Classic or Romantic

Being a classical thinker means that when looking at any object or system, one will naturally analyze it's components in order to have an understanding of it. Romantic thinking is not the opposite of classic, it's just the alternative. When a romantic thinker looks at the same object or system, they will see only it's appearance and have difficulty seeing more. This makes it sound like classic means smart and romantic means stupid, but the two methods of thinking are of equal value, they simply have value in different places. Romantic thinking is helpful for creativity, a broader view of the world can open one to new ideas. Classical thinking is more useful in understanding how the world works through the organization of it's parts.

When determining which of the two categories I most identify with, I immediately knew I would be a classical thinker. My areas of interest are the standard classical thinker topics; science and math and technology. I can even identify that when I attempt to learn anything in school or anywhere else, I am geared toward deep understanding of the subject. I despise memorization and other forms of busywork in the pursuit of education.

All of this points toward the classical perception. However, describing myself as a totally classical thinker would imply that I have no trace of the romantic thinker, which would be completely contradicting my interest and ability in the field of art. I have been an artist for almost all of my life. The narrator of ZAMM explains that all art is a product of romantic thinking. By that logic, a classical thinker's ability in fine arts would be limited to drawing stick figures. With this in mind I would have to conclude that I am only a mostly classical thinker.

Describing the two methods of thought as irreconcilable with one another is completely absurd. Any individual having all of the characteristics of a classic and none of a romantic (and vice versa) is extremely unlikely. I think almost every person will have most of one and some of the other, and can describe themselves by which is most prevalent.

Response to Blog Post 1.5

Did Eve have a choice?  Compelling arguments could be made for both reasons.  The answer to this is important because it impacts the whole nature of the situation.  If eve had not had a choice then she could not have been right or wrong.  If she had then it opens up the question to whether or not she was in fact right or wrong.  A cases could be made for either.

Eve’s decision could be wrong for many different reasons.  The first is that she disobeyed the one rule given to her. “God had strictly warned her not to eat the fruit of this tree.”   God had given her one rule to not eat the fruit and she did.  Another is that she involved Adam in the situation.  “Eve thanked the serpent, and ran off to tell Adam.”  By involving another person she is now responsible for the guilt of another person.  

Eve’s decision could be also have been right.  According to God she actually was right.  “Ah my children, I see you have eaten of the tree of knowledge, and now you are wise and well-dressed...Eve you are a brave and heroic woman.”  With God’s blessing it is clear that there was no wrong decision made.

I believe that Eve made the right choice.  Just because something may appear as the wrong choice does not mean that it is in fact wrong.  It just shows that the right answer is not always apparent.  Eve’s intentions were not malicious and were also not meant to cause suffering to anyone, making her choice the right choice.

#3

When one has a romantic understanding of the world, they see things as a whole.  They appreciate the object or thing itself and do not focus on the different pieces that make-up said object.  When one has a classical understanding, their appreciation lies within the craftsmanship of the object.  They see a collection of bark, branches, and leaves, while a romantic sees a tree.  Each has its pros and cons in certain situations.  

I tend to think in a more classical way.  When I listen to music I tend to pay attention to the different aspects of a song each time I listen, rather than the song as a whole.  When I write, I find that I do my best when I outline each topic I wish to address.  I understand things better by connecting the parts of the whole with parts of another which I already understand.  

I believe that having ADHD is a cause of my classical thinking.  It allows me to make those far fetched connections that help me understand things better.  When it comes to problem solving I find a solution after looking at the different aspects and trying to make connections.  I do also have some romantic tendencies.

Although Pirsig says that the two ways of thought are “irreconcilable”, I believe that some people can think in both ways.  A classical person cannot use the knife of Phaedrus unless they have a romantic view of the things being divided.  

Blog post 3

Romantics tend to enjoy things that often defy rational thinking. They think one shouldn’t think too much and rely on instinct. They believe things should be spontaneous rather than taught, and prefer love at first sight. They think feelings should be expressed. Classicals often believe their own feelings may be delusioned. They believe training is vital and to avoid make mistakes in their lives. Classicals believe in reserved feelings. Classicals pay attention what could go wrong.

I personally believe I fit into both these categories. I see myself in the romantics section by often going with my instinct versues thinking something over. I usually go with my instinct on small or minor decisions however there have been times where I’ve gone with my instincts on larger decisions. When doing this it often affects the immediate future, versus the long term future

There are times where I do find myself thinking like a classic. I do often chose to reserve my feelings when it comes to making large scale decisions. I often go with the most logical choice or the one that will have the better outcome.

I agree with the narrator and I personally believe that it is valid to have these two versions of thinking when viewing the world.

Blog Post 2

Arete is focusing on everything on quality in everything you do. You should always strive to be the best. To reach Arete you must go through some time of contest or struggle. Without going through a struggle, you will not achieve Arete.

Some advantages of Arete is having a strong sense of accomplishment and belonging. While sacrificing personal happiness, there are still positive qualities to Arete, it involves recognition of your accomplishments, and being the best.

