Classical vs Romantic

A person of the romantic understanding views the world partially, from their personal view point. They describe things in relation to themselves (feelings, opinions, etc.) not in scientific measurements. A person of the classical understanding views the world completely unemotionally, objectively, directly, and without adornment. A romantic would see the outward and obvious surface of an object or result of an idea, whereas a classical thinker would see the hidden, underlying idea behind the result/resulting surface. For example, a romantic thinker would describe a piece of music as smooth, choppy, marvelous, horrible, moving, flat, or something to that effect. A classical thinker would simply state which notes had which type of hertz and resonance, no personal emotion or opinion because a person is not a part of the piece, so neither is their comment or opinion. Similarly, if a romantic thinker were to see a computer breakdown and begin to spark (I don’t even know if computers do that, but just go with it) they would say the computer is broken, everything is on fire! A classical thinker would say the cpu/monitor/insert specific computer part here is on fire, something must have caused the malfunction, other parts are fine, then they would systematically (using the scientific method) figure out the problem and a solution. Romantics see the whole, while classicists see the intricate parts that form the overall core idea. I’m going to be in the probably large group of people saying I’m not sure which type of thinker I am. I am pretty sure I am in the exact middle, with a little bit of both. For example, when I see a baseball pitcher pitch, I’m not only impressed with how fast the ball goes or how much the ball moves, but also by the very fact that the art of moving a sphere at considerably high speeds (by high speeds I mean as fast or faster than a car speeding on a highway), propelled by only a human body from rest has been mastered, but also that there is a whole system specifically made to do so. When I see a person dance, I’m not only impressed by the grace or beauty of the motions, but also by the fact that the human brain, skeleton, and muscle structure are able to produce such results. When I see a flower, I see the physical beauty, and the beauty of the functional parts that allow the flower to come to life (the complex array of roots, the systems expertly evolved to move water and sugars throughout the whole plant, even against gravity, etc). I could go on, but I’d probably just bore you, so I hope you got my point. Or got something from this long entry.