What do we mean when we say someone is a genius? I’ve thought about this a lot and it seems to hold true in all fields.
There are two conditions which, when met independently, make us say that something anthropogenic is “good”:
- It must impress us technically.
- It must move us emotionally.
Most things we encounter and judge as “good” will be a result of one, and only one, of the aforementioned conditions being met. There are, however, rare cases where both conditions are met such that their meeting is simultaneous (or with negligible delay). The being that made the thing, whose condition-meeting was twofold, exist, is who I consider to be a genius. To put it in lighter terms, a genius is someone who can create something which will be perceived as “good” both because it moves someone emotionally and impresses that same someone technically at the same time. This works both directly for the persons themselves and for the things they create.
Think about someone you think is a genius. Now think of something that s/he created. Next, try to think about why you think this created thing is a work of a genius. You will eventually be impressed with the work’s technical achievement and the thing will trigger some kind of emotion in you, thus both conditions will be satisfied. I argue that this, and this alone, is the reason why you brand that thing as “genius”. Of course you can apply the conditions on the person directly. Whether the conditions hold on the person directly or on the thing they create, it is enough to call that person a “genius”.