that's interesting. it's that holistic-love full of paradoxes that I like. It goes something like "it sucks, but it is beautiful"

Welp, the paradox with my thought is that dirtification is in itself a work of art worthy of honor and so on.

Is that so. As being an artist myself, I would say that I smashed broken the line between fact and fiction just as one smashes the illusory line between the internal self and the external world. However, the problem of escapism, of nonappreciation, of worldly rejection, are to me present and harmful not just in an aesthetic sense, but on a natural, humanist sense. My solution was then this: to embrace the holisticness of the artwork that is the world.

I am wary to equate the escapist with the cultural critic, but I suppose it's that combination of art and criticality that creates the visionary. Problems with education, sustainable energy, employment, and whatnot; these are addressed and solved by the 'critic' and the 'artist'; on the other hand, the escapist would be more than willing to get away from these as far as possible.

You have a point. A simplification would probably be to say that one is constructive, the other destructive, but it falls short as a separating line. But couple this with "activity," there will be a seemingly apparent difference. The visionary of a Leandro Leviste or an Elon Musk can very apparently be seen especially when juxtaposed with the "sleeping, dreaming man" It's that act of valuing, the striving for a "better world" that differentiates one from the other.

I agree. But depending on the composition of a piece, minors can be used for energetic moments. Take Bill Wurtz, for example, who is famous for his strange chords and unusual chord progression.

There are tunes that one listener finds sad and another finds happy. It still surprises me when it happens. So counter-intuitive! — Olivier5

The gods of music must be crazy

I used to agree with this idea that the emotional charge of a given piece of music was "obvious" or "objective" for all to hear but it is not the case. — Olivier5

What I said was a gross generalization, but I would say that it's actually dependent on the dominant cultures of a certain period. Take cinematic music for example, maybe from Marvel. Ecstatic fight scenes will usually have this certain flavor, tragic scenes its own,..etc. Having watched some Filipino, Korean, Chinese, and Japanese films, I can say that films with similar themes also have similar musical flavors. This may be a result of economic and business factors, even traditional and dogmatic, but I won't say that there's an objectivity to music.

\

There's a simple cure for this naivete: Enroll in a college course to earn a degree in art. — baker

"Simple," you say.

However, there will be some who cling to particular beliefs, such as religious ones, for comfort or security in the face of difficulties. — Jack Cummins

This, I think, is a relevant statement. People's outlooks in life can greatly change depending on their psychological state, which can be associated very easily with their beliefs. Through my interactions with my Christian peers, I observed how prayers and rituals have this sort of therapeutic effect that allows for them to alleviate their troubles and to better strive for life. To those who've suffered the lost of a loved one, let's say, a father and his daughter who lost her mother; in that kind of situation, thoughts like "your mother is always watching over us," or "we have a powerful spirit protecting us" prove to be very helpful and uplifting. Regardless of the truth of those statements, they seem to have strong therapeutic value to certain peoples and cultures.

Do you speak German? I don't know any English sources directly for this. — baker

What do you mean? No, I don't speak German. Any non-English words I used here are either in Tagalog or, er, the name of an ice cream company.

For example, an introductory book like John Sutherland's How Literature Works: 50 Key Concepts can be very helpful for this. — baker

I see. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

not that it's absolutely wrong, but that it's unhealthy. Note that I am using the word 'escape' here, but escaping from what? Duties, work, personal problems,...etc. All forms of art have the capacity to sooth one from the daily frustrations of living, and it is that temptation to abandon one's real life situation for a pleasure-based consumption of art that I am concerned with. Reading a Shakespearean book or playing some Call of Duty both have the capacity to turn one's back away from life, so one must be careful

I see. I admit to have a curiosity for "true truths", though it seems to me that regardless of whether this is, it makes little if no difference to how one will live their life. If, for example, the truth is that we are all destined for pancakes, those who detest pancakes and have lived detesting them will arguably experience no change in their experience and being. I find wisdom in the works of a Foucault or a Wittgenstein, especially a Nietzsche, which are concerned more on living our present lives than a martyrdom for truth. Philosophy, I think, has evolved from truth finding to problem solving. And where there is life, there are problems. To me, there is some wisdom in turning away from this search in order to chat with my friends, to watch the latest NBA game, to kiss my partner, to learn how to drive, to celebrate my father's birthday, to establish a more efficient system of education, to fight against cultural discrimination, to subdue terrorism, to conquer the world via business ventures, and ultimately to imbue meaning in all this frisky-froskying.

