I started reading Eric Weiner’s book The Geography of Genius (Weiner, 2016) on a whim after seeing it listed as one of Bill Walton’s favorite books. The author’s purpose for writing the book is to investigate why geniuses tend to congregate in certain geographic locations, and why those locations? The very first chapter was Athens, Greece.
On page 44 in the first chapter, he spoke of the Athenians’ supreme confidence in their city, specifically about their philosophical and intellectual standing amongst the cities in ancient Greece. When the author asked his philosophical guide — yes, he had guides of all kinds — in Athes why is it that this civic confidence rarely became civic arrogance, his guide replied plainly: hubris. Hubris means something different to the Ancient Greeks, there is the contemporary meaning of excessive pride, but the ancient Greeks also had an additional caveat that since hubristic behavior is an insult against the gods, and this was never acceptable in ancient Greece. The Greek god charged with punishing the hubristic is Nemesis, which literally translates to: going beyond one’s allotment, so it is that hubris is equivalent to greed,
A paragraph later, the philosophical guide explained that for the ancient Greeks, genius and virtue are inseparable. In order to be considered a genius in ancient Greece, that person must not only excel in some endeavor, but they must also behave virtuously, failing in either requirement meant that they would not be recognized as a genius even if they have exceed all others in their specialty.
In mathematical terms, the Greeks believe that the relationship between being a genius and virtue is in the form of a biconditional: a person is a genius if and only if they are virtuous; or breaking it down into the two conditionals which comprise the biconditional:
If a person is a genius, then they are virtuous,
AND
If a person is virtuous then they are a genius.
In these terms, both conditionals must be true to apply if and only if to describe the requirement.
The idea stuck with me after I initially read it, in other words.
A man was judged not only by the quality of their work, but also by the content of their character.
My mind then turned to our present society, our standards for geniuses are considerably lower than that of the ancient Greeks. Our society view geniuses or anyone who exemplifies quality in the work — whether they are people with exceptional talents, or are recognized as being successful, or having achieved a level of excellence in our society — as being geniuses, or heroes. Our society decouples the converse conditional from the Greek definition of genius. We completely separate someone’s talent, success, and achievements from their virtuousness when we judge whether they are worthy of recognition. It is a pragmatic stance on our part because we have been let down too many times when we raise people we consider to be deserving onto pedestals for the purpose of adulation only to have them fail the virtuousness test. There are many examples of these failed heroes in all facets of our society: industry, government, politics, religion, entertainment, arts, commerce, and politics. We therefore protect ourselves from that disappointment by decoupling a person’s exceptional achievement from their personal virtuousness. We have shifted the goalpost away from the ancient Grecian standards for geniuses.
Although at one time, we did somewhat believe in the ancient Grecian definition of a genius, the difference was that instead of examining their virtuousness as a test, we project a person’s achievements and abilities directly to their virtuousness as a human being: if a person is a genius, then they must also be virtuous. It didn’t matter what they did, their exceptional ability earned them the reputation, deserved or not, of being exceptional human beings. In all aspects of public life and for those who are performers in all arenas: industry, business, government, politics, politics, religion, entertainment, arts, commerce, politics, or anyone who had garnered their fifteen minutes of fame are assumed to be virtuous until proven not virtuous. In contrast with the judgement criteria from ancient Greece, our belief in the virtue of the high achiever is a conditional proposition rather than a biconditional proposition:
If a person is a genius, then they are virtuous,
Of course, in our desire to make the above conditional true, we easily believe in the tripe that comes out of the public relations machines that serve those who can afford the public relations machines. It is human preference for the confirmation bias at work. The hagiographies that are written to boost our public heroes are so full of saccharine accolades that many of those writing should be considered for the Nobel prize for literature as the lines between those biographies and phantasmagorical fantasies are trampled to dust.
In time, there was also wholesale societal backlash against the manufactured narratives because we had been fooled too often. Unfortunately, we have also overreacted to the falsehood, as we have become hardened cynics and fixated on the lack of virtue in anyone who is revered publicly. Not only have we deliberately stopped believing in the ancient Greek idea that virtuousness is an integral part of genius; we have, in a perverse reversal, started to believe that if someone is exceptional at what they do, then they lead a life devoid of virtue. Indeed, the more successful they are, the more skeletons they will have in their closets. Indeed, many of our public figures have done nothing but add more fuel to our cynical fire. Rewritten as a conditional, this becomes:
If they are geniuses, then they are not virtuous.
Even so, our cynicism is not absolute. Oftentimes we manage to combine our wont to view the world as black or white — a logical fallacy — by deliberately employing a false dichotomy between right and wrong as we once again indulge in our favorite, the confirmation bias: everything we perceive will only affirms our beliefs.
If I like the person, then they are virtuous, no matter what they do or whether they are geniuses.
There are many examples of that conditional existing right now in our reality, in politics, sports, social media, etc.
And then there are these questions:
Do we admire someone less because their virtuousness does not meet the level of expectations promised by their talents? The last conditional is disappointingly applied more often than not in our version of reality.
What of those who are virtuous but are not exceptional in what they do? Does virtuousness by itself not mean anything in our judgement of people? Do we have blinders on when we see virtuousness in people we know and meet? My estimation is that we don’t, we do know and appreciate virtuousness, but we don’t hold virtuousness in the same esteem as being geniuses.
After meandering through this idea, I find that I like and prefer the ancient Greek way of evaluating geniuses: to be judged as being a genius, both exceptional abilities and leading a virtuous life are necessary conditions. Having this standard put pressure on everyone and it makes us aspire to higher goals and nobler goals. If you want to be recognized for your accomplishments, you must live a virtuous and exemplary life as well.
An idealistic and unrealistic level of expectation to be sure, but it is nice to dream.
References
Weiner, E. (2016). The Geography of Genius. NYC: Simon & Shuster.