Will you be paying via PayPal, credit or debit? — JJJJS

via Karmic debt

When I initially joined here, I would have agreed with you, but now I kind of like going to the home page and seeing all at once what sorts of things are being discussed, just in general. Just my 0.02.

Hi! What would you say truth is? Doesn't it presuppose truth to say what truth is? If this is so, is it bad? — mew

No, it's not bad. I've always liked the simplicity of the argument you bring up: asking whether truth exists or not doesn't beg the question, but rather answers itself in an utterly pure manner. Indeed, it's circular in the best possible way. This is because truth is one of the very building blocks of consciousness. We live in an age where this is beginning to get fleshed out. Keep asking those deceptively simple questions.

Pilot doesn't get an answer to his question. — Bitter Crank

I was always struck by the existential weight of that question within it's historical context, especially because he then says he sees no basis for a charge against Jesus.

Imagination seems to me to be the dynamic medium in which and along which all of our other facilities flow, how we synthesize reason & experience. — Cavacava

That's an interesting definition (it sparks my imagination), but it's not the way I would describe it. I see that as one function among others that imagination performs. I think of the imagination of children; the ability to be ridiculous. The artist Makoto Fujimura, who's painting "Walking On Water" is in my avatar, says that imagination and creativity are gratuitous. He's willfully repurposing that word here (repurposing being an action that artists regularly perform; philosophers seem to dread it). In other words, imagination serves no utilitarian purpose. I would amend that to say that imagination is not confined by a utilitarian purpose, and as such is free to serve any purpose, including the ones you describe. But fundamentally, it's completely free and not bound by anything.

I'd say obscure thought or expression tends to inhibit the possibility to imagine and arrive at conclusions. — jkop

What's an example?

Also the nature of philosophy is a philosophical question, e.g. whether it is the search after the truth, therapeutic contemplation, or love of wisdom. I believe that the latter is the generally accepted definition. — jkop

That's just the literal etymology of the word, though. It's prosaic to assume that that's what it has to mean now. The meanings of words change, which is beautiful and an important thing to embrace.

In ancient philosophy 'seeking after the truth' was one of the first definitions, so it has attained rather more prominence than it should now. — ernestm

Can you explain your reasoning here? Are you saying that the fact that it was one of the first definitions means it shouldn't be such a prominent way to define it now? If so, you'll need to explain why that is.

Philosophical truth in the current era is rather formally defined as the property of a statement--or derived from a statement--or a natural quality that is necessarily inherent in a statement-- or some other association to a statement, depending on one's epistemology. — ernestm

This makes no sense.

I also see no need to go into such detail on what exactly truth is, and the perceived many shades of it. Nikolai Berdyaev says "pure undistorted truth burns up the world". Your thoughts on truth aren't burning up the world.

I'd say 'Of course'. We use imagination to generate examples, concoct problem cases, conduct thought-experiments, invent novel arguments and probably in of most of the things philosophers do. — yazata

True, but I've seen so many horrible straw mans and uselessly unrealistic theoretical scenarios dreamed up by philosopher types. It seems to me a gross misuse of a stunted imagination when I see it. And this is an example:

My view is that the whole 'possible worlds' idea is dependent on imagination. Although not usually expressed that way, a 'possible world' is in my view just a set of circumstances that we can imagine. — andrewk

How could it makes sense that morality could supersede survival? Since we all die, and there is a possibility that life may be eradicated from earth, we haven't yet achieved survival. — Metaphysician Undercover

Because of the possibility of life after death. Or, the possibility of death eventually being overcome. I also don't think my own survival is my ultimate goal. Even something like suicide rates should be enough to at least suggest the possibility that for us humans, things are different. We've evolved past a pure physical state; we've become so complex that there's a type of sickness that for us is worse than life, than survival itself. We want more than survival on an individual level. When we don't achieve this "more than" state, some of us begin to "go off" if you will, and begin down a road that leads us to a point where we'd rather freely end our own survival. An animal will fight for it's life until it's dying breath, but a human person may freely decide to end their own life.

Also, it sounds like you're equating "survival" with something like "ultimate survival" here. Of course we've "achieved survival". We still exist as a species. We achieve survival every day.

If we instil morality as the goal or purpose, then how can we ensure that this morality would produce survival? — Metaphysician Undercover

I wasn't suggesting morality to be the purpose of evolution. I realize that wasn't clear. I agree with you that morality is the means by which we reach the highest good. Or at least, I agree with the idea that morality is a vehicle, or a structure. I realize I've been framing this discussion in my mind within the ideas of Teilhard de Chardin. I don't necessarily buy his ideas, but I'm fascinated by them, and I toy with them sometimes. So, I can imagine the structure of physical evolution giving birth to consciousness, which is almost a sixth sense. With the birth of consciousness comes a new structure: morality. At the least, this makes more sense to me than the idea of morality existing "eternally", or just in some vague abstract sense that's not related to time or physical matter. So in this sense, I can entertain the possibility of the evolution of moral concepts, or the evolution of a moral structure within consciousness in general. But I again appeal to the difference between knowledge and practice here. I don't even necessarily claim this idea as my own opinion. I'm working through possibilities. This is what I mean by not thinking discursively; I'd rather work through ideas intuitively and non-linearly. This seems to be problematic for people.

In relation to being in general, don't you think that to be alive is of a higher priority than to be moral. Morality exists as a hierarchy of values, as Aristotle says, one thing is for the sake of another, which is for the sake of something further, etc., until we reach the highest good. But morality is the means by which we reach the good, it relates to the actions, the means to the end, it isn't the good which is sought. So morality must be for the sake of some higher good. — Metaphysician Undercover

So do you consider survival more important than achieving the highest good?

I don't think being alive is a higher priority than being moral. See my earlier comments about suicide. Life can be agony. If being alive is a higher priority than being moral, then I'm free to kill anyone who threatens my life. Sounds like moral evolution, right? Wait...

