Where are all of the contemporary polymaths?

>>8523187
The intellectual disciplines have become too bloated for actual polymaths to exist. We are in the age of the specialist.

There are none and there won't ever be one because the sciences and philosophy are too complex and specialised to allow a single soul to read, comprehend, write, and tell the rest of the world about his grand synthesis and theory of everything.

But probably the best way of reaching the goal of a polymath would be studying maths (nailing down the undergraduate material) first for attaining a rigorous mind, some physics, cosmology, and biology, and then move on to the juicy philosophical issues; after a decades-long study you ultimately give a novel theoretical framework (= writing a (self-)published book so dense and complex and with some many theoretical prerequisites that nobody will ever attempt to read and comprehend it) or your life's work, that would either solve or explain these issues.

We internet now. Everyone is a genius. Technology has come so far. Just think, about 40 yrs ago we landed on the moon. Now you can whip out your phone and skim a Wikipedia page. Ain't progress sweet?

File: sam.jpg (174KB, 528x755px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 528x755px

>>8523187
Neuroscientist.
Philosopher.
Political scientist.
Professional atheist.
Genius.

>>8523187
The divorce of the arts and the sciences is just furthering its course, creating divisions upon divisions upon divisions, until we know more and more about less and less. Classical education stressed the interrelationship of all disciplines, as they are all products of nature and the intervention of human creativity, but the intelegibility of the universal was abandoned in favor of the particular. >>8523241 gets it. Math is the connective tissue of all disciplines.

>>8523255
Keked

But let's face it: he's just an average thinker and a mediocre writer, writing about his pet themes, most of which are unsurprisingly controversial. I realise that it is tempting to infer that "Sam knows his shit" or that "Sam is right" from the sole facts that he has a flock of followers and that his books sell well, but that's doesn't change the fact that his philosophical views aren't taken seriously in the academia (which is the reason for his infamous condescending sneer about Meta-ethics; the man is jealous that nobody is paying any attention to him except the utter mediocrities that he attracts as readers).

>>8523241
This version of society is a bad dream.

>>8523381
>he thinks we were discussing the ideal society
>he thinks there were only polymaths, and polymaths only, in the past

>>8523388
That's not what I meant come on you fag

File: SpicNigCycle.jpg (63KB, 1024x350px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 1024x350px

On the alt right. Not lying.

I'm working on it.

>>8523201
no
that's just lowering the bar

there aren't any that I know at the moment
Von Neumann was the last one, 60 years ago

>>8523874
close but he wasn't acute enough philosophically

but even if we admit neumann to the polymath club, he had significant, neurobiological advantages over the others: the guy was just wired better

being a polymath is a requirement for posting on /lit/

>>8523187
The most polymathy people that I know of that are currently alive (or were recently) are Richard Montague, Noam Chomsky, Yehoshua Bar-Hillel, Hilary Putnam, Steve Awodey, etc. (I realize Steve Awodey probably isn't as well known as the other guys.)

I mention these people because they exhibit both mathematical and philosophical aptitude. The people I mentioned above have made contributions to math, computer science, philosophy, linguistics, and psychology

>>8523247
The moon landing was 45 years ago, you dunce.

>>8523885
>he had significant, neurobiological advantages over the others: the guy was just wired better
Of course. Every polymath was just wired better. That's why we only have a few every century.

I believe in the "we can do anything" mentality up to a certain point. A person doesn't have to be fucking smart to get a PhD and be proficient in his field, but to be a polymath you have to born gifted. Nurture is not enough, you need nurture+nature.

If by polymath you mean "person who revolutionises several fields within a lifetime" then those are pretty rare.

If by polymath you mean "person who works at a scholarly level within several fields", there are many.

>>8523959
>mathematical and philosophical aptitude
There's more of that: Quine, Kripke, Neil Tennant, John P. Burgess, Kit Fine, Tim Maudlin, David Albert, Dummett, Ian Hacking, Hintikka, Lewis, Williamson, George Boolos, Hartry Field, Penelope Maddy

>>8523874
I've seen people argue for Quine and Putnam

>>8523187

true polymathy is no longer possible
too many fields and too many mature ones
one can only specialize anymore

There are like 15 great polymaths ever. Who fucking knows

I'd bet he works for Goldman Sachs and we'll never know he exists

>>8523885
What do you mean by that?

>>8524021
You both missed Ramsey.

>>8524094
Oh yeah, absolutely. But my list was respecting that other anon's "alive or recently passed away" condition, hence no Ramsey.

>>8523411
I think Moldbug could be considered a polymath. By the time Urbit's out he'll have made very significant developments in multiple fields. (political philosophy, computer science)

File: aaaaaa.jpg (45KB, 600x443px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 600x443px

Herbert Simon

Won the Turing award and a Nobel Prize,

i mean just look at his wiki what he did

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_A._Simon

Boris Vian

>>8523187
The basis of specialization is that people can only be so effective over so broad a domain, as disciplines get more and more complex the less someone can master several of them and become a polymath.

Newton is considered a genius for essentially developing physics as we know it, imagine if he also had to contend with the modern developments that follow from and contradict his work.

>>8524237
I'm still trying to make sense of how much impact Moldbug had, sometimes it feels like his ideas just phased out of existence and other times it feels like the entirely of internet political thought since 2010 or so is descended from him.

Von Neumann is the only answer

>>8524712
Did you even read the OP

>>8524720
sorry

Gordon Ramsay

>>8524640
I dunno, although the alt-right is getting big, I don't think it's very Moldbuggian at all- its fundamental premise is nationalism, and Moldbug is explicitly against any form of nationalism. The only thing that they sort of borrow from him is the idea that the cathedral prevents people from seeing racial differences, but that idea has been around for much longer than Moldbug has, and not many right wingers seem to have actually read what Moldbug thinks are the Cathedral's finer points- as far as the alt-right is concerned, they're all just cucked by cultural Marxism. And I certainly don't see much influence of Moldbug's in any leftist or centrist movements. Where do you think he's been influential?

>>8523187
I'll be a world-renowned polymath by the age of 25; remember to look in the papers for the name, "anon."

>>8525034
On further reflection you're right that the extent of his large-scale influence is the idea of the Cathedral, which is horrendously oversimplified and wasn't even that new when he coined it (people have long been complaining about "the liberal" media and left-wing professors, we're just going through a swell of it. He does get namedropped a lot, but so do plenty of astoundingly misinterpreted philosophers.

NRx (which I consider a semi-sovereign subset of the alt-right) very much follows in his vein of trying to find non-religious justifications for hierarchy, tradition, patriarchy, etc., but they seem to be either offshoot singularitybugs or just alt-right with more SF in the pics they wank to. Moldbug's real idea of formalism (even as a thought experiment) seems to be completely disregarded.

tl;dr I'm backpedalling, Moldbug's ideas just rode the wave alongside the alt-right and they cribbed a few words from him.

>>8523187

I dunno, it's pig disgusting. What did they do so right from the 15th-18th century that we don't do? It's not a matter of only seeing the exceptional ones, even mediocre writers showed a broader knowledge than nearly anyone today.