The Power of Genius
Shel Kimen
Concepts of Culture
Spring 2003
The word genius, like many words, has a complex history of
development interrelated with developments in culture, philosophy, technology,
and economics. Originally the term defined a 'guiding spirit' of a person or
place. Nearly everyone had potential to do the work of genius, to manifest the
greatness of this spirit in the physical world. It was not always 'good' work,
but it was always powerful. Genius was seen as an influencer, for good or bad.
During the
high renaissance this meaning began to change as the role of the individual in
society increased in importance. Developments in technology created more need
for specialization (previously most people could perform most functions in
society), and economic power shifted from a small group of feudal landlords to
a broader number of merchants, traders, and even a rising peasant class. Books
and letters from the time refer to both "the genius of Michelangelo"
(referencing a guiding spirit) and "Michelangelo, the genius," (referring to
the individual characteristic of being a genius).
By the late 1700's the word had almost entirely transformed to being a characteristic of an individual and Wolfgang Von Goethe is perhaps histories finest example of evangelizing the word in its new context. To Goethe genius was very specifically a quality, and a quality of greatness, a product of passion and mad creativity. He articulates this a number of times in The Sorrows of Young Werther (1774). A few years later, Immanuel Kant also addresses this new concept of genius in his Critique of Judgment (1790). He defines genius as an artist capable of articulating truths or understanding in an imaginative, and uniquely creative way.
As in the
renaissance, the 18th century was a pivotal time for culture, philosophy,
technology and economics. The individual continued to increase in importance,
technology began its rapid development, and yet more people had access to power
via economics. Goethe and Kant lived at the very beginning of the industrial
revolution and during a time historians now call the beginning of capitalism in
its present form.[1]
Today the
word is evolving again. Genius is perceived as both a quality of an individual
(for science this means having a high IQ and for sociologists this means, as
Goethe might say, exhibiting exceptional creativity), but it also refers to a
state of mind, or activity. Increasingly people believe that there are "acts"
of genius, rather than or in addition to individual geniuses. It's interesting
to consider here the role of the individual in a post-modern society where
identity is no longer limited to linear construction, rather viewed through
limitless categories. In this way one could be a genius sometimes, but not
others, rendering the word meaningless unless applied to specific acts.
The word
genius not only reflects changes in society but may also have a role to play in
transforming society first from Feudalism to Mercantilism, then from
Mercantilism to modern Capitalism, and then?
This paper is an introductory study on the power of language to reflect
and manipulate culture and economics.
...
Genius, as
defined by modern dictionaries, comes from the Latin term genii meaning "an
attendant spirit of a person or place, " or "a person who influences another
for good or bad." It also means having a "strong inclination.... a peculiar,
distinctive, or identifying character... a single strongly marked capacity or
aptitude.... extraordinary intellectual power especially as manifested in
creative activity.... a person endowed with transcendent mental superiority.... a
person with a very high intelligence quotient."[2]
In Latin the term meant something
like a guiding spirit originally applied in the form of the family spirit
(gens) it could influence one for good or bad. Genius was an outside force, not
the skills of an individual, rather an external blessing or devil that inspired
an individual. "The Romans used it to refer to a guardian spirit that protected
all individuals throughout their lives. All persons were born with their own
unique genius that looked after them, helped them out of difficulties, and
inspired them at crucial moments in their lives. On a person's birthday, the
Romans would celebrate the birthday of the genius as well as the individual.
The accomplishments of individuals were often attributed to their personal
genius (The New Encyclopedia Britannica 1980)."[3]
In Rome Geniuses also guarded
cities and places. An alter to the Genius Populi Romani, guardian of the Roman
population hosted annual sacrifices on October 9th[4] of each year
and in Ostia, a harbor city of Ancient Rome stood an alter to the Genius of the
Castra Peregrina, a guardian of roman barracks.[5] The Arabs
used the word jinni, or genie, "that magical power chronicled in the Arabian
Nights that lay dormant in Aladdin's lamp until a few rubs on the side of the
vessel 'gave birth' to a sometimes jovial and sometimes not so jovial spirit."[6]
In this use genius is still very clearly related to that of an influential
spirit.
