Recommend books

>>8348537
Anons will laugh if you say polymath. So let's say generalist instead. Now that we got that covered:

I suggest you start just reading around the internet on different subjects and when you find something that interests you search for papers on google scholar and if necessary scihub. Most likely you'll start finding books, but you can also search for books on the subjects that interest you.

Next for a more controversial proposal: go to the science related subreddits and ask questions there and book and paper recommendations.

Being a generalist is all about being curious and searching and finding new information. When you start, you cannot go back.

>>8348537
Another thing that is useful is looking at the goodreads "readers also enjoyed" and the recommendations it gives based on your read and to read shelf have been useful for me to find new books.

>>8348558
whats wrong with the word polymath?

>>8348537
Here's something interesting:

http://www.postgenetic.com/Postgenetic/Yaneer_Bar-Yam_-_Notes_on_Complexity.html

>>8348576
Nothing. It is just that people think it must mean that you know about every science pretty much everything and that this is impossible.

I read myself on a broad range of subjects but the more technical (read as mathematical) I avoid.

>>8348537

persuing generalist studies has just made me scared of the future and incapable of doing anything that both helps society and aligns with personal values

I'm fairly certain our nervous systems are going to be recycled Matrix-style like meaty legos as organs or stem cells in more ruthless ancient individuals or cabals

>>8348537
Can recommend the series gladiatrix

>>8348589
odd, even the quintessential polymaths: da vinci, von neumann, ect were not literally experts in every science. it is POLYmath not PANmath.

why do you avoid mathematics? thats what most people would consider seperates Men of Letters from polymaths.

im pretty general except from music theory, large chunks of non-european history, and zoology/botany.

>>8348640
I am reading a book on the history of math and it says Da Vinci was actually not good at math, he could not understand third grade mathematics.

It is from Peter L. Bernstein: Against the Gods.

I do really like non-European history and zoology, botany and ecology. Ecology is what I'm studying.

>>8348651
*Formally studying I mean. It is boring as it does not go deep but the free time it gives me allows me to delve deeper into different fields.

If I went to university, implying I have the ability (most certainly not the motivation nor the attitude), I would have to put more effort into school and not have as much free time to study what I want.

If that knowledge will stay somewhat aesthetic or I actually manage to do something with it remains to be seen. I hope to write a book myself one day.

>>8348589
>it must mean that you know about every science pretty much everything and that this is impossible.
I wouldn't say impossible. Polymaths never knew everything about any science, just like top researchers don't know everything about their discipline; it has always been used to describe someone who has research level of multiple disciplines, this does not mean being able to do research of every possible branch of mathematics, but being aware of the basics (undergrad level I'd say) and being proficient in at least on of its branches.
It'd take a hell lot of a time though, unless OP wants to walk the snobbish path (this is /lit/ after all) and read divulgation, which is certainly doable in fairly short amount of time (a year or so) vs the lifetime other studies would require (as you would need a few decades only to grasp the basics).

>>8348552
Thanks for this anon.

>>8348705
I can't tell if you are being sarcastic but that chart gets posted in almost every request thread on /lit/ regardless of the particulars of the OP.

>>8348746
I don't go on /lit/ much, I'm usually posting on /sci/ or lurking on /g/.

tl;dr i'm a newfag.

>>8348640
Polymaths were "experts" in all topics, in that they were completely up to date with the most recent knowledge. At the time, they were indeed experts in many topics. Now, it is essentially impossible to do that because each topic has become far too complex.

>>8350412
never understand when people act as if ulysses is impossible to read or pretentious or whatever. it's just a matter of getting in the rhythm of it, and then it comes as easy as Go Dog Go. I think more people could read it than think they could.
i always tell people, if you want to read ulysses, read the first couple pages about five or six times before moving on. usually it's enough to get you in the rhythm of it enough for the rest to be a breeze

>>8350412
is to the lighthouse really that hard?
it seems right up my alley but i havent read that many difficult books yet (as i just got into it)

>>8348552
"After you read this intro text on philosophy, go ahead and read the complete works of Plato and Aristotle..."