Monday, December 26, 2016
Blog post #3 Answer
In the book " Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance", the narrator separates classical and romantic into 2 different outlooks. He talks about how those think the classical way base things mostly on law and reason. Those who think the romantic way base things on imaginative and creative ways of thinking.
In my opinion, I see myself as more romantic. The reason why I say that is because my thinking is based on creativity. Everything I do I'm mostly creative and imaginative. But I also see myself as an classical thinker as well. Based on the fact that I calculate most things I do. I never been perfect in things I did, but honestly if I had to choose I would just stay the way I am. While I have values on both sides, I think I lean more towards a romantic way of thinking. In things I do, I'm just creative about it and I'll like to keep it that way.
I'm a mix of both classical and romantic. But I'm filled with more imaginative and creativity. I'll never be perfect at everything I do and I'm absolutely fine with that. That's how i see myself. But maybe in the future I could be completely opposite.
I do agree with the narrator when he says " both are valid ways of looking at the world although irreconcilable with each other". I agree with him because they are many people in this world that lean towards classical ways of thinking and romantic ways of thinking. It just all depends on the person and how they use their way of thinking.
Friday, December 23, 2016
BOSWELL'S RESPONSE TO BLOG POST #3
Wow! You and your classmate’s responses to this post made for some terrific reading. I'm really pleased with the honesty of the responses and the level of detail--I saw some serious introspection here, and a lot of trying to get to the bottom of things, which is EXACTLY what a good blog post does.
What I noticed was the majority of you felt that:
1. You felt the classical mode of understanding and the romantic mode of understanding were both valuable.
2. You took a romantic approach toward understanding some things and took a classical approach to understanding others.
3. That classical and romantic approaches to understanding were indeed irreconcilable, suggesting that they don’t compliment each other.
Because you all thought along the same lines, I wanted to offer up a group response to your posts, rather than responding to each individual post. To be honest, I was a little confused by your conclusions. Most of you admit to using both approaches to understanding yet you also say both understandings go together about as well as oil and water. Below is a follow up question for you to ponder:
Since you admit to using both, do you have a reason for using one mode of understanding over the other?
a. If so, what is it? (Because if there’s a good reason for using one mode at one point and another mode at another point, then they’re not really irreconcilable are they?)
b. If you don’t have a reason for using one over the other—and my guess is most of you don’t—then hadn’t you better simply choose sides? Why on earth use both modes at random? What kind of understanding do you get when you flip flop modes without reason?
Another thing I’d like for you to consider:
Are you really as romantic in your thinking as you think you are?
Dare I suggest that you—as the inheritors of the technological fruit brought about hundreds of years of classical thinking in the Western world—are all actually people who function in the classical mode almost exclusively? Isn’t it true that most of say we also think romantically because we are afraid to fully “come out of the classical closet” because we fear being labeled “square” or “uncool”? Think about it. How many of you do things on a whim? How many of you fail to look both ways before you cross the street instinctually trusting it will work out okay? How many of you think about consequences before you break a rule? Some of you may wear your hair differently or dress differently, but how differently? Aren’t your choices still calculated for effect? Isn’t the truth that living and comprehending the world using a romantic mind set is actually quite difficult in our technological, rational society? Admit it: don’t you think rationally a lot more than you want to think or admit you do?
In the 60s, a huge split developed between a classic culture and a romantic counterculture—two worlds growingly alienated and hateful toward each other with everyone wondering if it will always be this way. This split between those who embrace technological change and those who resist it obviously still exists, but not as much any more. Didn’t classical understanding win the day with a vengeance? Of course, we’re not exactly proud to admit it. We want to keep up romantic appearances.
Is this not what Steve Jobs has attempted to tap into and to profit from by creating a computer with romantic appeal? Apple has been particularly style conscious and has attempted to make the interface as transparent as possible—it’s got romantic appeal. What Jobs realized is that even though most of us don’t think romantically, we all like to think we do. Consider his TV marketing strategy: PCs are for suits and people with no personality—classical thinkers—individuals choose Apple computers—that Mac guy is so hip! But aren’t we just kidding ourselves? It is still a computer, isn’t it??? Aren’t Apple buyers just like John with his BMW motorcycle? It’s still a motorcycle but he doesn’t want to admit he values the classical vision that made it possible. But perhaps I digress…
Whether we’re closet “classical thinkers” or not, Pirsig believes there is still a real problem with the classic / romantic split. Most of you admitted, both approaches have value, but you also admitted they are irreconcilable with each other. There’s no clear way to live your life in both modes. It’s not that you can’t, but you end up being hypocritical since in the end you just mix modes with no rhyme or reason.
But just what is the nature of this crisis Pirsig feels is around us? While he never explicitly states it, at fundamental level it concerns our confused relationship with technology. Technology has fragmented our relationship with nature (which technology appropriates), each other (technology makes human interaction less necessary), and ourselves (technology can distract us from our own concerns). To quote Andrew Sneddon, Associate Professor of the Department of Philosophy, Ottawa University: “Seemingly indifferent to human values and developing under its own logic, technology increasingly isolates us from our natural environment, from one another, and even from ourselves. For though we may be in touch with Belgrade or Tokyo, our lives have lost much temporal and spatial wholeness or sanity. We are often physically and even emotionally closer to fabricated media "personalities" than we are to the person across the breakfast table. Yet whereas we are never left alone by our technology, we are increasingly lonely, alienated from our deepest selves. For we have lost touch with our own feelings, being educated to ignore them in order to function in a technological world. …We are so uneducated about our inner feelings that we only learn to talk about them when we "break down," and have to be repaired by the analyst, at the Group, or in the asylum. For, we learn, our feelings distort our "objective" perceptions, and thus prevent us from functioning like our machines. In this vein, Andy Warhol wryly recalls that he had always wanted to be like a machine, for then it was easier to get along with people. We thus find ourselves fragmented, our feelings alienated from our world, our lives as well as our literature being characterizable by T. S. Eliot's phrase, ‘dissociation of sensibility.’"
Parallel to this public, cultural crisis of technologically-induced fragmentation, Pirsig faces his own personal crisis of fragmentation or "madness." Some years earlier he had been declared clinically insane, and underwent electro-shock therapy to annihilate his mad personality. This earlier self, whom he now calls "Phaedrus," had gone mad as a result of a search for Truth which led him ultimately to repudiate Reason itself. Pursuing the "ghost of reason" through Western science, Eastern philosophy, and rhetoric, Phaedrus found Reason to be "emotionally hollow, esthetically meaningless and spiritually empty" (Pirsig 110). But he had no place to flee; and, without an alternative to Reason, he simply went mad. Pirsig's personal crisis arises when he encounters and is forced to struggle with his earlier self, the haunting figure of Phaedrus who now beckons him back into madness.
