Thanks for the songs. I'm quite familiar with them both (and have them in my collection). — Mayor of Simpleton

I definitely should’ve first asked if you know, before posting anything by, them. Lol, my mistake.

I have to say my interests have definitely shifted... — Mayor of Simpleton

Things change over time, but that's OK. — Mayor of Simpleton

No doubt about that. Music is significant only if it moves you, literally &-or figuratively speaking; & due to repetition, songs or whole kinds of music can eventually fail of that effect. So I completely understand that tastes can & do change with time. Again, no doubt about it.

Keep on posting the music you like and it's all good. — Mayor of Simpleton

Likewise, bro. :cool:

(but there is a bit of Japanese hip hop I can plague people with... すみません ;) ) — Mayor of Simpleton

You know, I really don’t listen to a whole lot of non-English (speaking) hip-hop (as lyricism & lyrical content are a big part of hip-hop, & I just don’t understand the lyrics of non-English [speaking] hip-hop), but I can & do make exceptions if I like the beats/instrumentals. So, with that being said, I have to say that I actually did like the beats/instrumentals of the first & the last Japanese hip-hop songs that you posted.

Also, in saying that, I’ll take the liberty of posting one non-English (speaking) hip-hop song that I do actually listen to from time-to-time (a friend of mine just so happened to play it once, a long time ago, & I was hooked by the beat/instrumental & the performer’s cadence & tone on it [even though I don’t understand but a word or two & the chorus]).

I just didn’t want Mental Forms to feel out of place. — Pinprick

I appreciate your effort to assure me of that with an actual reply; like, for real. :up:

Also, I’ve never heard that Saul Williams song before (t.b.h., I’ve probably never heard any song by him, though the name does sound familiar). It was sweet. Yet the opening line of that Saul Williams song, I’m not sure if you know this or not, is actually taken (I’m certain, by way of inspiration) from Biz Markie’s the “Vapors.” It’s said at 0:34 into its video.

Never heard of them before (more than likely ‘cause they’re not a hip-hop act proper, but a funk one), though I still liked it. Yet I definitely recognized the three guys who’re rapping on that song; two of them are members of “Jurassic 5,” while the other is a member of “People Under The Stairs.” In light of that, I’ll post a song from each group; seeing as you liked a song on which they’re featured, you also might like their own songs (although I’m far from certain about it).

No. It provides a much needed respite from the pages of classical, jazz, avant-garde, etc. posted here. Keep ‘em comin’! — Pinprick

Glad to hear that you liked them enough to insist on some more. As to your want for them to keep on coming, I’ll happily oblige & post the few songs that I played for myself when walking home last night (hopefully you’ll like them as well).

Lol... too much hip-hop? Sorry.....

I'm not in the least a materialist-reductionist or a brain-mind identity theorist. I might well have said 'the mind constructs....' but was making the point with respect to the brain, because of the acknowledged fact that the human brain is the most complex and sophisticated known natural phenomenon. Read the next comment again: 'It creates a world, the only one you'll ever know'. By that I mean, the mind synthesises and creates the only world you will ever know, but by pointing to the acknowledged complexity and sophistication of the brain, was making a rhetorical point. — Wayfarer

Oh, okay. If you might have well said “the mind,” instead of the brain, then I guess that I’d misconstrued your meaning due to what I perceived as being ambiguous; I thought that you were trying to say, in one way or another, that the mind is the brain. Again, my mistake.

Thanks so much for replying & approving my posts. It’s greatly appreciated. Also, I’m sorry again for trying to reach out to you so many times (with apparent disregard for your personal life & free time), I was just quite eager to post & interact; so, again, my apologies.

P.S., In the “Feedback” category, I made a thread that’s entitled “Queuing for moderation” which inquires about what you’ve just answered here in your reply to me, so I think that it should be deleted because it’s superfluous now.

Be Kind Rewind

Hello,

I’m a new member & my comments have been queued for moderation. I was hoping that you could approve mine? They’re not inappropriate & don’t include foul language. So I don’t get what’s with the long wait, or the disapproval if that’s the case.

Thanks.

You're certainly entitled to that "opinon". — 180 Proof

... & you to yours. Yet are you unwilling to give your reason(s) for opining that Schopenhauer is a better Kantian than Kant?

It was a paranthetical comment, not representative of what I think Kant says, but suggestive of an important point in its own right. — Wayfarer

Then I misunderstood you if you never tried to pass it off as being representative of what Kant says. Sorry, my mistake.

Yet to that point of yours. If, according to you, the brain constructs the world, then wouldn’t that brain itself have to already exist in order to do so? For, what’s non-existent can’t create, let alone do, anything, right? Consequentially, if so, the world, or both the materials out of which the brain is constructed & with which the brain interacts, would already exist & it couldn’t itself be a construction of the brain.

To try to understand Kant’s subject of the pure forms & concepts as the “hominid brain” completely undermines what Kant means when stating that we construct the phenomenal world.

For, in Kant’s sense, both the material & the formal elements of phenomena depend on such a subject & can’t exist without it; so that the subject is essential to the very creation, construction, or coming-into-being of such phenomena. Whereas in the sense of how the “hominid brain” is commonly understood, the world, or both the materials out of which the brain is constructed & with which the brain interacts, already exists independently of the brain; & therefore the world, or both the materials out of which the brain is constructed & with which the brain interacts, wouldn’t be a creation, construction, or come-into-being, because of the brain.

