An artistic genius!

[Tapkaara]

I have some doubt as to whether Hitler really 'manipulated' his followers or whether he had an obsession which was in tune with the mood of the times.    As has been observed, he only had to get elected once, after that any dissent was suppressed brutally and the government became a self-sustaining movement.  The end result of Hitler's reign was that his country was obliterated from the map, it literally ceased to exist.  I don't see that as a brilliant success.  I would not assert that he was unintelligent, but I don't see any evidence of truly extraordinary abilities.

True, he was elected once, but once in power, he used what I would assume to be a very acute political mind to achieve more or less any goals he wanted and everyone followed him. He brought back the German economy, created infrastructure and the eventually used his powers to do horrible things, too.

Yes, the Nazi's were defeated and he made the fatal error of trying to invade the USSR. But I think he was otherwise brilliant in achieving what he did, good OR BAD. And he accomplished quite a bit.

I can fully understand one's trepidation in applying a flattering term such as "genius" to evil men, and it's not my intent to convince anyone to think Hitler was a genius (or sorts) if they think the term should only be applied to good men. Just my two cents, and nothing more!

[Bulldog]

I think all this genius business is crap.  You can call Hitler a genius or not; it won't make any difference to the millions of people erased.

[Tapkaara]

I think many would consider J. Robert Oppenheimer a genius. But his genius was instrumental in the murder of tens of thousands innocent Japanese civilians. Maybe he's not a genius after all?

[drogulus]

     Ohhh, what fun!!

A conception like that of genius cannot be expressed in words, though various attempts have been made:

http://www.theabsolute.net/minefield/genqtpg.html

   I figured it wouldn't be long before the Absolute that Can't Be Expressed in Words would be expressed in words. I'd be careful of concepts like that. No wonder Hitler glommed onto it. Yes, this is confused. It makes genius a catchall for anything extraordinary a narcissist feels about himself. Genius is restless, purple, ambidextrous and super super Absolute in that charming 19th century way. So I think its correct to say that Hitler believed he was such a genius and that the concept of genius he inherited in distorted form from Wagner and Nietzsche inspired him. But as foolish as these vestiges of the Romantic rebellion may look now they did not often produce monsters. There was more to the ideology of the Nazis than that. The more common noxious result of updated hyper-Romanticism is found among the avant-garde cultists and fringe left politicos. They don't usually kill anyone, though they do their best to bore you to death.

   

A man of genius is unbearable, unless he possesses at least two things besides: gratitude and purity.

                                                                                                                                                           Nietzsche

    Notice that this is a collection of attitudes. There isn't anything here about what the cause of genius might be, or how it might be usefully defined. Why is the supposed unbearableness (itself a stupid conclusion, but never mind) of a genius a matter for a philosopher to wrestle with, instead of his family or friends? The 19th century habit of substituting attitudinizing for thought on big subjects led to the reform of philosophy in the English language countries. In Europe it got off to a good start with the Vienna Circle and Wittgenstein but was derailed by the Communist-Fascist turn back to idealism (in Marx thinly disguised as "dialectical materialism") and hostility to Enlightenment liberalism.

If Hitler is a "genius," it is because he had a certain political genius for manipulating his followers. Someone who isn't at least very intelligent, I don't think, can manipulate his way to absolute control of a major European government, leading his nation to invade other nations for "decent causes" or order the mass extermination of people and have it carried out. Sure, Hitler must have been sure of himself and used terror tactics as well, but I don't think one can easily accomplish what he did (good OR bad) without having an above average cunning and prowess. He wasn't a third-rate generalissimo of some banana republic or the reclusive despotic leader of a crubling communist state like North Korea. He was a political mastermind, perhaps a genius, and I think that is a fair assesment. I agree that "genius" does not equal good and pure.

     I agree. Especially about genius not equalling good and pure. There's no reason to define genius that way. What does "pure" mean in this context? That's just more dreary attitudinizing. You say that to convince people what you say is important and profound. Genius is an estimate of abilities derived either from tests or accomplishments. My guess is that by this measure Hitler doesn't qualify. Stalin was the only one of the despots that looked like a genius based on an overall assessment of his abilities. I'm not sure about him, either.