The crisis of technology demands a response; for as in all crises a failure to act itself functions as an action. One response is to flee, as Pirsig's friends John and Sylvia do in trying to escape the "death force" which they see in technology. But being economically dependent on technology, they cannot effectively flee, and are forced to take refuge in a false romanticism (like we all tend to do—especially Mac users!!) which leaves them impotently resentful of technology.
But if flight is not a solution, equally dangerous is the failure to see the crisis as a crisis, and to respond as if one were merely encountering another "problem" to be solved with procedures which employ and reinforce the very technology which constitutes the crisis. Such a response is made by those whom he labels "classicists," people who would argue that if we are low on fossil fuel we simply need build nuclear power plants; or if threatened by swifter missiles simply construct a sophisticated missile-defense shield. For Pirsig, such a failure to perceive the crisis may well ultimately lead to annihilation. Pirsig does not explicitly reject the use of "technological" means to solve technological problems; he encourages, for example, well-tuned motorcycles, precise door latches and non-leaking faucets. His object of attack is not all technologies or even technological capacities; rather it is what he calls a technological "attitude" which fails to perceive the limitations of technique and the values implicit in its use.
To respond adequately to his crises, Pirsig finds that he must reject the tendency to act as if he were simply solving another "problem." For in this and in many crises, we do not yet encounter a clear-cut "problem" or well-formulated puzzle to solve with conventional procedures. A crisis is a rip or tear in the fabric of our understanding, a rupture which demonstrates the very inadequacy of our procedures. Further, we must often cut through the current inadequate formulations of "problems" in the crisis in order to reveal its real disjunctions. For the inadequate formulations, with their deceptively adequate procedures, perpetuate both the crisis and our inability to grasp it. As Richard Coe argues, "the decision to perceive whatever you are investigating as a 'problem' is already a bias and contains an implicit decision about the appropriate procedures to follow. Many of our current and recent crises result in some degree from the biases implicit in 'problem-solving' procedures" (Coe 64).
To respond adequately to a crisis we must disclose our presuppositions and formulate a new way of perceiving and functioning. Pirsig is going to do this in your future chapters by creating a whole new paradigm of rationality—hang on to your hats folks.
What I noticed was the majority of you felt that:
1. You felt the classical mode of understanding and the romantic mode of understanding were both valuable.
2. You took a romantic approach toward understanding some things and took a classical approach to understanding others.
3. That classical and romantic approaches to understanding were indeed irreconcilable, suggesting that they don’t compliment each other.
Because you all thought along the same lines, I wanted to offer up a group response to your posts, rather than responding to each individual post. To be honest, I was a little confused by your conclusions. Most of you admit to using both approaches to understanding yet you also say both understandings go together about as well as oil and water. Below is a follow up question for you to ponder:
Since you admit to using both, do you have a reason for using one mode of understanding over the other?
a. If so, what is it? (Because if there’s a good reason for using one mode at one point and another mode at another point, then they’re not really irreconcilable are they?)
b. If you don’t have a reason for using one over the other—and my guess is most of you don’t—then hadn’t you better simply choose sides? Why on earth use both modes at random? What kind of understanding do you get when you flip flop modes without reason?
Another thing I’d like for you to consider:
Are you really as romantic in your thinking as you think you are?
Dare I suggest that you—as the inheritors of the technological fruit brought about hundreds of years of classical thinking in the Western world—are all actually people who function in the classical mode almost exclusively? Isn’t it true that most of say we also think romantically because we are afraid to fully “come out of the classical closet” because we fear being labeled “square” or “uncool”? Think about it. How many of you do things on a whim? How many of you fail to look both ways before you cross the street instinctually trusting it will work out okay? How many of you think about consequences before you break a rule? Some of you may wear your hair differently or dress differently, but how differently? Aren’t your choices still calculated for effect? Isn’t the truth that living and comprehending the world using a romantic mind set is actually quite difficult in our technological, rational society? Admit it: don’t you think rationally a lot more than you want to think or admit you do?
In the 60s, a huge split developed between a classic culture and a romantic counterculture—two worlds growingly alienated and hateful toward each other with everyone wondering if it will always be this way. This split between those who embrace technological change and those who resist it obviously still exists, but not as much any more. Didn’t classical understanding win the day with a vengeance? Of course, we’re not exactly proud to admit it. We want to keep up romantic appearances.
Is this not what Steve Jobs has attempted to tap into and to profit from by creating a computer with romantic appeal? Apple has been particularly style conscious and has attempted to make the interface as transparent as possible—it’s got romantic appeal. What Jobs realized is that even though most of us don’t think romantically, we all like to think we do. Consider his TV marketing strategy: PCs are for suits and people with no personality—classical thinkers—individuals choose Apple computers—that Mac guy is so hip! But aren’t we just kidding ourselves? It is still a computer, isn’t it??? Aren’t Apple buyers just like John with his BMW motorcycle? It’s still a motorcycle but he doesn’t want to admit he values the classical vision that made it possible. But perhaps I digress…
Whether we’re closet “classical thinkers” or not, Pirsig believes there is still a real problem with the classic / romantic split. Most of you admitted, both approaches have value, but you also admitted they are irreconcilable with each other. There’s no clear way to live your life in both modes. It’s not that you can’t, but you end up being hypocritical since in the end you just mix modes with no rhyme or reason.
But just what is the nature of this crisis Pirsig feels is around us? While he never explicitly states it, at fundamental level it concerns our confused relationship with technology. Technology has fragmented our relationship with nature (which technology appropriates), each other (technology makes human interaction less necessary), and ourselves (technology can distract us from our own concerns). To quote Andrew Sneddon, Associate Professor of the Department of Philosophy, Ottawa University: “Seemingly indifferent to human values and developing under its own logic, technology increasingly isolates us from our natural environment, from one another, and even from ourselves. For though we may be in touch with Belgrade or Tokyo, our lives have lost much temporal and spatial wholeness or sanity. We are often physically and even emotionally closer to fabricated media "personalities" than we are to the person across the breakfast table. Yet whereas we are never left alone by our technology, we are increasingly lonely, alienated from our deepest selves. For we have lost touch with our own feelings, being educated to ignore them in order to function in a technological world. …We are so uneducated about our inner feelings that we only learn to talk about them when we "break down," and have to be repaired by the analyst, at the Group, or in the asylum. For, we learn, our feelings distort our "objective" perceptions, and thus prevent us from functioning like our machines. In this vein, Andy Warhol wryly recalls that he had always wanted to be like a machine, for then it was easier to get along with people. We thus find ourselves fragmented, our feelings alienated from our world, our lives as well as our literature being characterizable by T. S. Eliot's phrase, ‘dissociation of sensibility.’"
