# Music and morality



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I’ve always felt that the music of Beethoven can make us believe we can be better people than we are. Is that insane? Can music haul that sort of freight? What do you think?


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

Pardon me for waxing poetical but....

I think great music can thin the veil that covers our spiritual selves. It can help us feel more in tune spiritually, and in that state, we naturally want to be better. 

On the flip side, I think the power that music has can easily be dismissed, cast aside, and forgotten.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

KenOC said:


> I've always felt that the music of Beethoven can make us believe we can be better people than we are. Is that insane? Can music haul that sort of freight? What do you think?


Interesting - can you provide an example and say why it has the effect you describe? Certain pieces can induce a feeling in me that I am partaking of a portrayal of ennobling suffering - that, in some way, the 'narrow gate' has been chosen which though it entails great suffering, is nonetheless somehow morally 'correct'. The First movement of Beethoven's 9th Symphony and Sibelius's 7th Symphony would be examples for me.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

KenOC said:


> I've always felt that the music of Beethoven can make us believe we can be better people than we are. Is that insane? Can music haul that sort of freight? What do you think?


Hitler liked Beethoven.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

The moral implications of Beethoven are explored here


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

I've never felt a better person because I listen to classical music, and certainly not Beethoven. But hey, if it works for you, great.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Mandryka said:


> The moral implications of Beethoven are explored here


I didn't see any exploring.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Something similar was discussed a short while ago - Does listening to classical music "improve" you? - and I think the dominant view that time was that music can't improve you but might soothe or inspire you in various ways.


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

KenOC said:


> I've always felt that the music of Beethoven can make us believe we can be better people than we are. Is that insane? Can music haul that sort of freight? What do you think?


And what happens if we listen to a lot of tritones? Won't that corrupt our moral soul? Is atonal amoral?:devil:

If we listen enough to the _Prelude to Tristan and Isolde_ will the ghost chord scare us?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

To some extent our impressions of composers and their personalities, struggles, attitudes that we derive from reading about their lives, serves to color our responses to their music. How much so varies from auditor to auditor and from piece to piece. But as an example, my readings about the life and times of Béla Bartók--his defiance of totalitarians, his finding refuge in America, his final fatal illness as he works on his last compositions--certainly influences my experience of, for sure, the _Concerto for Orchestra_. How much? Hard to quantify.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Strange Magic said:


> To some extent our impressions of composers and their personalities, struggles, attitudes that we derive from reading about their lives, serves to color our responses to their music. How much so varies from auditor to auditor and from piece to piece. But as an example, my readings about the life and times of Béla Bartók--his defiance of totalitarians, his finding refuge in America, his final fatal illness as he works on his last compositions--certainly influences my experience of, for sure, the _Concerto for Orchestra_. How much? Hard to quantify.


I have such a reaction to Mahler. He is really unsympathetic to me, his whole visage with the stupid glasses. How much of it is coloring my attitude to his music? Probably a lot. And although at some rational I am aware that this reaction is irrational, I find it hard to stop it in order to enjoy his music. I find it hard to decouple Mahler the man from his music.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Jacck said:


> I have such a reaction to Mahler. He is really unsympathetic to me, his whole visage with the stupid glasses. How much of it is coloring my attitude to his music? Probably a lot. And although at some rational I am aware that this reaction is irrational, I find it hard to stop it in order to enjoy his music. I find it hard to decouple Mahler the man from his music.


Stupid glasses????????????????


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

janxharris said:


> Stupid glasses????????????????


never seen Mahler's glasses? 
https://g.denik.cz/43/fe/mahler_1604_denik-630-16x9.jpg


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Jacck said:


> never seen Mahler's glasses?
> https://g.denik.cz/43/fe/mahler_1604_denik-630-16x9.jpg


But Jacck - his glasses aren't relevant. Are you just kidding around?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Jacck said:


> I have such a reaction to Mahler. He is really unsympathetic to me, his whole visage with the stupid glasses. How much of it is coloring my attitude to his music? Probably a lot. And although at some rational I am aware that this reaction is irrational, I find it hard to stop it in order to enjoy his music. I find it hard to decouple Mahler the man from his music.


Consider Ravel. My impression is of this quiet, well-dressed, controlled, neat, tidy, undemonstrative man within whom often churned and roiled volcanic emotions and energies which occasionally peeked out now and then in his music. But when they did.......!


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

janxharris said:


> But Jacck - his glasses aren't relevant. Are you just kidding around?


no, I am not kidding. I told you that my reaction to Mahler is irrational and emotional and coming from some part of my limbic brain. I find his glasses ugly and distastful. He looks like a hipster to me. Something like this
https://absurdintellectual.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/HipCover-696x447.jpg
where I have a similar very negative emotion to the picture


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Jacck said:


> no, I am not kidding. I told you that my reaction to Mahler is irrational and emotional and coming from some part of my limbic brain. I find his glasses ugly and distastful. He looks like a hipster to me. Something like this
> https://absurdintellectual.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/HipCover-696x447.jpg
> where I have a similar very negative emotion to the picture


It's hard for me to grasp your reaction.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

I guess so. Maybe because the music is highly ordered, structured and elegant. It's an ideal, perfect world, in sharp contrast to the world of people, which is often chaotic and ugly. 
Personally, I prefer it when music doesn't make me think about people/humanity at all, or the composer for that matter.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

I would like to believe this, but the evidence is not great.









