Post 7

In Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, the classical perspective is defined by the use of logic and rationality, and the examination of the underlying forms of things. In other words, the classical mode of thinking is a focus on what a thing means. The romantic point of view, on the other hand, is a focus on what a thing is. It uses feelings and inspiration based off of whatever is immediately apparent, without much regard to underlying structure.

I tend to use primarily the classical mode of thinking. I am persuaded more by facts than feelings in an argument, and am more interesting in studying science over art (though I do like both). While I can appreciate artistic beauty, I need to see a greater underlying point to really enjoy something. For example, I did not really enjoy the novel Girl with a Pearl Earring, because the writer used a very descriptive, metaphor-laden style for the sole purpose of making the writing seem beautiful (to mimic the style of a painting). This didn’t seem to have much point beyond creating beauty, and as a result I did not like the book very much.

I do agree that the two modes of thought have value and are irreconcilable with one another, but think it’s necessary to add that an individual can switch between one mode and the other. Very few people will approach everything from purely the classical mode or purely the romantic mode all of the time. For example, though I use primarily the classical point of view, I am able to look at a painting and be awed by its beauty (using the romantic point of view). I can then examine it more carefully and see the different techniques the artist used to create the painting’s overall effect (using the classical point of view), and the awe at seeing what the painting is will be replaced with appreciation of what the painting means. Both modes of thought will therefore provoke meaningful reactions, but cannot be used simultaneously.