Genius
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /lit/ - Literature
You are currently reading a thread in /lit/ - Literature
Serious question /lit/
How in the fuck does one become a genius tier writer such as Milton, Nietzsche, Dante or Shakespeare etc? What seperates them from the rest of us plebs?
It's like they weren't even human. Everytime I remember that Nietzsche was professor of classical philology at the University of Basel in Switzerland at only 24 years old, or that Blaise Pascal wrote his first scientific paper at age 8 and by 16 had written a mathematical essay advancing the field of geometry or any other similar stories of great minds throughout history I get an overwhelming sense of dread and I'm usually left feeling like a worthless lazy piece of shit.
Seriously, how did they do it? Was it just that they weren't distracted and worked for hours everyday or what? How in the fuck does one even write an epic as great as Paradise Lost, it would seem impossible and unimaginable if it hadn't already been written by a blind and impoverished man named John Milton.
How do we become great /lit/?
>>7467691
>How do we become great /lit/?
Stop going on 4chan
>>7467704
I don't believe this though. There must be a way
>>7467713
So you're saying do not allow yourself to be distracted at all costs?
>>7467691
>We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit
~Aristotle
>>7467737
>Read a few middlebrow trashcan airport novels and then die in embarassment and humiliation.
Why when it is possible to do more?
>>7467741
I've heard this before of course but that doesn't really answer the question.
>>7467691
Don't try to be 'great'
Do what you're interested in with more intensity than anyone else, and don't compare yourself with others too often
And yeah, just do it
>become great
>become
It's true that Ajax was not born a giant, but he was always going to become one, provided he lived
>>7467691
Shit on that level is inborn.
>>7467691
character precedes intellect in importance.
>>7467825
I am convinced that it is possible to produce something as great or of similar quality within our lifetimes so long as we put oursevles on the correct path.
>>7467833
so you're saying it's decided before birth?
>>7467838
interesting, sometimes I think so too but that feels like an excuse in all honesty. they were just men, afterall. (I think)
>>7467844
How so?
>>7467691
you do realize that genius is beyond mere will, right? you are born with greatness, and yes, people can stand out in the face of adversity and strive to do great things and succeed, but genius is something different. it is looking at the world through new eyes and seeing past convention, pushing forward a path that has never been seen or heard of, in spite of society, in spite of intellectualism, in spite of philosophy. genius is an attribute of self and self alone, and we who see it are not along for the ride, but are given it through the filter of our banality. or some shit. i don't know dude, read some pynchon?
everyone has it in them to be the best versions of themselves but we're not all geniuses. that's life mane
>>7467855
>but genius is something different. it is looking at the world through new eyes and seeing past convention, pushing forward a path that has never been seen or heard of, in spite of society, in spite of intellectualism, in spite of philosophy.
But doesn't everyone see the world through new eyes?
>>7467856
What is genius then?
>>7467862
Why is it not true? I'm sure Da Vinci, Shakespeare etc were all influenced by someone else or something else at some point.
>>7467895
>What is genius then?
Me
>>7467895
>But doesn't everyone see the world through new eyes?
see: banality.
no. they don't. your best hope really is to isolate yourself completely, emulate, then transcend. if you can take mere derivation of a genius and transform it, take it and make it unrecognizable through your toil, you might be able to at least have the slightest inkling of greatness, but genius, as i said, is the novel, the new, not everyone has the capability to see through new eyes, in fact, most don't. most see what their fathers and their mothers see, what their families see, their friends, their lovers, their televisions, their literature, their music. they are amalgams of the others. it is when the purity of self shines through and is transfixed in art that genius can be seen. and it is without effort. it is drifting above because you have no choice but to do so. if you were truly genius you would not ask this question, but would simply rise above. n' shit. go read some IJ.
>>7467900
No, that would be me. Nice try though.
>>7467921
why are you posting this ugly girl? :p
>>7467925
God I love slightly ugly asians
>>7467862
>Why can you not accept that you are an Untermensch who can not even properly interpret a novel or poem?
projection
>>7467916
>if you were truly genius you would not ask this question, but would simply rise above. n' shit
How can you be sure genius' of the past didn't act this same shit? If not to someone out loud but atleast to themselves? Surely some of them had to have done, right?
