Flannery O'Connor said,

I hope you don’t have friends who recommend Ayn Rand to you. The fiction of Ayn Rand is as low as you can get re fiction. I hope you picked it up off the floor of the subway and threw it in the nearest garbage pail. She makes Mickey Spillane look like Dostoevsky.

I read a couple of Rands novels a long time ago... they were OK -- not great, like a lot of things.

Don't beat yourself over the head too long for having a love affair with Ms. Rand. Quite a few people have patronized her establishment. And others of us have patronized other establishments which we heartily regret. Mea Culpa. Mea Culpa. Mea Culpa.

I feel human again, it's hard to explain. — Sylar

Of course you feel better. It always feels good to shed the filthy clothing of a recent enthusiasm, take a long hot shower, and get into something new and different. It sometimes happens that we hearken back to our former enthusiasms, like the Children of Israel, wandering around in the desert, hearkened back to the flesh pots of Egypt. Again, normal human behavior. Don't feel guilty about it. Just resist the temptation to crawl back to whatever it was.

And welcome to THE Philosophy Forum.

given the ideals of Christian justice — Robert Lockhart

I am not sure what "Christian justice" is. What are you referencing? The Sermon on the Mount, the Roman legal code? Canon Law? The Napoleonic code? English common law? What?

The fact that in the Germany of the 1930’s – 1940’s, for example, the Nazi hierarchy found no difficulty in recruiting an army of enthusiastic volunteers to staff their death camps acts as evidence to indicate that every population must include numerous individuals who similarly would be prepared to engage in such nefarious activities were the opportunity to be provided, but who in practice, in the absence of such opportunity, die innocent by default.
Apart from the disturbing disclosure this period of German history permits then of how deceptively closely, beneath the calm sea of normal society, the potential for such chaos to be unleashed must always lie, there is also the reflection, that if the individuals comprising the Nazi hierarchy had themselves been born elsewhere, they similarly would have died innocent of their crimes, albeit by default. — Robert Lockhart

Over the last 3 years I've been reading about the history of the Nazis and WWII in the period 1922-1945. One of my conclusions is that "the sea of normal society" was neither calm nor normal. The German government and German business (industrial sector, particularly) began waging economic war soon after WWI ended. A variety of cartels (such as IG Farben) set out to dominate critical components of industrial production throughout the world. Using patent law, (sometimes) hidden cross-linked ownership of companies, (sometimes) secret agreements (such as that between Standard Oil and DuPont with IG Farben) restrictive trade rules, and so on, the German Cartels interfered with industrial development in France, the UK, the US, and numerous other countries.

At the same time the German government and the cartels were building the industry and materials needed for the next war. Germany had the time to import and stockpile all sorts of raw materials and semi-processed industrial materials it would need--and wouldn't be able to get--once the next war commenced.

The Nazi party also had almost a decade to engineer social changes so that people would cooperate with, or at least sit still and tolerate the horrors to come. The ruling class of Germany -- in place before WWI, willingly and knowingly carried out this program. The abomination of Nazi Germany didn't happen "to Germany"; the abomination was created by Germany.

Had the big names in German industry and politics been born someplace else, everything else being equal, they might have done the same thing to some other country.

“How many Cromwells lie here – Innocent of their Country’s blood?” — Robert Lockhart

Some of those Cromwells lying in their graves just didn't have the chance Oliver did. Given the chance...

While 'free trade' would seem to be a good thing for everybody, it seems to be a good thing for some and a bad thing for others. Moving manufacturing to Mexico, for instance, is a benefit to Mexican workers, American corporations, maybe American-workers-as-consumers (in the short run), but not to American workers in the short or long run.

A Ford produced in the US keeps all of its economic multiplier-effect here. Parts suppliers for the assembly lines generate more multiplier effect here. American workers benefit, corporations earn smaller profit, consumers might pay more for the car, but if the American economy is more robust, they can afford to.

The same goes for a long list of products. [Benkei knows all this, of course. Some others, maybe not.]

On the other hand, a fortress economic approach isn't workable either. If we don't buy on the world market, we can hardly expect to sell, either. But the trade deals tend to favor (strongly) those in a position to profit--the familiar top 1% - to 5% of the population.

It should (imho) come down to devising policies that benefit the greatest number of citizens, not the wealthiest citizens.

Four Disclaimers:

a) I did not vote for Trump. b) Trump is certainly not stupid. c) Trump is certainly not learnéd. d) Trump is not a nice man.

