# Is Beethoven right?



## beetzart (Dec 30, 2009)

“Music is ... A higher revelation than all Wisdom & Philosophy” 

It is an interesting comment, very interesting. First maybe counter the bias he would have being a musician of course, but I have to agree with him. For me music (Beethoven's music) is the most powerful form of art there is; and I don't know if I am not intelligent enough to know why or that no one can ever know. He answers this quote by composing his late quartets for they are beyond the comprehension of our collective intellect. So I would adjust the quote to:

"My last five string quartets are a higher revelation then all Wisdom and Philosophy" 

Which neatly leads to this quote:

“Music is the one incorporeal entrance into the higher world of knowledge which comprehends mankind but which mankind cannot comprehend.”

Ludwig.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

This is my kind of topic. Beethoven ain't no philosopher. Music may reveal something about ourselves, or how we see Life. But there is no objective truth. I had pondered his late quartets and piano Sonatas. Tchaikovsky thinks he "lost" music in the late period. I tend to think there isn't much there beyond what you hear. I was heavily into poetry, and there isn't truth there either. According to Aristotle, the appreciation of Art itself is a form of philosophy. Science and Mathematics used to be branches of Philosophy (Math is a subform of Science). Those are the highest forms of Revelation i believe, being the most objective and proveable. i heard unlike Mozart, Beethoven was not a strong student in academics, so he was only using that idea as an excuse to elevate himself. as he did wanted to exalt himself over princes and kings with his egotistical statement "there is only one Beethoven!"


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Music is for the soul. Sometimes it feels so powerful, almost like we are hearing God through music. I won't deny that possibility, but my overall point is, Music touches the emotional human self whereas Philosophy is for the logical mind and provides ethics and morals, concrete thoughts by which to live life.

They reveal different thing.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I think Beethoven is right. Philosophy - conceptual knowledge of that which matters most - can teach us about life. But art takes over where conceptual thought leaves off - or, more accurately, it leads us into the places to which philosophy is only a descriptive guidebook and a map. Art doesn't _teach. _It _shows_.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Art is almost a celebration of the Philosophy you live by when you have a real connection to it.


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

I just enjoy music and Beethoven is right at the top but as an atheist cannot say it touches my soul what ever that is or puts me into the presence of god like entities, to elevate music to the realms of the super natural seems to me an attempt to make it into something more than what it is, a fantastic form of entertainment that can be appreciated by all people.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Dan Ante said:


> I just enjoy music and Beethoven is right at the top but as an atheist cannot say it touches my soul what ever that is or puts me into the presence of god like entities, to elevate music to the realms of the super natural seems to me an attempt to make it into something more than what it is, a fantastic form of entertainment that can be appreciated by all people.


I agree, but don't deny the possibility of Art's capability to bring one to a higher state of consciousness (be it godlike or not). It has the power to re-energize the soul, and in some cases represent your deepest ideals in life which when seen can be a very spiritual experience.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Dan Ante said:


> I just enjoy music, and Beethoven is right at the top; but as an atheist I cannot say it touches my soul, what ever that is…


Woodduck said that "art takes over where conceptual thought leaves off - or, more accurately, it leads us into the places to which philosophy is only a descriptive guidebook and a map."

It sounds as if he is alluding that there is some area of being which lies beyond mere thought. Why don't you and Woodduck try to name it in atheist terms, since we can't possibly call it "soul"? As all atheists assert, the soul does not exist, since we can't prove that it does.



> ...but as an atheist I cannot say it...puts me into the presence of god-like entities.


Of course not. Things like that do not exist, as all atheists know.



> To elevate music to the realm of the supernatural seems to me an attempt to make it into something more than what it is: a fantastic form of entertainment that can be appreciated by all people.


I think that this "supernatural realm" is some form of subjective experience, which transcends mere thought, as Woodduck said.

If music makes me feel more 'spiritual' and less encumbered by the mundane modes of everyday thought and logic, then I don't think that makes me into some sort of religious nut, or that I believe in some sort of religious dogma. I'm just revelling in my birthright: freedom, the pursuit of happiness, and the right to fully "be" a human.

If that is religion, or metaphysical, simply because this subjective state of being cannot be "proven" or is wrongly characterized as being "religious" or "metaphysical," then the horse has been put before the horse, and atheism shows once again its true nature: as a negation, assertive of nothing positive; a contentious form of philosophy designed to transform human beings into objectified automatons guided by the voice of reason.

