/lit/ - Literature

>>19045434
>The telos of polymathy is to realize the full potential of the mind, to make it understand as much it can about as many things as is reasonable, and to make it produce as much as it can create in a lifetime.

THIS MAKES NO SENSE.


>The modus operandi of polymathy is, as I described, usually to focus on a few things and to extend those insights into as many things as possible (as intelligently as possible).

THIS IS THE MODVS OPERANDI OF ANY SAPIENT, KNOWLEDGEABLE, PHILOSOPHICAL INDIVIDUAL, NOT SOMETHING CHARACTERISTIC OF PRESUMED «POLYMATHICAL» CREATURES.


>A polymath does not seek to understand everything, but rather he seeks to be familiar with "everything"...

YES, THAT IS THE REALITY: EPITOME OF INTELLECTUAL MEDIOCRITY, BUT THE MYTH OF «POLYMATHY» CONSISTS PRECISELY IN WHAT I HAVE ALREADY STATED: THE ACHIEVEMENT OF «UNIVERSAL SCIENCE» OR «SCIENCE OF EVERYTHING» VIA EXPERTISE IN ALL SCIENCES, AND TECHNICS.

THE VERY WORD: «POLYMATHY», INDICATES THE INHERENT INTELLECTUAL MEDIOCRITY BEHIND THE CONCEPT: «POLYMATHY» LITERALLY MEANS: «MANY LEARNING»; A «POLYMATH» WOULD MERELY «LEARN ABOUT»/«STUDY» SOMETHING, NOT ACTUALLY LEARN IT, NOR PRACTICE IT.


>... so that he can recognize general truths (which are supposed to inform the more concrete truths learned in his serious studies).

1. IT IS SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE THAT INFORMS OR «FEEDS» GENERICAL KNOWLEDGE, NOT CONVERSELY: THE SPECIAL PREDICATES THE GENERICAL; IT IS THE CONCEPTS CONCRETIZED BY THE SCIENCES, AND TECHNICS, THAT, COLLATED, PROVIDE THE SUBSTANCE TO THE FORMATION OF IDEAS.

2. YOU ARE DESCRIBING PHILOSOPHY; THIS IS WHAT PHILOSOPHERS DO: OVERCOME THE SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE SCIENCES, AND TECHNICS, BY FORMING IDEAS (THE GENERICAL) FROM SYNTHESIS, AND CORRELATION, OF CONCEPTS (THE SPECIAL), TO MAKE UNIVERSAL KNOWLEDGE (THE TRUTH) INTELLIGIBLE VIA COGITATION OF THESE IDEAS.

3. THERE ARE NO PRETENSES OF «POLYMATHY» IN PHILOSOPHY, BECAUSE IT IS BOTH: UNNECESSARY, AND IMPOSSIBLE, THEREFORE SUPPOSING THAT, HYPOTHETICALLY, «POLYMATHY» WERE POSSIBLE & REAL «POLYMATHY» WOULD BE REDUNDANT SINCE THERE IS PHILOSOPHY, WHICH WOULD VERIFY THE ARGUMENT THAT «POLYMATHY» WOULD BE NOTHING BUT PSEUDOPHILOSOPHY FOR THE INTELLECTUALLY IMPAIRED, IF IT WERE POSSIBLE & REAL.


>P.S.— It's honestly pretty ironic that you use the word "telos" when Aristotle was the original polymath. He was a real lover of knowledge, be like him.

ARISTOTELES WAS A PHILOSOPHER, NOT A «POLYMATH»; «POLYMATHY» IS IMPOSSIBLE & UNREAL.

— EL CATECISMO DE TRENTO.

— LAS OBRAS COMPLETAS DE LVCIVS ANNÆVS SENECA.

— LAS OBRAS COMPLETAS DE BALTASAR GRACIÁN.

— LAS OBRAS COMPLETAS DE JUANA INÉS DE LA CRUZ.

— «LOLITA», POR: VLADIMIR NABOKOV.

>>18239035
>Nigguh


WHY DO ZOOMERS DO THIS? DO THEY THINK THAT IT IS HILARIOUS, OR THAT IT MAKES THEM APPEAR «C00L»?

>«HISTORIA VERDADERA DE LA CONQUISTA DE LA NUEVA ESPAÑA».

>"THe DiSCoVeRY aND CoNQueST oF MeXiCo".


...

?

>>18199592


1. A CONCEPT IS A RATIONALIZED, CONCRETIZED NOTION; AN IDEA IS A COLLECTION OF CONCEPTS HOLISTICALLY INTERRELATED; THEY ARE NOT MUTUALLY EQUIVALENT, NOR MUTUALLY SYNONYMOUS, REGARDLESS OF WHATEVER IS WRITTEN IN SOME RANDOM ONLINE DICTIONARY.

2. YOU SHOULD CASTRATE YOURSELF.

«HAROLD BLOOM»? MORE LIKE: «HAROLD WILT».

WHY WOULD ANYONE NOT STUPID TAKE THAT MAN'S OPINION'S RE ANYTHING SERIOUSLY?

>>18052491
>cutie

>>18044951


>— JuST MaKe FRieNDS, BRo! BeST MeTHoD FoR LeaRNiNG aNY LaNGuaGe!

>— JuST CHaT WiTH RaNDoM STRaNGeRS oNLiNe; iT DoeS NoT MaTTeR iF THeY aRe BoRDeRLiNe iLLiTeRaTe, NoR THaT HaLF oF WHaT THeY WiLL SaY aRe SLaNGWoRDS, oR CuRSeWoRDS, BRo!

>>17997899
>The archetype for [MASCULINITY] is the good looking man...
>... in a smoking jacket...


...