It was during the renaissance that
this perception began to change. The renaissance is characterized as a time of
revival for the humanities (art, science, politics) and a revived interest in
the classics. It was a time of great scientific progress (portable clocks 1410,
the printing press 1436, the microscope in 1590, and Galileo's pendulum 1602).
Italy as the world center of banking, where banking was invented, developed
trade, which promoted the exchange of ideas. The merchant class superceded the
feudal class contibuting to the rise of the nation state, advances in the legal
system, and consequent develop of specialization and bureaucracy. It was the age
of the many sided, or 'universal' man, well educated in a variety of
disciplines. Individualism, freedom and change replaced community, authority,
and tradition as core European values.
It was during the renaissance,
particularly the attention given to Michelangelo and other Italian artists that
the word genius evolved to being characteristic of an individual
Writers such as Giorgio Vasari,
the first printed "art historian" and Asconi Condivi the official biographer
(and friend) of Michelangelo treated the artist as both having genius and being
genius. In 1550 Vasari published The Lives of the Most Excellent Painters,
Sculptors and Architects' in Florence. It was a book chronicling the works
of 30 Italian artists mostly from Florence and Venice. Of Michelangelo he
writes, "Michelangelo's genius soared even higher and achieved even more in the
five sybils and seven prophets that are painted on the ceiling..."[7]
His use of the word genius is vague enough to imply both Michelangelo inspired
by the spirit of a genius and Michelangelo as being a genius.
Of Raphael Vasari writes "... Raphael seems to have
summoned up all his powers to demonstrate the strength and genius of his art in
his countenance."[8] This comment
is a little more specific, paralleling strength, a known physical quality, with
genius. It also demonstrates an artist's unique ability to summon, or pull
together genius, assigning responsibility to the individual. Of Leonardo Da
Vinci, Vasari said, "he would be a great genius, and in a very short time would
make great progress in the arts"[9]
Here it is very clear that Da Vinci was considered a genius, not someone who
ahd or used the spirit of genius.
Condivi, likewise, is explicit in his definition of genius
as characteristic of an indivdual. In describing the young Michelangelo he
says, "Lorenzo was very impressed with the boy's apparent genius, especially
considering his age, and the perfection of his work."[10]
Condivi is the official biography of Michelangelo and was a
close friend. It is widely accepted that he wrote what Michelangelo told him to
write, which highlights the issue that not only were certain artists elevated
to a status of being geniuses, but also that some of these artists took it upon
themselves to assert this characteristic. Michelangelo doubtlessly knew the
commercial impact of being regarded as a genius. He capitalized on this new use
of the word, by using the word to develop a market for art.
Painters had been establishing
"personality" long before Michelangelo. "[S]ome of them had even consciously
affirmed their identity as individuals - for instance, Giotto signed his
paintings. But the pride in his work of a brilliant craftsman is very different
from the self-conscious awareness of oneself as a divinely inspired genius. We
may think of Giotto as a genius, but it would be anachronistic to suppose he
saw himself in that way."[11] Giotto lived in the late thirteen and early
fourteenth century (1267 1337). But it wasn't until the rise of artists out
of the guild, and the role of art as a valued commodity that this word
increased in use as a description of an individual. The rise of the individual,
particularly the individual artist as a personality with unique talent separate
from a guild of "craftspeople," coincides with the breakdown of feudalism and
the development of mercantilism, the economic system until Kant and Goethe's
lifetime, the transitional phase between feudalism and capitalism.
Mercantilism, while exhibiting
features of what we know today as capitalism was more or less a type of
feudalism, with the merchants in the position of power instead of the nobility.
There were, however, more merchants than feudal lords, which decentralized
economic power to a certain degree. Merchants had arranged to pay taxes to the
king in exchange for protection of property rights and a new type of
competition arose in the guilds of "craftspeople" that had never existed
before. It became competition of the individual, the free wageworker.
