Romaticism vs Enlightenment!

Though much older than the name would suggest, this conflict has been around for almost millenia, with divisions into apollonian and dionysian periods way back in antiquity, with the dionysian Middle Ages, apollonian Renaissance, dionysian Baroque, and so on and so forth.

So which of the general schools of thought are you more in favor of? Are you the optimistic, future-focused, science-loving pragmatist of the Enlightenment period? Or are you of the more pessimistic, nostalgic, closer to nature dreamers of Romanticism? Or perhaps you believe there needs to be a balance? Or better yet - maybe you reject all of those and consider your approach to life completely new and original?

I take issue with the Enlightenment and its epistemic implications. Moreover, I refuse dichotomies.

Romanticism pessimistic and nostalgic? I beg to differ. Anywho, I think a balance between the two is important. I don't think the two have to be in conflict.

Wow Fynn, this is a more intellectual a discussion than I thought.

I thought you meant Love life and spiritual fulfillment :giggle:

In that case, I chose Romanticism. Peace and love my friends, peace and love.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Summoner of Leviathan

I take issue with the Enlightenment and its epistemic implications. Moreover, I refuse dichotomies.

---

I know. Which is why there are five poll options?

And Carny, in most definitions of Dionysian periods, pessimism is indeed one of their traits. We had the whole Memento Mori with the Medieval period, with Baroque later coming back to it, and then Romanticism was all about uprisings and fighting oppressors which can't be done before you acknowledge that there is an oppressor and that's bad. Romanticism especially, when I think about it, with the people's romanticizing (hehe) of the past, because everything now is bad, escapism to the realm of fantasy, again, for the same reason. Romanticism is all about that pessimism and nostalgia. Of course that doesn't mean all art from that period is that - far from it. But it's a general trend.

But later WWII happened and the Holocaust and this nice dichotomy kinda fell out the window.

Personally, I like to consider myself a post-modernist and think leaning completely on one over the other is kind of naïve ^^;

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fynn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Summoner of Leviathan

I take issue with the Enlightenment and its epistemic implications. Moreover, I refuse dichotomies.

---

Personally, I like to consider myself a post-modernist

---

Wowser, this thread is going above my head :eek:

Epistemic? What is that?

However, I class myself as post-modern as well as Romantic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fynn

And Carny, in most definitions of Dionysian periods, pessimism is indeed one of their traits. We had the whole Memento Mori with the Medieval period, with Baroque later coming back to it, and then Romanticism was all about uprisings and fighting oppressors which can't be done before you acknowledge that there is an oppressor and that's bad. Romanticism especially, when I think about it, with the people's romanticizing (hehe) of the past, because everything now is bad, escapism to the realm of fantasy, again, for the same reason. Romanticism is all about that pessimism and nostalgia. Of course that doesn't mean all art from that period is that - far from it. But it's a general trend.

---

Well, me being an English Lit student, the first thing that pops into my mind when we're talking about Romanticism are the Romantic poets of the late eighteenth and nineteenth century. That's who I'm talking about when I say "I beg to differ". The Romanticism of the Romantic poets is "my" Romanticism, so that's what I'm defending as not being pessimistic or nostalgic. I understand that you might be using a broader definition, but it's not one that fits with "my" Romanticism.

To categorise the writings of the Romantic poets as being mainly pessimistic is a gross misreading. Yes, there's lot about breaking free of the chains of oppressors and oppressive dogmas, but that's not pessimistic: acknowledging the existence of oppression isn't pessimism. What's more, they believed in the possibility of a more free future, which they could help to create through their writing. Hardly a pessimistic position.

As for nostalgic, that's another misreading. Yes, the Romantic poets often evoked the notion of a past "Golden Age", but they used it primarily as a literary device to highlight the oppressive power structures of the present, not because they believed the past was actually better. The "Golden Age" was used as a symbol of what the world could be, and so in reality is more of a projection of a better future than of the past.

I'm a scientist, but modernity kinda sucks and I'm definitely a reactionary at heart. So I'll throw my lot in with the romantics.

This all feels very Nietzschean to me. Invoking a lot of Birth of Tragedy and The Uses and Abuses of History.

Mist, it is a fancy way of saying I don't like how their theories regarding truth and value.

Strictly in Nietzschean terms, I'm much more Dionysian than Apollonian.

Edit: I consider myself a post-modern, anti-humanist with social anarchist tendencies.

With the dawn of medical enhancements and cyborg bodies, it's time to be post-human.

Whatever works for you :gator:

For me thought, that's a big "ew"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clo

With the dawn of medical enhancements and cyborg bodies, it's time to be post-human.

---

I don't care what gets us there, as long as we get there.

what if I'm an optimistic future-focused science-loving nostalgic dreamer?

I do want to be a robot though, please sign me up

Sign me up, scotty.

im more of a dark ages kinda muppet

FUTURISM BABY! *kicks down wall with cyborg leg*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clo

FUTURISM BABY! *kicks down wall with cyborg leg*

---

They don't have doors in the future?

Or manners!?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pheesh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clo

FUTURISM BABY! *kicks down wall with cyborg leg*

---

They don't have doors in the future?

Or manners!?

---

We don't need walls where we're going, baby!

*points to User Title* :cool:

Sex?

It is both romantic and enlightening!! :bigsmile:

I don't subscribe to either and the only things I share between the two is optimism and nostalgia.

Reason is not the be-all and end-all of society. The French Revolution suffered pretty heavily because they were Enlightenment zealots.

Humans are not rational creatures. They are animals, pulled by instincts and impulses and desires they don't fully understand.

Of course there's all kinds of Romanticism. Some purely intellectual/literary and some more political or philosophical. And even among the latter, you have to differentiate between someone like Byron and Hugo and Hawthorne.