Marx once pointed out that most great philosophers die in obscurity because their time was not right. This is very true, but we can go further. When their time is not right, they not only die in obscurity, but are known as cranks.
Even many great scientists – Galileo, Darwin and Mendel being cases in point – were considered cranks initially. Hence, we can argue that the difference between being a crank or a genius is one of social acceptance. But what processes are actually involved in being a genius?
WHAT IS A GENIUS?
The traditional view of a genius is of a person who seems to cut themselves off from the normal course of life and gains deep intuition which he then communicates to others to gain acceptance. But of what does he gain intuition?
In order to gain acceptance, a genius must mould with the on-going mood of society. We are often told we cannot see the wood for the trees. In order to see the wood we have to move outside and view from afar. This is analogous to the early actions of a genius, removing himself from society.
So could it be that in moving away from society, what he is doing is viewing it more correctly than others? If we accept this as a possibility, then what the genius intuits is a correct analysis of society’s mood. In other words, intuition can best be summarised as a form of catalyst of how society wants to change.
We can now gain a deeper understanding of Marx’s idea of the mutualistic relationship between philosopher and society. The philosopher, it seems, knows us better than we do. And through his later theorising, we know ourselves, and he thus becomes a guide for our social change.
PATTERNS OF HISTORY
I would argue that this process involving thinker/society is universal and is exact throughout history, thus becoming the main element in social change. Two examples will suffice, here, to show this.
In the Old Testament Moses gained intuition from God, masquerading as a Burning Bush. Over three thousand years later, Einstein realised relativity whilst dreaming he was riding on the end of a beam of light. Both these stories may be allegorical, but both use symbolism from outside the person to highlight the point of intuition.
Yet, if we take away the very different cultures of these two people, and look, instead, at the ‘mechanics’ of the intuitive event, they are identical. The self same process seems to be involved.
We can now identify a universal and historical process of social evolution. A mood arises in the people and a thinker, or mover, intuits this mood and turns it into philosophy, politics, science or religion. Whichever it is is dependent on the historical times. But devoid of culture, it is nonetheless the same process.
FRUSTRATING, ISN’T IT?
From this point a new paradigm is created to advance society – advancement, of course, being for the good or bad. Indeed, usually it is for the bad, with each historical society up to, and including, today’s having difficulties which affect the people. Why is this?
Perhaps because of the madness of the thinker involved. For by taking a close look at most such thinkers, their madness impinges upon their new paradigm, turning it into fanaticism. And in such fanaticism, the seeds of popular frustration are grown, guaranteeing that the paradigm will eventually fall.
Indeed, we could argue that such frustrations are the very driving forces of advancement, the frustrations eventually forming into another great thinker’s head, and beginning the process of social change again.
© Anthony North, April 2007
Find more posts in the same vein on the Philosophy page, above.
If you like debate, try The Daily Grail. I’m hooked.
BEYOND THE BLOG 