An artistic genius!

[MishaK]

Ok, to recap then.

I fear that perhaps the US govt was in on 9-11. (oops wrong thread!)

Genius is a broad concept, entailing so much more than intellectual aptitude from birth, and that it's the actions & deeds that 'resonate' and 'say the most', they are of paramount & crucial importance in defining it. In fact, without that, the whole idea of genius probably wouldn't even exist. (ok, maybe as a collection of words in a fairy tale)

And finally, I think that Hitler is a perfect example of an evil genius.

And to recap: while public acts may be *one way* in which genius is *manifested* to the general public, public acts are *by no means* a requirement for anyone to be considered a genius. Your assertion is simply wrong. Aptitude, creativity, adaptability and emotional maturity way above average level can all be manifested in private and to a small audience if any at all and that person can still be a genius without ever having influenced history at all.

And finally, Hitler was the figurehead of a larger movement which predated his rise and whose main successes were the works of other evil geniuses. Hitler wasn't exceptional aside from some instinctual traits and his ineptitude doomed the entire operation. That is not genius.

And the US government, especially *that* US government is way too incompetent to have been 'in' on 9-11, but that is indeed another thread.

You seem to have a lot of trouble with the concept of incompetence.

[MishaK]

It is the only way anyone can be considered a genius imo.

Operative word highlighted. Your opinion, sadly, is not relevant. Genius can be measured by deed in private, visible to few. Historical impact is not needed. You're wrong. Move on, get over it.

Disagree. Hitler is a classic example of a truly evil genius, genius is a broad concept remember (it's not limited to just academic or metric aptitude at all, and there are various kinds & degrees of it) - and he is certainly was an exception, 'then' but also in a historical context. He had great grasp of the power within himself, making the party his own by translating his own bitterness into the parties ideology, railing against enemies from within and without (socialists, communists, jews & capitalists), insisting complete obedience to him as leader, and he used his genius to completely destructive ends. To say he was never put to the test, or had to seize, reorganize, use his cunning & manipulation, insight, quickly learn and absorb his circumstances, take in his surroundings at any point in his life; from his humble beginnings as a homeless outsider in a rootless situation > to his military service in WWI (where he realized his calling) > to the tasks & challenges he faced in rising-to & building power is dubious & highly debatable imo. That sort of transformation (in just 10 years) is extraordinary. And perhaps more than anyone else, his brand of evil destructive genius probably had the largest impact on the 20th century. An enigma.

WTF is 'metric aptitude'? Ability to be measured in meters?

Sorry, you're wrong. You make the same mistake all romantics do who revere 'great men'. You ascribe all causality to a single person. The corollary is people who think that by removing one evil leader they can fix a broken country. It's wrong. You have understood nothing about the rise of fascism.

Also, I never said Hitler wasn't put to the test. Quite to the contrary: I said he was put to the test and he failed. He was an ineffective leader, a military imbecile and an emotional infant. Not a genius.

[MishaK]

What I said there is the reality of it though, tis' not really a romantic notion of genius. Sure genius could operate in private visable to few, but it has to surface at some point to have any sort of significance or real value. Otherwise it's virtually non-existent & unimportant.

'Importance' is in the eye of the beholder, and yours are quite occluded. It doesn't change the fact that 'genius' does not connote 'importance' of any kind. That is your bastardization of the term. You are using a very personal concept of 'genius' that has no currency outside your private universe.

Building up power that has been scarcely equalled in modern times? A political & military failure? Hmmm not so sure about that. And I'm no radical in saying that he's considered one of the greatest orators ever.

James, on what planet do you live? Hitler's power is vastly outdone by that of Stalin and Mao, to name just a few modern examples. In the military field he was a total failure. He failed at his objective of acquiring and holding 'Lebensraum' in the East and he not only lost the war, his homeland was reduced to a pile of rubble - and all that despite starting with vast military and technological advantages and the element of surprise. That is failure. Hitler was no Caesar, no Hadrian, no Gengis Khan, no Mehmet the Conqueror. Maybe he was a Napoleon, but even Napoleon was a military failure.

[Scarpia]

Building up power that has been scarcely equalled in modern times? A political & military failure? Hmmm not so sure about that. And I'm no radical in saying that he's considered one of the greatest orators ever.

I can see that this attempt at discussion is pointless, but it is hard to let these "gems" lie.  Your inability to see what is in front of your face boggles the mind.  How could it be "a power that has been scarcely equaled in modern times" if his power was utterly crushed by his enemies in his own time?   Was it a triumph that Red Army troops marched into Berlin and obliterated his cherished capital, that his country essentially ceased to exist when it was divided into sectors controlled by the victorious allies?  Doesn't that demonstrate that his power was not merely equaled, but dramatically exceeded in his own time?   The fact that he was able to parlay the most efficient military in Europe into bleak military defeat would tend to show that he was the opposite of a genius.

[Florestan]

Napoleon was a military failure.

Quite a bold statement. Your arguments being... ?

[Scarpia]

Quite a bold statement. Your arguments being... ?

I'll go out on a limb and speculate it has something to do with this.  Embark with 422,000 troops, return with 4000...

[Florestan]

I'll go out on a limb and speculate it has something to do with this.  Embark with 422,000 troops, return with 4000...

