Is it possible to be educated and well-read on many different topics?

[Anonymous No.23485807]

Right now I'm focusing on political philosophy, political economy, but within my lifetime I want to get at least an undergrad amount of knowledge within these fields:
>medicine
>physics (primarily astrophysics)
>mathematics
>philosophy (broadly)
>information technology
>music
>art
>theology
Potentially more subjects. How do I go to achieve this? I'm doing a degree in Political Science at the moment and I'm getting very good grades. As I am free to pick one subject outside of my faculty, I might pick medicine or biology.
What books should I read? Should I read the sources themselves, or go and read introductory works (like for philosophy)?

[Anonymous No.23485819]

No it's not possible and even if you did learn these things over a life time, you'd forget them as you learnt new things

[Anonymous No.23485824]

>>23485819
Am I doomed to be an ignorant retard then?

[Anonymous No.23485825]

The problem is forgetting information due to not using it, that's why people just focus on what they use day-to-day. People forget entire languages due to not using them.

If you're doing philosophy you might end up using parts from the other subjects though, but I think it'd be a different knowledge set than what undergrads learn

[Anonymous No.23485833]

>>23485825
I would go more into the philosophical parts of each field, I suppose. I have a very diverse set of interests and I chose Political Science since it would allow me to work in many fields.

[Anonymous No.23485834]

>>23485807
it is, welcome to the Imperium

[Anonymous No.23485841]

>>23485807
Yes, it's called being a polymath. Many have existed throughout history.

[Anonymous No.23485850]

>>23485841
>>23485834
Where can I find introductory works on the fields I mentioned? Or other fields you want to suggest.
At some point in my life I will want to become a teacher/lecturer and teach people what I know. Hopefully poor people.

[Anonymous No.23485870]

>>23485807
>Political Science
Think you fucked up right there. It's a lot easier to learn humanities with a hard-science background compared to vice-versa, especially since you're seeking to turn yourself into a polymath. Not impossible, but it's gonna be a bumpy road.

With that said, a lot of disciplines are compartmentalized/castrated practices of old. Think Alchemy of old, that's essentially Chemistry, Philosophy and Occult baked into one whole. If you seek to turn yourself into a polymath, I suggest you try to synthesize them back together. Tech is usually covered by hard-science, but art/music is probably something you'll have to do on the side. Medicine, either learn alternative practices - which are not gated by institutions, or pick hard science that can apply decently like Chemistry Engineering I suppose. There's also the Occult, but most of it is too archaic and alternative medicine is filling that void anyway. Theology is probably covered decently with Occult as well; I mean learn the basics as Bible's deep symbology is truly on another level, but Dharmic practices have their own positives as well, blending them is also interesting, but don't fall into New Age trap. Politics and philosophy you can learn by yourself.

All in all, if I had to give you a roadmap, it'll be this:

>Chemistry Engineering
Covers medicine, hard-science, technology

>Occult
Jack of all trades that has applications on most fields, takes intuition, wisdom and curiosty/hunger for knowledge. Not really possible for most people either because they're spiritually dead, or too dumb to bypass the traps purposefully laid out to lead people astray. If you can somehow get past the hurdle it'll deliver. Can replace Theology and Philosophy to some extent, since Ancient Greeks pretty much plagiarized Ancient Egyptians and then blended that info with their unique cultural condition.

>Art
Literally get a hobby. Draw something and buy yourself a piano since it has the greatest solo application (also makes you fun in gatherings).

>Politics, rhetoric, economics, law etc
Can be learned on the side. It's really not that hard, otherwise the parasitic class wouldn't have been doing it, kek. Most of these disciplines exist in parallels: what is taught to plebs is not what is taught to patricians. Law for example is a shitshow that is built upon legal fraud that only the patrician class - and a few curious ones - are aware of. If you are not willing to go deep, you might as well skip that. A similar story applies to economics and politics etc.

>Language
English is enough unless you wanna go hard. If you wanna go beyond, then Latin, Sanscrit, Coptic Greek and Hebrew are a good starting point, possibly Persian and Arabic, but really, English is enough.

