According to Pirsig, a person understands the world in one of two ways. He is either a classical thinker who subdivides systems and searches for underlying form, or a romantic thinker who acts based on intuition and emotions. Classical thinkers rely on rationality, logic, and--more often then not--science, to understand the world and solve problems. Romantic thinkers solve problems and perceive their world based on emotion and instinct. Pirsig asserts that romantic thinkers consider what an object is, while classical thinkers consider what an object means. Essentially this means that romantic thinkers operate based on how experiences make them/others feel, while classical thinkers contemplate the rational implications of an experience.
I think I am a romantic thinker, although I often show classical tendencies. I frequently make lists and compartmentalize experiences, which is a classical inclination, but ultimately I am most focused on emotions and instincts and feelings. While romanticism has often been condemned as the “shallow” brand of thinking, I think romantic thinkers are just those who operate on instinct and place import on emotions rather than logic. My favorite painting is called “The Singing Butler”, and I could not for the life of me write a paper on why I like it so much. My love for the painting is not any less valid than anyone else’s; it is simply founded feelings rather than reasoning.
So, having said that, I do think both ways of looking at the world are valid. I wouldn’t say they are “irreconcilable with each other” because I think everyone inevitably has classical and romantic tendencies. They are only irreconcilable when the visual is pitted against the logical, when art is pitted against science, when feelings are pitted against reasoning. When this happens, of course, we must choose which type of understanding to follow. However, there are lots of circumstances in which our romantic and classical senses work together. I don’t think the romantic thinker is necessarily opposed to the mental knife which subdivide systems, just as I don’t think the classical thinker is necessarily opposed to doing what feels right or what is visually appealing. If you like a car because it's exciting, attractive, fast, safe, efficient, and feels right, your classical and romantic understandings aren’t working against each other, but with each other.
I was really pleased that you made the point that both methods of thinking can work together all the time or when making decisions (like what type of car to get) and that both views are valid methods of understanding. However, in that moment when the two ways of thought are pitted against each other and you choose either classical or romantic reactions/approaches, does that define what type of thinker you are predominantly? Does that mean that one way of thinking is better than the other, or would it be possible to have both ways of thinking at the same time? Either way, you still made some very good points.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your definition of classical vs. romantic thinking. I also like how you said “romantic thinkers operate based on how experiences make them/others feel, while classical thinkers contemplate the rational implications of an experience.” Later in your post you say that there are lots of circumstances in which our romantic and classical senses work together. I also agree with this statement because I believe that in many circumstances we require both romantic and classical thinking to solve many common issues/problems. For example in cases such as national security, the president is forced to use both classical and romantic thinking. I believe so because in this example, he is forced to act aggressively and strategically according to classical thinking, but he is also forced to act with compassion towards others according to romantic thinking.
ReplyDelete