I don't mean to be glib. I have actually thought about this a lot.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

KenOC said:


> I've always felt that the music of Beethoven can make us believe we can be better people than we are. Is that insane? Can music haul that sort of freight? What do you think?


Just from personal experience, because Beethoven lived a complete life and wrote during all phases of his life, his music written as a reaction/response to all phases of his life has given me a deeper understanding of how to live in reaction/response to my life. So for me, it has made me a better person.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

KenOC said:


> I've always felt that the music of Beethoven can make us believe we can be better people than we are. Is that insane? Can music haul that sort of freight? What do you think?


Beethoven's music was headed in the right direction, in that it represented The Enlightenment, and a new idea of Man, intended to develop Man's aspirations, which in Beethoven's time was expanding into the vision of Man as being important individually; and Liberty, Democracy, the Enlightenment, and all that. In that sense, it was good, since it wanted to make Man free.

Music can reinforce a very _individual paradigm_, in which each man is personally responsible, apart from domination by institutional ties. Witness Terry Riley, Philip Glass, Boulez. This would be music of each person's "self" or being.

To an extent, we have let our institutions, ideologies, corporations, and social affiliations "take over" this personal responsibility. This is a measure of how idealistic paradigms based on larger social structures have failed in a larger sense, with the advent of the hydrogen bomb, genocide, Communism under Mao and Stalin. I sense that Beethoven was a true individual, and wanted (as in the Ninth) a "brotherhood of Man" which transcended religion.

Social and ideological paradigms, no matter how well-intended or idealistic, are "of the mind," not the true seat of being. 
How many people have died in the name of some ideology, such as Mao's Communism or Hitler's National Socialism? This is attachment to the products of the mind, which lead us away from ourselves, often into unconsciousness and insanity. The only way out is through individual responsibility and individual control, not ideologies and governments.



isorhythm said:


> I would like to believe this, but the evidence is not great.
> 
> View attachment 111240
> 
> ...


The mind is a tool, not and end in itself. When institutions and ideologies become ends unto themselves, they are not serving their proper purpose.

There is a ring of bombast in the OP's question, the historical baggage which goes along with the brand, which sees Beethoven as a larger-than-life hero, and Western music into a greater force of some larger idealistic paradigm.

Will The Beatles' music make us better people? "Life is very short, and there's no time for fussing and fighting, my friend.

I would hope that the effect of Beethoven's music is a very personal one, with no other greater agenda than person-to-person communication.

The only way to become "better" is through individual responsibility and individual control, not philosophies, religions, ideologies and governments.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Please note that the first post involved the idea that Beethoven's music "can make us believe we can be better people than we are." Not that the music "improves" us but that it makes us feel we _can _improve. If that's a blessing, it's one I would happily grant to Hitler.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

KenOC said:


> I've always felt that the music of Beethoven can make us believe we can be better people than we are. Is that insane? Can music haul that sort of freight? What do you think?


I've always felt that the greatest art doesn't make us who and what we are, but rather reflects who and what we are, flaws included. It's inspiring because the human spirit itself, flaws included, is inspiring.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

KenOC said:


> Please note that the first post involved the idea that Beethoven's music "can make us believe we can be better people than we are." Not that the music "improves" us but that it makes us feel we _can _improve. If that's a blessing, it's one I would happily grant to Hitler.


Music can't compel us to be better people, but since we're unlikely to become better unless we feel we can, if music can inspire us to believe in our capacities it can be an aid or stimulus to moral growth. In most cases, though, I think the experience of music as such (music unattached to an institution such as religion or social class) is felt as being unrelated to one's personal character, or at best a reflection of it, and not everyone will see the same reflection.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

fluteman said:


> I've always felt that the greatest art doesn't make us who and what we are, but rather reflects who and what we are, flaws included. It's inspiring because the human spirit itself, flaws included, is inspiring.


I'm drawn to art because it gives me insight into the condition of others who I might not understand otherwise. For example, Shostakovich draws me into a world and a time which I have never seen. Lou Reed's music is interesting to me because he speaks honestly about a lifestyle which is foreign to me. My wife doesn't understand a lot of things I read/listen to, but I want some frame of reference to relate to people who don't think like me. So I guess there is another way that art/music/literature is helping me be a better person.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Please note that the first post involved the idea that Beethoven's music "can make us believe we can be better people than we are." Not that the music "improves" us but that it makes us feel we _can _improve. If that's a blessing, it's one I would happily grant to Hitler.


I think the key word here is "believe." That ties our identity to a belief that exists as an aspiration, or as something in the future. The future doesn't exist yet, and neither does the past. All we can be is what we are right now. That will be good, if we can stay in the now. But if we are distracted by a false sense of who we are, which is subject to the whims of the mind and its constructs, then it can go off-track, into ideologies and notions which separate us from ourselves as we truly are. I think that, at his core, Man is good; until he goes off-track into the delusions of the mind.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> I think the key word here is "believe." That ties our identity to a belief that exists as an aspiration, or as something in the future. The future doesn't exist yet, and neither does the past. All we can be is what we are right now. That will be good, if we can stay in the now. But if we are distracted by a false sense of who we are, which is subject to the whims of the mind and its constructs, then it can go off-track, into ideologies and notions which separate us from ourselves as we truly are. *I think that, at his core, Man is good*; until he goes off-track into the delusions of the mind.


Please tell me you are not being serious.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

janxharris said:


> Please tell me you are not being serious.


