Althouse: "Genius is a talent for producing something for which no determinate rule can be given, not a predisposition consisting of a skill for something that can be learned by following some rule or other."

January 7, 2018

"Genius is a talent for producing something for which no determinate rule can be given, not a predisposition consisting of a skill for something that can be learned by following some rule or other."

Immanuel Kant.

22 comments:

William said...: Kant had a real talent for expressing a simple thought in the most obfuscatory way possible. I suppose he thought it made him sound more profound. Smart ass.; 1/7/18, 9:02 AM
traditionalguy said...: Producing positive National leadership in the midst of DC's storm of hoaxes qualifies the Trumpster as a genius. When asked, if He was the King of the Jews? Jesus simply said, "I Am." And" when challenged if he is a genius, DJT simply says,"I Am."

The ruling establishment making money the old way, then simply says, " Kill him." How else do you handle a Genius?; 1/7/18, 9:08 AM
Fernandinande said...: It's cute that people like to redefine words.

"Genius is a talent for producing something for which no determinate rule can be given,

The determinate rule is that the genius rule isn't a determinate rule.; 1/7/18, 9:08 AM
buwaya said...: It must be some sort of test, to mark achievement at the highest level of skill, for a German translator to take on Kant.; 1/7/18, 9:17 AM
Dad29 said...: So Kant tells us that Trump's getting himself elected makes him a genius.

There are at least 20 other big-name-pols who are forced to agree, if only while spitting angrily.; 1/7/18, 9:18 AM
Tommy Duncan said...: "Genius is a talent for producing something for which no determinate rule can be given, not a predisposition consisting of a skill for something that can be learned by following some rule or other."

Others would say genius is discovering (or creating) a determinate rule that clarifies our understanding. Newton and Einstein come to mind.

"Kant had a real talent for expressing a simple thought in the most obfuscatory way possible."

IMHO, Kant is quite understandable when compared to Hegel.; 1/7/18, 9:23 AM
Michael K said...: One small example of genius was how Feynmann finding the cause of the Challenger disaster.

Feynman now believed that he had the solution, but to test it, he dropped a piece of the O-ring material, squeezed with a C-clamp to simulate the actual conditions of the shuttle, into a glass of ice water.

He then broke it.; 1/7/18, 9:57 AM
Unknown said...: I love it - Kant used to analyze Trump...

Oh Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
who was very rarely

STABLE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6b7r5jIEe9; 1/7/18, 9:57 AM
Robert Cook said...: "So Kant tells us that Trump's getting himself elected makes him a genius."

And H.L. Mencken tell us he's just a canny flim flam man:

“No one in this world...has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.”; 1/7/18, 10:34 AM
tcrosse said...: Way to express solidarity with the Masses.; 1/7/18, 10:39 AM
Robert Cook said...: Now here was a genius!

(Dickens) was repulsed by Americans’ table manners and the tobacco spit everywhere he looked—on even the sidewalks of the nation’s capital, where he found party politics contaminating everything, its leaders 'the lice of God’s creation,' and 'despicable trickery at elections; under-handed tamperings with public officers; and cowardly attacks upon opponents, with scurrilous newspapers for shields, and hired pens for daggers.'

"Even worse, everyone wanted a piece of the action, from Tiffany’s selling unauthorized copies of his bust, to a barber selling locks of his hair. He found Americans vulgar and insensitive, braggarts, hypocrites, and acquisitive beyond all imagining. 'I never knew what it was to feel disgust and contempt,' Dickens said, '‘till I travelled in America.' When he departed in June, he left behind all notions of an Arcadian realm he now regarded as “a vast countinghouse” full of nothing but 'humbugs and bores.'”; 1/7/18, 10:50 AM
Birkel said...: Oh, Robert Cook. How about you explain the reasons I should care what Dickens thought.

Perhaps you can square what Dickens observed, what Tocqueville observed, and the the great success of the people who came to this country as opposed to the relative lack of success for those who stayed home.