Wide and varied learning (not necessarily very deep) is a prerequisite for an able president, in both foreign and domestic policy. Trump probably did not leave Fordham and Wharton School (U-Penn) with a lot of knowledge. Few people learn vast amounts in their undergraduate education. Wide and varied knowledge comes from a lifetime of reading, listening, experience, and thoughtful discussion. Trump didn't pursue that course (just as many other people do not.)

His personal narcissism is paired with a national narcissism which he shares with substantial parts of the Republican Party. Or, maybe the whole Party has national narcissism -- not quite sure. The willingness to use Taiwan to poke China in the eye is a good example. It overlooks the changes that have occurred in the world since the USA was the undisputed military and economic power. The idea that Mexico would pay for our wall against their citizens was ludicrously self involved. Moving our embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem (something that none of our allies (nor most enemies) have done is insensitive, shall we say. It might feel good now, but it is going to make Mideast policy more difficult to execute (unless the policy is Armageddon). Vladdy Putin may be Trump's kind of guy, but Putin is not a bosom buddy of the United States.

Trump's ranting (by himself and through his press secretary) over the Media's cruel and unusual claim that his inaugural attendance wasn't as large as Obama's first inauguration is simply pathetic--and disturbing. The press secretary denounced "media lies" at the CIA building in front of a wall inscribed with "You will know the truth and the truth will make you free." Apparently the writing on the wall had no effect. (It is perfectly obvious from aerial photos that Obama's first inaugural crowd was bigger--but who's counting?)

Trump is entitled to his own opinions; he isn't entitled to his own facts.

A man who (apparently) doesn't know much about American and world history is going to blunder more than most. A man who is too internally driven isn't going to listen to warnings from his intelligence agencies, congressional leaders, think tanks, or anybody else. He's cruising for a bruising.

True - there is always room for one party to oppress another. It's been observed in psychology. — TopHatProductions115

Observed in psychology... It's the history of mankind.

"It is the proper objective of government to...
— TopHatProductions115

A. do whatever its constituent population wants it to do
B. do whatever it can get away with
C. do whatever theorists think it should do — Bitter Crank

This does apply to your list. For instance, some governments enforce the law in the manner of "whatever they can get away with." Dictatorships almost always do it that way.

Governments do what the most influential population wants it to do, like, keep taxes low on corporations.

All governments, at one time or another, have done all sorts of things. Can we narrow that down?

Government interacts with the power of the citizenry. If governments rule (or serve) with the consent of the people, then there is an interface between the people and the government. I don't see this reflected in your list. Governments are quite often layered. The US has Federal and State governments, with separate powers assigned. Education, for instance, is a function of the states. Diplomacy is a function of the Federal government. Within states, local school boards actually run schools. There are cities, counties, and townships, all having assigned functions. In rural areas, for instance, it is the small township level that plows the rural roads in winter, and maintains them in the summer. The Federal government does not plow snow if it can avoid it.

I'm not sure what you want in the end, but many governments do not really do what other governments do. for instance, "upholding the national identity" means what exactly? How does the government of the US do that, compared to the British monarchy? Upholding national identity means more in some places than others. It's confusing.

It is the proper objective of government:

to serve or rule its people - there is a big difference between "serve" and "rule". Separate these two.
to develop and maintain its infrastructure - usually divided between state and private interests
to provide logically-necessitated services and resources - What does this mean to you?
to uphold its national identity - No; this is a function of religion, cultural orgs, education, etc.
to represent and/or address the interests and concerns of its people - Yes.to amend law and policy to further a nationally-recognized directive when deemed necessary - What does this mean to you?
to facilitate the transfer of power when deemed as required - This is in conflict with "to ensure the survival of itself"
to facilitate and legally scrutinize its internal and external economy - Why 'legally scrutinze'?
to objectively sustain national stability - Sure -- as long as stability doesn't get out of hand.to discern the boundaries by which all people are to be governed -Is this a function of the government or the courts and the people?
to legally enforce law within a reasonable restriction - Sure.
to maintain a consistent and objective stance of neutrality, transparency, and factuality in all circumstances - Why should the government always be neutral, transparent, and factual? This would interfere with functions such as diplomacy and spying on enemies.
to objectively sustain its activities within a nationally-recognized restriction - What does this mean to you? Beats me.
to ensure the survival of itself and its people to the best of its ability - Governments are usually VERY GOOD at making sure they survive.

It seems like strained comparison. It's not that I don't see the parallel, it's just that I think there are better parallels -- like the one I provided from WWII. Or North Vietnam's victory of the US in South Vietnam, and the reorganization of the southern Vietnamese economy. Or maybe what one Korea would do to the other Korea

Nonsense. The south today is based on the same damn principles and institutions as the north at that time: free trade, non-slave labor in the agricultural industry, etc, so there was always a firm understanding of what it would become. There was no other alternative. — Thorongil

Yeah? So if the USSR... — csalisbury

The USSR? wtf? Back to Thorongil.