Man is a creature formed over long ages to struggle, survive, and multiply. There's no "good" or "bad" involved. Whether man will in fact survive much longer is an open question, but I don't know who's giving odds.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> I think that, at his core, Man is good; until he goes off-track into the delusions of the mind.


Ha, I think exactly the opposite, i.e., that Man, at his core, is extremely selfish, and that only the mind can save him from time to time from the delusions of his selfish will and tame it. Of course, that selfish will can also enslave the mind and use it as a tool for its purposes (which was actually the original reason why brains developed so much in humans), and there you have your H-bombs, etc.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

KenOC said:


> I've always felt that the music of Beethoven can make us believe we can be better people than we are. Is that insane? Can music haul that sort of freight? What do you think?


As others have said, music can help us understand ourselves. That includes all aspects of the human condition. There is a line in Michael Tippett's oratorio A Child of Our Time that speaks to this: "I would know my shadow and my light, so shall I at last be whole."

As humanity evolved from its primitive ancestors, the development of culture was important for social bonding, communication of ideas, spiritual development and so on. While morality is ultimately demonstrated in how we treat others, these aspects of culture - in other words, civilisation - continue to underpin it.

I see Beethoven's music as similar to the Parthenon in Athens. These are not just a bunch of notes, or a pile of marble, they have come to represent an ideal which successive generations have aspired to. More often than not, aspiration does not sit well with reality.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> I think that, at his core, Man is good; until he goes off-track into the delusions of the mind.


In other words, man is good except when he is bad.

I haven't noticed anything I'd describe as a "core" in human beings. Apples have cores, but apples are simple. Man has a complicated brain, which he isn't all that skilled or careful in using.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

When I used to listen to Mozart more often, I did feel as if God were conversing with me, and made me feel love and joy (more than Jesus did). The strings in the Swan Lake scene by Tchaikovsky made me feel my life was unfulfilled. Beethoven made me embrace my flaws more actually.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

KenOC said:


> Man is a creature formed over long ages to struggle, survive, and multiply. There's no "good" or "bad" involved. Whether man will in fact survive much longer is an open question, but I don't know who's giving odds.


Excellent point. As larger mammals, how "good" are we, compared with, say, elephants, orangutans, bison?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

What a piece of work is man. How noble in reason, how infinite in faculty. In form and moving how express and admirable. In action how like an Angel. In apprehension how like a god. The beauty of the world. The paragon of animals. And yet to Ken, what is this quintessence of dust?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Strange Magic said:


> Excellent point. As larger mammals, how "good" are we, compared with, say, elephants, orangutans, bison?


That's an interesting thought. My wife loves to say, "There are no bad dogs, only bad owners." Untrue of course. There are lots of dogs out there in whose fundamental nature it is to bite and even kill us.

Of course those dogs are "bad" because their interests are inimical to our own. When we fight those dogs in the pit for big money, and they win, they're suddenly "good" dogs. Funny how that works!

Now extend that thought to man. I guess I'm becoming a moral relativist in my old age...


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> In other words, man is good except when he is bad.
> 
> I haven't noticed anything I'd describe as a "core" in human beings. Apples have cores, but apples are simple. Man has a complicated brain, which he isn't all that skilled or careful in using.


I would say all living things have a basic core which is about the reproduction and preservation of the individual at any cost. And they can do quite nasty things, in moral terms, in order to fulfil those very short term goals. In humans, you also have a highly developed neocortex, which is the outer and newest part of the brain, and in which the higher functions of reason take place. In most animals, their core is still the selfish part, but in humans the neocortex is so incredibly developed that it can fight against the former in equal terms. So, for a moral analysis, I would say one can accept the simplification in which the core of 'Man' is dual, a selfish part which fights against reason, maybe as equal contenders, although the selfish, short term and irrational part can dominate much more than we are willing to admit.

Of course, much of the most interesting art deals with that fight, and the reason is that we feel touched since it goes to our core. The next step in evolution is, of course, the complete takeover of everything by reason. A moral utopia will be achieved there and the only humanistic topic for art will be its existential angst, since that may be the only topic about human nature which will remain forever unsolved. Thus, I consider that the highest and most profound form of art.


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

Why then 'tis none to you; for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Mandryka said:


> What a piece of work is man... The paragon of animals.


Biologists estimate than man has driven over 300 species of mammals (not counting birds and so forth) into extinction in the last 500 years. "Biologist E. O. Wilson estimated in 2002 that if current rates of human destruction of the biosphere continue, one-half of all plant and animal species of life on earth will be extinct in 100 years. More significantly, the current rate of global species extinctions is estimated as 100 to 1000 times 'background' rates." (Wiki, on the current Anthropocene extinction)

Some paragon!

Currently, man makes up 36% of the mammal biomass of the earth; together with his livestock, it's 96%. Wild mammals now account for only 4%. To paraphrase the Virginia Slims tagline, "We've come a long way, baby!"


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Strange Magic said:


> Excellent point. As larger mammals, how "good" are we, compared with, say, elephants, orangutans, bison?


No need to compare as men are not animals. However, as far as being "bad", man is indeed totally depraved.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

aleazk said:


> Ha, I think exactly the opposite, i.e., that Man, at his core, is extremely selfish, and that only the mind can save him from time to time from the delusions of his selfish will and tame it. Of course, that selfish will can also enslave the mind and use it as a tool for its purposes (which was actually the original reason why brains developed so much in humans), and there you have your H-bombs, etc.


Man is totally depraved. We are well on our way to utter ruin.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Red Terror said:


> However, as far as being "bad", man is indeed totally depraved.