Other than that, it was a good post m9.
>>7467933
such chinky eyes. i just want to pull her eyelids so far apart until she bleeds
-_-
>>7467967
>>7467933
>>7467928
>>7467925
Stop derailing this thread you gay fucks
>>7467950
act it? as in playing a part? i would call that still an "act" of genius.
my real point is plain. genius is a gift of the pure self to the masses. we all roil and splash against that tiny silver fish of self, an ocean of followers. there are those who work all their lives to achieve greatness. nothing is wrong with greatness, and it is arguably more distinguished and important as it is earned. genius is the cream of humanity realized through the accident of birth, through fever and disability and the chaos of our ocean. in the simplest terms, genius is other, not beyond. the rest is sameness, trained or lazy.
>>7467980
>You're fucked.
>The truth will reveal itself some day in a sudden epiphany. You will start crying uncontrollably and then maybe even kill yourself.
more projection
>>7467980
can you post little chinese girls? like 4 to 11
>>7467992
>Nice sliding, Yidd.
it's da JOOOOOOOOS
MOOOOOOOOOOOOM
>>7467998
ok :(
i like looking at small gook girls. gook women are tiny but gook girls are even tinier. imagine how tight the pussies are
>>7467980
I want to impregnate her desu
>>7468001
good for you, nigger.
consider putting on a name or trip so people can filter your attention whoring and worthless posts.
>>7467691
Most historical geniuses aren't terribly prodigious as youth, albeit have very, very high native aptitude and academic passions. That is, they're precocious but not absurdly accomplished.
It just seems obvious that child prodigies are rather over-represented among the greatest geniuses.Stop striving or yearning for something unobtainable. Go for personal excellence, stop believing you might obtain one in a million eminence.
>>7467980
>You're fucked.
>The truth will reveal itself some day in a sudden epiphany. You will start crying uncontrollably and then maybe even kill yourself.
Says the faggot posting pictures ugly asian people like a gigantic fucking loser
>>7468018
>Stop striving or yearning for something unobtainable. Go for personal excellence, stop believing you might obtain one in a million eminence.
this 2bh
it's just semantics, who cares if you're 'great' or a 'genius', so as long you've created something worthy that you're proud of.
Even Julius Caesar wept when he compared himself to Alexander the Great, don't stand next to giants OP.
>>7468028
yes, do not stand next to them, rather
>nanos gigantum humeris insidentes
or, in other words,
>If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.
>>7468000
Nice trips
Genius is tremendous talent that is well cultivated. If you don't have tremendous talent, you can cultivate all you want but you'll never be great.
The idea that your average guy can go to the top if he tries hard enough is capitalist ideology to sell inequality and justify misery by saying people simply didn't try enough. It's the sort of just world fallacy necessary to maintain such a system.
This 3DPD poster is actually making sense, to be honest.
Sell ur soul
literally by eating fruit all day
>>7467691
>kill self
>hope you're reborn with a higher IQ
>>7467691
I will offer a more detailed answer tomorrow, OP. Today I am tired from work, a writing session and a drawing session, so I don't have mental fuel to make a quality post.
Yet I will offer some words. To answer in a brief, tl;dr way:
>"Genius is the happy result of a combination of many circumstances".
- The Study of British Genius
by Havelock Ellis
The first thing one needs is an above average level of intelligence. You don't need an IQ of 160 +, but neither you will get the results with the average 100 points. It takes a level of intelligence a little above average (I read on different book that they estimate it to be around or above 120-125). Then you need a personality that shows strong will and ambition, and also a tolerance for hard work. You need the right environment, above all else on childhood (an Einstein being borne in a slum in South America and rising to scientific preeminence is inconceivable). You need the person to have the possibility of finding out what is it that she likes. Then you need the luck that the said person will remain healthy and alive for the period of time necessary for the development of the required skills. Some bits of egocentrism and a great desire to be approved and admired are also quite common.