Notice that we all think in a different way, you, me Wayfarer, and others, yet we always seem assume that there is a way of the general population. — Metaphysician Undercover

We're the strange type who post on philosophy forums. I don't mean this in a holier-than-thou sense, but there is definitely a trend within the general population to accept a general consensus without using critical thinking to question the consensus. Folks like us tend to go the opposite direction. So there's no need to use people like us as a counter-example to the idea that the general population follows trends.

The differences are what makes us individuals, yet we always assume that there is something which unites us as "the same". We take this for granted, that we are of the same species, that we follow the same cultural norms, but how do we really justify this? Within the same species, there are different cultures. Within the same culture, people think in different ways. Isn't there a reason why we try to be like others? — Metaphysician Undercover

Is this a continuation of the argument you start at the beginning of that paragraph? I can't really tell; it doesn't make much sense to me in relation to what you initially said. For instance, you seem to be conflating being "of the same species" with "following[ing] the same cultural norms". But then almost immediately you say "Within the same species, there are different cultures."

how can you ask me what's the purpose of evolution? — Metaphysician Undercover

How can you not ask yourself that question?

Don't you think that survival is very important? — Metaphysician Undercover

It's important in the same way that a car engine is important. It gets me from A to B. But it's not the purpose of my trip.

I must admit, I had difficulty with this, and had to reread numerous times, because "function of" may be taken in numerous ways. — Metaphysician Undercover

Not to be lazy, but I was basically trying to make the argument (apparently not very well) that Wayfarer illustrated when he said:

subordinating morality to evolution reduces it to a mere adaption, like a tooth or claw or peacock's tail — Wayfarer

And then, taking it a step further, I was suggesting that maybe morality and survival are stages, if you will, along the course of evolution. It's an idea that I'm toying with, that I haven't fleshed out. Basically, morality supersedes survival in the evolutionary process. Maybe with other steps in between, maybe not. I hope that at least makes more sense?

I'm not a very discursive thinker, so I seem to have trouble communicating my ideas to people like you who have a much stronger command of reason and logic. What I'm seeing is this: there is a tendency to try to understand morality through the lens of evolutionary survival. I think that's incorrect. I see this more in the general population, not necessarily in a philosophical realm as much (other than the new atheists, although they're of course not actual philosophers). And I think this is actually an important distinction; it seems like folks like Wayfarer and I on here have a tendency to make observations based on what we see in the population at large, rather than simply marshaling the forces of one's own ideas against the forces of another. This seems like an approach not always taken by others here. Simply an observation, for the sake of trying to understand one another better.

Clearly I'm not assuming survival as a constant. — Metaphysician Undercover

I shouldn't have assumed this. But it's certainly something I see from others. But, what do you see as the purpose of evolution? Is there a telos? If not, then who cares? What's the point?

How would a relationship between morality and survival undermine evolution itself? — Metaphysician Undercover

To clarify, I said that if morals are a function of evolution, then this would undermine evolution. So not just any relationship, but a relationship of morals being a function of evolution. So, the very concept of evolution that, for instance, you describe, is about change. The assumption you're making, thanks to our fixation on Darwin still, is that "survival" is a constant. You have to realize that this is simply an assumption. There is no reason to assume that this is a constant; it's a baseless assumption. Evolution is change, and yet survival is not subsumed in that change. Why? Why is survival a constant, rather than a function that is subject to the same change? So, to use one's imagination (oh the horror! oh the taboo!), one can see that if evolution involves change, then this also includes the role that survival play(ed) in evolution. To my mind, it's a simple, obvious thing. More to come tomorrow; I'm exhausted after an over-long night at work.

Some people wonder why Americans are so religious. (They are compared to Europe, especially). I would say it is (at least to some extent) BECAUSE there has been so much splintering. Every time a group divides, it is re-energized. — Bitter Crank

Eh, what you say about gaining energy through forming a new denomination is undoubtedly true, but there are other reasons America is so Christian. And as far as ethnic sects of the same denomination of Christianity within America, those existed because of immigration; early immigrants stuck together with those of their same race; naturally their unique form of the faith remained in tact while those close-knit communities did so. Once those ethnic communities began to splinter, the ethnic sects of the denominations began to blur.

There was quite a bit of competition: Baptists vs. Methodists; Lutherans vs. Catholics; Presbyterians vs. Congregationalists, etc. and not just good-natured competition. — Bitter Crank

I don't think there was actual competition between denominations in the early US; the denominations were again cultural, not specifically theological. To the contrary, those denominations would have rather retained only members of their ethnic group, early on. Economics as much as anything else are what caused those ethnic lines to dissolve. From there, I think theological problems were afterwards more responsible for the proliferation of endless new denominations.

"Moral" refers to the distinction between right and wrong in human actions. So if there is an evolution of moral concepts, then there is an evolution of the distinction between right and wrong in human actions, and by definition, this is moral evolution. However, I don't know what you mean by "moral evolution of the inner life of the individual". But as for humanity as a whole, if there is evolution in our moral concepts, then there is evolution in our ability to distinguish right and wrong in human actions, an therefore moral evolution. — Metaphysician Undercover

The difference is knowledge versus practice. This is where religious life comes into play. And I can't believe I'm saying that; I've been out of the church for over a year and am not one who practices a religion any longer. There is a difference between "knowing", or being able to "distinguish right and wrong" in a more and more nuanced way, versus applying that knowledge towards an everyday practice. You seem to assume that the two are interchangeable. This is actually classic Biblical wisdom; it's "head knowledge versus heart knowledge" (ugh, what a gross phrase, yet so true). Practice means consciously applying the actual concepts; things like charity, unconditional love, meditation. Every interaction in your life is an opportunity to put these moral concepts into practice. This is what I mean by "moral evolution of the inner life of the individual". What I mean is: There is not an evolution of more and more people applying the more and more nuanced moral concepts we have to their everyday practice. What we have instead is that the general knowledge of moral problems becomes more and more nuanced over time, but this has nothing to say about the actual application of that knowledge by individuals to their lives. In fact, if anything, the ever-increasing complexity of moral problems just serves to confound the average person, leaving them to fall back on whatever political or religious sentiment is convenient and sufficient enough to stay the tide of overwhelming moral dilemmas that our current world consists of. This is ultimately not about abstract philosophy; it's about personal practice. Morals always ultimately come down to this: the individual person. Conceptions of morality that don't revolve around the individual de-humanize the individual, which is to say that they de-humanize humanity itself.

