One thing that struck me at an exhibit of Leonardo's notebooks is how totally wrong he was about so many things. It wasn't mentioned in the exhibit but for every one thing he was correct about, it seemed like there were many many, dozens perhaps, that he was completely incorrect about. Some of the ideas seem preposterous now, although it's difficult to view them appropriately as they would have been at the time.
This could be seen positively or negatively. One way of spinning it is that he was persistent in exploring ideas. Another way, though, is that something -- mythmaking, hype, his art, whatever it is -- has allowed history to ignore the fact that he seemed to have been wrong more often than he was right, along the lines of a broken clock being right twice a day.
In either case, I think there's something to be said for some kind of cultural and social context playing a strong role in how all of this is interpreted. A different person in the wrong place or wrong time might have been interpreted as a crackpot.
Same goes for Isaac Newton. He’s practically been elevated to godhood for his contributions to calculus and physics. What about his occult studies, alchemy, and chronology [1]? It seems only historians (academic and amateur), Newton buffs, and compulsive Wikipedia clickers know or care about these weird ideas that were so important to Newton.
Were these studies inconsistent with a curious mind and the limitations of knowledge at the time? In any research, some avenues of investigation are fruitful and others are not.
When people look back on us 300 years from today, they'll likely find many cases of geniuses working on things that seem naive or misguided in retrospect.
I don't think this sort of thing is rare, or a reflection of the time period he lived in or his status as an extreme outlier in historical influence.
Many scientists spend a portion of their time in oddball or fruitless pursuits and sometimes it takes them over, particularly as they get older.
Linus Pauling and Vitamin C is one thing that comes to mind.
There was some scientist whose name I can't remember, was asked how he could be occupied by crazy ideas or obsessions and he said that these ideas came to him in exactly the same way as his deep scientific insights.
> Same goes for Isaac Newton. He’s practically been elevated to godhood for his contributions to calculus and physics.
The way British write confuses many people. "Newton is the greatest of the greatest", "Shakespeare is the mos prolific writer that ever lived", ""... British writers love hyperbole. The fact that the writing style aligns with national pride helps to create a positive feedback of "grandiose writing".
That does not mean that there is ill intent. The target consumers of the writing are the British readers themselves, and almost all societies have a good self esteem. The fact that globally we communicate in English has tip the balance towards sharing American and British views of the world over the rest and created an over hype of some charismatic national myths.
Natural philosophy and alchemy were names for science before science. Alchemy had a connotation of being very ceremonial; knowledge had to spread by group gatherings and word of mouth.
Cutting edge science today would have been called alchemy historically. Artificial intelligence, gene editing, etc. Fortunately scientists have a pretty good reputation now, where alchemists of the past had to research and convene in secret.
I was told by a doctor that in his 1980s biology class, the professor opened by saying, "half of what I'm going to teach you is wrong - we just don't know which half".
I imagine it's similar with Leonardo, and likely with our own state-of-the-art knowledge. We are all broken clocks, and the trick is to figure out which part of our knowledge is wrong.
Being right on average isn't that useful for intellectuals. Much harder to be right even once about something important that others are very wrong about. It's easy to be right on average by always following the prevailing consensus.
People like Leonardo and Newton are valuable thinkers because they once in a while produce a really good idea, and it doesn't really matter if they know themselves which ideas are good or bad. This is a really bad trait for a leader or a trader though.
I noticed the same thing in one of Aristotle's books, where he tries to catalog his encyclopedic knowledge of natural phenomena. It might just be a sign of an earlier intellectual era.
Is it apt comparing being right about things to a broken clock? Unlike a clock, there's no guarantee that anyone might eventually be right about anything. Sure, a monkey at a typewriter will eventually produce Shakespeare's complete works, but the chance is pretty much negligible.
He might not actually have discovered or invented everything on his own.
What I most likely think, is that he was more like a Director of a government program or university who's tasked with key projects and allowed to interrogate or gather intelligence from anywhere.
He most likely met a lot of people from both east and west, learned a few things them and decided to document them. Maybe those people also documented it in their own language somewhere but ofc it didn't survive the test of time and only way we know any of those things is through Leonardo's illustrations.
The cities where he lived had influx of traders from all over the world.
It's otherwise seemingly impossible for someone to come up with so many things during his lifetime.
You’re saying the issue is more nuanced than it appears at first blush, requiring careful consideration taking into account cultural context then and now?! That’s preposterous, give us your 140 character hot take instead. :)
I don't think that's what defines a polymath, for if it does, then none existed. My view of what makes one a polymath is deep --likely cutting-edge-- expertise in several disciplines.
That being said, I agree with the general sentiment that it is increasingly harder to become a polymath these days, especially in the disciplines with lots of active research. To have an expertise in just one discipline it takes years of education (to catch up with progress) and then a considerable recurrent investment of time to stay up-to-date.
