/lit/ - Literature

Did Christianity ruin Pascal like Nietzsche said?

>Puisqu’on ne peut être universel et savoir tout ce qui se peut savoir sur tout, il faut savoir peu de tout. Car il est bien plus beau de savoir quelque chose de tout que de savoir tout d’une chose ; cette universalité est la plus belle. Si on pouvait avoir les deux, encore mieux, mais s’il faut choisir, il faut choisir celle-là, et le monde le sent et le fait, car le monde est un bon juge souvent
>Since we cannot achieve universality by knowing everything that there is to know about everything, we must know a little about everything. For it is much better to know something about everything, than everything about something. That universality is the finer. If we could have both, it would be even better. But if we have to choose, we must choose that one. The world feels it and chooses it, for the world is often a good judge

Is he right? Is it better to know a lot about everything than everything about one thing? It seems like a lot of midwittery present in modern day academia can be attributed to over specialization and not daring to broaden ones intellectual horizons.

>Pascal's wager
literally irrefutable.

it's called Pascal's wager.

I read for the lord

Prove him wrong.
>pro tip: you can’t