Evolution is based in change. What leads toward the survival of the species we might call good change, and what leads toward the extinction of the species we might call bad change, if survival is what is designated as good. To give evidence that some moral principles may change for the worse is not evidence that there is no such thing as moral evolution, as evolution consists of changes for the worse as well as changes for the better. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is a classic conflation of survival with moral good. Survival is a mechanism of material evolution; taking this mechanism and applying it to the realm of morals is a misapplication, and this is why: To assume that morals are a function of survival undermines evolution itself; so if evolution is based on change, then there will be a change from survival to something else. Morals are a function of that new form of change, and we live in that world now. Our evolution is no longer based on survival.

Your thoughts are all well-taken.

The time of Christianity is past — Metaphysician Undercover

To the contrary, it's still the largest religion in the world.

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/religious-projections-2010-2050/

There can be no such thing as a new Christianity because then it would not be Christianity at all, but a new form of religion — Metaphysician Undercover

And again, from the schism of 1054, to the birth of protestantism, to the splintering of countless denominations, it's all the same religion. This seems obvious to me.

I do not believe that organized religion is destructive to mankind, because evolution is rooted in organization. — Metaphysician Undercover

Perhaps destructive to mankind is a strong phrase.

It is false to claim that there is no such thing as moral evolution because Christianity is a very good example of this. — Metaphysician Undercover

There is a definite evolution of moral concepts, but I see no evidence of a moral evolution of the inner life of the individual or humanity as a whole. Humanity is not becoming more moral as history unfolds. Plus the evolution of moral concepts is parralel to technological and scientific evolution. The result is the appearance of an inner moral evolution of mankind (held up the most conspicuously by the new left), but the actual inner moral evolution isn't there. Look to the proliferation of fundamentalist tendencies like shaming, virtue-signaling and the suppression of free speech (all on the left) as evidence of this lack of moral evolution.

I don't mean to denigrate simple, pure, morally good folk, but they are not going to lead us through this troubling time. — Punshhh

I didn't take it that you meant to denigrate those people; and you're right that they don't have the ability to lead, or at least not on a political level. But there's such profound wisdom in the parables that involve Jesus celebrating children. Children lead in their own way, sometimes. I guess I was just reacting to what I saw as a claim for intellectual prowess for it's own sake, something I'm probably overly-sensitive towards. As you were.

I meant morally good, not good as opposed to evil. — Punshhh

I don't comprehend.

Regarding The Lord of the Rings, the ring is an interesting thing, whoever posses it is compromised. Golem, my favourite character, is a good example. — Punshhh

Certainly. There are any number of allegories to pull out of the narrative, except Tolkien eschewed all allegory, on philosophical principle, despite his Catholic faith. He was more concerned with his concept of "sub-creation". From what I can tell, the idea is that art made by us humans is, very simply, a childlike mirroring of the art of the original Creator. It kind of just sounds like a cop-out for allegory, but I take it to mean that he felt he had sufficient permission to create an entire world based on artistic instinct, thanks to his faith in God, and from there, any allegorical comparisons were accidental, but naturally within theological bounds. He felt a freedom to create from instinct, despite his instinct being informed by his religious views. A rare, hard-to-find worldview among artists today. And not just within a religious context.

I think that amongst the intelligentsia, that would include most posters on this forum, people have achieved a level of morality suitable for us to go forward with confidence. — Punshhh

Really?... :P

As someone who grew up in the church, there's something to be said for the man of simple faith. There's a pure childlike quality in some of the simplest of people who are below any level of intellectual fortitude. I remember spending a week serving at a home for adults with disabilities. You'd be hard-pressed to find a purer, simpler strand of the beauty of humanity.

I do think there are more, by far, good people in the world. But the not so good people do seem to create havoc and often get into positions of power etc. — Punshhh

My problem with this is this classic dichotomy of good people versus bad. I think it's part of the neurosis that binds us to a set level of moral stagnation. Trump is bad, Bernie is good, blah blah...this "us vs. them" mentality only fuels the separateness that gives birth to new forms of strife. The hard thing, the mystical thing, is to imagine oneself as...Trump, for instance. Or to imagine Trump as the neglected little child, an empty vessel waiting for parental love that never arrives.

I appreciate your view of mysticism, I think that it's place is amongst a periphery of people who are suited to contemplation. A world of Mystics would, I think, look a bit like Lord of the Rings, so that is not a way forward. — Punshhh

>:O Fair enough, although there are plenty of less mystical characters to be found there (I'm currently re-reading the series, as it happens). Samwise comes to mind, for instance, or any of the hobbits, except Frodo, who, after several re-readings now, is more and more annoyingly Elvish.

My question to you and the other contributors is where are we headed?
Also where should we head? — Punshhh

I vacillate between the need for humanism to reincarnate God in some form (??), and the need for some new form of Christianity (a mystical form) to take hold. But Christianity taking hold never seems to work out well. But Christian morals, bereft of a religious context don't seem to hold up, which stirs doubt in me about the efficacy of any form of humanism whatsoever. But organized religion is equally destructive to mankind. And why? It's because there's no moral evolution. So then I vacillate between whether it's possible for us to incubate a moral evolution in humanity ourselves (the time being just not ripe yet), or whether we're helpless and simply waiting for divine action...other than that, pure nihilism seems like the only other tenable position. All secular attempts at ascribing meaning to life leave me chuckling bitterly. But, thanks in part to Wayfarer's contributions, I also see the wisdom in "not knowing", and the wisdom in seeking higher forms of reality. There's almost a poetic dichotomy between human "Not-Knowledge" and divine "All-Knowledge". What this actually means in pragmatic terms for humanity in a historical context is hard to say. The mystical path has always been esoteric, rather than exoteric. This also has always been a problem for me. If there really is an inner spiritual path that leads to enlightenment or salvation, then that means most people are not on it, and this bothers me.

