[Garet Jax]

http://historum.com/general-history/440-modern-day-renaissance-man.html

Was reading this article and found the discussion near the bottom interesting.

What do you all think?  Should the definition be rewritten or do you believe 'expert' level needs to be achieved in more than one field to be even considered a "modern day" renaissance man?

(The quotations are there because I think using the term "modern day renaissance man" is, in itself, differentiating from the original term.)

[Royce]

I agree with the person who said that there is so  much knowledge nowadays, it would be extremely challenging to be an expert in more than one field.

The internet is the modern version of this concept.

[Madness]

I would love it to be possible in this day and age.

But I would qualify a "modern renaissance" person by different standards today. The criteria linked in GJ's thread could work to inform a definition but it can be used anachronistically.

Lol, however, I'd hazard that a "modern renaissance" person today would simple be Dunyain to us (by definition - I actually think, obviously, that we can affect change and you basically have to fit this description to heave the rudder).

[Alia]

I don't think you can be an expert in more than one-two fields. So I guess a modern renaissance man should know at least basics of most fields of science. I'm always immensely annoyed by people who claim "I'm into humanities and so I don't have to know anything about relativity theory (and I'm proud of it)". OK, you're into humanities but you should also know how stuff works.