# 94. A Few Words on the Previous

*“Genius and Philistine” by Hermann Türck*

I had not originally intended to respond to Hermann Türck's “reply”. I know how difficult it is to dissuade someone from their pet ideas in such cases, which they have - as is undoubtedly the case with Türck - acquired through years of diligent research. I would also avoid these few words if, to my sincere regret, Türck had not taken a very peculiar path in his polemic. At the end of my remarks on the “genius” (Magazin No. 20, p. 516), I indicated the *easiest* way in which I could be *misunderstood* and therefore *apparently* refuted. I do not quite understand why Hermann Türck is taking the easy way out that I myself have pointed out. No, words are not important to me; but they are to Hermann Türck. He wants to save the words that he has used to characterize the genius in his book. The genius is supposed to be characterized by *selfless* action, in contrast to the philistine, who acts selfishly. But I have now shown that the *supposed* selflessness of the genius is nothing but egoism, which is only directed at other things than the egoism of the everyday person. Hermann Türck thinks he can agree with this: if I distinguish between egoism a (in the philistine) and egoism b (in the genius). He calls only the egoism b selflessness. But I do not distinguish between egoism a and egoism b. Rather, the egoism of the genius is exactly the same as that of the everyday person. When the king of Persia offers Alexander half of his kingdom and he is not satisfied with it, while Parmenion would be, then Alexander is undoubtedly the more brilliant, but Parmenion is undoubtedly the more selfless. But that only proves that the degree of egoism or selflessness has nothing to do with genius. But Alexander has a greater intellectual power of procreation, a greater productivity of action than Parmenion. This power of procreation wants to be discharged. Therefore he chooses the greater, which gives his power of procreation more opportunity for activity. But in terms of the degree of egoism, he is no different from the Philistine, of whom, as is well known, the saying also says: if you give him an inch, he will take a yard. I knew a person who was the most selfless person imaginable. He was not absorbed in caring for his own self, but completely absorbed in altruistic work for others. However, this person, who was *selfless* in the most eminent sense, had nothing at all that was ingenious. He was an excellent – nanny. No, if you want to explain genius, egoism and altruism are of no concern to you; it is only the procreative power of man. This, and not selflessness, is highly developed in people of genius. I was right to use the example of Darwinism as a reinterpretation of the story of creation. For there are people who would prefer to speak like this: It pleased the Almighty to create man from ape-like mammals in the struggle for existence. If a Haeckelian now comes along and says: not the Almighty, but causal necessity created man, then Türck, if he were to speak in the same style as he fights me, could reply: What you call causal necessity is just another almighty creator. I have nothing against your distinguishing between Creator a (wise, almighty God) and Creator b (causal necessity). Now, I think that Hermann Türck should not have voluntarily fallen into the trap of the “play on words” that I set up at the end of my essay.