Parallel to this public, cultural crisis of technologically-induced fragmentation, Pirsig faces his own personal crisis of fragmentation or "madness." Some years earlier he had been declared clinically insane, and underwent electro-shock therapy to annihilate his mad personality. This earlier self, whom he now calls "Phaedrus," had gone mad as a result of a search for Truth which led him ultimately to repudiate Reason itself. Pursuing the "ghost of reason" through Western science, Eastern philosophy, and rhetoric, Phaedrus found Reason to be "emotionally hollow, esthetically meaningless and spiritually empty" (Pirsig 110). But he had no place to flee; and, without an alternative to Reason, he simply went mad. Pirsig's personal crisis arises when he encounters and is forced to struggle with his earlier self, the haunting figure of Phaedrus who now beckons him back into madness.
The crisis of technology demands a response; for as in all crises a failure to act itself functions as an action. One response is to flee, as Pirsig's friends John and Sylvia do in trying to escape the "death force" which they see in technology. But being economically dependent on technology, they cannot effectively flee, and are forced to take refuge in a false romanticism (like we all tend to do—especially Mac users!!) which leaves them impotently resentful of technology.
But if flight is not a solution, equally dangerous is the failure to see the crisis as a crisis, and to respond as if one were merely encountering another "problem" to be solved with procedures which employ and reinforce the very technology which constitutes the crisis. Such a response is made by those whom he labels "classicists," people who would argue that if we are low on fossil fuel we simply need build nuclear power plants; or if threatened by swifter missiles simply construct a sophisticated missile-defense shield. For Pirsig, such a failure to perceive the crisis may well ultimately lead to annihilation. Pirsig does not explicitly reject the use of "technological" means to solve technological problems; he encourages, for example, well-tuned motorcycles, precise door latches and non-leaking faucets. His object of attack is not all technologies or even technological capacities; rather it is what he calls a technological "attitude" which fails to perceive the limitations of technique and the values implicit in its use.
To respond adequately to his crises, Pirsig finds that he must reject the tendency to act as if he were simply solving another "problem." For in this and in many crises, we do not yet encounter a clear-cut "problem" or well-formulated puzzle to solve with conventional procedures. A crisis is a rip or tear in the fabric of our understanding, a rupture which demonstrates the very inadequacy of our procedures. Further, we must often cut through the current inadequate formulations of "problems" in the crisis in order to reveal its real disjunctions. For the inadequate formulations, with their deceptively adequate procedures, perpetuate both the crisis and our inability to grasp it. As Richard Coe argues, "the decision to perceive whatever you are investigating as a 'problem' is already a bias and contains an implicit decision about the appropriate procedures to follow. Many of our current and recent crises result in some degree from the biases implicit in 'problem-solving' procedures" (Coe 64).
To respond adequately to a crisis we must disclose our presuppositions and formulate a new way of perceiving and functioning. Pirsig is going to do this in your future chapters by creating a whole new paradigm of rationality—hang on to your hats folks.
Response to Blog Post #3
The idea of Classical and Romance presented by the narrator of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance offers 2 outlooks of a person's personality in a way. He talks about how those who are in the Classical way of thinking are more calculated in the sense that they base things purely off reason and law, the opposite of the Romantics preference for creative and imaginative ways of thinking. This coupled with his opinion, seeing Romantics as irrational,erratic and of no substance, while on the other side Classical can be seen as dull and awkward. Combine to form to varying human understandings.
In my opinion I see myself as more classical based on the fact that I generally calculate what I do. But I also like to go with the flow as I see myself as more carefree. I've never been a perfectionist in anyway, nor do I ever want to be if I'm being honest. I dislike that form of living as well as hate the idea of being oppressive. So while I have both sides of the coin I think I edge a little bit more to the classical way of calculation, I sit listen to my music, keep to myself and observe my surroundings and I like to keep it that way. I'm loyal to a fault and would also consider myself to be very trustworthy for those I confide in(My Close Circle).
I'm a mix of both but filled with more calculation and analyzing but also am quick to make decisions and can be erratic at times. I'll never be a perfectionist and hope to never even consider it and I hate the idea of oppression. That's just how I see myself and for all I know I could be the complete opposite.
The Idea that these two ways are valid is fascinating as people always seem to have a "right way" to do things and wrong one.Which is mentioned by his talk of how these two ways are irreconcilable with one another because of our opinion on their paths they are on such different spectrums that there really is no way that they aren't compatible. But at the same time all of us have both sides to some degree whether we want to mention or not so when it comes down to it we are compatible due to our 2 sides.
In my opinion I see myself as more classical based on the fact that I generally calculate what I do. But I also like to go with the flow as I see myself as more carefree. I've never been a perfectionist in anyway, nor do I ever want to be if I'm being honest. I dislike that form of living as well as hate the idea of being oppressive. So while I have both sides of the coin I think I edge a little bit more to the classical way of calculation, I sit listen to my music, keep to myself and observe my surroundings and I like to keep it that way. I'm loyal to a fault and would also consider myself to be very trustworthy for those I confide in(My Close Circle).
I'm a mix of both but filled with more calculation and analyzing but also am quick to make decisions and can be erratic at times. I'll never be a perfectionist and hope to never even consider it and I hate the idea of oppression. That's just how I see myself and for all I know I could be the complete opposite.
The Idea that these two ways are valid is fascinating as people always seem to have a "right way" to do things and wrong one.Which is mentioned by his talk of how these two ways are irreconcilable with one another because of our opinion on their paths they are on such different spectrums that there really is no way that they aren't compatible. But at the same time all of us have both sides to some degree whether we want to mention or not so when it comes down to it we are compatible due to our 2 sides.
Thursday, December 22, 2016
Blog #3
Romantic and classical are the two categories of human thought that Phaedrus analyzed and categorized. Romantics see the world in terms of its surface and appearance, and are predisposed towards emotions and intuitions. They don’t usually take consequences into consideration and act based on what they feel at the moment. Classicals’ thought processings exemplify an analytical, rational approach to knowledge and understanding. Every action is weighted to see if it makes sense to do it; they don’t let emotions get to them.
I would say most people have characteristics from both categories, myself included. The biggest characteristic that makes me more of a romantic is choosing idealism over realism. I’m excited about how things should ideally be. I’m always looking forward to new things, even if I might not want change. I like to think I can change how some things are, because there are better alternatives to solve problems. It’s hard for me to understand that it’s not as simple as trying to just change what’s wrong, because sometimes there are other factors you don’t consider that get in the way. I like to see the world in my ideal view, one that makes change and solves problems. The way certain situations currently are causes a lot of disappointment because I can’t understand how this is allowed to happen. The world is really unfair, and that’s not something I like to think about or accept. My emotions get in the way of my thinking very often, misguiding my decisions and actions. While I try to mostly think rationally, there are times when my emotions overcome me.