I will wait, patiently.; 1/7/18, 11:25 AM
Anonymous said...: Genius is pain.

John Lennon; 1/7/18, 11:45 AM
Anonymous said...: The Dickens quote is interesting, but it sounds like he didn't tour the outback much. Also, Dickens was a socialist and probably an elitist as well.

Tocqueville and Dvorak got a different impression.; 1/7/18, 11:58 AM
Robert Cook said...: "Oh, Robert Cook. How about you explain the reasons I should care what Dickens thought."

I don't care whether you care about what Dickens thought or not. I just posted this because it is an example of a genius hitting the target: a bulls-eye then and now.

As for Tocqueville, he both praised America and offered warnings (from Wikipedia):

"Noting the rise of the industrial sector in the American economy, Tocqueville, some scholars have argued, also correctly predicted that an industrial aristocracy would rise from the ownership of labor. He warned that '...friends of democracy must keep an anxious eye peeled in this direction at all times', observing that the route of industry was the gate by which a newfound wealthy class might potentially dominate, although he himself believed that an industrial aristocracy would differ from the formal aristocracy of the past."

And:

"According to Tocqueville, democracy had some unfavorable consequences: the tyranny of the majority over thought, a preoccupation with material goods, and isolated individuals. Democracy in America predicted the violence of party spirit and the judgment of the wise subordinated to the prejudices of the ignorant."

Again: Bulls-eye!; 1/7/18, 11:59 AM
The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...: “And H.L. Mencken tell us he's just a canny flim flam man:

“No one in this world...has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.””

Isn’t that all of them? It’s certainly a perfect description of Obama’s political career. And Nixon’s. And Kennedy’s and Clinton’s (both of them).

The difference lays in what they do with the power once they have it.; 1/7/18, 12:06 PM
Robert Cook said...: Yes, Cracker Emcee Activist, is is all of them. They all do pretty much the same thing with the power once they have it: they serve the powerful elites, (which includes them).; 1/7/18, 12:15 PM
YoungHegelian said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 1/7/18, 12:20 PM
YoungHegelian said...: IMHO, Kant is quite understandable when compared to Hegel.

Actually, in terms of the German, Hegel's German is long winded & obfuscatory, but Kant's is weird, with what appear to be wrong cases & tenses. The question for the translator is "Are these just mistakes, or is there some method to this madness?". Indeed, Kant's German is so idiosyncratic that the may-be-true joke was that German graduate students doing Kant learned English so that they could read Norman Kemp Smith's English translation of the Critique of Pure Reason, which makes more sense than the German.

Then again, what German speaking philosopher who writes in German is "clear & concise"? Fichte's worse than Kant or Hegel, & far more annoying to read. Schelling is a bear, too. Heidegger? Surely you jest, young man! And "Fast Eddy" Husserl believed that what was worth saying in ten words was worth saying in a thousand, which he then proceeded to do.; 1/7/18, 12:24 PM
ccscientist said...: Genius is not the same as high IQ. Some very very smart people never accomplish much. Dean Keith Simonton wrote some books on this and showed that creative talent is characterized by both novelty and productivity. It is also possible to be slightly mad and be very productive/creative. Salvador Dali comes to mind. Not as easy in the sciences but I've known a few cases. Very hard to apply to politics.
Dickens was a reactionary. The poor farmers came to the city because conditions were better than on the farm, and Dickens hated the industrial revolution that was making their lives better. So Dickens was a genius, but a jerk.; 1/7/18, 3:41 PM
Anonymous said...: Good stuff, Cookie. Thanks for posting.

Dickens' observations seem superficial while Tocqueville offers a more balanced, comprehensive view. Each is valid (and interesting) in its on way.; 1/7/18, 3:53 PM
Robert Cook said...: "It is also possible to be slightly mad and be very productive/creative. Salvador Dali comes to mind."

Dali wasn't mad at all, but exceedingly sane...and intelligent. As he said, "The only difference between me and a madman is that I'm not mad."; 1/7/18, 5:47 PM