[Anonymous No.23485886]

>>23485870
I'm not going to study Alchemy, I want to have an understanding of both hard-science fields and social science, which is I would say where Political Science is.
Specifically speaking, I am Marxist (probably closer to a Hegelian Marxist, a la Žižek), so I have this certain cynical worldview. Still, however, I want to see, for instance, where ideology is hidden in supposedly unideological, ahistorical fields such as medicine.
As for art, I do draw from time to time and write small short stories, which people have said they like.
> If you wanna go beyond, then Latin, Sanscrit, Coptic Greek and Hebrew are a good starting point, possibly Persian and Arabic, but really, English is enough.
I speak English and Lithuanian, as well as a A2 level Russian. I'm planning on learning German, French and then getting better at Russian.

[Crona: my blood is black No.23485898]

>>23485807
You should probably focus on getting a general understanding of all those topics for efficiency purposes; with all the information that's available for any given subject, it is almost impossible to truly know everything. I would recommend focusing on philosophy — more specifically ontology and ethics — since that is the backbone of having any real sense of self.

[Anonymous No.23485929]

>>23485824
No
If you only read 'a very short introduction' books which fit the subjects you're interested in then you're going to be more well educated than 95% of the population

[Anonymous No.23485934]

>>23485929
I read a couple when preparing for some things. I'll look more into them, thanks!

[Anonymous No.23485956]

>>23485807

[Anonymous No.23486021]

>>23485807
physics and mathematics are easy to get to an undergrad level if you have the requisite cognitive ability for them at all. there's not actually that much knowledge involved, everything can be derived from a relatively small number of things you have to actually know, and those derivations only start being prohibitively difficult at a very advanced level that's not relevant to most people.
medicine is hard, because it's basically nothing but a collection of facts with relatively few simplifying theories.
the rest are intermediate between these two, with the exception of music and art where in principle they ought to be difficult to learn in depth but in practice the bar is on the floor and if you put in any serious effort at all you're doing better than almost everyone.

[Anonymous No.23486034]

>>23485807
r8 the plan
>learn Latin, Greek, French, German, Spanish, Italian, Russian, Japanese, Chinese
>know physics, chemistry, biology and mathematics
>know how to play an instrument decently well
>be well-versed in history, literature, philosophy, theology
>know the Western Canon like the back of your hand
>strength training and some kind of sport

[Anonymous No.23486041]

>>23486034
then what?

[Anonymous No.23486045]

>>23486041
Then I can brag about being le epic polymath on /lit/

[Anonymous No.23486050]

>>23485807
For Mathematics, learn Calculus then read the following:

>Analysis
Principles of Mathematical Analysis, Rudin

>Abstract Algebra
Dummit and Foote

>Linear Algebra
Linear Algebra Done Right, Axler

>Topology
Munkres

Won't get you quite up to undergrad level. But close enough.

[Anonymous No.23486080]

>>23486041
die

[Anonymous No.23486335]

>>23485807
"jack of all trades, master of none"

[Anonymous No.23486349]

>>23485807
People with degrees should be shot

[Anonymous No.23486356]

>>23485886
>A2 Russian
Why would you ever mention that lmao

[Anonymous No.23486357]

>>23486034
ngmi


take that as an advice and a warning

[Anonymous No.23486417]

>>23485807
>Undergrad amount of knowledge within
>Music
>Mathematics
Literally impossible if you don't study them at your university or do them for grad studies. Undergrad music is basically a full time job of practicing pieces and learning theory, while math needs feedback to master. Otherwise, you'll pick up bad habits that make it completely unreliable.

>>23485870
>Law for example is a shitshow that is built upon legal fraud that only the patrician class - and a few curious ones - are aware of
Pretty much. Law school exists more to build connections, a shared background, and get people employed than it does to teach a discipline. Most US law professors are practically required to get Ph.Ds in related fields like Philosophy or Economics to teach, because law is a pseudo-academic discipline.

>>23485886
>I want to have an understanding of both hard-science fields and social science, which is I would say where Political Science is.
Political Science is, like most social sciences, a liberal arts discipline with a thin veneer of statistics. It is not scientific at all. The only liberal arts that are slightly scientific are Economics, because economists will base their models on mathematics and conduct experiments, and Psychology, because they occasionally perform experiments.

