The philosopher kierrkegaard apparently said that to be great you basically have to specialize and full commit to one thing while sacrificing everything else. You cant be a jake of all trades and master of all. How does this mesh with the idea of balance?

Who said being great would necessarily mean balanced? In any case, I think it's all relative to the individual.

Thank gawd history's most creative thinkers didn't believe that.

Leonardo Da Vinci comes to mind. Was it painting that he 'dabbled' in or was it engineering? or was it the combined advanced and in-depth skill at painting+engineering+anatomy that allowed him to excel in each of those fields? his knowledge in anatomy enabled him to paint with more realism. his knowledge of painting allowed him to draw technical engineering plans. his knowledge of engineering allowed him to materialize his ideas into application.

...the problem is, there aren't many Da Vinci's born every century....and there will be even less creative thinking by limiting people to specialize in one area.

I've found that the people who usually drum that mantra: 'jack of all, master of none', enjoy the 'balance' of the safety zone those words provide.

another way to think of balance is not falling over when things are shaken up.

Leonardo Davinci also didn't actually build or develope anyhting, he just made the early designs. Imagine what he could have done had he focused on only a couple areas. I guess oyu can either be great at one hting or be mediocre at many things, or if oyu are like Davinci be great at many things but be spectacular at one. You still need a little from other stuff though I think.

Balanced knowledge is necessary for continued advancement. A great many innovations spring from existing ideas combined in new ways rather than any great intellectual endeavour. An exhaustive knowledge of one subject will achieve very little, but that little achieved at the cutting edge will enable a hundred more who are less able, but more flexible, to advance further in other fields.

It occurs to me that there must have come a point where it became impossible to learn everything in a field without specialising. Newton was a scholar and leader in all sciences, it just happens that he is remembered for physics because it was in this field that his influence was the longest lasting.

Archimedes is another great scientist/mathemetician who did a lot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archimedes

Storm, your original question is interesting, but what do you mean by "balance" and what is the importance of said balance? Balance between what? Is balance necessary?

Blance in life activites. Trying to be great at everything vs. be amazing at one or 2 things. Specialization vs. generalization. Commiting vs. being half assed. that sort of thing. I hope that answers your question, I know htis is a very expansive topic though.

I mean you really cant fully commit to very many different areas. you can commit to several related and similar areas but not lot's of completely different ones. For example being a spectacular powerlifter and basketball player or something.
Anyway, no I'm pretty sure, in his day, maybe not all, but most of what Davinci designed he never actually built or even finished. That's what I've been taught. Even if we use it all today or most of it. And he would destroy his designs for some of his war machines becuase he was a pacifist I believe.