Classical v.s Romantic understanding

According to Phaedrus, classical understanding is one that relies on reason and law and tries to find the underlying form of things. On the other hand, romantic understanding is primarily concerned with the appearances of things and relies on senses, emotions, and esthetic conscience. This is not to say that a romantic is completely oblivious of underlying realities or that a classical person does not appreciate the form and beauty of things. The difference is rather in the emphasis and the point of view each takes looking at the world around them. I, for one, am a strong believer in the need to understand the world as the world really is. Whether we as individuals find the world and its contents pleasing or not is secondary to our understanding of how our world works. It is this working and the laws of this world that determine the reality of our existence. Looking at a situation or a problem, my first inclination is to see how the situation has come about or how it has developped; how the problem affects me is secondary. This is not to say that I am not concerned with the effects of the world or forms around me, but I am convinced that to change those forms I need to first understand them. I cannot change what is not pleasing to me without understanding the form as a whole first. I guess this would make me classical. I would find myself in greater agreement with the author concerning this dichotomy were it not for the importance that I attach to change. I believe that our place in this world is to both understand our environment and to be pleased or not to be pleased by our environment but also to take the extra step to change what needs to be changed and improve what needs to be improved. This requires both understandings: how somehing works, what purpose it serves, as well as its desirability.