Ode to Wallace Stevens and Søren Kierkegaard

Only a suggestion.
I have read and understood both Aristotle and Wittgenstein. To my mind Aristotle is a collossus of human understanding and archetypically wise man yet I think it would be odd to characterise Aristotle as a genius. The works of Wittgenstein are intellectually brilliant, contain not a shred of wisdom and I would call Wittgenstein genius.
Two extreme and different individuals with nothing in common.
Imagine we plotted a bell curve of genetic humankind ranging from one individual 64/64 human genes to 64/64 mad genes then Aristotle could be figured the one individual 64/64 straight human and Wittgenstein the one 64/64 bent madman with ourselves somewhere in the middle.

Note, I am talking about the genetic absolutes of mad and sane, as opposed to any psychological classifications. We do not see that genius is a form of insanity because we are estranged from the historical genetic absolutes of madness and normality by post revolutionary “psychology” (and this is a historical fact).

A propos nothing in particular; most peole would think the aphorism “there is only a fine line between genius and madness” is part of the English race’ s ethnic pantheon of sayings, phrases, moralisms, consolations etc. It is’ nt so you can safely bin it without affecting your status.

There are no genetic absolutes for madness and normality. There are predispositions for particular behaviors, but how do we measure insanity outside of psychological designations?

People seem to be stuck on this notion of genius as insanity, but I think genius can also come in the form of clarity. What is seen as insane, or senseless, may seem so because of our failure to comprehend it. The same goes for genius, so people assume a “genius” is a sort of savant.

I think we all have the potential for genius – it isn’t something determined by genetic absolutes. Education only increases the potential for an act of genius. And Of course Aristotle was a genius.