If children grew up according to early indications, we should have nothing but geniuses.

Goethe


True genius sees with the eyes of a child and thinks with the brain of a genii.

Puzant Thomajan

     These quotes have useful content. How are children and geniuses similar? If you mean infants and very young children it's likely that there are common features. Both geniuses and children hold beliefs lightly enough to change them when necessary. In the case of children this is obviously a trait without which our species couldn't survive. Children have to learn fast...they have a long way to go. On this view genius is the survival of early learning abilities into adulthood. People say scientists are like big children. It always impressed my that this is not just a saying, that functionally it might be true.

    Edit: Obviously, genius first appears at a very young age, so it isn't just the abilities of a child that are retained. There is something additional. I think this is an enhanced parallelism that gives a speed advantage, so the genius is not discouraged like the other children, Whatever the cost/benefit calculation is for the average child, it will be different for the extraordinary one. Effort will pay off quickly, so it will pay to continue to solve whatever problems are encountered. I note that genius children do not just get more correct answers on tests, they finish the tests faster.

[Scarpia]

True, he was elected once, but once in power, he used what I would assume to be a very acute political mind to achieve more or less any goals he wanted and everyone followed him. He brought back the German economy, created infrastructure and the eventually used his powers to do horrible things, too.

Yes, the Nazi's were defeated and he made the fatal error of trying to invade the USSR. But I think he was otherwise brilliant in achieving what he did, good OR BAD. And he accomplished quite a bit.

I can fully understand one's trepidation in applying a flattering term such as "genius" to evil men, and it's not my intent to convince anyone to think Hitler was a genius (or sorts) if they think the term should only be applied to good men. Just my two cents, and nothing more!

The fact that I don't believe Hitler was a genius has nothing to do with a disinclination to apply the term to evil people.  The accepted definition makes reference to intellectual or creative ability.  As I mentioned above, I think he was a cultural phenomenon, rather than a brilliant person.  He galvanized the nation, which made the economic and military achievements possible, but others (who were perhaps equally evil but more skilled) were responsible for the actual successes.   The military tactics were not Hitler's idea, and the war went south fast when he started to intervene and overrule his commanders and planners.  I also see nothing in his background to suggest that he had any insight into economics.

I think many would consider J. Robert Oppenheimer a genius. But his genius was instrumental in the murder of tens of thousands innocent Japanese civilians. Maybe he's not a genius after all?

Oppenheimer was a very good physicist, maybe a great one, but I don't think many would call him a genius.  On the other hand, I see no basis for saying that he was evil.  At the time that work on the atomic bomb started it was apparent that the Nazis were attempting to develop a similar device.  The survival of the US, and the ability of the free world to resist fascism was in doubt.  Aside from that, whether or not to use the weapon was not his decision.  The use of the device in Japan can be legitimately questioned.  However, in view of the fact that the empire of Japan murdered at least 12 million civilians in China in the course of the war and millions of others elsewhere, I think it is possible to argue that the use of the device in Japan may have saved lives on balance and can be justified on that basis.

[Tapkaara]

If you do not think that Oppenheimer, nor Hilter were geniuses, that's OK. I won;t try to convince you that either were, my dear Scarpia. My whole point here is that the term "genius" cannot possibly reserved for good men.

[Tapkaara]

And one can't begin to even understand the subject in great depth if all they're doing is basing/referencing it on a dictionary definition in a literal sense. Obviously there is more. Tapkaara you summed it up well in your last posts - Hitler in essence, was political mastermind.

Indeed he was. And he surrounded himself with other political masterminds. And to say so is not condoning Hitler or the Nazis. I see it as a statement of fact.

The Nazis were powerful, they accomplished a lot and put up a good fight in WWII. It's not because they were lucky or a gang of cultural phenomenons. They had their treachery down to an art. They were masters of that art.

[drogulus]

Indeed he was. And he surrounded himself with other political masterminds. And to say so is not condoning Hitler or the Nazis. I see it as a statement of fact.

The Nazis were powerful, they accomplished a lot and put up a good fight in WWII. It's not because they were lucky or a gang of cultural phenomenons. They had their treachery down to an art. They were masters of that art.

