The discussion went on about if there was any contemporary people (defined as having lived in the 20th century) who could fit the description. The wikipedia article lists some, but not Richard Feynmann as I belived, but rather John Von Neumann (yeah I mix em up sometimes).
The list on wikipedia is not sourced and therefore only exists on a talk page, but includes several people. A brief list:
* Winston Churchill - who I think fits better then anyone since Da Vinci as he was a Legendary Statesman (Prime Minister in WWII), Legendary Commander (First Lord of the Admirality in WWI), Legendary Writer and Historian (Nobel Prize in Literature)
It is an interesting to read their wikipedia pages and if you want some insight into the life of these brilliant people (or are just plain bored) I'd recommend it.
Have any others to add? Or do you think these men do not live up to the standards set in centuries past?
The conventional view serves to protect us from the painful job of thinking.
- John Kenneth Galbraith
I have some problems with your nomination that, I think, mostly stem from a different perception of the term polymath. The definition is somewhat vague, leaving room for interpretation.
To me a polymath is someone who excells at a variety of disciplines/fields of study etc. What disciplines and/or fields I'm not sure, but they have to contain some amount of intristic skill. An example would be Paco de Lucia, Pavarotti, Schumacher, Tiger Woods, Stephen Hawking, etc., and not Niel Armstrong, Oscar Schindler, Roald Amundsen or for that matter Elvis, James Dean or Bill Gates.
I'm sure Niel Armstrong was a fine astronaut and all depending what level of excellence is required of astronauts, that might be considered in itself as excelling at an intristic skill. But being the first on the moon does not, in my view, make him anymore eligible for polymathness than any other astronaut. Elvis was a legendary performer, but he didn't posses an intristic skill. He was ok on guitar, good voice, good looks and was the first to combine some elements of emerging musical trends. Those things combined made him a legend, not any singular intristic skill he possessed.
I would not, for instance, consider being voted prime minister an intristic skill. Being a politician requires something to be sure, but I would not call it intristic skill. George Bush certainly cannot be said to posses any skills even though he's the most powerful man alive. As for being a military leader, he was appointed to that post not because he was the best shot or the most brilliant strategist in the british empire, but rather because of his aristocratic legacy, his heroic actions during the boer wars and by popular acclaim. As for how he performed during the second world war, we can't really compare it to anything. He was an unique person in a unique situation, so it is difficult to say wether he did the job better than anybody else would have.
At best, I consider Churcill as excelling at two disciplines, writing and military strategy. Not enough to be considered a polymath imho.
edit: messed up while grapping a quote, should be your original text atm.
You want to tempt the wrath of the whatever from high atop the thing?
OK. so I finish reading up on Churchill, post this and turn on the TV. What is on? the most wonderful film about Churchill. Never knew this film existed. Norlander, you should definetly have a look:
At best, I consider Churcill as excelling at two disciplines, writing and military strategy. Not enough to be considered a polymath imho.
I think that is where the differences of opinion are. I think he is a master orator (requires skill in a similar sense as a musician) probably one of the best in recorded history; a well respected journalist (he first came to fame with the boer war; a master historian (he won his nobel prize on his writings on british history); a well respected commander as the first lord of the admirality is a commission, not a political post being the predecesor to Chief of Naval staff (which now is a 4 star admiral). Ontop of that he is among the most legendary leaders/politicians (skilled in economics being Chancellor of the Exchequer before taking on his most famous role as the wartime leader of Great Britian.
In all that is quite a few fields, all of which he has profound impact.
On the other hand Paco de Lucia is a highly skilled musician, but not in any other field, Schumacher is a highly skilled driver, Tiger Woods is a highly skilled golfer. They arn't winning the nobel prize for their writings anytime soon.
The conventional view serves to protect us from the painful job of thinking.
- John Kenneth Galbraith
Norlander wrote:
I think that is where the differences of opinion are. I think he is a master orator (requires skill in a similar sense as a musician)probably one of the best in recorded history;
I dont see how you can say he was a master orator. Compared to what? He was a public figure so he did a lot of public speaking and he did it well. That is not the same as being a master. Is he regarded as one of the best public speakers in the world? is there any kind of measuring stick by wich we can decide if he was just good at it or a master? (he was also a good at polo, but being good at something isn't enough for polymathness imho) His speeches are renowned sure, but I think this is because they were masterly written and not necessarily masterly delivered.
