Religious music does weird things to me

[moralist]

People have individual, subjective reactions to music. How they feel about the feelings that they feel that the music contains or evokes is highly subjective. There is no objective basis on which to conclude that a listener is right to interpret a work of music "as a manifestation of evil" versus an inspiration of "their personal power."

On that point is where each of our two views diverge. To secularist libertines there is no objective moral standard of behavior... just whatever they ~feel~ is right.

Both are equally valid interpretations.

That is the view of secular libertines. While each of those two interpretations are equally subjective... they are not equally valid.

To those who acknowledge the reality of an objective moral standard of behavior, one of those two interpretations agrees with reality... while the other does not.

The one thing that we can know for sure, though, is that their reactions to others' interpretations are quite revealing.

The interpretations themselves are revealing... for they reveal the interpreter's values.

When a person needs to believe that his or her subjective tastes are objective and superior, and that others' tastes in music are sufficient psychological and moral indicators of their deficiency and inferiority,

Relativists compare themselves to others... whereas those who are not relativists compare themselves to reality. For only reality possesses the power to render the final verdict on their interpretations when they get what they deserve as the consequences of their actions.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

I didn't know about this libertine thing until Greg brought it up.

Now I'm all libertined up and raring to go!

--Brant

not my fault; I innocently read OL (raging hormones)

[Jonathan]

People have individual, subjective reactions to music. How they feel about the feelings that they feel that the music contains or evokes is highly subjective. There is no objective basis on which to conclude that a listener is right to interpret a work of music "as a manifestation of evil" versus an inspiration of "their personal power."

On that point is where each of our two views diverge. To secularist libertines there is no objective moral standard of behavior... just whatever they ~feel~ is right.

Try to pay attention, Greg. We're discussing aesthetics and the limits of communication in the non-verbal arts. Not morality. The issue here is whether or not music can communicate meanings, not how superior you imagine yourself to be morally. Try to focus. Try to get control over yourself.

Both are equally valid interpretations.

That is the view of secular libertines. While each of those two interpretations are equally subjective... they are not equally valid.

Identify by name the specific "secular libertines" who have given their views on aesthetics, and who have taken the view that you attribute to them. Heh. There aren't any. As usual, you're talking out of your retarded ass. Most "secular libertines" know very little about aesthetics, and they have very little interest in the subject. They tend to adopt Rand's views by default, since they're the only views on the subject that they've ever been exposed to. They DO NOT think that differing subjective interpretations of a work of art are equally valid. Idiot.

To those who acknowledge the reality of an objective moral standard of behavior, one of those two interpretations agrees with reality... while the other does not.

False. I acknowledge the reality of an objective moral standard of behavior, and I don't accept the assertion that one of two interpretations of the meaning of a piece of music agrees with reality. The same is true of a person's preferring chocolate to vanilla. I wouldn't accept anyone's idiotic assertion that acknowledging an objective moral standard of behavior would require one to make moral pronouncements about others' preferences and interpretations of flavors.

The interpretations themselves are revealing... for they reveal the interpreter's values.

Sure, interpretations of art can indeed be revealing, especially if the interpreter specifically states what he values while giving his interpretation. An example would be someone saying that he loves the powerful, rising and soaring nature of a his favorite heavy metal song because it reflects his view of man's capacity to rise and soar in his life. That would indeed be a revelation of his values.

When a person needs to believe that his or her subjective tastes are objective and superior, and that others' tastes in music are sufficient psychological and moral indicators of their deficiency and inferiority,

Relativists compare themselves to others... whereas those who are not relativists compare themselves to reality. For only reality possesses the power to render the final verdict on their interpretations when they get what they deserve as the consequences of their actions.

Then you're a relativist, since you're constantly posing and preening and comparing yourself to others. You compare yourself to others more than any person I've ever encountered. You're so concerned with your pose of being morally superior to others that you turn a discussion on aesthetics and what can or cannot be communicated via aural tones into a discussion on your imagined moral superiority. You're absolutely fixated on morally comparing yourself to others and believing in your superiority.

J

[Jules Troy]

One life I'm gonna live it up

I'm takin' I said I'll never get enough

Stand tall I'm uh, young and kind of proud

I'm on the top, but as long as the music's loud

If you think I'll sit around as the world goes by

You're thinkin' like a fool cause it's a case of do or die

Out there is a fortune waiting to be had

If you think I'll let you go you're mad

You've got another thing comin'

You've got another thing comin'

That's right here's where the talking ends

Well, listen, this night there'll be some action spent

Drive hard callin' all the shots

I got an ace card comin' down rocks

If you think I'll sit around while you chip away my brain

Listen I ain't foolin' and you'd better think again

Out there is a fortune waiting to be had

If you think I'll let it go you're mad

You've got another thing comin'

You've got another thing comin'

You've got another thing comin'

In this world we're livin' in we have our share of sorrow

Answer now and don't give in aim for a new tomorrow

Act tough ain't room for second best

Real strong got me some security

Hey, I'm a big smash I'm goin' for infinity yeah!