I originally thought of myself as more of a romantic since I thought I shared a lot of characteristics with the view. After further research, I see my characteristics mostly align with the classical view. I am not at all a spontaneous or blunt person. I believe in politeness over honesty and analysis over spontaneity. While emotions get in my way sometimes, I rarely act on an impulse to do or say something. I’d rather weigh my options and decide which is the best decision. The outcome is as important to me as the action is. I wouldn’t say anything bluntly or rudely to someone unless their ignorance to it affected them negatively.
This, like all things, should be balanced. Therefore, I don’t agree with the narrator. I believe that we need to be balanced in order to be our best selves. Being completely classic or completely romantic is no good, being an extremist is never no good. In order to be the best you can and get the highest quality of life-- reach aréte-- you need to be a balanced person. Not only with your personality characteristics but also in every other aspect of your life. Being balanced means you can live a fulfilling life, as you will reach happiness in several aspects of it.
Wednesday, December 21, 2016
Classic vs Romantic
Romantic and Classical views, this two categories say a lot about us; the way we think, how we approach nature, our political believes, what makes us laugh and categories that deal with our approach to the world. Some people fall more in the category of romantic than that of a classical. That is because,as the author of Z.A.M.M, Robert M. Pirsig says, "sees it [the world] primarily in terms of intimidate appearance." On the other hand, there are others who think and act more like a classicists. This is because they find a higher interest in the technical side of things, how things work and how they could work differently.
Personally, I identify myself more as a classical, although I do have some romantic characteristics. These romantic characteristics relate to my idealistic ideals instead of being realistic. All throughout my childhood, I always wanted a great change in how things are done in home country, Venezuela. Unfortunately, in Venezuela, many citizens suffer from lack of food, water, medicinal and other basic supplies. Although my idea of somehow changing the corrupt government implemented in Venezuela sounds crazy and impossible, I believe that one day I will play part in that change.
On the other hand, the majority of my decisions and thoughts come from a classical mindset. Whenever a problem or a situation comes across, I first analyse it, then find a way to fix it, instead of going by intuition and instinct. Furthermore, I am a person who keeps a lot of his thoughts and ideas to himself, despite the previous one I shared.
Although these two ways of thinking and behaving may seem contradictory to one another, I believe that a person needs a little bit of the other one, regardless as to which ideology he/she follows. This will provide a more complete perspective to the world, everything we do and think. One can classical minded, but he must also have bits of romantic in order to see the full picture. For example, in order to change a political system, which does not respond to the peoples voices, there must be drastic action from the people. This is a very romantic point of view that not many classicist share. So, if a classic person wants change, he must also be able to think like a romantic person.
Personally, I identify myself more as a classical, although I do have some romantic characteristics. These romantic characteristics relate to my idealistic ideals instead of being realistic. All throughout my childhood, I always wanted a great change in how things are done in home country, Venezuela. Unfortunately, in Venezuela, many citizens suffer from lack of food, water, medicinal and other basic supplies. Although my idea of somehow changing the corrupt government implemented in Venezuela sounds crazy and impossible, I believe that one day I will play part in that change.
On the other hand, the majority of my decisions and thoughts come from a classical mindset. Whenever a problem or a situation comes across, I first analyse it, then find a way to fix it, instead of going by intuition and instinct. Furthermore, I am a person who keeps a lot of his thoughts and ideas to himself, despite the previous one I shared.
Although these two ways of thinking and behaving may seem contradictory to one another, I believe that a person needs a little bit of the other one, regardless as to which ideology he/she follows. This will provide a more complete perspective to the world, everything we do and think. One can classical minded, but he must also have bits of romantic in order to see the full picture. For example, in order to change a political system, which does not respond to the peoples voices, there must be drastic action from the people. This is a very romantic point of view that not many classicist share. So, if a classic person wants change, he must also be able to think like a romantic person.
Romantic vs classic
Romantic and classical are two different ways that people understand things. A classical understanding sees the world as underlying form of itself and proceeds by reason and laws. The classic style is straightforward, economical, unemotional, and proportioned. Romantic understanding sees in terms of immediate appearance. Romantic understanding is inspirational, imaginative, and especially intuitive. Feelings dominate over facts in the romantic mind.
I am a hybrid between romantic and classical but I am predominately classical. I like to analyse decisions rather than let my intuition and instincts take over. I don´t fully trust my feelings to guide me so I need to do research in order to make decisions. Education or at least the principle and ideas of it are important to me. I believe training is vital in order to reduce the amount of mistakes me make. I find myself sometimes worrying about how polite I am when engaging in conversations rather than being honest and genuine. I would never just tell someone how I feel about them to their face if it was negative.
I identify more as a realist than an idealist. I pay attention to what goes wrong rather than what would be ideal. High ideals make me nervous and am aware that things could be a lot worse while romantics are always furious with governments. Also, romantics rebel against the norm and thing popularity is mostly bad. I welcome routine and have seen extreme, so now I can be content with everyday life.
The narrator says,"both are valid ways of looking at the world although irreconcilable with each other". I believe this to be true because one is not right or wrong because they are personal and subjective. The views are opposites of each other so they can't exist in one mind together.
I identify more as a realist than an idealist. I pay attention to what goes wrong rather than what would be ideal. High ideals make me nervous and am aware that things could be a lot worse while romantics are always furious with governments. Also, romantics rebel against the norm and thing popularity is mostly bad. I welcome routine and have seen extreme, so now I can be content with everyday life.
The narrator says,"both are valid ways of looking at the world although irreconcilable with each other". I believe this to be true because one is not right or wrong because they are personal and subjective. The views are opposites of each other so they can't exist in one mind together.
Tuesday, December 20, 2016
blog post #3
Classical and Romantic understandings are the two ways humans look at the world. Classical understanding is based of looking at things using logic and seeing underlying form in things. Romantic understanding is a way of using art, imagination, and is more focused on the surface of things rather than what they are made of.
I consider myself to be a very romantic person. I always am using my imagination to wonder how the world works and I constantly like categorizing things based on what they are, not what they are made up of. I am not a fan of mechanical and technical problems like how a car or a computer program works. I am more of a fan of coming up with solutions to solve problems that show everything on the surface, which I believe I excel at.
I agree with the narrator that they are both valid ways of looking at the world because they are both true if you are being logical. They see the world quite differently, but that is just seeing the world with a different perspective. There are many different ways to look at one thing, we should not rely on one of the two ways of understanding but both to see conflicting and paralell views about our universe,
I consider myself to be a very romantic person. I always am using my imagination to wonder how the world works and I constantly like categorizing things based on what they are, not what they are made up of. I am not a fan of mechanical and technical problems like how a car or a computer program works. I am more of a fan of coming up with solutions to solve problems that show everything on the surface, which I believe I excel at.
