Classical understanding focuses on reasoning and logic, with the end goal being to come to a factual, objective conclusion about the concept or object in question. For example, if a classically-minded person were to hear a C major chord being played, they might think of the individual notes that make up that chord, and thus define the chord in terms of its components. After hearing the chord, they would come to the ultimate conclusion that a C major consists of a C, E, and G. However, little thought would be given to how the chord as a whole, or even the individual notes, actually sound. On the other hand, someone of romantic understanding might here the C major chord and consider its sound and texture. They might think about the emotions implied by the chord. They would likely consider the C chord as a whole and pass some form of judgment on it, but fail to find its underlying form. This is because romantic understanding deals with far more subjective observations, such as appearances and emotions.
Personally, I am a romantic thinker, but by no choice of my own, or at least by no conscious choice. I have always viewed the world through the lens of my emotions. Rather than my emotions clouding what I see, they actually become, or define, what I see. If a motorcycle looks cool, than to me its definition is no longer "an automotive vehicle with two in-line wheels" or even "a cool automotive vehicle with two in-line wheels." That motorcycle's definition is simply: "cool." It's not that I think that more factual definitions are of less value, they're just not what come to mind as I go through life.
I agree with the idea that "both [classical and romantic understanding] are valid ways of looking at the world although irreconcilable with each other." Dissecting somethings underlying form is just as legitimate as realizing how that thing makes you feel. However, while equally legitimate, the two concepts are largely incompatible because what it comes down to is this: classical understanding, contradicting the popular aphorism, stipulates that "the whole is equal to the some of its parts." Romantic understanding ignores the individual "parts" all together.
Alex
I appreciate your stating that your method of thinking is no choice of your own. It had never occured to me that thinking a certain way might be beyond ones control. As I pondered your statement, I realized that I do the same thing (in regards to things like motorcycles). However, I don't completely agree with you that the two concepts are incompatible. I think that the concepts complement each other and though different, they share traits and that makes them somewhat compatible.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your distinction between classical and romantic thinking, although I don't think that it is possible to have romanticism be your primary mode of thought. The problem with it is that it sets you up for potential failure later in life when you are presented with a task you don't want to do.
ReplyDeleteI think that people think romantically to varying degrees, but if there were truly romantic thinkers that existed, they would never get anything done.