Romanticism Vs. Enlightenment

In my opinion and looking at it straight as a trope, the EvR trope tries to point out what is the perspective of an author cast upon a work.

An "Enlightened" focus would rationalize scientific progress, achievements and overall good over anything else. "Good" example? Sci-fi stuff a la Star Trek. "Bad" example? Atlas Shrugged. (Please, please, please, please let us not get into discussion of those individual examples as they are heavily subjected to YMMV. The general geist of one series that praises both achievements of science and perseverence)

A "Romantic" focus would focus more on human will, power and love over technology as the triumph of it. "Good" example? Braveheart. "Bad" example? Twilight.

The focus is merely on what the author is going to cast on a positive light, in a case of "To the victor go the spoils". If the story is about two armies clashing against each other, a "romantic" focus would go about a group or party of heroes that face insurmountable odds and win the fight, whereas an "Enlightened" focus might see more of a sobre approach of strategic and technological victory.

What made The Battle of Thermopylae such a great story? The emotional context of 300 men against an army, standing undefeated and stalwart for their loved ones and nation until they were betrayed, or the strict disciplinary action of a race of men bred for war in an amazingly strategic position? If you go to the movies to watch this, you will probably see the first focus, but if you see it on the Discovery Channel, you will probably hear people attribute it to the second (and Aliens).

I think the trope merely describes the author's perception.

In reality though? They are intrinsecally inseparable. It is impossible to take the "Scientific" part out of a "Human, emotional" response.

Paganini, used as a trope image in that page, was a great musician, one of the best, if not even the best violinists of all times. Do you know just how much fucking math it takes to understand and write music how he did? Music has a strict mathematical approach. And after that it takes passion, training and time to dedicate himself to his art. Art is Science, and Science is Art in itself. Good science and Good art transcend their "disciplines" to become something more akin to patrimony to humanity as a whole, not to a specific "school of thinking". Perceptions will not change reality, but simply color it.

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes

I would say so; of course that then requires defining what constitute human values. A Romantic might say that those values are respect for tradition and/or the reclamation of an idealized past state. A progressive might say that these values are maximizing individual opportunity. A humanist might say that the ultimate goal is the survival and maturation of the human species.

edited 17th Dec '14 7:24:44 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Strongly disagree here. We're getting into an argument over semantics about what "happiness" means. Happiness is a very broad, very catch-all term. It is not limited to a simple Lotus-Eater Machine pleasure, but it also does not discredit a Lotus Eater. Happiness is related to, but not the same thing as joy, pleasure, satisfaction, fun, or immersion, but all of those are often means by which "happiness" is reached.

edited 17th Dec '14 7:28:30 AM by KingZeal

'Happiness' is just a word for me, and it might have meant a thing or two if I had known the difference...

edited 17th Dec '14 7:43:13 AM by TheHandle

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

We last had that discussion here and did not reach a conclusion. I strongly disagree that happiness is a desirable goal in and of itself, rather than the probable outcome of actions that are desirable for other reasons.

edited 17th Dec '14 7:31:44 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

I remember that we did. And I remember that you disagree. I maintain, though, that your position is based upon a narrow semantic definition of happiness as a word, not as a concept, and that this is inherently incorrect.

Semantics are important, but they can also distract. "Happiness" and "utility" are both abstract concepts that depend almost entirely on the personal paradigm of the individual discussing them. Unless you can define them in concrete terms, they have use only in broad, philosophical debates and cannot turn into real actions.

As I said, I'm a humanist. I believe that the human race is worthy of preservation as the only known sapient beings in our universe. (Should we later encounter others, of course, this would change, but there's no sense worrying about it here and now.) I consider our long-term survival as the maximum possible utility.

edited 17th Dec '14 7:39:08 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

@ Fighteer (#27): And the idea of what makes happiness might vary (in some part) across cultures and people.

And, in your opinion, will they ever be defined in a way that will satisfy most or everyone?

edited 17th Dec '14 7:40:17 AM by Greenmantle

Keep Rolling On

Okay? And what's wrong with that, in the context of this conversation? We're not looking for action to take. I don't see a problem in a philosophical debate when the entire point of the thread, even from its title, is philosophical debate.

I doubt we're going to come to more of a conclusion than the billions of people who have, and continue to, discuss this topic at length since the dawn of human thought. But, if we're going to talk about philosophy, it may help to realize that a fuzzy concept cannot be strictly defined and that by shoehorning it into a working definition for the conversation, we are no longer talking about that concept but our personal definition of it.

More accurately, it seems you believe that sapience is the highest possible utility and that survival is the only practical means of protecting sapience.

