/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13425632]

Is the polymath death? Literally why are all people specialists today it is so fucking boring. Take anyone out of their specialty and they are all tasteless braindead boring retards that cant think independently and are all sucked in to the current hegemonic patterns of thought. I hate this shit. There have been no great people that were specialists, all great people were polymaths. Society is becoming like ants, everyone is a specialized drone.

[Anonymous No.13425640]

Becoz not high iq enouf

[Anonymous No.13425644]

>>13425632
Yeah, you know every fucking specialist that ever lived. Dumb fucking nigger. Maybe those polymaths are remembered because they're extremely rare. Ever think about that shit eater?

[Anonymous No.13425654]

its because the problems being worked on in academic disciplines now are really narrow and require singular dedication to make a contribution. The problems were still in their infancy only a few centuries ago.

[Anonymous No.13425878]

Bump

[Anonymous No.13425885]

yeah. steinbeck moaned about it in East of Eden

[Anonymous No.13425891]

>>13425632
Typical Boomer entitlement yelling at the TV and demanding entertainment.

[Anonymous No.13425892]

>>13425885
what did he say?

[Anonymous No.13425900]

You have to understand that back then, knowledge in multiple fields was very meager compared to today. It was easier to be a polymath back then because there were far fewer concepts to memorize. Nowadays, it takes 10 years to become a doctor at the minimum. 10 fucking years because you have to learn the accumulated knowledge spanning multiple centuries. It's impossible to be a renaissance man now and I find it depressing.

[Anonymous No.13425901]

>>13425654
Basically this. Theoretical physics, engineering, literature, philosophy, mathematics, medicine, etc are all so focused now that their journals are basically written in different languages from one another.

It's always embarrassing when you hear an intellectual you respect weigh in on topics outside their expertise.

[Anonymous No.13425904]

Yes, they are. It isn't your imagination. The fact is, we've progressed so far in every imaginable field that specialization and multi-person teams are the only ways we can progress further. The era of the great polymath is over. Perhaps the last was von Neumann.

https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/big-ideas-are-getting-harder-find

[Anonymous No.13425914]

>>13425901
>It's always embarrassing when you hear an intellectual you respect weigh in on topics outside their expertise.

This. And you know, the field that is perhaps the most sorely affected by this is philosophy. Since philosophy inherently concerns itself with other pursuits of knowledge, it's becoming increasingly hard to conduct philosophy in any non-atomised way. I guess that explains why academic continental philosophy has declined so much.

[Anonymous No.13426015]

>>13425632
This is a very interesting thread. I consider myself a multipotentialite rather than a polymath because the latter implies mastery.

I have a degree in philosophy, enjoy computer programming, play the piano, compose neo-classical music, make electronic music, dabble in abstract painting, stand up comedy, writing fiction and on and on, but you want to know the truth? I fucking suck at most of those things compared to people with a singular focus.

It's terribly depressing but the amount of time you have to spend to be truly remarkable at something today is all of it.

[Anonymous No.13426029]

>>13426015
Da Vinci is the stupid man's idea of a smart person.

[Anonymous No.13426133]

>>13426029
It may be cliche to reference him in a discussion about polymaths but he was unambiguously a genius.

You don't think it takes genius to paint the way he did?

[Anonymous No.13426152]

>>13426133
>You don't think it takes genius to paint the way he did?
No, it doesn't. With enough time and effort invested in training, pretty sure anyone with an IQ above 100 could paint like da Vinci. His paintings are overblown anyway, look up why they're famous. His contributions that would actually be indicative of genius (that's fields like math, physics, engineering) are fuck-all, showing that it's more likely that he was closer to a midwit than a genius.

[Anonymous No.13426162]

>>13425632
100% on the same page OP. Anyone who claims otherwise is a nostalgist or historically naive.

[Anonymous No.13426166]

>>13426152
Okay, so if da Vinci, the man literally regarded as the archetype of universal genius, was a midwit what are you?

[Anonymous No.13426167]

>>13425632
Wow such a low-IQ take.

[Anonymous No.13426175]

>>13426166
I am likely also close to a midwit, probably of a similar intelligence as da Vinci. Also no physicist or a mathematician who knows their shit views da Vinci as universal genius, just art people who bought into the memes and pedestrians.

[Anonymous No.13426211]

>>13426175
>I am probably of a similar intelligence to da Vinci
Alright bud. Painted anything good lately? Or did you take your midwit level intelligence into the wrong field?

[Anonymous No.13426228]

>>13425900
>It's impossible to be a renaissance man now and I find it depressing.

[Anonymous No.13426259]

>>13426211
I took it into maths, and with a lot of time and effort invested, I have gotten pretty good at it. Also I didn't say my intelligence is midwit level, just closer to midwit level than to a genius level, just like da Vinci's.
>he actually thinks da Vinci was a universal genius
how does it feel to not know any physics or math?

