The beauty and goodness that can only be witnessed in a winged chariot through the "heaven above the heavens". This beauty [s undisputed and undebatable. — GregW

Winged chariot? I don't think any subject in philosophy is undisputed and undebatable.

Beauty and goodness are the defining attributes of beautiful and good things. — GregW

That's a circular argument. E.g., Truth is what true statements express.

If you believe that beauty is not a culturally constructed or contingent concept, then what exactly is beauty as you understand it and how do you access or recognise it?

I’m saying that they are abstractions because they are not physical things, they are ideas and there are dramatic variations in what people recognise as good or beautiful, hence for some, porn and sport. They are abstractions because they are intangible, mental constructs. You point to some instantiations like marriage. Well again, there are many people for whom marriage is a painful trap. This is a slippery, context dependent matter.

Maybe some ancient Egyptians played Rock'n'Roll already. I don't know. The thread title is just a symbolic picture. The main question is about the link between contemporary music and contemporary environments, and whether Rock'n'Roll can only be a product of our time. — Quk

Thanks for expanding on your idea. It’s easier to follow with some texture.

I guess for me, rock 'n' roll is rooted in specific influences: a particular time, place, and sound. You can poetically argue that elements of rock existed earlier, but I think that’s probably stretching it. What we’ve really seen is that human beings use music to self-soothe, mourn, and celebrate. It can also be an act of defiance and a statement of identity. No doubt, there are common threads across the centuries.

some people never experience love
— Tom Storm

I can't understand why you believe that "some people never experience love". Are you saying that some people never experience the desire for the beautiful and good? — GregW

These are two separate matters. Yes, I am saying that some people never experience love. As for the beautiful and the good—no doubt some people attempt pursue these abstract notions through things like porn or sport, perhaps?

Essentially agree. What’s interesting to me is that people are forever trying to build fences around art - demarcating what counts as art and what does not, usually excluding works they find challenging, dreadful, or both. I generally hold that art is anything intentionally presented to provoke an aesthetic or reflective response. Whether you like it or not, or whether it’s “good,” remains a separate question, one that’s often confused with the more fundamental issue of what art is in the first place.

In the end, discussions about the value or appeal of a work should not be mistaken for conclusions about its status as art. The ontology of art - what makes something art - demands a different kind of attention than questions of taste or judgment. I personally avoid violent art work or themes, but that's entirely on me.

Cool. I just wanted to emphasize the objective element of technological affordance (I won't say determinism) and the co-evolution of technology and music. Not everyone goes along with it! — Jamal

A friend's sister was a jazz singer here in Australia. One Christmas, about twenty years ago, we were listening to some of her recordings. My friend said to me, "You realize if it wasn't for the microphone she wouldn't have a career. It helped create an art form." I’d never thought about it until then.

Well the best of luck with that. We don't have to agree. — unenlightened

Fair point.

I am leaning into Plato's claim that love is a desire, a desire for the beautiful and good. — GregW

Plato believed in transcendentals (the forms in his language) and thought there was an ideal form of love (along with beauty and goodness). I don't.

Love is an experience shared by all. — GregW

Do you know this for certain? I’ve worked with a lot of career criminals and gang members, and I would say that some people never experience love and, as a result, may not be able to give or receive it.

The differences are real, not merely in the ear of the beholder.
30m — Jamal

I have no issue with that. I was quoting my dad who was echoing you on opera. I think the invention of the mic ushered in unparalleled vocal nuance and creativity. My dad heard many gradients of subtlety in the better operas and performances. I am not personally an opera fan although I consider Strauss’ last songs to be exceptional. But we’re back to personal taste.

To my ears, the softer, more subtle, more intimate singing of the era of recording, with all the timbral complexity and diversity, is a lot less ugly than operatic singing, which is relatively one-dimensional and usually quite offensive (again, to my ears). — Jamal

You're right, it is subjective, my father enjoyed opera and thought the range and texture of singing was so much more refined and relatable than the 'screaming banalities' of rock music. I guess it's what we're used to. It's certainly the case that more people can participate in rock, no matter how idiosyncratic and odd their voice might be.

If we are talking about ancient Egypt then I wonder if the blues is a more apposite comparison. Did the pyramid builders sing away like the slaves of the old South?

Probably in the 1950's, with American radio. — Wayfarer

Ha! Yes, this and people like Ike Turner.

