From: gerald_a_levy (gerald_a_levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Wed May 14 2003 - 07:25:57 EDT
Gary asked on Tuesday, May 13: > I agree the word is overused, but how would you define "genius", Jerry? Thanks for asking, Gary. It made me realize upon further reflection that although 'genius' is a very overused word, I was using the term in perhaps an overly restrictive way. Although one can look to a dictionary for a definition, further examination reveals that how genius is defined is a very old and controversial subject of debate -- particularly in the fields of philosophy, psychology, and literature (for some of those different understandings, see http://www.kaapeli.fi/flf/kuisma.htm ). I am broadly sympathetic to many of the perceptions of 'Willie Gaffer' about our current cultural understanding of genius (see http://www.wesoomi.com/forum/genius.html ). Upon further reflection, though, I realized that my own highly restrictive definition is most likely a reflection of my anti-authoritarianism (which was discussed last year in the "De omnibus dubitandum" thread). *For Marxists*, I think that such a skepticism about 'genius' is highly desirable given the long history of Marxist cults and hero- worshiping. That is, I think that *politically* it is the best stance to take towards others since it encourages us to advance a more critical perspective towards those figures. Thus, *even if* Marx (or Lenin or Trotsky or Gramsci, or Sraffa, etc.) was a genius, our ability to critically assess those figures is enhanced if we do *not* consider him to be a genius. In solidarity, Jerry PS: another interesting 'genius' site: http://www.geocities.com/genius-2000/wiglink.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 15 2003 - 00:00:01 EDT