    Most Nazis were stupid and thuggish in a very obvious way. People who met Hitler were amazed at his banality. This is fairly typical of the self-crowned genius. The extraordinary thing about the Nazis was not how they took power but how a nation like Germany allowed them to have it.

[Tapkaara]

    Most Nazis were stupid and thuggish in a very obvious way. People who met Hitler often were at his banality. This is fairly typical of the self-crowned genius. The extraordinary thing about the Nazis was not how they took power but how a nation like Germany allowed them to have it.

Well, I guess it was by pure luck the Nazis become so powerful...!

[drogulus]

Well, I guess it was by pure luck the Nazis become so powerful...!

     I wouldn't guess that. But luck was involved. The Communists, Socialists, liberals and traditional nationalists and monarchists were all fighting each other. The Weimar government had discredited the moderate left and democracy. Politics had become a matter of coalitions among extremists. The Nazis (Hitler, really) simply betrayed their coalition partners and seized power. So the extraordinary factor was not Nazi brilliance or ruthlessness but the weakness of everyone else.

[Scarpia]

If you do not think that Oppenheimer, nor Hilter were geniuses, that's OK. I won;t try to convince you that either were, my dear Scarpia. My whole point here is that the term "genius" cannot possibly reserved for good men.

I agree, I regard "genius" as neutral with regard to good or evil.  However, I do not know of a true genius who was evil.  Most were quite ordinary with regard to their moral qualities and conformed to the social customs that prevailed.  For instance, except for not bathing and (according to reports) smelling quite bad Einstein was quite conventional (aside from figuring out the space-time continuum thing).

[Scarpia]

    Most Nazis were stupid and thuggish in a very obvious way. People who met Hitler were amazed at his banality. This is fairly typical of the self-crowned genius. The extraordinary thing about the Nazis was not how they took power but how a nation like Germany allowed them to have it.

The conventional view is that the enormous resentment ordinary Germans felt for humiliation by enemies without and "betrayal" by enemies within was seized upon by the Nazis.

[Florestan]

    Most Nazis were stupid and thuggish in a very obvious way. People who met Hitler were amazed at his banality. This is fairly typical of the self-crowned genius. The extraordinary thing about the Nazis was not how they took power but how a nation like Germany allowed them to have it.

Hitler did not appear in a vacuum and the disastruous aftermath of WWI is not the sole responsible for his rise to power. Goethe and Heine at their time made bleak predictions about the fate of Germany (which in a strikingly manner point to Nazism) and Erik von Kuehhnelt-Leddihn makes a rather convincing case that the seeds of Hitler and Nazism have been planted by Luther and his Reformation. It might be true or not but I agree with one thing: the political phenomena which we regard as typical for modernity have roots that go much deeper in history than the 19th century.

[Scarpia]

This is your own personal criteria which is narrow, but in fact - it can be found in that whole spectrum, from Gandhi to Hitler and many shades in-between.

It is not my personal criteria, it is the accepted definition of the word, based on common usage.

But more to the point, I find you reverence for Hitler puzzling, to say the least.

[MishaK]

I know it's a word. But if you try to understand the implications of what has been said here by objectively quantifying it with a cherry-picked literal dictionary translation, which is a completely daft approach to this, you'll never understand. Hitler had a major impact (read: influence) on the 20th century. Evil people throughout history have major influence on the course of things. Oh and IQ testing is a very flawed, narrow & not a completely sure-fire way to measure human intelligence and what that can fully entail, let alone beginning to even understand the complexities of genius, which again, is found in innumerable areas/applied in various ways, it's not limited to some  academic-based aptitude-ideal.

You're putting the cart before the horse. Just the fact that someone in the end result ended up having an influence on history doesn't make him a genius. (And conversely someone who labors in obscurity for ages and dies unknown isn't necessarily not a genius.) Often quite ordinary people find themselves in positions to effect change at historical crossroads. It doesn't say anything about their aptitude or intellect. Hitler was many things. A genius he was not and most certainly not an artistic one. No, the word 'genius' is not reserved for 'good' men, but some intellect is required for the title. Hitler had charisma but not much else. He was utterly incompetent as a military leader.