If you're asking for details, there are so many factors. Where should I start? — Quk

How about you start with what you already began?

You said this, explain:

Rock is the opposite to Mahler and Chopin. — Quk

Why?

powerful yet lovely urge for freedom, accompanied by a big "wall of sound" — Quk

Why? Explain. For instance, how do you delineate the difference between the climax in Beethoven compared to Mahler?

No need for references to sound engineering or musical terms but if you feel you need to do so go ahead.

Short answer: In my book, Rock is the opposite to Mahler and Chopin. — Quk

What counts as rock in your book? It's an umbrella term like 'crime' or 'transport'. I'd struggle to hear Beethoven in this vein. A 'big wall of sound' and 'freedom' are exceptionally amorphous concepts and apply in a range of domains. — Tom Storm

Can you provide some key indicators or is thsi just how it 'feels' to you personally?

To say Mahler is the opposite of rock means your idea of a “big wall of sound” and “freedom” needs some clarification, because that’s exactly what Mahler’s 2nd is about and evokes. Same goes for the Revolutionary Étude, which is loud as hell and all about freedom.

If these works don’t meet your criteria, that’s fine, but help us understand the thinking.

Sounds that initially seem ugly become beautiful after some decades just because the humans get used to it? — Quk

I think this is true for music and the visual arts. Yes, ugliness may reside in something being unfamiliar but how do we compare this to something that remains ugly? I'm not big on essentialist categories like beauty and ugliness.

Personally I've never developed a taste for rock music.

What counts as rock in your book? It's an umbrella term like 'crime' or 'transport'. I'd struggle to hear Beethoven in this vein. A 'big wall of sound' and 'freedom' are exceptionally amorphous concepts and apply in a range of domains. You could be talking Mahler's Second or Chopin's Revolutionary Etude.

When I think of rock, I mostly think of white musicians appropriating Black music; along with a lot of posturing and conceit.

I think you do better than that. Not only do you not mind theists, you bring up God or religious faith yourself. Which is certainly fine with me, but it’s worth noting who is raising these subjects.

Quite honestly, (and that is the real issue - we need to trust each other), but quite honestly, I like my science straight, no ice, and no chaser. That’s the only kind of science there is.

I like philosophy as a blend of physics with the metaphysical/logical/linguistic. I don’t really like philosophy of religion, or shoehorning God into science. Science is specifically about using my own reason to judge everything for myself, so there is no desire in me to go beyond testable evidence when talking philosophy.

The expertise here on TPF is epistemology and logic (language/math) and metaphysics and mind, and anthropology and science generally, and theories of our shared, physical world. — Fire Ologist

Nice. And generous. I have no expertise, just curiosity.

How about you, Tom? Don’t I seem like I am just speaking my mind? No anger. No reason to lash out or seek to judge the cause of decadence.

But in any event, I have said nothing in bad faith. Nothing in this post need be doubted for its sincerity.

I do believe “culture is debased and decadent.” Although I would say “adrift” and not “debased and decadent”, but I see a basic point in your words, and I have a skeptical view of what people do with their culture.

There is no reason, theists and atheists can’t discuss many things as equals - as individual thinking beings making their way sharing their views on anything. — Fire Ologist

I think this is all very reasonable and nicely put.

I like the word "adrift" and perhaps I should have used it. "Lost our way" is the other phrase which comes up in this discourse.

On the weekend, I saw a father teaching his young son how to do long division. The son wasn’t understanding it. The father eventually got angry and intoned something like, “I’ve shown you this four times now and been very clear, and you can see how it works on the paper. What are you not getting?”

Moral of the story? People get annoyed when others don’t see the things they do, especially when they’ve been patient and tried to demonstrate the reasoning. And it doesn’t have to be about philosophy or God. Perhaps any irritation expressed on these pages has just been frustration at others not understanding.

Yes, and it's clear that currently immensely popular thinkers like Jordan Peterson, Iain McGilchrist, and John Vervaeke hold views along these lines. That our secular era and it's bereft metaphysics has resulted in a disenchanted world of scientism and transactional relationships.

There's the argument that such talk provides broad maps of where we are in the intellectual and cultural landscape. As such it's not true or false so much as useful or indicative, and justifiable on those grounds, perhaps. — Banno

Fair point. Given this is a discussion forum, we are bound to speculate, not just about metaphysics but also about what kinds of situations or emotional states lead to certain views. As long as we don't use this to settle an argument or determine that it's true for everyone, I don't find it overly problematic.

