hey, I'm right in front of my computer screen.. hehe (bad joke)...
anyway, I was busy with school - that's the reason why I didn't answer
immediately.
I personally think that the exceptional nature of a genius makes him being
considered as insane by other (or let's say: average) people.
To come to speak of the definition of: "genius" and "insane", I pretty much
agree with what everyone said. These are relative words, meaning that you
need a perspective before you can actually define or evaluate them. And
depending on the perspective you choose, those words can have different
(even opposing) meanings.
And here's the real dilemma: the choice of perspective. Will it be from the
point of view of the average or the genius?
Looking at this problem from an objective ("objective" in my opinion, of
course - which already implies its subjectiveness;-) point of view comes close
to how Jim described it:
(I'm quoting): "I think that the tradoff in being a "thicko" in certain
areas. While being of exceptional perception in another area is part of being a
genius."
And to answer Dawn DelliSanti's question (I quote):"Which leads me to ask,
how this question could EVEN really be asked without providing us with
definitions to go by?"
All I can say is: not saying everything precisely leaves more space to
the debate and it gets even more heated up and interesting.. don't you think? -
ultimately almost everything is semantics, which leads me to another question:
Do you think that there actually exist philosophical problems or are they
just semantical problems rather than real ones (by "real" I mean: authentical
and autonomical)?
(this question was one debated upon by real philosophers by the way:
Wittgenstein and Popper who almost jumped to each others' throats because they
couldn't stand each other and each others' arguments... it's a funny story.. and
authentic)
pozdrawiam, (greetings)
Ewa