Philosophy of a person's expertese

I have an interesting dilema. It seems that I have two contradictory beliefs about how someone should develope themselves as a person. My first belief is stated in Plato's Republic. In the first chapter Socrates states that people should only develope themselves to do one trait and people should focus on different areas. Thus one person would be a tailor another would be a carpenter. They can trade their services and so the tailor would get something like a chair and the carpenter would get clothing. This would eventually lead to money and a wel running sociaty. I also believe that one should be well-rounded. That is that one is a physisist but also delves a little in psychology or philosophy. Can someone help me. Do you believe the first ideology is too old-fashioned.

You can't be an expert in everything, so you might as well get really good at one thing and have other things as secondary.

Get a solid general education, and specialise in one field. Most if not all of history's greatest geniuses were interested in things other than their specialised field.

Well first of all, it's impossible today to specialise in many things. So realistically you can only be an expert in one area.

Having said that, I think it is important to have a general overview of lots of areas of inquiry. So yea, study physics, and read some basic psychology and philosophy. It's impossible however, to be an expert in physics, psychology and philosophy.

Personally I've done a science degree and an arts degree (in computer science and philosophy respectively), and while my career is in IT I still read philosophy in my spare time. What this means though is that I can never be an expert in philosophy. I simply don't have time to do both. So philosophy will always just be a hobby secondary to my expertise in IT.

what gave you the idea that this could be posted in science and math

Contribution to science, as >>3 says, is usually due to scientists with knowledge in several fields. However, as >>2 says, you can't really achieve anything without specialising in something.

You will need to first reach a level of speciality in one field before advancing into other fields. Also by the time you are an expert in a paticular field you will be in a better position to choose which direction would be beneficial. For instance you may discover that philosophy is more closely linked to a possible avenue for scientific advancment than psychology and focus on that instead.

>>6
Contribution to science, as >>3 says, is usually due to scientists with knowledge in several fields.
Bullshit, and that's not even what >>3 said.
The vast majority of contributions in science are done by specialists, and the stereotypical Renaissance Man is a tiny, tiny minority.

>>7
>>3 here and I said people have interests in other things. Of course it takes a massive talent to be an expert in different things and actually make contributions to more than one thing. Renaissance men were more common in past times for sure, when there wasn't so much to learn about a field. But I mean, people like Einstein found the time to write about politics. I don't think many people truly immerse themselves 100% in something for their whole life.

>>8
Einstein is a great example. As well as physics he taught philosophy (of science), was interested in politics, vegetarianism, etc. quite a broad range of interests.

>>9
Anyone with half a brain takes an interest in politics, and philosophy of science is a necessary prerequisite for doing good science, not a different field entirely.
As far as that goes, Einstein was just a regular scientist, not a Renaissance man.

If you want a decent example, at least take Schrödinger or something, fuck.