Follow TV Tropes
As crazy as some people would think of me bringing this up, but could the Dragon Ball series apply (specifically leaning towards romanticism)? I\'ll let some fellow tropers look through this and offer their feedback before I add this under the Anime/Manga section. Major SPOILER WARNING about the Broly example (given that spoiler tags won\'t show up on the discussion page) for those who want to avoid being spoiled on that.
Dragon Ball: Given that the most of the heroes consist of various martial artists (of which the protagonist, Son Goku, spent his early life growing up in the wilderness after his adoptive grandfather\'s death) and in the case of Vegeta is a prince of a near extinct species who has some fervent pride for this heritage, and not to mention all sorts of magic and supernatural beings, this series is largely Pro-Romanticist by default. This isn\'t to say that the series is anti-Enlightenment, given that Bulma\'s Dragon Radar and other creations of Capsule Corp are important to helping Goku and co. with whatever needs they need, the series also displays some wariness of becoming overly reliant on technology and methodology, especially at the expense of instinct and appreciation of nature and traditions. Most (but not all) antagonists represent some of the negative aspects of Enlightenment thinking. Some examples include the following:
Some of the tropes in the first section (Team E's) are obviously direct opposites of some in the second section (Team R's).
For instance, Screw Destiny vs You Can'tFightFate.
Is there some way to create a 2-column table, or something like that? One that is as easy to edit, for everyone, as possible.
Which side would Yu-Gi-Oh! be on?
Academia: Romanticism or Enlightenment?
Don't understand the question? Do you mean if the academic world is inherently romantic or enlightened?
Depends. Academics who focus on art and literature are going to more likely to lean towards Romanticism. Academics who focus on fields of mathematics, science, and history (AKA social sciences) would more likely lean towards Enlightenment.
It's okay to both be enlighten and romantic all at once
Shhh! That's supposed to be a secret! The many who are still stuck inside the cave mustn't be told!
Could Guilty Gear count?
Hey, that sounds like my edit for 40k. LOL, I've influenced people.
shall I add it.
That sounds a bit too self-contradicting and employs bad Example Indentation in Trope Lists. I would condense it into one paragraph. And the last bullet point sounds like speculation anyway.
I edited it, so can I add it in.
I'm not sure the xkcd quote really fits for Enlightenment - the idea that it's possible to simply (or not so simply) educate people to be good was kind of essential for the Enlightenment mentality. Technology came second. Technocracy is a much more modern idea, though admittedly one that works somewhat better with Enlightenment than with Romanticism (although even that seems arguable).
Agreed, science and technology aren't interchangeable. Technically, rocks and sticks count as technology. It's just another word for "tools"
I don't see how Adam Smith, the father of Capitalism, was either a romanticist or a cynic.
Capitalism is more about "thinking" while socialism is more about "feeling".
Also I just don't get how he would be a cynic. Socialism says that people would be Always Chaotic Evil if left to their own devices and if the government isn't there to regulate them. Capitalism, on top of using far less appeals to emotion than socialism or communism, thinks that people can be trusted to do the right thing considerably more. Not to mention generally the right is more portrayed as orderly and the left as more chaotic.
It's far, far more complicated than the portrayal it seems to imply.
Plus if the thing is supposed to be liberal=enlightenment=idealist=lawful? and conservative=romantic=cynical=chaotic? than that seems both farfetched and much oversimplified.
While I would agree that the grounds for calling Adam Smith a Romanticist are rather weak (I'd put him more on the Enlightenment side if anything, but optimism about human nature or the human condition is neither necessarily Romanticist or Enlightenment), I think that's a pretty strange conception of socialism you have there. What you've described - the view that humans are Always Chaotic Evil and need the government to regulate them - would most accurately describe conservatism, but is so broad that it doesn't codify any particular ideology in any useful way. The Soviet Union may have held that view about its citizenry, but so did Chile under Pinochet, which was avowedly capitalist. That contention falls.
Socialism's view of the human condition sees people far more as blank slates, whose mindsets, beliefs, and actions are determined by the structure of the societies they are born in. In the Marxist conception of society, this is primarily determined by subordination and class interests, so that the upper classes will be driven to act to preserve their privileged position, and the proletariat will eventually be driven to rise up and rebel in their own interests. That's not viewing anyone as Always Chaotic Evil; just as products of their environment. Similarly, the Marxist conception has it that the capitalist system itself is 'regulating' the behaviour of people within it.
I also don't see how this is an appeal to emotion either, or how Capitalism as an ideology is necessarily devoid of appeals to emotion. Whether you agree with Marx's interpretation of capitalism or not, he was at least attempting to apply a rationalist, scientific approach to history, and it has birthed an approach to history which we continue to apply today. Marx's conception of Communism was also based on the power of people, free of the structures of domination which had previously ruled them, to apply reason and science to achieve a just and egalitarian society.
Can't the enlightenment be pretty Chaotic? After all, science is constantly being reinvented and updated when new evidence is found. And aren't totalitarian fascists like Hitler considered Romantic? The whole Enlightenment=Lawful, Romantic=Chaotic thing isn't necessarily a given
A laconic entry proposal:
"The Enlightened prefer to think. The Romantic prefer to feel."
How does one create a laconic page?
Make a Wiki Word, click on it, and edit: Laconic.Romanticism Versus Enlightenment
Is it me, or does this article seem rather biased against Romanticism? Drawing particular attention to Romantcism = Lawful Evil and Enlightenment = Lawful Good. Shouldn't it be Romanticism = Chaotic Good and Enlightenment = True Neutral/Lawful Neutral, since the latter encourages an objective, impassionate view of the world?
Not sure if I buy the Romaticism = True Art is Angsty either, but that's probably just me.
If anything, the page is biased against the Enlightenment. There's like twice as many examples in favor of Romanticism. Hell, it lists things like "Fight Club" and "Jurassic Park" as being romantic, which makes no sense. Fight Club doesn't really say anything about the Enlightenment or Romanticism. It's mostly just satirizing the " I Want to be a stupid Jock" mentality that young men always seem to have.
As for Jurassic Park, all the heroes are Enlightened scientists who use logic and their own scientific knowledge to survive the massacre, and the whole massacre to begin with is caused by the Park Owner, who cloned a shit ton of dangerous animals for no good reason other than he had the money to do it and like most people when they were young he wanted to see some fucking dinosaurs. seems like a pretty harsh condemnation of Romanticism to me.
Terry Gilliam is all about this trope. It shows most in his critically acclaimed, but not too profitable The Adventures of Baron Munchausen where the reason-defying Baron is Romanticism incarnate, and conformist, reason-obsessed city official The Right Ordinary Horatio Jackson is Enlightenment, and the trope (also as society vs. individual, conformism vs. imagination, consensus reality vs. insanity) is inherent one way or another in all of Gilliam's movies.
Tyler Durden was very Romanticist, but it doesn't seem like the film itself took a side.
Wasn't Tyler Durden clearly in the wrong. He was a fucking terrorist and a cult leader, for god's sake! How is he not considered a Villain Protagonist?
Tyler the Romanticist being wrong doesn't make Enlightenment right. The film is a non-Enlightenment-based attack on Nietzschean Romanticism, as I see it.
Discussion pulled out of article:
... if you guys want to settle on one outlook for this, it could be modified and go back in.
I know it's kind of my fault, but this article is a giant unreadable wall o' text. If nobody objects, I'm going to do a complete overhaul over the weekend to simplify the whole thing.
I already did a chop on it.
Community Showcase More