"Because masters sought to retain the profits of the growing
markets for themselves, they made it increasingly difficult for journeymen to
enter their class preferring instead to employ them as wage-workers.
Apprentices similarly had little hope of rising to mastership. Thus the
master-journeyman-apprentice relationship gave way to an employer-employee
relationship, with the master performing the functions of merchant while his
employees did craft work Conditions for development of the early industrial
system - the proto-factory - thus arose with the disintegration of the original
craft-guild system."[12]
It is the free wageworker that
makes being an "individual" extremely important, and therefore it becomes
important to develop qualities of individualism. This makes me wonder: Is the
rise of the concept of the individual and the importance of individualism a
result of cultural developments, economics, or both? I suggest both.
During this time the concept of
price also began to change. Originally the price of an object was based on the
time it took to make an object plus the cost of materials. Previously most
people in society knew both the value of materials and the length of time it
took to assemble various products. Society was simple. But as technology began
to specialize and trade introduced new and foreign materials this question of
value became more ambiguous. Additionally this rise of the individual, and more
importantly the values (like qualities of genius) ascribed to individuals added
a hierarchical quality to the same job done by different individuals. It was
better to have your church painted by Michelangelo than a less famous artist
not bearing the genius label. In this way genius becomes a function of price.
It's my opinion that the concept of genius as a quality of an individual is a
direct product of desire for the luxury that the trade of the merchant class
produced.
In a look at standard of living indexes chronicling
conditions from 1400 1900 there is an interesting chain of events. Wages for
both unskilled laborers and skilled craftspeople went dramatically up with the
decline of feudalism in 1500 and then reached a low in 1600 not to rise again
until the middle 1700's.[13]
This corresponds with a rising merchant class followed by an economic crisis as
the merchants became as greedy of the luxuries as the feudal lords had once
been. Once economic power shifted from the lords to the merchants under
protection of the state it became the role of the state to regulate the economy
(and keep the population from starving). It is this shift from lord to state
that elevated the merchant class but also brought it's demise. A monopoly on
trade hindered innovation, and innovation is necessary for capital to grow. It
wasn't until the 1700's and the "enlightenment" period that innovation began to
once again flourish and wages positively reflected this interest by 1800. It is
likely this is also related to a change in expectations, responsibilities and
role of the state.
The enlightenment begins roughly with Hobbes and his
definition of the role of the state in 1690 and ends more or less with
Condorcet's Progress of the Human Mind in 1794. During this time Peter
van Musschenbroek learned how to store and release static electricity, the
printing industry grew to mass distribute books and newspapers, and Newton developed
theories of optics, mathematics, and gravity (and also managed the great
re-coinage of England). This was the age of reason, encyclopedias and
dictionaries. It was a triumph for math and science and industry hinted at
factory-like mechanization.
On the one hand we see science moving towards a state of automation and on the other we see philosophy reacting almost against this universality by creating even stronger images of the individual. Kant's essay "An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment" from 1784 harshly articulates this tension between the individual and mechanized society.
"If I have a book to have understanding in place of me, a spiritual adviser to have a conscience for me, a doctor to judge my diet for me, and so on, I need not make any efforts at all. I need not think, so long as I can pay; others will soon enough take the tiresome job over for me.... Dogmas and formulas, those mechanical instruments for rational use (or rather misuse) of his natural endowments, are the ball and chain of his permanent immaturity."[14]
Kant furthers this distinction in his Critique of
Judgment. Here he distinguishes a "genius" from a "man of brains."