Speak for yourself, Clyde.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Speak for yourself, Clyde.


You've got bedroom eyes, every time I look at you I have depraved thoughts.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Mandryka said:


> You've got bedroom eyes, every time I look at you I have depraved thoughts.


If that photo were of me, would I be flattered or repulsed?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

When Man lets his mind take over, that's when the trouble starts. But I think at the core of his being, connected to the universe, Man is good. The problem is, most people are in a state of unconsciousness that borders on insanity.
"Being" itself is what is "good" about Man.
"Evil" can be seen as relative, or in relation to our best interests; but real evil must have intent.

A tornado is not "evil," because it has no intent; a tiger is not evil, because it is simply acting on instinct, with no real conscious intent. The tiger simply acts as it does because it is that way, and we must accept that.

Man has a higher consciousness than animals, so we can act with intent. If we are truly conscious and in touch with our being, not our mind, then we are basically good, and will not have bad intent or malice.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Biologists estimate than man has driven over 300 species of mammals (not counting birds and so forth) into extinction in the last 500 years. "Biologist E. O. Wilson estimated in 2002 that if current rates of human destruction of the biosphere continue, one-half of all plant and animal species of life on earth will be extinct in 100 years. More significantly, the current rate of global species extinctions is estimated as 100 to 1000 times 'background' rates." (Wiki, on the current Anthropocene extinction)...Some paragon!


But Man knows this; he has not figured out yet what to do about it. It's his greed and desire that have caused this, and those are products of his mind and desires and negative emotions, which he is unconscious of.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

KenOC said:


> That's an interesting thought. My wife loves to say, "There are no bad dogs, only bad owners." Untrue of course. There are lots of dogs out there in whose fundamental nature it is to bite and even kill us.
> 
> Of course those dogs are "bad" because their interests are inimical to our own. When we fight those dogs in the pit for big money, and they win, they're suddenly "good" dogs. Funny how that works!
> 
> Now extend that thought to man. I guess I'm becoming a moral relativist in my old age...


The dogs are "bad" because they are acting totally on base instinct, without the power of intent, which comes from higher consciousness. Dogs have no choice in the matter; they are formed by their environment. Many people are like dogs, as well. But we have the power to overcome this.


----------



## Guest (Jan 2, 2019)

Man was formed by evolution to promote survival in a hostile environment. Man's mind has two basic modes. One mode operates when dealing with "us" and the other mode operates when dealing with "them." When dealing with "us" man is empathetic, cooperative, altruistic. When dealing with "them" man is selfish and brutal. This allows a small group to thrive without being exploited by others. The main purpose of civilization is to keep man operating in the "us" mode by expanding the cohort that is considered "us" and limiting contact with "them."

A primary cause of "evil" behavior is treating people who are entitled to be classified as "us" as "them."


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> When Man lets his mind take over, that's when the trouble starts.


That seems an odd point of view from somebody who presumably enjoys hot and cold running water, freedom from most serious infectious diseases and parasites, appreciates the mobility of cars or even flying through the air, talks with people from all over the world, listens to just about any music ever written, has any question answered in seconds, and so forth. The list goes on and on.

Without that nasty old mind we'd be sitting in trees, starving more often than not, losing most of our children in infancy, and accounting ourselves lucky if we saw 30 years. Our lives, as has been pointed out, would be nasty, brutish, and short.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Red Terror said:


> No need to compare as men are not animals. However, as far as being "bad", man is indeed totally depraved.


I don't think so. We all know that it is wrong to kill without discretion, needlessly, for example. What we _do_ kill we do for survival, and if we wanted, we could be vegetarians. We understand that anti-life is not good. Ideally, we can live and let live. Tigers should be allowed to live, because we can figure out how to protect or separate ourselves safely. We have to accept the tiger on its own terms.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

KenOC said:


> That seems an odd point of view from somebody who presumably enjoys hot and cold running water, freedom from most serious infectious diseases and parasites, appreciates the mobility of cars or even flying through the air, talks with people from all over the world, listens to just about any music ever written, has any question answered in seconds, and so forth. The list goes on and on.
> 
> Without that nasty old mind we'd be sitting in trees, starving more often than not, losing most of our children in infancy, and accounting ourselves lucky if we saw 30 years. Our lives, as has been pointed out, would be nasty, brutish, and short.


The mind is a tool, which gave us the knowledge for all those comforts. In that sense, it is in perspective. The mind is not "us" at our core, which is very valuable as well.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Baron Scarpia said:


> Man was formed by evolution to promote survival in a hostile environment. Man's mind has two basic modes. One mode operates when dealing with "us" and the other mode operates when dealing with "them." When dealing with "us" man is empathetic, cooperative, altruistic. When dealing with "them" man is selfish and brutal. This allows a small group to thrive without being exploited by others. The main purpose of civilization is to keep man operating in the "us" mode by expanding the cohort that is considered "us" and limiting contact with "them."
> 
> A primary cause of "evil" behavior is treating people who are entitled to be classified as "us" as "them."


I think Man has solved the larger part of survival. He now needs to protect himself from himself and his solutions, which can be done. 
If Man realized that everything is essentially "being," there would be no "them." I think the natural state of the world was meant to be a balance of co-existence. We need to stop reproducing, or slow it way down, like China. I guess the Catholics would not agree with that.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> I haven't noticed anything I'd describe as a "core" in human beings. Apples have cores, but apples are simple. Man has a complicated brain, which he isn't all that skilled or careful in using.


