Yesterday, I introduced Cambridge historian Peter Burke's four types of polymaths. The first was the passive polymath, who reads widely but makes his/her reputation in one discipline alone.
Here are a couple of thoughts on the passive polymath. What does "reputation" mean for the purposes of being a polymath? What should it mean?
What if the person reads widely and is clearly an expert in one discipline, but does not have a "reputation" in that discipline? What if he/she has mastered that one discipline, goes to work every day in that field, and does a good job, but has never written any papers in that field, has never given any speeches, and is really not known outside his or her company? Does that person still qualify as a passive polymath?
No comments:
Post a Comment