Monday, April 13, 2009
Romanticism
After discussing Romanticism in class on Thursday, I have come to find myself in agreement with the writers and artists of this era. Before this era, the writers and philosophers of the time were obsessed with finding reason and truth in every aspect of human life. They devoted their time to deciphering the human mind and actions, which is almost a lost cause in my opinion. The mind is so complex, why not move onto a part of humans that is a lot more blatant...feelings. Romanticists were obsessed with people who feel and create feeling rather than what goes on in the head. I think that people are so uptight at times with learning and intellect that if they took a minute to tap into their feelings and emotions they would see a change may be in order. Although I did not read all of Goethe, I found some messages in this book very real. On page 85 Goethe talks about how lived experience is more than what a person would learn from books. I completely agree with this statement. Life is hard and there isnt a book out there that will teach you how to live it right. Experiences on the other hand teach people lessons and how to better handle a situation the next time it occurs. I also liked when Goethe says life is composed of bliss, misery, and strength. There are things in life that are indeed blissful whether it be the birth of a son or daughter or marriage. There are also things in life that are miserable, like death, but there is strength in people that allow them to endure. Goethe had a correct outlook on life, in my opinion, because of his ability to trust his emotions and explore his heart. Again, I agree with the outlook the romanticists had and I think that if the philosophers of the time would have taken a page out of their book, they would have realized how much more life is about than arguing over who's method to truth is the best.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I completely agree with the fact that Romanticism had more purpose than previous cognitive ideologies. While some may argue that focusing on the mind is the most interesting, it is definitely not the most internally satisfying. The main goal of most people is to fulfill their own goals of happiness. This happiness comes in different forms, but I think this is a fact that every person can agree on this fact. To ponder how we think is an infinitely subjective action; every viewpoint is not without bias because we are doing the thinking. To study feelings is also a biased process, but it is easier to measure.
ReplyDeleteAs for Goethe's outlook on life...I can agree that life is made up of bliss, misery and strength. I, however, do not agree with how he proportions these. The most important of these feelings is bliss. Even in little amounts, bliss can give us the strength to survive life. And unlike Goethe, I feel that life is true happiness that death can never have.
I agree with a lot of what both of you have said. With regards to Romanticism, I truly feel that philosophers were focusing too much on finding a finite truth in everything that humans do. Why can't these actions just "happen"? Going off of what Hope stated, I agree that certain feelings and emotions are much more easy to figure out. They are also more interesting than figuring out why someone is "thinking" something. Emotions like love, affection, compassion, and disappointment are so interesting that people enjoy figuring out why we feel the way we feel. Everyone has emotions and if I was a philosopher, I would be so interested in why I feel these things.
ReplyDeleteI too found myself in agreement with the writers and artists of this era. This may be because I am not as logical when it comes to my thinking and that i prefer emotion over intellect. Romanticism demonstrated that the world does not have to be logical in its thinking, but rather the emotional purpose behind everything. Going with what Jake said, some may be intellectually satisfied but lack emotional satisfaction. To me, knowing why we feel the way we do is more stimulating then trying to figure out how to be reasonable and deductive or inductive. As far as Goethe is concerned, I do believe that life has it's ups and downs like a valley, but it is what we do when we are down that measures true character in someone.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the Enlightenment thinkers spent too much time obsessing over truth and reason. The reason that they obsessed over truth and reason was so that they could attempt to understand their own tumultuous times and try to justify their ideas on why humans are the way they are. Something these people did not take into account was feelings and emotions, part of the reason why people do certain things like war are because of feelings. Nobody reasonably thinks that killing off several thousand or more people in a war is a good idea; they base war on feelings such as revenge and anger. The Romanticism age contributed to many of the famous works that we know today and Goethe was one of these. Werther is a character that sees life in terms of emotions and that makes it life good, even in his suicide, he is making the world better. If Werther had simply seen everything from a scientific perspective, what kind of novel would that have been? All of his interactions and experiences would have been boring and useless because he would not have realized that his suicide would be the ultimate showing of his love for Lotte. If Werther had been like an Enlightenment thinker, he would have been miserable all the time. I agree with the original post when they say that life is hard and that there is not a book on how to live. My mom always says there is a difference between book smarts and street smarts. Enlightenment thinkers are book smarts, they know a lot of information, but they have no idea how to realistically apply it to the real world or how to truly live in the real world. Having street smarts involves being able to adapt to surrounding situations, and one does that with feelings and then logic. Romanticism was a necessary movement that has shaped today’s society.
ReplyDeleteI really wonder if the creators of classical works like Candide and works of the romanticism era such as the sorrows of young Werther had any idea about the conscious and subconscious. It seems that while Freude had yet to exist in the 17th and 18th century his ideas were certainly around. The above bolg depicts beautifully how romanticism reflects feeling or the subconscious and the classical style represents reason or as Freude calls it the Super Ego.
ReplyDeleteI too feel that the writers of the Romanticism era were incredibly wise for writing about human emotions and not just philosophy. I wonder what exactly brought about this change, maybe people were just sick of hearing every individuals take on the meaning of life.
ReplyDeleteThis post mentioned how lived experiences are more important than anything you can read about in a book. I couldn't agree more with this statement. I think any college student would tell you that although they learn a lot from their books, they learn more useful information just by talking with friends or taking care of themselves.
I think the reason so many people agree with this post is because Romanticism hasn't real died out. Most movies and books today deal first with the emotions of characters. Even though there is always a message behind every story, people are drawn to feelings first.
I agree along with everyone else when it comes to fact that romanticism is just plain old more interesting to me than the enlightenment era. Hope brought up an excellent point in my mind when she talks about the fact that it is almost a waste of time to try and figure out what is going on in our own minds. I cannnot figure out what is going on in my own mind let alone what an artist was thinking when they painted a work. This is why i find Romanticism much more appealing. In terms of literature, the strong sense of emotion and the aesthetic experience that Goethe mastered in his works of Faust and The Sorrows of Young Werther jump out to me.I believe the unanimous preference towards romanticism is a reflection of modern society. Much like what Tim has briefly mentioned, I agree that modern day society portrays alot more romantic qualities than those of the enlightenment era. Modern society is obsessed with feelings, emotions and aesthetic elements of works. In modern society i rarely catch myself thinking about reason and finding truth in anything. Quite transversely, i find myself wondering how people are feeling and how certain stimuli can effect the emotions of those around me. In my opinion the preference towards romanticism in most of these replys is a tribute to many lingering effects of romanticism in todays society.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the Romantics in that it is important for one to gain personal experience rather than simply relying on books and second-hand knowledge. It is vital for people to discover the world for themselves and make develop their own beliefs. I think that this movement was important, as it was in the wake of the Enlightenment. For years, so much emphasis was being put on facts and reason. Emotions were not trusted or seen as important.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I think that the Romantics were a bit too extreme. Several Romantics (including Lord Byron) went to fight in the Greek War of Independence, because they idealized war and its passions/strong emotions. Some believed that the more gruesome ones death is (consumption was a favorite), the better.