One thing I tell my friends in real life when we end up in political discussions is that real politics take place on a personal level. My political influence is those around me; those in my immediate circle. My responsibility is to love them to the best of my ability; to carry out charity, equity, and any other political action, but on an individual level.

Maybe we can sum it up by contrasting Bach's music to some shrill post on Facebook. — Ignignot

Indeed. We seem to have many ways of thinking in common, for apparently having differing worldviews.

I think the historical roots are fairly evident, and it does involve actual violence. I mean, Western history is not without violence, and at least some of the conflict was over ideas. At least some of these ideological conflicts are referred to as 'culture wars', after all. — Wayfarer

Of course I have to agree here; I think what I was more so getting at is that Western humanity itself as a whole is responsible, including the whole genealogy of Christianity, the Enlightenment, the death of God, nihilism, etc. etc. Or, not responsible, but...the cause of the effect we're seeing. You have to look past the "sides", the "other", and see humanity as a whole within the struggle (not an ignoble pursuit on a forum such as this, too). So there's not some atheistic or nihilist plot to destroy moral values...this seems to be the nuanced understanding of Nietzsche, for instance. The death of God is almost a lament.

My point is a description of what was done when Christian tradition dominated society. — TheWillowOfDarkness

So why are you giving this description? It's the age old critique of the church, so perhaps I assumed you were calling hypocrisy because of the content. But I'm not sure how saying you were describing said hypocrisy gets you off the hook. In other words, bringing up moral failing within Christianity seems to beg the question. How can you describe a moral failing of a group with specific morals without using that same set of morals to make the judgement? Under what moral conditions are you making your description, exactly? And then my previous questions follow, again:

Calling the church out on it's own moral terms without offering an alternative way that does credence to those moral precepts you're using to make your critique is not an argument. — Noble Dust

I'll read Wayfarer's comments myself and come to my own interpretations of them, thanks.

Sure, those guys are a symptom. But I'm not using wooly (?) spiritual terms, I'm trying to approach it morally, because that's implicitly what we're all doing when we address this situation at all. Apparently we all agree that this matters. That's what I consider a spiritual dimension to the discussion. Call it metaphysical if you like. This is why it's important to ask how Christian concepts are affecting the situation; it goes back to my question about whether those concepts can be translated and borne by a humanistic approach, or if they can't be cut off from their religious roots.

The West's pillaging of the world by didn't begin the 20th century — TheWillowOfDarkness

And this is exactly an example of this problem. It's well known how hypocritical the church has been in history, but calling them out is only a valid claim if you accept the principles that Christianity espouses. Calling the church out on it's own moral terms without offering an alternative way that does credence to those moral precepts you're using to make your critique is not an argument.

My dissatisfaction with this politics-as-religion is (1) that it's not transcendent enough and (2) that it's inherently unstable as a religion of a progress. I personally want spirituality to be bigger than politics. Of course we remain political animals, but there are states of consciousness that perceive the here and now as perfect and complete, where 'evil' is a necessary dissonance in the music — Ignignot

I agree completely. Spirituality will always be bigger. Loving my neighbor is a spiritual responsibility; what my government says about that responsibility is always secondary. To say otherwise is to rob me of my individuality (or individuation?)

So in broad terms, what I think has happened to Western culture is that it has been hijacked by a hostile force — Wayfarer

I agree with the severity of that claim, but I'm not sure that's it's an actual premeditated act of metaphysical violence like your language suggests. I'm cautious about any language that suggests "they" have done this or that, or have this or that agenda. It should be "we", which includes "I". Of course there are people like Dawkins and Dennett who seem to have their own agenda, but scientific materialism is as much a failing of Christianity as anything else. If scientific materialism is a parasitic entity, then we've impregnated ourselves with it.

these levels appear in both the "external" and the "internal" worlds, "higher" levels of reality without corresponding to "deeper" levels of reality within — Wayfarer

I'm a little confused by this.

I believed that there was a 'perennial philosophy' that different spiritual philosophies were an aspect of, and that 'spiritual illumination' was a universal source of inspiration in all of them. — Wayfarer

I agree, although I have way more studying to do.

You want to crusade against materialists? Actual scientists stopped being that - in terms of operative metaphysics - about a century ago. — apokrisis

The problem here is that this doesn't seem to have trickled down to society at large. The effects of scientific materialism still exist in the technological race of more and more means without any ends. It's a capitalistic deathgrip on society still. Whether or not people actually believe in materialism is kind of null vs. the fact that a materialistic ethos controls how society functions, in relation to technology.

So to tie my ramblings back to what you're saying, it seems like the individualism of the ego that you describe is the outcome, the empty shell, of the divorce of Christian concepts from Christianity itself.

However the way individualism has developed in the West, post-enlightenment philosophy has increasingly rejected the Christian ethos. — Wayfarer

Right, but some of the basic moral foundations of that ethos remain, especially (and ironically) on the progressive left. And humanism's narrative of self-salvation is the offspring of this ethos as well. My problem currently is trying to understand what, if any, significance this "genealogy of morals" (if you will) has. I guess for me it's a metaphysical conundrum. Do the ideas themselves of the Christian ethos (equality, unconditional love, future salvation) have being or content in themselves, within the evolution of history? Can these ideas breed from religion to religion, worldview to worldview, and if so, will they ultimately breed their own culmination? Do these ideas still have life and are laying dormant in humanism? If so, is it through humanity, through a divine force, through nature (evolution), etc, that they'll come to fruition? In other words, can these concepts survive on their own without their original, mystical-religious context, or are they dependent on that context? The lack of inner spiritual life in secular humanism seems to indicate that Christian moral concepts can't survive without their proper context. But the history of the Church is no more optimistic a view through which to see the concepts, either. The church has failed, yet the humanistic carrying of the torch seems fated to failure as well. This goes back to a neutral evolution of consciousness. Consciousness evolves alongside the physical world, but it's not an evolution from lower to higher morality. Human reason breeds technological innovation, which creates the facade of moral evolution as physical survival becomes less pressing, thanks to those technological developments that insulate us from the harshness of the natural world. It's easier to love my brother when I don't have to fight him for bread or a roof over my head. A real evolution of morals is a much more radical notion, and seems to require either a change in the nature of humanity itself on an inmost level, or divine intervention. The only other alternative seems to be pure, unadulterated nihilism.