You haven't noticed the core of being in anyone else, because you can only experience it in yourself. Even in yourself, you probably wouldn't notice it, because it is unmanifest as anything "noticeable." It can only watch, and be.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> When Man lets his mind take over, that's when the trouble starts. But I think at the core of his being, connected to the universe, Man is good. The problem is, most people are in a state of unconsciousness that borders on insanity.
> "Being" itself is what is "good" about Man.


Words have meaning. If there's meaning intended here, it hasn't found the right words.

"Connected to the universe" is empty of meaning. Everything is part of the universe and cannot be "connected" to it.

"Being" is an attribute of everything, good or bad.

"Man" has no "core." He has distinguishing attributes, one of which is a mind capable of choosing, but good and evil choices are not assured.

Being unconscious bordering on insanity is unlikely to result in good choices, moral or otherwise. If this is a proper description of "most people," the planet is doomed. Come to think of it...


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> "Connected to the universe" is empty of meaning.


You can always tell people who grew up in the '60s, like myself for instance. Our philosophy goes something like, "Hey man, everything is everything. I scored some good acid, want some?" :lol:


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Man can be the noblest of creatures or the basest of creatures.
The trick is to bring out and nurture the noble.

Music can be loved by either side.
And "A Clockwork Orange" illustrated this point.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Words have meaning. If there's meaning intended here, it hasn't found the right words.
> 
> "Connected to the universe" is empty of meaning. Everything is part of the universe and cannot be "connected" to it.


I agree. That was just a figure of speech. I agree with you.



> "Being" is an attribute of everything, good or bad.


I agree.



> "Man" has no "core." He has distinguishing attributes, one of which is a mind capable of choosing, but good and evil choices are not assured.


I disagree. I think there is a state of being which is not mind. Any good tennis player knows this. Any good pianist, on a good day, knows this. Any football player making a brilliant catch knows this. There is a time & place for the mind, and a timeless place for being.



> Being unconscious bordering on insanity is unlikely to result in good choices, moral or otherwise. If this is a proper description of "most people," the planet is doomed. Come to think of it...


I agree. The situation is really bad, and probably always was...maybe less. But now there are many more people, and things are out of balance. "Koyannisqatsi..."


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

KenOC said:


> You can always tell people who grew up in the '60s, like myself for instance. Our philosophy goes something like, "Hey man, everything is everything. I scored some good acid, want some?" :lol:


I can even tell it when they order a hot dog. "Make me one with everything." Ba-da-bing!

...and in post #53, Woodduck said "Everything is part of the universe..."


----------



## Guest (Jan 2, 2019)

millionrainbows said:


> I think Man has solved the larger part of survival. He now needs to protect himself from himself and his solutions, which can be done.
> If Man realized that everything is essentially "being," there would be no "them." I think the natural state of the world was meant to be a balance of co-existence. We need to stop reproducing, or slow it way down, like China. I guess the Catholics would not agree with that.


Man's mind was formed when man was a small perturbation on the environment. The question now is whether man can take a larger view and say that more short term success will foul the environment limit long term success or even lead to long term catastrophe. There are signs of hope, but it seems likely that necessary action will be taken too late.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Baron Scarpia said:


> Man's mind was formed when man was a small perturbation on the environment. The question now is whether man can take a larger view and say that more short term success will foul the environment limit long term success or even lead to long term catastrophe. There are signs of hope, but it seems likely that necessary action will be taken too late.


Unfortunately, this seems correct. I think the weird weather patterns are here to stay. More floods, more fires, more ice caps melting, coastlines shrinking...


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

millionrainbows said:


> I don't think so. We all know that it is wrong to kill without discretion, needlessly, for example. What we _do_ kill we do for survival, and if we wanted, we could be vegetarians. We understand that anti-life is not good. Ideally, we can live and let live. Tigers should be allowed to live, because we can figure out how to protect or separate ourselves safely. We have to accept the tiger on its own terms.


Things as they ought to be? Well, look around ... how are they?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> You haven't noticed the core of being in anyone else, because you can only experience it in yourself. Even in yourself, you probably wouldn't notice it, because it is unmanifest as anything "noticeable." It can only watch, and be.
> 
> I think there is a state of being which is not mind. Any good tennis player knows this. Any good pianist, on a good day, knows this. Any football player making a brilliant catch knows this. There is a time & place for the mind, and a timeless place for being.


"Watching" and "being" won't get us far in meeting the conditions and problems of life. Morality concerns acting, acting assumes needs, desires, goals, and tools, those things are infinite in number and complexity, and dilemmas defy correct, much less easy, choices. Granted, you may need that twenty minutes of mindfulness to keep from _losing_ your mind when the market wipes out your retirement, the boss passes over you for the promotion you deserve, your wife announces that she is pregnant again and that the baby will be born with Downs syndrome, the river floods the neighborhood and your insurance won't cover it, and in the midst of this your gorgeous high school sweetheart calls you out of the blue after 30 years and says you taught her to love Wagner and will you meet her at the opera.

We don't live in the mental state of a great athlete or artist doing his thing at peak efficiency. As a painter and a musician who made a living improvising in ballet studios, I know that state very well. It's great, but it has nothing to do with morality and it doesn't define man as good at his "core."


