classical vs. romantic

the classical way of viewing is the more analytical way of viewing things, breaking them down into the lists and functions that make up the larger object/being that is being thought of. an example of classical thinking is a scientific lab report or writeup. there are many different stages, materials and hypotheses that make up the greater object, being in this case, a science report.

a romantic way of viewing things is that of a sort of first impression or gut feeling of an object. an example of the romantic way of thinking is again the science report. a romantic view of this would be that it is not detailed lists and functions that go into the report, but just simply a scientific writeup on topic A.

although most people would like to see themselves as romantic thinkers, i believe that most people are in fact classical thinkers, as we are brought up in a society that thinks of things in a classical manner.

Classical vs. Romanticism

In Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, the author talks about human understanding in 2 different categories, romantic and classical. A romantic is more likely to see something as a whole, and then think about it that way. A classical person takes apart the object or idea and puts it into different categories to try and understand it better.
I mostly fit into the romantic category. For example when I see my dad fixing his electric car all I can see are pieces that make the car, I don’t really see the way each one works and how together they can make a car work, in that way I think I am romantic. Also in the book when the narrator was describing how John is romantic because he can’t fix the motorcycle himself and always just wants to bring it to a professional, that is just like me. I don’t like fixing things myself cause I feel like I am always going to break something, like with my laptop, I would rather just bring it to a professional.
I don’t think I fit into the classical category that much because I don’t need to break everything down to understand that it works. I think more like if it works, it works, and if it doesn’t, bring it to someone to fix it.
Although I feel like I fit only into one category, I definitely think both ways are valid ways at looking at the world. Having two different ways of human understanding makes people different and therefore makes the world more interesting. Classical thinkers break everything down and think about it more in depth, while romantic thinkers just think about things as a whole. They both are valid and both get the job done.

Classical vs. Romantic

In Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance the author divides up human understanding into classical and romantic. I feel that the classical perspective tends to break things down to it's foundation in order to truly understand its function while the romantic point of view bases its understanding on outside appearances, what they see. Romantic looks at feelings and actions while classical analyzes and dissects. Personally I think I can fall into both categories it just all depends on the situation. In school I am often taught in Math classes to think classically to get to a specific answer, but if I am given a creative piece to do for English I think romantically to write my best work. When I first meet people I may base the person off what I see right in front of me and as time goes by really try to find out what kind of person they are. Honestly I agree that both are valid ways at looking at the world and therefore both needed to understand what's around you. Both offer different points of view of the world like the right and left side of your brain. The left side of your brain deals with mostly logic and facts, while the right uses more feelings and imagination. You need both perspectives to help better understand this world even though at times one becomes more dominate.

Classic vs Romantic

I believe that a classical way of thinking is that you think of things in more of a technical way. A classical thinker would break things apart and figure out what gets connected to what and how it works. This would be like wondering how a computer works on the inside and what makes it be able to perform.

On the other hand, romantic thinking is more looking at something and taking it for what it is. This would be more looking at something and not really trying to figure out what it is made of, or what makes it work. Some one who was a romantic would look at a computer turn it on and not really ever think about what’s going on inside of it.

I personally feel that I look at things from a romantic’s perspective. When I see something technology related, I personally react as a romantic would. I don’t really care about why it’s doing what it is doing as long as it is happening. So if I sit down and turn on my computer, I don’t think about why its running or how its running, as long as it works.

I agree with the narrator, in that they are both valid ways of looking at the world but they dot really mix well. I feel this way because they sort of cancel each other out. No one really wants to break processes down as well as just wanting to see things for the way that they are.

The narrator of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance divides human understanding into two categories: classical and romantic. Those who fall into the classical category look at the underlying form of things. They break things down to the components rather than just looking at the surface. The romantic model is more creative and intuitive, leaving less room for precise technological mechanisms. I would categorize myself as a romantic. At first glance, I tend to look more at the surface of things rather than picking apart the components piece by piece. I look at things as a whole rather than individual systems. If something is not immediately appealing to me often times I will not give it a second thought. Jon Dutko is the perfect illustration of this tendency. If I took the time to dissect and break him down into components, I imagine he'd be an okay guy, but since I am not a classical thinker, I see him as the attention starved individual that he presents himself as, and that does not appeal to me. I prefer to look at the simple beauty of things, rather than scrutinizing each and every aspect of life. I agree with the narrator that “both are valid ways of looking at the world although irreconcilable with each other.” Classical thinking involves a more technological way of looking at things than romantic, but i don't believe that makes romantic thinking any less valid. I agree that the two cannot be brought together because once classical thinking kicks in and one begins breaking things down and looking for the underlying form, the basis of romantic thinking, creativity and imagination, are stripped from the thinker's mind and he becomes more focused on the science of whatever it is he is looking at rather than the artistic beauty of it. Similarly, if one wishes to view things as a romantic does, there is no room for the scientific breakdown that is the process of a classical thinker.

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.

Classical and Romantic

As the narrator of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance states, the classical mind sees what things are, breaking a thing down into parts and functions. The romantic mind sees what things mean, generally by looking at a thing as a whole. Take, for example, the old beer can that the narrator wanted to use as a shim: the classical mind sees the chemical composition of the metal which leads to its function as a shim while the romantic mind sees it as simply an old beer can. A classical understanding leads one to think in terms of components and small details while a romantic mind leads one to think of the larger picture.

As an artist, I have seen my work from both perspectives. When I am working on a painting, I consider the materials I am using and the composition of said materials, which will lead to the finished product having the desired colors and textures. However, I also take a figurative and literal step back from the work to consider what the piece as a whole will look like and, more importantly, what it represents.

I agree with the narrator that both classical and romantic understandings are valid ways of looking at the world. They are irreconcilable, however, because of the contrast of the viewpoints. One can’t think romantically and classically at the same time, simply because of the limits of the human brain. In the same way that a person can’t be in two places at once, a mind can’t be in two places at one time either.