11/1030: Tales of the Romantic

The Romantics made it possible for us to understand and study literature the way we do now. While I believe the Modernists had more parallel developments to the 21st century in terms of technology and media that allowed for perspectives of the world and understanding to change, the Romantics are largely responsible for our ability to conceive of script as a medium, as a  construct through which we access something else. In looking at literature, we create the subject of the message.

Romanticism rose out of German Classicism. The world had been figured out by Immanuel Kant (who coincidentally only left his hometown once in his life) who claimed that the world as we experience it is our own construction. The phrase”kein anderes Auge,” no other eye, expresses the subjectivity of our existence. Out of this understanding, art is totally subjective and created by and for each individual for him/herself.

The romantics extended this understanding to changing the way people connect with the world. Rather than being bodies in a wild and natural world, people are part of the wild and natural world, given shape by the word or concept that distinguishes them from the rest of the natural world. Being part of this vast, never ending being replaced the Christian God for many romantics. It became their religion. Connecting to this larger being became possible with the aesthetic-words that needed to be consumed and in consuming would guide the being to the larger state of his/her existance. Most people cannot gain this access. According to the Romatics, this is genius; is only granted to those with a certain kind of understanding.

However, everything I just described comes a bit later with Schlegel et, al. Romanticism starts with the exploration of the subjective self and how this self could be expressed and explored.

How does this connect to my PhD topic? I think that there are two strong links for my thesis to the Romantics. First of all, the idea of belonging to something larger than oneself, as I explained in my last post, is something that the Romantics were partially responsible for. Thus, the contemporary times are an antithesis to the Romantic era.

On the other hand, the ability to think of the world as an abstract, considering that we live among signifiers that lead to unknown signifieds, something Saussure and the Structuralists popularized, was trail-blazed by the Romantics. This understanding of an abstract world is important for media studies and therefore, I need to have control over Romantic theory (think also, Laocoon!) to pursue my topic. I’ll be able to return to this need soon, as I review my Intro to Media Studies notes.

Disclaimer: this series is a collection of brainstorms and free-writes that are a part of my planning for actual text in my dissertation. Therefore, I am giving myself the liberty to make mistakes, make assumptions (call me out on offensive ones, though!), not tie up loose ends, and generally not make any sense. 

Copyright 2016 Dorothea Trotter: because these writings are planning for actual text in my dissertation, some of this will appear in my dissertation. I hold the right to the words in this post and require that interested parties ask for permission before copying the words or ideas too closely. Obviously, the date of posting is the date of copyright and I reserve the right to challenge suspected plagiarism in my future dissertation submission using these blogs as proof of originality. 


9 thoughts on “11/1030: Tales of the Romantic

    • Well, there’s the world a priori and then the world as we experience it. Since everything we experience is all we know, yes- it becomes our construction. That is not to say, however, that we can control the a priori world, or that we experience everything.
      This is how I understand it.
      There’s also a lot more to Kant that I obviously didn’t get to that complicates my statements. I may return to him.
      Thanks for the question!


    • Because I respond to the stimuli of the world that exists beyond my control. I suppose I could train myself ignore some of the stimuli and enhance others, resulting in the elephant or hissing pot rather than a cat, but that would be a useless endeavor.
      What about you? What do you think?


  1. I think that perhaps it is something like this:-

    I have only a certain kind of limited faculties of cognizing or experiencing. So whatever stimuli are there I am able to catch only a part, an extremely small part, of those stimuli. From these stimuli I make my material universe or reality and all the objects in it.

    Other conscious beings will have their universe or reality, material reality, in a literal sense, different from human universe or reality because they have different faculties of cognition. It is wrong to think that objects like sun and galaxies or electrons and protons are objective features of reality independently of human cognition. So if science claims to know what is actually existing, then this claim has to be false.

    So I do not know and can not know what actually is existing which is sending these stimuli. I can only know what is existing in relation to me.

    What do you think?

    Liked by 1 person

  2. “But you don’t think that all those things (sun, protons, neutrons) exist? Or that they don’t exist the way we describe them?”

    Now that is a very interesting question. I am not sure how to answer this but let me try and you can perhaps give your input also. I will start from what I am clear about, that is:-

    Beings with different faculties would see different objects from the same vantage point (literal or metaphorical). The more the difference in their apparatus of cognition, the more the difference between their realities.

    So let us suppose there are conscious beings whose cognitive faculties are quite different from human beings. Then these beings will make objects which are quite different from the objects which humans make. Then an object which these beings have made, does it not exist or does it not exist the way these beings describe it among themselves?

    What is your answer?


    • Hmm. I think we have similar answers, and that what we identify as “protons, neutrons”, etc. may be larger or smaller parts of something we can’t even realize. However, does this mean that the objects the other beings create cannot exist for us? That’s something I haven’t considered properly before.
      Also, this is feeling rather like Sophie’s World. What is it you do in your day job?


  3. “Hmm. I think we have similar answers, and that what we identify as “protons, neutrons”, etc. may be larger or smaller parts of something we can’t even realize. ”
    Excellent thinking. I agree.

    “However, does this mean that the objects the other beings create cannot exist for us?”
    I am not sure but I think not. What do you think?

    “Also, this is feeling rather like Sophie’s World. ”
    Sophie’s World was a silly though extremely popular fiction. Honest and earnest inquiry in to the nature of reality should not be compared to that.

    “What is it you do in your day job? ”
    I don’t have a job and I don’t need one.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s