If one is to be a polymath in a varied set of disciplines where overlap is minimal (see Leonardo), one would have to go through the mentioned process of acquiring and maintaining expertise for each discipline. This is different for a polymath in a set of closely-related disciplines, because there's only so much more (compared to being expert in one discipline) one needs to do to be a polymath because there's a lot of overlap. But it is debatable whether that even counts as a polymath, a point raised in:
> Is Judith Butler’s supposed eminence in ‘philosophy, linguistics and politics’ enough to qualify her?
I agree with your point re: the depth of information in a field making it difficult to maintain competence in multiple fields.
On the other hand, I think society increasingly projects an expectation of this, that someone cannot possess skills in multiple areas, where areas are increasingly narrowly defined. I think in part this plays a role in stress over higher education, in that a degree is seen as a skill certificate (that is, a statement about what someone can do) rather than an opportunity to learn (that is, a statement about what someone has done).
This is the focus of my main keynote presentation topic, On Being a Deep Generalist.
Specialisation came to the fore during the Industrial Revolution and achieved a form of preeminence in the 20th Century that hadn’t existed elsewhere in human history when knowing, at depth, a wide variety of skills and disciplines was either essential for survival or in order to be considered a well-rounded individual.
The internet, not without ongoing battles against vested interests, has solved the discoverability challenge faced with approaching the wealth of knowledge created in the past few centuries. For many of us aspiring polymaths (and I agree with the other comments here that a polymath isn’t someone who knows “everything about everything“, but rather knows “a lot about a lot” or “enough about enough”) the challenge is mental and societal.
We convince ourselves that we must specialize to succeed; most schools and many workplaces promote the same. Yet creativity and insight so often depends on interdisciplinary knowledge and the ability to use our brains to connect novel ideas.
It’s not the right choice for everyone. If you want to be the best in the world (or the top 1%) at something, then specialize. But most of us are more varied than that, which has benefits for us as business owners, or employees, and as humans.
“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.”
In my main keynote I talk about being in the top 25% of the field across 3 different domains, while also being at an intermediary level in a range of others.
In part, that’s to set an achievable first goal - most of the audience are probably already there in 1 or 2 fields, so it’s not insurmountable for them to progress, and hopefully from there they have the success to keep going wide as well as deep.
If I had to add a stronger definition it would be more onerous than that; but at the same time, I’m not keen to be a gatekeeper playing the ‘No True Scotsman’ game - I just feel people would be happier if they pursued their interests and let curiosity guide them, and that we would probably achieve more commercially and creatively if we embraced that part of our natural desires.
>In fact these days we are all that man or woman; you only need to resort to Wikipedia to realise how outdated the idea of knowing everything — or indeed anything — has become.
The word is polymath, like polyglot. We don't expect a polyglot to speak all languages.
When it comes to modern/living polymaths, it's worth mentioning Noam Chomsky. He did groundbreaking work in formal language theory that is fundamental to lots of theory of computation. He basically (re)invented modern linguistics. Then there's the media analysis work of Manufacturing Consent. Then there's the unending political criticism. It's pretty staggering.
We're standing on the shoulders of giants - so many giants in fact, that it's quite possible to spend a lifetime just climbing upward these days. By comparison, in Leonardo's time, a curious mind would almost certainly have to jump laterally to find something to hold its attention.
The same Judith Butler that came up with 'performativity'? Good luck with that spectator!
I dont understand the polymath moniker, it seems to be a British definition that elucidates a role in life that requires multiple high level skills without describing where that applies in modern life. As if it were a position one could attain rather than a useful, purposeful skill.
Tech leads like Jobs described art and science at the highest level as the same thing. He demonstrated in production, high level knowledge in both distinct categories, but would likely never be discussed by the Brits.
Its strange to see someone like Stephen Fry being described as a polymath, when he works as a quiz show host and author. He is paid to learn and recite that learning independent of its application in society.
I prefer the older British term 'expert generalist' as it seems more accurate and discusses people who applied their learning more frequently.
Looks like a case of an attention-grabbing headline not written by the article author. The book review itself seems to argue that the idea of polymathy can no longer be applied at all today.
You know we might just have 7000 von Neumanns among us, but may be unable to recognize them. The vast majority of 7+ billion people on the planet are unknown to everyone some except family and a couple of friends.
The adage "Popular does not equal good" has never been more relevant.
Readit News
This could be seen positively or negatively. One way of spinning it is that he was persistent in exploring ideas. Another way, though, is that something -- mythmaking, hype, his art, whatever it is -- has allowed history to ignore the fact that he seemed to have been wrong more often than he was right, along the lines of a broken clock being right twice a day.
In either case, I think there's something to be said for some kind of cultural and social context playing a strong role in how all of this is interpreted. A different person in the wrong place or wrong time might have been interpreted as a crackpot.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_occult_studie...
When people look back on us 300 years from today, they'll likely find many cases of geniuses working on things that seem naive or misguided in retrospect.
Many scientists spend a portion of their time in oddball or fruitless pursuits and sometimes it takes them over, particularly as they get older.
Linus Pauling and Vitamin C is one thing that comes to mind.
There was some scientist whose name I can't remember, was asked how he could be occupied by crazy ideas or obsessions and he said that these ideas came to him in exactly the same way as his deep scientific insights.
