What is Romanticism?

There are rare occasions when I meet someone who is familiar with the Romantic. These people are usually coming from an academic background, and I generally find it more difficult to explain my philosophy to these people because of their preconceived notions.

It is the nature of academia to label and codify. I appreciate this and do the same. However, the question is what standards are used to create these parameters. The word Romantic is primarily used to describe a class of writer, artist, or in some cases a particular philosophy, which oddly enough I do not consider to be Romantic. Once categorised they are put safely into a case for study far from the real world where they may do social harm.

For me Romanticism describes a purpose and everything associated with the Romantic is merely attempts to achieve that purpose or manifestations of the purpose. It is quite simply the glorification of man the individual. To phrase it another way, it is the Aristotelian pursuit of eudaimonia, a word translated into English as happiness, flourishing, and prospering.

I believe that all Romantic artist, writers, and thinkers were focused on this purpose, however some were sometimes correct, occasionally almost correct, and other times they were completely wrong. Therefore I think it is crazy to study their works as the gospels of the Romantic, especially since many lived lives unworthy of emulation.

From the central premise that the purpose of human existence is the pursuit of happiness, logic (the skill of non-contradictory reasoning) demands numerous beliefs and practices be adopted.

Who decides if an individual is happy? Only the individual can decide that, and that which makes one person happy may do the same for another person. Therefore we must recognise that each individual must be free to choose their own course.

Now let's say that I am a sadist and I enjoy causing people pain. We can't have someone running around causing others harm, so we have rules. Do what you like provided you do not violate the life, liberty, and property of others without their consent. So the sadist finds his masochists and everyone is happy.

There are two great forces that limited individual liberty, the church and the state. The Church demands a set of behaviours because their central premise is not the pursuit of happiness but obedience to God as they understand Him. The State also demands obedience in the name of the greater good.

The central premise of Romanticism is that only the individual may choose his values (those things that bring happiness). This immediately places him against both Church and State because he rejects both premises of these central authorities. There is a God without proof and a greater good when there is no absolute determination of what this greater good entails.

So what is the Romantic's authority? Aristotle conceived the notion of eudaimonia by watching nature. Birds do bird things, fish do fish things, and dogs do dog things. These creatures thrive by living in accord with nature and their nature. He then asked what the central defining nature of man is. He concluded that it is our ability to reason.

Traditionally Romanticism is associated with strong emotions in opposition to reason. Rousseau argued that feelings precede thoughts therefore feelings are paramount. We know now that this is not true. Feelings are pre-programmed responses derived from experiences and thoughts.

Nonetheless, feelings are a response to values and since Romanticism is a value driven philosophy then the role of emotions cannot be put aside. Reason defines life and emotions give life meaning.

Therefore in the Aristotelian mode the Romantic's authority stems not from divine decree or from popular opinion but from Nature itself – Reality as understood through logic, reason, and science – the Truth of things.

You may see a pattern forming. The word Romantic is often associated with idealism, fantasy, and self-delusion. There are many self-professed Romantics or lovers of the Romantic who are drawn into this belief to justify themselves and get lost in it, and certainly there if plenty of evidence in the Romantic canon to support this. And yet here I am claiming that Romanticism is based on realism.

The Romantics love fantastic stories of heroes having great adventures. It's part of the desire to make life more interesting. Some people get sucked into these fantasies on face-value. What these lovers of fantasy, not to mention the critics, miss is that these tales are metaphors for greater Truths concerning man and the nature of reality. They are intended to heighten our emotions and inspire us to do the same in our lives, to be courageous, gallant, and charming. This is all very real.

The Romantic is also associated with love. Love is a reciprocal physio-psycho-emotional response to perceiving our deep unconscious values to be exemplified in someone else. This is not possible if you reject individualism and the individual's ability to choose their values in the pursuit of eudaimonia.

Romanticism is also associated with sensuality, those things pertaining to the senses. Again this is living in the real world of things. The delight we draw from beauty in the sights, sounds, smells, touches, and tastes and the hard work that goes into its production. It is all about living and experiencing life to its full and in a state of passion.

If you read back over this you will find the core values of the Romantic repeated again and again. From the foundational principle that the purpose of life is the individual pursuit of happiness, flourishing, and prosperity rise the four columns of Truth, Beauty, Freedom, and Love. This is the essence of Romanticism.