| Having read the essay, I'll take a crack at a causal hypothesis: "geniuses" in the sense that the author seems to be using the term[1] cluster in periods and settings where: 1) their societies were "recently" exposed to existential threats (eg. Persian invasion for Athens, Spanish Armada for England, etc.), that were
2) mastered (Battle of Marathon, defeat of the Armada)
3) but left underlying problems unresolved So, there would be incredibly motivation for these societies to try and address these problems, and perhaps some additional measure of confidence that problems could be mastered. And, in periods of existential crisis, normal patterns start to break down and new modes of expression and organization, new perspectives, etc. can start to manifest. It's also interesting that the essay calls out that > all three’s florescences were ended by right-wing revolutions (the Rule of the 400, Savonarola, and Cromwell). as these responses are often prompted by some perception of chaos/lack of 'order' in a society - a breaking down of accustomed patterns. So, in the spirit of the goal as stated by the essay: > We want explanations that make sense, and which can be corroborated by specific historical research. I would say: look for genius where there is also social turmoil and crisis - where there was a belief within a society that it may not be able to survive the problems that faced it, or where it experienced such rapid change that within a generation or two the previous assumptions about how the society worked and what was and wasn't acceptable/normal came into question - and you might find geniuses there. And it would probably be a good idea to have a concrete, sensible definition of genius that we all agree on. |