He was a genius. He got a Ph.D. in surgery at age 20. He wrote a letter to his friend Swinnerton Loughburne, who had a list of degrees as long as your arm such as M.A., Ph.D., L.L.D. And this is what he wrote:

Incontrovertibly the introduction of the personal equation leads to lamentable inversions, and the perceptive faculties when contemplating phenomena through the lens of ego too often conceive an accidental connotation or manifest distortion to be actuality, for the physical (or personal) too often beclouds that power of inner vision which so unerringly penetrates to the inherent truths of incorporeity and the extramundane. Yet this problem, to your eyes, I fear, not essentially novel or peculiarly involute, holds for my contemplative faculties an extraordinary fascination, to wit. : wherein does the mind, in itself a muscle, escape from the laws of the physical exercise so inexorable a jurisdiction over the processes of the mind, so that a disorder of the visual nerve actually distorts the asomatous and veils the pneumatoscopic?

Your pardon, dear Lourghburne, for these lapses from the general to the particular, but in a lighter moment of idleness, I pray you give me some careless thought to a problem now painfully my own, though rooted inevitable so deeply in the dirt of the commonplace.

But you have asked me in letter of recent date for the particular physical aspects of my present environment, and though (as you so well know) it is my conviction that the physical fact is not and only the immaterial is, yet I shall gladly look about me-a thing I have not yet seen occasion to do- and describe to you the details of my present condition.

Is this how geniuses talk?