Great post! The points on imitation vs genius reminded me of Kant's, Schillers and I believe Schopenhauer's notions of genius being like a commet whose eccentric path enters the epoch. Kant believed there can be no genius in the natural 'sciences' as they need to imitate the results of before. Genius only exists in art for them. As such the genius is the one setting the rules for the future epoch and his genius only ever recognized in the epoch after his.
Love it. That’s a fascinating take. Funnily the setting the rules for the future epoch sounds a lot like Kuhn’s paradigm-setting revolutionary scientists which would put it squarely back in the domain of the natural sciences
Great post! The points on imitation vs genius reminded me of Kant's, Schillers and I believe Schopenhauer's notions of genius being like a commet whose eccentric path enters the epoch. Kant believed there can be no genius in the natural 'sciences' as they need to imitate the results of before. Genius only exists in art for them. As such the genius is the one setting the rules for the future epoch and his genius only ever recognized in the epoch after his.
Love it. That’s a fascinating take. Funnily the setting the rules for the future epoch sounds a lot like Kuhn’s paradigm-setting revolutionary scientists which would put it squarely back in the domain of the natural sciences
I really liked this one. And always love a Buddy Holly shout out.