Of course. Had the Confederacy won the war, things would have been different. But the south lost, and the Union intended to force more changes in the southern economy than it actually accomplished in the mid-19th Century.

Victors dictate the terms of the post-war regime. Before WWII ended, the Economic War Group began planning the deconstruction of German cartels, which had involved quite a few US, British, and French companies, and companies elsewhere. Interessen-Gemeinschaft Farbenindustrie (I-G Farbin) et al had been suppressing production of critical war materials in the US through inter-corporate agreements since 1920. Getting rid of the cartels was necessary if the rest of Europe (and the world, for that matter) was to recover economically.

The Union project resumed in 1954 when the Supreme Court ruled that Separate But Equal was unconstitutional (largely because separate was equal in theory but was decidedly not equal in fact). Little Rock High School was integrated in 1957 with the assistance of Federal troops (during the Eisenhower administration). Troops forced other integrations, as well. Various federal actions were again forced on the south in the mid-20th Century--like the Voting Rights Act, which has been undermined of late.

It's like a reflex for me, such that I would be greatly annoyed if I just let it slide. — Thorongil

Like people who can't stand prepositions at the end of sentences? As Winston Churchill said, in defense of the sentence ending preposition, "Prepositions at the end of sentences are something that I will not up with put!"

I recommend laughter.

Repeatedly, though, I find that I can't invest in talking to you. — Mongrel

A good example of what I was talking about.

What do you think? — csalisbury

I don't know why Kazuma was so taken by the text which he quoted. No, I didn't read the paper to which there was a link. I don't like it when people pull a few paragraphs out of a long text, and let that be the start of a discussion. I have a backlog of reading already. It doesn't seem like anything earth-shaking was proposed. I didn't like the way Unenlightened stated his view:

Needed by whom? The helpless are unable to change things, by definition. Therefore they tolerate even their annihilation. Those who are able to change things are those who must find things 'tolerable', and that is all that factual legitimacy amounts to. — unenlightened

I don't disagree with the upshot of his statement, just didn't like its construction--in response to which anybody might mutter "too bad".

But so what? It doesn't seem like anybody was arguing in favor of slavery. Probably the level of hostility is so high because so little is at stake. Having nothing substantive about which to quarrel, we turn on each other.

It seems that there has been more 'testiness' around here lately. Some people have extended their sensitive feelers all the way across the room and squawk every time somebody touches them. Probably fallout from Brexit, Trump, LaPen, et al. Change is in the air, but we can't quite tell from which direction the next disaster will come. Makes people nervous.

have doubts that Christians and Muslims, say, worship the same God, if that's what the comic is trying to claim. — Thorongil

I'm not sure that any two Christians (or two Jews, two Moslems) are necessarily worshipping the same God. But when we move from Judaism to Christianity to Islam, it seems far less likely that the same God is the subject of the separate devotions (assuming that gods exist at all).

One can wonder whether the very earliest Christians, who were also monotheistic Jews, even worshipped the same Jesus who Christians worshipped once the Trinity was established. I'm not sure whether Jesus would have recognized himself in that construction.

This discussion has become a mess.

"It is the proper objective of government to... — TopHatProductions115

A. do whatever its constituent population wants it to do
B. do whatever it can get away with
C. do whatever theorists think it should do

All three kinds of government exist and operate. Many of us live in countries which are best described by "A". Generally speaking, the government of Canada and Denmark are doing what the constituent populations want it to do. Neither country has been able to get away with very much. Just not trying, I suppose. Try harder. Same with Andorra. Quite a few people live in countries where B obtains: The government of North Korea (or pick your favorite example) is doing pretty much whatever it can get away with. NK is by no means the only country which fits "B". The government of the former Soviet Union was a "C" -- more or less directed by theorists who were at times altogether mistaken. China too, but they have been more dynamic.

Countries can, of course, overlap categories. The United States, Australia, and Great Britain have, for instance, served the wishes of it's constituent populations and also done whatever they could get away with. Theory is less important in these three countries, except that Capitalism is generally the presiding doctrine.

"GOVERNMENT" is a huge topic, of course, but it is also a quite manageable symbol. Some people want "government off their backs". This means repealing volumes of regulations, requirements, entitlements, onerous taxes, and so forth that get in the way of (in my humble opinion) unimpeded greed. For other people, GOVERNMENT is the shining city on the hill. Generally people who think government is a shining city on the hill are not in accord with the "off our backs" people. Pretty much diametrically opposed.