There are billions of people in this Earth and their problems are probably of a greater magnitude and a greater diversity. Because of this and considering the lifespan of a human person, we better do with our relative-truths else we might perish in our search for the true truth. The plant is fine with its sunlight, the lion with its prey, and the person with his truths.

“How good music and bad reasons sound when one marches against an enemy.” ― Friedrich Nietzsche

Nietzsche seems to have an agonistic philosophy, so naturally I think that he refers to "enemy" here in a positive developmental sense. I think this "good music and bad reasons" is precisely what leads the people of present to, as you have said, "forget the bigger picture" as a result of cowering from their good enemy.

But the real harm is the devolution of impartial conscious attention. This loss IMO supported by negative expressions for some reason called art, assures the gradual devolution of Man into its animal nature. — Nikolas

Negative expressions seem to me just as essential as its positive counterparts. I suppose that it is not the expression but the interpretation that "assures the gradual devolution of Man into its animal nature." But in a wider sense, I suppose it is the complex interplay between art expression and art interpretation that one must be wary of. If the trends in popular art and popular thinking are at a disjoint or are completely aligned with each other but heading for the more destructive, decadent direction, then one is certain to experience a sort of devolution in culture, both popular and personal.

Ah, forgive me for that gross generalization, but welp, at least I've expressed that there is this kind of phenomenon transpiring.

Mainstream taste has never much differed from what I can see. Very few people choose high art over popular forms. — Tom Storm

Regardless of their taste, of whether the art form is of a higher caliber or not, it is fine as long as it isn't used to escape to dreamworld.

Schopenhauer didn't get this right with the genre. — Shawn

Precisely my point.

I simply think art doesn't necessarily distance life from itself. — Shawn

As do I. However, I think that once one treats the whole of life, the world, as art, the best way to appreciate it would be by, er, "treating it as a festival." i.e., as a celebration rather than an escape.

It matters only in the humanistic sense, free of or consciously constricted by psychological hurdles. Beyond that, I have nothing to say. It can be whatever, right, though once it becomes something, it will as with the principle of individuation, separate itself from other conceptions and build a world for itself.

what, that art is supposed to pull you away from the suffering of life? Asceticism seems to me very repulsive, especially in art. If it is a fact, it is one I am greatly opposed to.

though in this case, Schopenhauer is the one who is responsible for this dirtyfication.

ah, what I am referring to is how the young people of this generation, my generation, tend to ignore their duties (basic things like homework, school projects, chores, etc) and disobey those in authority (parents, professors) in seek for more stimulating activities; it is usually with video games, social media, and in this particular case, popular artistry that we tend to escape to, similar to how one would take drugs and medication to alleviate certain illnesses. Though in this case, I am referring to illegal uses of drugs and comparing it to how art is used to accomplish something similar.

My younger sister had expressed this exact sentiment, that life is so sad and that K-pop gives her life meaning. Whether that is an exaggeration or not is unknown to me, but that statement, I think, had heavy implications.

I see, thanks for sharing this to me.

I am concerned of how present idols (Singers, boy bands, K-pop artsist,...etc) are used as a sort of drug to intoxicate one away from the glory of the art (specifically, the it's pains and suffering) of life. I suppose this matches the notion of how people are driven away from the reality of life to images and dreams and illusions (regardless of whether it is for the supernatural or the modern artists).

In modern times in which the loss of conscious attention and dominance of imagination is obvious, what can be done for people to realize what is being lost? Can a certain quality of art help humanity to "remember?" — Nikolas

This may be semantic, but my take on this is not that art has this certain quality, but that we do. It is up to us to view life as an aesthetic phenomenon and find how we can best appreciate it.

