Talk: Polymath
From open-encyclopedia.com - the free encyclopedia.
Organised polymaths into periods, approximately;
- Ancient — pre 1500
- Renaissance — 1500 - 1750
- Classical — 1750 - 1900
- Modern &mdash post 1900
The thinking being that it is easier to be a polymath at certain times. In particular the modern period polymaths and ancient polymaths appear qualitatively different from those of the Renaissance
- Solipsist 16:43, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC) )
Not sure about the number of mathematician/physicists in this list. I would really rather see more diverse interests to qualify as a polymath. - Solipsist 16:47, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
What about Umberto Eco? I guess he is a prime example for a polymath ;) --PhilipP 21:52, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Or Buckminster Fuller?! -- practically the definition of polymath.
Any chance for Daniel Kahneman? mathematics, economics, and psychology, cognitive science.
Or Ray Kurzweil?
- I would support Ray Kurzweil. Seems to be branding himself as a futurologist these days, but he has had an interesting history in electronic music, speech synthesis and disability aids. -- Solipsist 21:40, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Or Alfred Korzybski for the many disciplines he researched to produce 'Science and Sanity'?
| Contents |
The note about women is irrelevant
Actually, Hypatia was female, so the list of polymaths no longer implies that polymaths are males. Also, it should be noted in the article, that in some time periods it was easier to be polymath.
Should this article be merged with renaissance man? - Fuelbottle | Talk 23:40, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Only an RM would know enough to answer the question ... and there aren't any. Seriously though, I think one might possibly get away with the overt sexism of RM within a polymath article (i.e., RM is an obsolescent type of definition of polymathy). This is worth considering, in conjunction with taking out a list of polymaths and making it free-standing. Certainly not a good idea to redirect polymath to Renaissance man. Charles Matthews 11:29, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Newton as theologian?
Isaac Newton is identified as, among other things, a theologian. My understanding is that his theological writings were published only posthumously and had no influence. He was a unitarian in that he disbelieved in the Trinity, and I think that means he would have denied that Jesus was an incarnation of God. Did he in any way influence later unitarian thinking? Michael Hardy 18:38, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Categories?
Over at Category:Orphaned categories, we're trying to figure out what to do with Category:Polymaths. Help by those who know what this is about would be appreciated. Aranel ("Sarah") 23:27, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It should be in some category such as [[Category:Intellectual life]]. Charles Matthews 09:27, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I've been struggling with this one too, especially that I'm responsible for some of its population. For now I've dumped it under Category:People by occupation just so not to leave it orphaned, but polymathy is hardly an occupation. Goes with prodigies, multilingual people, psychological exceptions, genius, etc. Good luck....! — Bill 11:12, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Narrow Definition
I have always been under the impression that a polymath was someone who had a working knowledge of a very extensive range of subjects, and the ability to apply that knowledge to almost any situation. Until I read the listing here about a polymath, I did not realize there was such a narrow definition. It seems that the listings of polymaths here are genuises in just a few fields. I also did not think that a polymath had to be a genuis in any field.
- I'd certainly go along with you, Anonymous friend. A polymath need not be a genius or even anyone with very original ideas — although then again they do need to be very intelligent etc.... I'm also with you in that, by my own lights, some of the people discussed here are not polymaths. I like to think of polymaths as being people who have deep knowledge about very disparate disciplines: a poet/musician/songwriter/singer is not a polymath, but someone like Hedy Lamarr, who owned patents on WWII cryptographic devices that became even more important in the electronic age, might very well qualify, or at least with one or two more things thrown in, say Sanskrit and shellfish. — Bill 21:48, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
