Renaissance Man

[Castiel]

I simply used picture as it seemed to pop up to me first, there was no need for a list, i thought.

Quite, I was only illustrating the universal nature of Art in the broadest sense, rather than as a particular discipline.

 

[fez]

Polymaths (in the Renaissance Man sense) were not limited by discipline, they were exceptional not only in science, but also the arts and literature. Da Vinci, Servetus, Michelangelo and Aristotle are prime examples. A polymath excelled in all forms of knowledge they attempted,

Thats my point. Its almost impossible now to truly stand out and excel in multiple fields now. If you want to be the best at something then you have to dedicate yourself to that field for a huge amount of time to advance it now. Perhaps I am not using quite the same definition. The renaissance men of the past advanced science and the arts hugely at the time. I can't think of anyone really who is doing that in recent history.

Widely accepted by who?

Plenty of historians who have covered men like Da Vinci and their multiple talents quite often note that to learn all the existing knowledge on a subject at the time was relatively easy as there was so little information. That meant that they could progress the field easier than it is now.

Whie that may be true to some extent, we still produce polymaths, so I would dispute that to some degree.

We do but not in the same mould. They are not advancing multiple fields at the same time. If you wish to do that, you need to be seriously rich to fund others to do the research for you. They may be very talented in many fields but they are not breaking new ground in different ones.

Again, I would dispute that, today it is easier and faster to learn, the grounding we have is broader, easier to attain, supplemented by hundreds of years of prior knowledge to draw upon, huge advances in technology and communication, the ability to store vast amounts of knowledge and research from thousands of sources at your fingertips and so on....many of these historical masters were not just learning prior knowledge, they were creating it. And going back to my original point, a polymath isn't just about excelling in science, it is about excelling in multiple diverse fields across the breadth of human endeavour.

I agree that its so easy to find information now and absorb it but the sheer quantity there is to take in makes the threshold for being able to advance a field that much higher.

Many modern polymaths are simply unrecognised as such or are not in the public eye...but they still exist, probably more so today than ever.

Oh, no doubt, there are billions more people in the world and no longer a lucky few with the means to follow their ambitions in the sector of their choice. I think we are just discussing slightly different things really. The OP seemed to be talking about people who make a real difference in the world on a large scale in a few areas. Polymaths are simply people who excel cross skill so there are millions around the world I'm sure but I can't think of any who really change our perspective or understanding cross discipline.

 

[Castiel]

Thats my point. Its almost impossible now to truly stand out and excel in multiple fields now. If you want to be the best at something then you have to dedicate yourself to that field for a huge amount of time to advance it now. Perhaps I am not using quite the same definition. The renaissance men of the past advanced science and the arts hugely at the time. I can't think of anyone really who is doing that in recent history.

Not Chomsky, Penrose, Djerassi, Hofstadter, Jared Diamond to name just a few?

I disagree, there are just too many examples of people who do stand out, including those mentioned above. Remember that Da Vinci (arguably the most famous of the Renaissance men) was not renowned at the time for everything we attribute to him today, he didn't really advance science, others did that, he was the archetypal polymath..excelled at anything he cared for...he wasn't necessarily the best at everything, Michelangelo was probably a better artist for example, but Leonardo could compete with him...and that is what a polymath is...someone who can compete in diverse subjects with the best in those fields.....they are not necessarily the best, or renowned for pushing boundaries, although they often are and do.

Plenty of historians who have covered men like Da Vinci and their multiple talents quite often note that to learn all the existing knowledge on a subject at the time was relatively easy as there was so little information. That meant that they could progress the field easier than it is now.

I have never read a historian who makes that observation to be fair, knowledge isn't a static thing that is already written, if anything, in a world without knowledge, it would be more difficult to gain knowledge as you must do the majority of the work, including the basic premise first, However it is also a false assumption to believe that during the renaissance there was not a huge body of human knowledge, there was, thousands of years of it, we simply have different knowledge today, not necessarily more...I don't think a single historian I have read on Leonardo or the renaissance has made that observation, often they make the opposite as they were often fighting against ingrained credos and accepted facts as well as attempting to pursue their own ideas and research.

I would like to read some of the historians that you refer to, it would be interesting to see why they hold such opinion.

We do but not in the same mould. They are not advancing multiple fields at the same time. If you wish to do that, you need to be seriously rich to fund others to do the research for you. They may be very talented in many fields but they are not breaking new ground in different ones.

I have mentioned a few in this and other post that have do exactly that, therefore I disagree. On the point of wealth, people like Leonardo had fabulously wealthy patrons, the Medici and The King of France to name but two of Leonardo's..they also had students, often of great ability themselves. Today we attribute credit in a different way, so it isn't precisely comparable.

I agree that its so easy to find information now and absorb it but the sheer quantity there is to take in makes the threshold for being able to advance a field that much higher.

And yet they still do it....The same was true during the renaissance also, with the exception that it was harder to find the knowledge, so you had multiple people rediscovering or postulating the same thing independently...take Darwin and Wallace for example. Today it is easier to avoid that.

Oh, no doubt, there are billions more people in the world and no longer a lucky few with the means to follow their ambitions in the sector of their choice. I think we are just discussing slightly different things really. The OP seemed to be talking about people who make a real difference in the world on a large scale in a few areas. Polymaths are simply people who excel cross skill so there are millions around the world I'm sure but I can't think of any who really change our perspective or understanding cross discipline.

I think Chomsky, Penrose, Korotayev and a few others would qualify.

The existence of such people is why I disagree.

 

[isonomicjedi]

Well I'm pretty crap at all trades, except for managing my investments, which is ironic considering my very strong anti-capitalist sentiment.

Circumstance has propelled me into this field, probably some evil God as I'm also very very anti-religion.

 

[StriderX]

Well I'm pretty crap at all trades, except for managing my investments, which is ironic considering my very strong anti-capitalist sentiment.

Circumstance has propelled me into this field, probably some evil God as I'm also very very anti-religion.

Investment is hardly a completely capitalistic idea?