But, in the event that Arete is not shared, it will hurt society. If society strives towards achieving Arete, people will constantly try to best one another. However, if Arete is applied to today’s society, Arete is similar to our idea of perfection. If one strives for perfection, there exists the expectation for one to consistently do better.

Arete is an idea that promotes inequality. If you have everyone focusing on becoming number one, that means who haven’t worked towards reaching arete are below those who do. Arete encourages us to compete against each other.

Blog Post #3

Human understanding in a classical form causes us to view objects in our world according their functions and purposes rather than their physical appearance.  A romantic understanding, on the other hand, judges objects based on their immediate physical appearance, or form.  The distinction between classical and romantic human understanding is roughly similar to that of function and form.

I view myself as having much more of a classical mind, but I can admit to having some tendencies and views of a romantic mind as well.  I will use the example of my newly acquired project car, a machine with an admittedly large amount of classical value, to explain this.  While I view it largely in terms of its classical value, I appreciate and care about a few romantic aspects of it as well.  First off, it is a relatively old car, being produced in 1994.  While I did not choose it particularly because of the way it looks, physical appearance definitely came into play when I started considering this car and similar ones to it.  Being an old, small, German-made coupe, it is certainly styled well.  The body style and profile cause the car to be regarded nowadays as quite a classic, which seems misleading until it is clarified that this is due to romantic reasons.  The appearance of the car became representative and iconic to what the brand was doing during the 1990's.  The contours of the body are aesthetically pleasing to me.  There are other romantic aspects of the car that tick me off, and in this way I am also seeing romantically.  When my hands rest on the steering wheel, my left thumb sits on a portion where the padding and leather has been worn and ripped away completely.  This is both classically and romantically unpleasant.  The hood of the car has constantly been a source of romantic unease for me.  It has persistent small flecks of white paint that don't seem to want to come off no matter how hard I try, the the finish is beginning to crack or become worn away in some places.  While this is not immediately apparent until I get close and look hard at the hood, it frustrates me to no end and I have been considering purchasing a new hood.  My last example of romantic thinking as it relates to myself and my car relates to how the hood sits when closed.  When I used to close the hood, it sat unevenly and there was a larger gap on the right side than there was on the left.  This frustrated me as well, so I used the dominant classical part of my mind to fix the problem by examining the hood to find that there were two adjustable pins on the hood that secured into release holes above the headlights to keep the hood in place when it closed.  The right one wasn't long enough to stay secured in its hole, so I adjusted it with a screwdriver to solve this problem and I was very satisfied with myself for figuring this out and fixing it.

Now for the classical aspect of my car, which is much larger and significantly more complicated.  I bought the car for primarily classical reasons and I have an overwhelmingly classical mind.  The car was built by its previous owner to be somewhat of a track toy, meaning that as much weight was stripped from the car as possible.  When I bought it, the back seat was removed and there were no seat belts in it, just 5-point racing harnesses for the driver and passenger.  The carpet was removed as well and as much of the interior as possible was stripped to save weight.  The car still doesn't have a spare tire in the trunk as it once had.  The windshield was also cracked when I bought it.  Now you might be thinking that this car sounds like quite the piece of junk, and you must be wondering why I bought it instead of some other perfectly good German coupe from the 90's.  I bought the car for classical reasons, and why it may not make sense to many other people, it made sense to me.  The body of the car was from a 94 coupe, but all of the internals, including the engine, wheels, transmission and suspension among other things, had been swapped over from a car that had been gutted by the owner.  The donor car was a '97, a high performance version of my car costing 4 times as much.  The parts alone were worth as much as I paid for the car, and I got a very good deal for it.  The guy who sold it to me was very knowledgeable, and was able to answer every question I had.  He also explained to me in detail everything that had been done to the car.  He knew what he was talking about and seemed to think about cars very similarly to me.  I talked with him for hours before putting a down payment on the car before I later bought it and picked it up to drive home.  I maintain a healthy relationship with him to this day, and I have had many questions answered.  In addition, I have bought parts and upgrades from him since buying the car, and I have had no regrets thus far.

While classical and romantic views are opposed to one another, I believe that both have validity in the real world.  Even though they are irreconcilable with one another, I believe that they are able to coincide.  For example, when something is fixed in a romantic sense, it will often also fix a classical function of the object in question.  This can be reversed as well, as when something functions better it will often look or sound better.  Although I overwhelmingly think in a classical sense, I definitely don't overlook the value of the romantic perspective or physical appearances of objects in our world.

blog post 2

Arete, a term in Greek culture, means to pursue greatness in every aspect of life. But is pursuing Arete the same as pursuing happiness and pleasure? This answer matters because this promoted ideology can greatly influence the whole communities view on life and what is the purpose of life.
       Some types of people would enjoy working hard to be good at everything and have many accomplishments and pride. That would make them confident and happy people. Have you ever worked really hard for something and accomplished it? It probably felt really good. Arete in this regard is the physical and mental strides humans make to form the best version of themselves. Humans have the ability to evolve and improve themselves in many, many, ways and Arete is simply a motivational upbeat way of life.
         However, other types of people would prefer to excel in their one passion, Unlike Arete, which leans towards being an all around type of person. These people still have the motivation to do what they love but in an Arete embedded society they would be pressured to be good in everything for the sake of public acceptance. It doesn't sound to pleasurable to them.
           I believe Arte is the way to go, because it does bring happiness and pleasure to me. People who fully accomplish Arete feel unstoppable with motivation and confidence, which i value greatly, in a populated, competitive society. Arete also encourages open-mindedness, another trait I am very fond of.