Could you teach me of this?

I share this sentiment, but let me explain why it doesn't matter, whether you believe that or not. If you're not an aesthetic realist, if you are an anti-realist that believes "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" then there is no true or actual conception of 'decadence' vs. art. There just isn't. — Dharmi

There is truth in what you say, but once art is grounded in its more natural, more humanistic conception, the end result is that art as a rejection, a fervent escape from one's suffering (regardless of whether it is one's miniscule daily mishaps or a something more chronic, more lethal), will always go down as unpleasant or unpreferable; this "decadent" conception of art has its validity as a negative human truth.

One's view of life, of the world, is wholly dependent on his psychological state. There's some wisdom in thinking this. Regardless of whether there is "no true or actual conception of 'decadence' vs. art," as you have said, it doesn't matter. The decadent conception of art, I'm sure we can both agree, presents itself as arising from those whose perception are dominated by underlying subconscious pushes and pulls, by certain harmful psychological influences.

A crazy woman screaming hysterically is just as beautiful as the moonlight sonata unless there's an actual standard of beauty. — Dharmi

This statement speaks of perceptions of beauty, but I think it's speaking of something more general, if not something entirely different. What I am concerned about isn't the standards of beauty or its other perceptions, but the one doing the perceiving, the beholder. The quote "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" speaks of how there isn't a universality to beauty, but it speaks nothing of the psychology of the beholder and why he/she sees something as beautiful.

I agree that therapy is important but only insofar as it is used as a tool for life-affirmation. There's a sort of life-denial when people think that anyone who suffers needs therapy. I suppose there's a line between suffering that needs therapy and suffering that doesn't. I think it is problematic how (in some countries) the view is like this: therapy/medication=disease/disorder=inferior/incompetent=repugnant=should be avoided/scorned. It makes it hard for those who need therapy to reach out in fear of social discrimination, which in some cases actually makes their situation worse.

Personally, I find the individualistic conception of genius as less interesting compared to the genius of someone of great excellence and influence.

One person's genius may be another's bete noir. — Tom Storm

I encounter this concept a lot in Japanese novels. In Zaregoto: Psychological by Nisioisin, the main theme was how genius always invites contempt for it forces the observer to reflect about their own incompetence relative to the genius. The book tackled this by showing us a juxtaposition between a scientist who worked all his life to get to his genius and a child prodigy who assembled and led a team of talents to cause a worldwide cyber terrorism merely as play. This instigated a sort of technological boom around the globe; people wanted to protect themselves and prevent something like that from happening ever again. In short, the child, merely by playing, advanced the whole world's technological capability.

It is frequently narrated how the scientist finds the child prodigy as distasteful and an insult to his decades of effort. This child prodigy is a sort of Da Vinci, a genius who brought a great impact the world through talent and the scientist, I suppose, represents someone who honed his talent through training and hard work, i.e., someone who is merely 'talented'.

I find this genius-nongenius dynamic very interesting.

I see. A more interpersonal and semantic approach on therapy is great, though I suppose there are certain circumstances that no matter how you look at it, something's meaninglessly wrong. Insomnia, in some cases, is ridiculous. The insomniac is victimized by their stressors or physiological problems. CBT-I is the popular treatment and all, but for someone who experiences insomnia because of a lack of exposure to certain external stimuli needed to get the body clock working properly because of their hikikomori working environment and lifestyle, it's just some meaningless suffering, a sort of side-effect of the technological advancements of our time and the economic and vocational needs of those flowing with this trend. It's somewhere along the lines of "Some forms of treatments are good and I'm glad to have access to them but I find it irritating that I have to go through this at all." I am referring to myself here and it's with great distaste that I receive this experience.