"Genius is the talent (natural endowment) which gives the rule to art. Since talent, as an innate productive faculty of the artist, belongs itself to nature, we may put it this way: Genius is the innate mental aptitude (ingenium) through which nature gives the rule to art."[15]
In the next section he goes on to further differentiate. "Even though a man weaves his own thoughts or fancies, instead of merely taking in what others have thought, and even though he go so far as to bring fresh gains to art and science, this does not afford a valid reason for calling such a man of brains, and often great brains, a genius... because he can never do more than merely learn and follow a lead. For what is accomplished in this way is something that could have been learned."[16] To Kant a genius has unteachable skills, similar to Plato, potentially spiritual skills (a nod to the roman meaning), and can only be represented through art. Whereas a learned man, even a brilliant man of science can never be a genius because once he solves a problem others can directly follow his formula. "So all that Newton bas set forth in his immortal work on the Principles of Natural Philosophy may well be learned, however great a mind it took to find it all out, but we cannot learn to write in a true poetic vein, no matter how complete all the precepts of the poetic art may be, or however excellent its models. The reason is that all the steps that Newton had to take from the first elements of geometry to his greatest and most profound discoveries were such as he could make intuitively evident and plain to follow, not only for himself but also for every one else. On the other hand, no Homer or Wieland can show how his ideas, so rich at once in fancy and in thought, enter and assemble themselves in his brain, for the good reason that he does not himself know, and so cannot teach others. In matters of science, therefore, the greatest inventor differs only in degree from the most laborious imitator and apprentice, whereas he differs specifically from one endowed by nature for fine art."[17]
Here we see a paradox in the role of individual as he
relates to capitalism, and it is possible that Kant's genius is a direct
polemic aimed at capitalist ideals. Capitalism thrives on the entrepreneur and
inventor, and many would say capitalism thrives on and depends on individuals.
We see genius here as an example of the purist individual, one that cannot be
commodified because his secrets can never been known. While it is true his
creation may not be repeated, by the time Kant writes art is, and has been for
hundreds of years before his lifetime, a commodity. And artists, such as
Michelangelo understood and took advantage of the opportunity to commodify
individualism. Kant merely adds economic value to those bearing the title, and
with perceived value comes imitation. Not so long after this essay, less than
30 years, lithographs copies of art became a major part of popular culture.
Goethe began this discussion about fifteen years earlier in
1774 with his Sorrows of Young Werther and outlived Kant by 28 years,
long enough to bridge enlightenment with its rebellious child romanticism. To Goethe genius "bursts upon us like a
raging torrent to shatter our astounding souls..."[18] and is naοve
like "the virtue and strength" of children[19]. Geniuses
also have "no solid learning."[20] Oddly Goethe slips into an older definition
on March 15th of Werther's letters. "I was going...some time ago,
but my evil genius detained me."[21] Here it seems almost as if genius is a
spirit, but not quite. This translation is from R.D. Boylan in November 2002.
In another translation from Catherine Hutter from 1962 the same passage reads,
"a devilish impulse held me back."[22]
It is probable that Goethe meant to use the word genius. In
Gothe's lifetime and immediate circle a school of literary philosophy developed
called Sturm und Drang. This period, 1767 to 1785 was described as a "time of
genius or contemporary period of genius denoting the glorification of the
'genuine genius' as the original notion of a superior human being and artist,
the true creator of art."[23]
Before both Goethe's Werther and Kant's critique on Judgment it was Herder who
said to his students at Strasburg University that
genius could not be taught, or "poesy cannot be learned it demanded genuine
genius."[24]
There is another passage where Hutter refrains from using
the word genius. On December 24 of Werther's letters Boylan translates geniuses
to have no solid learning whereas Hutter writes "but like all belletrists he
lacked erudition."[25]
A belletrist is a writer of letters. Could it be the Hutter writes in the
epicenter of scientific IQ tests when genius has very scientific meaning,
whereas Boylan writes during a time of decentralized concepts of intelligence?
Ultimately Goethe defines the term genius as a martyred
madman, driven by nature's divine will via passion in his fierce debate with
Albert. To Goethe, genius is free, noble, virtuous, and unexpected.
"Passion. Inebriation. Madness.
You respectable ones stand there so calmly, without any sense of participation,
upbraid the drunkard, abhor the madman, pass them by like the priest and thank
Godlike the Pharisees that He did not make you one of these! I have been drunk
more than once, and my passion often borders on madness, and I regret neither.