OK, then the Priest provided an ad hom, and you responded to my comment about an ad hom with another ad hom, suggesting it wasn't that it was an ad hom, but that i was just sour. Like I'm at all upset. — Hanover

Seems a sour reaction. I'm not concerned if you're not upset, or are.

Is it an unintended ad hom? Ok then. I also think it may sometimes be correct.

My suggestion is that we stop being so concerned for each other's differing views. I trust wholly in the sincerity of your atheism, have no desire to modify it, and don't believe that but for some unfortunate circumstance you'd be different. — Hanover

I'm here primarily because I'm interested in what people believe and why. I've never claimed that any of my occasional psychologizing represents the final truth about anyone here. Frank raised a question about motivation and I simply wanted to introduce another possible perspective.

t'd be like me opining that atheism is borne from trauma and alienation and whatever else sounds right. Wouldn't your response simply be, sure, all of that, but that you're atheist because that position is correct. — Hanover

Oh, and this... why not? I believe some people are drawn to atheism because they feel a sense of disconnection from the world. Perhaps they haven't experienced deep love or meaningful connection with others or maybe their temperament swings towards nihilism. For those people, a godless, meaningless world may seem to make more sense because it aligns with their emotional reality. I have certainly met such folk.

That stuff about psychologising, again. — Banno

I can't help it either.

Explain how this isn't pure ad hom. — Hanover

Well it's not my original thinking. I got this from a Catholic Priest friend of mine and it sounded reasonable. I can't do much about your seemingly sour reaction to it.

Not to mention it sounds like you care for the souls of the misguided. Ironic. — Hanover

I actually think if theists feel this way, it is entirely understandable. No irony.

I expect I'll do as a representative secularist, and I have never in my entire life been afraid that one or another religion might turn out to be true.

You (and Nagel, I guess) are just making this up. — Srap Tasmaner

I think Wayfarer may be right about this but conversely there's also many a theist who is afraid that perhaps there's nothing to this God caper. Having watched Christians in palliative care (an aspect of my work) it is not unusual to find people having no confidence in God at the end, often to the surprise of relatives and friends.

isn't it a bit rich for theists to seek out a place where there will be a lot of atheists, then complain that there are too many atheists?

Just plain rude. — Banno

This site seems to contain a lot of strong voices advocating theism or views related to higher consciousness or transcendence. I'm not sure how many atheists are on this site. As long as the theists are not evangelizing, or abusive, I don't mind.

Why would a religious person enter into a discussion on a philosophy forum and become angry and insulting? I don't think it's to bounce ideas around. — frank

I think people often become abusive when their confidence or authority is threatened in some way.

There's probably a brewing crisis of faith, looking out at humanity wondering how to make sense of it. — frank

Speculating: I think some theists believe they have read all the right philosophy and theology and have many of the answers and that modern secular culture is debased and decadent. They're probably angry about the state of the world, and when they encounter people with views they've identified as the cause of contemporary troubles, they lash out.

But good and bad, beauty and ugliness are subjects that we experience govern our everyday lives. — GregW

Well, it is the depth of that relationship that is the issue. Delicious, revolting, warm and cold are also experiences 'governing our lives' in your words. I'm not so keen on this word 'governing', it lends a particular resonance. I would prefer 'influences our choices'.

Maybe religious people seek out environments where they can argue with atheists to help exorcise their own faithless demons? — frank

I was thinking about this one and it occurred to me that atheists (like me) also test ideas and arguments to see how they hold up. I don't believe we ever arrive at a foolproof set of beliefs in life (well, I certainly haven't) and therefore I often bounce around concepts out to see how they land with others who do not share my views. It doesn't always mean I am committed to those ideas personally, what I am interested in is giving them a run to see what others make of them.

deleted response

We have now distinguished the lover from the non-lover, but the eternal questions remain. What is love? Is love a mighty God, or is love a desire? And what is the beautiful and good that is desired and beloved by all? — GregW

I'm in my fifties and so far absolute categories of 'good' and 'beauty' have never really come up or mattered. It strikes me that these adjectives are contingent qualities varying between eras, cultures and individuals. Love? I think we feel emotional attachment toward people that can't be readily put into words. It's more like a commitment, a bond with intimacy and concern. You are raising idea of transcendentals - I have no good reason to believe in ideals or values which transcend ordinary experince or material reality.

