Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Mikendher]

if everything is relative, then isn't that statement relative also? how do you know that it is true? for that matter, why be rational?

[sp2]

If we're going to get into existential/epistemological debates...

I think, therefore I am.  That doesn't necessitate the existence of you.  Therefore, my thoughts and perceptions are the only absolute in the universe, so my opinions must necessarily be correct.

You have had your butt handed to you care of Descartes.  Enjoy the rest of your day.

[Garcin]

SP2, you've engaged in a solipsism so complete and unconditional, I can only assume that your post was satirical.

Obviously, we can posit that a song has objective worth based on a series of mutually agreed upon, independently verifiable criteria.  Claiming that subjective estimations of worth are incontrovertible is an uninteresting semantical game -- sure noone can tell you whether or not you enjoyed a song, but are you really willing to stick to the claim that because you enjoy a song, the song is good?  Are you unwilling to posit that there may be bad songs you enjoy?

Interestingly, there is a fairly well-known phenomenon in medical circles, where dementia victims find their personal tastes strangely altered.  In a number of instances, pre-dementia classical music fanciers find themselves unable to listen and enjoy classical music -- but newly drawn to top 40 pop like Britney Spears.  I'm not making this up.

So if you don't like the nomenclature of "objective worth", then do what I do: ask yourself whether the music in question sounds like something one would enjoy pre-dementia or post-dementia.

IMHO?  Mogwai: pre-dementia.  Coldplay: post-dementia.

I'm just saying.

--Moiche

[zekterellium]

moiche, you use big words that are scary for me sometimes, i can only assume the liqid on my clothing is sweat

[Garcin]

moiche, you use big words that are scary for me sometimes, i can only assume the liqid on my clothing is sweat

I'm hoping you're right.  I'd prefer not to contemplate the alternatives.

Re: Big words -- they're fun!  Want to know the word for someone who uses a lot of big words?  Sesquipedalian.  I'm not making this shit up.  I know, the irony is biting.

Actually, I'm, like, a professional word-smith.  People hire me to fashion words out of raw phonemes.  I always find it difficult to turn it off and on.  .

--Moiche

[zekterellium]

long words bother me sometimes, but so does succinctness too, so i'm stuck in the middle. it's not so great.

[sp2]

SP2, you've engaged in a solipsism so complete and unconditional, I can only assume that your post was satirical.

Certainly not.  One should always apply philosophical considerations to musical taste.  For example, one should be Nietzschean in how one approaches musical appreciation.  You should seek music which exemplifies the virtue you have sought for yourself.  Music should free you from the shackles of society's oppressive subjective taste and should invigorate you for your search for the ubermensch.

[zekterellium]

guys, in all yr intellectual bickering, yr forgetting what music is really about - making pretty girls dance with you. you should be a nihilist when it comes to music and just enjoy everything. it's what i do.

[sp2]

Aristotle would argue that such pleasures are base and do not better yourself.  Thus, one's morality should work to further thiings which bring more lasting pleasure to yourself and others, such as education, increasing one's honor, and listening to intricate, esoteric, and ultimately more fulfilling music such as The Mars Volta.

[zekterellium]

i really don't like mars volta at all. they're long winded and boring.

[sp2]

Kant's categorical imperitive states that you must not allow in your actions what, if everyone were to follow the same maxim, would lead to the dissolution of society.  If every band were long-winded and, as you say, boring, society would crumble in a mass of musical masturbation.  If every band were fast-paced without any experimentation, the only bands in existence would be punk.  Without anything to fight against, punk would crumble, as punk as an institution has always existed as a response to arena rock, pop, and other over-produced music.  Thus, the world would exist without music, and robbed of such auditory stimulation, we would be plunged into a depression whihc could lead only to suicide.  Thus, we must be led to believe that Kant is the part of the female anatomy that his name most resembles.

[zekterellium]

was kant the guy, that if you thought you were doing the right thing, even if you were feeding sailors to werewolves, then it was the right thing?

[Garcin]

Aristotle would argue that such pleasures are base and do not better yourself.  Thus, one's morality should work to further thiings which bring more lasting pleasure to yourself and others, such as education, increasing one's honor, and listening to intricate, esoteric, and ultimately more fulfilling music such as The Mars Volta.

Well Aristotle wrote that the highest end of man was to pursue a type of happiness he called eudaimonia which was an exalted happiness similar but not identical to spiritual fulfillment.  If dancing with pretty women expedited spiritual fulfillment, and music induced pretty women to dance with you, then arguably the pretty-woman-music would be an acceptable means by which to pursue eudaimonia.  For this The Mars Volta would be less than ideal.  I've had good results with Los Fabulosos Cadillacs personally, but results may vary.

Your reference to Nietzsche was curious.  Nietzsche actually gave a very famous music "review" of Wagner in "The Case of Wagner".  He was fond of the modernity, but thought that it was ultimately sick and decadent.   Of course, this was days before old Freddie snapped like a twig and got put in the nuthouse for the rest of his miserable days, so Nietzsche's views on music should perhaps be taken with a grain of salt.

