Realism vs Romanticism

[Microcosm]

Realism-the attitude or practice of accepting a situation as it is and being prepared to deal with it accordingly.
Romanticism-An artistic and intellectual movement originating in Europe in the late 1700s and characterized by a heightened interest in nature, emphasis on the individual's expression of emotion and imagination, departure from the attitudes and forms of classicism, and rebellion against established social rules and conventions. [To put it in my own words: The idea that emotions and emotional responses are more important in finding truth than viewing everything entirely objectively.]

For a very long time, I have considered myself a strong realist. However, this has recently been challenged in my mind. I saw a post a while back that ImCoolBeans(I think it was him) made saying that it is more important to have a sort of "emotional knowledge" or something like that. I forget where I found this post, but nonetheless it really got me thinking. For practical, everyday social purposes, it would seem that emotional knowledge is of the utmost importance; however, when it comes to finding the unobjectionable truth, it would seem that a more realist, objective approach is more useful. Perhaps, this is not the case.

In some cases, it would seem that some of the greatest discoveries have been made through random emotional firings in the brain. People will "feel something" and it will spark this great idea in their mind. Where should I place myself on this scale of discovering truth? It's hard to tell.

Anyways, discuss what you think the pros and cons of romanticism are below.

[Vlerchan]

I'm not sure how related this is:

To start, I'm going to distinguish between two different conceptions of truth:
Truth, as in what exists independent of the human mind. I will refer to this as the 'thin' truth.
Truth, as in what exists with reference to the material and socio-historical conditions of the interpretor. I will refer to his as 'thick' truth.
I'm going to steal C. S. Peirce's definitions developed in his dialogues on semiotics here because it's just easier. Each piece of information - like each sign - can be envisaged in three separate and distinct parts.
The Object, referring to how something exists.
The Representamen, referring to the how we envisage that something, with respect to the idea that human knowledge is finite, and the human senses are fallible, and we can at best envisage an approximation of something.
The Interpretant, referring to how we envisage something, with respect to our material and socio-historical conditions, its meaning.
We use the scientific method to examine The Object - a given state of affairs - and this examination suffices to limit the range of possibilities to a tolerable level, from which we draw The Representmen, the 'thin' truth. However, un-contextualised, The Representmen is of inherent meaninglessness. Meaning in created through contextualisation, further examination of the Representmen with respect to our respective norms, values, biases, prejudices, and so on, as producing The Interpretant, the 'thick truth'.

Our societies are one extended wrangle to twist the thick truth in favour of our interests. This appears in all spheres of dialogue to some extent though it's most consequential in languages (semantics), i.e., 'socialism' (totaltarianism!), 'democracy' (capitalism!), 'freedom' (perpetual warfare!), 'terrorist' (muslims!), 'nationalism' (Nazism!), and the social sciences. There can't be a 'good' or 'bad' means of creating truth is this regards, just means that 'better' or 'worse' serve your interests.

I prefer for what I advocate to line-up better with a more realist-orientation of the truth, i.e., as close to the thin truth as permissible, because I figure that has a better chance of providing genuine satisfaction. Nevertheless, since deviations from the thin truth stand for the creation of meaning, and I figure this desirable with regards to activities standing outside the realm of public policy.

---

I might have gotten somewhat carried away with italics.

[Sountrack] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2OcIqwmSaY)

[Hudor]

If you talk about your IQ I generally think you're a douche bag right off the bat. Not only is IQ not the most important part of overall intelligence, but it's not really that accurate, and not to mention how rude it is to go around boasting about how intelligent you think you are. I know many people who were/are excellent students, but lack the common sense to be considered a "smart person" outside of the classroom, and their emotional intelligence is greatly lacking, and emotional intelligence is arguably the most pivotal part of overall intelligence.


I think this is the post by ImCoolBeans you were talking about OP. I read this too :P

Personally I don't strive for absolution and both ideas appeal to me. So I wouldn't say which one is better because tbh each notion has its place.

[Stronk Serb]

I don't know. Romanticism novels are in my opinion really dumb, at least what I had to read for school. Realism too, but it's more tied to the Russian writers (talking about you Leo Tolstoy). De Balsac was nice, not killing you with ultra-long stuff like Leo. Also the Serbian realists are really good. In general I preder realism and the ideas of realism.

[Microcosm]

I'll pose another question relating to this topic: What is a better way of acting in government? Viewing things just as they are without much emotional force or using that emotional force to make decisions?

I think it might be a mix of both and it depends on the decision that you are having to make. It's sort of a situational deal, maybe.

[Uniquemind]

I'll pose another question relating to this topic: What is a better way of acting in government? Viewing things just as they are without much emotional force or using that emotional force to make decisions?

I think it might be a mix of both and it depends on the decision that you are having to make. It's sort of a situational deal, maybe.


75% realism in government with 25% emotional force.

The balance is that emotional force should not be overtaking the realist logic behind why bills/laws is written the way it is.

If you base to many laws on emotion that doesn't weigh in enough realistic variables regarding the problem and implementation of a solution, you get a bad law and probably more consequences than fixes.

[ImCoolBeans]

Emotional intelligence, in the context that I was using the term in, means to be self-aware to some varying extent. Emotional intelligence is another name for the term post-formal thought. Being able to think in this way means that you have reached a stage in (brain) development (generally around age 22-26) where the frontal areas of the brain, which are associated with intellectual or analytical thought can communicate well with the limbic system, or the more emotional, intuitive center of the brain. If those two parts of the brain can communicate well, then you are able to be more emotionally intelligent because you are able to both recognize your emotions and control your emotional reactions and impulses better, as well as being able to recognize and appropriately handle the emotions of other people better. This is not something that everybody develops well, or at all. A lot of it has to do with your childhood and teenage development. Quite different from romanticism, but I see where you're coming from.

Romanticism has it's place, and as an artist myself I subscribe to it, but you have to find a happy medium between the two schools of thought. IMO -- too much romanticism means that you probably should get a grip and come to terms with reality. Not everything revolved around music, nature, love, art and creativity, although they are all pretty awesome things, and I can see why somebody would want to emphasize their importance and put a great deal of focus on them. Too much realism means that you are probably too uptight and miserable to enjoy the little things in life, like closing your eyes and enjoying every note in a song, painting whether or not people think you're actually good, or going on a hike through the woods with your friends just because it's a nice day. If you are too heavily weighted to either side of the spectrum you're not doing it right (IMO). I suppose that relates to emotional intelligence because emotional intelligence, or post-formal thought, is finding the middle ground between analytical and intuitive thinking, rather than strictly intuitive/emotional thinking.

It's kind of like the nature and nurture interplay. People tend to say "nature vs. nurture" in the sense that you are the way you are as a product of development because either nature or nurture has taken a lead role in determining your outcome, when in reality the two depend on each other and work in harmony. I believe to be able to think at the highest capacity you need to be able to appropriately think analytically and intuitively, or realistically and romantically as you put it.