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

"I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it." --A Deep Thought from Jack Handey


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

Speaking of moral relativism. What about the Sentinelese people? Can we blame them for killing trespassers to their island? Are they "bad"? "Malicious intent", perhaps, but they are still a hunter-gatherer culture; apparently 60.000 years behind modern civilization. We can hardly compare their morality to ours. Do they have to change and strive to be better? 
They've had some bad experiences with outsiders in the past. All they want is to be left alone on their little island. 
No, they can't be blamed.
I find them so fascinating. I really hope the Indian goverment will do everything they can to protect them. 
Anyway, carry on.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

DeepR said:


> Speaking of moral relativism. What about the Sentinelese people?


I think somebody told them that anybody trying to approach their island was probably a telemarketer. So no, they can't be blamed.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Music can spark spiritual growth, look at the 70s for example. Ayn Rand believed that Art was a re-creation of Man's deepest values, I tend to agree with that. Thus, when we find music that works for us, it is reinforcing our thoughts about the world!


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> Words have meaning. If there's meaning intended here, it hasn't found the right words.
> 
> "Connected to the universe" is empty of meaning. Everything is part of the universe and cannot be "connected" to it.
> 
> ...


Man has no core? Interesting opinion.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Music can spark spiritual growth, look at the 70s for example. Ayn Rand believed that Art was a re-creation of Man's deepest values, I tend to agree with that. Thus, when we find music that works for us, it is reinforcing our thoughts about the world!


The arts express values in different ways. Arts that utilize words and pictures can make moral statements. Music cannot. Although it may express states of feeling valued by its composers and by listeners who enjoy it, it can neither show nor recommend moral values. We can feel inspired when we hear it as affirming our personal sense of life, but others may hear that same music and attribute a different meaning to it.

(Ayn Rand was, btw, too eager to attribute her personal value preferences to music, as in her rather infamous characterization of Beethoven's music as "malevolent" - which is, very curiously, the opposite reaction to that of most people.)


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

Although I have a quite deep relation with music (17 years studying and a total 44 with it) I can not find where music and moral meet each other. Of course no one and never before has asked me a question like this. Well done, because then and now I can't find a proper answer. If we suppose that moral, like human value, exists, (I'm nor sure, because something which is moral for one culture or people or group of people, it is not for an other) the last field where it could be exercised is the music. 


I remember something told us a professor of mine in the university (I was studying theology): Alexander the Great was somewhere near India. There, was living a mysterious tribe, which had the custom to eat their dead! Alexander and his generals were deeply socked from this brutality. So they offered to this tribe many privileges to start burning their dead, as the Greeks did. The king of the tribe answered that it was better to kill them all, than to do such a monstrosity with their dead!!


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> The arts express values in different ways. Arts that utilize words and pictures can make moral statements. Music cannot. Although it may express states of feeling valued by its composers and by listeners who enjoy it, it can neither show nor recommend moral values. We can feel inspired when we hear it as affirming our personal sense of life, but others may hear that same music and attribute a different meaning to it.
> 
> (Ayn Rand was, btw, too eager to attribute her personal value preferences to music, as in her rather infamous characterization of Beethoven's music as "malevolent" - which is, very curiously, the opposite reaction to that of most people.)


We aren't in disagreement.


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

So counterexample
Phillip Pickett and James Levine

Hard to find worse scumbags in any other profession


----------



## Gallus (Feb 8, 2018)

I can't imagine that Furtwangler's infamous performance of the Ninth to the assembled Nazi leadership during the middle of the war and Holocaust made them better people.


----------



## Guest (Jan 3, 2019)

Red Terror said:


> No need to compare as men are not animals.


Philosophically? They are biologically. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Red Terror said:


> Man is totally depraved. We are well on our way to utter ruin.


So you are a Calvinist?


----------



## Guest (Jan 3, 2019)

KenOC said:


> I've always felt that the music of Beethoven can make us believe we can be better people than we are. Is that insane? Can music haul that sort of freight? What do you think?


Given that many of us believe that "we can be better people" (or, more specifically, either man as a species can improve, or one as an individual can improve) it seems reasonable to suppose that there are certain activities in which we can participate that help create an environment in which that belief can be fostered. Why can't listening to music be one of those activities?


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> I think that, at his core, Man is good; until he goes off-track into the delusions of the mind.





aleazk said:


> Ha, I think exactly the opposite, i.e., that Man, at his core, is extremely selfish


I think humans are essentially neutral when they come into this world. Most of what we become is a result of our experiences and what we are taught - so I believe mostly 'nurture'.

Humans in a sense are like computers - programmable to a large extent. The information we take in largely becomes who we are. So what information is going into most people's minds? From an informational perspective how many are essentially brought up on television, mainstream media, public "schooling" etc.?

Garbage in = garbage out.

I think the music we listen to also has some effect but it forms only a part of what we take in, in other words in of itself it is not enough to over ride all of these other factors.


----------



## regenmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

This is why the four volume Butler's Lives of the Saints is so important, because there always are extremely good people. Today, there is a woman who created something called Delancey Street, which is a huge rehabilitation program, mentoring the poor, ex-convicts, and addicts to become entrepreneurs. Things like this haven't spread around that much which attests to most people are not able to be very good. I look at this as basic insecurity. Where there is heightened insecurity, there is a lack of love. Only the secure can love.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

KenOC said:


> I think somebody told them that anybody trying to approach their island was probably a telemarketer. So no, they can't be blamed.


