehman (don't kill me) to a Mozart or an Einstein to a John Nash. If you feel music requires a greater capacity of genius, it's your perspective entirely and may not always be true. But then again, what do we mean by "genius" here anyway? Maybe TBC's comment will help!

Wed Apr 26, 01:29:00 PM 2006  
Blogger Apoplexy said...

why i the reso so morbid but for this post? spoted u frm blogmap

Wed Apr 26, 04:40:00 PM 2006  
Blogger Bone said...

@ paddy: don't sweat it, i'm a little more mature than to take that personally. it's a pleasure to have my ideas challenged and subsequently reshaped - i'm a child, i don't consider my beliefs to be absolute. i don't have the immense range of cultural experience you have either. what i do believe, though, is that i have a reasonable mind and am not too bigoted about my convictions, so if you think your professor can make me see change my point of view (through pure logic, mind you, i-am-mesmerized-by-this-person-therefore-there-can-be-none-like-him types has no chance of working, and might bring disastrous outcomes), you're welcome to bring him on. and i'm not exactly impressed by big college names and big degrees - more often than not people acquire them out of good calculativeness rather than pure talent - but the mark of a great teacher is the convince the mediocre student (and extraordinary i may not be, but too dull i am not). i'm willing to give your friend that chance.

fair enough?

Tue May 02, 08:42:00 AM 2006  
Blogger Aruni Bhattacharya said...

christ! paddy will u let it go....ofcourse there are no shakespears today...or for that matter einstien or feynman or mozart..for u genius is mozart or beethoven....for someone else it is richard feynman, einstien and nash, for the kid who is playing cricket in the lane next to ur house it sachin tendulkar, for the guy playing football in the lane next to my house its ronaldino, for someone else its steve jobbs? peter jackson/satyajit ray /tolkien/roger waters. but i am not saying tolkien is shakespear or roger waters is beethoven....and the kid is not saying tendulkar is mozart.

Tue May 02, 12:20:00 PM 2006  
Blogger Bone said...

@ paddy: so be it, then. you have a word to keep.

@ aruni: onno'der blog porbi, comment korbi, but nijer blog update korbi na? korbi na kichhu'tei? bhalo.

and it was very sweet of you to try to resist paddy, though i believe that was unnecessary. we "intellectuals" do not try to poison our foods. we try to poison our brains sometimes, but for those that can take it, it tastes good. it makes them a better person. and i do believe both of us are made of that can-take-it clay.

Tue May 02, 08:25:00 PM 2006  
Blogger Bone said...

don't exactly consider comments sections of blogs the best place for swapping numbers. the fastest way of acquisition might be getting hold of gairik or ashwini. the email would be child(dot)without(dot)god.gmail.com.

Tue May 02, 11:40:00 PM 2006  
Blogger The Absolutist said...

very interesting sequence of events (read comments)... hmm...must continue along these lines i guess...

Wed May 03, 02:19:00 AM 2006  
Blogger Aruni Bhattacharya said...

i belong to both categories. neutral and lukewarm......i mean really wat chances do u think i would have to make history.ofcourse the statement of a man who massacred millions is worth living upto.
@tbc : i am lazy.

Wed May 03, 12:23:00 PM 2006  
Blogger Bone said...

aruni: never underestimate your capabilities baby, disillusionment always tastes better than the regret of never having tried. and yes i would say it does matter who said it, but here is a person who did make history - for better or for worse - so i believe paddy chose his quote well. very, very selfishly thinking, wouldn't you rather be a hitler than a nobody?

however, myself i'm never neutral but i usually laugh and get distracted in the middle of an argument, and i'm simmering and ice-cold, alternatively, unpredictably - so i know my own chances only too well, which gives you every right to look-who's-talking me. that does nothing to change the truth of the theory, however.

Thu May 04, 02:29:00 PM 2006  
Blogger a-list said...

jesus..what a bunch of pseudo-intellectual wannabes!..lol..i just read all the comments here..and i can't help but laugh at this bullshit....

Fri May 05, 09:25:00 PM 2006  
Blogger a-list said...

and just for the record..mandy ur last comment was unbelievably stupid... i would rather be a nobody than a hitler anyday!

Fri May 05, 09:27:00 PM 2006  
Blogger The Absolutist said...

u read all the comments! u never cease to amaze me!!!
oh btw, i wud rather be a holocaust-monger than a nobody anyday... but thats beside the point, the main object of all these deliberations was lost somewhere along the way...that's sad...

Fri May 05, 11:15:00 PM 2006  
Blogger a-list said...

lol..."holocaust monger"...it's funny how ppl take the word "holocaust" so lightly..shit...it would be scary if it weren't moronic...

Fri May 05, 11:31:00 PM 2006  
Blogger Bone said...

ossini: you read through all that just to be able to call me stupid? really, sweetie, aren't you trying a bit too hard? and about taking the holocaust lightly - i have a very different opinion on that - but it'll probably be too heavy for your cranial capacities, so i'll live and let live.

gairik: so would i, in fact. well, as a matter of expression. and am sorry about triggering the driftaway. it happens so that whenever i step in, things decide to change courses and go wherever they're not supposed to. even when i'm not really trying. whattodo *tragic sigh* my accursed fate!

Sat May 06, 01:55:00 AM 2006  

Post a Comment

<< Home