If you think I'll sit around as the world goes by

You're thinkin' like a fool cause it's a case of do or die

Out there is a fortune waiting to be had

If you think I'll let you go you're mad

You've got another thing comin'

You've got another thing comin'

You've got another thing comin'

You've got another thing comin'

You've got another thing ahh

Comin' down!

If you think I'll sit around while you chip away my brain

Listen I ain't foolin' and you'd better think again

Out there is a fortune waiting to be had

If you think I'll let it go you're mad

You've got another thing comin'

You've got another thing comin'

You've got another thing comin'

You've got another thing comin'

You've got another thing ahh

Comin' down!

You've got another thing comin'

You've got another thing comin'

You've got another thing comin'

You've got another thing comin'

You've got another thing comin'

You've got another thing comin'

You've got another thing comin'

You've got another thing comin'

You've got another thing comin'

Not exactly evil anti life....Judas Priest a very powerful individualist song.

[moralist]

We're discussing aesthetics and the limits of communication in the non-verbal arts. Not morality.

Music does indeed communicate morality... and the lack of morality as well.

Both are equally valid interpretations.

That is the view of secular libertines. While each of those two interpretations are equally subjective... they are not equally valid.

Identify by name the specific "secular libertines" who have given their views on aesthetics, and who have taken the view that you attribute to them.

You.

In your own words:

There is no objective basis on which to conclude that a listener is right to interpret a work of music "as a manifestation of evil" versus an inspiration of "their personal power."

In your view there is no objective moral standard... and in my view there is.

Greg

[Jonathan]

We're discussing aesthetics and the limits of communication in the non-verbal arts. Not morality.

Music does indeed communicate morality... and the lack of morality as well.

Well, okay then!!! How about we just take your word for it? Will that be okay with you? That way you won't have to bother with proving anything! Problem solved!

Man, philosophy is so easy!

Both are equally valid interpretations.

That is the view of secular libertines. While each of those two interpretations are equally subjective... they are not equally valid.

Identify by name the specific "secular libertines" who have given their views on aesthetics, and who have taken the view that you attribute to them.

You.

In your own words:

There is no objective basis on which to conclude that a listener is right to interpret a work of music "as a manifestation of evil" versus an inspiration of "their personal power."

In your view there is no objective moral standard... and in my view there is.

Wrong. I stated in my last post that my view is that there is an objective moral standard. I mean, seriously, Greg, are you really so stupid that you can't grasp the issue being discussed here?!!! Heh. One more time: We are discussing the communication limitations of non-verbal art forms, but you, being a complete idiot, are misunderstanding the discussion as being about my advocating moral relativism or amorality. I'm truly amazed at what a dunce you are. I've never met anyone who is anywhere near to being as willfully, pigheadely stupid as you are.

J

[Jonathan]

Greg, here's a piece of music:

Identify its subject and meaning, and the view of morality that it communicates.

J

[Brant Gaede]

Music can communicate something seemingly evil or dark, but it may be cathartic for someone's suffering or prelude for deliverance.

--Brant

I wonder what "secular libertine" sounds like?

Hitler music, anyone?

[moralist]

One life I'm gonna live it up.

That's your own free choice.

One day you'll live it down.

Greg

[moralist]

I stated in my last post that my view is that there is an objective moral standard.

There is no objective basis on which to conclude that a listener is right to interpret a work of music "as a manifestation of evil" versus an inspiration of "their personal power."

Here are two contradictory statements in your own words. Reconcile them if you can.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

One life I'm gonna live it up.

That's your own free choice.

One day you'll live it down.

Greg

Great song. One of my favs.

--Brant

(beyond help)

[Brant Gaede]

If there is no objectivity in ethics--morality--then not in politics either. There goes the entire Objectivist philosophy.

Just as human rights are natural rights by referencing the human organism, so too ethics/morality. An objective morality is a natural morality therefore.

--Brant

the human being is the standard, man qua man

[BaalChatzaf]

If there is no objectivity in ethics--morality--then not in politics either. There goes the entire Objectivist philosophy.

Just as human rights are natural rights by referencing the human organism, so too ethics/morality. An objective morality is a natural morality therefore.

--Brant

the human being is the standard, man qua man

If natural rights are so .... natural... then why did it take so long to formulate them? Our race has been on the planet perhaps 200,000 years and rights only happened within the last 10,000 years. They emerged in a stop and start manner and to this day natural rights are neither secure nor universal for the human race? So what happened?

Ba'al Chazaf

[moralist]

Music does indeed communicate morality... and the lack of morality as well.

Well, okay then!!! How about we just take your word for it? Will that be okay with you? That way you won't have to bother with proving anything! Problem solved!

Whenever you begin with a false premise you're bound to end up getting upset, Jonathan. The truth is I never expect anyone to take my word for anything... because everyone here, including you, has already chosen the view by which they will live and die. Only how your own life turns out can give you the final word on that... and not me or anyone else. So there is no one else to blame... not me or anyone else.

I merely stated my view that music is a language which can communicate morality as well as immorality...

...and the music that people like can reveal their values.