Invading Russia was certainly his greatest mistake and misfortune (invading Spain comes to a close second). But overall I should have thought his military genius is not a matter of opinion but of fact.

[Scarpia]

Invading Russia was certainly his greatest mistake and misfortune (invading Spain comes to a close second). But overall I should have thought his military genius is not a matter of opinion but of fact.

I tend to agree with you, at least in school I learned that he revolutionized the technique of warfare.  Whether that qualifies as "genius" or just very very smart is matter of degree, I guess.

[Florestan]

I tend to agree with you, at least in school I learned that he revolutionized the technique of warfare.  Whether that qualifies as "genius" or just very very smart is matter of degree, I guess.

Well, take "genius" cum grano salis. Let's say he was one of the greatest military leaders in history.

Back on-topic, I don't think that anyone who starts from zero and gets an overwhelming power is a "genius": sometimes all that is required is to be in the right place at the right time. Hitler was undoubtedly shrewd, deceitful  and cunning but he didn't appear in a vacuum and couldn't achieve anything by himself alone. That a humble corporal became one of the most powerful dictators in history is certainly no small achievement, but without the peculiar political and economical conditions of the weak and hapless Weimar Republic I doubt he could have done it.

[Lethevich]

Maybe the mistakes of a genius can be far greater in magnitude than a mere normal is capable of

[MishaK]

Scarpia, thanks for posting the Minard graphic. That's a timeless classic. I was going to do exactly that! I take it you also have some of Tufte's books?

To summarize my thoughts on the challenges from James and Florestan, real 'genius' cannot be that flimsy as to produce small temporary gains. Hitler and Napoleon both caught their enemies by surprise either with new tactics or technology and organization, and made impressive advances early on. But that is not genius. That is shock and unpreparedness of their enemies. Real genius in terms of military leadership does not commit the sort of blunders that both of these individuals committed serially and which led to their ultimate defeat. The Minard graphic Scarpia posted illustrates vividly just how patently idiotic the invasion of Russia was. This is what happens when ego takes over and tries to run a military campaign, when pride exceeds intellect.

Maybe the mistakes of a genius can be far greater in magnitude than a mere normal is capable of

The size of the potential mistake is not proportional to the intellect, but proportional to the powers granted to the individual in question. A bad carpenter can screw up hammering and hurt his finger. A bad military leader can send millions to their needless deaths.

[MishaK]

James, the main issue here seems to be that you take those who were bamboozled by Hitler's charisma at their word. They mistook a lot of hot air for substance and so do you. You take their having been impressed by Hitler and acting on his orders as prima facie evidence of genius, when in fact an incompetent nincompoop bamboozled a lot of people by telling them what they wanted to hear, since much of Germany shared his feelings about WWI and the subsequent economic crisis (that wasn't even his idea). We've gotten a bit smarter since and an orator like Hitler would be laughed off the stage with that ridiculous pompousness and melodrama. We have learned not to confuse that for substance. We also no longer live in a patriarchal society and don't automatically adore authority as such, the way people did in the early 20th century. We question authority. That is not to say that modern society could not be bamboozled by a different kind of demagogue, but he would have to use very different methods. Point is: Hitler lacked substance. You are repeating the mistake of those who followed him in confusing his demagoguery for actual leadership qualities, when the proof is in the historical pudding, and it shows that Hitler in the end failed miserably at every task on his military and political agenda.

[Franco]

We've gotten a bit smarter since and an orator like Hitler would be laughed off the stage with that ridiculous pompousness and melodrama.

Apparently not, considering the results of the last presidential election in the US.

[Bulldog]

James, the main issue here seems to be that you take those who were bamboozled by Hitler's charisma at their word. They mistook a lot of hot air for substance and so do you.

This could also be applied to folks like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glen Beck.  I trust that no board members consider any of these three to be a genius.

[Bulldog]

Vaild point.

Not valid, because Obama was neither pompous nor melodramatic.

[Tapkaara]

This could also be applied to folks like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glen Beck.  I trust that no board members consider any of these three to be a genius.

I love Glenn Beck.

[Bulldog]

I love Glenn Beck.

He is entertaining, but he finds left-wing conspiracies under every rock.  He does so by making connections that are quite dubious.

FWIW, I do like him more than the ever-sanctimonious Keith Olbermann who even tries to beat up on beauty contestants who don't possess his particular views.  Olbermann is a disgusting person.

[Franco]

Not valid, because Obama was neither pompous nor melodramatic.

The point was the masses being bamboozled by a good orator.  I'll give you Obama is low on the melodrama scale, but, pompous he is.  At least in my opinion.

[Franco]

This could also be applied to folks like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glen Beck.  I trust that no board members consider any of these three to be a genius.

Oh and the Daily Kos and MoveOn.org offer nothing but even-handed political analysis.

The difference between partisans on the right and left is that those on the right admit they are biased to the right, those on the left attempt to carry off a masquerade of being unbiased moderates.  The funny thing is that everything liberals accuse Fox News of doing, CBS actually has done.

[karlhenning]

Oh and the Daily Kos and MoveOn.org offer nothing but even-handed political analysis.

Strawman of the Day!