I sent the mods a message before posting this question because I know how serious moderation is around here.
As of late, I've been very interested in current events. I spend hours researching what is going around all over the world in terms of politics, government, etc.
However, once I start, questions come by the dozens. I end up having to learn current and old history in order to feel like I have a realistic grasp of things.
I'll look at it from all relative perspectives. Religion, economic, ethics, politics, geography. Basically, I have to know everything about a country/'s before I can move on to actually thinking about the initial thing.
My question is, how much can one person actually learn about all the things I mentioned? How many of these things can one person call themselves a "master" in?
I know it's a bit of an odd question but I'm wondering whether or not it's even reasonable for me to try.
Again, thanks for reading and I hope no one finds issues with my post.
can one person call themselves a "master" in?
I'm not sure what that means. You usually research a particular topic, then you become an authority on speaking on a particular topic. When people talk about that particular topic, then they will reference your work and hold it up against newer research. The work you've invested into that topic, is the amount of respect you'll get. Also, you're not a master, in the rigid sense. People make mistakes, and later on, that will have to be corrected.
For example, let's say you wanted to recreate a late 14th to 15th century white armor or interested in knightly effigies from England. You will most likely come to know the name Tobias Capwell, because he researched the topic for decades and produced content for the public (museums curator, author, practical tests, etc.). I would consider Tobias Capwell an authority on speaking on late medieval English armour or English effigies. This doesn't mean he doesn't make mistakes, or that there can't be different interpretations based on the same evidence.