Maybe no one goes to a building on Sunday, but they practice their religion on Facebook and maybe at the demonstration. — Ignignot

Yup, same argument I've tried to make on this forum. The problem with this fundamentalist humanist religion is there's no inner spiritual life; their views are marked by a poverty of the spirit. Their morals are the empty shell of the seed of Christian morals. And of course Christianity itself is as much responsible for handing them this empty shell as secularism.

Currently TV is in something like a golden age. I don't read many novels these days, since I'm finding such sophisticated and well-executed narratives in various shows. — Ignignot

Yes indeed; and I'm a failed millennial for not "keeping up on my shows" like society tells me I should >:O although, within the context of your argument, I'm not sure how this applies to greatness in the mainstream, vs. forgetting the mediocrity of the past. Do you think the Golden Age of TV is a mediocrity, or a form of greatness, or something in between, or what?

Of course Notes from Underground is about (among other things) consciousness in excess as a curse. But self-consciousness is a big part of his disease. He obsesses over slights, obsesses over how he looks to others, experiences himself as a object of contempt when he wants to be admired. — Ignignot

Yes; this is the main gist I got from that book when reading it in college, and then re-reading it for pleasure (?) later on.

This echoes what I mean by "haunted by God." — Ignignot

Can you explain this concept further? I'm very intrigued by it, but also confused by your obtuse language in describing it.

There are A-list philosophers who one might feel ashamed of not having read, for instance. Other philosophers are taboo. You lose points for suggesting their ideas are worth talking about. — Ignignot

This is so profoundly the bane of so much critical thought.

You say quite a lot of good things in this post. — Preston

Thank you.

I think the point about God's intervention is that, just like parents, God wouldn't allow his children to be raped if God could stop it. — Preston

But this is such a random, abstract analogy. Are you talking about actual God preventing his actual children from actually being raped? Or is it an analogy? Or what?

It helps me stay on target when constructing my thoughts about God and God's ability to intervene. — Preston

And this seems to be just the problem, that you feel the need to remain "on target" when constructing your own, personal thoughts about God. What does that even mean? Why should I consider your personal thoughts about God to be on par with my own?

I take a process panentheistic position these days, when my radical theological mind isn't flared up. That is, I see God as limited by love, but not because God can do anything. God is a weak God who cannot intervene but can only persuade and lure, never coerce. — Preston

How is God as a weak God panentheistic?

So, my point was about placing limits on God, reasonable limits to preserve our freedoms and God's goodness. — Preston

So you're placing limits on God him/herself, or on your personal concept of God? Or what?

Edit: sorry if my response comes off as cold or overly critical. Just read my responses as honest questions.

What I'm arguing (and apparently not very well) is that music didn't evolve from Bingen (12th century) to say, Palestrina (16th century), or from Palestrina to Bach (overlapping 17th & 18th century). — Bitter Crank

I guess if your argument is that the music was so heavily dictated by the king, or the church, or whatever, then I can see the point. But this doesn't necessarily tie in to arguments for evolution happening in later periods of art. Plus, I'm pretty sure Bach was a bit of a renegade. But i'm definitely not an expert on those early periods of Western music; it sounds like you're more knowledgeable than I am. It's a healthy reminder for me to revisit some of those musics. I do love Palestrina.

Everybody has a soft spot for The Four Seasons, judging by how often Public Radio plays it. I thought it was pure heaven when I first heard it 50+ years ago, but after 1000 times, the charm is wearing off. — Bitter Crank

>:O Point taken. My mom had a tape of this that we played in the car when I was a kid, so I have a nostalgic connection with it.

I like Ravel, but if I never heard Bolero again, it wouldn't be too soon. Also played to death. — Bitter Crank

Similarly, this is famously the piece that he despised himself the most, and not in part because of it's commercial success. If you're not familiar with the girth of his piano rep (Gaspard de le Nuit, Mirroirs, La Tombeau de Couperin, etc), then I definitely recommend digging into it before making a judgement about him.

Have you heard Eric Satie's Gymnopédies, written in the late 1880s? — Bitter Crank

Yes, I love that suite more than Ravel and Debussy in general, I would say. I learned the last movement of that piece as a kid, probably like 11 years old or something. Wrecked my world. The Gnossienne's are also pretty good. Satie as a figure in general is so important; he was, seemingly, the first "dilettante" as such to make a dent in the classical scene as an outsider. Compare to the narratives of genres like heavy metal, slacker rock, etc., now adays...it's the trope of the outsider who doesn't conform...all during the late romantic period. And with Debussy's blessing, no less.

What seems to happen isn't so much "evolution" as "mining the past for current material". — Bitter Crank

Here, now that we're getting back to the actual topic, seems to be where we disagree. Of course, evolution involves a transformation of past material. I guess the question of evolution as applied to art seems, on the outset, to be one very much of taste, which is why it's so contentious. But, like I've said, I don't see it as a problem of taste. There are actual, clear cut, musical concepts in classical as an ourvre, that we can trace over time that change, that seemingly "evolve", for instance. Or when you look at the history of jazz (which is an excellent place to begin from, since it's inception, climax and downfall all happened within less than a century), you can see a more or less logical progression of harmonic content; you see the early influences of symbolism and late romanticism, and by the end, when you reach Pharaoh Sanders, Alice Coltrane, and Albert Ayler's free jazz wig-outs, vs. Myles going electric and then into fusion, versus the rise of guys like Keith Jarrett, you see how the music splintered into different, unrelated factions. So again, like I mentioned somewhere above, there's evolution, but it's a neutral evolution, not automatically a positive or negative evolution. It's a natural growth.

