I'm not seeing an actual argument for the idea that morality is just subjective preferences. Except maybe this:

You say that helping others survive in the CONTEXT of biological survival is good. I agree with that. In this case the word "good" means beneficial to the cause of biological survival.

In the CONTEXT of harming others, stealing is good. In this case the word "good" means beneficial to the cause of harming others. — SonJnana

Here you're essentially describing morality as the context in which the ends of a goal are met. In this context, the means only obtain within relation the ends, in other words. The problem is that this is not an argument for subjective morality; it's just a description of different moral contexts. This description doesn't actually say anything about whether morality is objective or subjective, in the way that you're using those terms.

Do you really believe that discussions of value have no place in philosophy?
— T Clark

Obviously yes. But the claim that a thing has its own build in judgement is absurd. — charleton

I thought belief was for religious Forums?

Human life.

Where would you recommend I start?

I keep meaning to read him.

I've always felt like the one refutation of nihilism was life itself.

Life exists. You exist.

Mysticism - Evelyn Underhill
The Divine Invasion - Philip K. Dick

The first, measure, to me doesn’t fit because aesthetics are not something measurable. One can make a numeric scale, such as from 1 to 10, but even so there is no mathematically precise way of gaging aesthetic quality or intensity ... save by comparison of qualia to the extent this is at all possible. — javra

Aesthetics are not measurable in a mathematical sense, no, and I didn't mean that when I used the word. But if aesthetics is not figuratively measurable, i.e. it isn't qualifiable, then it seems pointless to me, and trying to talk about it also seems pointless.

Refinement by the self-declared elite will be deemed better taste than what is the common and, hence, vulgar tastes of the masses. An individual with commonsense-like tastes will deem the overly abstract tastes of the self-professed elite to be pompous buffoonery that, maybe, has lost touch with reality. Now, me personally, I’ll find better tastes as well as worse tastes in both the more refined and in the more vulgar — javra

I agree.

But, being that it’s an issue of value, the question will always remain: better or worse to whom and for what personal reasons? — javra

Better or worse when imperfectly, subjectively, measured against the objective aesthetic reality.

This objective aesthetic would either be objective in the sense of a rock, as a physical and measurable object, being objective or, else, objective in the sense of being 100% impartial, as in (partial) objectivity in what one judges to factually be. — javra

No, I think an objective aesthetic would be a higher form of reality which great art is capable of glimpsing. Unfortunately, only the subjective experience of great art can indicate this possibility. But assuming that subjectivity is the only arbiter of aesthetic truth is to begin with subjective experience (which is right) but to also end there, rather then then moving on to an abstract analysis in order to ascertain the possibility of an objective aesthetic. The other indicator of an objective aesthetic, and I think this is important, is the subjective aesthetic experience itself.

The objective aesthetic, though, would itself not consist of any particular phenomena which would apply to individual cases of experienced aesthetic. Otherwise, it would not be a universal property common to literally all instances of this experience of the aesthetic. — javra

If by particular phenomena you mean a certain quality like "4/4 rock beat", "abstract painting style", etc., then yes, of course.

the value of the experienced aesthetic will nevertheless always be accordant with the statement that “aesthetics is in the eyes of the beholder”. — javra

But how can it be if an objective aesthetic exists?

Aesthetics can't be separated from other philosophical problems, and this is what I see far too much on this forum with regards to aesthetics. Aesthetics is not just some nice experience of a beautiful painting or piece of music. If you or anyone else considers aesthetics to be of philosophical value, you need to figure out how aesthetics integrates into the larger whole of philosophical issues like truth, goodness, ethics, etc. In other words, we're all fond of the notion that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", but if this is epistemologically true, then, necessarily, "truth is also in the eye of the beholder", as is goodness, and any and every sense of any objective anything. I'm tired of aesthetic discussions that devolve into "what's beautiful for me isn't beautiful for you". Oh? Maybe our aesthetic sense has been seduced by it's very nature; but aesthetics won't avail itself of just simple pleasure; aesthetics are inseparable from truth, from goodness, from reality. Aesthetics doesn't care about how you feel about it.