Zekterellium -- this isn't intellectual bickering, it's a friendly discussion.  Bickering is bitchier.

Let's see which philosopher sp2 goes for next.  I'm guessing Rawls (Music should be chosen behind a veil of ignorance . . . .).

--Moiche

[sp2]

I'm pretty sure that Kant would say that, if everyone were to feed sailors to werewolves, there would no longer be sailors, and our shipping routes would cease to function and society would crumble, and thus we would be violating the categorical imperitive.  Thus, feeding sailors to werewolves is probably not a moral thing to do.  However, if you decided that not killing someone was probably the right thing to do (as murder volates the categorical imperitive) and then the person you didn't kill goes off and feeds a bunch of orphans to voracious ninja dolphins, you still did the right thing.  This is in conflict with the view of utilitarianism and J.S. Mill, which states that the intent does not determine morality, only the sum total good that the action brings.  Thus, if you follow utilitarianism, Vanilla Ice did great things for music, because the entire alt-rock and indie rock movements were both at least in part a response to shitty 80s rock.

However, Nietzsche would be all for you feeling sailors to werewolves, so long as A) it doesn't violate your virtue, B) it increases your personal power, and C) brings you closer to becoming an ubermensch.

[sp2]

Zekterellium -- this isn't intellectual bickering, it's a friendly discussion.  Bickering is bitchier.

And involves a hell of a lot less laughing.  At the moment, I'm hoping I don't hemorrhage my liver or something.

Let's see which philosopher sp2 goes for next.  I'm guessing Rawls (Music should be chosen behind a veil of ignorance . . . .).

I have an even better one, based on the title of this thread.  I just have to think up some bullshit.

[Garcin]

was kant the guy, that if you thought you were doing the right thing, even if you were feeding sailors to werewolves, then it was the right thing?

Err. . . .no I think that's Buffy the Vampire Slayer.  Kant's categorical imperative requires your action to be an end unto itself; and requires the rule you apply to your own action to be the rule that society should apply generally.  But listening to long-winded, obscure, indie music is as much a statement about the right of exercising one's freedom do engage in difficult, self-indulgement music, which is consistent with a larger social good, and is an end unto itself.

Really, the philosopher you want to look to is Bentham, who said that hedonism is an expression of rational self-interest, and allowed utilitarian calculus to justify personal choices.  So music that would make you more productive, energized, and virile (e.g. The Black Keys).

--Moiche

[sp2]

I had a long-winded Randian rant describing the virtue of solo projects as defended by Objectivism.  It basically took a 3 page essay and repeated t for 100 pages using kindergarden-level language.  Then I took that, and rewrote it in a 600 page book.  Not satisfied, I rewrote that again into a 1000+ page piece of ego-masturbation and called it Malkmus Shrugged.

Then I felt dirty and deleted it.

[Garcin]

Agreed.  Best.  Thread.  Ever.

Thus, if you follow utilitarianism, Vanilla Ice did great things for music, because the entire alt-rock and indie rock movements were both at least in part a response to shitty 80s rock.

Utilitarianism requires the "moral" action to engender the greatest total happieness.  Vanilla Ice in no way shape or form brought about the greatest total happiness.  In fact, Vanilla Ice is as close to a utilitarian wrong as you can get.

If you want a philosopher who would justify Vanilla Ice as a cultural phenomenon, look to the Count Marquis de Sade, who said that the pursuit of pain is governed by its own ethics, and is just as desirable as the pursuit of pleasure.

--Moiche

[sp2]

Ooh.  Touche.

Juliette was one of my favorite books for a while.  I even have a knife I named after the title character.

A big fucking knife.

[Garcin]

Then I felt dirty and deleted it.

You did the right thing.

Sublime music from a Randian perspective would reject conformity, while championing the egoism and genius of the artist.  Bjork.  She would have loved Bjork.

--Moiche

[sp2]

I am going out to dinner now, but I'll be back with more.

Mods, even though this is a little off topic, please please please do not lock this.  The comedy value of this thread is so great that to lock it would be a crime against humanity.  Really.  Really really.

[Garcin]

Ooh.  Touche.

Juliette was one of my favorite books for a while.  I even have a knife I named after the title character.

A big fucking knife.

Congratulations, you have successfully scared the living crap out of me.  I'd make a joke about having a teddy-bear I call Candide but I'm still scared shitless about the knife.

--Moiche

[zekterellium]

god you guys are smart...

[KharBevNor]

Some would say, some would say.

Annoyingly, all I can think of whilst reading this thread is the 'Philosophers Drinking Song'.

[Garcin]

I think I need to find out more about this drinking song.