Same thing with black music and rock and roll. — Bitter Crank

Woah, not sure what you're referring to here as "black" music? Granted I'm no progressive liberal who's here to shame you into thinking of yourself as a racist; I'm just not sure what you mean. Plantation spirituals? Early blues? Early rock n' roll? Any era of jazz? Early hip-hop? Modern rap?

I disagree that art evolves. It doesn't evolve in the same way that sculpture, poetry or literature doesn't evolve. — Bitter Crank

Well, right away, there seems to be some confusion; I mean "art" as a canopy for any medium, including sculpture, poetry, etc. It seems you mean the same, except, then, I'm confused why you even made this comment?

I'm not familiar with von Bingen, and I'm not sure what your argument is, in regards to her. The music sounds great, reminds me of gregorian chant, etc. But I'm not sure what you're arguing.

Bach also composed in a particular milieu, and his imprint on music is much too big to count as "evolution". — Bitter Crank

This is an interesting point that I haven't considered. There's certainly a sense in which the giants do seem to literally "overshadow" their very milieu. But is this the sheer depth of their work itself, or just our historical projection back unto the past, thanks to the way they've been venerated in posterity?

And there is 'wrong' in art, or so musicians tell me. Haydn's scores are polished, because Haydn's position gave him time to perfect. Mozart, on the other hand, was frequently rushed, under pressure, short of funds, and so on. His scores have rough passages (so I am told). — Bitter Crank

But how is this "wrong"? Maybe we don't need to fixate on that particular word. Funny for you to mention Mozart, as I've always been critical, and never been a fan, but even still, the fact that he wrote the music he did without the luxury of time and space to edit is still impressive. The Four Seasons is a piece I've always had a soft spot for; even just in how it somehow precludes the concept of a pop song with verse/chorus/verse/chorus form. But I'm more familiar with the late romantic/symbolist movement; the mirror here seems to be Ravel vs. Debussy. Debussy was Mozart; he coughed up a large swath of music that seemed credible, while Ravel toiled away at a small amount of music for his entire life, and only received recognition at the end of his life, and particularly in America, vs. his home country (or continent). The classic "I'm kind of a big deal in Japan" moment (thanks Tom Waits). But even now as I listen to their music, I don't feel the need to crown one the king, over the other. It's not about taste, again. Neither composer was "wrong". This mindset seems to turn into a ridiculous schoolyard game of popularity. I really can't be bothered to debate it much further than that. If you want to really study the music note for note, you'll see that Ravel was focused on preserving a strong, often simple melodic phrase, and that he had an incredible ability to translate that simple melodic fragment into any number of contexts, and then, on top of that, he just basically added the most difficult to play, Lisztian nonsense overtop, to disguise the beauty of the melody, for some stupid reason. This makes him arguably the most "pianistic" composer of all time, for whatever that might or might not be worth. Whereas Debussy wrote in a much more free, almost intoxicated manner, where brilliant melodic ideas, full of their own potential, flit past at a breakneck pace, almost leaving you heartbroken. Why didn't he develop this idea and that one further??? It seems like Debussy had a sheer quantity of melodic ideas larger than Ravel ever could have, yet no patience to develop them. Whereas Ravel had the patience to ruminate with melodic concepts until he knew for sure he needed to use one, and then patiently developed it over a long period of time. But who's to say why? What standard makes his approach wrong, versus the improvisatorial approach of Debussy? And speaking of influence on jazz, you can make the argument that both of these artists influenced jazz equally. Ravel with chord shapes and structures, and Debussy with free-flowing improvisation (he was known to improvise largely when composing)...

Louis Moreau Gottschalk (1829-1869) Didn't evolve from Hildegard or Johan Sebastion; his music is clearly 19th century, but he is a forerunner of jazz. — Bitter Crank

Wow, I'm not familiar with Gottschalk, but right away, those rigid rhythmic structures combined with the harmonic ambiguity in the first few seconds strongly remind me of American minimalism (which was itself influenced by jazz), more so than jazz, but either way, super cool! Compare with the opening moments of this:



Thanks for the introduction. I can see how this might have influenced early proto-jazz like Gershwin.

Jazz didn't evolve from Gottschalk, he didn't cause jazz to happen, he just composed music which--looking back--has some aspects of early jazz. — Bitter Crank

Correct: No; jazz evolved from a huge wealth of musics, including, apparently, Gottschalk, as well as Ravel, Debussy, African spirituals...

So, Hildegard, Bach, Gottschalk, Adele: What evolutionary development do you see here? — Bitter Crank

Honestly, you seem to have created a convenient straw-man for me, based on your own musical tastes here. And what does Adele have to do with the other pieces you posted?? Is that your point here, that music hasn't actually evolved thanks to pop artists like Adele? There are so many other connecting pieces between Gottschalk and Adele, for instance, that you've left out. You also picked an Adele song that I can't stand! lol. But I do like a few of her tunes.

I could just as easily make a list of four youtube videos, trying to make the case that music does evolve. I'll give it a shot just for shits and giggles:

Ravel: Gaspard de le Nuit: Le Gibet



Messiaen: Regard du Pere: Vingt Regards sur l'Enfant-Jésus, No. 1



Philip Glass: Opening



Oceansize: Unravel (a basic but important example of pop music sampling classical, jazz, etc. Specifically, a sample of Ravel's "Le Gibet", the first piece I posted)



Radiohead: Weird Fishes

his overall orientation is marxist materialist so not really my cup of tea. — Wayfarer

Ah, not my cup of tea either. I'll research more before ordering a copy. It seems that good aesthetic theory is hard to come by, though. Everything is too analytical; even the stuff that's not part of the analytic tradition. That's why, reading this on wikipedia

Adorno's posthumously published Aesthetic Theory, which he planned to dedicate to Samuel Beckett, is the culmination of a lifelong commitment to modern art which attempts to revoke the "fatal separation" of feeling and understanding long demanded by the history of philosophy and explode the privilege aesthetics accords to content over form and contemplation over immersion.

