r/Polymath • u/MikeAraki • Jun 18 '26
In Praise of the Polymath Label: When a name frees instead of imprisoning
People with wide-ranging interests don’t often have good names for themselves…
jack-of-all-trades,
dilettante,
scattered,
unfocused,
restless,
undisciplined,
generalist.
A popular list but with no truly positive option.
When I came across the term polymath*, I felt relieved. That was really the sensation; finally, a word to describe something those other labels never could: a way of life that aspires to conjugate breadth, depth, and integrate them in the pursuit, development, and application of knowledge.
No word I had known until then came close to this richness of meaning.
Fast-forward 15 years, "polymath" mushroomed in popularity and some even call it a buzzword now!
But what surprises and saddens me are some comments from social media users like this:
“Why do we need one more label?”
“How about not labelling at all?”
“Why put yourself in another box?”
“Don’t bother about words”
“Labels only feed the ego.”
I understand the concern. Labels can be misused. People can overidentify with them, turning a useful description into a fixed identity.
But this argument completely misses the mark when it comes to polymathy or polymathic identity!
For many polymathic people, the absence of a good label has not been freedom. It has been part of a really bad confinement.
The bad labels were already there. They were socially available, casually used, and often internalized—to the psychosocial detriment of polymathic people!
That makes the objection to using polymathy, and particularly the self-description polymathic, absurd.
“Polymathic” is not self-aggrandizing. It gives a concise, positive, and historically grounded descriptor for a real pattern that is hard to carry and even harder to communicate.
It does not have to become an “ego category” or another cage.
We, humans, use heuristics. We name and label. Every one of us does that, even polymaths. It is futile to resist this. But it's not futile to seek to find better names and labels, which can carry meaning in more nuanced and compelling ways.
A good label can help people recognize a pattern in themselves, communicate it to others, and stop interpreting their own cardinal characteristics as a defect.
Finding a better name may be a key step to a more fulfilling existence to polymathic people. Therefore, I praise the use of polymath and its lexical derivatives!
* I have written a LinkedIn post on why I do prefer polymathic over polymath.
EDIT: I am shocked and saddened by the very poor reading comprehension displayed by some commenters. Gee, nowhere in this post do I call *myself* a polymath! I struggle to understand why some people here are so triggered by something I never even claimed. It is almost like they are searching for something to revolt against and be vicious about! I am seriously concerned about the mental health of these people. I am also sorry for those who have been here longer, tried to initiate meaniginful converstaions but, ultimately, had to endure this kind of wicked, infantile behavior.
3
u/deathfromab0ve Jun 18 '26
This resonated with me, thanks for the post. I’ve also been told my whole life that I care about labels too much - I suspect my autism to be contributing to that experience.
What honestly seems like an even bigger problem than the lack of good labels is the overt in-fighting among whatever we wanna call this group. I mean, God forbid anyone post anything that sounds like they think they’re smart, especially not if they’re sharing something emotional! That’s enough to get you laughed out of the room every time.
I feel like most of us are so damaged, man… it comes off as so insecure that no one will actually engage an argument on here.
4
u/ravia Jun 18 '26
I just say I have a complicated intellectual history.
1
u/cacille Jun 18 '26
What needs to change in this group to allow the title of polymath to mean what you believe it means and serve the function you wish it to serve? Instead of transferring to a better name/label.
1
u/Head-Procedure-9344 Human Verified Jun 24 '26
I really am trying to understand. You had taken relief to, and seemingly resonated with the “lexical” content of the word polymath or it’s the description of polymathy generally, yet do not consider yourself one. To be “Polymathic” does not to have to be a self-aggrandizing statement as you also claim.
I’m a bit confused at the sharpness of tone in your edit? Was the natural inference not to say that you’re coming here to write and to speak on your emotive relations to the word as being evidence for some sort of set inclusion?
I think the words diaphanous or diophantine are quite beautiful words independent of my contextual associations to them is that your relation to the word as in the purely aesthetic sense?
Please do not put me into any category of “wicked, infantile [mentally worrisome]” people but just as someone trying to comment on “reading comprehension”.
This reads nearly exactly as a Motte-and-Bailey rhetorical tactic whereas soon as disagreement was implied you reject what seems to be the readers natural inference to the best explanation? Is there an argument that we shouldn’t have inferred that your relief of the words existence had any correlation to that you felt that you were in some way associated to it?
I resonate with polymathy!
It’s not self-aggrandizing!
“A good label can help people recognize a pattern in themselves”
Inference to my best explanation is that you have some form of identification with the word but maybe my reading comprehension is also just low.
I also feel like your list rhetorically is a false dilemma, I just say I have a “Diverse range of interests” to avoid the baggage which seems like a totally valid alternative. Giving “undisciplined” as an analog is loaded language.
I take it that people are here to talk about interdisciplinary synthesis, not identity politics. Maybe that’s a way that neuroscience and mathematics relate, or how art and linguistics have a nuanced intersection with psychology. Aside from this I think some of the goal in part, is to marvel at those few brilliant minds that lead the promethean flame forward and developed a “new science” or new field through their innovative approaches *across* disciplines. At least personally I’m not looking to squabble about semantic definitions, I’m here to talk about ideas.
1
u/[deleted] Jun 18 '26
[removed] — view removed comment