3 ms·

> We should romanticize neither the past nor the present, nor the future for that matter. I disagree. Seeing the world strictly through a lens of cold eyed rat

> We should romanticize neither the past nor the present, nor the future for that matter. I disagree. Seeing the world strictly through a lens of cold eyed rationalism is demotivating. Awe is a perfectly practical use of the senses. I watched Neil and Buzz bound around on the moon. That's a romantic past that was once my romantic present. There's no particular benefit in discounting those feelings. Here's some cold eyed rational scientific work demonstrating the massive collapse of poverty in our time: https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-history-methods https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-history-methods If we can't romanticize this present day accomplishment then what the heck is romanticism for? We're participating in a culture that is reducing extreme human suffering at an unprecedented pace. A rationalist would miss the full picture if he couldn't feel the heroic nature of that.

mreome 8y ago
Being in awe of an achievement, past or present, does not necessarily mean you are romanticizing it. You can have strong emotions and positive feelings about something without romanticizing it. Romanticizing means viewing something in an idealized or unrealistic way, ignoring or downplaying anything that does not fit into that "Romantic View" of it. We can be proud of our accomplishments, past an present, and feel good that in some areas there have been huge advancements. But, we do ourselves a disservice if we romanticize the world and and don't view things in context. We need to understand what it took to make those advancements, accept that some advancements come with consequences, and not ignore those areas where there are still much to be done.
- hirundo 8y ago
  We seem to be converging on this sense of the word (Merriam-Wester 4): > marked by the imaginative or emotional appeal of what is heroic, adventurous, remote, mysterious, or idealized Surely, even in full context, certain things can be legitimately seen as heroic, adventurous, remote or mysterious without being overly idealistic in an unrealistic way. It seems valuable, to a point at least, to allow our emotional reaction to such events guide our dreams and plans. That's an upside to romanticism. I'm a fan of SpaceX, et. al. If those outfits had to be funded and staffed by unromantic people primarily interested in return on investment, would they exist?
  - mreome 8y ago
    I think this is just a subtle semantic issue. In my previous post, and what I think the original article is talking about is the act of romanticizing something that is not romantic (or not entirely so). Parts of it may be so, but automatically extending that to a larger context is fallacious and potentially dangerous. The moon landing example you made is a good one. It is a grand achievement, and is rightfully a romantic vision of what humanity can accomplish. But over-extending that romantic view to the entire area in history that it occurred in would mean ignoring the cold war and the ever-present threat of nuclear war. I'm not saying, and I don't think the articles authors was intending to say, that you shouldn't have emotional and romantic responses to things, but rather that we need to not let those responses (and perhaps our desire to focus on the positive/romantic) blind us to the wider contexts that may not be so romantic.

mreome 8y ago

Being in awe of an achievement, past or present, does not necessarily mean you are romanticizing it. You can have strong emotions and positive feelings about something without romanticizing it. Romanticizing means viewing something in an idealized or unrealistic way, ignoring or downplaying anything that does not fit into that "Romantic View" of it. We can be proud of our accomplishments, past an present, and feel good that in some areas there have been huge advancements. But, we do ourselves a disservice if we romanticize the world and and don't view things in context. We need to understand what it took to make those advancements, accept that some advancements come with consequences, and not ignore those areas where there are still much to be done.

hirundo 8y ago
We seem to be converging on this sense of the word (Merriam-Wester 4): > marked by the imaginative or emotional appeal of what is heroic, adventurous, remote, mysterious, or idealized Surely, even in full context, certain things can be legitimately seen as heroic, adventurous, remote or mysterious without being overly idealistic in an unrealistic way. It seems valuable, to a point at least, to allow our emotional reaction to such events guide our dreams and plans. That's an upside to romanticism. I'm a fan of SpaceX, et. al. If those outfits had to be funded and staffed by unromantic people primarily interested in return on investment, would they exist?
- mreome 8y ago
  I think this is just a subtle semantic issue. In my previous post, and what I think the original article is talking about is the act of romanticizing something that is not romantic (or not entirely so). Parts of it may be so, but automatically extending that to a larger context is fallacious and potentially dangerous. The moon landing example you made is a good one. It is a grand achievement, and is rightfully a romantic vision of what humanity can accomplish. But over-extending that romantic view to the entire area in history that it occurred in would mean ignoring the cold war and the ever-present threat of nuclear war. I'm not saying, and I don't think the articles authors was intending to say, that you shouldn't have emotional and romantic responses to things, but rather that we need to not let those responses (and perhaps our desire to focus on the positive/romantic) blind us to the wider contexts that may not be so romantic.