I agree with the narrator that they are both valid ways of looking at the world because they are both true if you are being logical. They see the world quite differently, but that is just seeing the world with a different perspective. There are many different ways to look at one thing, we should not rely on one of the two ways of understanding but both to see conflicting and paralell views about our universe,
Blog post #3
The author, Robert M. Pirsig, discusses two different categories (classic and romantic) to divide philosophy and thinking. Classicists focus on facts, reasons, and laws, and prefer living structured and well thought out lives. They value analysis, education, realism, and “immediate appearance.” On the other hand, romantic minds are more free and spontaneous with their thoughts, emotions, and actions. Romanticists value creativity, feeling and instinct, and spirituality. Romantic thinkers are intuitive and value honesty and have idealistic world views.
i view myself predominantly as a romanticist as I like to follow my gut feelings and see what happens. Being instinctual is important to me as I feel like I am myself even though this can be hard at times. Also, I connect with children and how they follow their heart. Currently, I am working as an intern at Bethesda Elementary and love how they are happy, honest, and not worried about the future. Also, I am honest and direct with my interpersonal relationships and less concerned about what others think.
Not everything about my life fits with the romantic way of thinking. I am a distance runner and my workouts are planned and analyzed to optimize my performance. Also, my daily home routines are structured. I like to eat meals at the same time, complete my homework, and try to keep a regular sleep routine.
I agree with the Robert M. Pirsig that classic and and romantic philosophies are “valid ways of looking at the world ,” but I do not think they are irreconcilable with each other. I believe there are different sides to the human mind and understanding. I think both philosophies can be integrated into all parts of your life. I am a free spirt at heart but live a disciplined lifestyle to achieve certain goals in my life.
Blog Post #3: Ways of Looking at the World (Romantically vs. Classically)
The world is a very complex place, that humanity has tried to improve their understanding upon for thousands of years. To understand the world, certain people or certain "minds" look at the world in differing ways. If one thinks abstractly, then they will find that there are hundreds and hundreds of ways to look at the world. However, even while thinking in an abstract way, these methods of understanding the world end up being classified into two possible categories: romantic understanding and classical understanding. Romantic understanding looks at the world based off of its immediate appearance. The romantic form views the world with emotion, and does not look at things beneath the surface. Classical understanding, on the other hand, looks at the world in terms of underlying form, or what is under the surface. The classical form of understanding also views the world in greater depth than the romantic form of understanding.
Personally, I would classify myself as both a romanticist and a classicist in terms of how I view the world. However, personally I would view myself as more of a romanticist, mainly because I let my emotions get in the way of how I judge the world. To be more specific, even though I look at the world and try to comprehend it through logic and reasoning, my own experience, will often lead to unconscious (unintentional) emotional feelings that get in the way of how I understand an idea. For example, if I did not know what a certain object was, and then I saw it for the first time, I would try understand it based off of prior knowledge in related areas, and recalling my prior knowledge would likely stir up some emotional memories. Also, I tend to unfortunately rush through assignments and tasks which I do not particularly enjoy or find boring, and thus think about these tasks more in terms of immediate appearance, rather than what is underneath the surface.
On the other hand, I believe that I also exhibit various qualities similar to those of classically-minded individuals. In the last paragraph, I mentioned that I typically rushed through things that I found boring or not enjoyable. However, if I was interested in learning about a certain subject or object, I would end up exploring this idea in greater depth. Therefore, I would dig underneath the surface. For example, if I am learning a new principle in physics class, such as the Earth's gravity is the same, or practically the same, no matter where you are on the planet, I would try to find out why gravity is the same no matter where you are. Thus, I would end up looking beneath the surface, and look at this principle more in underlying form, than what immediately comes to mind. Also, I firmly believe that it is hard to believe something is actually true, unless there is enough evidence to prove that it is, which follows the scientific method, a method that is commonly used by classically-minded individuals.
Robert M. Pirsig, the author and narrator of the novel, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, discusses various topics relating to the concepts of romantic and classical understanding. The narrator explains how he is more of a classically-minded person, and gives reasons why he is more classically-minded than romantically-minded. However, the narrator makes an opinion about the matter that many consider controversial. He believes that although both are valid ways of looking at the world, they are irreconcilable (conflicting) of one another. In my personal opinion, I do agree with this statement. If you view the world based off of immediate appearance, that is perfectly acceptable. If you view the world based off of underlying form, that is also perfectly acceptable. But if you try to understand (view) the world in both of these ways, and consistently intermingle the two ways with each other, then there is a conflict since you will think you are very familiar with an idea in a romantic way, but when you think about it classically, you will find out that you really are very unfamiliar with the subject matter. This pattern will keep repeating with many topics throughout this individual's life. Thus, it can be problematic. This is why I agree with Robert M. Pirsig's stance on the issue.
Personally, I would classify myself as both a romanticist and a classicist in terms of how I view the world. However, personally I would view myself as more of a romanticist, mainly because I let my emotions get in the way of how I judge the world. To be more specific, even though I look at the world and try to comprehend it through logic and reasoning, my own experience, will often lead to unconscious (unintentional) emotional feelings that get in the way of how I understand an idea. For example, if I did not know what a certain object was, and then I saw it for the first time, I would try understand it based off of prior knowledge in related areas, and recalling my prior knowledge would likely stir up some emotional memories. Also, I tend to unfortunately rush through assignments and tasks which I do not particularly enjoy or find boring, and thus think about these tasks more in terms of immediate appearance, rather than what is underneath the surface.
On the other hand, I believe that I also exhibit various qualities similar to those of classically-minded individuals. In the last paragraph, I mentioned that I typically rushed through things that I found boring or not enjoyable. However, if I was interested in learning about a certain subject or object, I would end up exploring this idea in greater depth. Therefore, I would dig underneath the surface. For example, if I am learning a new principle in physics class, such as the Earth's gravity is the same, or practically the same, no matter where you are on the planet, I would try to find out why gravity is the same no matter where you are. Thus, I would end up looking beneath the surface, and look at this principle more in underlying form, than what immediately comes to mind. Also, I firmly believe that it is hard to believe something is actually true, unless there is enough evidence to prove that it is, which follows the scientific method, a method that is commonly used by classically-minded individuals.