It isn't just a matter of world-view, but of ways of life. I mean by that, that it's not just an intellectual matter, but a matter of how to live one's life, day by day. — Ludwig V

Sure - I take worldview to include the quotidian and to be the source of our day-to-day choices and actions.

Maybe religious people seek out environments where they can argue with atheists to help exorcise their own faithless demons? — frank

Don't know. There's probably many explanations including this.

And yes I know people who sound that way - most of them, if pressed, realize they don’t understand their own faith let alone the faiths they belittle. — Fire Ologist

Yes, I think this definitely applies to some of them.

Food for thought. :up:

Catholic means universal, and, mystically, the God the Catholics worship excludes no one who seeks God (even you seeking God here in this discussion), so I don’t know what you are talking about when you say “rigid version of God.” — Fire Ologist

It's not so hard; surely you know these religious folk too. They're the ones who often call the worshippers of other faiths idolaters. They are rigid, because only through their version of faith can one know God or even have the potential to enter heaven. It's not just, say, Jehovah's Witnesses who think like this; it's members of many religions. An Irish Protestant colleague of mine calls the Catholic Church the whore of Babylon, as the good Ian Paisley often did on television when I was young. The Muslim folks I talk to believe that Jesus was a man who survived crucifixion by having someone else take his place. In their view, Christians are not following the correct revelation. And even within a single religion, the schisms between isms are notorious for their internecine conflicts and bloodshed.

I just realized my frustration with many atheists over subjects relating God and faith: It’s either bad philosophy or bad theology that we struggle with when trying to bridge the gap between the theist and the atheist — Fire Ologist

For me it often just comes down to worldviews. People can draw different inferences from the same evidence and arrive at opposite conclusions about the existence of God. Debate about the matter isn’t always helpful and often ends with disparaging the other person’s view. We see this happen here all the time, as people are often accused of bad faith because dogmatic atheists and theists tend to perceive persecution, ill intent or hostility in any form of dissent.

Exactly. I agree. There is not much difference in all of our lives. Life’s richness, empathy, reflection, meaning, beauty - I would add love of other people. Atheists and believers alike have these experiences. These are where I would go to find evidence that God is, or to say what God is. — Fire Ologist

:up: I think that's a fair observation.

Nice talking to you.

Got ya.

Sorry, I'm not sure what this is referencing.

Atheists don’t seem amazed at how believers see some things as exactly they do, but also still see God. Atheists seem to think if someone doesn’t agree with them, about God, then that person isn’t really reasoning, which is amazing to me in itself - like willful blindness (which is a metaphor and a paradox but apt nonetheless). — Fire Ologist

There’s also a lot of religious bigotry towards atheism. Religious privilege around the world makes it dangerous to be an atheist in some countries, even certain parts of the US, where aggressive forms of fundamentalism seem to be emboldened by the Trump empire. That said, I've never felt that believers are not reasoning, unless they are of the evangelical, fundamentalist kind.

There is no actual interest in or curiosity about gaining some sense of what an experience with faith and God are to people who actually have faith, and who pray to God. — Fire Ologist

A bit of straw manning, perhaps? I have a number of religious friends, and we have no problems talking about our different views of the world. I am very interested in spirituality and how people make meaning. I spent ten years exploring religions and higher consciousness systems

And, despite all the offers to discuss God and uses of “God” in their sentences, they already seem to know that God cannot exist, whatever “god” refers to anyway. — Fire Ologist

I don’t know many atheists (out side of the celebrity atheists) who claim to know that God cannot exist. As an atheist, I haven't argued that there is no God. My view is similar to most contemporary atheists: I have heard no good reason to believe in a God. Most freethinkers I know self-describe as agnostic atheists: someone who does not believe in a god (atheist) but also does not claim to know that a god doesn't exist (agnostic).

With no curiosity, most atheists seem to immediately see our reason was a facade; our authentic, irrational, childish selves actually annimate all of our now debased arguments. Any sort of distinct “faith” and actual “god” that the believer experiences can have nothing to do with it. — Fire Ologist

In my experience, it's often the believers who lack curiosity. I have spent much time among Hindus, Buddhists, Orthodox Jews, Sikhs, Catholics, and Muslims, and I’ve attended most temples, ashrams, synagogues, and churches. I recently attended an Easter service in a high Anglican church. I know a lot of atheists who do this kind of thing. The theists I meet (mostly Catholics, Muslims and Charismatics) tend not to appreciate ecumenism; they stick to a rigid version of God and often belittle or fear other faiths.