No, the victim was several levels worse than a telemarketer on the morally abhorrent scale: he was a religious proselytizer.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

KenOC said:


> Biologists estimate than man has driven over 300 species of mammals (not counting birds and so forth) into extinction in the last 500 years. "Biologist E. O. Wilson estimated in 2002 that if current rates of human destruction of the biosphere continue, one-half of all plant and animal species of life on earth will be extinct in 100 years. More significantly, the current rate of global species extinctions is estimated as 100 to 1000 times 'background' rates." (Wiki, on the current Anthropocene extinction)
> 
> Some paragon!
> 
> Currently, man makes up 36% of the mammal biomass of the earth; together with his livestock, it's 96%. Wild mammals now account for only 4%. To paraphrase the Virginia Slims tagline, "We've come a long way, baby!"


The argument (continued) for Homo sapiens as an aberrant species: This time as analogous to a cancer. Previous analogy by Loren Eiseley was as a global slime mold.

http://www.drhern.com/pdfs/humancancerplanet.pdf


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Mandryka said:


> Hitler liked Beethoven.





Mandryka said:


> The moral implications of Beethoven are explored here...





isorhythm said:


> I would like to believe this, but the evidence is not great.
> 
> View attachment 111240
> 
> ...





Gallus said:


> I can't imagine that Furtwangler's infamous performance of the Ninth to the assembled Nazi leadership during the middle of the war and Holocaust made them better people.


Joining this conversation, it relates to what I said about idealism and reality earlier:



Sid James said:


> I see Beethoven's music as similar to the Parthenon in Athens. These are not just a bunch of notes, or a pile of marble, they have come to represent an ideal which successive generations have aspired to. More often than not, aspiration does not sit well with reality.


The museums, concert halls, and opera houses built in the 19th century attested in the belief that the arts could improve humanity. Many had entrances copied from the Parthenon, they where temples of culture.

Beethoven's music symbolises the Enlightenment. Its been appropriated many times, in politics, movies and advertising. Ode to Joy was used by the Nazis, performed when Germany was reunified and now its the anthem of the European Union.

As with Beethoven's music, we no longer relate to those temples of culture the same way previous generations did. They have come to represent something else, less about some idealised social goal and more about diversion, a lifestyle product or just as an interesting heritage item in a city otherwise dominated by skyscrapers.

It makes me think of Philip Larkin's poem Church Going, where he muses about what will happen to cathedrals when they are no longer used:

_When churches fall completely out of use
What we shall turn them into if we shall keep
A few cathedrals chronically on show 
Their parchment plate and pyx in locked cases 
And let the rest rent-free to rain and sheep.
Shall we avoid them as unlucky places?_

I'm not lamenting this because whatever happens, music will always be essential to humanity. All things eventually come to an end but other things inevitably take their place.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

"Is it not for this reason . . . that education in music is most sovereign, because more than anything else, rhythmia and harmonia find their way to the inmost soul and take strongest hold upon it, bringing with them and imparting grace, if one is rightly trained, and otherwise the contrary? And further, because omissions and the failure of beauty in things badly made or grown would be most quickly perceived by one who was properly educated in music, and so, feeling distaste rightly, he would praise beautiful things and take delight in them and receive them into his soul to foster its growth and become himself beautiful and good. The ugly he would rightly disapprove of and detest while still young and unable to grasp rational speech, but when reason came the man thus nurtured would be the first to give her welcome, for by this affinity he would know her." ―Socrates

"Music takes us out of the actual and whispers to us dim secrets that startle our wonder as to who we are, and for what, whence, and whereto." ―Ralph Waldo Emerson

"Men profess to be lovers of music, but for the most part they give no evidence in their opinions and lives that they have heard it." ―Henry David Thoreau


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Came across this interesting Debussy quote today:

"Wagner's art can never completely die. It will suffer that inevitable decay, the cruel brand of time on all beautiful things; yet noble ruins must remain, in the shadow of which our grandchildren will brood over the past splendor of this man who, had he been a little more human, would have been altogether great."

-Debussy


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

KenOC said:


> I've always felt that the music of Beethoven can make us believe we can be better people than we are. Is that insane? Can music haul that sort of freight? What do you think?


Isn't there already consensus about that being more or less the essence of Beethoven's music?

Music can haul any sort of freight man!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

tdc said:


> Came across this interesting Debussy quote today:
> 
> "Wagner's art can never completely die. It will suffer that inevitable decay, the cruel brand of time on all beautiful things; yet noble ruins must remain, in the shadow of which our grandchildren will brood over the past splendor of this man who, had he been a little more human, would have been altogether great."
> 
> -Debussy


An oft-quoted remark which could be interpreted variously as referring to Wagner's personal character, his music, or the influence of the former on the latter. Unfortunately there have been so many superficial and off-the-wall attempts to read Wagner's personal deficiencies - real and imagined - into his art that I'd prefer not to try to read Debussy's mind. At least we can be sure that he wasn't viewing the operas through the distorting filter of Nazism, which hadn't been invented yet.

Debussy was always ambivalent about Wagner, admiring his genius while expressing annoyance at his influence on music, including at times his own. The degree of that influence on French music really is quite remarkable, with composers such as Chausson, Dukas, Chabrier, Schmitt and D'Indy turning out operas and tone poems filled with sensuous chromaticism, against which Satie and Les Six were to rebel.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Schmitt most definitely. His music is so obviously Wagnerian. He was a nasty little Hitlerite though. Still I love his incidental music for Anthony and Cleopatra and his string quartet.