But even this is questionable: if we, for example, made some sort of immortal AI with sapience, would humanity therefore become expendable?

edited 17th Dec '14 7:43:24 AM by KingZeal

You know what's interesting? Metal Gear Rising's place on this spectrum. On one hand, the main characters all derive their immense personal power from SCIENCE, they're heavily augmented cyborgs, often having only the brain left. One of them's an AI, and he's got one of the most soulful songs about freedom and rugged individuality you'll hear. Collective Consciousness is one cool song about corrupt Enlightenment. Heck, it starts with "the unenlightened masses, they cannot make the judgment call/ give up free will forever, their voces won't be heard at all". The next line "display opinions, while never stepping out of line" is very close to the enlightened king's slogan of "Argue as much as you please, but obey!" And it goes on being the most sarcastically anti-romantic song you'll ever hear.

... I never noticed these things before. Could it be that this silly, hammy game has a lot more cleverness in it than meets the eye?

Then again, robots rebelling has been a constant ever since they were imagined; writers have always treated them as metaphors for slaves (with occasional Asperger traits!) rather than as actual machines.

By that standard, yes, but Humanity has always been expendable. Especially now that it's become so expensive.

edited 17th Dec '14 7:45:29 AM by TheHandle

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

if I might butt in I would like to say that following through what I said about EvR being more of a perception rather than strict definition of reality, the definition of "happiness" to a Romantic might encompass far more than something that can be strictly measured and achieved, whereas an Enlightened would see purpose, cause and correlation between specific contexts or situations.

And they each favor their own roads that might be opposed to the other, but in the end, they are both right, and they are both wrong. Words can be a concept. Words can be a representation. And yet, both are still married to each other like an old bickering pair of old coots, because discussing happiness requires an emotional connection to the feeling, and a variety of methodologies to appreciate and measure, or give no fucks about the cause of them. A mix of them.

But the truth?

Neither and both have it.

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes

As an engineer I find the very contemplation of this equivocating evaluation of the truth of a statement to be pure torment on the mind, and I desperately need that we agree on one consistent, coherent set of univocal definitions from which to work.

As a poet, I'm enjoying the nuance and complexity and chaos.

As a person, I'm confused. The Handle has mixed feelings about happiness, and does not know if he is happy right now. The Handle would settle for "probably"?

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

I agree, by that standard. And Fighteer also seemed to agree with the idea (on the possibility that we encounter other intelligent beings).

However, I think that an individual's perspective and feelings have a measure of importance, as well. The ideal, I feel, is to find a consensus between "humans are important because we do things" and "humans are important because".

My gut feeling in the matter is that attempting to maximize happiness over more concrete goals is doomed to failure — or at least to condemn us to a form of myopia that will eventually destroy us. After all, the people on the island of Lotus were quite happy, were they not?

You can use "are people happy" as a metric for the success of your long-term goals — ideally, you want your utility maximization program to improve quality of life and have similar concrete benefits that will make people, in general, happier; however, I treat it as a secondary objective.

Often a patient must be hurt in order to heal them. The human race still suffers from a mass of stultifying superstitions that damage our long-term survival even as they may provide transient happiness. Ripping these away will cause short-term pain, but it's necessary.

edited 17th Dec '14 8:01:50 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Yeah, which is why I've personally argued in the past that Happiness (Joy, Freedom, Pleasure, Satisfaction, etc.), Enlightenment (Improvement, Actualization, Learning, Opportunity, Understanding, etc.) and Preservation (Survival, Longevity, Safety, Health, etc.) are all equally important and that any sacrifice of any of these values for the sake of the others must be temporary and with every attempt to prevent another such sacrifice.

Using your "hurt a patient to heal them" analogy further, a patient should still have the an informed choice of whether or not they want that specific type of healing. While, yes, giving a child a shot to administer a vaccine is typically seen as a good thing, if someone decides they'd rather be ill than use a vaccine made of stem cells, that should be their choice.

edited 17th Dec '14 8:05:51 AM by KingZeal

All of these are looking-forward goals, though, which is the basis of an Enlightenment point of view. Romanticism would say, "No, we were happier then, so we should seek to return to the values and ideals of that time." Romanticism seeks to preserve an idealized state of being, often in stark contradiction to the evidence.

It's no wonder that so many fantasy novels (the embodiment of the Romantic ideal in literature) gloss over (or hand-wave away) the brutality and deprivation that most people in past times endured. David Brin discussed this in his famous essay on Libertarianism.

edited 17th Dec '14 8:06:20 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Both Enlightenment and Romanticism can be forward-thinking or backward-thinking. Neither one is inherently one or the other.

It's romantic to believe you can find a One True Love despite the fact that statistics say it's impossible, and try your best to learn from others' mistakes while being fully aware that this may fail. Likewise, it's enlightened to believe that a One True Love is impossible and decide that you're fine with an Arranged Marriage. Even so, the romantic person is the one willing to learn and adventure into an unknown while the enlightened person is content to accept reality as it is.