Of course, the sophisticated atheists are pretty similar in worldview to the sophisticated atheists. They know that very little is certain, that knowledge is tentative and no one can really claim to have access to the truth. And that most worldviews are sincere attempts at sense making.

I get wisdom out of many seemingly irreconcilable places and people. That always amazes me. There are clearly many smart people around here that don’t see God. When they see other things I see, I am amazed at how perfectly they can see them without seeing God. — Fire Ologist

I agree. I actually don’t think there’s much difference in the lives of atheists or believers when it comes to moral commitment or awareness of life’s richness. I see deep empathy, ethical reflection, and appreciation for meaning and beauty in both camps.

Maybe what we really need is a blanket policy against monomaniacs.

I did not enjoy The Great Gatsby. — Jamal

I think it's my favourite novel, and every time I read it, it's a different, richer, more elegiac book. For me, the story's enchantment lies in how it's told; the characters and the plot are secondary. Nevertheless, I totally understand the man-child James Gatz, putting on wealth and class in order to catch his girl. FSF's writing for me is a blissful aesthetic experience. I sometimes just read a few paragraphs at random and marvel. Now, I find myself often doing the same with other writers like Bellow, Nabokov , Barth and TC Boyle.

Bjelke Petersen's press statements...."feeding the chooks". In reference to giving the press a purpose. — kazan

I think the expression is richer than that. It suggests that providing the press (those ravenous, dumb birds) justifications and prevarications is analogous to a ritualistically conducted feeding frenzy.

I've spent much of my life trying to reconcile theory with practice, in the world of psychosocial services, and I think I agree with him. But this would seem to limit many people from being able to fully participate. To be fully, comprehensively, deeply read and to be able to harmonize or integrate your knowledge into practice is hard.

it's amazing to see how Adorno, for example, connects the most abstract theories about epistemology and metaphysics with practical concerns. — Jamal

Well it would seem to me that if philosophy is to be useful it must be able to do this. Not that this is something I spend any time on, but those with the right dispositions and expertise probably should.

So when Marx says the philosophers have only interpreted the world and the point, however, is to change it, Adorno interprets this as meaning that the point of philosophy is to change it, not that we should stop philosophizing and man the barricades. — Jamal

Would you say that Adorno holds that theory itself can be a form of resistance?

In many discussions I hear people always dive into details and see the discussions go south.

How important are details?

Copilot told me: “ It’s like painting with broad brush strokes while occasionally adding a few fine lines to bring the image to life.” I think its metaphore is spot on. — Jan

I read this and all I can think of saying is: can you give me some specifics, some details, so I know what you mean? For me big pictures can be amorphous and can lack definition.

I don’t get it. Tom doesn’t claim that faith is inherently irrational in that post or the couple of subsequent posts. — praxis

Some examples of faith are likely irrational. I provided examples earlier, such as the belief that black people or women are inferior. I've heard such views regularly expressed by theists, both Christian and Islamic, and I would say they don't have good reasons, so they are justifying a prejudice through faith.

No doubt some theists will hold that this is not the real use of faith or religion, but I wonder if this is a No True Scotsman fallacy. It seems to me that there's really no belief that one can't justify using an appeal to faith. As I wrote before, I have a friend who is a Catholic priest, and he often quips that faith is the last refuge of a scoundrel - with apologies to Dr. Johnson.

I also disagreed with the idea which many hold, that catching a plane is equivalent to believing in God, in terms of both being "faith-based" decisions. Having reasonable confidence in something based on evidence is different from having faith in things that are unseen.

That said, it's clear that the word "faith" has multiple meanings and holds different significance for different people. The religious bigots will always accuse atheists of being unphilosophical and polemical and wrong about faith and that's simply how these discussions go. I don't think religious people or "theists" are bad or stupid or delusional. Well, some obviously are... but so are some atheists.

Now whether it is reasonable to believe in God just on faith, I don't know. I would need to understand what this is supposed to mean.

A babe uses "mum", understanding who mum is, and yet cannot provide a definition. Definitions are secondary and derivative, not foundational. Use is at the centre of language. — Banno

Yes, I find myself coming back to this a lot.

TE is great!