Aristotelian influence on Romanticism?

[adrock3215]

I am trying to piece together the influence of Aristotelian thought on the development of Romanticism. If there is anyone who can offer a few starting points that would be great.

From my understanding, Aristotle argued against Plato's notion that poetry and philosophy are in "an ancient quarrel." Aristotle held that the writer expresses himself through the choices that his characters make and through the plot he or she chooses to convey. Aristotle also argued that poetry is more philosophic than history, primarily because poetry presents things as they ought to be, as opposed to what is. It seems as if these are characteristics of the Romantic art. Am I on the correct path here or am I way off?

Thanks for any help...

[adrock3215]

Nobody?

[punk]

The philosopher that more romantics seem to have consciously acknowledged as a philosophic influence was Spinoza.

You'd probably be better off finding Aristotle's influence on Spinoza and then Spinoza's on the romantics.

Spinoza's "Ethics" has the attributes you are naming, and has often been considered philosophical poetry (despite its overt mathematical feel).

I think Peikoff said something to the effect that he would have become a Spinozist if he hadn't come across Objectivism.

[AMERICONORMAN]

Perhaps the biggest influence Aristotle had on Romanticism in literature would be his influence on helping a human identify a logical sequence of events, i.e., to be logical, which would allow the moralist in the writer to speculate about should be's.

Jose.

[adrock3215]

The philosopher that more romantics seem to have consciously acknowledged as a philosophic influence was Spinoza.

You'd probably be better off finding Aristotle's influence on Spinoza and then Spinoza's on the romantics.

Spinoza's "Ethics" has the attributes you are naming, and has often been considered philosophical poetry (despite its overt mathematical feel).

I think Peikoff said something to the effect that he would have become a Spinozist if he hadn't come across Objectivism.

That is strange (Peikoff's comment). I can see how Spinoza would be looked upon favorably, although he had many bad attributes. But I suppose his biggest and most fundamental achievement was his rejection of the Cartesian mind-body dualism. He ultimately seems to solve this by injecting a God into the equation; he was the creator of the "God is the cause of all things, which are in him" quote. Epistemologically, he was a rationalist. Ethically, he denied that humans have free will, a strange position for a Romantic. Moreover, he was a very outright proponent of freedom of speech. Politically, he was obsessed with the idea of liberty and naturally disliked government. But, just to conjecture, I would trace Peikoff's thought to his admiration for Spinoza's metaphysics. But I could be wrong there.

I can see his influence on the Romantic movement for sure. When I went back to a book to read up on him, I noted it said that "...Romantic movement intellectuals made him one of their patron saints." But it was primarily because of his deification of nature, and his insistence on the "oneness" of man and nature. On the other hand, I also noted that Spinoza was influenced by some Scholastic thinkers who were notably Aristotelian, namely Avicenna and Maimonides. I'll have to do more research into it.

AMERICONORMAN: You don't think it may have been more of Aristotle's theory of poetry, which stated (in essentials) that poetry should potray things as they might and ought to be?

[punk]

That is strange (Peikoff's comment). I can see how Spinoza would be looked upon favorably, although he had many bad attributes. But I suppose his biggest and most fundamental achievement was his rejection of the Cartesian mind-body dualism. He ultimately seems to solve this by injecting a God into the equation; he was the creator of the "God is the cause of all things, which are in him" quote. Epistemologically, he was a rationalist. Ethically, he denied that humans have free will, a strange position for a Romantic. Moreover, he was a very outright proponent of freedom of speech. Politically, he was obsessed with the idea of liberty and naturally disliked government. But, just to conjecture, I would trace Peikoff's thought to his admiration for Spinoza's metaphysics. But I could be wrong there.

I can see his influence on the Romantic movement for sure. When I went back to a book to read up on him, I noted it said that "...Romantic movement intellectuals made him one of their patron saints." But it was primarily because of his deification of nature, and his insistence on the "oneness" of man and nature. On the other hand, I also noted that Spinoza was influenced by some Scholastic thinkers who were notably Aristotelian, namely Avicenna and Maimonides. I'll have to do more research into it.

One should keep in mind that in the 17th and 18th centuries "Spinozist" was used to mean what "atheist" is used for now.

Spinoza essentially gave people of the day a philosophy which could compete with dogmatic church theologies in scope but which described man free from any divine and supernatural tyrannies.

This is the basic influence he had on the Romantics, a vision of man freed from god and religion with a fullness of scope to make the philosophy equal to any Christian or Jewish theology.

There is a tendency in philosophy to miss the forest for the trees. The forest of Spinoza's thought was the important part, people would quibble with this detail here and this detail there. In more literary terms this is rather like take a great novel and focussing on this incident here and this incident there, and missing the overall thrust of the novel.

[adrock3215]

One should keep in mind that in the 17th and 18th centuries "Spinozist" was used to mean what "atheist" is used for now.