The way British write confuses many people. "Newton is the greatest of the greatest", "Shakespeare is the mos prolific writer that ever lived", ""... British writers love hyperbole. The fact that the writing style aligns with national pride helps to create a positive feedback of "grandiose writing".
That does not mean that there is ill intent. The target consumers of the writing are the British readers themselves, and almost all societies have a good self esteem. The fact that globally we communicate in English has tip the balance towards sharing American and British views of the world over the rest and created an over hype of some charismatic national myths.
Cutting edge science today would have been called alchemy historically. Artificial intelligence, gene editing, etc. Fortunately scientists have a pretty good reputation now, where alchemists of the past had to research and convene in secret.
I imagine it's similar with Leonardo, and likely with our own state-of-the-art knowledge. We are all broken clocks, and the trick is to figure out which part of our knowledge is wrong.
People like Leonardo and Newton are valuable thinkers because they once in a while produce a really good idea, and it doesn't really matter if they know themselves which ideas are good or bad. This is a really bad trait for a leader or a trader though.
What I most likely think, is that he was more like a Director of a government program or university who's tasked with key projects and allowed to interrogate or gather intelligence from anywhere.
He most likely met a lot of people from both east and west, learned a few things them and decided to document them. Maybe those people also documented it in their own language somewhere but ofc it didn't survive the test of time and only way we know any of those things is through Leonardo's illustrations.
The cities where he lived had influx of traders from all over the world.
It's otherwise seemingly impossible for someone to come up with so many things during his lifetime.
I don't think that's what defines a polymath, for if it does, then none existed. My view of what makes one a polymath is deep --likely cutting-edge-- expertise in several disciplines.
That being said, I agree with the general sentiment that it is increasingly harder to become a polymath these days, especially in the disciplines with lots of active research. To have an expertise in just one discipline it takes years of education (to catch up with progress) and then a considerable recurrent investment of time to stay up-to-date.
If one is to be a polymath in a varied set of disciplines where overlap is minimal (see Leonardo), one would have to go through the mentioned process of acquiring and maintaining expertise for each discipline. This is different for a polymath in a set of closely-related disciplines, because there's only so much more (compared to being expert in one discipline) one needs to do to be a polymath because there's a lot of overlap. But it is debatable whether that even counts as a polymath, a point raised in:
> Is Judith Butler’s supposed eminence in ‘philosophy, linguistics and politics’ enough to qualify her?
On the other hand, I think society increasingly projects an expectation of this, that someone cannot possess skills in multiple areas, where areas are increasingly narrowly defined. I think in part this plays a role in stress over higher education, in that a degree is seen as a skill certificate (that is, a statement about what someone can do) rather than an opportunity to learn (that is, a statement about what someone has done).
Specialisation came to the fore during the Industrial Revolution and achieved a form of preeminence in the 20th Century that hadn’t existed elsewhere in human history when knowing, at depth, a wide variety of skills and disciplines was either essential for survival or in order to be considered a well-rounded individual.
The internet, not without ongoing battles against vested interests, has solved the discoverability challenge faced with approaching the wealth of knowledge created in the past few centuries. For many of us aspiring polymaths (and I agree with the other comments here that a polymath isn’t someone who knows “everything about everything“, but rather knows “a lot about a lot” or “enough about enough”) the challenge is mental and societal.
We convince ourselves that we must specialize to succeed; most schools and many workplaces promote the same. Yet creativity and insight so often depends on interdisciplinary knowledge and the ability to use our brains to connect novel ideas.
It’s not the right choice for everyone. If you want to be the best in the world (or the top 1%) at something, then specialize. But most of us are more varied than that, which has benefits for us as business owners, or employees, and as humans.
― Robert A. Heinlein
In part, that’s to set an achievable first goal - most of the audience are probably already there in 1 or 2 fields, so it’s not insurmountable for them to progress, and hopefully from there they have the success to keep going wide as well as deep.
If I had to add a stronger definition it would be more onerous than that; but at the same time, I’m not keen to be a gatekeeper playing the ‘No True Scotsman’ game - I just feel people would be happier if they pursued their interests and let curiosity guide them, and that we would probably achieve more commercially and creatively if we embraced that part of our natural desires.
The word is polymath, like polyglot. We don't expect a polyglot to speak all languages.
Leonardo won't have known everything either.
I dont understand the polymath moniker, it seems to be a British definition that elucidates a role in life that requires multiple high level skills without describing where that applies in modern life. As if it were a position one could attain rather than a useful, purposeful skill.
Tech leads like Jobs described art and science at the highest level as the same thing. He demonstrated in production, high level knowledge in both distinct categories, but would likely never be discussed by the Brits.
Its strange to see someone like Stephen Fry being described as a polymath, when he works as a quiz show host and author. He is paid to learn and recite that learning independent of its application in society.
I prefer the older British term 'expert generalist' as it seems more accurate and discusses people who applied their learning more frequently.
The adage "Popular does not equal good" has never been more relevant.