Norlander wrote:
a well respected journalist
No formal journalist education, hardly something that should make him a polymath. He wrote some stories from the frontlines, and being a master writer his stories were good.
Norlander wrote:
a master historian (he won his nobel prize on his writings on british history);
I'll give you this one. Definetly a third field where he qualifies - even if his knowledge of history is specialized.
Norlander wrote:
..a well respected commander as the first lord of the admirality is a commission, not a political post being the predecesor to Chief of Naval staff (which now is a 4 star admiral).
Ok well tell me why he was commissioned? was it because he was a britains best strategist? Or was it because he came from a well-known aristocratic family, had political power and military influences? How do you go from 2nd leutenant to the highest rank in the navy like that if the reasons are not political? I would suspect that a master commander would work his way up the chain of command and actually have commanded some smaller battles along the way wouldn't you?
Norlander wrote:
Ontop of that he is among the most legendary leaders/politicians (skilled in economics being Chancellor of the Exchequer before taking on his most famous role as the wartime leader of Great Britian.
This illustrates my point exactly. Holding an office or being given a commission - or whatever, to do something does not mean that you are an expert at it. Churchill was not an economist and simply followed advice from economists.
This got rather long, but only because you packed so much information together
You want to tempt the wrath of the whatever from high atop the thing?
I dont see how you can say he was a master orator. Compared to what?
Not all public figures (even Presidents and Prime Ministers) become renowned as master orators.
Is he regarded as one of the best public speakers in the world?
Yes, Churchill is included on a short list alongside Castro, Goebbels, Martin Luther King, Abraham Lincoln and a few others. Some politicians survive on charisma and good looks, others look like a bulldog, but when they speak people stand and listen.
His speeches are legendary, if you Google Winston Chruchill Speeches you'll get over a million hits and there are institutions dedicaded to this sole field of study.
No formal journalist education, hardly something that should make him a polymath. He wrote some stories from the frontlines, and being a master writer his stories were good.
Few journalists have a formal journalist education. Josh Marshall who is among the most prominent journalists of today is holds a ph.d in american history.
Churchill wrote for several major London newspapers in his 20's. He was a war correspondent, and is listed as a notable one alongside greats such as Christiane Amanpour and Ernest Hemingway. I'd say that qualifies as well respected journalist.
Ok well tell me why he was commissioned? was it because he was a britains best strategist? Or was it because he came from a well-known aristocratic family, had political power and military influences? How do you go from 2nd leutenant to the highest rank in the navy like that if the reasons are not political?
Nobody becomes a 4 star general/admiral without political connections. Churchill was like Lord Mountbatten given his post because of connections, but he held it for quite alot longer then any of his contemporaries, and was considered a successful First Lord, when he came back to power in 1940 the Royal Navy rejoiced by sending the short telegram across the world "Winston is back", he was a legend in his own time.
Churchill was not an economist and simply followed advice from economists.
Yes and no, he also served for several years prior as the President of the Board of Trade, which again deals with economics. It's a far cry from being a commander or a journalist and I think counts as a successful seperate career path.
Finally his legendary statesman status. He is counted in the first row of political leaders of all time. He lead his people through what is extraordinary hard times. He was the first Honorary Citizen of the United States, his state funeral was one of the biggest assembly of Foreign Leaders in the world and he was offered the title Duke of London (but declined). A Duke is the highest title apart from the Monarch himself and this was the first time since the Duke of Wellington that such an honor was bestowed upon a non-royal.
I'll rest my case now:)
The conventional view serves to protect us from the painful job of thinking.
- John Kenneth Galbraith
I nominate Arnold Schwarzenegger. One of the most successful athletes ever, one of the most successful actors ever, a successful businessman (was a millionaire by age 30, before his Hollywood career), has a degree in Business and International Economics, has written several bestsellers, and is currently a popular politician serving his second term as governor of California.
Well, at least he's on par with Winston Churchill.
Honestly I don't think anyone in our time (or in the past century) can truly qualify as a polymath. The literal meaning of the word polymath ("having learned much" doesn't apply that well to much of Churchill's skills. He was very accomplished in his fields, but it's not like they're demanding scientific fields (maybe excluding history). Journalism, oratory, writing and politics are all fields very similar to each other, and could all be considered part of the field of Rhetoric. Skilled and accomplished as Churchill was, he did not have an "encyclopedic, broad, or varied knowledge or learning".
