there are no more polmaths anymore. there are no multi-disciplinary geniuses in the modern era
Well, my friend, I think I'm going to have to flat out disagree with you. It seems to me like the idea that there are no more polymaths or multi-disciplinary geniuses in the modern era is a hasty generalization. Don't forget that, even in our digital age, there's an ongoing wave of exceptional wizards who demonstrate mastery in more than one discipline.
Like, in this report I found from 2023, it listed some juicy info about fellows of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, who had bagged what is famously known as a "genius grant". These folks are repping all sorts of fields, from environmental engineering to hula! Their work touches on issues as diverse as water scarcity, machine learning, and even the preservation of democracy. Worth mentioning, if you've been granted the "genius" status, it's probably safe to say you're a tad gifted, right?
So, I honestly believe the multi-disciplinary genius is alive and well, simply applying their smarts to the challenging questions of our time. Maybe we just need to recognize them amidst all the noise.
Hey Socrates, you have some valid points here, old buddy. I can see why a report on multi-disciplinarian "genius grants" winners might have you thinking polymaths are alive and well. But, I don't know, man.
I still think they're really not as common as they used to be. Think about it. Back in the day, giants like da Vinci and Benjamin Franklin had a finger in so many pies, it'd make your head spin. Today? Not so much.
And don't get me started with this "genius grant" thing. No offense to the hula dancing academics, but itty-bitty fields of study like that are a far cry from the wide-ranging expertise true polymaths have. Right? I mean, comparing a hula expert and a machine learning whizz to an all-rounder like da Vinci? It's like saying your neighborhood pizza joint is on par with a five-star restaurant. Just doesn't add up.
Hey Chad, you got me thinking, my friend. I understand it seems hard to compare today's geniuses with historical figures like da Vinci or Franklin due to the breadth of their contributions. But I'd caution against diminishing the value of modern polymaths just because their expertise might center on more specialized areas.
I revisited the site I'd found earlier, from the MacArthur Foundation, and it actually describes a fascinating spread of talents. For example, it mentions Linsey Marr, an environmental engineer who studies airborne pathogens and also 2023’s one of the genius grant fellows. Broadly speaking, isn't a balance like hers - grappling with both scientific and societal complexities - reminiscent of what polymaths historically did?
True, today's polymaths might not precisely mirror historical ones, but they're here, excelling in multi-disciplinary fields, blending the niches and the mainstream. They're solving today's puzzles, much like da Vinci and Franklin tackled their era's problems. So, while seemingly scarce, I maintain today's polymaths are making waves. They might just require a broader perspective to recognize.
Alright Socratees. I have a hang of what you're saying about modern geniuses who study specialized subjects, and I might buy the story about this Linsey gal and her work on airborne pathogens.
But let's be serious here. Yes, knowledge today has become increasingly specialized and complicated. Sure, I'll give you that. But here's the thing, mate. It's too specialized and fragmented. Everything about the modern world seems to be divided into a million pieces.
I mean, look at the world we live in. Everything needs an "expert." Plumbing problems? You go to a plumber. Electrical issues? Better call an electrician. Got legal problems? Better get yourself a lawyer. Got health issues? A specific doctor for that!
People have become so obsessed with expertise in one tiny area that they've forgotten all about the big picture. Originally, the term "polymath" meant "having learned much." Where's the breadth in that specialization, Socrates? That's my question to you. Where is the breadth?
Today's so-called multi-disciplinary geniuses are just a collection of mini-specialists, each doing their own thing. Not quite the versatile Renaissance man Leonardo was, now is it?
Chad, you've hit the nail on the head about our world being more specialized and compartmentalized. But, much as you hint, this doesn't eradicate the existence of modern polymaths; it offers them a world ripe with challenges to tackle! Breadth doesn't have to be sacrificed for depth, buddy.
Take a gander at the recent MacArthur fellows, my good man. Sure, they're specialists in their respective fields, but their impacts straddle disciplinary boundaries. A statistician shaping criminal justice, an artist weaving narratives marring gender and culture, a poet giving voice to the marginalized. The polymath's spirit of learning much and applying that knowledge widely, my friend, is well and nosy among these innovative folks.
So, could it be that we're simply redefining what it means to be a polymath in the 21st century? Today's geniuses may not be the "Renaissance man" you cherish, but they blend scientific, cultural and societal threads to stitch together rich, diverse tapestries of knowledge. Let's not readily dismiss them as mini-specialists, Chad. Instead, let's tip our hat to their audacity to wrangle complexity and still, like the polymaths of yore, serve the common good.
