So, probably, since this is in fact a world wide web medium, the best place to start would be the web's go-to source for all information that is worth knowing: Wikipedia. Unfortunately, the Wikipedia definition is somewhat disappointing, since it wants you to re-direct to the polymath page. And, as you no doubt have now read after following that nicely-placed link right there, a polymath, defined by the Wik, is 'a person whose expertise spans a significant number of different subject areas'.
OK, well, I guess my definition of a renaissance man would not significantly stray from that, except that of course a true renaissance man would need to wear a frilly collar pretty much at all times, along with a feathered cap, just for effect.
But truly, there is a connotation underlying the ideal of the renaissance man that emphasizes an overall 'well-roundedness'. Expertise in a significant number of subject areas, sure, but the subject areas must also be significantly different, or even at odds, with one another. An artist who also happens to be a canny inventor, for instance. Or, a man gifted in politics who is also a formidable scientist.
I recently read an online magazine's take on some 'modern' renaissance men, and was struck by the fact that there were many 'renaissance men' listed who were no doubt brilliant people, but were actually just brilliant scientists who happened to be brilliant at a couple of different fields of science. Worthy of respect, certainly, but not exactly what I would call renaissance men.
Also, any conversation related to renaissance men inevitably produces the 'genius' paradigm. In other words, in order to be a true renaissance man, one must be gifted to the point of genius in several unrelated fields. Not only do I disagree with this, but I actually think it goes against the model of what a true renaissance man is. You see, renaissance men are inevitably drawn, for better or worse, to several fields out of a drive to learn something new, not to 'master' any one thing in particular. This drive, in fact, makes it difficult or even impossible to be 'the leading expert' in any particular field of study. Certainly there were, historically, geniuses who were also renaissance men. Leonardo da Vinci probably being foremost among them. But, far more common, and possibly more admirable in my view, is the man who learns enough about a subject to be relatively proficient, and who knows he's no expert in that subject, but moves on to something else when that no longer pulls his chain. These 'everyday' renaissance men have always been the most interesting people to me. These are the men whose storied lives read like the pages of a novel, or even several novels with different leads.
In short: The most interesting men in the World.
I recently read an online magazine's take on some 'modern' renaissance men, and was struck by the fact that there were many 'renaissance men' listed who were no doubt brilliant people, but were actually just brilliant scientists who happened to be brilliant at a couple of different fields of science. Worthy of respect, certainly, but not exactly what I would call renaissance men.
Also, any conversation related to renaissance men inevitably produces the 'genius' paradigm. In other words, in order to be a true renaissance man, one must be gifted to the point of genius in several unrelated fields. Not only do I disagree with this, but I actually think it goes against the model of what a true renaissance man is. You see, renaissance men are inevitably drawn, for better or worse, to several fields out of a drive to learn something new, not to 'master' any one thing in particular. This drive, in fact, makes it difficult or even impossible to be 'the leading expert' in any particular field of study. Certainly there were, historically, geniuses who were also renaissance men. Leonardo da Vinci probably being foremost among them. But, far more common, and possibly more admirable in my view, is the man who learns enough about a subject to be relatively proficient, and who knows he's no expert in that subject, but moves on to something else when that no longer pulls his chain. These 'everyday' renaissance men have always been the most interesting people to me. These are the men whose storied lives read like the pages of a novel, or even several novels with different leads.
In short: The most interesting men in the World.
I came across your postings and was intrigued with your explanations. I, myself, seek out and constantly work towards being a Renaissance Wo-Man.
ReplyDeleteI wonder, have you ever read Charles Van Doren's "A History of Knowledge"? It cover the subject matter beautifully as well as defines your Renaissance Man in a more complete manner than your summary above. It may be a great source for you.
Interesting thoughts and a wonderful blog. Thanks for taking your time away from the World of Doing and contributing to the World of Thinking. I think it can be said that a true Renaissance Man values both world's equally and will not be swayed by the poetry of either.
Happy reading, thinking and exploring!
Thank you, Cassafrassalass. I have not read Van Doren. I will put him on my list.
DeleteKeep moving forward, and good luck with your varied life travels!
~RM
I agree that one need not be the greatest in a field to make the pursuit worthwhile. I also agree that actually gaining proficiency is key. A comment I read elsewhere is pertinent--proficient enough to be accepted by those who have specialized in the field is the goal. For instance, one need not have native-level fluency in a language to be accepted by native speakers as knowing it well. One need not be the greatest musician to be accepted as a musician by those who have gone to conservatory and devoted their lives to making a career in music. But to be accepted by those who have specialized in a field, one must be good enough to contribute to the conversation or the activity, not just know something about what is being done or said.
ReplyDeleteThe aim for "greatness" can paralyze many and discourage them from pursuing their goals. Being good enough to have something to offer is worthwhile in itself.
Good points, Anon, and I agree. Thank you for the input!
DeleteYo!
ReplyDeleteDoing a project for history and our topic is "immortalizing the Renaissance man". How can u prove that there are Renaissance men in our time period aside from naming examples like Justin Timberlake?
In addition, did the modern day renaissance man turn from generalist to specialist?
I'm glad to hear that the renaissance man is being discussed in the education system. It is easy to prove that there are still renaissance men in our time. Just look at a couple of famous examples such as Noam Chomsky or Story Musgrave. One would need to be careful in labeling 'stars' like Justin Timberlake a renaissance man, however. I'm not saying he isn't, but I am saying that if you are referring to the fact that he is both an actor and a musician (both a type of artist), that would not necessarily qualify him as a renaissance man, in my book. For artists who also actively pursue other fields of study, I would look to Brian May or even Viggo Mortenson, for example. That being said, there are still certainly hundreds of thousands of renaissance men out there who are not famous. These are the well-rounded men in our lives who make it their mission to always seek out varying and even opposing pursuits, perhaps only because they find it interesting. A renaissance man, by definition, cannot be defined as a specialist.
Delete