[Anonymous No.13426327]

>>13426259
No, I said widely regarded as such to illustrate how absurd it is for you to compare yourself to him.

He is regarded as the father of paleontology and architecture and made numerous inventions besides painting in a time where empiricism wasn't even widely accepted.

Have you founded any fields of science lately? If you were as gifted as him couldn't you take up painting and crank out a few masterpieces? Oh that's right anything that isn't STEM is pleb-teir so why bother

[Anonymous No.13426349]

>>13426152
t. has a middle-school grasp of art history
Da Vinci essentially resolved the important problem of seamless composition in perspective painting, which was perhaps the biggest issue for painters after the early Renaissance changed everything. And that's onlyone of his contributions.

It doesn't matter whether he was talented at this point, what he introduced was game-changing, that's enough to make him a visionary painter and on of the greats.

[Anonymous No.13426352]

>>13426259
Could you invent an automated bobbin winder unaided by books and the Internet? How about a machine for testing the tensile strength of wire before such information existed?

[Anonymous No.13426355]

Donald Glover is the only modern polymath

[Anonymous No.13426372]

>>13426259
>guys who has gotten "pretty good at maths" (has gotten a bachelor degree once)
>claiming he is close to Da Vinci's level
>Da Vinci, the man who made painting into a respected intellectual field instead of merely craftsmanship

This is what happen to arrogant STEMfags who think their mildling understanding of maths make them stand above most artists.
Before you call me a brainlet I also work in mathematics anon, I've studied most of what you studied, I might be better at it than you are.

[Anonymous No.13426399]

>>13425632
Polymath is a Renaissance idea and a rather conceited one at that. The average specialist nowadays has as much factual knowledge as most of the polymaths of the time (talking about all polymaths, if you restrict yourself to exceptional cases like De La Mirandole or Da Vinci or Goethe that's a bit different).
Think that in any country with a decent highschool system a highschool level of education gets you some basis of history, physics, chemistry, biology, literature and perhaps even philosophy. A mostly flimsy, superficial basis, and yet it would contain much more than the average educated person would have known in the 16th century.
Now the real difference between Renaissance polymath andmodern-day intellectual drone-worker is the degree of autonomy and self-reliance. These guy could freely investigate their own areas of science (think Descartes who dissected human corpses for anatomy because why the fuck not) and quickly make new discoveries, nowadays you need ten-years degree and state permits and even then you're very likely to reproduce something done elsewhere.

[Anonymous No.13426422]

>>13426399
>Think that in any country with a decent highschool system a highschool level of education gets you some basis of history, physics, chemistry, biology, literature and perhaps even philosophy. A mostly flimsy, superficial basis, and yet it would contain much more than the average educated person would have known in the 16th century.

lol you're outta your fuckin' mind

[Anonymous No.13426424]

>>13426372
Pretty sure you're not lol

[Anonymous No.13426464]

>>13426424
I mean, come on man, you should be into this guy, he was doing the engineering of his day. Remember, he was born in the 1400s, 200 years before Newton, in fucking Italy. He was doing all his engineering practically from scratch and by himself. And that's saying nothing of his artwork.

[Anonymous No.13426483]

>>13426464
>Remember, he was born in the 1400s
That's probably why he was so stupid.

[Anonymous No.13426509]

>>13426029
>>13426152
>>13426175
>>13426259
>>13426424
>>13426483
>stemfag autist with a bs from an irrelevant school thinks he's on par with da vinci
OH NO NO NO HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.13426536]

>>13426483
You truly are the Da Vinci of our era.

[Anonymous No.13426549]

>>13425632
I dropped out of high school and have tried to do this shit; my conclusion after years has essentially been that you can learn a lot, but unless you're enough of an autist to really drill yourself on a constant basis (which I unfortunately am not), you will for the most part only see slight gains in peripheral subjects and end up specializing anyway. it's great (and healthy) to let yourself be led by your true interests, whether they relate or not. sooner or later you find out they link up anyway - it might just be a matter of finding a bridging subject. I believe coercive schooling is wrong for the vast majority of kids, but my experience individually has shown me that structure is crucial in the learning process. The issue is to develop a structure that facilitates kids' (and adults') learning outside the purview of forced state indoctrination without imposing a full curriculum on them. they should basically learn to read, write, basic math, identify and use local plants/animals/assets, farm (ideally something taught by the family) and understand basic systems theory. from there they have a solid foundation that is applicable not only to their daily life but pretty much whatever else they'd want to learn. Like Ivan Illich suggests, payment for "apprenticeships" could be issued in the form of learning vouchers to every citizen, who would then trade them to others in exchange for mentorship in their expertise. We obviously could not sustain anything close to a modern level of society without heavy specialization - the main thing is just that those experts be rounded out organically with other interests they may not have a chance to pursue. you never know what skills may emerge from which combination of curiosities. besides that, all people should anyway have the chance to learn what they care to learn. the schoolhouse is a jail.

