Fascinating stuff. Hopeful to hear more.

Of course birds sing and that's where I want to lead this discussion to. — TheMadFool

"Birdsong" is a metaphor for how we find the utterances of birds to have some analog to the music we make as humans. They don't "sing" in a literal sense. But of course, birdsong can be sublimely beautiful; I used to be a birder myself and used to own birds.

I consider myself a below-average music fan as I prefer the melody more than the lyrics. Most people who have truly appreciate music like the combination of melody and lyrics. — TheMadFool

As a multi-instrumentalist songwriter, I also prefer music over lyrics. I may be in the minority there, but I know plenty of other fellow musicians who don't have much energy for lyrics...maybe not songwriters, but musicians, yes. There's plenty of instrumental music...and there are plenty of music fans who prefer it.

Anyway, language as spoken has no musical quality as such. — TheMadFool

I disagree. I work in a retail environment involving a "rewards program", accessed via phone number, and I accidentally (and embarrassingly very easily) memorize people's numbers based on the exact same cadence of voice, every time, that they use to recite their number to me in order for me to input their number into the rewards program. As a musician, it's easy for me to memorize information based on cadence, and this applies to spoken language and not just music. So, what I'm saying is that the statement that spoken language has no musical quality is, at it's best, debatable. Or, again, at the least, an argument would be in order from you.

My question is, if music can connect with our inner selves and with others in terms of emotion, etc, why hasn't language evolved into singing or is language in the process of becoming a song? — TheMadFool

I could just as easily ask "If language can connect with our inner selves and with others in terms of emotion, etc, why hasn't music evolved into pure language, or is music in the process of becoming pure language?" Which, if you're keeping up with the pulse of contemporary art music, is not far from the truth.....

Which I've not done...

I really aspire towards greatness, but I can't seem to grasp it.

I don't feel qualified, but I'm up for the task. Reminds me of the days when I accidentally became...the arbiter of truth in some bizarre thread of yours? What was that again?

I Kant Believe It’s Not Better — T Clark

Reminds me of a viral youtube channel with drum set tutorials tied in with philosophy I wanted to start called "I Kant Play That".



Woah, I was not active 28 days ago and didn't realize I had this responsibility.

One contribution:

philosophyisdead.com

Can I ask your marital status?

And, that I've been there as recently as a few days ago.

I am pretty sure that I learned how to shame myself by being shamed by others. — Valentinus

:100:

Just as an elaboration. These sort of 'moods' manifest (in my case) into eventually suicidal ideations. — Wallows

I've unrealistically entertained suicide. I just say that as a friend, to attempt to give some sort of context to whatever it is you've experienced. If you've experienced real suicidal thoughts, then at the least, I just wanted you to know I've come up to the cusp of it. I dunno if that's helpful. But that's what I have to offer for now.

:sad:

Lots of things:

-I just continue to be negative anyway
-I try to dig myself out of the hole via some kind of fake will, and it doesn't work
-Occasionally, an outside force of some kind intervenes in the everyday, and I have a momentary lapse, but always return to the negative.
-I muster enough will to strong-arm my way out of the negativity (with what seems like the real will), but only for maybe 5 days tops.

,

"Laughed" was a metaphor...clearly...we're saying the same thing...

No worries, I'm about to fall asleep, so I'll regroup and respond later.

Again, I have no reference, nor does anyone else, for the rubric by which you're making these judgements.

"Seminal" and "quintessential" do differ. Younger Than Yesterday is the quintessential Byrds album, but, Mr. Tamourine Man is their seminal album. They made a name for themselves by being the only band who could adequately cover Bob Dylan, but the band itself was something other than a project that was devoted to just that. — thewonder

Hmm, I dont know the Byrds well, but I'm not sure if I agree. So Mr. Tambourine Man is seminal because they're considered the first band to do Bob well? (and by the way, what makes that seminal?) Again, the questions of aesthetic just arise without constraint. Says who? The masses? The Gatekeepers? Who said that this is so?

We speak of things as if there was an ideal when we know that it is only defined by our subjective interpretation. What Philosophical rules could there be for aesthetic? I don't think that things can be considered to be in themselves beautiful. Beauty is defined by the relation that the subject has to the existent. — thewonder

The philosophical rule for an aesthetic would in theory be based on other philosophical problems; ethics, morals, etc. So, does "aesthetics", as the philosophy of beauty, have something to say about what is or is not beautiful? Well, if it does, it does so via ethics, morals, etc. So...a death scene is not traditionally beautiful. Or can it be? It might be beautiful if it represents a grand sacrifice, of sorts. But in that case, why is that beautiful? Well, the sacrifice represents something broader; the pain of the sacrifice is beautiful because it represents a truth beyond the pain of the sacrifice. I'm not familiar with Mekas' work (although his son shops at the wine store I work at), but in Lynch, for example, something ugly like the Laura Palmer story can indeed represent an aesthetic that works; she in herself is a sacrifice of sorts. Just some open-ended thoughts.