Many capitalists are "off our backs" enthusiasts, except when onerous government regulation happens to work in their favor. Exxon, for instance, might get behind air pollution regulation, because they would rather see all of their competition under the same burden as themselves.

Any leader in a field would rather have the whole field regulated, whether it needs it or not, than be the only firm regulated for past egregious malfeasance.

Do governments rule only be the consent of the people?

Theoretically. The National Socialists seized power in Germany without the mandate of overwhelming majorities. Once power was seized, the apparatus of repression, propaganda, and war swung into action pretty quickly, and the German people had no opportunity to quibble about Nazi state, let alone openly criticize it. Open criticism resulted in severe beatings, imprisonment and torture, execution, or all three.

I'm not sure whether the Soviet Union suffered a withdrawal of consent by the governed, or whether the pillars of society were finally just not sufficient to hold up the weight of incompetent management.

The United States is effectively a 1 party operation 93% of the time, and a vote to get rid of the government is a vote to switch from the Helvetica font to the Times New Roman font. No difference in outcome.

Welcome, and thanks for a cogent response.

The extent to which anyone supports or rejects a given institution is likely to be ambivalent and ambiguous. Even some slave owners in the south thought that slavery was probably wrong; quite a few people in the south found the business of slavery objectionable. Some people in the north had no particular objections to slavery (after all, it was black people who were enslaved, and not white people who felt the lash of the overseer). The interests of workers were opposed because as "wage slaves" they were at a disadvantage compared to "chattel slaves". Daniel Deleon, an American socialist, pointed out that if a slave was re-roofing a barn and fell of and died, the owner was out quite a lot of money. If an Irishman fell off the same roof and died, the owner wouldn't be out anything.

In the present, people have ambiguous and ambivalent views about property relationships. To the extent they view themselves as exploited workers, they feel like they are getting the shaft. Negative view. To the extent that they view themselves as "working hard to et ahead" and will some day be rich, they feel like the pot of gold is just around the corner. positive view. They may entertain both views in rapidly alternating sequence.

Our vacillation, ambiguity, and ambivalence screws things up, resulting in a certain amount of lurching from side to side. Trump won by appealing to the most sensitive side of ambivalent and ambiguity in the correct places. Hillary did the same thing, won the popular vote, but didn't stroke the correct sensitivities in the critical states.

"Slavery" seems like an institution. It is usually organized, supported by law and social custom, endures across generations, and so forth. But...

Underlying slavery, and a good deal else, is the institution of "property", one that has endured for a very long time. Slavery was a subset of property relationships. What is counted as property will change from time to time (humans can't be "owned"--officially at least, in much of the world; PETA objects to animals being owned. Some people object to the federal governments ownership of vast stretches of land; there are disputes about the legitimacy of intellectual property, and so on).

The Civil War wasn't really about liberation of slaves and their up-lift to equal status. It was about redefining property relationships. The North wanted to redefine property to exclude human beings, and they wanted to impose that redefinition on states which supported the institution of slavery. There was some idealism here, but not all that much. Many institutions of property in the north (banking, shipping, insurance...) were up to their financial eyeballs in slavery.

The north had a political stake in preserving its institution of free labor, which had, among other things, given it population superiority over the south. The north was interested in progressive practice in industry and agriculture -- something the south didn't want. Industrialization (as opposed to southern agrarianism) also gave the north significant advantages.

The north was interested in preserving the institutions of centralized power. The south's allegiance to the institution of distributed and diluted power was a reason for the south both starting and then losing the Civil War.

Were slaves incapable of resistance? Of course not. But like the Jews in Nazi occupied territories, the forces arrayed against them were overwhelming. They resisted if they could find a way of resisting that didn't result in the certainty of horrific torture or immediate death. A group of Jews rounded up in the town square and surrounded by hostile citizens, could do what to resist? A slave in the field overseen by an armed overseer on a horse could do what to resist? A calculation was made to survive a little longer.

If we were at an Amazonian village, why would they need to care about our enquiry? What about listening to their music. They're not savages who would wonder in awe at the musical box. That is my point about whether they need to because the overall point was challenging the cultural norm whereby people are listening to the same music without really knowing why. — TimeLine

My "Amazonian village" was described by Tobias Schneebaum in 1969 -- quite a good book, Keep the River on Your Right. Schneebaum was investigating a group of people who had not been previously contacted by westerners. (They hadn't been contacted by a lot of other Amazonian tribes, either.) He presented himself to them on a river beach near their presumed area. He had quite a bit of western tech (1969 version) with him: matches, cigarette lighter, flashlight, drawing supplies (paper, pencils), some clothing, -- no radio. I think he had a camera too, but his film was exposed during the "new guy party" that occurred

The "investigating team" from the tribe were not hostile; they were VERY curious, especially about the mirror, the matches, and the lighter. He made some quick drawings for them, which also intrigued them. He was systematically undressed and inspected intimately. Then he was accepted as a visitor.

