We read about so many wise, experienced and noble thought leaders in our history. People whose moral codes and innovations were so unquestionably pure in will that they will live on forever by reputation.

Do we have any modern day Polymaths? Who are they? Or why not?

Polymath! What a fantastic and underused word.

I submit Craig Mod. See his recent Subcompact Publishing post — the second section is "Cars & publishing." As with this, I'm always impressed at the breadth and depth of his examples. Most of what he writes steals just enough from technology, media, history, design, business, psychology... and, really, he's always just writing about people, not a particular domain.

I truly think Ev fits the bill.
I'm biased but he popularized blogging and tweeting, and the open exchange of information will come to define our generation. Nobody is more responsible for it that him.

I think Craig is a very smart guy. I'm a big fan of his work. But I think that nomination is a stretch.

(note: I'm likely misinterpreting the definition of polymath.)

Polymath - "A Renaissance man, a person whose expertise spans a significant number of different subject areas."

The classic example is Leonardo da Vinci — not to overstate the case ;) Hence Craig and his multiple subject areas. I think there's a case for Ev but creating tweeting and blogging isn't necessarily it.

"Renaissance man" is a strong distinction. Michael Bloomberg and Bill Gates come to mind, as folks who have been influential in multiple fields. Though they both used their wealth to wield influence so maybe that doesn't count? I give up.

One more: @daveg -- internet (RSS, Yelp) and architecture.

As far as people in history, yep Da Vinci is a big one. Benjamin Franklin is another one.

Elon Musk comes to mind as someone who has created world changing innovations in many different industries and whose reputation will likely live on in the history books, though it seems he's using a similar set of skills to innovate in different areas.

Aza Raskin is an up and coming polymath to me: en.wikipedia.org
He's dabbled in software, furniture, art and health technology, and he's not yet 30.

I'd venture there is a reduction in polymaths due to two related reasons:
1. The sheer amount of information available and necessary to know, to become an expert in a field is far greater than existed centuries ago.
2. Because of this, more time and effort is necessary to become an expert. The value of that expertise is then greater than becoming knowledgeable in a lot of areas.

I'm glad I got to drop in under Laura's comment, because it was a point I was about to make (put more eloquently than I would have). The Polymath seems more unlikely these days.

I'd offer Noam Chomsky up as a modern Polymath. It's funny because I sense our generation has sort of dismissed him as a coot, but his body of work is truly impressive. He almost feels like someone I'll look back on and discover in my later years and wish I'd paid more attention now.

I have to add my favorite modern polymath, Stephen Fry. stephenfry.com

As to the reduction of polymaths, I would put part of the blame on the increasing pressure to create a focused persona in order to make yourself "marketable." The success stories we tell ourselves usually involve someone specializing from an early age. Combine that with the dearth of information we can instantly access via the Internet and the idea of trying to amass encyclopedic knowledge on disparate subjects seems counterproductive.

Great question. Partly agree with Laura and Derek re: reduction/decline in polymaths, but if we modify or rethink the definition of the term a bit, I'd venture there are now more polymaths than ever.

While it seems true that mastery of several fields is less likely due to that threshold continually increasing, I think we can also conceive of a polymath as someone who 1) Has wide-ranging, insatiable curiosity, 2) Makes great effort not necessarily at fully mastering many areas, but going far enough beyond competency in several areas so as to enable unexpected synthesis and original creation, and 3) Is adept at leveraging resources (technology, other people, etc.) to wield influence in many fields/disciplines. Elon Musk is a great example.

A few examples that come to mind:

Paul Graham—whiz programmer and technologist, savvy businessman and mentor running YCombinator, excellent writer

Kevin Kelly—writer, editor, artist, digital theorist (perhaps not truly multiple disciplines, but he seems to have a vast knowledge about a whole lot of interesting things)

Aaron Koblin, Jonathan Harris, Ayah Bdeir—among the most impressive people combining art and technology/engineering

Richard Feynman—not only influenced several branches of science but was a brilliant writer and speaker to boot

Anyway, I may be hijacking the term a bit, but I think there are a remarkable number of people combining disciplines to explore and create really interesting things!

My parents just met en.wikipedia.org this past weekend. He cracked German codes in WWII, advised presidents, wrote a book, worked in international trade and philanthropy, audited the second vatican council, supervised free elections in Russia and apparently was an inventor.
I think there are lots of these, that just aren't widely known or celebrated.

Laura's point about not celebrating polymaths is a good one to consider. We live in a society where execution is praised for it's difficulty but knowledge is almost expected.

Shouldn't anyone 'nominated' for the title polymath be an outcast on the fringes of society, mocked for their ideas, and misunderstood for a generation or two? Or am I stretching too hard.

Buckminster Fuller is the most 'recent' example that comes to mind for me.

Really good question by Laura. Are the polymaths just not being celebrated today? In this era when everyone is on social media, and whoever builds the largest audience acquires the perception of greatness. I wonder how many polymaths there are out there who don't have twitter accounts and have never even thought about "branding" themselves.

Is being a polymath the same as being an interdisciplinarist (is that a word?)?

Definitely agree with @greg that the push is to be known for one thing so as to make ourselves marketable. BUT, polymaths, as I understand, do still exist. For example, nearly all my classmates from Gallatin at NYU who approached one thing (mine was Capitalism & Inequality) in different ways (politics, economics, philosophy, psychology) could fit the bill.

The key is that there is usually some common thread between seemingly disconnected skill sets. In the past five years, I've held an elected political office, worked on a trading desk, ran sales development, and worked in BD, Community and UX. The thing in common with all of that is understanding people.