(Y)

This is an issue of metaphysical inquiry into whether there is something along the lines of a Platonic Form for the aesthetic. I believe there is. All the same, in what way does either alternative you’ve expressed serve as a means of appraising that which is aesthetic? — javra

Your kind of strawmanning a little bit here; your original offerings of a) and b) were set up to make a) the only reasonable choice, which is why I suggested c). But, if c) is true, then it works as a means of appraising the aesthetic by measuring a given work against the objective aesthetic reality, to the best of one's subjective, incomplete ability. This is in opposition to just measuring somethings aesthetic value purely on subjective taste, without regard for the taste of others, or whether some have better or worse taste.

a) personal truths of aesthetic preferences or b) an objective standard of aesthetic value which one as a subjective being is in possession of. If you know of an alternative to (a) and (b) let me know. — javra

I don't equate personal "truths" with aesthetic preferences, because I don't use the term "personal truth"; I'm not sure what it means. Personal experience, for instance, is not synonymous with personal "truth".

I do know of another alternative: c) an objective standard of aesthetic value that exists, but which no one subjective being is in possession of.

Or, better:

c) An objective aesthetic reality which no subjective individual has fully experienced, but which is the basis of each subjective individual's aesthetic experiences, even experiences that result in conflicting aesthetic opinions.

:’( :’( :’(

Real Christmas music, y'all

In the first place it is perfectly possible to make a clear distinction between knowledge and belief. — charleton

Make it.

Why should I not hold others to a population wide standard of moral behavior, while personally opting out of it. I get the best of best worlds. People choose not to steal from me, and yet I choose to steal from them. Is there a god saying we all ought act in x particular way? Is there some sort of mind-independent moral fact that must behavior ought correspond to? No. — antinatalautist

That will work for you until you're arrested for whatever crime you commit. *shrug*

T-Bone Walker is neither superior nor inferior to Sting. Neither were the eras. To me that is. — javra

Cool. (Y) Sorry if I mis-interpreted you.

I to me have not complained, but only frankly stated one more person's subjective truth. — javra

Fair enough, again. I think I was just looking for some more substance behind that subjective opinion.

I'll then let the those who know the objective truth of the aesthetic matter determine what is superior. — javra

Obviously you don't mean this, but, obviously, I didn't mean it, either. I was suggesting that you were assuming an objective standard by saying "It's about what is expressed".

the allegorical, metaphorical, and metaphysical allusions made in the lyrics of Running Up that Hill to me far surpass the lyrical appeal of Dare You to Move. Why and how and who cares are not things that can be decided via logical analysis. — javra

That's fair, but why argue about it, then? Why make a statement at all? You're essentially stating your bias (as we all do), but then saying that we're all just biased. It seems like a cop-out to me; either own up and make a claim about one era being superior to the other (and then defend the claim), or stop complaining and just accept the evolution of music.

Yet to someone like myself, a Rembrandt far outweighs the quality—both of structure and of content—of a Warhol. — javra

Rembrandt and Warhol express fundamentally different things on an epistemological level. That's important in understanding how to interface with art in general, outside of our own personal aesthetic tastes. In other words, you begin with your bias towards Rembrandt, and then compare Warhol to Rembrandt. Of course Rembrandt is better in that context!

It’s not about the new which does away with the old. It’s about what is expressed, the quality with which it is expressed, and the tastes of the audience which is exposed to the former. — javra

Yes, it is about those things, but again, we need to understand the context in which those concepts are obtaining. To say that it's about "what is expressed" suggests an objective standard by which expression is judged, and thus art would be judged as well by that standard. But by assuming that standard and not expressing it and defending it, your assertions hold no weight.

I have before, yeah. My stuff isn't as experimental as the average New Am artist, but if you like Porcupine Tree, you'll probably be ok. I don't want to derail the thread, but I'll leave a link here, and the mods can delete if it's not appropriate. This record came out in 2015:

https://matthewanderson.bandcamp.com/album/lunar-tide

That bandcamp link defaults to track 2 because it's the most approachable track, but start at track 1 if you want, since you're not looking for the catchiest hook.