Robert M. Pirsig, the author and narrator of the novel, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, discusses various topics relating to the concepts of romantic and classical understanding. The narrator explains how he is more of a classically-minded person, and gives reasons why he is more classically-minded than romantically-minded. However, the narrator makes an opinion about the matter that many consider controversial. He believes that although both are valid ways of looking at the world, they are irreconcilable (conflicting) of one another. In my personal opinion, I do agree with this statement. If you view the world based off of immediate appearance, that is perfectly acceptable. If you view the world based off of underlying form, that is also perfectly acceptable. But if you try to understand (view) the world in both of these ways, and consistently intermingle the two ways with each other, then there is a conflict since you will think you are very familiar with an idea in a romantic way, but when you think about it classically, you will find out that you really are very unfamiliar with the subject matter. This pattern will keep repeating with many topics throughout this individual's life. Thus, it can be problematic. This is why I agree with Robert M. Pirsig's stance on the issue.
Monday, December 19, 2016
I believe that I am both, a classical and romantic mindset. because I have qualities of both ways of thinking. I believe That I take the side of a romantic thinking due to the way I feel about feelings. Its a funny saying but its true. I believe that we shouldn't think about our feelings very often, and instead just be able to feel what we should feel. However, there have been times when I have had a classical mindset and wondered and questioned the feeling I had. But my natural tendency is to feel what I feel, and not think about it too much. But other aspects of who I am are classical. For example, I do feel like I need to be skeptical about things because my intuition hasn't been right 24/7. So you get into a mindset and cycle when you constantly want to think sabot everything.
That is more with thinking, however when it comes to life I am more of a classical, because I think about all my real life decisions quite in death. I believe that education is the foundation to all success, and that activities and trips are best enjoyed more when you are educated and have prior knowledge because you can enjoy the world more when you do. I believe that training is extremely important when wanting to rio well. However, I am romantic in the sense that it should be in balance with enjoying life, and the people around you.
When turning to honesty vs. politeness. I often want to say exactly how I feel, which is the romantic mindset, however I was raised and taught not to say what is rude or would be unkind to some. So I keep it to myself, which is the classical way of learning. This doesn't exactly go hand an hand, which is where my mind conflict lies, the wanting to speak your mind, but not wanting to offend anyone, so therefore keeping it to yourself. This conflict, spans not just from speaking your mind, but how my mindset is both romantic and classic, ands how sometimes, It can turn into an a lll out war between the two sides.
That is more with thinking, however when it comes to life I am more of a classical, because I think about all my real life decisions quite in death. I believe that education is the foundation to all success, and that activities and trips are best enjoyed more when you are educated and have prior knowledge because you can enjoy the world more when you do. I believe that training is extremely important when wanting to rio well. However, I am romantic in the sense that it should be in balance with enjoying life, and the people around you.
When turning to honesty vs. politeness. I often want to say exactly how I feel, which is the romantic mindset, however I was raised and taught not to say what is rude or would be unkind to some. So I keep it to myself, which is the classical way of learning. This doesn't exactly go hand an hand, which is where my mind conflict lies, the wanting to speak your mind, but not wanting to offend anyone, so therefore keeping it to yourself. This conflict, spans not just from speaking your mind, but how my mindset is both romantic and classic, ands how sometimes, It can turn into an a lll out war between the two sides.
Classical and Romantic Understanding Post
In the novel "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" by Robert M. Pirsig, the narrator divides understanding into two different categories, classical and romantic. Classical is when understanding on a topic or thing is reasoned with logic. You dissect the information trying to reach the core, the central and most important information about it and what it came from. Romantic, on the other hand, is when understanding is derived from the physical or outward appearance. This is mainly done at first sight.
In my life experiences, I mainly fit into the classical understanding category. For example, in my food choices, I am very strict, and tend to look toward ingredients and logic to see what to eat. I use classical understanding to dissect and separate the options and see what each has. Another way I use this understanding in my day to day activities is when I chose what to do in my next year classes. In the decisions for my future classes I want to take, I dissect what happens in each class, and use that to make my decision for what I want to take to then tell my counselor.
Although I use classical understanding more frequently, I use romantic understanding, too. For example, in choosing what fish to buy for my fish tank, I look for the prettiest fish, not caring about anything else. The only thing I look at is whether it'll fit in my habitat or not, leaving the appearance to be the most important in my decision. Another time I use romantic decision making is when I choose plants to decorate my room. I don't look for a specific plant, just for one that's looks nice and is something that I really what in my room.
When the narrator claims that “both are valid ways of looking at the world although irreconcilable with each other” (page 80) I fell into a disagreement. For example, I don't "judge a book by its cover", but instead look for books that have appealing and pretty covers. Then I look for the details on what's on the inside before making the final decision on what to read or buy. Through that I can say that you can use both ways to decide and understand things, and that they are not irreconcilable, meaning you can use them at the same time to understand or decide something.
In my life experiences, I mainly fit into the classical understanding category. For example, in my food choices, I am very strict, and tend to look toward ingredients and logic to see what to eat. I use classical understanding to dissect and separate the options and see what each has. Another way I use this understanding in my day to day activities is when I chose what to do in my next year classes. In the decisions for my future classes I want to take, I dissect what happens in each class, and use that to make my decision for what I want to take to then tell my counselor.
Although I use classical understanding more frequently, I use romantic understanding, too. For example, in choosing what fish to buy for my fish tank, I look for the prettiest fish, not caring about anything else. The only thing I look at is whether it'll fit in my habitat or not, leaving the appearance to be the most important in my decision. Another time I use romantic decision making is when I choose plants to decorate my room. I don't look for a specific plant, just for one that's looks nice and is something that I really what in my room.
When the narrator claims that “both are valid ways of looking at the world although irreconcilable with each other” (page 80) I fell into a disagreement. For example, I don't "judge a book by its cover", but instead look for books that have appealing and pretty covers. Then I look for the details on what's on the inside before making the final decision on what to read or buy. Through that I can say that you can use both ways to decide and understand things, and that they are not irreconcilable, meaning you can use them at the same time to understand or decide something.
blog post #3
In Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, the narrator divides philosophy and human thinking into two differing categories: classic and romantic. A classicist views the world in its “immediate appearance,” and is less concerned with creativity and meaning. Classical philosophy is based on facts, reason, and law. In contrast, romanticist beliefs centralize on ideas of feeling and instinct, and lack the concreteness and palpability of classicist principles.
I view myself as a primarily as classicist. While some aspects of my essentiality may classify as a romanticist, I find more comfort in routine and substance. I am academically strong in maths and sciences and weak in areas that require interpretation. I value balance and regularity of systems over spontaneity of intuition. For myself, I cannot make decisions based on a “gut-feeling” or instinct. I need the certainty and safety of planning everything, including my process of thinking.
Part of me is a romanticist, I have practiced ballet for six years, a more artistic and creative element in my life. But even ballet’s form is a bit classic. Yes, there is freedom and personal style associated with ballet, but there are some “rules” as well. Some moves must have the arms and legs positioned a certain way. Every move has a count. All the counts fit with the music. Even my romanticist values are somewhat classic.