Piques my curiosity to read his stuff. And that essay I read in college certainly has stayed with me. We'll see; more to come later.

Haha. I like Jung a lot (I'll even go so far as to say I think the Myers Brigg personality test gets a bad rap - it's based on his ideas), but I don't know Freud well enough to make a judgement. I was just now reading up on Adorno, and his book "Aesthetic Theory" sounds very appealing. A goodreads reviewer says:

On a grand level art, according to Adorno, is (1) against the world and polemical towards society (“by crystallizing itself as something unique to itself, rather than complying with existing social norms and qualifying as ‘socially useful,’ it [Art] criticizes society by merely existing, for which puritans of all stripes condemn it”); (2) inherently affirmative (positive), and (3) aloof from the “culture industry” and commoditization.

A lot of that aligns with my views on art as well. I might order a copy. You're familiar with Adorno?

It's Theodor W. Adorno - On the Fetish-Character In Music and the Regression Of Listening

Haha, maybe. I need to find the name of the author who wrote that essay on fetishization in art that I mentioned in another thread.

19th and early 20th century historians of art and architecture did, but they were wrong. For example, Wölfflin, Schmarzow, Gideon and others worked under the dubious assumption that art evolves with consciousness, say, from something simple to something advanced. — jkop

I'm not familiar with them, so thanks for the info. I'm still learning a lot about these topics and have a tendency to rattle off a lot of thoughts in a row without much organization.

The most advanced consciousness was supposedly exemplified in the austere modern designs of the modern architects and their organisation for which Gideon worked as the secretary. — jkop

Yeah, this reeks of modernism in it's purest form. It's wild how quickly these sorts of ideas were erased by post-modern thought.

The idea of art evolving with consciousness from simple to advanced isn't really the same sort of evolution that I'm talking about. I guess it's almost more development than evolution. A change in consciousness and a change in the internal, metaphysical "stuff" of art is undeniable, I think, but for me the problem is that a purely humanistic view of the evolution of consciousness is naive. We immediately assume that consciousness evolving is a progressive, positive thing, if we're typical humanists. This is connected to how the enlightenment helped sever the church from the state, and bring about a view of human freedom where we can realize our own evolution in the here and now. This is distinct from the actual evolution of consciousness going on in history. That was our first, infantile realization of it's existence. But I think of the evolution of consciousness as neutral until it's imbued with content from a source outside of itself.

I guess it is a shallow age, but I wonder whether "deep" art has ever been mainstream or whether we view the past through the lens of its best works. — Ignignot

Some of the past's best works were mainstream at the time, so I don't think that's the dichotomy. Bach or Beethoven were successful in their time.

A few painters occasionally did something grand and spiritual, — Ignignot

The early renaissance is when art began to be grander within a religious context, as far as I understand it.

secular cathedrals (museums). — Ignignot

Yes indeed, I've used that phrase many times myself.

Like the Underground Man of Dostoevsky who wanted to look very intelligent at least if he could not be handsome.) — Ignignot

I never interpreted that book that way, but I guess I can see that. I'm not sure what you mean by philosophical glamour. As far as the shallowness of mainstream music, I think that has as much to do with money as anything else. Music now is a capitalistic money-making industry; that wasn't the case until about 100 years ago. In the past, the gatekeepers were wealthy patrons; rub someone wrong and you don't get any funding, but now it's just economics. Of course there's a philosophical underpinning as to why wealth and beauty and youth are worshipped in this age as well. That's tied to nihilism and the "means with no ends" era of the internet, and technology that evolves on a bell-curve...

I guess in simple terms, when a person can retain their imagination through to adulthood, I would say they have a childlike quality to their personality, not a childish quality. I see it as a very valuable quality.

Some of us dream of being great writers or world-historical philosophers, which is to say we dream of being Christ figures, really. — Ignignot

I've never had a problem with this, really. I'm one of those people myself. So what? What's the criticism against this attitude? Too much ego? But I think there's a difference, now in the world we live in, than in the past. Our society is all about individualism, so everyone thinks they can make it on American Idol. We're further removed from reality in that way. But there will always be people with talent who have the same dreams. But now we live in a society where those dreamers are often overlooked because they tend to not be so flashy or attention-seeking. Their work might be, but we live in an age of personality, not artistic depth.

Of course we call dreamers childish, and perhaps they are. But they are childish in relation to our adult, business-like selves — Ignignot

Maybe childlike, not childish.

What is it about classical music that makes it classical? What do we mean by classical? — Preston

"Classical Music" per se belongs to a specific period: roughly, the late 18th and early 19th centuries. — Bitter Crank

In common parlance, classical music tends to mean "serious orchestral and choral music" — Bitter Crank

I would say "classical" is more than just common parlance for that music; the contemporary classical community will still use the word "classical", to some extent. Although the egregiously pretentious attempt at unpretentiousness, "New Music", is also applied to contempo classical. Classical is also lumped in with jazz as "art music", in the west. Another sad misappropriation of a term...

but what makes art and different art forms translatable into other epochs. — Preston

I think all "great" art that lasts over generations deserves the due it's given. But this doesn't even have to do with taste; it has to do with the evolution of human consciousness. The artists we revere throughout history are always the artists that were concurrent with how human thought was developing. So there's actually not even any valid argument that can be made as to whether Beethoven or Picasso or whoever "deserves" to be lauded as they are; their work is just intrinsic to human development itself. It doesn't matter if you like it or not. Any critique of their work is just technical, which belongs in the graduate school classroom, or between friends, but not in an objective critique of whether an artwork "should" be accepted as important. The development of art isn't like the development of science; there's no "wrong" in art, there's only evolution. Art is more like physical reality itself in that way, rather than similar to science as a discipline.