This in spite of the fact that he believed in God? Or was he seen in this light because, although believing in God, he rejected the theology of the Church?

This is the basic influence he had on the Romantics, a vision of man freed from god and religion with a fullness of scope to make the philosophy equal to any Christian or Jewish theology.

There is a tendency in philosophy to miss the forest for the trees. The forest of Spinoza's thought was the important part, people would quibble with this detail here and this detail there. In more literary terms this is rather like take a great novel and focussing on this incident here and this incident there, and missing the overall thrust of the novel.

I understand and agree with you that this is a problem. Which is why I acknowledged all Spinoza's flaws, but still saw value in him because of his metaphysical positions. My conjecture is that these fundamental positions are the value Peikoff sees in Spinoza. It's hard to believe that Spinoza's influence on the Romantics had to do with his vision of man freed from God or religion when he essentially advocated that God and Nature are one in the same, and that man is a determined being. I am not seeing how he had "a vision of man freed from god and religion with a fullness of scope to make the philosophy equal to any Christian or Jewish theology." Could you expound on this a bit more?

Thanks.

[punk]

This in spite of the fact that he believed in God? Or was he seen in this light because, although believing in God, he rejected the theology of the Church?

He didn't believe in any sort of god that any Judeo-Christian type of religion would recognize.

The "god" that appears in Spinoza is more of a personification of the laws of nature.

Most people (especially the churchmen of the day) took his "god" as poorly veiled atheism.

I understand and agree with you that this is a problem. Which is why I acknowledged all Spinoza's flaws, but still saw value in him because of his metaphysical positions. My conjecture is that these fundamental positions are the value Peikoff sees in Spinoza. It's hard to believe that Spinoza's influence on the Romantics had to do with his vision of man freed from God or religion when he essentially advocated that God and Nature are one in the same, and that man is a determined being. I am not seeing how he had "a vision of man freed from god and religion with a fullness of scope to make the philosophy equal to any Christian or Jewish theology." Could you expound on this a bit more?

Thanks.

Let us recall that science was somewhat in its infancy at the time, so you didn't have an overall scientific worldview like we take for granted now (and recall that even now our scientific world view inclines to a kind of determinism which denies free will).

So take the philosophical and metaphysical points of view science now makes common-place away.

What sort of explanations of the universe and man's place in it would one have other than religion and superstition?

In essence Spinoza is providing the first scientific worldview (like the one we now take for granted) to compete with religion and superstition. Spinoza is the first to be saying "look, I can explain the universe with gods and magic" (again, his "god" is poorly veiled atheism, and recall too how contemporary scientists talk about "god", even when they don't mean anything recognizably like the "god" of judeo-christian tradition, and often mean little more than the laws of nature personified).

There is the appeal.

We just take what he provided so for granted now that we miss how new it was at the time.

On Edit

Remember too that with Spinoza and the Romantics were talking about the period before Darwin, so a non-religious account of human origins is something of a tricky matter.

Edited May 9, 2008 by punk

[AMERICONORMAN]

AMERICONORMAN: You don't think it may have been more of Aristotle's theory of poetry, which stated (in essentials) that poetry should potray things as they might and ought to be?

Yes, of course. But I believe that if you study Aristotle logic, you will gain much more fulfillment from his poetics, and besides that allow you to undestand a good story, because it would help you identify various ways of human behaviour. I have not studied his logic but I still think this will hold true.

Same holds true with Ayn Rand. I wouldn't grasp her aesthetics as well if I didn't understand basically her view of thinking.

Jose.

[adrock3215]

Still trying to connect these two. Rand seems to maintain that Aristotle stated a fiction writer should present things not as they are, but "as they might be and ought to be". I have been unable to find where Aristotle stated this. In fact, I have found several individuals who say that Aristotle never said this, but rather stated in his Poetics that the fiction writer should represent things "as they might be and could be".

[punk]

Still trying to connect these two. Rand seems to maintain that Aristotle stated a fiction writer should present things not as they are, but "as they might be and ought to be". I have been unable to find where Aristotle stated this. In fact, I have found several individuals who say that Aristotle never said this, but rather stated in his Poetics that the fiction writer should represent things "as they might be and could be".

I don't recollect Aristotle talking about "fiction" in general, rather he talked about specific genres that we would group under "fiction", in this case "tragedy" and "comedy".

In the case of tragedy, the goal is "catharsis", or a sort of "purging".

Everything else Aristotle is saying about tragedy is with an eye to making this "purging" the more effective (that is how to arouse the feelings and state of mind in the viewer so that the "purging" works).

I think the place to start would be to think of movies you've watched or books you've read that left you feeling sort of "empty" or "released" afterwards as though some sort of burden had been taken away from you, and think that what Aristotle is trying to explain is how to achieve this effect on the viewer/reader.