This entry opens the Philosopher series, whom I am normally inclined to equate with the Original Thinker. But in my first entry I am emphasizing the other quality of an accomplished philosopher: his encyclopedic learning. Original thinking is a prerequisite of philosophy, but when joined with an uneducated ignorance, it is like a rare beautiful flower, planted in the world’s wilderness, and left uncultivated and unwatered, and next we see it withered, and wasted, and gone.
Renaissance Man is therefore a well-educated original thinker, and this crucial point ought not to be lost on the reader. “Philosopher” here is synonymous with “Renaissance Man,” as opposed to what Nietzsche calls a “specialist” in the following passage from Jenseits (205):
"The dangers for a philosopher’s development are indeed so manifold that one may doubt whether this fruit can still ripen at all. The scope and the tower-building of the sciences has grown to be enormous and, with it, the probability that the philosopher grows weary, while still learning, and becomes a “specialist,” never attaining his proper level, the height for a comprehensive look around and down."
Nietzsche’s philosopher, or our Renaissance Man, is simply a well-educated thinker-scholar, in the best sense of the word, who, by virtue of his encyclopedic learning, has a macroscopic grasp of the whole picture, and not the kind of microscopic fixation on a tiny part of it, which characterizes the specialist and can lead to critical errors of judgment, especially, in the area of social sciences. As I once wrote in a letter of self-recommendation:
“You can ask me anything you like, either personally or on the widest spectrum of issues of public interest, where you will find me well-qualified across the board. In a world that is a giant jigsaw puzzle, missing as little as a single piece renders the set worthless. No student of world affairs can afford such missing pieces in his set.”
On another occasion, an American Professor friend of mine criticized my Curriculum Vitae (which included strong professional background in mathematics, structural and traditional linguistics, general humanities, etc., alongside political science, philosophy, and other "usual suspects"), on the grounds that the broad scope of my proficiencies would be confusing to potential employers in the United States, as to which of my skills was the preponderant one and strongly suggested trimming my résumé, to target only my specific objectives with a bare minimum of my specific qualifications in that department.
Even as I was trying to persuade my learned friend that it was exactly the breadth of my grasp, which had to be of greatest value, he conceded that, while it was true, it would not be correctly understood in our day and age of specialization, when the Renaissance Man had long been known to be an extinct species.
Too bad that we are living in the age of specialists… Renaissance Man, where are you?!
Renaissance Man is therefore a well-educated original thinker, and this crucial point ought not to be lost on the reader. “Philosopher” here is synonymous with “Renaissance Man,” as opposed to what Nietzsche calls a “specialist” in the following passage from Jenseits (205):
"The dangers for a philosopher’s development are indeed so manifold that one may doubt whether this fruit can still ripen at all. The scope and the tower-building of the sciences has grown to be enormous and, with it, the probability that the philosopher grows weary, while still learning, and becomes a “specialist,” never attaining his proper level, the height for a comprehensive look around and down."
Nietzsche’s philosopher, or our Renaissance Man, is simply a well-educated thinker-scholar, in the best sense of the word, who, by virtue of his encyclopedic learning, has a macroscopic grasp of the whole picture, and not the kind of microscopic fixation on a tiny part of it, which characterizes the specialist and can lead to critical errors of judgment, especially, in the area of social sciences. As I once wrote in a letter of self-recommendation:
“You can ask me anything you like, either personally or on the widest spectrum of issues of public interest, where you will find me well-qualified across the board. In a world that is a giant jigsaw puzzle, missing as little as a single piece renders the set worthless. No student of world affairs can afford such missing pieces in his set.”
On another occasion, an American Professor friend of mine criticized my Curriculum Vitae (which included strong professional background in mathematics, structural and traditional linguistics, general humanities, etc., alongside political science, philosophy, and other "usual suspects"), on the grounds that the broad scope of my proficiencies would be confusing to potential employers in the United States, as to which of my skills was the preponderant one and strongly suggested trimming my résumé, to target only my specific objectives with a bare minimum of my specific qualifications in that department.
Even as I was trying to persuade my learned friend that it was exactly the breadth of my grasp, which had to be of greatest value, he conceded that, while it was true, it would not be correctly understood in our day and age of specialization, when the Renaissance Man had long been known to be an extinct species.
Too bad that we are living in the age of specialists… Renaissance Man, where are you?!
No comments:
Post a Comment