OK, Socrates, so you're saying we should broaden our definition of polymath to include these specialists who also impact other fields. I mean, sure, there is some sense to that. But mate, that feels like moving the goalposts, don't you think?
It's like saying anybody who's good at one thing and OK at something else is a polymath. If that's the case, then I reckon our local barber could be considered a polymath. He's ace with scissors, and he also makes a mean cup of coffee!
But come on, you and I know that doesn't fit the bill of a polymath, does it? There's a line, and we shouldn't be so desperate to call people polymaths that we erase it.
So yeah, your artist might be crossing some boundaries, but does that concern Leonardo da Vinci who painted the Last Supper and also designed a helicopter? Right, I don't think so, mate. Now that is a polymath. These so-called modern polymaths just don't measure up.
Oh Chad, I get it, our local barber acing both in cutting hair and brewing coffee, as fabulous as that might be, wouldn't exactly make him a polymath, would he? But let's not muddle matters, old pal, there's a profound difference between being respectable at two things and operating at the forefront of multiple disciplines or professions.
Continuing our discussion on the MacArthur Fellows, each of these accomplished individuals, as per the same source we've been scrutinizing, isn't simply "OK" at something outside their primary field. They are leading voices, trailblazers who are reshaping their fields and, at times, creating entirely new ones! This isn't about moving goalposts; it's about recognizing how intellectual prowess manifests in a hyper-specialized world.
When comparing those modern polymaths with da Vinci, it's essential to take into account that they all navigate exceedingly complex landscapes. They're reconstructing narratives, reforming criminal justice, breeding new technologies - contributing significantly, pushing boundaries on multiple fronts.
So, while the da Vincis of the world are undeniably remarkable, mate, let's not sell today's polymaths short. They might operate differently in our increasingly specialized world, but their impact is nonetheless profound.
Well, Socrates, old pal, here's the problem. The term "polymath" is losing its meaning. If we just keep widening the umbrella to include all these modern "specialists" who dabble in this or that, then pretty soon, we're all going to be polymaths. That's not how it works, mate.
Let's take your MacArthur fellows, for example. Yes, they’re interesting people doing impressive stuff. But they're not like da Vinci or Franklin!
Look, I'm not denying that today's polymaths are smart cookies who are onto something big in their fields. But it's just not the same. You can't compare the vast knowledge of true polymaths with these people who are basically just jacks of all trades. They're good at a lot of things, sure. But they're not excelling at everything like the old polymaths did.
So I'm staying put on this one, buddy. Our modern world just doesn't foster the same kind of in-depth and wide-ranging knowledge as it once did.
Chad, I understand your sentiments, but I think there's a bit more to consider. First off, the concept of polymathy is more dynamic than having a single, specific definition; what was considered a polymath during the days of da Vinci or Franklin isn't the same as what we'd perceive today. The depth of their expertise was extraordinary for their time, but we're in different times now with a colossal amount of available knowledge, right?
The dynamics of polymathy have transitioned from Renaissance "universal genius" to today's "innovative specialist". These modern polymaths are people who are excellent at various fields, not mere jacks of all trades. They blaze trails and create new fields of study, just like their historic counterparts once did. Again, consider the MacArthur fellows: they're not "dabbling" in various areas, they're on the very frontiers of their fields.
I do get your point, mate, that there’s a certain majesty in the extensive, classic polymath model. But we're in an era packed with burgeoning knowledge, changing demands, and challenges, and our polymaths reflect that. They might not look like da Vinci, but they're shaping the world around us, reinventing what it means to be a polymath, and in their own unique ways, they're excelling. I believe it's more a shift in our understanding of what defines a polymath than a loss in their numbers or brilliance.
Oh Socrates, mate, I get it, these modern polymaths you're talking about, they're not just dabbling here and there. They’re making serious waves in their fields. But, I tell you what, pal, that's not the core of the argument.
We're not simply discussing people being at the forefront of whatever they do, are we? We're talking real-deal polymaths here. And with all due respect, the ones today, they just haven't got the same breadth. It's a big difference, Socrates.
Let's take da Vinci, for crying out loud. The man painted masterpieces, designed flying machines, dissected human bodies for study. All that while inventing stuff left, right, and center. The range of that man's genius is mind-blowing. No one's pulling off that sort of universal achievement anymore.
So, no offense to the modern trailblazers you're mentioning. But in the grand scheme of things, they're no da Vincis, are they? Today's experts are really just that - experts in their specific fields and not much else, buddy.