>The shrewd apprehension of relations according to the law of causality and motivation properly makes one prudent; the knowledge of the genius, however, is not oriented toward such relations; therefore, a prudent person, insofar as he is prudent, is not a genius, and a genius, insofar as he is a genius, is not prudent. — Finally, intuitive knowledge, within whose domain the idea is absolutely found, stands, in general, in direct opposition to rational or abstract knowledge conducted by the principle of sufficient reason of knowing.>Everyone knows that it is rare to find great genius combined with prominent rationality; rather, on the contrary, geniuses are often subject to vehement emotions and irrational passions. The basis of this, however, is not weakness of reason, but lies partly in the uncommon energy of the whole manifestation of the will that constitutes the individual genius and that expresses itself through the great vehemence of all his volitional acts; and partly in the fact that, in the genius, intuitive knowledge predominates over abstract knowledge, through the senses and understanding. Hence the decisive orientation toward what is intuitive, with the impression of such knowledge being so powerful that it obscures colorless concepts, action no longer being guided by these concepts but by that impression, thereby becoming irrational: because of this, the impression of the present is quite powerful upon the genius, carrying him toward the unreflective, the emotion, the passion.>Hence also the fact that the genius—since, as a rule, his knowledge has in part withdrawn from the service of the will—does not think, when engaging in conversation, either about the person with whom he speaks or about the topic under discussion that so vividly engages him: thus, he also judges and recounts in an extremely objective manner that which concerns his own interests, without concealing what prudence would conceal, and so forth. Finally, they tend toward monologues and can generally display many weaknesses that indeed verge on madness.The World as Will and Representation — Book III: On the World as Representation — §36
>>24794412Oh
I just started reading this but I’m still in the appendix.When Schopenhauer talks about genius is he describing it in a way that is similar as to what we would call a hyper fixation in today’s language, or like some kind of possession by a spirit via the Will?It seems like he is very much not describing genius in the traditional and academic sense as it is somewhat dogmatically known. Schopenhauer seems to be using it more like a verb than a noun
>>24794565>When Schopenhauer talks about genius is he describing it in a way that is similar as to what we would call a hyper fixation in today’s language, or like some kind of possession by a spirit via the Will?>It seems like he is very much not describing genius in the traditional and academic sense as it is somewhat dogmatically known. Schopenhauer seems to be using it more like a verb than a nounfor Schopenhauer, genius is the capacity to lose oneself in contemplation of an object without reference to practical ends or personal desire. The genius is able to become “the pure subject of knowing,” seeing the Platonic Idea behind phenomena. This is not an act of volition, but a cessation of volition. Most people are prisoners of the Will—they perceive only insofar as things serve their desires. The genius, by contrast, momentarily silences the Will and becomes a transparent medium through which reality contemplates itself
>>24794782I also asked ChatGPT
>>24795220What?
>>24795236I’m saying that your response to my question looks like ChatGPT, as I also copy and pasted my question to ChatGPT and got a similar response, at least for a portion.
