Robert Pirsig divides human understanding into two categories: romantic and classical. A romantic understanding is the shallower of the two, and sees the world only by its immediate surface or appearance. A classical understanding is the deeper of the two, and sees the world as an “underlying form itself”, or as something whose true meaning can be found below the initial appearance.
I myself can relate to both the romantic and classical understandings of the world. In my opinion, or at least for me, the two go hand in hand. One of my favorite types of cars to spot on the street is an Audi convertible. I find those Audis to be some of the nicest looking vehicles on the market. My physical attraction towards Audis shows a romantic understanding. However at the same time, I am also aware of the fact that the looks to car aren’t always everything. The speed, handling, and internal endurance of a car are as equally important. It’s never wise of the driver of an Audi convertible to laugh at a 1990 Honda Accord with chipped paint pulling up beside him at a traffic light. Just a moment later when that light turns green, that Accord could easily rev it’s engine into overdrive and hit 60 miles per hour in three seconds leaving the shiny convertible in the dust. I witnessed this exact event on Wisconsin Avenue last week, and it gave me a good laugh. The Honda Accord owner keeps his car’s engine and other internal mechanisms in tip top shape while not worrying as much about it’s immediate appearance. He displays a perfect example of the classical understanding. When the time comes for me to own, design, and tweak my own car, I will remember the Honda Accord driver and keep in mind the fact that my car’s external appearance is not everything.
Pirsig states that both the classical and romantic understandings of the world are both “valid ways of looking at the world although irreconcilable with each other.” While I do agree that both classical and romantic understanding are both valid ways to view the world, I disagree that they are irreconcilable with each other. As I said before, I believe that there are many cases in which the two go hand in hand. To name an example, when someone is attracted to someone else, that may mean that they find the other person to be physically attractive, or that they may find their personality to be attractive. Seeing the other person only by their physical attractiveness would be viewing them solely through a romantic understanding. Taking the attractiveness of their personality into account would be viewing them through a classical understanding. In many cases, one will see another as attractive through both their physical and personality traits. So while it is definitely possible to see parts of our lives through only one of the understandings, it is not impossible for the two of them to overlap.
I agree with your point that classical and romantic understantdings are both ways to view the world. I also agree that the two go hand in hand. I really liked the example where you talked about when someone is attracted to someone else. The example perfectly shows how classical and romantic can exist together.
ReplyDelete