He stayed with the tribe for a year or so, if I remember correctly. The tribe was in conflict with some other tribes, there were instances of cannibalism (no, he didn't report back on what we taste like in stew.) and a lot of sitting around and just maintaining life as they know it.

Over time, he revisited them several times. You can read the book -- you'll have to buy it on the used book market, most likely -- but it is quite interesting.

When the Beatles helped introduce Ravi Shankar, the sitar, and Indian ensembles to British and American audiences, Shankar noted that the audiences, totally unfamiliar with the Indian music, could not tell the difference between their tuning up and their actual playing. Someone who had never heard western music before (if there is any such person left on earth) might be similarly unfamiliar with the symphony orchestra's tune up before the conductor appears on stage.

Probably does already at least ... "half" exist. My goal wasn't to come up with something entirely original. Rather, the goal was to separate out children who have great early-childhood educational needs which schools are not equipped to provide. Many parents will likely gladly participate in programs that help them be better parents. But if they don't feel like it, social services agencies are better equipped to "lean on" disinterested parents. They already have the authority to take neglected and abused children.

I was, and attended a school that mostly served "b" students. There were some "a" students and very few who had serious problems. Mostly the small number of problem children was a result of the family stability common in economically-healthy parts of the rural US. We must re-stableize families, which is again something that schools are not in a position to do. Don't ask them to do that.

State control of education has been the long-term model, and for better or worse, it seems to have worked well. The heavy testing mandate is coming from the Federal Government. Testing the schools to death isn't going to improve education for anybody.

Of course children's performance should be monitored, and that is one of the tasks of the classroom teacher. Teacher performance should also be overseen, which is what principals are for.

A lot of the American history I learned in 7-12 grade I learned in 7th grade from an old lady who lectured every day. It was sort of boring. We had a text book, and I don't remember much about it. I listened to her lecture away, and a lot of it stuck. Similarly, composition in 11th and 12th grades was taught in a very old fashioned style too, but it worked. Literature, biology, and math could have been taught better, but... such is life.

Everybody agrees that education (as conducted) sucks. So, suggestions for alternatives? I have a modest proposal:

1. Sort students into 3 groups before kindergarten or first grade)

a. Children of medium to high achievers (based on schooling and employment) who will probably do well in school. High achievement program from K onward.

b. Children of medium to low-medium-achievers (based on schooling and employment) who will probably do reasonably well in school IF educational methods are adapted to student's needs. Minimum of medium achievement program fro K onward. (Curriculum content not significantly different than "a" but taught over a longer period of time. Less material will have been covered at completion.) Children who exceed performance typical of "b" would be transferred at least part time into "a".

c. Children of very low to low achievers (based on schooling and employment) who will probably have significant barriers to learning without strategic interventions. These families should be first provided family assistance by social services who have some police powers to compel cooperation. Pregnant low-achieving women, or very low to low achieving parents with children below 4 years, would be enrolled in language enrichment and child rearing instruction and support programs. If successful, these children would be sorted with "b". If not successfully remediated by age 5, these children would be assigned to option "d".

d. Children who reach school admission age with serious deficits would be given a long-term remediation curriculum and social support program. Successfully remediated children would be transferred into "b".

Most schools would only teach "a" and "b" students. "D" students would be taught in programs operated by social services agencies with the ability to compel cooperation by parents.

Like it? Loathe it? Suggestions? Your ideas?

Why do you need to pass tests and get grades? — Marchesk

For those who are on the bottom of society, taking tests and getting grades is a way of gathering evidence against them that they were kind of stupid from the get go. For those who go to college, taking tests and getting grades is handy for justifying your admission to college and the benefits that flow therefrom.

In no case do testing or grades prove very much. Except that high test scores and good grades give you the pass codes that allow you to advance ahead several steps.

I guess it depends on what you mean by a pot hole. I'm calling functional illiteracy at age 16 a pothole. Low-key head fucking (pressure to become a doctor) may lead to neurotic drop outs from medical school, but that is not the same kind of pothole as ending up in prison (or the grave) for conducting a drive-by shooting.