Because, in my own way, I have learned to understand that all exceptional
people who have created something great, something that seemed impossible, have
to be decried as drunkards or madmen. And I find it intolerable, even our daily
life, to hear it said of almost everyone who manages to do something that is
free, noble, and unexpected: he is a drunkard, he is a fool."[26]
In a certain way, Goethe did a huge favor for capitalism. He
increased desire for extraordinary individualism. Werther wore funny clothes,
he went his own way, and he killed himself for love, the ultimate act of
self-will. Werther was so popular that suicide rates increased among young
people who read the work, and in 1974 a sociologist David Phillips coined the
term based on this phenomena "the Werther effect." This is ironic
considering that Goethe meant to spread the gospel of the individual. Instead,
he noticed imitators- people wearing Werther fashions and committing suicide.
This had to be confusing for him.
Shortly after writing The Sorrows of Young Werther Goethe received an appointment to the Court of Weimar. He was given the title of privy councillor and a large salary from the Duke Karl August. While he had no official responsibilities relating to economics, that's what he busied himself with. I'm not suggesting that the effect of Werther on society drove Goethe to become an economist, but it certainly influenced him, as the economy influenced his later works.
Both Faust and Wilhelm Meister's Years of Travel deal
explicitly with the economy, covering topics such as free wageworkers,
competition, labor relations, and private property. Goethe's views on the
economy were what he later called "moderately liberal" and he admired
theorists, such as Moser and Sartorius, who encouraged the development of
capitalism but with a skeptic edge.[27]
Goethe believed the economy was a useful organizer of people and progress, but
he worried about how it might be used, or abused, how quickly it would develop,
and what it's consequences might be. His later work celebrates innovation and
invention (characteristics of the genius) but also harbor strong warnings of
what could go wrong. He had ideas about an ethical economy, one that didn't ban
property or ownership, but required that such possessions somehow also
benefited the community. Perhaps Goethe's genius, the innovative inventor, plays
into this concept of ethical economy. Perhaps it's his way of supporting
technology through an appreciation of invention and idea, but with the careful
guard of virtue and honesty.
It's interesting that later, in Faust, Goethe returns the
word genius to its roman meaning. When speaking of Euphorion in one of Faust's
dream sequences he says, "He was conceived when Helen was learning to rhyme and
now miraculously is already a youth. A genius without wings, a faun but with
nothing bestial..."[28]
Most likely Goethe was not so strategic in his use of the word genius here.
Most likely he was not trying to de-emphasize the concept of the madman
passionate, free and noble individual. But it is curious to see it used in
this way and I can't help but wonder why and when genius returned to its spirit
state for Goethe.
Wages start to rise again around 1800.[29]
This upward trend that begins in 1800 continues until our present day (with a
small disruption around the time of the US depression). It marks the beginning
of the industrialized age. It also marks the beginning of Intelligence as a
measurable quality of an individual.
Sir Francis Galton, a cousin of
Charles Darwin, invented the idea that intelligence was a measurable, genetic
trait in the 1870's. Francis Binet had metrics for children in France by 1905.
And Mensa, the society for people with IQ's in the top 2% (132 148 depending
on the test) was founded in 1946. The "standard" IQ of a genius is 140 and most
professionals agree it depends on which test you take.[30]
According to a somewhat random website comparing world "geniuses,"
Goethe had an estimated IQ of 210, Kant 175, and Darwin 165.[31]
Of course this is impossible to tell, as they all lived before IQ was measured.
What's important about the estimates concerning the IQ of past "geniuses" is
not whether or not they are factually correct, rather that they signal a social
need that exists today for people classify and compare others along these
lines. Genius is an important word of high value for our current society. It is
as much a political and sociological debate as it is scientific.
Today, and for some time, the term is engaged in a
scientific and philosophical controversy, that of individuals having a
measurable IQ of 130 to 140 versus a more ancient meaning loosely defined as
exhibiting creative potential and giving birth to original ideas. This is
evident not just in the numbers of books released on the subject of "measuring
intelligence" at the end of the 20th century, but also by the
expansive definition provided by the dictionary. The stakes for accurately
defining "genius" are high and multi-faceted in our knowledge-based
capitalistic economy.