To be a true polymath (IMO) you need to be proficient in several, different fields. Now, Leonardo was an expert in just about everything - and I don't think anybody could ever come close to his level of varied proficiency - so it might be unfair to compare people to him, but a polymath needs to get around more than one discipline; the arts, biology, physics and mathematics, engineering, philosophy, to mention some of the key disciplines.
Sir Isaac Newton, for instance, is one of history's greatest scientist. He was a physicist, mathematician, astronomer, natural philosopher, and, being religious, he also spent his efforts on theology, alchemy and predicting the future. He is generally not, however, regarded as a polymath.
When I kill her, I'll have her
Die white girls, die white girls
Norlander you seem to think I'm saying that churchill wasn't an important person. I totally agree that he is one of the most influential persons of the last millennia, but the skills he has are not the ones of a polymath. Being appointed to posts is not the same as being a master at a skill. This goes for Churchills economics, journalism, oratory and military ability.
The one I would nominate for polymathness would be John Von Neumann. He truly was able to completely absorb (and create) a wide variety of fields.
You want to tempt the wrath of the whatever from high atop the thing?
Well I think you don't understand it. I am not for a minute doubting that you think he was/is important. What I am saying is that he had not just one career path, nor two, nor three, but atleast four different and distinct ones, all of which he reached a prominent or legendary status. It might not be hard science, but it's quite an achievement, something that goes beyond the jacket of all trades and into the realm of the renaissance men.
Let's consider Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, who by many scholars is considered to be a (or the last) renaissance man. He was a poet, a theologan, a painter and biologist. Yes he is both an artist and a scientist, but is he well renowned in other fields?
It seems to me that you define a polymath to be "an artist and a scientist", whereas I read the encyclopedia definition and think, somebody who excels in a wide variety of subjects.
A polymath (Greek polymathēs, πολυμαθής, meaning "having learned much"), Renaissance man or Homo universalis are common terms to describe a person well educated, or who excels, in a wide variety of subjects or fields.
The conventional view serves to protect us from the painful job of thinking.
- John Kenneth Galbraith
By Vuz's definition, then Leonardo Da Vinci is NOT a polymath.
His only "degree" of factual learning was as a painter. He was an apprentice of Andrea di Cione, known as Verrocchio. He learned some other skills with relation to this trade (A painter), but did not receive any specific schooling in these specific fields.
All "painters" of Leonardo's era, where proficient in the same fields as he was. They didn't just sit and paint paintings. They painted all sorts of items, or to quote "Wiki":
The products of a workshop included decorated tournament shields, painted dowry chests, christening platters, votive plaques, small portraits, and devotional pictures. Major commissions included altarpieces for churches and commemorative statues. The largest commissions were fresco cycles for chapels. As a fourteen-year-old apprentice Leonardo would have been trained in all the countless skills that were employed in a traditional workshop.
These "painters" were multi-skilled as part of their work area, although most of them became specialized in particular fields, some remained "multi"-skilled. Leonardo was just more innovative and inventive than his contemporaries. If this qualifies him as a polymath, then Good old Winston also qualifies.
Another exerpt from "Wiki" on the subject:
Although many craftsmen specialised in tasks such as frame-making, gilding and bronze casting, Leonardo would have been exposed to a vast range of technical skills and had the opportunity to learn drafting, chemistry, metallurgy, metal working, plaster casting, leather working, mechanics and carpentry as well as the obvious artistic skills of drawing, painting, sculpting and modelling.
Therefore, we can not say, that Leonardo was a true polymath, because all of his skills, were part of his being an apprentice painter. Most painters of the era had been introduced to the same teachings and theories, but did not utilize them in the same way that Leonardo did.
Just my 5 cents.
No decision is so fine as to not bind us to its consequences.
No consequence is so unexpected as to absolve us of our decisions.
Not even death.
-R. Scott Bakker. 'The Prince of Nothing'
doesn't apply that well to much of Churchill's skills. He was very accomplished in his fields, but it's not like they're demanding scientific fields (maybe excluding history). Journalism, oratory, writing and politics are all fields very similar to each other, and could all be considered part of the field of Rhetoric. Skilled and accomplished as Churchill was, he did not have an "encyclopedic, broad, or varied knowledge or learning".