We live in a crazy society, so many people (among the successful as well as the failures) are going to be at least somewhat crazy. It's a given. Craziness is a bigger problem for the poor than it is for the well-off. The well off get help. The poor get nothing - or maybe a zombie drug to keep them quiet.

Even if the schools are substitutes for absent parenting, it won't help. Some children's parents are sufficiently incompetent at parenting that their children arrive at school with significant language deficits that are already difficult to overcome. By 3rd grade (8 years of age) some of the unremediated deficiencies will be permanent, and will be passed on (in vivo, not genetically) to the next generation.

The whole problem of testing and bad schools is a problem "limited" to those who don't do well on tests and attend average to bad schools, and don't do well in them. Many parents dither over their children' difficulties. They understand that failure in school is going to be a big problem sooner as well as later. The unanswered question is: Is the failure the parents' fault, the children's fault, or the schools' fault? Everybody's fault, obviously. Hang them all.

Some children get excellent results on tests, attend fine schools, do very well in the school, and go on to college and careers, without so much as a pothole on the road to success. These children behave well in school, don't shoot each other, and spent no time in prison. There is no question here as to who is responsible for all this success: everybody -- the parents, the children, and the schools. Laurels on every head.

It seems to me that there is no intention, really, of educating the majority of students in anything but low level skills.

No one in authority in Washington, the state capitols, or the local school boards is going to admit this in public. The fiction will be maintained that everybody deserves the best education, and that schools are working mightily to provide it. Unfortunately, (truth and fiction meet here) many children are screwed before they get to school, and they stayed screwed, more or less permanently.

The bias of your assumptions on the possible reactions of our Amazonian group is seriously challenging the anthropological position of cultural relativism. Nevertheless, I am confident we cannot distinctly conclude any probable outcomes, so going onto: — TimeLine

Challenging or confirming cultural relativism? I think it confirms relativism. Western music isn't a universal genre. It's more or less specific to European culture, which of course can be learned by non-westerners. A glance at many orchestra programs will reveal all sorts of star performers from China and Japan, for instance.

There is a 1970s or 1980s film (look on YouTube) "From Mao to Mozart" about Isaac Stern (late famous violinist) conducting master classes with students who were trying to acquire western musical performance competence. The Cultural Revolution hadn't been over for long, and the cadre of western classical music teachers had been thinned out rather severely by the Red Guards. It is quite moving.

We can overcome our relativistic limitations, but it takes substantial effort.

Not sure how different, but I never made contact with opera or classical music until I was about 17 and heard Andrea Bocelli one day after school at a music store and really liked it. I had no clue what was being said but it compelled me to further investigate; in my early twenties, I went to the Magic Flute live in concert and that was that, I loved it. My environment is your standard Western environment but where no contact with classical genres are made, so I kept my love for Vivaldi or Beethoven under the radar.

I'm glad you made that acquaintance and pursued it. I grew up in the 1950s when classical music could still be found on AM commercial radio, plus some AM college stations, but I also grew up in a very rural community. My family liked classical music, and some of my siblings were in choir or band, and my folks could play piano and sing. If it handn't been for the radio, my exposure would have been minimal.
— TimeLine

As for Whilst? I am self-taught and I did a lot of reading by authors and translators that used whilst, but from memory I remember it was when I read Plato' Last Days of Socrates that I picked it up, which was a long time ago now. — TimeLine

There's nothing wrong with whilst; it is common in British English. I'm just curious about word usage and geography. (Like whether one prefers "pop", "soda", "tonic", or "coke" when referencing carbonated soft drinks.)

Map of Pop

Cultural relativism, my dear friend. Does the tribe need to get that? — TimeLine

No, not really. and I don't much care if they do or not. Not my problem at this point.

By the way, This was found in a hut in the jungle not frequented by westerners. However it got there, somebody there liked it.

Isn't the amazing thing about writing that it enables your mistaken thoughts to be transmitted to me so that I can criticize your thinking and offer you correction?

Training in what way? Instrumental? Because not everyone can play an instrument — TimeLine

Doesn't matter. If you grew up in X culture, you know X culture, whether you can produce its art forms or not. I can't play Mozart, but I can appreciate Mozart, and tell whether it is being played more or less well or very badly.

and regarding what would happen if we take Mozart to an unmet tribe in the Amazon, it would still be difficult to ascertain whether they may be moved and inspired by it in their own way. — TimeLine

It would depend on whether we were playing a recording through a device or had brought out a symphony orchestra to sit in the jungle and play. In either case, they would probably be more struck by the mystery of sound coming out of a box, or what the hell all these people in strange clothing were doing in their jungle. Obviously this is a hypothetical situation. But I'm sticking with it.