[Anonymous No.23486472]

>>23485824
On the contrary, you will likely be happier.

[Anonymous No.23486475]

>>23485956
>reading the articles in Playboy

[Anonymous No.23486850]

>>23486417
>The only liberal arts that are slightly scientific are Economics, because economists will base their models on mathematics and conduct experiments, and Psychology, because they occasionally perform experiments.
Kek economics is “scientific” if you ignore all of the value judgements that underlie much of the field. Also, do you think that political science doesn’t conduct experiments or analyze data?
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajps.12234

[Anonymous No.23486900]

>>23486850
oh, economics is scientific all right. we are the subjects of a five decade long experiment to test the hypothesis that "constant, low level inflation is good". we know the answer: it's not. I hope my sarcasm here is understood. economics is far from scientific. especially macroeconomics, since you can't control 99 percent of the variables, and you can use black-magic statistics to fudge your results. macroeconomics should not even be a discipline. the only way to actually "practice" macroeconomics is to use state violence to manipulate policy - interest rates, money supply, taxes, tariffs, etc. anybody who unironically says they're a macroeconomist should be ridiculed and laughed out of any room they enter. it is on the same level as astrology, crystals, magic, manifestation, etc
>>23486417
this guy is right about music and math. these are not subjects you can just read a book about and then understand it. these are fields that require practice. lots of practice.
>>23485841
polymaths were much more common during the renaissance / early enlightenment, when various fields were still in their infancy. so yeah a guy back then could be top 1% in math, chemistry, engineering, music, philosophy. plus those guys didn't have the level of distraction we have today.
>>23485807
the goal you are describing to us is only really attainable if you dedicate basically your entire life to it.
anyways. as others have said, you can read 10 good books on a subject and become somewhat conversational at least.
but realistically, man, if you want to make a meaningful contribution to a given field, you have to dedicate your entire life to that field. there are exceptions to this, and they are rare. if you are convinced you want to maximize the breadth (not depth) of your knowledge, the best careers to use that would be philosopher, writer (fiction / nonfiction), public intellectual, etc.

[Anonymous No.23486998]

Yes. All these things connect to each other anyway. Reading even one book on a topic makes you more well informed than the average normalfag. Reading 10 well-selected books on a topic makes you more informed than an undergraduate.

[Anonymous No.23487455]

>>23485807
for you op......
.
.
.
INFOBLOB MEGA PACK
http://drive.google.com/drive/folders/13gNcyzC7QvfTbXcVSqorj1pZmFb-csP6
google drive easy to use interface

[Anonymous No.23487722]

>>23486850
>economics is “scientific” if you ignore all of the value judgements that underlie much of the field
Most of economic theory these days is about challenging the neoclassical assumptions, which are taught mainly because they yield simplified models that demonstrate basic conclusions.
And yes, I'm not pretending that economics is anywhere near as scientific as chemistry, physics, or biology. It merely attempts to produce something that is moderately scientific, whereas much of political science proceeds from value judgements rather than merely being rooted in them.
>do you think that political science doesn’t [...] analyze data?
That's the thin veneer of statistics I was talking about.

Also, the article you posted is unironically psychology, just with political implications.

[Anonymous No.23487920]

>>23486475
>Thinking Playboy's articles aren't the most worthwhile ting about it in this current day

[Anonymous No.23487951]

>>23485807
No. It's not attainable. At least not how you're thinking of it. There's just not enough time. You'd be sacrificing a lot.

It's not a goal you should even be aiming for anyways. Why exactly do you want an undergrad level of knowledge in all of those fields? The knowledge itself really doesn't get you anything. How is undergrad level mathematics useful to you? How does it improve your life? What does it allow you to do that you otherwise couldn't?
What joy will you gain from that knowledge, and how is a better use of your time than anything else you could be doing?

[Anonymous No.23487956]

>>23487722
>Most of economic theory these days is about challenging the neoclassical assumptions, which are taught mainly because they yield simplified models that demonstrate basic conclusions.
Maybe you’ve observed different things than I have. I think most economists more or less accept the conclusions and premises from which the neoclassical model begins with.

