The modern polymath defined

Today we put it all together. We need to keep in mind Heraclitus’s original concept, Andrew Robinson’s idea (broad learning and curiosity), and Carr’s and Djerassi’s breadth and acceptance requirements, and overlay these ideas on Burke’s serial and proper polymaths.

Burke’s prerequisite of “several” fields of expertise pays homage to Heraclitus’s original notion and is a good middle ground between requiring too many fields of expertise and too few. It acknowledges that a real polymath should work in “several” disciplines.

Accordingly, the modern polymath should be one who is proficient in or who has made significant accomplishments in at least two widely disparate fields or three less disparate fields. The more unrelated the fields, the more polymathic the person.

This definition can be gauged objectively and satisfies the breadth test. The acceptance requirement can be satisfied by professional licensure, by publications, or by acceptance by experts in those fields. The acceptance requirement also allows for the conclusion that, the more generally accepted as an expert such a person is in each of his/her fields, the more polymathic the person is.

This definition puts Hedy Lamarr (remember her from the PopMatters article?) squarely in polymath status (acting and electronics are about as far apart as two fields can be), but easily knocks out the swimming, trumpeting, and tax polymaths that I discussed earlier. However, it will allow us to recognize and appreciate the incredible achievement of a real modern polymath.

Now that we have this definition under control, we can look at other similar concepts (the Renaissance man, the universal man, etc.), and also start getting to know the Real Polymaths.

Edward Carr and Carl Djerassi on polymathy

Journalist Edward Carr wrote a really interesting article a few years ago in a current magazine published by The Economist that was then called Intelligent Life (and is now called 1843).

His article was titled The Days of the Polymath, and is a must-read for anyone interested in the modern polymath. He interviewed several polymaths (at least by his standards) and tried to address the question of why there are fewer polymaths these days than formerly.

Carr came up with a “breadth” test for polymath status, explaining that “a scientist who composes operas and writes novels is more of a polymath than a novelist who can turn out a play or a painter who can sculpt.” He believed that success in thoroughly unrelated fields enhanced one’s polymath status.

Carr interviewed the polymathic Carl Djerassi, who was one of the inventors of the birth control pill. Djerassi argued that influence and acceptance was an essential requirement of polymathy. Djerassi believed that a person was not really a polymath unless he or she was accepted as an expert by practitioners in each field that the polymath claimed to master. He said, “It means that your polymath activities have passed a certain quality control that is exerted within each field by the competition. If they accept you at their level, then I think you have reached that state rather than just dabbling.”

Djerassi’s definition is thus not as rigorous to the definitions proposed by the Royal Institution’s speakers that we reviewed yesterday. Remember that they had all argued that a real polymath had to make some sort of contribution to his/her field at a professional level.

In contrast, Djerassi argues only that others in the field accept the potential polymath as one of their own in the field.

That seems more reasonable. More tomorrow.