How to spot a genius

Based on Huxley, Nietzsche, Kant, Weininger and my observations of life.

The genius dictates (not by choice) the atmosphere of every room he enters.

Every social interaction, every group setting, is dictated by his mood.

Even the most ignorant fool can tell when the genius is not pleased with the spirit, content or tone of a conversation.

The most insensitive man will become sensitive, when spending enough time with a genius.

The genius is a horrible actor. He cannot simply change his costume, as the genius never wears a costume. Genius is always naked. Naked truth!

When the genius cannot be himself, it will create great discomfort to him and everyone around him.

Being a Genius is like being the only sober person in a room full of drunk people.

That's why the genius can remember everything he has ever experienced. You all would, if you weren't drunk all the time.
The genius can feel a revolutionary idea, cooking inside him, long before he can define the specific idea.

If he is unable to define that idea, or if he is simply following the wrong path, it will eventually lead to insanity.

When the genius follows the wrong path, it is usually due to thinking too small.

He is circumcising himself by adapting his own ambition to the ambition of very talented (but not genius) people.

He who is supposed to create a new religion might waste his time trying to make a hit song.
Yes, genius is universal and can (in theory) be applied to everything. But circumstances still play a role.

Beethovens Genius came out best through his music due to his exceptional ear.

He found a tool in music to express the universal truth, which he carried inside him.

Once the truth is expressed it will be accepted forever.

You don't have to be a fan of classical music to understand that the combination of notes in a Beethoven song is aesthetically pleasing. And it always will be.

It was beautiful even before he wrote it. It was a universal truth that just had not been expressed yet.
For Picasso it came natural to apply his genius to painting as he was taught the craft, from a young age, by his father.

Getting trained by his father is not what made him a genius, but it gave him the tools to release his genius on a high level.

If it wasn't for that, Picasso might have never expressed his genius. He still would have been a genius though. He still would have had that universal understanding of everything.

He still would have had that sensitivity which made him experience the world so much more intense than you ever will.

He still would have had, like every genius does, the exceptional ability to remember everything he has ever experienced.
When the genius lacks the tools or training to effectively apply his genius in visual arts or music, he is best adviced to use his genius in philosophy or any other

form of conceptional work. Just keep inventing. Keep revolutionizing.

Every true revolution is a good revolution. As only a genius can bring true revolution. And genius is always good.

Here is how to find out if you have genius potential:


1. You should have a continuatng memory of experience. This means you can remember everything you have ever experienced from child hood age (Around age 10-15. After that you should remember everything).

However, you do not have to remember everything you have ever LEARNED. Only what you have EXPERIENCED. In other words you don't have to remember the poem you had to learn in high school.

But if I ask you "hey, remember that restaurant we went to 20 years ago?", you should remember the restaurant and everyone who was there with you that day.

This is because the genius experiences the world more intense than the average person. He sees more meaning (often subconciously) in little things.


2. You should have the ability to see through, and being able to relate to, a much wider range of people than the average person does.

The average person can only see through people who have the same job, grew up in the same enviroment, have the same hobbies. When a genius meets a simple person like that, he can see through them

in a matter of minutes. The perfect genius carries all people inside him and understands them. Therefore his genius work (in art, music, poetry, philosophy) is universally accepted.

As he expresses a universal truth.


"Experience is not what happens to you; it's what you do with what happens to you."

Aldous Huxley
3. You should strive in solitude. "The more powerful and original a mind, the more it will incline towards the religion of solitude."

Again Huxley


4.The meaning of life is the strive to become a genius and therefore eternal.

Regarding Kanye.

I believe he carries a big fat genius inside him. However none of his work (so far) has been genius. He is too emotional unstable, too immoral.

Also fashion (one of the areas where he wants to apply his genius) is seasonable by definition while genius is eternal/timeless by (my) defiition.

It is interesting to note that Kanye sometimes acts very childish and he has mentioned in the past that he feels like getting younger the more he creates.

Goethe referred to this as the second puberty of the genius.

Have you sincerely considered suicide?

no

Why would a genius marry a whore?

Game, set and match, friend.

>He is too emotionally unstable, too immoral

a genius doesn't comprehend love

According to this, I'm a genius. And I know that I am not a genius. I'm a wallflower, at best.
You described a savant, or an autist. Genius is what is seen by others, but no man or woman is born a genius. It's simply their way of thinking and how they apply it that appeals to those around them to consider them as such.

Anyone has the potential for genius.

what about those in an irreversible coma

This. It's a spook.