Classic and romantic beliefs are both valid even if there are irreconcilable to each other. There are other ways this division of thinking is present in this world. These beliefs are similar to the two personality types A&B. Type A is classified as someone who is highly organized, anxious, and concerned with time management. Type B is classified as someone who is reflective and often considers the “outer world” versus the “inner world.” Again, both are completely valid even if they fully contradict each other.
Response to Blog Post #3
If one person looks at an iPhone for what's on the screen and the other focuses on its processing power, is one of them looking at the phone from the right viewpoint? Are they both right? Neither? In Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, the narrator describes classic and romantic modes of understanding as two conflicting outlooks that are "irreconcilable with each other" (80). Those of the classic mindset see underlying form and the function or meaning behind things that they see, and are more analytical thinkers. Romantic thinkers focus on appearance and use their intuition and raw feelings; a 'gut-reaction' complex.
I do not fully fit the romantic way of thinking. I generally refuse to rely on raw, unchecked emotion in my decision-making and I prefer to understand the meaning behind an idea or object before I put it to use. However, I also appreciate spontaneity, unabridged honesty, and the exotic.
That being said, the classic outlook applies to me only slightly more accurately. This is because I tend to take time to question the meaning or purpose of various aspects of society and to think. In fact, this leads me to a bad habit of over-thinking and over-analyzing at times. I enjoy functions pertinent to engineering, such as programming, for the final product and its function rather than the aesthetic of the project. On the other hand, I can't stand everyday life, a daily routine with no variation. The spontaneity and passion of a romantic mind appeals to me as well.
Though these two schools of thought are invariably different, they are not necessarily 'irreconcilable.' One can have a proverbial foot on either side of the line while maintaining sanity and cohesion in their lifestyle. In fact, those who tend to straddle said line could provide valuable insight to either side. They could serve as mediators between the ideologies, seeing the cause behind both and looking at the world from the perspective of others to provide for a more cohesive and coordinated society. The two sides are polar opposites, but they are also reconcilable through those who see the good in both.
Classical vs. Romantic
Intuition vs. Analysis
Spontaneity vs. Education
Honesty vs. Politeness
Idealism vs. Realism
Earnestness vs. Irony
The Rare vs. The Everyday
In the book Zen and Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, the narrator divided people into two categories; Romantic and Classical. Being labeled as a romantic or a classical person can explain a lot about what our personalities are like. Classical people are more analytical, they focus more on getting a solid education that will get them a good job. Classical people would rather be polite and civil, than to tell someone what they are really feeling, they focus mostly on stability, they would rather stay home and do laundry, than go out and try something new. Romantics are a little more free flowing, They are enthusiastic about feelings and don't really have a direction in which they want to go in life. Romantics like to see where life can take them, they believe that education should be spontaneous.
Based on the description of classical and romantic, I think i lean more towards classical, but i still have some aspects of romantic in my personality . I do better when there is a clear goal and path. I don't like confrontation at all, I would rather be civil then tell someone of im mad. Being more of a classical person kind of relates to having a type A personality Type A's are a lot more analytical they like to get things done, they are focused on being the best and they don't sit back and wait for things to happen. I feel like classical people are a lot more fact based, whereas romantics like to interpret things and find the deeper meaning.
Even Though I identify more with the classical personality, i still feel like I have some romantic features intertwined. The romantic aspect of me likes to be spontaneous, i like to learn through experiences. I would rather go out and experience different things, than stay in my house. i think that it's important to have a balance, being to much of a classical person could cause you to miss out on the fun and exciting things life has to offer and being too much of a romantic could leave you just wondering around looking for some sort of direction.
I think that the world has so many different aspects, we can't just put everyone in two categories. There are people who don't fit in either of these categories. I don't agree with the narrator, there are so many people in the world who have different personalities. Not everyone is the same and by saying that these people fit in the classical group because they have these personality traits and these people fit in the romantic group because they have these traits is not realistic.
Response to post #3
Fallon Walsh
December 19th, 2016
Blog Post #3 : Ways Of Looking At The World
Classical and Romantic understanding are two distinctive ways of interpreting the world and our personal views of daily life. A classical understanding is a more analytical and scientific means of interpretation and discovery. The classical understanding is more interested the underlying and hidden parts of something's form whereas a romantic understanding is only interested in the immediate appereance of something, as it appears is what a romantic individual sees something as. There are other ways that differentiate the two dichotomies besides the specific way an individual inteprets their surrounding world and those other distinct characteristics I believe differ from person to person.
I personally find myself aligning with a romantic understanding more so than a classical understanding, mainly because I don't have the time or patience to ponder over the hidden meanings of everything I come across. I see things for what they are and I am not extremely analytical or curious. Common characteristics of romantics are a "shallow" viewing of the world, a spontaneous approach to life, an auroa of honesty and the value of one's instinct. I see parallels with my own worldy interpretations and that of the romantic understanding. I often find myself relying on my "gut feelings" to make immediate decisions when I feel uncomfortable and I often find myself making the right choice. I don't see my view as "shallow", or uninterested, because I see more of the world and produce a deeper understanding of the entirey of our world, not just a few immediate parts that I agonize over. I'm known to have no filter and I prefer to live and express my opinon rather than supressing my feelings and being resentful. I would prefer to have enemies than have people walk all over me, and pretend that I'm okay with being mistreated.
These aren't not the only ways of viewing the world and I am sure there are various sub categories as well as individuals that display qualities of both understandings. The narrator in, "Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance", by Robert M. Pirsig, mentions that romantic and classical understandings both are "valid ways of looking at the world although irreconcilable with each other”, I disgaree with the narrators view, I don't think the two understandings are incompatible with each other. Although the two understanding are night and day, I think the two views can function together harmoniously. The views can operate like Yin and Yang by balancing and centering one another, which is why we still see the narrator and John taking adventures with each other across the country despite their differing views and interpretations.
December 19th, 2016
Blog Post #3 : Ways Of Looking At The World
Classical and Romantic understanding are two distinctive ways of interpreting the world and our personal views of daily life. A classical understanding is a more analytical and scientific means of interpretation and discovery. The classical understanding is more interested the underlying and hidden parts of something's form whereas a romantic understanding is only interested in the immediate appereance of something, as it appears is what a romantic individual sees something as. There are other ways that differentiate the two dichotomies besides the specific way an individual inteprets their surrounding world and those other distinct characteristics I believe differ from person to person.
