The Line Between Genius and Insanity

There was some disagreement at first about the existence of such a division, although we allowed the idea to be presented.  The Organizer himself was not present to veto any unphilosophical ideas, so it was up to me and I did allow it.  The foreseeable problem was that there is a medical definition of the terms that is much stricter than the social one.  Genius is often quantified with tests such as the one used for IQ, and insanity has a number of other qualifications to meet, medically speaking.  However, when we use the expression, we use a broader meaning.  "Genius" is generally something that tells us something new and enjoyable, while "insanity" is something frightening, even if it has the same novelty.  Many of the contributions tried to point out that there is no necessary link between the two conditions, which I agree with; however, there must be some reason that we link them in this common expression.  I wonder if it is because of behavior.  Many geniuses are considered "eccentric" and display behaviors that most people will not engage in, and we allow it because we consider these people to be too focused on their "genius" to be bothered with social niceties.  The insane also have odd behaviors, but because they are unable to react to our reality in the same way we are.  Some studies have shown that interpretation of behaviors as "insane" or perfectly normal is heavily influenced by context, for example in the case of researchers without any diagnosed mental problems feigning illnesses such as schizophrenia, and when behaving normally in hospital situations their behavior was still interpreted by doctors as "ill".

The Source began by trying to deny a definite connection between genius and insanity, saying that they are two separate conditions that may happen to coexist.  Later she focused on the condition of mental illness, saying that it means having a distorted view of reality, which can happen to anyone who does not have human contact.  As a symptom of this distortion, I imagine, she stated that the insane do not care if they cause pain or harm to anybody.  She did not mention her opinion of hermits or religious people who voluntarily removed themselves from society.  An example of genius for her is Bill Gates, mostly based on his ability to be considered successful by society.

The Writer also came down on the side of separation, mentioning a number of artistic geniuses who are not considered insane, but rather addicts.  She also pointed out the importance of genetics in mental development, both for good and for bad.  Later on, she insisted that genius is something apart from mere creativity or intelligence - a genius changes things.  While they do not necessarily suffer, society tends not to support them out of fear of change and envy of their capabilities.  It occurred to me that the tendency towards substance abuse may be because of the lack of support people with creative, novel vision receive, so that there really is a link between chemically induced "insanity" and genius, although not one that is internal to the person in question.

Our Doctor, being a doctor, had a great many things to say on the subject.  First, he mused that "line" was a bit improper for description, saying "stitch" or "seam" might be better.  It does make sense according to his perspective, since there is no natural connection between genius and insanity, and people with a romantic bent have joined them artificially.  Being so sewn together, we might look at them as two sides of the same coin, with genius being the positive side and insanity being the negative.  However, it depends a good deal on what we mean by each of the terms.  He did not deliver a definition at first, saying only that there must be something beneficial to the world in genius.  Further on, he mentioned "Hamlet", as an example of the suffering genius, at least in terms of artistry.  For our Doctor, the artist is at his best when he is destroyed.  He also stated that the newness of the genius' worldview helps with acceptance, both points later challenged by the Writer.  As for the causes of each condition, the Doctor reminded us that we are constantly being influenced by things we are not aware of, and everything happens in the brain rather than in our senses.  In his last contribution, he warned the group that not being a clinical neurologist means we are lost in life.

The Thinker chose the word "association" to focus on for his view of the subject.  He also looked for a reason the two ideas have a link in common language, saying the associations that are made in the brain between objects and ideas end up being extreme for both people of genius and people suffering insanity.    He then considered the meaning of genius, repeating the view that a genius has new and original ideas, and adding that the mental process of association is more under control, or at least is observed by the genius, while the person who is insane has no awareness of that process.  He used the paintings of Sorolla to illustrate the need to have perspective.  In that style of painting, not limited to Sorolla but easily distinguishable in his works, blobs of color form a coherent picture only when the viewer is at the proper distance to capture it.  By standing too close, the viewer loses the big picture without even seeing any details.  For him, the ability to create this sort of vision is a mark of genius.  Later on, he mentioned external manipulation of perspective by means of substances like LSD, saying Timothy Leary's acid tests allowed some of the participants to achieve a higher level of creativity and association than they had ever had before.  He admitted that plenty of other people had serious problems as a result of trying to stimulate their mental states with this sort of drug, but remained fascinated by the possibility.  He also expressed a suspicion that the solitary lifestyle followed by many scientists is responsible for the more "insane" behaviors they develop, taking a cue from the Source.  Besides being isolated from others, the Thinker told us, people engaged in this sort of activity are also trying to use very abstract ideas for concrete ends.  Without some measure of balance in the real and tangible, not to mention easily accessible, these researchers risk their mental stability.
The Actress responded with the point that Sorolla was not considered a genius in his time, like many others who achieved fame after their deaths.

A Newcomer brought up the question of whether any one of us is really free of insanity.  He emphasized the fact that both "sick behavior" and "advanced behavior" are really matters of statistics, since to be a genius one only has to be noticeably smarter than the average in one's surroundings, and everyone has some degree of distance from the "norm" which might be considered insanity under the right circumstances.

The Organizer examined some of the overlap in description of the two states in his short essay.  He emphasized the colloquialism of the phrase when his turn to speak came, insisting that our goal was not to examine the causal connection between them, but understand the underlying meaning.  It is an expression used to identify solutions.  As a practical example, he told us that whoever finds a menú del día for €10 in Madrid is a genius.  For further definition, he said that we tend to find genius in middle- to upper-class people, while the lower classes produce the insane, although dangerously or criminally insanity can appear in any social stratum.  The Organizer was clearly referring to our social interpretation of behavior, and the habit of being more tolerant of oddness the more money or social standing somebody has, although the Writer disagreed with this observation, saying that we have recognized genius in people who do not come from wealth.  The Organizer agreed that geniuses rebel against the conventional wisdom, but the informal diagnosis of insanity means nothing towards an individual's chances of contributing to society.  It is merely a tool of risk assessment.  At the end, he stated that in spite of the respect people seem to have for genius, authority much prefers regular people who do not have trouble following the rules.  Putting others in boxes of "normal", "genius" or "insane" is just another way of keeping us under control.  Finally, he reminded us that the scope of philosophy is to clarify our thinking, by way of use of language.

The True Philosopher had said when the topic was chosen that he did not see any line between the two concepts at all.  In his writing, he concluded that the only distinction worth making is between sane and insane genius.  He also spoke of our attachment to IQ tests, although their value in determining intelligence is minimal, and has nothing to do with proving sanity.  We make connections that are not necessarily there when it serves a purpose, but closer examination reveals that those connections are not based on science or fact.

The Prodigal Participant focused on the social designation of genius, and reminded us that geniuses are often ignored or persecuted before being celebrated, or even at the same time as being celebrated.  As for insanity, she said she was shocked by the amount of people using it as an excuse in criminal trials, although this idea turns out not to be as true as it is easy entertainment.  The connection for her seems to be the suffering that geniuses and the insane experience in a world of "normal" people.

The Seeker of Happiness decided that the most important quality for a true genius is success.  He referenced one of the quotes from the True Philosopher's essay saying that this is the difference between genius and insanity.  Being of a practical mind, he said that very intelligent people who cannot make their ideas work in the real world should not be called geniuses, and even people who have feasible ideas but are persecuted are not geniuses.  Most of those we call genius are stupid.  They were not able to navigate the social waters and put their talents to work for themselves and society, therefore, the title of genius should not be bestowed.  As for insanity, it really has no bearing on genius, being a physical, medical problem in reality.

A lively discussion was had with many interesting points raised.  It turns out to have been a genius topic.