2 ms·
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,
by 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 agoI 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.