Ways of Looking at the World

1.) romantic vs. classical

     When one is said to be a romantic, they are referring to the carefree and spontaneous way of life. The opposite would be a classical view of human understanding. A romantic is one who sees things from a distance to the natural form of things and doesn't go much deeper in logic and understanding of it. They are to be more spontaneous and emotional to the art form of things. In contrast, the there is the classical understanding. They are emotionless and use rule book logic to structure the basic thinking of the world around them. These two kinds of people are very different from one another and there is no right way of thinking. Both have its views of human understanding have their benefits and potholes in best making sense of the world to us.
     I find myself to be in a bit of both worlds of a romantic and classical. A part of me is a romantic in such that I find interest in anything new from the surface and get involved with many things simply because it appeals to my emotion at the moment. I quickly lose interest as soon as it takes me longer than average to grasp the content of something. To read between the lines is time consuming when I could have been out doing other new things that the world has to offer.
       However at times, I do notice myself dismissing a lot of things simply because I know nothing about it, find it too complicated to read between the lines, and as a result become confused. So at these moments my classical mind takes over and finds passion and I turn towards more of a classical approach. In these instances, I educate myself so I am no longer unsure of what it is I find of interest to me now that i have educated myself to what it is.
       Coming from having to compromise with the two worlds of romantic and classical, I do agree that these are irreconcilable with each other. Personally, I find that these do not work well together and when I try to juggle both viewpoints I get very frustrated. These two views of human understanding interfere with one another and repel each other's viewpoints. If you try to balance the two and have them exist at the same time, they conflict and don't allow you to move on to what you are trying to understand.

Blog post #3

One way of classifying personalities involves two different types, romantic and classical. A romantic is somebody who always follows their instincts, and typically favors honesty over fake politeness. Romantics are less likely to be adept at things that involve mechanical parts.  Someone with a classical personality on the other hand likes making decisions based upon training and experience, knowing that intuition and feelings can be irrational and misguided. They often see things as part of a whole.


I consider my personality type to be an even mix between classical and romantic. I'm classical in the way that I approach problems rationally, and see objects in terms of what they're comprised of. Instead of seeing a car as just a way to get around I think about all of the internal components that make it move.


I'm romantic in the way that I usually follow my instincts when making decisions rather than doing what I was taught or trained to do. I rarely favor politeness over honesty. I'm interested in things that defy rational explanation and I also think about things in terms of how they could be in an ideal world.


I agree with the narrator when he says that “both are valid ways of looking at the world although irreconcilable with each other.” In many ways classical and romantic views directly contradict each other, but neither will ever be proved right or wrong.

Romantic vs. Classic

Romantic and Classic exist on two very different ideas within literacy movements. Many new periods came about as a reaction to the previous period, and the contrasts between these periods are no different.First, to differ between the two, we will begin with their differences in how they regarded nature. The Romantics believed that nature was powerful and constantly changing. The Romantics believed that nature was a force that would never be fully understood. Unlike the Romantics the Classics believed that nature could be completely understood.Second was the differ thoughts on truth. The Romantics believed that one would only find truth through their own ideas given they highlighted the importance of individual thought. The Classics instead believed that truth existed only as a result of reason.Third, ties into scientific thought differences. The Classicists believed that man should conform to universal thought and ideas. The Romantics believed in the endless possibilities which man could change the world, and they embraced them. The Classics instead thought the importance of what has already been said and done and mastering only those ideals.

Ways of looking at the world

   The narrator explains human understanding into, "classic" and "romantic". Someone who is classic sees the world in terms of its underpinning structures, and predisposed to logic and the scientific method.They ee the world as underlying form. Romantics sees the world in terms of its surface appearance and are predisposed towards emotions and intuitions, They see the world in terms of immediate appearance.
   I am romantic rather classical because I strongly belive one shouldn't think too much which lead to worrisome. And I don't like that. I'd rather follow my insticnt and take the risk of a the result. I liked to belive dreams do come as long as you work hard for it. I'd rather explore what I want to be in life rather someone tellong and educating me to follow certains paths. One thing I personally think that inoder to bielive something it is not necessary too prove the sicentific method behind it.
  That is, because when I was a year and seven months old I was diagnose with actue leukemia. In my last stage I was fighting for my life. All the scientific method cant't prove why I'm still around,to me. As matter fact, I also tend to believe what I believe. I have trouble agreeing with other people's view. In terms of honesty vs. politeness I'd rather want to see people's real face than the fake one.
   Above all, I disagree with the narrator that “both are valid ways of looking at the world although irreconcilable with each other.” because classic and romantic are both very different personality. One who sees the world emphirically and one is non.