Inspired by stu_IH8U, I would like to post part of an essay by B Russel "If there are among my readers any young men or women who aspire to become leaders of thought in their generation, I hope they will avoid certain errors into which I fell in youth for want of good advice. When I wished to form an opinion upon a subject, I used to study it, weigh the arguments on different sides, and attempt to reach a balanced conclusion. I have since discovered that this is not the way to do things. A man of genius knows it all without the need of study; his opinions are pontifical and depend for their persuasiveness upon literary style rather than argument. It is necessary to be one-sided, since this facilitates the vehemence that is considered a proof of strength. It is essential to appeal to prejudices and passions of which men have begun to feel ashamed and to do this in the name of some new ineffable ethic. It is well to decry the slow and pettifogging minds which require evidence in order to reach conclusions. Above all, whatever is most ancient should be dished up as the very latest thing... ...Ignore fact and reason, live entirely in the world of your own fantastic and myth-producing passions; do this whole-heartedly and with conviction, and you will become one of the prophets of your age." -------- The whole essay is here (worth a read!): http://www.users.drew.edu/~jlenz/br-hearst-genius.html So what are your ideas? What distinguishes a "man of genius"? Who is your gehius of choice? We have some very fine specimens here at sciforums to choose from. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Geez, I think that's what a helluva lot of people already do! In fact, many of the people on this very forum follow that advice, don'tcha think? I disagree with that, but mainly because of the words "will become". Overall, I think it's probably true that many of the past "geniuses" have followed that basic philosophy, but it's only a very damned few. Baron Max
penis envy? anyway, I think it is far better to be influential and correct than, as Russel seems to believe, simply influential.
You wish Just posted by me (female) but written by BR (male).Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Ha!
Well, we know with 100% certainty that there are illegal drugs in New York City, but we have virtually zero certainty about where they are. Same thing, ain't it? And Hans Blix is a world-reknown nuclear scientist????????? Hmm. Baron Max
Did you intentionally miss the point so that you can get high on sympathetic neurotransmitters again? (Also, your statement is self-contradictory; New York City is a place.)
And a pretty big fuckin' place, too! Have you ever tried to find anything in NYC? ....LOL! But just for you, and since California is about the same size as Iraq, the cops know that there are illegal drugs in CA, but they don't know where they are. Feel better now?? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Baron Max
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! .... Luke, the author isn't being serious. Not in the way it appears. He's making a satirical point against a certain type of person society may deem fit to hail with the title Genius, without them being in anyway anything like. Simply put: he's pretending that he believes what he says regarding wilful ignorance is true. In truth he believes no such thing, he's just being satirical. Or, if he were me, sarcastic.
At the begining. Thus indicating that actually, the man does understand what it takes to reach something approaching a balanced, considered opinion first and foremost. He then follows on with: Etc, etc... Appearing to embrace a completely opposite philosophy, where in actual fact he's, basically, taking the piss. Clearer, now?