Week 4 post – Nathan
Warning: Undefined variable $comments in /home/idemborg/paigemorgan.net/teaching/engl200d/wp-content/themes/inove/single.php on line 18
Leave a comment Go to comments
Genius is uncommon, both in Addison’s time and the modern era. The two types of genius are inextricably combined, with minds of the second category borrowing from and refining the ideas of the first. Even the first category of innate genius seems to be the best, especially in the fields of philosophy and writing, often they are marginalized for their radical ideas but as they gain supporters their brilliance is recognized. However the second and more dominant version of genius in academia is arguably the most useful since, through their education and study of what is known helps to refine and create an applicable product from the initial rough idea.
On paper Addison’s depiction of genius seems to be perfect, and at least to me it seems like society, or at least development, would be entirely led by such geniuses. However in the modern era safety is preferred to development, especially in the realm of technology. Every once in a while an innovative new product comes out, or a brand reaches the coveted throne of recognition, but the vast majority of other similar devices end up blindly following after the leader instead of taking a risk. Before the iPhone, touch screen phones existed, but were not quite as cleanly polished or as popular, but Steve Jobs used the iPod’s popularity and Apple’s growing brand recognition to “reinvent” the touch screen by making it appealing to the masses. As the phone’s popularity soared, so did the number of copies, with nearly every phone currently on the market featuring a touch screen and iPhone-like curves, with only incremental changes on the original.
This post is a nice illustration of Addison’s point that there are two types of genius, Nathan; and also his statement that the imitative genius is not inferior to the other. We talked about this in class, I know, and I said that it sounded like Addison definitely preferred the first type of genius — but your discussion of the iPhone, and the rise of the touchscreen suggests that Steve Jobs’ imitators (some of whom have bested Apple on a few features) are just as deserving of the title of genius. Also, you make me realize that Addison could have added a third type of genius, or maybe this would be another way of recognizing someone as a genius: we know they’ve achieved that status when everyone else starts to imitate them. One question, or rather, one thing I would like to know more about: what do you mean when you say that Addison’s depiction of genius “seems to be perfect.” Do you mean that he described it perfectly accurately? Or that it’s the sort of genius that is most useful to society? Or something else entirely?