But it does of course bring up the inexplicable question of aesthetic "taste", or aesthetic as a philosophical rule. But I guess that's another discussion. Or not?

Quintessential" is a toast. It's farcical in the sense that it can only ever be so sincere, but it is in itself a compliment. Are you suggesting that the "most typical" or "essential" examples of anything are purely subjective? I could agree, but I think that stating that something is quintessential makes an Ontological claim that suggests that the existent is somehow more prototypical than all of the others. — thewonder

I think the concept of quintessentialness is more just a reflection of a few key people's tastes, which are then absorbed by the masses. Going back to my statement, the quintessentialness, or the canonical aspect of a work, is generally based on the first work the person has experienced from that source. For instance, most fans of the band Tool preach the gospel of Anima or Lateralus (their 2nd and 3rd records), whereas I was 16 years old when the next record, 10,000 Days came out, and that was my first tool experience. What do you think I consider to be quintessential Tool? 10,000 Days, of course. And I find this to be the case for myself across the spectrum, with essentially 0% variance. This could just be a symptom of me being close-minded, but just through informal data-gathering through conversation, I've found this 0% degree of variance to hold true with the people I've talked to about this idea.

So the conclusion is that, on an existential level, "quintessential" means "seminal". So, on a grand cultural scale...I think we can expand the initial concept outwards?

They do have to do with the consumerism/ profit-driven rampant development of technology, which is metaphysical-ideology neutral, except for its obvious link to capitalism and neo-liberalism, — Janus

I would counter that there's an underlying issue here, which I struggle to adequately define. But to give it a shot I would call it the "poverty of the spirit", as I've done in the past, or just the old fashioned "human condition". It's not a case of "technology is neutral, we just need to be more responsible with it", it's actually "technology is a natural extension of the poverty of the human spirit (and therefore inherently negative, not neutral), the condition of moral entropy"; the natural selfishness of what it means to be human. It all unfolds along perfectly logical lines, given this poverty of the spirit. The idea that we need to just magically be more community minded is, to me, near-sighted and naive. But also practically ubiquitous in the world. We seem to default to that lie either willfully, to avoid reality, or because we're not aware of this reality. I don't have anything to prescribe as an alternative, I'm just trying to call it as I see it. Not the most philosophically precise answer, but just a thought off the top of my head.

Shekhinah becomes an evil being when she is imbalanced by the lack of the masculine qualities. — uncanni

How is the need for gender balance demeaning to either gender?

As does every other. — Shamshir

Every other what?

I lean towards spiritual philosophy as well; a fools game of sorts, on the TPF. Hence why I sometimes label myself the joker...

It seems here like @Wayfarer is concerned with the general layman's viewpoint and it's broad cultural significance, and with the zeitgeist of TPF in general, while @Janus is less concerned with that and more so with fine tuned, microscopic philosophical accuracy? Is that a fair assessment of the differences I always see you two getting into? (I don't know why I'm playing ref here)

:fire:

SURVEY PRORBLEM:

• I responded a long time ago but dont remember what I said

No teacher, no sarcasm! I really do think you're full of shit and insecure as fuck!

Actually I take it all back. You're always right; I'm always wrong. Teach me your ways. I'm sorry that I've been so foolish.

Ok you win! Damn, I'm such an idiot!

:sad: Correct. I'm sorry to have elicited these harsh feelings in you.

:sad: I'm sorry to have elucidated these harsh feelings in you.

As we all should be.

:fire: (with a few caveats, but I'm with you in the main)

I agree. We get invested in concepts. In some cases, we think that the concept is 'up there,' laying down the law. (We can believe in a personal god.) But metaphorically concepts in general are 'up there.' I can't hold justice in my hand. Nor can I hold the virtue of thinking critically in my hand. — joshua

Yeah, that's a decent summation. I was actually going to say something similar about the "abstract" being comparable to the "supernatural", but got side tracked. @god must be atheist, when I described the god-concept as metaphorical, this was what I was getting at; logically abstract concepts, within an Empiricist view (bringing in the Maritain lecture to bring the discussion back to the topic) seem to wrongly evoke a supernatural quality; they're abstract in the sense that they're "above" experience, but artificially so. Within Empiricism, we artificially posit that sense is the only real, when in reality, concepts only exist outside of the immediate sense-perception, and only reason gets us there, but not empirically. So, circling back to the concept of religion as universal and inclusive of secularism and atheism, if reason has to function beyond sense-perception in order to be real, then, necessarily, it functions non-physically. It functions "abstractly", or "super-naturally". Now, if we don't move past this reality, the debate just becomes a game of insults based on bad definitions: "you're stuck in thinking super-naturally!" "No, you're stuck in the abstract!" But really, we're functioning on the same plane. But the way we describe the plane actually matters; what I'm describing is the reality that something behind the given, the sense-experience exists; I call it the spiritual. You may call it something different. But if you deny it's existence, then you are squarely in the wrong based on the argument I've laid out here.

I can see this will go nowhere, but I'll jump in one more time for the heck of it.