>whereas much of political science proceeds from value judgements rather than merely being rooted in them.
What do you take to be the difference? If a field is rooted in value judgements than it’s natural to suspect that it will proceed from those judgments—whether it be analyzing results or something else

>Also, the article you posted is unironically psychology, just with political implications.
Well that’s that interdisciplinary steez

[Anonymous No.23488038]

>>23487951
A lot of high level disciplines are built on assumptions taken for truth. Like:
>LE EPIC BLACKHOLES AND AHMYGAAAD SPEED OF LIGHT IM GONNA FLY THROUGH SPACE AND DARK MATTER AT SPEED OF LIGHT WITH MY AI ROBOT ARMY AND MAKE PORTALS LIKE IN STAR TREK AND STAR WARS AND USE JEDI SABERS AND THEN MAYBE WE UNLOCK THE FORCE WITH LE HECKIN SCIENCE AAAAAAAAAAAAA IM COOOMING DID I ALSO MENTION THAT IM AN ATHEIST WHO DOES NOT BELIEVE IN GOD!?!?!?!?

Having a well-rounded basic understanding opens room for alternative models, which is healthy for most fields. Stewing in modern cultural and scientific gestalt because certain societal elements have too much at stake, kinda like with Church and Geocentrism in Middle Ages, is a recipe for decline and perhaps even a disaster down the line. Also a lot of fields are purposefully made complex to justify compartmentalization.

[Anonymous No.23488046]

>>23488038
You're stupid and you've never mastered anything.

[Anonymous No.23488050]

Have you guys not heard the news? Karl Marx is a satanist guys. He worshipped the devil in his poems. Look it up!

[Anonymous No.23488061]

>>23488046
Keep projecting as much as you like, but the smoke-and-mirrors spell is breaking.

[Anonymous No.23488066]

>>23488061
I think it's time for you to go back

[Anonymous No.23488069]

>>23488038
How embarrassing.

[Anonymous No.23488099]

>>23488066
I don't think I will. Now cope, seethe and dilate.

[Anonymous No.23488101]

>>23488038
>>LE EPIC BLACKHOLES AND AHMYGAAAD SPEED OF LIGHT IM GONNA FLY THROUGH SPACE AND DARK MATTER AT SPEED OF LIGHT WITH MY AI ROBOT ARMY AND MAKE PORTALS LIKE IN STAR TREK AND STAR WARS AND USE JEDI SABERS AND THEN MAYBE WE UNLOCK THE FORCE WITH LE HECKIN SCIENCE AAAAAAAAAAAAA IM COOOMING DID I ALSO MENTION THAT IM AN ATHEIST WHO DOES NOT BELIEVE IN GOD!?!?!?!?
what did he mean by this

[Anonymous No.23488106]

>>23488038
Delete this, it's too early.

[Anonymous No.23488119]

>>23485807
Reinassance was the last moment when you could learn basically everything there was.

[Anonymous No.23488135]

>>23487956
>I think most economists more or less accept the conclusions and premises from which the neoclassical model begins with
Depends on which assumptions you're talking about. The biggest ones are monopoly power (always present, even in competitive markets), perfect information (quite obvious why it fails), and no distorting taxes (not practical, and they can help address externalities). Most of these are used quite heavily in the neoclassical model, but really don't apply and economists know that.
Economists accept the principles that consumers are rational and firms will try to maximize profits, but these are fairly straightforward for predicting peoples' behavior.
>If a field is rooted in value judgements than it’s natural to suspect that it will proceed from those judgments
The difference is that political science is as much about making those value judgements as it is about proceeding from them. In contrast, more scientific disciplines and mathematics are rooted in certain value judgements (empiricism, the ability of models to reflect reality) but explicitly avoid making them during the research process.

>Well that’s that interdisciplinary steez
That's one qualm I have with the liberal arts and social sciences (including economics). At this point, they're so ridiculously redundant that the departments only exist for legacy reasons. Sociologists and economists will both research healthcare coverage, political scientists and psychologists will both study political mindsets, and so on. It's to the point that rather than being interdisciplinary they're just a singular but highly fractured discipline.

[Anonymous No.23488162]

>>23488101