In the philosophical classic “The Republic,” Plato describes an ideal city, going through all the different parts and roles everyone must do in order for their to be justice in the city (the entire book is an answer to the question, “what is justice/?”) To put it very simply, he argues that the just society is in the society in which all people do simply that which they do best. Farmers stick to farming. Soldiers stick to fighting. Philosophers stick to philosophizing. The city runs efficiently, and people have their needs met because they get their goods from professionals who dedicate their lives to what they do.
Some several hundred years later, DaVinci lives out the ideal Renaissance life, in fact being the “Renaissance Man” extraordinaire. He writes, paints, sculpts. He dabbles in biology, physics, astrology. He paints the Mona Lisa, then dissects a body. He does a little bit of it all.
Our modern society tends to be a bit of a mix. We do have our elements of Plato with our professionals, and people like doctors and engineers and soldiers still go through highly specialized training. Most middle to upperclass Americans (the majority) have only one job). However, we still have an element of DaVinci, as most people change their jobs at least 10 times and change their entire career field at least twice.
Who do you identify with more—Plato or DaVinci? Will you go (or send your children) to the big state school and where one can really specialize in a field, or to the small liberal arts school where one is required to take a broad range of courses? Would it be better for the world if everyone stuck to their job and did it really well? Or is it good that everyone changes around now and then? Will you be the specialist? Or will you be the jack of all trades, master of none?
Which philosophy have you personally adopted, and what do you think would be better for the society as a whole?

I'm more of the Davinci. I prefer to know a lot of things moderately well than to know something so specialized that nobody else can talk to me about it, though it would come in really handy at cocktail parties....


However, I think that the Davinci approach allows people to better relate to other people. If you know lots of different areas you're more flexible and able to approach a specific problem from a variety of angles from the different trainings you've received as a result of studying those different areas. That way if one angle of approach isn't working, you're adaptable and can break off that approach and try a different one. A specialist is more or less stuck approaching the world and problems from one point of view.

I have a friend whose goal it is to "know everything about something, and something about everything." A happy medium.

That would be a nice goal, and I think it's a nice compromise between the two.

hmm.
It does seem to be an effective compromise. Hadn't thought of that.

Yeah it'd be great if everyone could do both of those things. Although it'd be great if people could even do one of those things...

I guess at some point though, you still kind of have to decide. Like would you go to college at a liberal arts school or at a university that excels in specific fields--I think I'm more the liberal arts kind of guy. Makes me more of a DaVinci person I suppose...

I really like the idea that Boru posted, it is a very nice solution. However, if i swayed to one side or the other it would be to Plato's theory on specialization. Personally, I would simply be extraordinary at one thing, such as writing, debating, a sport or a science, than be mediocre at everything. Theres more of a benefit and feeling of accomplishment in a specialization, at leas the way I see it.

Try this one on for size...

As a youth (0-17) I was a complete DaVinci, and from then to now (18-28) I was and am a DaVinci's form of Plato... There is the specialist in one field - then there is the specialist in all fields.

Ex: A Psychologist can specialise in youths, adults, marriages, and sex therapy at the same time. An architect can be a great carpenter and sculptor. Both these examples are of lifelong dedications to one particular specialisation, but with various fields within it - so the DaVinci's Plato.

- Clandestine.

One of my favourite sayings is:

"Knowing something of everything until knowing nothing about anything." Translated, it fits nicely with the Jack of all Trades cliche. Except you get a little bonus from it. In Rancer's Theory of Relativity, everything is relative in some way. And sometimes you get a huge benefit when being able to relate what you know from one area of expertise into another. Downside is you begin to realize the scope of your ignorance.

Specialization is great, especially in the medical field. In the economic ideal of balance between supply and demand, you'd have enough specialists to cover each unique condundrum, charging the greatest for the rarest ones.

Varity isn't only the spice of life, sometimes it is an essential element. A person that fully has grasped a gaming strategy may become unbeatable to the point it is no longer fun or challenging. If someone does master a specialization, should they only practice what they know? And when you do have an extraordinare artist like a Michaelangelo (not the turtle), wouldn't it be nice if they could relate to specialists within various fields of science in some minute detail? That same artist would probably have made a world-renowned tutor in anatomy.

Not sure if "The Republic" is better off with only those excelling in one area should stay confined. Sure, it would reach a higher pinacle of progress... while still failing. Like those that may believe in the multiple-intelligences of learning is that you may have sensational jocks whom become knowledgeable coaches/managers while still lacking in a huge way like balancing checkbooks or handling other personal finanace. I am sure Ric Tobias and Peter Norton would have a hard time relating on the "nuts and bolts" until they find that common language medium. It almost certainly wouldn't be machine code or utlizing money for value over time. Perhaps mathematics would be their preferred language.

Plato was right. Robert Frost was right. Stephen Hawking is right. But we wouldn't have any of it falling into place without something else out there to qualify it. Affirmation through negation can be a great thing. It is sad how we must use comparison sometimes to measure success or even change. Competition in sports is a great outlet. It's even proven that a competitive work-place environment can increase overall productivity. Again, if a person can't compete or keep up with the existing crew, there may be an apathy that could develop. They wouldn't try to compete with them or perhaps do less since they seem too proud to do more than their share. Does that sound a bit like some athetes in team-oriented sports?

Communism as viewed by Karl Marx might have felt that people being assigned to their roles was the better way to insure people didn't try to break out of their cast molds. Or perhaps he noticed that competition could indubitably ruin the very essence of cooperation and that capitalism was going down such a road. Maybe this seems like a huge leap to conver various experts or touch upon such famed personas. While we can be as daring as a Chuck Yeager, that doesn't mean we want to sample too many different things, like new foods. And again, we are back to they spicy variety that can only exist when you introduce new elements. A true "Republic" as envisioned by Plato would work well if all the citizenry thought like he. Socrates would have blanched.