I personally find myself aligning with a romantic understanding more so than a classical understanding, mainly because I don't have the time or patience to ponder over the hidden meanings of everything I come across. I see things for what they are and I am not extremely analytical or curious. Common characteristics of romantics are a "shallow" viewing of the world, a spontaneous approach to life, an auroa of honesty and the value of one's instinct. I see parallels with my own worldy interpretations and that of the romantic understanding. I often find myself relying on my "gut feelings" to make immediate decisions when I feel uncomfortable and I often find myself making the right choice. I don't see my view as "shallow", or uninterested, because I see more of the world and produce a deeper understanding of the entirey of our world, not just a few immediate parts that I agonize over. I'm known to have no filter and I prefer to live and express my opinon rather than supressing my feelings and being resentful. I would prefer to have enemies than have people walk all over me, and pretend that I'm okay with being mistreated.
These aren't not the only ways of viewing the world and I am sure there are various sub categories as well as individuals that display qualities of both understandings. The narrator in, "Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance", by Robert M. Pirsig, mentions that romantic and classical understandings both are "valid ways of looking at the world although irreconcilable with each other”, I disgaree with the narrators view, I don't think the two understandings are incompatible with each other. Although the two understanding are night and day, I think the two views can function together harmoniously. The views can operate like Yin and Yang by balancing and centering one another, which is why we still see the narrator and John taking adventures with each other across the country despite their differing views and interpretations.
BLOG POST #3: WAYS OF LOOKING AT THE WORLD
The narrator of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance divides human understanding into two categories: romantic and classical. In paragraph 1, briefly articulate the distinction between the two. Then, in paragraphs 2 and 3, explore how you fit into either of these dichotomies. Give examples that illustrate the tendencies that make you, personally, either classical and/or romantic. In paragraph 4, conclude by discussing if you agree with the narrator that “both are valid ways of looking at the world although irreconcilable with each other.” (Chap. 7—a few pages in)
DUE: Tuesday, 12/20/16 at start of class
DUE: Tuesday, 12/20/16 at start of class
For visual thinkers, this video helps illustrate the two categories well.
Sunday, December 4, 2016
Blog post 2
The Greeks believed in arete, which meant the pursuit of excellence in everything you do and in everything you experience. For example, a music student would devote hours a day to practice
violin, an ice skater would spend hours at the rink, or an artist would spend hours devoted to painting.
Arete also involves seeking excellence in experiences. A cook would look for the best new recipes to try, a traveler would would explore new places each year or a movie fan would search movie reviews for the best film to see. The achievement of excellence doesn't come without a price. The ancient Greeks called that price, "agon,"which means struggle or contest. They believed that achieving excellence didn't come without a sacrifice or competition. What I would like to consider is the necessity of competition in the achievement of excellence.
The ancient Greeks believed that competition was necessary to acquire high quality performance.
Everyone needs motivation to achieve a higher level in their own field. Different people find motivation in different ways. Many people need to see competitors' achievements and try to outdo them. For some individuals, the goal is to reach the level of a competitor and then leave the competition in the dust. The ancient Greeks had many different competitions, such as harp competitions, discus throws and Olympic events. Ancient Greeks held festivals to honor their gods, and competitions were important parts of the festivals. Musicians, poets, actors and athletes competed against one another. The Dionysius festival in Athens even involved competitions between playwrights. For the ancient Greeks, competitions motivated athletes and artists in arete, but the competitions also honored the Gods. When I compete with other runners it helps me improve. competing isn't just about winning or losing, it's about being part of a running community. We are all working to do our best, and the community pushes me to improve my techniques. I wouldn't have achieve my best speeds without the opportunity to compete.
Some people have an internal calling to increase their skill levels and are able to set their own goals. There are people who are turned off by competition and who strive for self-improvement. Striving on your own can be lonely and it can even be painful. As Martha Graham said, "I have spent all my life with dance and being a dancer. It is permitting life to use you in a very intense way. Sometimes it is not pleasant. Sometimes it is fearful. But nevertheless it is inevitable." (artofwomenfoundation.org,17 Nov 20) Martha Graham is an example of an artist who had an inner drive to explore dance and to change the way dance was performed and taught. When I run alone I feel confident, I have the power to decide where and how fast to run. Running is such an individual sport that it's important to make time to practice alone. It gives me a chance to focus on my breathing and pushing harder. I run faster when I am alone because I am focused.
Based on my experience I believe that both competition and practicing alone are important to achieve excellence. Without my running community I would not have achieved so many racing goals. It makes a difference to be surrounded by people who are all working to do their best. practicing by myself allows me to focus and to choose what techniques I am going to try to improve. For me achieving arete in running requires struggle, focused work by myself and inspiration of competing in a community of runners.
violin, an ice skater would spend hours at the rink, or an artist would spend hours devoted to painting.
Arete also involves seeking excellence in experiences. A cook would look for the best new recipes to try, a traveler would would explore new places each year or a movie fan would search movie reviews for the best film to see. The achievement of excellence doesn't come without a price. The ancient Greeks called that price, "agon,"which means struggle or contest. They believed that achieving excellence didn't come without a sacrifice or competition. What I would like to consider is the necessity of competition in the achievement of excellence.
The ancient Greeks believed that competition was necessary to acquire high quality performance.
Everyone needs motivation to achieve a higher level in their own field. Different people find motivation in different ways. Many people need to see competitors' achievements and try to outdo them. For some individuals, the goal is to reach the level of a competitor and then leave the competition in the dust. The ancient Greeks had many different competitions, such as harp competitions, discus throws and Olympic events. Ancient Greeks held festivals to honor their gods, and competitions were important parts of the festivals. Musicians, poets, actors and athletes competed against one another. The Dionysius festival in Athens even involved competitions between playwrights. For the ancient Greeks, competitions motivated athletes and artists in arete, but the competitions also honored the Gods. When I compete with other runners it helps me improve. competing isn't just about winning or losing, it's about being part of a running community. We are all working to do our best, and the community pushes me to improve my techniques. I wouldn't have achieve my best speeds without the opportunity to compete.
Some people have an internal calling to increase their skill levels and are able to set their own goals. There are people who are turned off by competition and who strive for self-improvement. Striving on your own can be lonely and it can even be painful. As Martha Graham said, "I have spent all my life with dance and being a dancer. It is permitting life to use you in a very intense way. Sometimes it is not pleasant. Sometimes it is fearful. But nevertheless it is inevitable." (artofwomenfoundation.org,17 Nov 20) Martha Graham is an example of an artist who had an inner drive to explore dance and to change the way dance was performed and taught. When I run alone I feel confident, I have the power to decide where and how fast to run. Running is such an individual sport that it's important to make time to practice alone. It gives me a chance to focus on my breathing and pushing harder. I run faster when I am alone because I am focused.
Based on my experience I believe that both competition and practicing alone are important to achieve excellence. Without my running community I would not have achieved so many racing goals. It makes a difference to be surrounded by people who are all working to do their best. practicing by myself allows me to focus and to choose what techniques I am going to try to improve. For me achieving arete in running requires struggle, focused work by myself and inspiration of competing in a community of runners.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)