Since the beginning of our time, humans have strayed from trusting that which they can not see. There has always been a war between the heart and the head. While many people today look to physical evidences and the practice of finding truth through observation, many also believe the ultimate source of truth, whether it is from God, imagination, or total individuality, transcends our world. I will examine history from the 1600s to present day to find the development of romantic belief in the midst of a world restricted to only proven physical truths.
The main idea of the Scientific Revolution was that in order for truth to be found, proof had to be found through observation. When the method of induction yielded scientific discoveries, it changed the world because now people needed evidence in order to believe something. But some individuals in this time insisted that there was more to truth than what could be seen. For instance, Rene Descartes, through his method of doubt, found that absolutely everything could be doubted except his own existence. He found that his capability to think proved that he was real. Descartes had an unusual method, but was still able to find an undeniable truth. He also used this reasoning to defend the existence of God, saying that since we could think of God, He had to exist. Descartes’ source of truth transcended physical evidence. Likewise, Blaise Pascal used his own version of reason to decide that living life for God was a safe wager. He explained that if you were to live for God, you could receive eternal happiness and - if God did not exist - happiness even only in life. Conversely, if you did not live for God, you would suffer eternal punishment and - if God did not exist - lack the happiness gained from a relationship with God. Pascal used the idea of eternal life and death and the happiness found in knowing God to measure risk and reward. Although not physical evidence, it was evidence enough for him to form a truth out of. Like Descartes’, Pascal’s source of truth also transcended physical evidence.
In the Enlightenment Era, the focus of what could be considered valid remained on science and reason. However, in many instances it is hard for the truth which is founded on observation to be concrete. For instance, Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau all had the same humanity to observe, and yet they all observed something different about it. The diversity of their ideas ranged from people needing strict leadership to people needing to govern themselves. This reinforces the idea that the method of observation can not always be relied upon for complete truths. The emphasis on a perfect way to do things even sparked an ongoing debate in the field of art. Sir Joshua Reynolds claimed that art should be created in the example of the “Masters” that came before. But William Blake gave the imagination more credit. He painted what he thought of, and believed that beauty is within us and needs to be let out. Blake’s belief that real art comes from within and that one can paint anything, not just what is real is another example of somebody finding truth beyond evidence. Also, Adam Smith displayed the ability to find what he believed to be truth in his idea for a laissez faire economy. There is no way he could prove that the Invisible Hand would balance the economy, but he stood by this theory nonetheless.
If the only source of truth was through observation, then the French Revolution might not have occurred. People in this time were unhappy with the way the country was run, and believed in their hearts that there must be a better alternative. So with blood, they sought to find the truth they had heard in themselves. If their method was reason and their source of truth was observed, the French Revolution would have been more organized and a new power could have been set up in a less violent way. But because the revolutionaries listened to their hearts and not their heads, it happened the way it did. Although this wasn’t the best course of action, it proves that there was a truth that the people listened to that did not come from scientific method or reason. This was also the time when advancements in human rights started to appear. If the only source of truth that people had was examples from the past and observation, then the inequality of people may have been accepted, since on an unethical, economic, coldly practical level, inequality works for some. But because people, in their hearts, know that all people are equal, they knew that changes had to be made. And although even today everyone is not 100% equal, we have made great progress. The need for human rights is another truth that can be found without the need for physical evidence.
In the 1800s, the truth found in observation still appeared to be the most influential. The Industrial Revolution and the idea of utilitarianism proved that the observation of practicality was one of strongest evidences for something to be true. However, practicality is all in the head, and not in the heart. The level of attention people at this time gave to the payoff of industrialism clouded what they should have seen in its destruction of the environment and degradation of human beings. In response, one of the boldest movements in support for finding truth beyond this world came about: romanticism. In contrast to the Enlightenment Era way of thinking, romantics held instinct and emotion at their core, believing that the truth comes from within. Although realist painters like Gustave Courbet argued that the greatest inspiration comes from what can be found in nature, and nothing should be added to it, other artists like Delacroix found inspiration in themselves to paint subjects which were not in front of them in a grand fashion. The philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche claimed that there was no such thing as absolute truth, as each individual should decide what truth is for themselves. He said “There are no facts, only interpretations” (Writings from the Late Notebooks). So, romanticism inspired artists like Delacroix and thinkers like Nietzsche to find truth for themselves beyond what can be proven by physical evidence.
From the period of the 1880s to 1945, there were still thinkers who challenged the value of truths rooted in physical evidence. Psychologist Sigmund Freud concluded that the processes that are the real cause of most behaviour lie in the part of the mind that people are unaware of: the unconscious. He found a truth that didn’t rely on physical evidence. Now he is regarded as a pioneer of psychology. Even Albert Einstein, one of the greatest minds of history, regarded “imagination [as] more important than knowledge”. He said that “Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world” (Glimpses of the Great). Here are two revered minds that valued sources of truth that transcended our world and physical evidence.
Although scientific method is a good way of proving things and allows for important discoveries and the deeper understandings of many things, I don’t think it is the ultimate source of truth. There are some things that can not be proven by physical proof or observation alone. Some truths can only come from within, and people know this, so they will always seek truth beyond what they see. Today there are many people who draw peace and truth from facts, but there are many who get these things from a relationship with God, philosophy, and other sources that transcend the ability to be physically proven. Therefore my prediction for the future is that people will continue to have diverse sources of truth, not all of which can be proven in conventional ways.