Another aspect of art critique, though, is that even the big figures of an era existed in a milieu of other artists that were doing something similar, or else the "big figure" was the one who rebelled against the milieu. So there's always a technical or taste element in when that happens (Rothko vs. Mondrian, for instance; I personally find Rothko to be oppressive, while Mondrian sparks my imagination). So the taste of the taste-makers themselves informs what's considered "great" (if I was a taste-maker at the time, I would have pushed Mondrian and not Rothko), but what we don't seem to realize is that all of this exists in a complex web of philosophical, developmental and historical factors: the evolution of our human consciousness. What happens so much in the art world is certain artists or critics are vilified for their work or taste, but no one acknowledges the inevitable flow of how art evolves with consciousness. You may hate a certain artist or critic, but they're successful because of how they fit into the jigsaw of evolving consciousness. Personally, I think studying this is more beneficial than studying works just based on taste, or current trends or fads. And it's possible to retain my own personal taste while studying the evolution of art and consciousness disinterestedly. Plus, taste often evolves with study.

Why do we still read Homer and other ancient writers? I think that there must be something timeless about them, something quintessential. Or, are we just recycling the canons of art due to someone else's tastes? — Preston

I do have to concede, though, as mcdoodle said, that we also fetishize certain epochs of art that align with our current philosophical obsessions. But even this still falls under the umbrella of art reflecting the evolution of human consciousness. And the veneration of the classics is pretty much just academic at this point (read: dead). But it's influence is still permeating our general consciousness, I would imagine. I'm not too well read on the classics either.

That a good parent doesn't shield their child from all possible negative experiences doesn't entail that they don't shield their child from any possible negative experiences. Parents may allow their kids some leeway in getting into scrapes with each other and learning conflict resolution skills, but if one tries to stab the other with a pair of scissors, no "good parent" would fail to intervene, I should think. — Arkady

So what does getting stabbed with scissors represent in your analogy? Intense emotional pain, death, or what? All analogies break down eventually. In the second half of my paragraph which you didn't comment on, I explained more of my thoughts on the topic of God intervening in our pain. You seem to have critiqued my analogy without noticing that I addressed your point directly afterwards?

(As a side note, those who are bothered by what they perceive to be the over-anthropomorphization of God probably shouldn't lean on parent/child analogies when explaining the nature of Man and God's relationship.) — Arkady

"those"? Is this passive-aggressively aimed at me or something? >:O Anthropomorphization and analogy/metaphor are different. Analogies are self-conscious; when we use them, we know full well that they're ONLY analogies. An analogy is a way of imagining a theoretical idea, it just happens to not be a very popular mode of thinking in academic philosophy. Anthropomorphization, on the other hand, is unconscious; the Biblical analogy of God as Judge, for instance, is an anthropomorphization because it's so ingrained in Western and even Eastern Christendom's conception of God that it isn't even questioned, by and large. Anthropomorphization of God is corrosive because it shapes the very framework of how Christians imagine God; it closes off countless possibilities of wisdom.

Figure I'll make some comments on the OP since this thread has already been resurrected.

I suppose if I had to ask a question, I would ask something about the relevance of Christianity after the death of God. — Preston

Are you familiar with Berdyaev? If not, I think you would find him to also be a kindred spirit. Given the topic of God post-death-of-God, you might start with The Divine and the Human. It's one of his last works, but he got more lucid later on, so it's not a bad start. One of his themes is that Western society is going through a necessary period of "God-forsakenness". So the "death of God" is an important step towards what he sees as a third epoch of revelation: a revelation from Man towards God.

If God is to be considered a just God, S/he cannot let evil go unpunished. If God knew of an evil event and had the capacity to stop the event, S/he would be morally obliged to stop the event. — Preston

I always think of it like this: does a good parent shield their child from all possible negative experiences in the world? No, the parent trains the child to have autonomy, and through that autonomy, the child comes to experience the negative things in life through his/her own eyes. The parent can't prevent this, only train the child for it. From there, I guess the argument would be "God could prevent those things if he's all powerful". This has always rubbed me wrong. On a not very philosophical level, I think life teaches us that pain is a gift. "Your pain is the breaking of the shell that encloses your understanding." - Kahlil Gibran. This rings true on an existential level. The idea that God should prevent tragedy is short-sighted and weak-minded. It's another anthropomorphization of God as referee. Maybe the way we treat refs in sports is a good analogy for how we treat our projection of what we think God is...and when we complain, we're usually the spectators, not the athletes...

So no, God's potency isn't limited. That's almost a mis-application of terms, or a way of looking at God from the wrong angle. God doesn't have potency at all; God is love. God's love is androgynous, or equally male and female. The potency is counter-balanced by the tenderness.

So, this notion of freedom means that God cannot be omniscient. I generally see God as wise, but not someone who knows what I will type next, nor necessarily knowledgeable of whether or not I am typing. — Preston

Again, these arguments against omniscience to me are almost pointless. Why does it matter if God knows what I'll physically do next? It's another anthropomorphization. I think the idea of "All-Knowledge" is, like you say, tied to wisdom, not some comic book superpowers. Total and complete knowledge in a mystical sense means knowledge of the participatory side of reality, not the rational abstraction of it. Divine All-Knowledge is before/after rationality (or under/over it). This ties back to Berdyaev; imagine physical reality as a calcified objectivization of spirit, and the need for God's All-Knowledge to apply to that realm is null; All-Knowledge doesn't apply to a form of reality that's only an empty husk.

Of course theists want God to exist and atheists don't want God to exist. It's because that given position is so deeply intertwined with the fabric of each side's very lifestyle and outlook. This is why it remains such a controversial topic. There's a social component; if an atheist becomes a theist, they'll likely lose many friends and circles. If a pastor becomes an atheist he'll be cast out.