I was moved by Puccini and other operas, though I come from a very different culture. — TimeLine

Well, how different? Norwegian as opposed to Italian? You can give me a little more detail without spilling too many secrets, can't you? You still haven't explained how you picked up "whilst".

Radical changes such as expressionism and surrealism were used to challenge artistic methods as a way to infiltrate the material or social elements of art and expose the inauthenticity. Enculturation could be the problem, not the solution. — TimeLine

And you think the Amazonian tribe would get that?

what are the conditions that enable music to provide meaning vis-a-vis consciousness. — TimeLine

In a word, training. It isn't that one has to go to an academy to learn the fine art of music, but one learns it as part of enculturation.

Here, Take some Peking Opera, Japanese NO plays, Native American songs and dance, or whatever it is that is totally unfamiliar to you. On first hearing, I doubt very much that they will mean anything to you. Just as, if you take Mozart, Waiting for Godot, and abstract expressionism, and present these to a previously unmet tribe in the Amazon, these genre will mean nothing at all to them. They can't mean anything.

Art forms aren't universal. The desire to produce rhythm, vocal sound, myth, and decoration may be universal among people, but the specifics are not. What the creators of Peking Opera, and its audiences liked, was learned. You too could learn all about Peking Opera, Japanese NO plays, and Native American dance, and you could become familiar enough with it to appreciate it. The same for the previously unmet Amazon tribe and Mozart.

On the limits of advertising...

Take the 15 years or so of Nazi propagandizing in Germany. Despite the full-court press of the Nazi propaganda machine (political advertising, essentially) the Nazi state backed up the propaganda with dense internal spy networks, Gestapo oversight of the citizenry, and so on. Advertising and education alone were not close to sufficient to turn Germans into complaint Nazi citizens. It took very violent force and the threat of force to keep loyal Germans in line. For instance, just expressing pessimism about the war's outcome could result in one's disappearance into a Gestapo prison.

Communist propaganda in China (prior to Deng Xiaoping's "wealth is glorious" era) was supplemented by punishment for non-cooperation on the one hand, and the "iron rice bowl" social contract on the other hand: Play your industrial part well, and you can be sure of food to eat. Soviet rule didn't work on the basis of propaganda alone either: There were social benefits for cooperators on the one hand, and Siberia for the unenthusiastic or somewhat defiant on the other.

Similar, if less severe, procedures are used in the US and elsewhere.

haven't been to the British isles yet — javra

So where do you live that "whilst" is standard usage?

And hey, if its of any consolation, I dully acknowledge my own lack of authenticity in many a way ... though I aspire to not be fake in the way I live. — javra

"Duly" I hope, and not dully.

I agree; whatever the adjectives "authentic" and "fake" mean, they "mean" on a continuum from totally authentic to totally fake.

The thing is, sometimes we "fake" things to look "real". I was at a funeral recently--open casket. The body of the deceased did not look exactly dead. It looked like a carefully decorated dead body. We don't really want to look at a body that has been dead for several days. The casket appeared to be richly upholstered and made, but of course it wasn't. It was "fake" upholstery--not what it looked like. We don't really want to look at an authentic plywood box with some cheap, sloppily stapled polyester lining, or worse, a casket made out of oriented strand board (also known as flakeboard, sterling board and aspenite in British English--I assume you are British, based on your use of "whilst"). Sometimes "fake" is more authentic than "real", paradoxically or ironically.

Existentialists are hot on authenticity, as are others, and it can be hard to nail down what they mean, too. True to yourself? To thine own self be true? Know thyself? The unexamined life isn't worth living? all that. All good, but it is still difficulty to achieve authenticity because faking it at times is ever so much more convenient.

Just to insert some sex into this otherwise overly elevated discussion: Here's a scene from When Harry met Sally. Great scene about authenticity.

An aspiring musician who seeks to be authentic many not be as technically savvy in the short-term by comparison to one who pursues technical knowhow, but their technique will grow around an authentic aesthetic—and it is the latter which we most appreciate and enjoy listening to. — javra

I think you are making an "inauthentic" distinction here.

People, whether they be aspiring musicians or scrap iron dealers, are somewhere on the continuum of "authenticity" and we can toss that definition ("authentic person") around till the cows come home (about 12 hours, at the most). But what would an authentic scrap iron dealer be?

One might be "an authentic beggar", "an authentic anarchist", "authentic ruling class" and so on, as long as we know what, exactly a beggar, anarchist, or ruling class is. What, exactly, is a musician? I listen to a lot of music, I think about music, but I don't perform music, and I don't compose it. Am I a musician? Are teenage garage band members musicians--no matter how bad the band is? What about performers who view playing music as a job, and which they might happily give up for something else?