Beethoven used the idea of "God" in the Ninth Symphony; he also felt a brotherhood and kinship with all men. This form of spiritual awareness of the sacredness of being is everywhere in art; art is closely connected to "religion" in this way.

It is somewhat contradictory, and condescending, to hear professed atheists enthuse about the greatness of Beethoven and other artists who are so obviously "in touch" with this indefinable sense of spiritual awareness, and then listen to them qualify all this with the ensurance that these things "do not really exist" except as a form of "entertainment."


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

I have never experienced a state of higher consciousness or spirituality all I know of is the here and now and that every day the now is getting closer to oblivion


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I believe those flowery quotes in the OP were passed on by Bettina von Arnim, who was prone to verbal embroidery. Judging from Beethoven's letters and the recollections of others, Ludwig was a good deal more plain-spoken.

Now if Bettina had quoted Beethoven as asking, "Did that wretched Schindler steal my chamber pot again?" I'd be more likely to believe her.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> Woodduck said that "art takes over where conceptual thought leaves off - or, more accurately, it leads us into the places to which philosophy is only a descriptive guidebook and a map."
> 
> It sounds as if he is alluding that there is some area of being which lies beyond mere thought. Why don't you and Woodduck try to name it in atheist terms, since we can't possibly call it "soul"? As all atheists assert, the soul does not exist, since we can't prove that it does.
> 
> ...


Well, as Ronald Reagan famously said, there you go again. What in God's name (excuse me) is this obsession you have with atheists? Why don't you quit generalizing about people who don't happen to believe in supernatural entities? Please stick to something you understand. Music, for instance.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

Music is no revelation. Haven't you noticed how conservative music usually is: the words, canvases et al almost always come first.


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

KenOC said:


> I believe those flowery quotes in the OP were passed on by Bettina von Arnim, who was prone to verbal embroidery. Judging from Beethoven's letters and the recollections of others, Ludwig was a good deal more plain-spoken.
> 
> Now if Bettina had quoted Beethoven as asking, "Did that wretched Schindler steal my chamber pot again?" I'd be more likely to believe her.


When I first saw this post, I thought you were talking about me. :lol: Then I realized...oh, you're actually talking about the historical person Bettina von Arnim (the source of my username)! Let me take this opportunity to apologize, on her behalf, for all of her flowery fabrications. :lol:


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

Bettina, just curious, are you woman? (just curious, it's always nice to know there are ladies around here too  ).


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

jdec said:


> Bettina, just curious, are you woman? (just curious, it's always nice to know there are ladies around here too  ).


Yes, I am female. Thanks for appreciating my feminine presence on TC!


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

jdec said:


> Bettina, just curious, are you woman? (just curious, it's always nice to know there are ladies around here too  ).


Don't you want to know what gender I am??????????


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

Dan Ante said:


> Don't you want to know what gender I am??????????


Sure, why not . I was curious about Bettina since I have enjoyed reading her posts for sometime now without knowing she was a lady. I did not know the name Bettina was female until now, my bad  (I'm not a native English speaker as you can tell)


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

jdec said:


> Sure, why not . I was curious about Bettina since I have enjoyed reading her posts for sometime now without knowing she was a lady. I did not know the name Bettina was female until now, my bad  (I'm not a native English speaker as you can tell)


I'm glad that you enjoy my posts - thanks for your kind words!

My username Bettina is based on Bettina von Arnim. She was a close friend of Beethoven's (maybe even his lover for a while)...I like to imagine that I could have occupied a similar position in his life, if I had lived back then.


----------



## quietfire (Mar 13, 2017)

Those sentences really don't mean anything. 

I would highly suggest not to give in to red herrings like those and just focus on what is real.


----------



## Lenny (Jul 19, 2016)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Music is for the soul. Sometimes it feels so powerful, almost like we are hearing God through music. I won't deny that possibility, but my overall point is, Music touches the emotional human self whereas Philosophy is for the logical mind and provides ethics and morals, concrete thoughts by which to live life.
> 
> They reveal different thing.


Not sure about that. I guess this notion comes from Schopenhauer, who thought music as a higher form of art, which enables us to get a glimpse of _Noumenon_, "things in themselves". He was atheist, btw, but in no way denying the supernatural.

