I would not consider myself to be the epitome of either side, but I definitely think I'm inclined to the classic side of things. I find I like sorting things into lists and categories like a typical classic person would do. When I study I need everything to be sorted into it's correct group for it to make sense before I can learn it well. I make lists of reasons why, for instance, Germany unified under Prussia instead of Austria, and compare the two, because otherwise it doesn't make sense to me. I also find that I view art classically. At art museums I tend to walk quickly through because it all looks the same to me. However, when I know the history and background of a painting, I can spend much more time looking at it and appreciating it, as I now know the "underlying form". My interest isn't peaked just by the superficial appearance.
That is not to say that I lack any romantic aspects in my life whatsoever. The two classifications are not irreconciliable as the narrator of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance thinks they are. The classification of these two types is purely classical in the first place. A romantic probably would not see the same schism in human nature, and might consider themselves to have some classical features too. Even though the narrator protests that it cannot happen, a classic can definitely have romantic moments. When I look at flowers or a beautiful view I appreciate the superficial beauty. The classic view is at the very core romantic. To be a true classic, a person would have to go around looking at life as if it were just a bunch of molecules interacting, which doesn't explain things like love and friendship. I highly doubt that anyone always thinks like that.
I thought your examples for why you'd describe yourself as classical were really interesting, as they weren't thinks like motorcycles or rainbows but the classical view of art, which is mostly associated with the romantic view point. I also think your point that a romantic probably would not divide people this way. I agree with you that no one is all classical or all romantic. However, I don't see how "the classical view is at the very core romantic"? But other than that, bang up job, madam.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn’t say that romantic thought is superficial thought. I would probably say that it is based on your thoughts, and your opinions on things that work together. If anything classical view is what’s on the surface and just that. There is nothing mentally stimulating about it beyond 1+1=2. Or rather this connects to this connects to this. They are two entirely different schools of thought.
ReplyDeleteBut in a way aren’t we taught how to use both. Take the example of school, in English we are taught to write our opinions on things and how they relate to other things. In classes like science, math, and tech we are taught formulas and classical thinking like how to assemble things. The question here is are we being taught (conditioned?) to think classically. Most of the blog posts are stating that they are classical thinkers. I can say the same thing but I can definitely remember at one point I was a romanticist. So what happened.