This video outlines romanticism as a principle in art, but captures the emotional motivation behind romanticism as a whole.
Here are some romantic paintings:
Wanderer above the Sea of Fog (1818)
by Caspar David Friedrich
The Raft of the Medusa (1818-1819)
by Theodore Gericault
The Death of Sardanapalus (1827)
by Eugene Delacroix
Works Cited
Saka, Paul. “Pascal’s Wager about God.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 June 2015. <http://www.iep.utm.edu/pasc-wag/>.
Skirry, Justin. “René Descartes (1596—1650).” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 June 2015. <http://www.iep.utm.edu/descarte/>.
Haberman, Arthur. The Modern Age: Ideas in Western Civilization. Toronto: Gage Educational, 1987. Print.
- - -. The West and the World. Toronto: Gage Learning, 2002. Print.
Josh,
ReplyDeleteYour blog is extremely well written and I agree with the concepts that you described. You took an unconventional approach to many of the examples but it worked very well.
I agree wholeheartedly with your idea that the French Revolution was an act of passion that could have been much cleaner. This is a concept I hadn't considered but it makes a lot of sense to me.
Your idea that science is not the ultimate truth resonates with me, not because I am religious, but because I have always questioned whether physical evidence is the only thing we have to prove something.
I do not agree with Descartes’ ideas however. It may be because of a lack of religious beliefs, but I think it is because he reminds me of the geocentrism that was “proven” before the 1600’s.
The idea that he believes in God simply because he can think of God does not sit well. If that were the case, then is would be the same concept as a child believing in monsters. Because he can create it in his mind does not mean it exists, and I think that this “proof” is not sufficient.
I am surrounded by people who believe in science and only that, so it was refreshing to read about a more abstract point of view on history. The philosophical take on Western history is one less commonly taken, but nonetheless important.
The line that "Practicality is all in the head, not the heart" is a great one because the utilitarianism lifestyle is still used today in modern education. Slowly, people of authority are discovering that one cannot be placed in a classroom for hours at a time and forced to listen to a lecture. Although there is no physical evidence when a child begins to understand and thrive, one can tell because their passion for learning begins to change. Things like physical and creative outlets are extremely important for children to learn, and because of this education has shifted to a less utilitarian style, and to more of a romantic.
This idea follows your blog well I believe, and is just further proof that physical evidence and scientific observation are not necessary in many cases.
Your blog contains many great ideas and concepts, as well as a lot of evidence to back them up. I enjoyed reading it.
I would suggest more pictures to reinforce this, or maybe just spreading them throughout the blog.
Otherwise, fantastic blog.
Reason is tremendously important, as a clouded view will lead to misguided logic; a view we both initially share. And while observation is important, the next step is investigation. In order to progress as a civilization and species, certain things have to be measured.
ReplyDeleteCharles Darwin's work can be applied and compared to most blogs, due to the complexity and depth of his studies. While his ideas were fairly abstract, much like Descartes, he studied vigorously in order to achieve results. Darwin discovered what is now the commonly subscribed to theory of evolution; a theory that has had countless impacts on the world.
Scientists like Erwin Schrodinger and Albert Einstein both centered their entire career on mathematical precision and investigation. In my blog (Check it out by the way) I speak briefly on the subject of quantum mechanics; and the things that were quantified that were otherwise thought to be merely specters in the universe, like black holes, or the creation of the first nuclear weapons. Both of which initialized as concepts were validated and expanded into legitimate applications, and only by measuring and concluding with scientific accuracy.
You also mention that you believe thinking reasonably would lead to a much better world, which I think can unanimously be agreed on. However, the most reasonable way to think is scientifically. While conceptualizing is great for artistic use, it should not be applicable to society. Advancement comes from furthering study, not painting pictures. While people like Blake and Reynolds were creative and inspirational, their art did not benefit society in any way.
Furthermore, I believe the Einstein quote you provided was slightly out of context. I believe that Einstein was still referencing scientific advancement, as the field he most commonly participated in required frequent thought exploration in order to achieve even minuscule progress. “imagination [as] more important than knowledge” is correct, but I believe visualization is what was being referenced.
In conclusion, “Since the dawn of man, science has been prevalent and in a state of constant advancement. Scientific exploration established a majority of human discovery, and has led our race to many of our most complex theories” (Tyler Trotter, 2015). While I agree with certain historians like Friedrich Nietzsche and Sigmund Freud, the pioneer of psychoanalytical observation (which I will argue is still fairly scientific and concise), I do believe that science and reason are far more important than any artistic concept, no matter how far beyond you go.
Other than that, I loved it.
Dear fellow Author,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on the fact that the majority of people rely on facts and physical evedance to build an understanding on what they chose to believe. I myself am one of these people who would prefer to gather information and facts to develop some kind of assurance before I can truly decide on my inner beliefs. During the time of the scientific revolution when everyone was beginning to challenge belief with reason many people began to question what they truly beloved in. Perhaps one of the reasons many people in todays society beleave in reason and facts over things like religion and beleafe is that the majoraty of things like that have come from stories and books from millions of years ago and relying of facts is easier and may appear more realistic then relying on belief.