Then there is prayer, there is lent, there are sacrifices, there are atonements, there are rites, there are a whole bunch of other things which are communication between man and an alleged god, but atheists don't do any of them. — god must be atheist

No, those are aspects of a specific religion; Christianity. Using those specific Christian traditions as evidence that secular god-forms don't exist because those secular god-forms don't possess analogs to that specific religion's aspects is logically inconsistent and near-sighted. The God concept in religion is insanely broad; millions of gods in Hindu religion (which itself, as named, is a Western conglomerate of distinct traditions), The historical uniqueness of the "one" god of Judaism, and it's complication into three persons in Christianity, the complete lack of god as understood in the West in Buddhism, the vagueness of any god concept in the Tao, the unclear concept of "gods" in Greek and Roman mythology and what they may or may not have represented or signified (literally, figuratively, psychologically, or otherwise). It's a brash simplification on your part to think that you can pair the concept of god as a whole down to certain blatantly religion-specific aspects which you can conveniently use to counter the idea that the god concept isn't at work in your own worldview.

NO person thinks of science as a being. — god must be atheist

You also are not in the head of all persons. I'm talking about the zeitgeist of how science is talked about. "Science says..." "Science tells us..." "Because science..." Personifications, accidental to be sure, but real.

But do you believe a god or some gods exist? — god must be atheist

I'm not an atheist. I simply lack a disbelief in god.

Yes, and then, with that in mind:

"The grasping of an object such as an essence or a nature, brought out in its intelligible, supra-sensual components, makes no sense for the Empiricist theory, which denies universal ideas and universal natures. How could the grasping of objects such as Being and the transcendental properties of Being make sense for it? In the Empiricist view, Being means only the fact that a fact comes under sense observation, or the fact that a Predicate is connected with a Subject through the copula. It is not surprising that Empiricism was led by the development of its inner logic to terminate in Positivism, which is not philosophy but a pseudo-scientific escape from or substitute for philosophy."

Anyways, back to Maritain. I had a chance to quickly read through that lecture, @Wayfarer. I've only read a little Maritain in the past, over 5 years ago. I had forgotten his fortitude as a thinker. I'll need to give it careful study; I just quickly read it through to try to steer the thread back on track.

But I think the general gist of his argument about Empiricism as a significant ingredient in the disenchantment and mechanization of modern society, all based on an un-self-aware philosophy (in which man uses reason to deny itself) is telling. It feels like a wiser, more well-read, more logical expression of the general themes I tend to blabber on about on this site.

This is a statement with no support and I challenge you to explain it. — god must be atheist

I'm thinking metaphorically, which seems to be a source of confusion here. I'm essentially using the word god as a metaphor, and yes, as you say, worship is an aspect of this, and I would argue worship is the function of how we interface with the concept of a god. So as a secular person, someone may worship money, yes, or science, progress, etc. These things are gods in their own way, and I would go further and counter that they are, metaphorically, supernatural as well. What is "science"? What is "progress"? These are abstract concepts that represent ideological (sorry, makes the most sense in this context) stories. Science is almost, I think unconsciously, made reference to ontologically, as if it's a being. What I'm arguing is that, in the absence of a God proper, something else must fill the void. So god never left after all. The notion that we can dispense with a god and set off on our own is both hubristic and near-sighted.

I daresay that you just haven't met in your small Georgean village or Texas community any persons whose world view could have affected or broadened your knowledge of what is available in human concepts in the world.

Maybe you have, but your preachers advised you to consider them evil, the spawns of Satan, and therefore you must disregard everything they say? Possible. (I am just conjecturizing here. I don't know your background, or what experiences you've had. All I go by is the opinions you express.) — god must be atheist

Lol I live in NYC.

No, we are not ashamed because we don't possess it. — god must be atheist

This is a statement with no support and I challenge you to explain it.

It is your ineptitude, the religious', not ours, the atheists'. — god must be atheist

I'm not religious.

I'm not sure to what extent anyone interested in a discussion like this around these parts will disagree with you. I wonder if the discussion would be more lively on a religion forum.

That being said, Jewish mysticism has a tradition of viewing God as male and female. Two of the 10 sefirots, Binah and Malkut are female, and they correspond to the Shekhinah Glory, or "divine presence".

Myself, I think that gender is over-emphasized in general, whether from a conservative Christian perspective, or a secular feminist one.

Samezz. Bout to become an adult in less than 2 months.

I would use the word "belief system". Religions necessarily involve a god figure, and the supernatural; atheism does not. That's a HUGE difference. — god must be atheist

Belief system is an ok placeholder for now, I guess. But no, every belief system has a god figure. Hence why "religion" still somewhat works; it's a metaphor.

But please don't make the mistake of taking "faith" in the general sense to mean "faith" in the religious sense. — god must be atheist

What's the difference? Again "religious faith" is a human phenomenon that survives traditional religion. I don't understand this atheistic existential horror at the concept of religious faith. It's almost like you lot are ashamed that you possess it.

It also could be deja vu on my part.