I tend to think music is just one way of looking at things. Mathematicians like Gödel or Cantor confessed they can "see" the Infinity. How is that different from Beethoven, who, according to some anecdotes, was deeply influenced by Upanishads (very much in fashion during that time)?

But what I'll never think is that music, or mathematics, or whatever "higher form of knowledge" is just a mere form of entertainment. The little purist in me will always think there is something very special in us humans. I'm one of those people who think Truth is out there, regardless of what we think of it. But I have no idea what it is, if you ask me.


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

Lenny said:


> But what I'll never think is that music, or mathematics, or whatever "higher form of knowledge" is just a mere form of entertainment. The little purist in me will always think there is something very special in us humans. I'm one of those people who think Truth is out there, regardless of what we think of it. But I have no idea what it is, if you ask me.


Music is a higher form of knowledge? In what respect? 
Opera and Ballet are forms of entertainment no matter what mystical qualities you want to endow them with, same applies to instrumental music IMO of course.
I am very interested as to how one can see infinity,


----------



## Lenny (Jul 19, 2016)

Dan Ante said:


> Music is a higher form of knowledge? In what respect?
> Opera and Ballet are forms of entertainment no matter what mystical qualities you want to endow them with, same applies to instrumental music IMO of course.
> I am very interested as to how one can see infinity,


Well I have no idea 

But, those people regarded their work in that way, and that's the way I personally try to approach it. OTOH, if some gansta rapper thinks his music is about drugs and money, well, that's all there is, and I don't try to find any mystical qualities in that. But if for example Messiaen thinks his music is about Salvation, well, then it is.

Of course I have to maintain some possibility that all these people were just tricksters, all for money and sex, but that's only very small probability in my books. More likely there were really insane (according to modern medicine), and that's just perfect.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Can music have a life of its own? My view is no, I think of it as a tool, like a flashlight in the dark, you can see things you didn't see before (not that you can't with other means), but you can't see beyond the ceiling by shining light on it, but you can imagine what might be on the other side. Beethoven seems to be saying that with music, you can see what is on the other side.


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

Phil loves classical said:


> Can music have a life of its own? My view is no, I think of it as a tool, like a flashlight in the dark, you can see things you didn't see before (not that you can't with other means), but you can't see beyond the ceiling by shining light on it, but you can imagine what might be on the other side. Beethoven seems to be saying that with music, you can see what is on the other side.


OK so what is on the other side? 
I accept that music does affect your mood or state of mind no question of that.
,


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Music can speak eloquently, but not verbally, to and about our perceptual and feeling natures. It's irrelevant how we define those natures philosophically or theologically, whether we posit such things as gods or souls or "things in themselves" or "the other side." That's all conceptualization after the basic fact of experience, which will remain forever beyond full verbal articulation. Music can embody and invoke subjective experience more immediately, vividly, and precisely than any other symbolic system man has devised. That makes it, at its most profound and powerful, far more than entertainment.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

I am not a believer in any traditional sense of the worde.. Nevertheless, late Beethoven takes me places nothing else does (and I woudn't have it any other way). In another context, a Boston critic, writing about the sometimes conflict between organized religion and music, attributed it to the idea that music speaks to the ineffable in ways that words (liturgy, dogma) cannot.

(I once had a music professor who referred to a boxed set of the complete Beethoven string quartets as the "greatest achievement of Western Man.")


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

I don't get any feelings like the ones described when listening to Beethoven. Somehow he clearly connects less with me than with many others.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Art Rock said:


> I don't get any feelings like the ones described when listening to Beethoven. Somehow he clearly connects less with me than with many others.


Do you like Mozart?


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

I like Mozart more than Beethoven, but once more, no such feelings as described. For that I'd have to go to Bach, late Bruckner or late Mahler.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

beetzart said:


> "Music is ... . . revelation "
> 
> "Music is the . . . entrance into the . . world of knowledge . . "


I've snipped away some of the stuff I don't need but my first point is that these snippets imply that LvB thought that music was a way of getting to some truths. For him there is a link between music and knowledge (=justified true belief)

Truth is a straightforward concept, anyone who doesn't understand it just needs to read Aristotle's Metaphysics 1011b25



> To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true.





Woodduck said:


> But art takes over where conceptual thought leaves off - or, more accurately, it leads us into the places to which philosophy is only a descriptive guidebook and a map. Art doesn't _teach. _It _shows_.


