But here:

My want is for my children not to suffer. I should vaccinate my children. — khaled

The first should is moral, and the second is procedural.

Valid points; within the context of your response, I think your assessment of my use of bias is valid, but within biases's use on the forum and within cultural discourse at large, I would argue my use of bias is more accurate. If anything, it looks like your more accurate (at least via the dictionary) definition actually doesn't parse against how the word "bias" is used in political and philosophical discourse. I think this is self-evident, but I can try to cull some examples together if needed. Generally, "bias" is an accusation of being "pre-disposed" to a certain viewpoint, and that "pre-disposition" is what I'm getting at, yes, and that idea seems to parse with what you're saying. But really, where is the line drawn between the classical definition, and how the word is used in culture? What does the cultural use of the word signify?

And more importantly than semantics: regardless of the word you choose, this "predisposition" to viewpoints that we have needs to be sorted out, and it's mostly not being sorted out. I want to sort it out.

The difference is in the desire: "waking up early" vs. "children not suffering". You may desire to wake up at a certain hour for any number of reasons, none of which need to contain a moral aspect; desiring that children not suffer, on the other hand, is more narrow, and is harder to divorce from a moral aspect.

nihilistically iconic...

So, ethics are applied, in religion, through commands, etc? Versus philosophy in which no definite ethical command is necessarily made? I.E. the perpetual discussion of any possible ethical imperative, etc?

I dunno if you've demonstrated how you see religion as superior to philosophy in the OP? I'm trying to find it.

I'd say it's wise to not presume to know The Truth, but foolhardy to assume you know nothing of it.

Weird mod editing just happened here, right? Super weird.

No disrespect.

Sounds iike a really bad version of a trip that you didn't actually have, no disrespect. :up:

Emotionally.

Emotionally, are you ok with an afterlife?

Anyone who agrees with that is a monster.

You mean stuff like the ones that are heard between 1:47 and 2:25? — Πετροκότσυφας

Exactly; those chord changes are mine. I was so inspired by this song though, because her melody so strongly suggests a chord progression; It's so rare to work with a vocalist so intuitive that he/she can just sing melodies that basically create their own chord progressions. So, with this track, I had the luxury of deciding how and in which context, if any, I wanted to highlight the chordal structure that she was suggesting, intuitively, with her voice. Thankfully, the way I did it ended up working for her; she agreed with how I heard it.

The backbone seems to be the drones (not even sure if the term applies, but that's how I categorise it), so by drones I mostly meant the instrumental part (as opposed to vocals). — Πετροκότσυφας

Oh totally, the backbone of the track, in terms of emotion, is the "drones". But I think that the melody, especially the chorus, is what carries the track from point to point.

I like the rythm too, although, I'm pretty sure it would be different in my head had I read it first and not listened to the recitation. — Πετροκότσυφας

Same; I don't know. Hearing the translation sounds really nice. I don't know what that means.

The Bass Communion tracks is nice too. I had only listened to "Ghost on Magnetic Tape" before. — Πετροκότσυφας

Word. That's his big piece, for whatever that means. Molotov And Haze is waaaay better.

I like the poem. I mean this in the worst possible way, but the rhythm reminds me of the sort of stuff I write. This person seems to have a better sense of community, though. Translation is always awkward, but it's good.

Oof. Thanks! Sadly I had more to do with the moments where the drones are broken by actual chord progressions; not because that's my thing; just because that's what the track needed, occasionally.

Still listening to the Bass Communion shit I posted, because I'm a stickler. Will check out the Darwish poem asap. :up:

*intensifies*

I hope you realize my responses were in good fun...I know we had a run in or two... :heart:

Not gonna lie, Dayvan Cowboy is low-key genius. Not over-rated.

God, you had to pick a low-key masterpiece BOC track, right? I haven't listened to this in awhile. The feels.

*looks for bow-down-in-worship emoji; can't find it*

Damn, I need to comb back through my notes from the New Amsterdam Records Composers Lab I did last summer, and find the vaporwave section. There was so much immediate philosophical content at that point. Now I'm rusty. This particular Droid Bishop track sounds a little more family friendly.

Vaporwave is wild. Deserving of it's own TPF thread, I would say.

Right? I had nothing to do with that section (vocally); her friend originally did it, singing a Mahmoud Darwish poem, but she decided to do it herself, and totally killed it; hearing both versions, her updated version elevated it to something totally different.

Thanks! Isn't she great? I can listen to her sing all day; I'm lucky enough to have her singing on some tracks of mine as well, forthcoming.

The analog warmth is so yummy and comforting. But I can't help but think that this style of music is just a charicature; an attempt to capture something that never actually existed in the 80's. It's super calming though; if that's the point, then, success. Good zone out jams.

Ehhhh

I "co-produced" this track, which means my dear friend Charlene wrote and partially arranged it, and then sent it to me for completion. I changed some song structure stuff, removed some stuff, and then added some of my own stuff. My only problem is that I did a rough mix, but was late on delivering a final (my fault), and so she had her other mix guy do a mix. The mix is not that great. Nuances are lost. Dynamics, especially. But I love her melody and lyrics enough that I can look past it (I guess). The emotion still mostly comes through. [headphones recommended, to pick up the nuances that are barely there...anyway...]

Uh, I've been re-reading LotR and loving every second (sentence). :yikes:

Isn't the "how" the crux of love, though?

Can you put it in layman's terms?

So, according to Frankfurt, self love is disinterested care for oneself — Posty McPostface

Disinterested; yes. This is the nugget I could never pull out of the Gospels; Can I love myself on my own? Can I care for myself the way I care for someone else whom I love? No, not at all. How do I do that?

Elaborate! Discuss! Dream! Disagree! Join us, SLX!

I feel that that's the real issue. What does it mean to love oneself?

I would say love, maybe. That's a loaded word, though. But of course ethics deals with love. We can look at it apophatically; @StreetlightX and I don't love each other. Should we? I think so. What would it take for love to sprout between us?

To systematize ethics is definitely problematic. Ethics is complex. No one can figure out ethics; it's a bitch. But the intellect still deals with ethics. Again, otherwise ethics is just a big emotional meltdown. The sort of thing I'm very familiar with. So it's odd to me that I have to be the one to emphasize that ethics is a rational, intellectual domain. The very notion that ethics and the intellect are separate creates the very meltdowns and pathologies in which an ethical (moral?) position becomes a fundamentalism, whether religious, political, atheistic, or whatever. Suddenly, any assault on the position is poison. The attack gets shut down at all costs.

:lol: [there's a joke there]

Btw, and more to your point here; so what that people don't intellectualize ethics on a day to day basis? What do people intellectualize on a normal day? Nothing. Red herring.

Respectfully, Posty, I don't think it's a case of "whereof one cannot speak, thereof one ought to remain silent." I think we can speak about how ethics and the intellect interact; I think if we can't, then we can't talk about much. If ethics is purely unintellectual, then what is it? Emotional? Primal?

You don't know me; I can't even try to tell you that I think about ethics all the time in daily life, and that I feel awkward all the time in normal interactions because I'm hypersensitive to how people treat one another, and that I shirk away from social interactions because I hate how much people fake ethical norms in order to get ahead for their own sakes, myself included at times. I can't even tell you that; and you wouldn't believe me because you don't know me. I wouldn't believe you if you told me that. But wait, isn't that part of the problem?

Emotional response aside, isn't there some abstract reflection to be done, once we make these intuitive, emotionally ethical responses? Once we reflect on how we feel, for instance, once I reflect on what I just said in the above paragraph, doesn't some intellectual strength bear us forward?