Thursday, May 13, 2010

Romantic? Classical?

Romantic and Classical viewpoints are both valid ways of looking at the world, although they seem to be polar opposites. "The discrimination is the division of the concious universe into parts." This is how Robert M. Pirsig defines the classical viewpoint. It is distinguishing and categorizing all things in the world. The classical viewpoint has rules, regulations, problems and solutions. It is built on logic. The romantic viewpoint on the other hand, is artistic and intuitive. It takes things at face value and doesn't try to break them up into smaller pieces as classical does. I think that the two viewpoints can be distinguished as scientifical and artistic. The question of which viewpoint I hold is tricky, because I believe I hold a bit of both. I like to get right to the point and understand objectively what is going on. I like math and science and I more easily believe and understand theories and situations based off of facts. I tend to think of all the possible outcomes in a situation and I'm a big fan of pro-con lists. But, on the other hand, I also love enjoying a beautiful landscape as a whole thing without breaking it up. I enjoy the countryside for its vastness, and I do not and would not try to distinguish the grass from the roots from where it meets the soil from the rocks from the pebbles. It all melds together into something very beautiful. I also enjoy thinking about emotions and subjective feelings, and analyzing how people act and think. But this can be considered classical as well as romantic because it can all be traced back to how and why the brain receptors react with different chemicals. I consider myself to have a classical viewpoint. I am always interested in the root of things and am fascinated by science. I tend to want to trace situations back to the roots and distinguish the parts, to come up with a solution. This is a very valid way of coming up with a solution, though. I disagree with this quote, as I, as well as everyone else, lives as a bit of both a Romantic and a Classical. It's impossible to live a life based only on science, because emotions affect many decisions. Even if one looks at the world very scientifically and factually, he or she is still perceptible to appreciate small beauties for their face value. In the same way, it would be difficult to live as only a Romantic. People have a natural tendency to want to know how and why and how something can be solved. It's natural to want to know the cause and root of things, in order to find a sensible answer. Therefore, I don't believe these two values are irreconsilable. They can and do coexist in many, or all, people.

4 comments:

  1. I do agree that both exist simultaneously in most individuals. However, isn't this truth problematic? How do you know which mode of understanding to use in any given situation? If two people were asked to solve a problem or answer a question - the first through classical understanding and the second through romantic understanding - both would most likely arrive at different conclusions. How do you know which is right and which is wrong? Wouldn't it be problematic if they arrived at two contradictory truths? It seems that the split within an individual undermines the true value of Truth itself, no?

    ReplyDelete
  2. i agree that both exist at the same time in most people. I can't think of how someone owuld only live as a romantic or a classic

    ReplyDelete
  3. I disagree with you in that people can be both classical and romantic at the same time. I liked the way you presented your argument, though. I also liked the way you referred to the two understandings as "scientific and artistic."

    ReplyDelete
  4. I liked your insight into something less concrete than physical aspects of the world, human emotions. It's kind of interesting to think about how we perceive other people's emotions classically and romantically, almost at the same time. Do we know somebody is sad because we identify that their eyes are puffy and watering and their eyes are red and then determine whether they are actually sad? Or, do we focus on the whole picture of this person being sad and from this general (less analytical) understanding know that the person before us is sad?

    Good post. Made me think a lot.

    ReplyDelete