[Anonymous No.13426567]

>>13426536
Exactly. Now all I need is some rich influential faggots to overblow my reputation and make me famous like da Vinci :^)
>>13426509
COPE

[Anonymous No.13426573]

>>13426483
Pic related. The pleb-teir work of a midwit.

[Anonymous No.13426606]

>>13426549
i like this ideas
i like the idea of you

[Anonymous No.13426619]

>>13426573
Never said da Vinci was a midwit, just that his brilliance is highly exaggerated and that he's closer to a midwit than an actual genius. Pleb-tier is also your word choice, I never used the word pleb before. Clearly you are enraged that your sugar daddy "polymath" actually turned out to be highly overrated.

[Anonymous No.13426621]

>>13425632
It's impossible to master every field now, they grown to enormous size.

Sure, you could dabble in multiple fields, but you're doomed to be a dabbler and a master of none of them.

In fact, it's pretty much impossible to master even the entirety a single field now.

[Anonymous No.13426643]

>>13426029
Authentic bait

[Anonymous No.13426646]

>>13425632
Be average in many disciplines or master of one; the choice is yours OP

[Anonymous No.13426661]

>>13426619
You said you were of a similar level of intelligence to him. There's no coming back from that. You're clearly wrong. And that's okay. It's okay to be wrong, anon.

You still haven't answered this da Vinci >>13426352

[Anonymous No.13426662]

>>13426175
When you call someone a midair ask yourself this:
Can I prove that I am smarter than a widely regarded idiot like George W. Bush, or would any inspection of achievement and education prove the opposite.

[Anonymous No.13426721]

>>13426483
>That's probably why he was so stupid.
And you regard him as of a similar intelligence to yourself? Well, we can agree on your conclusion at least.

[Anonymous No.13426785]

>>13425632
>Literally why are all people specialists today
It's called employment.

[Anonymous No.13426825]

>>13426619
>>13426619
Observe this terracotta masterpiece. It was identified by scholars earlier this year as da Vinci's only surviving sculpture. It's dated 1472, so how old was da Vinci when he created it? 19 years old.

But anyway, tell me more about that math degree of yours.

[Anonymous No.13426833]

>>13426399
>memorizing bullshit in high school is the same as inventing and discovering the knowledge itself.
t. pseud

[Anonymous No.13426925]

>>13426825
Look at that ugly baby's face. And the proportions of that woman's face. No wonder da Vinci created this piece of "art". Reminds me of low poly 3d modeling I did back when I was about 13. You call this a masterpiece, and I am left with no option but to call you a fool.
>>13426721
I am pretty stupid at times. Not today though and not in this thread.
>>13426662
>widely regarded idiot like George W. Bush
The fact that you think he's an idiot and the fact that the public views him as an idiot supports your case leads me to think that you are a pedestrian midwit yourself. George Walter Bush is not an idiot by any measure, and I am probably not much smarter than him.
>>13426661
I am of very similar intelligence as da Vinci. You think I am wrong, because you like to idolize people from the past and fall for memes that the journalists and other people with access to the media feed you.
Yes, I have not answered that post, so let me answer it now. I have no idea what the fuck is a bobbin winder and to learn what it is I would have to use the internet or books, so obviously I couldn't invent it without the help of them. If I knew what it was, then I probably would be able to invent it, I have a pretty solid grasp on physics and given enough time I would work something out, like I always do.
Same for the other invention. Your post doesn't prove anything.

[Anonymous No.13427041]

>>13426925
...No :3

Democracy just does not breed better artists than Aristocracy. Read some Tocqueville and educate yourself. You will never be Da Vinci. No one will.

Most people these days are essentially the equivalent of what a polymath was back then though. No one is actually what a polymath was back then.

I’m trying to get into it a bit. I’m reading Witello, will be reading Nicole Oresme after Alhacen’s Configuration of the World and I’ll be reading some Roger Bacon soon. So I’m getting there

[Anonymous No.13427045]

>>13426925
>If I knew what it was, then I probably would be able to invent it

[Anonymous No.13427095]

>>13426925
You're better at arguing against you than I am. Thanks for the laughs moron.

[Anonymous No.13427105]

>>13427095
>moron
Woah there buddy... that's a bit uncalled for.

[Anonymous No.13427154]

>>13427041
>Witello
No results come up on google. Who did you mean by this? Or is it just something you made up.

[Anonymous No.13427166]

>Why are all people specialists today
Economic system that places priority on interdisciplinary academia as opposed to intradisciplinary academia because it's more "efficient"

[Anonymous No.13427191]

>>13427154
Witelo with one ‘l’ my bad.

