During the Enlightenment period, human beings viewed the world with the words of religious leaders in their minds. When Romanticism started, people began to focus on more natural ways of looking at the world. Individuals thought more of their own feelings rather than the feelings they were told to have by their God. Romantics thought more of the spirit of the human person in an Earthly life, focused on all the feelings that rush into a persons mind and body. This was a new way of thinking that became popular through out society. Some Romantics were extremely popular because of the new way of thinking about life and religion that they imposed on society. Romanticism challenged Enlightenment views of the human person and natural world by going against the traditional way of thinking that personal feelings and imagination needs to be suppressed for the public; furthermore showing that a life lived through feelings and imagination can be more satisfying than a life lived through God.
Shelly was a Romantic poet during this time period and challenged Enlightenment views in his works. He went after other women while he was married to another women, something that was frowned upon. He expressed his choice by saying that there is no God, no Heaven, and no Hell, therefore the choices made in life should satisfy a person in the present, not looking forward to the future. This contrast the Enlightenment way of thinking where everything was done for a specific reason that was thought about for a period of time. Romantics did not think, they felt with their emotions and dreamed with their imaginations to make choices that pleasured them during their life span.
Romantics did not need a greater being to look up to, to realizes their purpose in life. They searched deep within their soul to find the meaning they personally had for their life. Lord Byron was very popular during his time, especially with women. He was a dark, mysterious character that used his poetry to heighten the senses of others and himself. He found the meaning of his life not through God, but through his popularity. During the Enlightenment, nobody had ever thought like this, and life was more secluded. Bryon along with other Romantics opened the doors to new ways of life. New ways of life broke up the monotony of daily life, making an imaginative life more fulfilling for many. A belief in God was no longer needed, as people were realizing that they were satisfied by paying attention to feelings the experienced through nature and life itself.
Not all Romantics thought of life the same way, but all knew the importance of emotions. Enlightenment ideas were nearly all the same with no originality at all. Even the music during more classical periods had a specific formula to make it work. Art and music during Romanticism was more appealing to many because it told a story. Romanticism was something people could easily relate to, because it was within themselves, where as during the Enlightenment, people went by what they were told, not by what they felt. The people of the Enlightenment really knew nothing, they only learned what they were told. Romantics knew everything the wanted to know, because they learned it from their inner spirit.
Romanticism changed the view of people on the natural world and religious world. People now had an idea of independence and originality that was not present before this period. People were no longer afraid to try new things, allowing new discoveries and ideas to come about and enhance society. A life through emotions and imagination proved to be sufficient to make the people on the fringes of society feel more certain of their existence. Romanticism challenged the views of the Enlightenment but was able to put its own stamp on the way of life.
I feel like you have some good inclinations here, but fail to support any of them with historical evidence that goes beyond generalization.
ReplyDeleteFurther, I would argue that a statement like "The people of the Enlightenment really knew nothing, they only learned what they were told." is way too broad and without any evidence or support, it suggests lack of knowledge as to what had actually been going on in the Enlightenment.