Dreams of a Polymath

How does one define Potential?

I have been thinking about this pretty obsessively over the last few days.  I think that often the word comes with boundaries. For example...  That person has the potential to be a great researcher... or ... That person has the potential to a good athlete.  These statements indicate that the person in question is neither a great researcher or a good athlete.  It also could imply that the person could only reach a certain level in their respective area. I look at people like James Franco or da Vinci and marvel.  For those of you who don't know, James Franco is an actor, film-maker, author, and is getting his Ph.D. at Yale in English.  People with this kind of drive seem to astound the public.  What is the point in doing all of these things when you are already successful and have so much money? I live in a University town, and still don't know anyone who is like really like this.  An active Renaissance man.  A Polymath.  Homo Universalis. Someone who actively learns about a wide variety of topics and strives to master each one.

Why do people not strive to achieve this?

I think this is a problem with our society.  Our society encourages us to go to college and get a degree in a specific field, so that we can work in that field, and so that we can die in that field.  That is a sad proposition.  Only so much can be learned in one area.  This problem is funny to me though because the American University education system is set up to give its students a wide variety of knowledge, and it is not until you get to higher Graduate-level education that one really begins to truly specialize in a specific area.  Then how is it that the students are not well rounded?  My observation which saddens me to the core is that people choose not to be.  I hear "I am an studying to be an engineer, why would I care what is in a Cell, or why would I care how to write a short story?"  I think these responses depress me so much because I do not understand them in the slightest.  I can't fathom an answer that does not sound odd or foreign to me.  I am not socially inept enough to not know what the answer is, but it truly makes no sense to me.  When I see something that I do not know much about, I yearn to know as much about it as I can as fast as I can.  For  as long as I can remember I have had to fight down urges to quit what I am doing because I want to spend all of my time learning about how this or that works.  Just yesterday I though, "C. you should learn how to make music, and see how long it would take you to either have a hit song or at least make something really original and beautiful."  I have always had to keep these urges on a tight reign since that is not a good way to keep a job.  I dream of what an unencumbered life away from frivolities would be like.  This is no reason stop learning or to only focus on one thing, but a dream that one day things will free up a bit so that I can fill it up once more with other passions.


One Day,

C. Fletcher

Thoughts on Kierkegaard

Kierkegaard talks about how despair can be over oneself instead of over others. He gives examples that are basically stating that we have dreams that are unreachable which we try to define ourselves around, but when those dreams do not work out we fall into despair. He states that a man wants to become Caesar or nothing. When he does not become Caesar he falls into despair about his situation, not because he is jealous of not being able to achieve what Caesar achieved but because he is not what he had hoped to be and because he feels hopeless about himself. I think at this point Kierkegaard basically states that people move on past the despair. I think that in Today's society it is not this way always. I feel like in today's Society this despair is very detrimental. Often once someone feels that they can not achieve what they initially wanted they lose all hope. Society tells them that it is ok though; and what is important is that we dont worry about what we have not achieved, we should be happy with whatever happens. Not to continue to fight for what our true potential is but to underachieve and accept that we just can not achieve what our real potential is. Maybe this is because most people are stuck in the "Aesthetic phase" but I guess i just dont see how what Kierkegaard is saying can be completely true. I feel as though ideally he might have a good point, but society as it is today does not function ideally, it functions in a politically correct way that tells us to do whatever is easy and does not tax us much.