As to the rest of this thread, drogulus is correct. The 19th century view of history was based on 'great men' who did 'great things' based on their 'greatness', as if all of that could just emerge by force of thought in a vacuum, regardless of material obstacles and historical context. Modern academia is science based and does not buy into that sort of genius worship and thus rightfully regards the 19th century view as 'confused'. It lives on in popular biography and such, but as an approach to understanding history it is pretty useless because it relegates history to the random acts of 'inspired' individuals.

[MishaK]

"Ris[ing] to power & forever chang[ing] the course of history" is not part of any definition or conception of 'genius'. You can be a genius and have no impact on history whatsoever. And conversely, completely ordinary and less than average people can change history due to the serendipities of life. It does not take genius to do it. A person of extraordinary capabilities exhibits those at all stages of life in some form or another. Someone like Hitler did not, until he randomly became the figurehead of a movement that would have existed with or without him, as it was a product of that society at that point in time not of Hitler's personal political abilities. What you are doing, and what many of the 'confused' historians of the 19th century did, is to practice a kind of reverse teleology. Because you see a certain outcome (e.g. Hitler ended up leading Germany to its doom in the middle of the last century), you wrongly infer from that historic circumstance that ergo that history depended on the person of Hitler and that he was the sole actor who caused all this to happen through the sheer force of his willpower. You basically see the result and infer that this result was preprogrammed into the DNA of its most prominent actor, thus leading to an essentially inevitable result. But this is nonsense. Hitler simply wasn't a particularly exceptional person. And ordinary people often make more convincing popular leaders precisely because the public can identify with them - something the hardly ever do with real geniuses.

[drogulus]

     

Hitler did not appear in a vacuum and the disastruous aftermath of WWI is not the sole responsible for his rise to power. Goethe and Heine at their time made bleak predictions about the fate of Germany (which in a strikingly manner point to Nazism) and Erik von Kuehhnelt-Leddihn makes a rather convincing case that the seeds of Hitler and Nazism have been planted by Luther and his Reformation. It might be true or not but I agree with one thing: the political phenomena which we regard as typical for modernity have roots that go much deeper in history than the 19th century.

     A Catholic monarchist might want to associate the Nazis with democracy and the French Revolution. This amounts to treating all developments contrary to your wishes as leading to the worst outcome, even if these tendencies are at war with each other. But I will say that the liberality of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, in relative terms, is not a myth. However, the suitability of monarchism and Christianity for each other, while no doubt true, doesn't convince me that they are together suitable for human beings who have left absolutism behind. We won't go back.

     The 19th century gave birth to the ideologies that were most responsible. And 19th German politics was frequently concerned with the "Jewish Question", and this accelerated after the 1840's. A couple of factors are relevant. One was the emancipation of Jews, which raised the possibility of equal citizenship, and the question of whether Jews could be considered as equals if they did not give up their religion. Many who had favored emancipation had done so with the understanding that the Jews would embrace Christianity, and in fact many did, but many more did not. This refusal produced a backlash and intensification of antisemitism. Another factor was the role that Jews played in revolutionary politics and the economy. The Jews were seen as leaders of both capitalism and the revolutionary reaction against it. This was seen in a conspiratorial manner. The Jews would profit from capitalism as well as destroy it. Jews were seen therefore as a mass phenomenon, not as individuals. The intellectual rationale for this kind of racism reached its highest development in the 19th century.

There are several people who are intelligent & can learn things quickly, that's one thing, but that's not the sum total of what makes genius. What's done with what is learned/absorbed, how it's utilized, acted upon, internalized, achieved, more than all else heavily ways into this, so does the complete personality and make-up of the person, amoung other things in this very complex subject. Very few have the certain mixture of qualities to rise to power & forever change the course of history is such a major way.

     I would be happy if the term genius was not used unless extraordinary intellectual abilities could at least be inferred by the nature of achievements. I think O Mensch is correct that reading back genius from political success is not a good use of the term. Hitler was by ordinary measures intelligent but no genius. The problem is that genius must be measured 2 ways, by direct measure of aptitude and, in the many cases where this is unknown, by the effects that genius has on certain kinds of achievement. So genius has both a fixed and very fluid approximate meaning and neither one can be eliminated. We have to deal with genius both ways. One thing we can do is recognize that there are fields where extraordinary accomplishments are not associated with great intellect, and politics is one that comes to mind.

