History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

Schopenhauer on genius

April 27th, 2015 · 8 Comments

Schopenhauer is one of the mysteries of the modern transition. Buddhism in the form of a German Swiss army knife pops out of German Classical philosophy via Schopenhauer and sows the seeds of a new and future ‘inside out religion’ that can assist secularists to get their bearings. The family resemblance to Indian philosophy is remarkable and as remarkable that that realization spring from the dry and severe Kant, his deeper genius exposed by his great successor. The future is already playing a game of ‘death chicken’ with the downshifted betrayal by Nietzsche of the thesis on the Will in nature from Schopenhauer. The derelict kamikazis of the Nietzchean apotheosis of the superman comic are already here, and soon gone. Schopenhauer was already a new age buddhist, and a universe more, before the coming of twentieth century buddhism.
Nothing controls the genius, but he has a funny echo in a infinite hall of mirrors: the autistic/asperger type who sometimes sees through puzzles: this Hollywood movie portrays with exaggerated mythology the low end of the spectrum that includes the mozarts. This movie distorts the question, but why would anyone compose such a plot? So, I guess, the genius is in nature, but not of it. The issue of ‘genius’ is the mystery of the mind/soul empirical psychology can’t find: it springs from behind the mind in manifestation and never reveals it secret. The glimpse of the ‘thing it itself’, or in a word Schopenhauer disliked, the noumenal.

Tags: General

8 responses so far ↓

  • 1 NK // Mar 18, 2016 at 7:49 am

    Hello again. I notice the media is now indulging in “next Einstein” bullsh*t with a new proposed candidate. These discussions always lead me to the conclusion that the majority of people can’t discern what distinguishes a genius from someone who is gifted with great technical proficiency. This girl no doubt has impressive creds, but is anybody really going to put her in the category of people who are “hitting a target no one else can see.”. JG Bennett, by contrast, was a crazy loon & most of his ideas are probably wrong, but I get the feeling that his writings are prophesying what a future science will look like:


  • 2 nemo // Mar 18, 2016 at 10:43 am

    Welcome back, but what’s your angle.

    Bennett is someone I have had to deal with in opposite ways. I pay attention to his ingenious way of upgrading Samkhya for the modern age using Schopenhauer…
    btw, what’s the lowdown on climate change?

  • 3 nemo // Mar 18, 2016 at 11:05 am

    This girl is highly intelligent, but the category of genius is harder to evaluate. The remarks on Schopenhauer is the right post to choose.

    I am not one of Bennett’s defenders, having been an avid reader yet critic. His thinking is so confused by Gurdjieff that it is hard to sort out.

  • 4 NK // Mar 18, 2016 at 2:43 pm

    My angle here is that Bennett acknowledged the fact that physics (as currently practiced) hasn’t even scratched the surface of what needs to be explained. It’s not even clear whether it is asking the right questions. Bennett, whatever his flaws, at least gives an idea of the questions that need to asked for a future science.

    In regard to climate change, I don’t know. This issue is too politicized for me to get my bearings. This is similar to the Darwin debate, but I don’t have any interest in the climate change debate to really do the research and figure out who holds the most tenable position. My cursory opinion is that pollution is the real issue (go to some cities in China and India) and this is something that we can control. Really, I don’t understand why anybody would give a f*ck about some concept as nebulous as “climate change.” The climate has always been chaotic throughout geological history. What is the ideal climate even supposed to be?

  • 5 nemo // Mar 18, 2016 at 3:19 pm

    I was merely pointing to the sudden shrillness of the last year, up from the same over the past five years, etc… There is a new brand: those who are claiming it is hopeless. Are they serious, or is it another tactic?

  • 6 nemo // Mar 18, 2016 at 3:21 pm

    Bennett on physics is a bit passe now, but his gesture of the three dimensions of time was a novel idea, along with that of hyparxis…more later

  • 7 NK // Oct 4, 2016 at 8:05 am

    Good article despite the author’s lapse in discernment with regards to Darwin:


  • 8 nemo // Oct 7, 2016 at 8:15 am


Leave a Comment