Genius defined as measurable and
physically quantifiable benefits science by affirming it's own progress in identifying
genes and understanding the brain. It
both asserts a philosophy that genius is a rational product of human biology
and also makes the job of regulating the state much easier, remember state
involvement in economics is an important feature of capitalism. "Smart" kids go
to good schools to become leaders and "dumb," or to be politically correct,
"average" kids learn trades to support them. Testing determines government
funding of special programs, as well as scholarships and financial aid from colleges
and universities.
While on the one hand this seems
to support the system of capitalism quite nicely it also undermines fair
competition somewhat. History has proven a number of times that great heroes
don't necessarily have high IQs. If these heroes were systemically isolated
from the teachers and books of great minds (via standardized testing and gene
analysis) they might go unrecognized and hinder the evolution of human progress
excluded and unable to participate.
The other end of this debate focuses
on a growing school of thought that 'every child has potential' and that
"genius is a symbol for an individual's potential: all that a person may be
that lies locked inside during the early years of development."[32]
These thinkers regard the genius as creative, curious, vivacious, and
sensitive, all categories impossible to measure. This theory is also
philosophical and practical. At risk of oversimplifying it is a metaphysical
approach designed (possibly) as a matter of practicality for the sake of capitalism
it's purpose to bring more or other players into a competitive system.
One of the most famous researchers
in this field is Howard Gardner. He developed the "Theory of Multiple
Intelligence. It's described as "a pluralized way of understanding the intellect.
Recent advances in cognitive science, developmental psychology and neuroscience
suggest that each person's level of intelligence, as it has been traditionally
considered, is actually made up of autonomous faculties that can work
individually or in concert with other faculties."[33]
Gardner lists the following as faculties of intelligence: Musical,
Bodily-Kinesthetic, Logical-Mathematical, Linguistic, Spatial, Interpersonal,
and Intrapersonal. Gardner strikes a blow against the concept of a rare genius,
and some argue he's merely spreading the wealth and diluting the term's
meaning.
Despite the naive
assumption that the multiple-intelligences theory spreads the wealth of genius
among many, giftedness is still as rare a commodity as is mental retardation.
Howard Gardner should know better than to call his kinesthetic, linguistic,
naturalistic, and ad nauseum abilities "intelligences." They are
"talents," pure and simple...[34]
Gardener is in fact diluting the
terms meaning, and for very practical and philosophical reasons. Ironically,
Gardner won the MacArthur Foundation Fellowship in 1981,[35]
commonly known as the "Genius Award." While it would be a far cry to suggest
that Gardner's dilution of the individual genius into a population with varying
multiple intelligences sought to level the playing field to cultivate more
competition within capitalism, the relationship should not be dismissed. If
only the "gifted" or "genius" get special attention we are limiting ourselves
to nurturing 2% of our overall population. There is a very real economic need
for more than just a few children to receive an above average education,
especially considering that the American average is considerably low.
We have a debate then among sociologists and scientists
competing for the title of authority on the nature of genius. Both seek to
identify and cultivate leaders, they merely disagree on how leadership
potential is determined. However, the scientists seem to limit the number of
geniuses in a given society with their gene theories and IQ tests that
intersect with state legislation regarding standardized testing, college
entrance exams, and the funding of special programs to cultivate "gifted"
children. Perhaps these limits are too narrow to support capitalism? The
metaphysical definitions of genius via descriptions like curious and creative,
or in Gardenr's language, Spacial, Interpersonal, etc., open up the playing
field a bit more, perhaps balancing the wheels of capital.
I surveyed
via email a handful of friends (artists, scientists, and professionals) on what
they thought of the word Genius. Their answers seem to reflect an idea that
genius is a temporary situation that appears via circumstance. While most
describe it as a characteristic of an individual, as has been the case since
the 1500's, many see it as an occurrence, not necessarily a steady state of
intelligence. This is interesting when compared to the values of a post-modern
society, where identity can shift based on context.
