Thing with the classic Renaissance man was that the fields they explored were then far less developed than they are now. We arereaching a point where any major innovation in a field requires specialized education, technology and experience.
Todays "Renaissance Man" is better described as "widely educated" or having various interests. To be considered an "expert" or innovator in multiple disciplines as in the classic sense are gone IMO.
I see what you're saying - like the probability of one single person understanding
everything about how to build a computer, from the microchips to the software, to the internet, is pretty slim. Most advances are made by specialists in their own arena, building on the information from before.
But the idea of the Renaissance was more than just being the top of your game at everything, although they certainly had better odds of that than we do -- the idea was to not specialize
in your own life.
The concept of being either smart or strong, or either rational or religious, would have been foreign to them. Their goal was to develop themselves mentally, physically, and spiritually, so that one did not outweigh the other. Athleticism was as important as knowledge. If you've ever been to St. Peter's square, you're surrounded by statues of Christian Saints, each one made to look like Mr. Universe. The idea being that at the attainment of sainthood, they must not only be perfect spiritually, but must also be perfect physically, as well. This is not often covered in most studies of the great Renaissance men.
The physical was inseparable from the mental.
In fact, many martial artist, once they start answering philosophical questions, using Martial Arts principles, are on the path to the Renaissance Ideal. They're combining the two.
I agree, however, that the Renaissance
Ideal won't get you much recognition in today's world, in fact, if presented wrong, it often alienates me from others who prefer to specialize.
In fact, some of the very first posts I put up on this very forum were met with criticism because I was asking specialized questions about an art I was not wholly committed to, but wanted more information to "round out" my understanding of sword arts and physics in general. (I'm still looking for the answers to a couple of these, actually). The general answers I got (other than the standard, good advice: "ask an instructor") were "stick with the art you're already in."
After a little patience, a couple of people began to understand what I was looking for, and pointed me in the direction of some good resources to find my answers.
It can be a bonus at parties, however -- I can usually find something to discuss with just about anybody, because I've probably tried what they are interested in, or I want to learn more about it. But if I start talking about
all the random things I've studied, they get this "deer-in-the-headlight" look and wander off. That kind of learning is simply not in style these days, in general.
One of my heroes!
.
