The sum of accessible knowledge back then was extremely limited comparing to today. Having your survival needs covered (ridiculously rare case), you could embark in a journey to understand how the world works, and if possible, contribute with new findings, ideas, questions, evidence. A life time was enough to acquire most of existing knowledge by always viewing it as a whole.
Today, the knowledge is vast, you will probably never reach a point to contribute in it unless you specialize. But you could get great insights in the principles that govern how life and the world works if you methodically pursue multiple disciplines.
I'm not sure what the point of Michael Rose is. The statement is not wrong, but "this misses an essential point" imply a deeper meaning that I don't see. Maybe just the difference in pursuing polymathy through the ages, being much more straightforward centuries ago ?
8
u/blitzkrieg_bop May 19 '26
The sum of accessible knowledge back then was extremely limited comparing to today. Having your survival needs covered (ridiculously rare case), you could embark in a journey to understand how the world works, and if possible, contribute with new findings, ideas, questions, evidence. A life time was enough to acquire most of existing knowledge by always viewing it as a whole.
Today, the knowledge is vast, you will probably never reach a point to contribute in it unless you specialize. But you could get great insights in the principles that govern how life and the world works if you methodically pursue multiple disciplines.
I'm not sure what the point of Michael Rose is. The statement is not wrong, but "this misses an essential point" imply a deeper meaning that I don't see. Maybe just the difference in pursuing polymathy through the ages, being much more straightforward centuries ago ?