The problem for Wagner is that he is so often made to bear the responsibility for the nasty opinions of people like Schmitt, but doesn't quite as often get the credit for engineering the beautiful music of those who followed his lead.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

eugeneonagain said:


> Schmitt most definitely. His music is so obviously Wagnerian. He was a nasty little Hitlerite though. Still I love his incidental music for Anthony and Cleopatra and his string quartet.
> 
> The problem for Wagner is that he is so often made to bear the responsibility for the nasty opinions of people like Schmitt, but doesn't quite as often get the credit for engineering the beautiful music of those who followed his lead.


I like Schmitt too. I keep meaning to check out more of his stuff.

I think is fascinating that _fin-de-siecle_ French composers show such an infatuation with the German Wagner. I think Debussy was annoyed by that, especially when echoes of _Parsifal_ kept popping up as he was composing _Pelleas et Melisande._ We can still detect a few despite his efforts to remove them. :lol:

More on topic: It's been suggested in the OP (and by others) that Beethoven's music might have a good moral influence. Serious people have also suggested that Wagner's music might be corrupting or at least "unhealthy."


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Well, Socrates was executed for 'corrupting' the youth. Sometimes a bit of that sort of 'corruption' is probably the best thing.

I confess I don't know exactly _how _Beethoven's music is supposed to have a good moral influence. I don't know how that mechanism works.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

eugeneonagain said:


> Well, Socrates was executed for 'corrupting' the youth. Sometimes a bit of that sort of 'corruption' is probably the best thing.
> 
> I confess I don't know exactly _how _Beethoven's music is supposed to have a good moral influence. I don't know how that mechanism works.


Neither do I. After sixty years of listening to both Beethoven and Wagner I'm no nicer or meaner than I was at nine. Maybe their influences have canceled each other out.


----------



## Clouds Weep Snowflakes (Feb 24, 2019)

I think you've made a good point here-music is art, and like all forms of art, some people will like it more and some less; but at the end, it's subjective-some Metalheads/Goths, for example, wear piercings and tattoos to the point they consider them to be art, while others just wear Gothic clothing/band shirts, and I met both kinds; Classists have the same mindset.

To me, what makes music good is not the time it was written-good and bad exist together in any period of history; to me it's the meaning, and as Beethoven is one of my favorite composers, I tend to sometimes listen to the music (not just Beethoven's of course) and think, "what was running through this man's mind and imagination?", "what did he have to say through his music?".

And that, my friend, is the essence of art! And for me, Classics do that the best-they are the words of Europe, through Tchaikovsky's ballets (for example) I can feel Russia, and as far as ballets and operas go, it's like watching a movie and listening to music at the same time-that's double to fun for me!

As I said, this is subjective; some people may not like Classical music and say "it's boring, beatless and for old people", but at the end, everyone is inclined to their own opinion-just listen to what you like and what gives you inspiration, and if Beethoven does that for you, than just know I'm with you!


----------



## regenmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

KenOC said:


> "I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it." --A Deep Thought from Jack Handey


And I ask you, where is Jack Handey now?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

regenmusic said:


> And I ask you, where is Jack Handey now?


Had to look it up! "Jack Handey lives with his wife, Marta Chavez Handey, in Santa Fe, New Mexico."


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Does music have to be considered Art for it to have a beneficial effect on the listener? Perhaps the greatest beneficial effect it has is to keep people from going insane who have been trapped by the torture of their own thoughts. If that's the case, it has a very practical basis and its moral influence need not be considered. One is a matter of character… the other is a matter of survival.

_"The function of music is to release us from the tyranny of conscious thought." -Sir Thomas Beecham_


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Plato thought music could have a detrimental effect on what he thought really mattered -- the martial spirit of a people that enabled them to survive in a culture of constant war. He went so far as to suggest the outlawing the use of certain instruments and modes.

If some music can have that sort of effect, it suggests that other music might have an opposite and beneficial effect.


----------



## Gallus (Feb 8, 2018)

KenOC said:


> Plato thought music could have a detrimental effect on what he thought really mattered -- the martial spirit of a people that enabled them to survive in a culture of constant war.


That's a rather uncharitable reading of Plato. His main concern is the health of the soul and the attainment of the Good, the "martial spirit of a people" only matters insofar as the man with a well-ordered soul will presumably be brave in battle when appropriate. But that sort of function is only written about in passing. Equally or even more important for Plato is music's ability to entreat the gods to action and in a similar fashion convince other humans to follow the Good through beauty.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Gallus said:


> That's a rather uncharitable reading of Plato. His main concern is the health of the soul and the attainment of the Good, the "martial spirit of a people" only matters insofar as the man with a well-ordered soul will presumably be brave in battle when appropriate...


We were saying, when we spoke of the subject-matter, that we had no need of lamentations and strains of sorrow?
True.
And which are the harmonies expressive of sorrow? You are musical and can tell me.
The harmonies which you mean are the mixed or tenor Lydian, and the full-toned or bass Lydian, and such-like.
These then, I said, must be banished; even to women who have a character to maintain they are of no use, and much less to men.
Certainly.
In the next place, drunkenness and softness and indolence are utterly unbecoming the character of our guardians.
Utterly unbecoming?
And which are the soft and convivial harmonies?
The Ionian, he replied, and some of the Lydian which are termed "relaxed".
Well, and are these of any use for warlike men?
Quite the reverse, he replied; and if so the Dorian and the Phrygian are the only ones which you have left.

Etc.

Further: "Musical innovation is full of danger to the State, for when modes of music change, the fundamental laws of the State always change with them." ― Plato, The Republic


----------