I suppose its practical value lies on when it is useful for a person to 'get back on track' and not merely on whether a person is this or that. I do not have any experience in therapeutics so my opinion may be less valuable in this discussion, but I have observed how associating people and disorders lead to pigeonholing and inappropriate behaviour towards the pigeonholed. By associating people and disorders I don't mean diagnosing because that would require some professional intervention. I am talking about how everyday people would (unprofessionally) diagnose themselves and others with certain psychiatric disorders.

Say that Sam the child painter grieves the recent death of her parents. She dreams to become a world-renowned painter someday but right now she is sad and anxious about how she'll be faring in a world without her parents. She is suffering and it is natural that she is. Nobody has to treat her with therapy to remove her suffering; one can even argue that she has a right to this suffering. If Sam goes back to painting, uses her grief as motivation, and continues to strive for her goals in life even with the great suffering she feels, there is no need for therapy regardless of whether she's depressed or not (but I suspect that the official definition of depression has more to do with the weakening of the Will to Life and not necessarily on emotional suffering so maybe she's not depressed in this situation?). If I am correct, this is called sublimation. However, if the grief from the death of her parents render her unable to sleep, eat, and strive for excellence in her field, if her will to life becomes shoddy and continues to be so for an extended period, then this I think is when therapy gains value.

Speaking for personal experience, I had never gone for professional therapeutic help, but when the pandemic punched me in the face my world view was like this: "that striving for excellence both in my crafts and duties is ultimately meaningless so I should just lead a life that minimizes suffering. Striving to live, striving for excellence, it's the root of suffering so I should just stop it." I didn't seek help as I was satisfied with this philosophy but not long after I broke down in tears in front of my family when we were casually chitchatting during dinner. They didn't necessarily offer comfort, but they did provide me with words that I think really put me 'back on track.' I don't know if what I experiences classifies as any kind of professional therapy, but that experience had been very therapeutic for me.

In the instances I wrote above, I am pointing out to how people who experience suffering shouldn't be seen as needing of therapy, regardless of whether someone has psychiatric disorders or not, insofar as this suffering doesn't weaken one's Will to Life. Suffering and stressors are essential factors of human life and I don't think we should get rid of them if they're nothing detrimental to us.

Your stance is that there's happiness in ignorance. It's perfectly reasonable, but as earthly beings, all of us have it within ourselves to strive to live in the present. This natural state comes with the combat of wills which result in conflict, competition, and what not—animals eat plants, humans eat animals, natural disasters kill everyone, humans conquer nature to stop this,...etc. Depending on the observer, this kind of reality may either be interpreted as negative and harmful or positive and beautiful. I see that your discussion supports the former interpretation, but to those who side with the latter, happiness becomes subordinate to excellence. By competing, contesting, fighting, scowling, crying, grieving, smiling, laughing, reassuring, comforting—i.e., by striving to live in this natural, earthly state of being, excellence becomes the virtue to strive for and happiness is just a piece in the puzzle. It is in the striving for excellence that one can really live in the most earthly way possible.

It's all about beings striving for excellence in the thing they're striving for. Plants striving for excellence in photosynthesis, animals for hunting, pets for pet companionship, livestock for livestock, farmers for their farming, singers for their singing, illustrators for their illustrations, teachers for their teaching, friends for their friendship, construction workers for their construction work, engineers for their engineering, scientists for their scientific ventures, and you name it. This is a merely a simplification, but the point is excellence is accessible to everyone and everyone naturally strives for it.

What's most unnatural to me is when beings (humans in particular) give up this earthliness for mere ideals. People will choose to give up excellence in maybe a job or an art for the sake of complete, perpetual happiness but because this is an unnatural ideal, it always betrays whoever strives for it. It's like someone who believes that "sleep is for the weak," only to deteriorate his health and pass out after a week of nonsleep. But hey, that's also excellence in some way, right? Excellence in decadence. A fine oxymoron. Cheers to you.

I agree with your theory.