In some ways there is also the necessity of being born in the right time, especially with sciences, but perhaps also in art: Michelangelo and Beethoven could have been born in the same cities and countries today, but music and the arts are different now, and we don't see Popes and other Maecenas using large sums of money to buy blocks of marble or finance enormous fresco paintings; Shakespeare was born in one of the few periods of time where poetry was lucrative with the tradition of verse and rhetoric in the theater. But one should never underestimate the power of a solitary artistic genius that might defy all the conventions of his time to present his own vision of art (imagine a verse-drama writer working in Shakespearean plays today, for example: it could happen - I would love that it actually happened - , but the poor guy would have to work much harder on his career).
One thing you should know: personality is more important than crude intelligence. There are several people with IQ's higher than 120-125, but few geniuses. To become a genius one need to work very hard and face challenges that would drive most people insane. That's generally possible because geniuses are overwhelmingly ambitious: they have enormous thirst for praise and acceptance; no matter how gentle and polite they seem to be, they are always trying to be better than other humans, even (or especially) the dead ones.
Unlike what you are taught in school anon, not everyone is equal.
Some people are more gifted than you, whether it's in areas of science or philosophy or athletic pursuits. They often did not "work harder" than you, or "love it more", they were just born with a better mind or genetic endowment.
You are mediocre, but that's okay, because we have room for mediocre people now, we can feed, clothe and shelter you until you are in your 80s, all we ask for in return is for you to never have an original thought or idea since that is dangerous, and to give your life in servitude to this glorious system that enables you to exist.
>>7468526
>You are mediocre, but that's okay
so much projection in this thread, seriously
It's all about the time really.
You're on here complaining about not being a genius so I imagine you don't have very many social distractions. Just devote yourself to reading a few hours a day. Try to find a person or two to correspond with concerning what you read.
That's it.
Of course, being alone is too much for most these days. Too much seems at risk when one's left with only their shadow.
>>7468602
but he said it's a simple, quick answer before coming back and giving a good one.
>>7468711
>so I imagine you don't have very many social distractions.
Conjecture
>Just devote yourself to reading a few hours a day
Reading for a few of hours a day is not enough. Millions of people do this and do not go on to produce great works.
>That's it.
Wow, sounds like you have it all figured out. Please share your masterpiece with us.
>>7467691
autism, mostly
I've accepted it, you must too. If you are asking the question you have failed at conception I'm afraid.
Age of greats is over atm, wait till the Great darkness and become the new Homer
>>7468711
>That's it.
lol. this guy.
does it really bruise your ego that much to come to terms with natural genius existing in a chosen few?
>>7469128
>If you are asking the question you have failed at conception I'm afraid.
Again, you can never be sure that greats from history didn't ask this same question. It's probable that they did, if not only to themselves.
>autism, mostly
I'm guessing you're autistic anon
>>7469139
Not that other guy, but Nietzsche wrote in Human, All Too-Human that "genius" is a term people use to protect their own ego -
after all, that "other" genius is a genius, there's "no way" you could achieve that level. You're protecting and maintaining your own mediocrity if you call someone a genius, and over-inflating your ego if you call yourself a genius. To Nietzsche, everybody is capable of genius, it's talent + time + hard work
>>7469156
>To Nietzsche, everybody is capable of genius, it's talent + time + hard work
We are talking about a rung of genius that no amount of time management and hard work will get you to unless you have some other inimitable quality. You can't just work your way to the composing level of a Bach. Cherry-picking Nietzsche quotes is a hazardous thing at the best of times. Try to avoid it.
>>7469170
>We are talking about a rung of genius that no amount of time management and hard work will get you
>Cherry-picking Nietzsche quotes
Christ you're retarded, why did I bother to post
The bar was pretty low when Nietzsche came on the scene.
I heard his professors gave him a PhD for his thesis because they had no idea what he was talking about. So they just thought "wow this guy must be lightyears ahead in thought", when in reality he spent too much time in the dark.
If you want to get a PhD in philosophy you pretty much have to do some fancy rewording, a bunch of fancy sophistry and attribute at least 10 neologism to your self.
>>7469182
The 20something is indignant that I'm not eating up his half-remembered Nietzsche quote.
Oh no.
>>7469170
OP here. I agree with , ''it's talent + time + hard work'' but I mean, how productive can one man be? All of the authors mentioned wrote like they had lived for a hundred years.