He’s the author of the Perspectivae, a series of somewhat novel geometrical propositions which largely build off the first three books of Euclid

The whole thing is supposed to be immaculate, it’s supposed to be an astronomical treatise largely influenced by Alhacen and specifically his Optics.

But so far it is rudimentary propositional synthetical Mathematics. Still, some pretty interesting concepts to read at times.

Only Books one and five are extant In translated versions, everything else is translated in European languages or untranslated. I’m reading Book One right now, it cost me 300 bucks over Abe books. Good luck getting a copy of that.

Book five is more widely available and is either 80 bucks on Amazon or 60something on Abebooks.

:3 worth every penny

[Anonymous No.13427282]

>>13426424
You're entitled to your opinion anon :^)

[Anonymous No.13427301]

>>13426833
I was not comparing those two, lrn2 read m8. I was comparing the quantity of knowledge in both cases. No polymath ever discovered by himself all that he knew.
I addressed the issue of discovering something by oneself in the second part of my post, against, practice that skill called reading.

[Anonymous No.13427358]

>>13426422
Prove me wrong m8. I'm not talking about your average bankrupt American highschool (I wrote 'decent highschool", remember?). I had to read over fifty books in highschool for literature class alone, and I wasn't in a particularly elite class (and of course I'm not including middle school, personal readings, let alone postsecondary education).

One year I had to study line by line 25 texts ranging from philosophy to biography to fiction by famous authors born between 1600 and 1900 and I was expect to be able to deliver a 20 minutes commentary on any one of them. I also had to translate latin texts but that was an elective so I'm willing to let this out of the argument.

None of that is rocket science, but consider what is the baseline of comparison: what proportion of the population in the 16th century had read so much as ten books in their entire lives? Heck even knowing how to read, write and count was already enough to be considered educated (which means that by that those standards most ten years old in Western countries are close to the level of intellectual education of a 16th century adult -not that this is the only form of education of course).

I explicitly said I'm not talking about the "average" towering polymath like de la Mirandole who submitted hundreds of memoirs to the faculty of Paris before reaching 30. Neither am I talking about the outstanding scholars of the Renaissance who were impressive but amounted to a minute proportion of the population (the proportion of legitimately impressive scholars currently living is at least as high).

I'm talking about how a reasonably educated person nowadays would have been considered something of a polymath in knowledge and education at the times.

[Anonymous No.13427414]

>>13427105
I think everyone here would agree that it is apt.

[Anonymous No.13427531]

Everyone has some sort of narcissistic belief in their own exceptionalism. "I'M gonna be the next polymath, I'M the one with the potential to be some great interdisciplinary artist," No, you're just a dilettante like anyone else. You can do anything, but you can't do everything.

[Anonymous No.13427536]

>>13427531
hurr durr pessimism make muh smurt :3

[Anonymous No.13427540]

>>13426015
I'm similar. I've got a master's in philosophy and philosophy is where I have the best hope of success. I'm decent at drawing. I made a little bit of digital music long ago when I had school-provided tools, and I like what I made then, but I regret not having continued to make music all this time. I'm not great at anything else, aside from a bunch of random knowledge. It really is depressing.

[Anonymous No.13427796]

>>13425632
Has anyone here actually read Browne?

[Anonymous No.13427822]

>>13427531
well some people are in fact special, surely there is someone alive who has contributed important things to multiple fields?

[Anonymous No.13428743]

>>13427822
The closest tends to be people who do philosophy and something else, or even just philosophers themselves (since there's a lot of sub-fields and you can be important in many of those; or, you might get attention in the arts or sciences). So you see stuff like analytics (Russell or Chomsky are very visible examples) doing stuff studied in philosophy, but also getting attention in mathematics, logic (Russell) or psychology, linguistics (Chomsky), and both of them also have some following when it comes to their political views and social criticism. Likewise with continentals, the humanities and arts often draw a lot of inspiration from their ideas. So the best way to increase your chances of contributing to multiple fields today may very well involve expertise in philosophy. Not a surprise though, since the polymaths of the past were usually philosophers too.

[Anonymous No.13430391]

>>13426399
>>13425632
I think polymath is more of an approach than an effective result or mere knowledge. It's hard to be proficient in a wide range of areas for obvious reasons but a polymath would have the intuition and tenacity to invent their own conception of a field so that even though they're not an expert they are not worthless retards spewing trite facts. Technicallyspeaking they would be hardpressed to be knowledgeable on much at all, it's more about thinking for yourself and working from baser principles, pulling from all areas to unify isolated doctrine.

There's no reason this isn't possible today.

[Anonymous No.13430429]

>>13430391
Intelligent take. However, don't you think being saturated with convenient technology kind of prevent that innovative tenacity to grow over time? There is much less reason to invent anything that isn't extremely niche or specialized now.