Nietzsche tackled this topic and wrote something similar. Here are some of my notes on Birth of Tragedy


Quoting myself on a previous discussion:

Music is somehow mystical in the sense that it has a sort of universality relative to human emotions and passions. Sad music makes us sad regardless of our race and culture the same way that joyous music make us, welp, happy. This is especially the case for musical compositions without linguistic conflation which I would say is why they are most effective for enhancing scenes in films. Sometimes, lyrics ruin the song but if done right, it actually enhances our experience of it. By "done right", I'm not suggesting a universal structure of lyrical composition that makes all songs good. Lyrics step into culture, so it's a given that it loses its universality, but if songs with lyrics are directed to certain cultures and are consumed by these cultures, then to them it would have been "done right." This is why some westerners may not really appreciate, say, Vietnamese music or why there's even a divide between K-pop stans and the rest of the world.

This is also why I enjoy cute anime music and get shamed for it (ﾉ´ヮ`)ﾉ*: ･ﾟ — Nagel

Music is somehow mystical in the sense that it has a sort of universality relative to human emotions and passions. Sad music makes us sad regardless of our race and culture the same way that joyous music make us, welp, happy. This is especially the case for musical compositions without linguistic conflation. Sometimes, lyrics ruin the song but if done right, it actually enhances our experience of it. By "done right", I'm not suggesting a universal structure of lyrical composition that makes all songs good. Lyrics step into culture, so it's a given that it loses its universality, but if songs with lyrics are directed to certain cultures and are consumed by these cultures, then to them it would have been "done right." This is why some westerners may not really appreciate, say, Vietnamese music or why there's even a divide between K-pop stans and the rest of the world.

This is also why I enjoy cute anime music and get shamed for it (ﾉ´ヮ`)ﾉ*: ･ﾟ

You might want to consider learning the Greeks as you are reading the Birth.

Ah, nice. While I do not think it is necessarily harmful, it seems to me that there is an ulterior motive to make everyone feel as though they are remarkable through word play. But of course, we can always say that everyone is remarkable in their own way.

I do share the same sentiment; that we should ignore the epistemological problem and simply deal with it, maybe by neutrality or authenticity to oneself.

If it is as you say, then why do you think there is a will for complexity?

I assume that you're familiar with some of Nietzsche's ideas but have not yet really dove deep into his works? If so, then my best recommendation for you is to familiarize yourself with him and how he relates to other (older) philosophers. You can achieve this by watching tapes, lectures, and podcasts on YouTube. Philosophy Overdose is a channel I'd recommend. Once you have a fair grasp and a broad understanding of what Nietzsche is about, you can focus on deepening your understanding through his books. I read Kaufman's translations, though I can't say that I recommend it because, welp, his translations are the only ones I've read. I can't really compare it with others, now can I. Afterwards, I highly recommend that you make essays or take notes of what Nietzsche is saying relative to your personal self. By this, I mean you should relate your personal experiences or thoughts to whatever in his works that you can relate to or have you pondering. Ah, yeah, you can even start writing essays in the YouTube stage if you want. It's really important to flesh out your own thoughts about philosophical topics. Hey, you might even someday encounter a completely unfamiliar book about ideas that you've already written tons of essays about. Lastly, if you judge it as necessary, you should google about the unfamiliar concepts that arise. In my case, I read some Antigone and Agamemnon (Greek tragedies), searched about the tale with Silenus and Midas, and googled Archilochus in order to have a good idea of what Nietzsche was talking about in Birth of Tragedy.

I am by no means an academic philosopher, I only commit to studying philosophy in my free time. And by free time, I mean free-er time. I usually spend my free time either by playing and chatting with my friends or drawing. Once I am free of those activities, I do philosophy. Though I do sometimes listen to philosophy stuff while drawing, I would still say that it is most effective to have complete focus when studying up on it.

Welp, as you can see, studying these things isn't my priority. It makes it a slower process than it already is, but I prefer doing it in my own pace. You can join me in my snail race but you can also go overkill and consume as much materials as you can as fast as possible.