>>7469185
>I heard his professors gave him a PhD for his thesis because they had no idea what he was talking about
Lmao that is funniest thing I've heard all day. Mental image of based neech rambling to a bunch of professors who looking on, confused. Source?
>>7469193
>All of the authors mentioned wrote like they had lived for a hundred years.
Are you implying they were vampires?
>>7469193
>I agree with , ''it's talent + time + hard work''
Everyone agrees with this. You can achieve greatness through hard work if you have some talent to start off with. But the very few masters had a depth of feeling and thought that you can't simply arrive at through brute determination. There were many poets in Dante's time who were as dedicated as he was and did they ever produce a work to rival his? Phantom qualities aside the personal life experiences that go on to inform an artist's character and sensibility play a huge role.
>>7467691
>Seriously, how did they do it? Was it just that they weren't distracted and worked for hours everyday or what?
I'd guess the answer is no, or everyone who worked hard would achieve similar results. Seems more likely that they had huge amounts of talent.
Weird how you don't even seem to consider this as a possibility, tbqhwy
>>7467825
Can you fuck off you avatar faggot?
Why do Americans not get that some people are born better than other people at certain things, no amount of hard work will change that.
>>7469229
Because their cartoons teach them that you can do it if you just believe.
>>7469234
Last I checked Americans didn't invent naruto
>>7469229
That's such a self-loathing idea. Why improve yourself at all if you think someone else must and will be better at anything you do just because they happen to be born that way?
>>7469217
>Weird how you don't even seem to consider this as a possibility
I did consider this. Still an interesting discussion
>>7469229
I'm not American, you cunt.
>>7469217
>I'd guess the answer is no, or everyone who worked hard would achieve similar results
But couldn't it be argued that they just didn't work hard enough?
>>7469236
That assumes that your only motivation for doing anything is to be The Absolute Bestest Ever at it. That's dumb.
(And also distinctively American, thinking about it)
>>7469229
>Why do Americans not get that some people are born better than other people at certain things, no amount of hard work will change that.
This is probably more characteristic of gooks than white Americans.
I don't see us much different than Euros regarding this.
Please stop proliferating the "LE WHY DO AMERICANS ALWAYS X Y"
It's really trite and inaccurate.
>>7469237
>But couldn't it be argued that they just didn't work hard enough?
No, because you can't supply any evidence that that's the case.
>>7469246
>we hold these truths to be self-evident...
>>7469249
>inequality in talents ought to entail inequality in treatment under the law
What are you, some fascist faggot?
>>7469251
Nope, just saying that the idea that men are created equal is right there at the start of Murrica's founding myth. Yes, technically it's talking about endowing rights, but there's no way that it won't be read as suggesting people are equal.
I'm a genius. I'm probably going to be recognized as the greatest novelist my country has ever produced in 100 years from now. I've dedicated my life entirely to my work. I was a brilliant student in school and I studied the canon. My teachers were in awe of me. Writing took me ten years to master, although I possessed the basics on my first attempt. My parents never loved me, and I was unpopular at school, and my first heartache nearly killed me. I've lead an interesting life, working many different jobs, sometimes being homeless, and travelling. I'm highly educated. My IQ has been clinically evaluated in the genius range, and the doctors were so amazed when they heard my score. I pour everything I have into my books. I'm mentally ill with schizophrenia and I think that has helped my work a little, although not as much as you'd think, and in some ways has done more harm. In a lot of ways I feel like I've been shut out of humanity, and that I'm alone in the void. I can impress and entertain with my writing, though, and that's the one way I ever feel connected with anyone. Every word I write is for the glory of God and to impress on others the magnificent sensations I experience standing before Creation. I wouldn't trade this gift for a normal life.
times were different back then op, that's everything you need to know
>>7468488
Complementing
What I have read is that a certain level of IQ is necessary for great achievements, but once you pass a certain limit (IQ of 120) it’s not easy to make correlations. Once this limit is achieved, a person with an IQ of 125-130 might end up creating greater works of art than someone with an extremely rare IQ of 160, and that even though the two people are both making efforts and working hard. The person with the higher IQ might absorb information faster and understand subjects with more facility, and yet his/her creativity might not be as incredible as the one we found in the person with a 125 IQ. The main thing here is:
>A higher than average IQ seems to be necessary for great achievements, but once you pass a certain level the creativity and personal story of a person can be much more important than extra points of IQ; about creativity, there is no consensus about what it is, how it works, how it can be measured and how much it is related to raw intelligence.
