“All genius is a conquering of chaos and mystery.”
Genius is something which
“men of genius” take upon themselves; it is the greatest exertion and
the greatest pride, the greatest misery and the greatest ecstasy to a
man. A man may become a genius if he wishes to.
But at once it will certainly be said: “Very many men would like very
much to be ‘original geniuses,’” and their wish has no effect. But if
these men who “would like very much” had a livelier sense of what is
signified by their wish, if they were aware that genius is identical
with universal responsibility--and until that is grasped it will only be
a wish and not a determination--it is highly probable that a very large
number of these men would cease to wish to become geniuses.
The reason why madness overtakes so many men of genius--fools believe it
comes from the influence of Venus, or the spinal degeneration of
neurasthenics--is that for many the burden becomes too heavy, the task
of bearing the whole world on the shoulders, like Atlas, intolerable for
the smaller, but never for the really mighty minds. But the higher a man
mounts, the greater may be his fall; all genius is a conquering of
chaos, mystery, and darkness, and if it degenerates and goes to pieces,
the ruin is greater in proportion to the success. The genius which runs
to madness is no longer genius; it has chosen happiness instead of
morality. All madness is the outcome of the insupportability of
suffering attached to all consciousness. Sophocles derived his idea that
a man might wish to become mad for this reason, and lets Aias, whose
mind finally gives way, give utterance to these words:
εν τω φρονειν γαρ μηδεν ἡδιστος βιος.
I shall conclude this chapter with the solemn words, similar to the best
moments of Kant’s style, of Johann Pico von Mirandola, to whom I may
bring some measure of recognition. In his address “on the dignity of
man” the Supreme Being addresses the following words to man:
“Nec certam sedem, nec propriam faciem, nec munus ullum peculiare tibi
dedimus, O Adam: ut quam sedem, quam faciem, quae munera tute optaveris,
ea pro voto, pro tua sententia, habeas et possideas. Definita caeteris
natura intra praescriptas a nobis leges coercetur; tu nullis angustiis
coercitus, pro tuo arbitrio, in cuius manu te posui, tibi illam
praefinies.
“No men who really think deeply about women retain a high opinion of them; men either despise women or they have never thought seriously about them.”
His depreciation of women in his philosophical work “On Women,”
has been frequently attributed to the circumstance that a beautiful
Venetian girl, in whose company he was, fell in love with the extremely
handsome personal appearance of Byron; as if a low opinion of women were
not more likely to come to him who had had the best not the worst
fortune with them.
The practice of merely calling any one who assails woman a misogynist,
instead of refuting argument by argument, has much to commend it. Hatred
is never impartial, and, therefore, to describe a man as having an
animus against the object of his criticism, is at once to lay him open
to the charge of insincerity, immorality, and partiality, and one that
can be made with a hyperbole of accusation and evasion of the point,
which only equal its lack of justification. This sort of answer never
fails in its object, which is to exempt the vindicator from refuting the
actual statements. It is the oldest and handiest weapon of the large
majority of men, who never wish to see woman as she is. No men who
really think deeply about women retain a high opinion of them; men
either despise women or they have never thought seriously about them.
There is no doubt that it is a fallacious method in a theoretical
argument to refer to one’s opponent’s psychological motives instead of
bringing forward proofs to controvert his statements.
It is not necessary for me to say that in logical controversy the
adversaries should place themselves under an impersonal conception of
truth, and their aim should be to reach a result, irrespective of their
own concrete opinions. If, however, in an argument, one side has come to
a certain conclusion by a logical chain of reasoning, and the other side
merely opposes the conclusion without having followed the reasoning
process, it is at once fair and appropriate to examine the psychological
motives which have induced the adversaries to abandon argument for
abuse. I shall now put the champions of women to the test and see how
much of their attitude is due to sentimentality, how much of it is
disinterested, and how much due to selfish motives.
All objections raised against those who despise women arise from the
erotic relations in which man stands to woman.
“The genius which runs to madness is no longer genius.”