Einstein in a vacuum is just a guy with wacky hair.

I always find interesting the fact that these threada never consider the historical/philosophical definition of genius and just devolve into baseless assertions - not that the established definition is better, but at least there's a weltanschaaung to back it up.

there isn't really an established definition. most philosophers disagree on quite fundamental things when it comes to defining genius

Then prove their genius.

eh?

>involved in STEM

A genius would be smart enough not to waste his gifts on anything besides the advancement of mankind.

>You described a savant, or an autist. Genius is what is seen by others, but no man or woman is born a genius.

Yes, you are not born a genius. As I mentioned above, most discover their genius around age 10-15. And by "discover their genius" I mean the fundaments of a genius (memory etc) start to show.

>It's simply their way of thinking and how they apply it that appeals to those around them to consider them as such.

Genius is universal/eternal truth. There is no way to debate that the combination of notes in a Beethoven song are aesthetically pleasing. If there was one wrong note in their, that doesnt fit, even a person who gives no fucks about music would notice it and consider it wrong.
Show a Beethoven Song to to someone 500 years from now and no matter where he is from, he will accept that this is right (beautiful).
I'm not talking about art.I'm talking about EVERYTHING. The genius can be universally applied to anything.

>anyone has the potential for a genius

yes, this is true. What I mentioned above is just the common basis of all geniuses.

So... this is gay as fuck.

I have read everything that was written about genius in philosophy of the last 300 years and came to my own conclusion. Most fundamental for my view were Otto Weininger and Huxley.

According to this I'm a genius. Ballin'

Let me guess, you neglected the aforementioned 'potential' and substituted your own interpretation of what was said?

I'm implying those in an irreversible coma haven't the potential for genius which negates your last sentence. Dunno what you're on about tb h

But there's a common theme, at least in Kant, Schelling and Hegel - eventually dying off after Kandinskij

>anyone has the potential for a genius

yes, and the meaning of life is the strive to become a genius and therefore eternal.

This is how you beat the futility of life.
By becomeing eternal despite the infinite nature of life on earth.

>Huxley
>genius

Sentimentalist piddle.

If Huxlex was a genius, why did he write so much garbage?

You mean the finite nature of life, yes?

yes, english i not my first langauge. sry. to the person above. I never said Huxley is a genius. Just that his take on the matter was interesting to me.

>beethoven
>kanye west
what a fucking pleb

So 'discover' was the complete wrong word. 'Showing symptoms' is more what you meant.

Also, your analogy is bad because it uses notes as its center piece. The instruments create the notes, not the person. In the terms of your analogy, genius is lying in wait within the universe waiting for someone to uncover it.
Finding genuis=/=being genuis

Potential. Look it up. Just because it can't be expressed, does not mean it isn't there.

Eternity only lasts as long as it can be interpreted.

I think you need to look it up, bud

yeh exactly, for example, a slice of bread has potential to be the greatest genius of all time it just hasn't been subjected to right external circumstances/technology to make it a reality

Rap? More like crap. Listen to classical music.

So buy this logic, everything and anything can be considered a potentiality. What an entirely pointless thing to state then.

Classical? More like jurassical. Listen to the wind.

Nah just anything and everything has unbound potential. Definitely a better definition

>anyone
>bread

Literally the dumbest thing I've read on this board.

the technology could turn the slice of bread into a person you dumb cunt. That's what potential is all about, it exists but sometimes can't be unlocked.

> You should have a continuatng memory of experience. This means you can remember everything you have ever experienced from child hood age (Around age 10-15. After that you should remember everything).

i'm out

>anythign can happen!!

An argument completely without function.

No, I'm trying to figure out your logic, but vagueness is the weapon of the unendowed.
So, I'm assuming you're using omnipotent logic and saying that it is known that this person was born and will die in a coma. To which the entire argument wouldn't apply since anyone- a person- would take consciousness into consideration. And being born and dying unconsciously would mean they existed, but weren't a person. And as such, wouldn't apply to my arguement.

i know, surely you can detect irony, i feel i made it pretty obvious by using the bread

>I was only pretending to be a retard aha

>4.The meaning of life is the strive to become a genius and therefore eternal.

But you make it seem as if you're either a genius or not. How can you strivd to become one?

It's a paradox: you can't.

>And being born and dying unconsciously would mean they existed, but weren't a person.

ummm....

Also, I didn't say they were born and die in a coma but there are gradations where this idea that everyone has potential becomes ridiculous. If a guy gets massive brain damage to the point that he can not function without seemingly impossible changes to his brain then you can only say he has potential for genius if you grant the possibility of near impossible advances in brain repairing tech/procedure.