Anyway, to bring this back to the original topic, in what universe can Decemberist's Legionnaire's Lament not be objectively better than Paul Anka's Achy Breaky Heart?  I think the lower ends of crap music are pretty easy to distinguish even if the middle and upper parts are sort of subject of argument.

--Moiche

[Gryff]

That's kind of what I was getting at a lot earlier in the thread. It's much easier to compare the top and bottom ends of music, so that's why we're using them as examples, but just because we may struggle to distinguish between two pieces of music that have similar quality levels doesn't mean that distincitions don't exist.

[Garcin]

Couldn't agree more.  So now the challenge is to articulate what separates the absolute crap, from the mediocre & above.  And, on the other hand, what separates the good stuff from the transcendantal.

I'm pretty convinced that the correct response to the second question is not "a 10.0 in Pitchfork", but then again, I'm not a Radiohead fan.

--Moiche

[KharBevNor]

Bruce's Philosophers Drinking Song:

"Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
Who was very rarely stable.
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
Who could think you under the table.

David Hume could out-consume
Schopenhauer and Hegel.
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel.

There's nothing Nietzche couldn't teach ya
'Bout the raising of the wrist.
Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed...

John Stuart Mill, of his own free will,
On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.
Plato, they say, could stick it away--
Half a crate of whisky every day.

Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle.
Hobbes was fond of his dram,
And René Descartes was a drunken fart.
'I drink, therefore I am.'

Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed,
A lovely little thinker,
But a bugger when he's pissed."

[Garcin]

Oh, that philosopher's drinking song.  It would be beyond amazing to hear a bunch of drunken philosophy phd's slur that one out in a bar, one late Friday night.  Bonus points if they then got into an argument over different philosopher's opinions on the objective worth of music that escalated to slaps and nipple-twists.

--Moiche

[Se7en]

How about some slightly newer philosophy? You may argue that maslow wasnt a philospher, but phycologists can often cover a lot of the same ground..
Anyway, Maslows heirachy of needs puts self actualising needs right at the top of the pyramid, which essentially agrees with Aristotles eudaimonia. HOWEVER.. the important part of maslows heirachy is the idea that the higher desires can never been satisfied before the more basic needs are attended to. The heirachy goes..

Physical needs
Safety needs
Relationships needs
Esteem needs
Self actualising needs

So maslow would say that art isnt worth the CD its pressed on if you dont actaully enjoy it, and that egotistical experimental bands would be useless if we didnt also have love songs and happy songs too.

Just thought id muddy the waters some more.

[Aphi]

Maslow was a bloody idiot.

[Se7en]

What makes you say that? His ideas are the basis for all modern humanistic phycotherapy, which shows its got practical applications. Phychiatry is little more than applied philosophy anyway. Makes a lot more sense than all that crap that the psychodynamic lot spout. Freud can suck my plums.

[MilkmanDan]

Actually, I'm, like, a professional word-smith.  People hire me to fashion words out of raw phonemes.

DEAR MOICHE,
OH DEAR GOD, YOU JUST WON EVERYTHING.
LOVE,
MILKMANDAN

I think, therefore I am. That doesn't necessitate the existence of you. Therefore, my thoughts and perceptions are the only absolute in the universe, so my opinions must necessarily be correct.

Well, no. I think, therefore thoughts exist. You have no grounds to group them into a unified 'self'. So you don't exist either.

[lastclearchance]

Sublime music from a Randian perspective would reject conformity, while championing the egoism and genius of the artist.  Bjork.  She would have loved Bjork.

Actually, I would think Rand would see Bjork as inaccessible music that is on a major label and that people overwhelmingly say is good because that's what people say about it.  So it's "deep." Like that novelist's work in the Fountainhead.  So wouldn't Rand have hated it?

[mechorg]

Well, since Descartes' only deciding factor on the debate whether he existed or not was the fact there is a kind God that wouldn't let that happen and I am an athiest...
I believe none of you or I, myself exist.  It makes life much more fun that way.

While talking philosophy, I'd rather hold to my own beliefs that quote other theories that have been developed in the past.  You can be as booksmart as a Harvard grad and still have none of your own thoughts.  This is fun reading, though.  I miss these conversations in college.

[Gryff]

Well, I exist. I don't know about the rest of you though. *shifty eyes*

That you exist in your own thoughts should be enough to prove some kind of existence to yourself. How do you explain that nothing exists?

[sp2]

Well, since Descartes' only deciding factor on the debate whether he existed or not was the fact there is a kind God that wouldn't let that happen and I am an athiest...
I believe none of you or I, myself exist.  It makes life much more fun that way.

No.  The fact that thoughts necessarily require a thinker is assumed to be self-evident in western thought (eastern thought differs, but that is neither here nor there.  Nietzsche has some choice words for Buddhism).  Descartes relied on the existence of an omni^3 god to prove that the rest of the universe is indeed in existence, because a truly omni^3 god could not act as a deceptive cartesian demon for various arbitrary moral reasons.