Preamble
I’ve started to largely take each of these “-isms” continues to be a thematic way to think about matters philosophical. But as I write these “philosophical” posts, I often teeter on the moods of equal part disgust and equal part lascivious joy, for I currently pride myself in the “getting my hands dirty” phase grounded in reality and the world; while at the same time, I simply cannot help myself from digesting my thoughts and dumping these onto an online Canvas.
Lest I forget these thoughts, or more worryingly, misinterpret the mental frameworks and clarity of thought in moments of duress when the thinking is most fogged.
And the topic of interest today is indeed a reflection of that - a continued and generalised curiosity on a wide variety of topics. Sustainability, economic (and development), decision-making and behaviour, education, work and career, politics….; yet I only have a semblance of formal education in Sustainability, and some (quite frankly, limited) experience in economic development. Does that make me an expert ? Certainly not.
But that said, I suppose building an appreciation or my own personal view on a topic is step towards being a more critical thinker and insight-creator rather than a blind consumer of someone else’s insights.
Polymaths
There are historical examples of people who (according to online articles and wikipedia) are accepted to be polymaths. Leonardo Da Vinci (Art, engineering, science); Shen Kuo (Maths, Optics, horology, finance, civil service), Hildegard of Bingen (Writing, music, natural history), Zhuge Liang (statesman, engineer, military genius)…
It is nothing short of amazing then, to read of such individuals centuries later on a wikipedia page that takes 5 minutes to peruse. But clicking into each of their noteworthy achievements demonstrate a mastery across a range of discilines and the huge influence and transformative impact their work had on the society of their times and successive generations.
Modern Polymaths: The question of Diversity and Depth
So who, or what are the modern polymaths today? It’s a word that can be easily thrown around. Consider: if I watched three youtube videos of reasonably good insight about three different topics, could I be considered a Polymath within an hour?
I’ve no doubt that some publicly accessible and deeply “insightful” information (Say - Quantum mechanics 101) is groundbreaking stuff if it were to be known centuries ago.
Diversity
As a basic principle, a good frasp a certain range of topics would be necessary. Its literal meaning Learning Many (i dont know latin and not a linguist but you get the gist). Diversity too, is a topic linked to some past thinking on Generalism (https://www.makwaijun.com/blog/post98/)
One consideration and point of admiration are polymaths who have a level of knowledge significantly differing fields of expertise. Hedy Lamarr, for instance, was a hollywood actress who was also an inventor /engineer applied to aviation.
This reinforces two mental models i’ve been consistently fond of:
- Not being the top 1% in a single domain, but being top 25% in four domains as career advice; and
- The most interesting insights and inspirations have a higher chance of being unique the further apart these domains are.
In my personal context, Wine was an accidental area of knowledge and learning, which I can comfortably say I am above average in knowledge in (given the bourgeois and insular French style syllabus), but probably not commonly found in someone who is equally passionate in a hardware, energy technology industry.
I’m yet to find a breakthrough in where these overlap - although I suspect that there have been soft crossover points. After all energy, decarbonisation, climate change, changes to wine terroir and wine prices are very tightly linked.
Depth: The diminishing returns of innovation, and its impact of society
Its why, now several years later, I can look at majority of PhD or Masters theses in the world (including mine) and would probably be a little unimpressed or disappointed on its direct value to broader society; unlike the past.
Similarly, I posit that back in the day (like, medieval Florence) institutions and the educated elite (and wars) had far more of an impact than they do today. In today’s context, mass education and capitalist market has driven far more of the impact than the educated minority ever did in the past. Many universities these days face the conundrum of balancing funding with the justification and/or commercialisation of their research into the real world (which I, having had a glimpse of it now can see many reasons why it is such a difficult thing to do).
Combined with Diversity, I hold quite strongly that the diminishing returns of modern breakthroughs are a function of cramming enough knowledge and insight into a finite human lifespan; and the originality of insight on things that truly matter has hit a brick wall.
So, in these times and to what end must a person or deed to be done, qualify to have eenough “math” to be a polymath?
Determining a Polymath in the Modern era.
To prove to oneself, or even one’s circle of friends is one thing. But if I look back to “the greats”; GOATs - there was a degree of impact, recognition, and tangibility to their works. Is it the discipline of a master craftsman? or the original orchestration of a concept that is to be most lauded in defining achievement?
I suppose there are things you could track: number of patents, or papers (academia inclined); or the number of awards (leaning towards society) that a polymath could be recognised for.
But “impact” in its loose sense seems the most visceral; the most purposeful and mission-driven outcome a polymath could or perhaps should be assessed by.
And so I wonder if in today’s capitalistic context: “market success” can be a fair benchmark and assessment of what it means to achieve a level of expertise and achievement. For instance, if someone licensed a deep tech commercialised patent worth a million dollars, and sold a piece of art for a million dollars - would this be a clear example of modern polymathism?
But I am fully aware of the many critiques of the capitalist model, and indeed, polymath-or-not, there are significant and immeasurably important achievements made by individuals which must be celebrated in both its impact, legacy, and execution despite it not being a so-called financial success.
A quiet Obituary on “Polymaths”
These days, I would probably read more on people like nobel prize winners, and groundbreaking researchers, many of whom are polymaths in their own right - committed to the cause and depth of their field, yet also likely to be known for doing something creative, or artsy. We see music artistes, flexing their muscles in the field of business and all sorts of other ventures.
But above all, I find my obsession and academic interest in Polymaths a bit too Romanticised. After all, we associate Polymaths with terms such as Renaissance man; Man of Letters; Men of philosophy (or women - yes its 2023); which in the current context points to an Era outdated; a medium of writing on massive decline; and a field of study whose natural progression is a Diploma in Coffee-making. (I jest, and mean no offence - but…)
But hey, its still good to have dreams. And it is with limited liabilities and certain freedoms afforded by privilege, that I will still harbour a quite wish, a romantic dream to continue being inspired by the multidisciplinary ability of others, as much as I hope my own writing draws on parallels, synthesises hidden connections and apply it to the real world.
Further reading:
Hitting the news recently, but maybe Walter Isaacson’s various biographies - probably starting with his take on Da Vinci.