Thanks and very interesting. Welcome. — Tom Storm

& I thank you for welcoming me. :up:

I think this line, despite the new questions it generates, probably answers all my original questions. — Tom Storm

Glad to hear that I could help you in finding any answers.

Schopenhauer's criticism of Kant in this, is that in calling the noumenal "things in themselves" he contradicts his denial that they could be spatio-temporal entities, since there can be no "things" without difference and no difference without spatial and temporal separation. — Janus

Firstly, Kant nowhere claims that differences must be spatiotemporal. One pure concept is different than another, & yet none of them originate a-posteriori in space & time; indeed, they couldn’t, because they’re in one’s possession a-priori & would still be had, as such, even if they’re never employed in relation to space & time. So Kant never contradicts himself in that respect.

Secondly, Schopenhauer is actually the one who contradicts himself in that respect. He claims that differences & multiplicity are spatiotemporal, & yet he posits that there are “eternal Ideas” or “Platonic Ideas.”

“..., Art, the work of genius. It repeats or reproduces the eternal Ideas grasped through pure contemplation, ... .”

“Time is only the broken and piecemeal view which the individual being has of the Ideas, which are outside time, and consequently eternal.”

“The pure subject of knowledge and his correlative, the Idea, have passed out of all these forms of the principle of sufficient reason: time, place, the individual that knows, and the individual that is known, have for them no meaning.”

Thus, Schopenhauer not only asserts that an Idea has “passed out of all these forms of the principle of sufficient reason: time, place,” but he also says that there’s a multiplicity of them when he speaks of “Ideas” in the plural form. Schopenhauer therefore maintains that there is a multiplicity of things that are “outside time” & have “passed out of all these forms of the principle of sufficient reason: time, place, ... .” In other words, he maintains that there are differences & multiplicity that transcend space & time; consequentially contradicting himself when claiming that difference & multiplicity is spatiotemporal.

(That's what your fantastically elaborated hominid brain does with all that processing power. It creates a world, the only one you'll ever know.) — Wayfarer

If the pure forms & the pure concepts are possessed a-priori, then how can then the brain, which we experience a-posteriori to occupy space, be their subject? Surely the subject of the pure forms & concepts can’t be derived from, or inhere in, what’s experienced to occupy space a-posteriori; since it’s the very condition of such a thing. To equate the brain with the subject of the pure forms & concepts, by which the phenomenal world is constructed, is a misrepresentation or distortion of Kant’s philosophy.

... Arthur Schopenhauer... (and who IMO is, ..., a much more consistent, lucid, 'Kantian' than Kant himself). — 180 Proof

... & so he’d style himself to be (no offense, but you’d have to be unfamiliar with both of their philosophies in order to say something like that). Yet, I’m interested, how do you figure?

Schopenhauer’s philosophy has many inconsistencies with Kantianism (not to mention self-contradictions).

Firstly, he speaks of the “will” passing into the forms of space & time, or the “objectification of the will.” Yet this is inadmissible, as no thing-in-itself can enter into the forms of space & time, in Kantianism. That’s one inconsistency.

Secondly, he attributes causality to the “will,” or to something that’s independent of the subject; that is to say, he gives causality a transcendent application to something besides phenomena. This is also inadmissible, since causality is a mental category that’s only applicable to phenomena, in Kantianism. That’s another inconsistency.

Thirdly, he claims that the “will” can be known by means of our inner-consciousness; but whatever appears internally to us, must do so under the form of time; he therefore equates (temporal) phenomena with what’s supposed to be independent of such a form. This is, as well, inadmissible, because no phenomena can be equated with any thing-in-itself, in Kantianism. Thus, another inconsistency.

Schopenhauer is so inferior to Kant that I feel sorry for anyone who thinks otherwise (& this is coming from someone who read Schopenhauer way before ever opening a page of Kant).

Can Kant’s noumenal world to be understood to potentially have any kind of physical form (waves, for instance) which we cannot apprehend directly? Or is the use of the word ‘physical’ here entirely superfluous? — Tom Storm

No. The noumenal world, according to Kant, transcends both (the forms of) space & time. So, again, it can’t be, in any sense of the word, “physical” like a wave; because, although waves may be incapable of being pinned-down to a point, they nevertheless extend through multiple points in space. Thus the word “physical” isn’t superfluous, as in it being unnecessary due to redundancy, but it’s altogether illegitimate when speaking of noumena in Kantianism.

Following Kant, we obviously construct the phenomenal world we know out of the noumenal world in some way - presumably from the sensations which present themselves to our consciousness. Is there any simple way of describing how this is might be understood to actually work? — Tom Storm

To be clear, we don’t construct the phenomenal world out of the noumenal world, according to Kant; that is, noumena aren’t themselves the materials, i.e., the “matter” of appearances, that compose the phenomenal world. All of this is done/works by representing, or arranging under certain relations, such materials with respect to the a-priori forms of the sensibility & the understanding, i.e., with respect to space & time & the categories.

Could dying then be taken as an example of receiving direct feedback from the noumenal world? — Tom Storm

Whether in this life, or the hereafter, Kant maintains that we can never have any kind of experience of noumena or things-in-themselves.

“It is indeed even then inconceivable how the intuition of a present thing should make me know a thing as it is in itself, as its properties cannot migrate into my faculty of representation.”