I consider myself to be a classical thinker. Whenever I go on a backpacking trip, I have to pack my backpack. An important part about hiking is to pack as little as possible, but still being able to bring everything that you need. When I plan out what I have to bring I have to look at everything on my list classically, break this equipment down to their components, and see if I can possibly take things off my list and still be alright. For example, every trip I go on I bring a bandana with me. At first glance it looks like a piece of clothe. However, I am able to see it as a potential towel, a pillow, a bandage if someone requires first aid, a mark on a trail, pot holder, a simple camera cleaner, and a lot more. That's because I don't see the material as just a piece of clothe that can only be used to wrap around your head, but I see it as a tool that can be used for other potential tools. Thinking like this allows me to eliminate these objects from my list and makes my pack just that much lighter.
I agree with the narrator's statement that "both are valid ways of looking at the world although irreconcilable with each other.” A person definitely has the ability to look at the world in both ways, but when it comes down to one topic, you are only going to to see it one way or the other, and not both. Thinking classically is the opposite of thinking romantically and it would be impossible to do both at the same time because they completely contradict each other. One person might not be able to see a bandana as a tool like I do, and a lot of times those people are going to overpack for the trip.
No comments:
Post a Comment