When
I think of genius I think of innovation on any level. I think many times people use genius to describe grand scale
accomplishments or to emphasize someone's high IQ. I disagree with the limitations of that usage. I think that even
the smallest innovations or new ideas can be genius.
A
genius is a person who defies current expectations of what CAN be done.
Passionate
wisdom. Shaped by life experience, failures, successes, doldrums, dreams, harsh
realities (and even college). Ability to manifest that wisdom in the world. I
remember a book from years back titled "Wisdom of the Idiots" http://www.clearlight.com/~sufi/wiid1.htm.
and believe that a true genius knows they are an idiot, as they
know how little knowledge (of the ever expanding total) they possess.
Genius: someone who has attained a
mastery of a subject, process, practice etc.; someone who's expertise at
something exceeds that of the average person; something or something that makes
you think in a way that you never did before
A genius is someone who has rare and consistent ideas,
formulations, or work pieces. By rare I mean in the statistical sense: six
sigma (*) is brilliant, seven sigma is genius. By consistent I mean that they
contain truth. Sigma measures the width of a bell curve - not the complete
extent but the width of the bulky portion. If you say something is 2 sigma then
it is that large a difference from the average. If you say 3 sigma then the
idea is 3 times sigma away from the average and so. It's a way of measuring the
likelihood of something. It's not a very interesting definition. A less
mathematical definition is that a genius is someone who has come up with
something that is originally true and deep. By deep I mean it has a complex
network of truths that aren't necessarily understood by anyone observing the truth,
but are so original that nothing like it has been described before *and* it
contains a general truth(s).
Someone who comprehends/can do things that few
do/can... and also be the
"ability" as well.
Genius to me is the power or ability to use knowledge to
your advantage. It is the (sometimes) unwitting possession of special gifts of
inquiry on *any* given subject that materializes into concrete ideas based from
the subject as its foundation.
Genius is the state that we are in when we are at our
best.
The word genius has evolved from the spirit world into a
manipulative social agent. It's religious and community value shifted to
economic value when it was used by Michelangelo, Vasari and Condivi to
cultivate personal value through hierarchiocal forms of identity. Later Kant and Goethe used it to challenge
the concept of a commodifyable individual, while paradoxically advancing the
spread of capitalism, which needs commodifyable individuals. And in the last
century it's been used to both limit and broaden our educational system to
advance political and possibly economic agendas. And today, in a world of
increasing market segmentation and inter-related sub-economies it makes sense
to have a wider definition of intelligence. Understanding this, and many words,
helps us understand culture. Culture uses language to both reflect on and
manipulate society, and by studying words we learn about history and shape our
potential.
Appendix A:
Broadberry, Stephen and Bishnupriya Gupta. "Early, Modern Great Divergence: Wages, Prices, and Economic Development in Europe and Asia 1500 1800." <http://econserv2.bess.tcd.ie/minnsc/Seminars/wage4.pdf>. Coventry: Department of Economics, University of Warwick. 2003.
Additional Works Cited
Binswanger, Hans Cristoph. Money and Magic: A Critique of
the Modern Economy in the Light of Goethe's Faust. Trans. J.E. Harrison. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1994.
Braudel, Fernand. Capitalism and Material Life 1400
1800. Trans. Miriam Kochan. New York: Harper Colophon Books. 1973.
Cassiere, Ernst. Kan'ts Life and Thought. Trans.
James Haden. New Haven: Yale University Press. 1981. 321-325.
Goethe, Johann Wolfgang. Faust.
Trans. Walter Kaufmann. New York: Anchor.1962.
Lukacs, Goerg. Goethe and His Age. Trans. Robert Anchor. New York: Grosset & Dunlap.
1969.
Nell, Edward J. Transformational Growth and Effective
Demand: Economics After the Capital Critique, New York: New York University
Press. 1992.
Richardson, Ken. The Making of Intelligence. New
York: Columbia University Press. 2000.
Simmons, Dean Keith. Origins of Genius: Darwinian
Perspectives on Creativity. New York: Oxford University Press. 1999.