Don't evaluate a comment by its truth value when you're looking to understand its psychological impact. Comments can indicate a person's thoughts and feelings, they can characterise people, highlight or emphasise certain things about a person and so on. I do think we can say simplification is generally going to be received poorly. — Judaka

Doing this also reflects badly on you because the ulterior motives for misrepresenting someone or ignoring potentially inconvenient factors are likely the result of ill-intent, apathy, condescension or dishonesty. — Judaka

It seems to me that the truth value of a certain remark has some relevance in understanding a simplification's psychological impact. In my example with A and B, I find it hard to imagine that B would be repulsed the same way about the simplification if A's remark was false. If, instead, A said that B has been ignoring him/her recently, then what? The following reactions depend on persons and context, but in a situation like that a truth we can easily infer is that A is misunderstanding B; B, without any intention of ignoring A, had been spending time with his/her dog. This is no longer a simplification, but a misunderstanding. In the first example, B was upset because A simplified his recent behaviour but failed to capture the complete essence, that is, the difference between A-B and B-dog relationships. On this new example, it's no longer about B's character being simplified, but about A, possibly out of jealousy, misrepresenting B. It's already a different ball game.

I agree with you when you say that we mustn't look at truth value for a thing's psychological impact, but what I am concerned about here is the simplification which necessitates that a statement is true. Your take on this is much broad, and I appreciate it.

then is it not the case that one hates not being simplified, but being simplified in an inappropriate way in relation to the given situation? — Nagel

@Tom Storm's comment further raised my opinion of this quote. Regardless of a person's intent, I think this is true. I know I'd hate it if my friend suddenly barges in to my meeting and tells everyone about my erotic fantasies. It's inappropriate and embarrassing. But if he says the same thing to my other friends in a drinking session, I can easily imagine how loud we'd be roaring in laughter.

A thorough view or comment at least shows that you put some effort into understanding that person or the situation. — Judaka

I agree. But I do think that a simple comment can achieve the same effect.

I see. Simplification really just sucks balls when it lacks consideration for others' view of themselves.

There is truth in what you say, but in the book's context, It is the reverse. Please be wary of what I tell you for it is only my interpretation, but it seems to me that Nietzsche found it counterintuitive for the Greeks to deviate from what he calls the "primordial pain and its primordial reechoing," and the "primal unity" that can best be experience through music. He talks about how by using imagery and words, by confining one to linguistics, one actually deviates from music and thus deviates from this "primal unity."

Perhaps music, the right kind, can intensify the heartache of tragedies

—@TheMadFool

Put this in reverse. In a way, he's telling us that the lyrical aspect of tragedies is weakening the heartache and joy one can experience from music. Because one is driven away from the Dionysian and brought closer to the Apollonian.

Music brings us to this "primordial suffering" which is why it connects with sadness.

Can you tell me what was good about what Nietzsche deemed a tragedy?

—@TheMadFool

To answer this, let me first quote myself from one of my posts.

The lyric genius is someone who symbolizes himself, subjects himself into the constraints of language and rationality in order to actualize the Dionysian contradiction. In contrast, we have the plastic artist whose concern is in the realm of images. However, Dionysian music is without images. Then we have the epic poet who lives in images, lives in what we may call "dreams" where he sees pleasure in even the expression of an "angry Achilles".

—@Nagel

Nietzsche differentiated tragedies based on these three types of artists. He puts particular emphasis on what he calls the lyric genius who he presents Archilochus as a prime example.

"The value of existence (as an aesthetic phenomenon) is independent of our subjective valuations of the world. He then proceeds to end section five with how the artistic genius "is at once subject and object, at once poet, actor, and spectator." I suppose this means that the genius, being the subject who produces art is at the same time the medium in which this art is produced. In a sense, he is detached from the artist and is therefor placed as the spectator."
—@Nagel

In short, tragedies, the lyric genius' in particular, are good because it expresses the primordial pain and somehow puts the person much more in touch with reality than other types of tragedies that bring us to the "realm of dreams."

In that book, Nietzsche was actually referring to Greek tragedy (plays, dithyrambs) and how it came to pass that the Greeks gave birth to such things in relation to music, hence the title "On the Birth of Tragedy out of the spirit of music." He was talking about tragedy as an art.