Do we have Polymaths anymore?

As per Wikipedia, a Polymath is a person whose expertise spans a significant number of different subject areas; such a person is known to draw on complex bodies of knowledge to solve specific problems. The word “expertise” means “expert skill or knowledge in a particular field”.

The words “expert” or “expertise” or related synonyms are objective when used in relation to an individual who has gained mastery in his/her field of knowledge or related fields to his/her field or in different fields. But when the same individual is compared to another who has gained expertise or mastery in the similar field, the objectiveness of these words cease to exist. Or rather it would be more objective to characterize the individual as “having gained superior level of knowledge in his/her subject/s.” since the individual has a challenger who may possess equal or probably more level of cognitive intelligence on the subject/s.

In some cases, some individuals by virtue of coincidences creating their circumstances, may be recognized as “experts” in their area but another who is an equal expert may be unknown owing to his/her context. Here in this case of labeling an individual as an “expert” the theory of probability tends to be obliterated.

In frame of reference to probability, researchers provide a random, leverage for an error to occur, by attributing a certain level of significance to their hypotheses. In line of defense, to this consideration, the meaning of the word “polymath” seems to get defeated, as the original meaning suspends around the interpretation of the word “expertise”.

Oscar Wilde has appropriately put out when he quotes, “Wisdom is knowing how little we know.”

To be more definitive, an individual seeks merit and strives to be effective, which cannot be an end in itself to the adventure of learning assorted terrains, as learning is a continuous process.

Or the words “expert” or “expertise”, could be used in a more subjective context while describing a “polymath”. Since for example an individual considered to have gained “mastery” or “expert level of knowledge” in a subject may be faced with another who has possessed even better levels of mastery.

Amitabh Bachchan is given due consideration, as all knowing in his territory, here in India, but many would disagree and proclaim Naseeruddin Shah to be an authority, in the similar craft while contemplating theater. This depicts a reflection of the awareness levels of the populace.

In terms of information levels of the people, probably, in the Renaissance period, owing to technology not being pre-dominant, in those times, as in the current era, a few men would be known to the masses as “experts in various fields”, however in the present times it becomes much easier to yield scrutiny with just a mouse/button click or can it be better pushed, by stating that generations lost touch with the “polymath” as they got introduced to the terminology of “monomath” sans the industrial revolution days, or can it be blamed on Adam Smith, himself an early polymath who propagated “division of labor as engine of capitalism”, in the late 18th century?

In today’s world, an “expert” or “monomath” in a given subject also faces tough competition from all over. It becomes onerous to affirm any one individual to have gained proficiency in a given subject. Because here again, the views of the society’s individuals becomes imperative to be examined. Perhaps, it is more arduous in the current space to proclaim someone as an expert compared to the Renaissance period. Sachin Tendulkar can be the cricket lord for some but for a separate bunch, Sunil Gavaskar is as yet the god of cricket, in the face of the former being conferred the ‘Bharat Ratna’. People are surrounded with oceans of data, on that account more the approaches, further it makes tough to draw the line between experts.

Hence the explanation of an “expert” can be more subjective as “possessing knowledge” or “being effective” or “gained sufficient levels of excellence”, which could be more acceptable to the society. Having a “flow” becomes necessary to maintain the momentum of the acquired skills to be presented, to have a forceful effect as well.

Greek Musician Yanni has the “flow” when he produces his music and watching Pandit Ravi Shankar play the sitar, one could visualize the “flow” and could sense the “sitar” performing to the tunes of its master. But as yet there is a long list of Sitar maestros, the likes of Ustad Vilayat Khan, Ustad Rais Khan and the list goes on, which reiteratively makes the word “expert” bend more towards being used immanently.

These days, in point of fact knowledge in one subject area can be used in another area, as psychology can be recycled to study and understand the behavioral patterns of human resources in an organization. This leaves us to acknowledge cognitive congruence in marrying all the fields, to the levels of each field being polygamous to other fields of knowledge. In this stew of harmony, of disparate knowledge sections, the elucidation of the “expert”, polymath has the appearance of going astray.