Take something less severe like OCD, if they have OCD and there is seemingly no way to change it (and it is a big impediment to this vague notion of 'genius) except wild ideas which only exist in the imagination like unforseeable and unexpected advances in medicine then sure you can say there is potential for genius it's just extremely unlikely.

Go to the extreme and you can say it about the slice of bread like in the above example.

If everyone has potential for genius it's just locked away and you have to grant circumstances which are impossible except in Sci-fi for the genius to come about which you clearly do if you say ALL people have potential for genius then I think it's a ridiculous definition, which, if you're going by, then sincerely does grant the possibility of a slice of bread becoming a human genius by some magical wonder.

>Nah just anything and everything has unbound potential. Definitely a better definition
>A piece of bread has sincere potential to become a genius

Yeh, sorry, this is not on me for not making the irony obvious, how dense are you?

Less dense, more gullible.

>then you can only say he has potential for genius if you grant the possibility of near impossible advances in brain repairing tech/procedure.

>wild ideas which only exist in the imagination like unforseeable and unexpected advances in medicine then sure you can say there is potential for genius it's just extremely unlikely.

Welcome to philosophy. You have to accept anything within the realms of possibility when making a point. Only at extreme ends such as bread, can you dismiss stupid claims. But philosophies are no different than maths.
And even the bread idea, while horribly flawed, can be stretched to say that the yeast before it has been baked can be altered to state of conscious existence.

Irreversible coma is an omniscient term. The greatest doctor in the world could state as such, and still have a chance at being wrong. Think your arguments through man. If there's an out, be ready to back it. If it cant,l be backed, it's not strong enough. Simple as that.

Why are people hellbent on intellectualizing Kanye? He's just some stupid rapper.

He's far more intelligent than the average pop star, but definitely not the genius that people make him out to be.

He's fucking shit at freestyling tho, and his lyrics are shit-tier compared to people like Nas or Kendrick Lamar

>I'm a god
>hurry up with my damn croissant

He does produce his own music. That's more than can be said for Nas and Kendrick.

>Welcome to philosophy. You have to accept anything within the realms of possibility when making a point.

No, you don't. You make assumptions all the time when making points. For example, I assume that I can trust my senses and that I am in fact typing a message now.
If irreversible coma is an omniscient term then me going by the presuppositions that I can trust my senses when we have no concrete proof that they are not all illusions is an omniscient term in that it presupposes truths which only an omniscient could know for sure.

When we talk about definitions in your sense then no, the bread term does not become worthy of dismissal because you just say, well, we don't know so it falls under the definition.

And then you say well that an irreversible coma is not an extreme case because it's not as farfetched as bread turning into a sentient being but in some cases it could well be. Take a guy who is the last human being on earth, he has head trauma so bad that from all points of view barring miracles there is zero chance based on what humans know (read assume) about life and brains for it to be possible for him to wake up ever again, let alone if there were the best doctors in the world around but there are not, there is no one.

Only under the most pedantic and misguided definition would anyone in their right mind say there is potential for him to become a genius. It is literally on the same level of likelihood as the bread thing because, once again it could happen because we can't 'know' anything in much the same way we can't know that with every single press of the keyboard we make in this dimension, it causes the mass torture of billions of sentient beings in another dimension.

We have to assume right now that that is not the case, same with a plethora of other things, we just put implicit trust in these things being so ridiculous as to being not likely even with this fundamental impossibility of knowing.

So with this, we grant our senses and what we 'know' about the world to guide us and so if once we admit this implicit assumption about all we do, we admit that there things like someone coming out of certain types of coma based on what we 'know' which are as impossible as bread becoming conscious.

Your limitations of what is 'ridiculous;' and what could be are non-existent which is the problem

I agree with this poster, Kanyefags should be confined to /mu/ or shot on sight.

Up until about a week ago I thought his name was pronounced "Cane." Which just goes to show you what an obnoxious cunt he is.

>Hasn't created a work of genius
>MBDTF exists

>listening to the Viennese equivalent of Eliot Rodger

yeah ok bud

nobody will be forgotten OP

even dopes have a seat in paradise though they, yes, will need a bath first

hehehe

Look, I'm sorry. Let's just say you won and you walk away with your head held high, alright buddy?

>this passive aggressive cop out

Why not deal with what I said? Because it's easier to take the piss now that you realise you were wrong, perhaps?