This view is merely as subjective as anyone else's view, so you're free to deny it. Reality is the sole judge of whether or not this subjective view agrees with its objective moral standard, and not you or anyone else. You are only free to make your own choice, and are living with the results of your decision just as I am living with mine.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

If there is no objectivity in ethics--morality--then not in politics either. There goes the entire Objectivist philosophy.

Just as human rights are natural rights by referencing the human organism, so too ethics/morality. An objective morality is a natural morality therefore.

--Brant

the human being is the standard, man qua man

If natural rights are so .... natural... then why did it take so long to formulate them? Our race has been on the planet perhaps 200,000 years and rights only happened within the last 10,000 years. They emerged in a stop and start manner and to this day natural rights are neither secure nor universal for the human race? So what happened?

Ba'al Chazaf

That's up to humans. Why did it take so long to invent agriculture and build the first cities? Invent steam engines?

Human rights are a human (philosophical) invention.

This is a long term thing and our lives are short term. Technology is changing much faster than societies. Technology may end up dragging rights into the future. Morality too. Or it may be push-shove.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Music does indeed communicate morality... and the lack of morality as well.

Well, okay then!!! How about we just take your word for it? Will that be okay with you? That way you won't have to bother with proving anything! Problem solved!

Whenever you begin with a false premise you're bound to end up getting upset, Jonathan. The truth is I never expect anyone to take my word for anything... because everyone here, including you, has already chosen the view by which they will live and die. Only how your own life turns out can give you the final word on that... and not me or anyone else. So there is no one else to blame... not me or anyone else.

I merely stated my view that music is a language which can communicate morality as well as immorality...

...and the music that people like can reveal their values.

This view is merely as subjective as anyone else's view, so you're free to deny it. Reality is the sole judge of whether or not this subjective view agrees with its objective moral standard, and not you or anyone else. You are only free to make your own choice, and are living with the results of your decision just as I am living with mine.

Greg

The role of the mind in finding knowledge is what he affirms and you deny. You have no discernible methodology but claim results which you say are subjective by way of defending them and in turn claim his are subjective by use of projection your way to his way. Your view of his subjectivity is only your subjective view, however, you have no way of objectifying it. Or, you only know what you are talking about about you. Maybe.

--Brant

[moralist]

If natural rights are so .... natural... then why did it take so long to formulate them?

Because people are not naturally good.

Goodness comes about by overcoming nature.

Greg

[Jules Troy]

One life I'm gonna live it up.

That's your own free choice.

One day you'll live it down.

Greg

[Jules Troy]

I had a heart attack when I was 33. Every day I wake up happy. Every day I make the most of that day like it could be my last.

Everyone dies. Why would I live my only life "down".

[moralist]

Greg, here's a piece of music:

Identify its subject and meaning, and the view of morality that it communicates.

J

That's not music.

Music is harmonic sound.

(...and you don't even realize how silly you're behaving. )

Grow up, Jonathan.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

You need a potassium supplement plus vitamins C, D and E. Also, saturated fats are better than vegetable fats, an exception being olive oil. Walk five miles a day and don't use cholesterol lowering rugs. They'll lower your cholesterol, but not your heart attack risk. I'd also consider what used to be called a baby aspirin, a day to fight chronic inflamation. Consider a magnesium supplement too. Consider a subscription to the Blaylock Wellness Report. Each issue has an ad for a quality magnesium supplement. Durk Pearson and Sandy Shaw have a potassium supplement sold through Life Enhancement Products.

--Brant

[moralist]

I had a heart attack when I was 33. Every day I wake up happy. Every day I make the most of that day like it could be my last.

Everyone dies. Why would I live my only life "down".

Hey, Jules. That was just a play on words. More properly it would have been "never live it down"...

...which means that people don't forget the embarrassing things we do when we're "living it up".

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Greg, here's a piece of music:

Identify its subject and meaning, and the view of morality that it communicates.

J

That's not music.

Music is harmonic sound.

(...and you don't even realize how silly you're behaving. )

Grow up, Jonathan.

Greg

"Beethoven, that's not music . . . "

--Brant

[jts]

Consistent with the title of this thread, a half hour of pig swill religious music.

A collection of descriptions of his voice:

-- rich light baritone

-- velvet

-- flawless

-- smooth, soothing

-- young

-- soft baritone

-- mellow baritone

-- beautiful

-- magical

-- softness and clarity

-- clear and gentle, yet strong

http://youtu.be/8Sqr_JgfvbI

[Jules Troy]

You need a potassium supplement plus vitamins C, D and E. Also, saturated fats are better than vegetable fats, an exception being olive oil. Walk five miles a day and don't use cholesterol lowering rugs. They'll lower your cholesterol, but not your heart attack risk. I'd also consider what used to be called a baby aspirin, a day to fight chronic inflamation. Consider a magnesium supplement too. Consider a subscription to the Blaylock Wellness Report. Each issue has an ad for a quality magnesium supplement. Durk Pearson and Sandy Shaw have a potassium supplement sold through Life Enhancement Products.

--Brant