But at once it will certainly be said: “Very many men would like very
much to be ‘original geniuses,’” and their wish has no effect. But if
these men who “would like very much” had a livelier sense of what is
signified by their wish, if they were aware that genius is identical
with universal responsibility--and until that is grasped it will only be
a wish and not a determination--it is highly probable that a very large
number of these men would cease to wish to become geniuses.
The reason why madness overtakes so many men of genius--fools believe it
comes from the influence of Venus, or the spinal degeneration of
neurasthenics--is that for many the burden becomes too heavy, the task
of bearing the whole world on the shoulders, like Atlas, intolerable for
the smaller, but never for the really mighty minds. But the higher a man
mounts, the greater may be his fall; all genius is a conquering of
chaos, mystery, and darkness, and if it degenerates and goes to pieces,
the ruin is greater in proportion to the success. The genius which runs
to madness is no longer genius; it has chosen happiness instead of
morality. All madness is the outcome of the insupportability of
suffering attached to all consciousness. Sophocles derived his idea that
a man might wish to become mad for this reason, and lets Aias, whose
mind finally gives way, give utterance to these words:
εν τω φρονειν γαρ μηδεν ἡδιστος βιος.
I shall conclude this chapter with the solemn words, similar to the best
moments of Kant’s style, of Johann Pico von Mirandola, to whom I may
bring some measure of recognition. In his address “on the dignity of
man” the Supreme Being addresses the following words to man:
“Nec certam sedem, nec propriam faciem, nec munus ullum peculiare tibi
dedimus, O Adam: ut quam sedem, quam faciem, quae munera tute optaveris,
ea pro voto, pro tua sententia, habeas et possideas. Definita caeteris
natura intra praescriptas a nobis leges coercetur; tu nullis angustiis
coercitus, pro tuo arbitrio, in cuius manu te posui, tibi illam
praefinies. Medium te mundi posui, ut circumspiceres inde commodius
quicquid est in mundo.
“Among the notable things about fire is that it also requires oxygen to burn - exactly like its enemy, life. Thereby are life and flames so often compared.”
“Fate determines many things, no matter how we struggle.”
“Every true, eternal problem is an equally true, eternal fault; every answer an atonement, every realisation an improvement.”
“The fixed stars signify the angel in man. That is why man orients himself by them; and that is why women have no appreciation for the starry sky; because they have no sense of the angel in man.”
No men who really think deeply about women retain a high opinion of them
Woman is soulless and possesses neither ego nor individuality, personality nor freedom, character nor will.
The criminal (as slave) often seeks a person of great perfection (and here, as a judge of peoples imperfection, the criminal is much harsher than a good man), because he so wants to obtain trust from outside (not through an inner change of mind). If he believes he has found such a person, he gives himself up to him in the most complete slavery, and he searches in an importunate manner for people whom he could serve as a slave. He also wants to live as a slave so as never to be alone.
Great men have always preferred women of the prostitute type.
The decision must be made between Judaism and Christianity, between business and culture, between male and female, between the race and the individual, between unworhtiness and worth, between the earthly and the higher life, between negation and God-like. Mankind has the choice to make. There are only two poles, and there is no middle way.
Napoleon the greatest of the conquerors, is a sufficient proof that great men of action are criminals, and, therefore not geniuses. One can understand him by thinking of the tremendous intensity with which he tried to escape from himself.
Napoleon, the greatest of the conquerors, is a sufficient proof that great men of action are criminals, and therefore, not geniuses. One can understand him by thinking of the tremendous intensity with which he tried to escape from himself. There is this element in all the conquerors, great or small. Just because he had great gifts, greater than those of any emperor before him, he had greater difficulty in stifling the disapproving voice within him. The motive of his ambition was the craving to stifle his better self.
Talent is hereditary; it may be the common possession of a whole family (eg, the Bach family); genius is not transmitted; it is never diffused, but is strictly individual.
Universality is the distinguishing mark of genius. There is no such thing as a special genius, a genius for mathematics, or for music, or even for chess, but only a universal genius. The genius is a man who knows everything without having learned it.
“No men who really think deeply about women retain a high opinion of them”
