Some Administrative Work

What? I can't come up with clever Titles all the time!

Okay, first, best laid plans of mice and men, eh? I'd really like to get back into blogging because besides enjoying writing, I feel it helps my academic work by encouraging me to explain what I'm learning to people outside my class. We all know we learn by teaching, right? It helps me focus and take really good notes, because I will be talking about it here later. So that's in the positive column. However, I'm also acutely aware that I have a lot of reading to do, a lot of studying, and not a ton of time. So there will undoubtedly be days I want to write where I'm simply unable to, and then will lose the drive. So here's hoping.

Secondly, while I always appreciate when people tell me in person or via some message that they enjoy something I wrote, or they give their opinion on it, I would really prefer if people posted in the comments section. It's what it's there for and it makes it look like I'm popular >.> Don't judge me for wanting to be internet famous.

Alright, I will probably be doing a mind vomit later today, after homeworking, but I wanted throw out some thoughts stemming from a conversation I had with a friend. He was lamenting the loss of the 'Renaissance Man.' The jack-of-all-trades, brilliant in many fields, not bound to a single discipline. Leonardo Da Vinci is, of course, considered the paragon of such individuals, but all the other Ninja Turtles could certainly be considered, as could Newton and Galileo, among others. Now, we are apparently without, as our society does not allow for them.

I disagree with this dichotomy for several reasons. First, there's the nostalgia that always comes with considering the past, especially that which is most removed. We love the idea of warrior-poets, trabadour-knights, those who were "classically" trained in a variety of arts. Of course, we can have these romantic conceptions because we're not there. We don't if they consider themselves the same way we consider them. So I posit that these well-rounded folk are not so different from us.
Which brings us to my second issue: the notion that they are exceptional. Don't mistake me, Da Vinci, Galileo, Newton, they were brilliant men. Fundamentally altered the world as we know it, no doubt. I do not, however, subscribe to the idea that our society systematically discourages us from being well-versed in a variety of fields.
It's easy to see where such an idea comes from. After all, economics is based on the concept of specialization. Jane can make 12 sweaters or 4 pairs of socks in the same amount of time while Jim can make 4 sweaters and 12 pairs of socks. Sure, both could do it, but society as a whole would benefit most if Jane made sweaters and Jim made socks. Trade, exchange, barter, all based on this idea. so yes, we are encouraged to focus on one field. That doesn't mean that people can't expend energy on other fields as well. Many people have hobbies, which are completely independent of their vocation, do they not? If we are separated from those men of the 16th and 17th century, it is more likely by how we fill our time. I'm not saying that leisurely activities are inherently bad. I play video games, watch movies, read books both deep and vapid. But if we were really interested in a variety of studies, we would pursue them. What they had and we (in general) lack, is drive, focus. That is an individual flaw, not the fault of society.
Furthermore, I don't think we do too badly. Think about our general education system. Yes, it is flawed, no argument. But students are exposed to a variety of sciences, right? They do chemistry, biology, physics...exposure let's them see what grabs their interest. It is unfortunate we do not teach philosophy until secondary-higher education as rhetoric and logic do not seem to be highly valued by the Powers-That-Be, but you ARE required to take a bit to get a college degree. We REQUIRE people to try different subjects, to study things that they may not think interest them, to make sure they get a wide range of exposure. Not as rigorous as Jesuit schools of the Counter/Catholic Reformation, but the effort is made.

After all, our idea of the Renaissance man as being free, not tied down to a career is already flawed. All of these people had day jobs. Da Vinci and Galileo both worked in ballistics. They helped their respective governments make war more effectively by working out the science of things like cannons. Newton was a professor. It seems we have the idea of the starving scientist, someone who rejects the materialistic/capitalist notions of work and salary to pursue internally-motivated studies. I don't think they would have conceived of themselves that way. After all, they had to pay the bills too. The only ones would would not need to maintain some sort of 'normal' vocation would be those sponsored by the government, such as Tycho Brahe, the first royal astronomer. They still had a job to do, however, and we tend to look down upon those paid by the government, as if the politics stains the science. And of course it does, but trying to separate politics from science would be like trying to disentangle a knot of yarn with your teeth.

These were great men. But nobody forces us to not emulate them. Nobody says we can't pursue lots of different studies, try to better ourselves academically, intellectually, artistically, martially...But if you don't think you can, don't blame society or capitalism or anything else for it, save your own lack of motivation.

~
PS: I'm well aware that circumstances do not always allow us to pursue what we'd like. Economic, political, social issues get in the way. I don't wish to say that it is solely the individual's fault. Things happen, go wrong. It is just that in my personal experience, people blame the system for things that it does not enforce. Okay, disclaimer over.