I've been working on a new record for the past 2 and 1/2 years, and I'm pretty much at my wits end, but it will be out soon. It's 100 times better and more mature. Anyway. (Don't ask an artist about his art, he won't shut up).

Amir ElSaffar seems like a good start. — Πετροκότσυφας

Go for it. I'm not even familiar with him, from what I can recall, which speaks to the sheer breadth of their output as a label. I had the good fortune of participating in a composers master class with the label over the past 4 months. Enlightening.

Here's something that we can agree on :) — Πετροκότσυφας

It seems to have taken Porcupine Tree to get there. >:O It's sort of a secret hand shake, no?

What's more interesting to discuss is the change in structure of the music business and how that change has affected both the artists and the listeners of specific genres. In my view, the whole thing has become more decentrilised, so, at least in terms of distribution and availability, it takes more effort from the listener to reach stuff that pre-broadband internet and pre-new recording technology could be reached either through multinational conglomerates or through a number of indie labels. Strangely, this is because more music than ever is readily available to simple folks. — Πετροκότσυφας

(Y)

Definitely check out the New Amsterdam Records stuff I linked to, if you're not familiar. More challenging than the average "adventurous" rock record (and wildly more eclectic than just "rock"), but rewarding, especially if you have any background in classical.

And by the way, I agree with you that all of the songs/artists/albums you mentioned are great music.

Nitpicking on two songs in an out of context fashion does not evidence an unbiased conclusion that the quality of music overall has remained unchanged. — javra

I used one of your songs as an example; you mentioned two songs total as well with regard to pop in the 80's; a similarly nitpicking view by your own definition. You mentioned a few other bands you like, which I did as well with my previous youtube posts.

In comparing modern pop with pop songs such as Cyndi Lauper’s Time After Time or Kate Bush’s Running Up that Hill—both of which had plenty of radio play in their day—the more modern pop music that gets radio play is not up to par … this in terms of depth, for lack of a better word. — javra

Again, this is just a skewed view. The number 2 pop song of '85 (the year of Running Up That Hill) was Madonna's "Like A Virgin".

As to today's pop songs not comparing (to what, "Like A Virgin"?) Take a band like Switchfoot, for example. "Dare You to Move" was released in 2004, and hit #17 in the billboard charts, vs. "Running Up That Hill" reaching #30 in 1985. Running Up That Hill is a poignant love song, wondering "And if I only could/ I'd make a deal with God/ And I'd get him to swap our places". "Dare You To Move" became largely a pop anthem "rallying cry" of sorts to overcome depression and fear; "I dare you to move/ I dare you to lift yourself up off the floor."

How do you qualitatively say which is "better art"? Other than your generational prejudice?

Now it is time that gods came walking out
of lived-in Things...
Time that they came and knocked down every wall
inside my house. New page. Only the wind
from such a turning could be strong enough
to toss the air as a shovel tosses dirt:
a fresh-turned field of breath. O gods, gods!
who used to come so often and are still
asleep in the Things around us, who serenely
rise and at wells that we can only guess at
splash icy water on your necks and faces,
and lightly add your restedness to what seems
already filled to bursting: our full lives.
Once again let it be your morning, gods.
We keep repeating. You alone are source.
With you the world arises, and your dawn
gleams on each crack and crevice of our failure...

-Rainer Maria Rilke, from Uncollected Poems (1923-1926)

That makes sense; I was made aware of that to a small degree when I was in therapy; living with regret or shame causes us to live in the past, or rather, the past is living with us in the present. Hopefully there's positive applications of that as well.

Actually, re: Elliot as a philosopher-turned-poet, I love how in that first section of Burnt Norton, he sets out a philosophical proposition, and then, rather than providing a logical argument, he paints a dream-like picture of the surreal concept of "what might have been and what has been" (all of which occurs in "the rose-garden"). And then finishes off the section with a re-statement of the proposition. The way he creates that world, through imagination, feels more "real" than a logical proof attempting the same goal.