[drogulus]

    I have to say more about the monarchy/religion vs. democracy comparison. What is really being compared is a closed-architecture system which on its own estimation has reduced the capacity for human evil, which democracy/autonomy of the intellect reintroduces as a permanent danger. I see these as patterns in the history of intellectual development and that open-architecture systems that scientific and liberal modernity constitute do not yield to the older pattern. I just don't see it, first, and I don't want to see it. The view that life is an experiment without a fixed goal is intrinsic to the modern mind and will not disappear. It can't be contained by a goodness model that stands outside and above it. Instead the idea of goodness will itself be derived experimentally, though the suitability of traditional answers should frequently be the result.

     Does this present the dangers that are feared by the monarchist/believer? Yes, it does exactly that. So does the disintegration of the old system when it no longer commands belief. A pervasive unreality about the autonomy of belief over what is discoverable renders the old belief systems permanently unstable. You'd have to dumb the whole world down to keep everyone safe. And the subjects (formerly "citizens") would be bound to notice. In fact, people noticing that the old divine rights in either their heavenly or earthly manifestations are not truths written into the structure of the universe is what the conflict is all about. It might be the case that people really would be safer if they could be controlled by such systems, if the weaknesses of the old systems could be somehow repaired or at least hidden. That isn't possible, though, once they are recognized.

[Scarpia]

I would be happy if the term genius was not used unless extraordinary intellectual abilities could at least be inferred by the nature of achievements. I think O Mensch is correct that reading back genius from political success is not a good use of the term. Hitler was by ordinary measures intelligent but no genius. The problem is that genius must be measured 2 ways, by direct measure of aptitude and, in the many cases where this is unknown, by the effects that genius has on certain kinds of achievement. So genius has both a fixed and very fluid approximate meaning and neither one can be eliminated. We have to deal with genius both ways. One thing we can do is recognize that there are fields where extraordinary accomplishments are not associated with great intellect, and politics is one that comes to mind.

It all comes back to definitions.  "Genius" is sometimes used to mean influence or influence, characteristic, or inclination (i.e., "little Johnny had a genius for finding the muddiest puddle to play in.").  When a person is labeled "a genius" it means possessing extraordinary intelligence or creativity. 

I don't think it is useful to define genius in terms of aptitude, but in terms of actual accomplishment.  We might be able to find someone who scored as well on a test as Einstein.  But Einstein is a genius because, looking at the same data as everyone else, figured out things that it took 20 years for other physicists to understand, even having his papers to read.  He changed the way scientists think.  You could say the same for Newton, and it is an interesting question whether the same could be said for Shakespeare, Mozart, Wagner or Stravinsky, and how creative genius is defined.   For Einstein, there were multiple successes.  His Nobel Prize was awarded for what is now considered one of his minor achievements.

Hitler was the charismatic character who allowed a group of racist nationalists to gain power.   He's like a Rush Limbaugh who actually got into office, rather than simply ranting hysterically on the radio.   The Nazi's had initial success attacking weak defenseless countries like Poland and France, but it takes an imbecile, not a genius, to simultaneously make war on the Britain, the U.S., and the U.S.S.R.

[Scarpia]

Genius's throughout history are individual(s) that do shape or have major impacts within the areas they excel in, and often the world itself. Even while Hitler was in power, he had to get there, it wasn't a random event, his charisma, orator abilities, insight, creativity, willpower, ability to convince, construct & lead, his strategy & deception ("the bigger the lie, the easier the sell") - all of these things & more are tied to intelligence, it takes brainpower to put it all together and it's not an easy feat - and he turned things around tremendously eventually going off the deep end.

Another fallacy is that genius has to be there & detected in the very beginning and at all stages of life. In fact, genius can bloom later or at any point in life too, and there can be fleeting moments of it, leaving it's mark. In music for instance you have Mozart (early) & Wagner (late).

Anyway, at least there is agreement on the point made earlier that genius is not reserved to only 'good' people.

Again, your admiration for Hitler is hard to understand.