"Authentic" is a word like "absolute" or "true". Absolute music, true music, authentic music. It's a rather vague intensifier. It doesn't tell us much.

music being an eternal existent and therefore not contained within the confines of space and time is rather intriguing — TimeLine

this is non-sense. As Terrapin Station said, there isn't anything outside of time and space.

what exactly is authentic music — TimeLine

There are "authentic performances" of music -- period instruments played by musicians informed of the period practices, performed under similar conditions, and so forth. There are "authentic performances" of medieval music on down to bluegrass and early rock and roll. That's one thing. The music itself being "authentic" is something else.

Was the music of the 1910 Fruitgum Company band authentic? They weren't exactly cutting edge 60s music -- not unpleasant, kind of saccharine. How about Eric Satie's Gymnopédies? I like it - kind of like high-end Muzak. Authentic? Beats me. For that matter, what about Muzak itself?

If a contemporary composer were to compose fugues as closely to the manner of J. S. Bach as he could, would that be "authentic" or contrived?

I like listening to a few pieces of the early Dylan. "Like"? No, a song like "The Times They Are A-Changin'" is indispensable. But aside from the few, not much. A Nobel prize? Well, that's just sun-starved crazy Norsk for you.

Otherwise, how do you get to Carnegie Hall? practice, practice, practice.

Indoctrination is, so I'd say, an inevitable aspect of education. — Moliere

It is inevitable. Even if one is conducting education according to the freest, most progressive, learn-when-and-what-you-desire-to-learn Summer Hill type school, a doctrine about the world is being taught. In the case of Summer Hill, and its like, is is that the individual's fulfillment is the ultimate value, that society can damn well wait until you are ready to learn, and so on. I don't know how the students react when they run into the more typical society rule that you are free insofar as you obey.

What about critical thinking — Question

Are you out of your mind? Teaching critical thinking to the masses clearly is a lose-lose proposition to the top gestapo leaders.

The "enteric brain" operates independently of the other brain mounted in the skull. This makes evolutionary sense, given that our earliest multi-celled ancestors were, essentially, all gut. Besides, as one physiologist noted, digestion is very complicated and our 'higher' brain, especially, doesn't want to be notified of every digestive detail.

Are the octopus's neurons located in its far flung tentacles not part of its mind? I'm no anatomist, but maybe the distributed brain of the octopus is necessary. If it is going to match it's skin to background, the centralized eye has to identify the background, and then send information to the part of the octopus that needs to change its spots.

IF one could upload an octopus mind would it not be as much an octopus mind as an uploaded human mind would be a human mind? What would our uploaded minds be? My guess is that both octopi and humans would prefer to experience their minds in their natural environment.

If I had to weigh up the implications of every action I would not have time to act. The problem of action is Like that of Buridan's ass there are lot's of equally valid options and if not equal an array of questions to be posed about each actions. — Andrew4Handel

Of course, if you had to work out all the implications on paper before you did anything, you wouldn't have time. You would, like Buridan's ass, starve to death trying to decide which bale of hay to eat first.

Fortunately, we don't have to work everything out on paper. Our reasoning can work through a decision, talking into account responsibilities, recent and more distant experiences, and other factors, in just a few seconds. That doesn't mean you will always do what is best, but you will make a decision and you won't starve to death between two bales of hay,

Let's say it is cold, windy and sleeting, and I am walking in the storm. A car pulls up by the sidewalk and somebody says "get in". I might get in, and I will try to weigh the risk before I do. It doesn't take long to analyze the situation, at least to make a gestalt assessment--just a few seconds. On the other hand, if it was a nice afternoon and a car pulled up and somebody said "get in" I almost certainly would not. Why? Nice people don't offer rides in nice weather.

↪Bitter Crank What I was trying to point out is that there seems to be an ethical element to assigning meaning. The meanings we assign to our lives don't exist in a vacuum; they affect other people. This is why there is an ethical constraint in play. And that to me is why ethics and meaning are aspects of the same thing. Which is why I don't think the notion that "there is no inherent meaning and we assign it ourselves" holds up. If meaning is subjective, then ethics are too; yet ethics are what constrain meaning. — Noble Dust

I agree with you that there is an ethical element inherent in assigning meaning to our lives. Meaning is, most likely, at least somewhat subjective, and ethics are also somewhat subjective. Just because they are subjective doesn't mean that it doesn't matter what they are, or whether meaning and ethics have no connection. I might say "For me, the meaning of my life is to live ethically." How could that not be subjective?