IQ is not an absolute test for intelligence, and everybody knows it, yet there is a correlation between great achievers and successful professionals and higher IQ scores. To say IQ is completely irrelevant is to deny a lot of collective knowledge and accumulated data about the subject. But when we say “high IQ” we are not speaking of enormous IQ scores, such as those of 160-170-180 and higher, but simply IQ’s that are superior to scores like 120. In fact, there are lots of people in the world with the capacity to excel in great creative undertakes.
One of the best phrases I ever read about genius is this one, by Havelock Ellis, on his book A Study of British Genius.:
>“Genius is the happy result of a combination of many circumstances.”
That’s actually perfect. Yes, you need a relatively high IQ, but you also need a proper upbringing, the exposition of the person in the right time of her life to the area of creation that is actually her personal field, the many particular characteristics of personality, like ambition, desire to excel, curiosity, obsession, courage, hard-working capacity, and many other circumstances.
It comes down to this: Genius is so rare not because we have few people with high IQ, but because high IQ is only one of the pieces of the puzzle.
The best book I have ever read on the subject is this one:
>Before the Gates of Excellence: The Determinants of Creative Genius
http://www.amazon.com/Before-Gates-Excellence-Determinants-Creative/dp/0521376998
>>7469421
In short (and Like I exposed before), although a high intelligence coefficient is necessary, it is not necessary that it be absurdly high, but just a little above average. The majority of /sci/ posters, for example, have an IQ that it is in the spectrum of some of the great genius of history. But the similarities end there.
The great geniuses usually had similar personality traits, that motivated them to spend hours and hours and hours, days and days and days working and improving themselves. Great geniuses are a mix of genes (just good genes, a little above the average – being the average today around 100 IQ points) + creation + specific features of personality beget by the life experiences and genetic material of the child.
All great geniuses were ambitious and had broad desire to be recognized and admired for their work; all of them also had obsessive personalities and thought that they creative jobs were the main function of their lives. They might try to fool people, like Einstein tended to do when he spoke that he was only after truth and satiating his curiosity, but not after fame or glory. No doubt he wanted to satiate his curiosity, yet when he was working on general realtivy he was aware that other people were facing the same challenges (like David Hilbert) and he worked like a fanatic, desperately wanting to complete his theory before others did. If he wanted simply to know the truth he could sit down and wait, for people would get there pretty soon. But of course he, like anybody else, wanted to be proud of himself, of his own achievements, and so he worked hard to be the father of general relativity.
>>7469425
Another interesting point: although the child who becomes a genius in the future start his/her career in the specific area of activity in a playful manner (playing with musical instruments, drawing for pleasure, reading for pleasure, etc.), in the future the conscience of their own emerging talent (the child or teen realizes his ability in the field and starts thinking on the possibility of achieve fame with his work) makes the chosen activity becomes not just a pleasurable hobby, but an terribly stressful and overwhelming obligation. The great geniuses often had to work without having the slightest desire to do so (all writers relate the difficulty of having to sit all day, in a routine, and fill the paper with significant literature). Even Einstein, when he worked on the theory of general relativity, eventually was tormented by stomach pain, nausea, anxiety, tachycardia and tremors. The anxiety and fear of failure are constant companions of geniuses, and also the constant dissatisfaction with oneself. The moments of pride and joy are quickly dissolved into new ambitions.
It is also a common feature of geniuses that certain feelings, mainly of respect or value, are wanted but not provided in childhood (sometimes this is even imaginary: the child receives attention and love, but not the enormous amount of attention and praise that it commonly desired). The huge ambition that they have is, in a way, a response to not receiving all the admiration they wish they had received when they were children and teenagers. Genius are generally very proud of themselves.
>>7469285
This was the most boring and uninspired thing I've ever had the displeasure of reading.
>>7469285
>>7469421
>>7469425
TL;DR
This is now a Taylor Swift thread.
>>7469433
Well it's a good thing that I'm not here to entertain or inspire you.