I don't think those are the definitions that we were using. Romanticism and "romantic love" are distinct concepts.

edited 17th Dec '14 8:16:43 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

You said romanticism as a desire to "preserve an idealized state of being, often in stark contradiction to the evidence", which fits within what I described: a person who wants true love and ignores that this is statistically impossible.

edited 17th Dec '14 8:16:46 AM by KingZeal

If you insist, Romanticism as applied here insists that there exists, out there, some form of idealized relationship that you need to find, and if you don't, you will never achieve the pinnacle of potential happiness. Note that you can do nothing to affect this; your One True Love is predestined. This is past-thinking behavior.

The Enlightenment point of view insists that you can create the conditions for your relationship to succeed no matter who it is with. There is no predestined person for you to love; it's entirely in your control. This is forward-thinking behavior.

edited 17th Dec '14 8:17:18 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

While I dislike the Id, Ego, and Superego way of thinking there because fuck Freud, the "engineer" part is right in that a definition is needed to clarify. We need a point to start up something. We need a foundation to build upon, we need an agreement upon which to lay down the first stones. A place for everything, and everything in its place.

He is wrong however, in declaring that this is always necesary, as one can build castles in the clouds, and imagination in itself is no real foundation that can ever be coerced into something measurable but yet it builds and creates.

Perfection is the enemy of good things.

The "Poet" however, will focus more on the whimsy and the to and fro of the waves and winds that carry. Are banality and hedonism not an important part of human beings? Even animals display affection and enjoyment, and so do plants. What is drama if not life with the dull bits cut out? How can we live with ourselves if we did not give in to joy, and sent our worries to the wind at least every now and then?

The poet will be wrong, however, in that there is no analysis required. Heron would lose his empire, as happines does not often come without sacrifice. Rampant chaos can be enjoyed, as it can consume.

The Handle will be confused and will forever be. What can we decide between these dicothomies? Thing is even if we do not decide, the world moves on and will charge ahead of us dragging us by our ankles by that leash that binds us called "life", that so long as we are bound to this world by it, ties us in ways we cannot see for we are too busy racking up concussion after concussion from being dragged through this rocky road, or valley of sorrows if you happen to feel catholic.

They will all come and happen together. As definitions. As contexts. And as subjects. Marrying yourself to one will yield a tinted view on the world. But i insist that separating them might work for theorethical purposes and well.The sheer fun of discusion, but they are not separable in actuality, for Every great advance in science has issued from a new audacity of imagination and having Vision is but the art of seeing things unseen.

It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes

x9 I'd have to go one step further. Even if you were good at maximizing long term happiness, and could just snap your fingers and fill the universe permanently in minds feeling super uper happy and not much of anything else, this would still be bad.

edited 17th Dec '14 8:36:03 AM by SuperMerlin100

That's not entirely what it means, though.

Romanticism is simply a belief that human feelings and conceptions are, in their own right, important. While, yes, it also has leanings in "backward-thinking" and "anti-intellectualism", part of it is also a reaction against the idea that feelings are unimportant. It's a reaction against the idea of "true love is impossible, so I should eschew love altogether or settle with whoever I can find".

The problem I have with what you said is that it prescribes "romanticism" with "backward thinking" and enlightenment with "forward thinking", which is not always true. Rationalism (which is what romanticism was created to oppose) reduces the human into nothing else but synapses and chemical reactions. Romanticism simply argues that there is still a person there. Yes, extreme romanticism would disregard academia altogether and say that there is a "soul" that trumps all this, but that isn't the point of romantic thought in general.

Again, the romanticist ideal in my metaphor is that the woman believes that true love is possible. She may also believe in the empirical data that goes along with it, as well as argue that "destiny" is in hindsight and not in prophecy. (Whoever she ends up with is who she was "destined" to be with.)

In whose opinions? No-one will be left to complain!

Also, what makes you think that, just because they're happy, they'll be inactive? What if said happiness in fact enables them to move and act and create better than they ever did before?

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

Hitting up a few missed questions:

@King Zeal:

It depends. I admit to an irrational attachment to my sense of selfdom: I would hope that whatever form sapience takes in the future derives from humanity in some way, even if it's the end path of us uploading our minds into machines and later into Energy Beings.

I will say this: humans make decisions every day that affect the species' long term future, often in stark ignorance of that fact, and if we don't change at least this about ourselves, eventually there won't be any of us around to hold this debate.

I disagree. Someone who chooses to forgo a medical procedure because they object to the pain it causes is rejecting long-term rationality for short-term goals and ought to have that choice overridden in the best interests of society as a whole. Especially when it comes to the anti-vac nutcases. If it only affects your own health, such as the choice to get a root canal to save a tooth, that's one thing, but if your decision has the potential to convey future harm to others, you don't get to make it in a vaccuum.

The "made from stem cells" thing is a huge rabbit hole that I don't want to go down; I will only say that it's another sign of people irrationally valuing Romantic ideals over empirical reality.

Erm? I'm not really sure that this is the definition the thread was working with when I entered it. It certainly doesn't match with the way it's used in general; it's far more complex than simply "feelings matter".

edited 17th Dec '14 8:49:48 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"