Are you a Renaissance Man?

[CrayZee]

Maybe philomath is a better term than dilettante, I dunno.

[adios]

Being in the top echelon requires talent. You probably know who Robert Royston is. He's a friend of mine and he's truly a fine person (haven't seen him in several years). My wife and I used to dance competively many moons ago and we met Robert when we were competing (he was a judge). We visted Robert when he lived in the Bay Area many years ago and we had some lessons from Robert as well as some choreography. Best dance experience I ever had as I got to see what a really top notch dancer is all about. Showed me what I could never be. But I also realized that you don't have to be top echelon to have fun with it and I actually enjoy dancing much more now. I can attribute that directly to having worked with Robert. So I guess this is a long winded way of saying that there's alot of difference between being accomplished at something and being top echelon. Being accomplished at many things would fit my idea of a renaissance type FWIW.

[CharlieDontSurf]

Since when did being great at something have anything to do with being a Renaissance man.

[ilya]

You sound like a Renaissance Man to me. I think the people caling you a dilettante are applying unreasonably high standards. Back around the time of the Renaissance there was a lot less to learn if you wanted to achieve excellence in several fields, and the pool of competitors was much smaller. Today, being in the top 1-2% in the world at any one pursuit is an achievement that requires a lot more time, effort, and talent than it did during the Renaissance...so to be that near the top in two or more fields, IMO, qualifies you after adjusting for mastery inflation.

[Scotch78]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, back then when our knowledge base was much smaller, it was possible to be great at a number of fields.

Today, that's practically impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree, sort of. Given our prevailing epistemological assumptions and the structure of our educational system, I agree. However, I think that we have artificially fragmented knowledge.

At some point in western civilization we started believing that physics and ethics were distinct fields of knowledge, so our physicists developed scientific theories that don't address human behavior and our moralists developed ethical theories that don't explain physical phenomena. Our universe is not naturally fractured like this, though.

As a very rough example, let's define life as a force that opposes the second law of thermodynamics. Now, this will open a common area of study between biology, chemistry and physics, but most people already consider them somewhat connected, so let's go the extra inch: let's measure moral value by the level of entropy in a system.

Okay, so how might we do this? Well, to give one example, this principle would evaluate the taking of life in a manner that conforms with our common sense. It would make murder immoral, but allow for the morality of self-defense. Also, it would judge the murder of animals immoral without legislating vegetarianism (hunting for food would not necessarily increase entropy). And, as the kicker, it would also provide a reason why murdering a human could be worse than murdering an animal.

I could go on for days, and would have to in order to really explain my ideas, but hopefully this gives you guys an idea.

Scott

[4_2_it]

[ QUOTE ]
Since when did being great at something have anything to do with being a Renaissance man.

[/ QUOTE ]

Definition from Answers.com:

[ QUOTE ]
Renaissance man
n.
A man who has broad intellectual interests and is accomplished in areas of both the arts and the sciences.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say accomplished is closer to great than good.

[BadBoyBenny]

[ QUOTE ]
Boro,

I'd echo Alobar's response. I do often wish that I was pursuing something where I had a legitimate chance at being the best in the world. I think I still have a chance at being the best movie director or winemaker in the world, and maybe senior tour golfer. I have yet to do any of those things, but I'm holding out hope.

"What could you be best in the world at?" is another thread we should do.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that pursuing something with the effort that it takes to be the best in the world is just not something most people are made for. To be the best in the world at any of the things you listed would require extraordinary focus and effort that is usually not compatible with a propensity for posting in Internet forums.

I think a lot of 2+2 posters have the opportunity to be Renaissance Men by the average person's definition, but I doubt any of them have the combination of drive+ability to be the world's absolute best at anything.

[pryor15]

dilettante \DIL-uh-tont; dil-uh-TONT; dil-uh-TON-tee; -TANT; -TAN-tee\, noun:
1. An amateur or dabbler; especially, one who follows an art or a branch of knowledge sporadically, superficially, or for amusement only.
2. An admirer or lover of the fine arts.

adjective:
1. Of or characteristic of a dilettante; amateurish.


seems to me Boro is more than an amateur in his various fields

[Jeff W]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not really the "Renaissance Man". I'm the proverbial Jack (or possibly just the 9 or 10) of many trades, King of none.

Is pretty good at everything you do good enough if you're not great at anything?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's semantics, but I'd say you're a polymath and not a renaissance man.

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
Is pretty good at everything you do good enough if you're not great at anything?

[/ QUOTE ]


IMHO.....Ubeturass it is!

The journey's the thing, my friend......not the destination.

Go out in your backyard......Look around. Where would you put a small rock/flower garden?

Imagineer it......what do you want it to look like? Where should it be?

Look at what others have done. What do you like; what don't you like?

Design it in your mind, then go out and get whatever materials you need to make it happen.

Then.....make it happen.

Reflect upon every step of construction before you do it....let your mind wander and think of your options.

After you've finished, step back and look at it. Is it what you wanted? Should you change things?

You'll get to the point where you'll be happy.

Now is the time to step back and realize that you've just created something out of nothing......Your own something.

It may not be regal...or the best. But you did it.

Maybe your next one will be better.....if you reflect upon it.

It could be a garden....or a book case, or a stone wall or a fender on a car.

It could be almost anything, but it doesn't have to be the BEST anything.

It's the journey.......not the destination.