4chan posts are not real writing, dummy.
>>7468090
Source?
>>7470385
Pretty good
>Had to take an IQ test to prove to my university that I do in fact have ADHD
>Extra time on exams, nigguh
>Take the test
>Kinda shit at math
>Have "verbal IQ" of 143
>The fuck is verbal IQ
>Writing and shit, apparently
>Genius-tier
>Feel bad because I don't get marks that a "genius" would
>Also feel guilty because I don't want to be one of those people who goes around bragging about their high IQ
>Can't stop thinking about how I'm a genius
I really wish I didn't know.
How do I utilize "muh full potential?"
>>7467691
They didn't have Internet. End of story.
>>7467691
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxTRCPKFltE
Watch this OP.
TL:DW: If you don't have the magic, just stop.
>>7467691
I've always kinda thought that they aren't truly that amazing. We live in a completely different culture and time to them, so holding ourselves to their standards makes no sense at all. People now compared to them are like apples and oranges. We can look back on their work and talk about all of its merits, but many works now are completely ignored, even though they posses most of the same basic qualities. They wrote about very specific things that at that time they had likely dedicated a good portion of their lives to but we don't really do that in the present day. Why would you dedicate yourself entirely to mastering something when you can just look it up? I assure you, you know much more than whatever they know, no matter who you are.
I've been thinking of buying an alarm clock and wristwatch, locking away my laptop and smart phone and becoming a bohemian.
>>7469444
You could have stopped at 'real'.
>>7467691
top kek.
ITT: we address the trite question of whether one becomes or is born a genius.
why speak at all if you're not bringing anything new to the table?
>>7467691
They didn't have the internet, video games or television and were raised by attentive patrician parents.
>>7470728
Why lock them away? Stomp them out and be done with it.
Need a computer? Go to the library.
>>7470728
someone should tell those unhappy gays the stairs are melting.
>>7470719
>you know much more than whatever they know, no matter who you are.
>>7467691
Be born with a superlatively good brain.
Develop into someone with a fervant passion to use that brain on one specific obsession.
With constant effort work at your craft forgoing all else.
If you don't have 1 or 2 you will never be a genius tier anything. Sorry, that's just the way it works
>>7470728
>bohemian
>alarm clock
>working watch
good one m8
>>7467691
you've got to remember Nietzsche was one of maybe 1500 people who knew what producing philological knowledge entailed. the Romantic flourishing of apparent genius is pretty easy to figure when you consider
a. there was less knowledge in existence
b. knowledge arrived at in non-positivist methods was socially valued
c. there was quantifiably less educated people who were qualitatively better educated than people today
together, the reversal of these factors following modernity, the collapse of colonialism and global industrialization produced a state of academics in which an inordinate amount of people at the same level of intelligence as those geniuses selling their labor to make minor* advances in incredibly specific fields defined under positivist rubrics, as opposed to a very small amount of people owning their labor in broad fields defined without any rubric at all
*this is not to say unimportant. only that the amount of knowledge possible for any individual or even group of individuals to produce is much smaller
>>7472402
in fact, here is Nietzsche himself on history and genius
On the mythology of the historical. Hegel: “What happens to a people and occurs within it has its essential significance in its relation to the state; the mere particularities of the individuals are most remote from this subject matter of history.” But the state is always only the means for the preservation of many individuals: how could it be the aim? The hope is that with the preservation of so many blanks one may also protect a few in whom humanity culminates. Otherwise it makes no sense at all to preserve so many wretched human beings. The history of the state is the history of the egoism of the masses and of the blind desire to exist; this striving is justified to some extent only in the geniuses, inasmuch as they can thus exist. Individual and collective egoisms struggling against each other —an atomic whirl of egoisms—who would look for aims here?
Through the genius something does result from this atomic whirl after all, and now one forms a milder opinion concerning the senselessness of this procedure —as if a blind hunter fired hundreds of times in vain and finally, by sheer accident, hit a bird. A result at last, he says to himself, and goes on firing.
>>7472402
fewer**** educated people
>>7467762
You have to do the things you want to do, or else you won't do them. Life goals aren't really all that complex. Vote Trump.
-Me
>>7467691
bump
>>7469130
This rings true.