Also, Elliot studied philosophy, and then turned to poetry later. The minimalist composer Steve Reich did the same thing, turning to music.

Dunno; I'm much younger than that but love him. Was your dislike because of The Wasteland, by any chance? Edit: saw what you quoted, re: age. Never mind. I like the time stuff because it's confusing, but intuitively feels right.

Four Quartets is a must read, to me. That's just the first section; it's about 50 pages long, and all equally as arcane, profound, annoying, and beautiful. It's the kind of long form poem I'll be reading for the rest of my life, and always gleaning something new from.

Tangerine Dream... — Akanthinos

Yeah, even within the range of the glory years of classic rock and prog, there were so many other things happening. Eno's proto-ambient records Discreet Music and (no pussyfooting), his collab with Fripp, are possibly my favorite records in general from that era.

Ok, I'm done, I promise

From 1991, but if you're not familiar with this record, you definitely should be. Headphones on, lights off!

Insane deconstruction of the "pop hook":

https://aaronrochemusic.bandcamp.com/track/like-why-i

There is literally an unbelievable amount of forward-thinking music being made right now, especially for prog fans like yourself. The music is evolving, just as your favorites were evolving from what came before them. (don't miss the first bandcamp link, one of the craziest pieces of music put out in the past few years)

https://tles.bandcamp.com/track/tassel-composed-by-anna-meredith

Anything from New Amsterdam records, who put that ^ record out, is going to be challenging and engaging. No Lands, Daniel Wohl, and Roomful of Teeth are some highlights.

Other stuff:

Constantly changing, evolving, and melting faces off, thus creating open minds:

PT in the TPF house!

I think great poetry, like any art form, works on multiple levels. It should suck you in viscerally and emotionally, but have enough depth that you can reflect on it later, analyze it, and gain something new from it. And once that cycle has completed, and begins again, the new info you've gleaned through analysis influences the fresh, visceral experience of re-reading. This is how a poem gains depth. And yes, the poem is what gains depth over time, because your individual experience of the poem is what's undergoing an evolution.

Damn, I get something new out of that every time I re-read it.

Time present and time past
Are both perhaps present in time future,
And time future contained in time past.
If all time is eternally present
All time is unredeemable.
What might have been is an abstraction
Remaining a perpetual possibility
Only in a world of speculation.
What might have been and what has been
Point to one end, which is always present.
Footfalls echo in the memory
Down the passage which we did not take
Towards the door we never opened
Into the rose-garden. My words echo
Thus, in your mind.
But to what purpose
Disturbing the dust on a bowl of rose-leaves
I do not know.
Other echoes
Inhabit the garden. Shall we follow?
Quick, said the bird, find them, find them,
Round the corner. Through the first gate,
Into our first world, shall we follow
The deception of the thrush? Into our first world.
There they were, dignified, invisible,
Moving without pressure, over the dead leaves,
In the autumn heat, through the vibrant air,
And the bird called, in response to
The unheard music hidden in the shrubbery,
And the unseen eyebeam crossed, for the roses
Had the look of flowers that are looked at.
There they were as our guests, accepted and ac-
cepting.
So we moved, and they, in a formal pattern,
Along the empty alley, into the box circle,
To look down into the drained pool.
Dry the pool, dry concrete, brown edged,
And the pool was filled with water out of sunlight,
And the lotos rose, quietly, quietly,
The surface glittered out of heart of light,
And they were behind us, reflected in the pool.
Then a cloud passed, and the pool was empty.
Go, said the bird, for the leaves were full of chil-
dren,
Hidden excitedly, containing laughter.
Go, go, go, said the bird: human kind
Cannot bear very much reality.
Time past and time future
What might have been and what has been
Point to one end, which is always present.

-Burnt Norton I, from Four Quartets, by T.S. Elliot

I think good, but other times I don't think so good.

(Y)

What Bitter Crank said. — Marchesk

Where?

Maybe he had a super trippy NDE? The disciples would probably be dying to hear about it.