If these places are to do with feelings, then this misses Beethoven's point, because he's talking about truth and knowledge, which are propositional. It is true that . . . . , I know that . . .

But if you're agreeing with Beethoven that music is a way of getting to know things, then my question is what? What do you know through music which you wouldn't have known through more conceptual or analytic procedures?



Woodduck said:


> Music can speak eloquently, but not verbally, to and about our perceptual. . . natures.


Please say a bit more about something can speak not verbally to and about our perceptual natures. I just don't understand what you're saying here at all.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

Mandryka said:


> Truth is a straightforward concept, anyone who doesn't understand it just needs to read Aristotle's Metaphysics 1011b25
> 
> _To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true.
> _


This is so to say an elaboration of the semantic truth, but it does not say anything about the existential truth - if this exists (pun intended).


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Dan Ante said:


> OK so what is on the other side?
> I accept that music does affect your mood or state of mind no question of that.
> ,


Other side meaning truth beyond experience. I don't believe music can take you there. It has its limits. But It can make you reflect, or even discover something you didn't know based on the composer's perspective. Whether or not it is beyond simple entertainment depends what the individual gets out of it, but I believe truth beyond experience is out of limits.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

For me, music is entertainment. It can often affect me profoundly, leading to ecstasy, euphoria, rapture, sorrow, and often feelings of gratitude for both the ability of the composer and/or performer to make me so ec-static--that is, to take me out of my stasis--and my receptiveness to the power of the music. But it is still entertainment for me, and not a portal to another world.


----------



## mathisdermaler (Mar 29, 2017)

An affirmative yes


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Strange Magic said:


> For me, music is entertainment. It can often affect me profoundly, leading to ecstasy, euphoria, rapture, sorrow, and often feelings of gratitude for both the ability of the composer and/or performer to make me so ec-static--that is, to take me out of my stasis--and my receptiveness to the power of the music. But it is still entertainment for me, and not a portal to another world.


Perhaps music has the power to show you reality as it can be and often is not for many people.


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

beetzart said:


> "Music is ... A higher revelation than all Wisdom & Philosophy"


There's an argument to be made on either side. On the one hand, philosophy and religion work explicitly where music and the other arts can only work implicitly. On the other hand, philosophy and religion can only be expressed through words, images, and music, and the greatest artists are greater masters of those materials than the greatest philosophers. (I mean I can't read Greek, but nobody thinks Plato's as great a writer as Homer, and I _know_ Shakespeare, Goethe, and Hugo are greater writers than Locke, Nietzsche, and Rousseau.)


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Magnum Miserium said:


> There's an argument to be made on either side. On the one hand, philosophy and religion work explicitly where music and the other arts can only work implicitly. On the other hand, philosophy and religion can only be expressed through words, images, and music, and the greatest artists are greater masters of those materials than the greatest philosophers. (I mean I can't read Greek, but nobody thinks Plato's as great a writer as Homer, and I _know_ Shakespeare, Goethe, and Hugo are greater writers than Locke, Nietzsche, and Rousseau.)


I'd say, the artists are greater masters of utilizing those devices creatively and artistically to create implicit reactions in the audience whereas the philosophers are greater masters of penning concrete ideas that can be contemplated and evaluated logically creating a very explicit reaction in the audience, to use your words, that is.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Homer didn't start out as a great writer. It was a long, twisted Odyssey before he modulated into greatness.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

To get back to the original question, I think music _CAN_ be a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy for it has the ability to paint the picture for that which no words can express.

Philosophy is necessary to try and attempt to explicitly articulate those complex ideas Art can say so perfectly, yet implicitly.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

hpowders said:


> Homer didn't start out as a great writer. It was a long, twisted Odyssey before he modulated into greatness.


So twisted that trying to follow it might make you an ill lad. (sorry 'bout that)

It is interesting that it is not clear that Homer really was even a person at all, and that there may be a series of ancient authors we don't know anything about who actually wrote the works attributed to Homer.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Mandryka said:


> I've snipped away some of the stuff I don't need but my first point is that these snippets imply that LvB thought that music was a way of getting to some truths. For him there is a link between music and knowledge (=justified true belief)
> 
> Truth is a straightforward concept, anyone who doesn't understand it just needs to read Aristotle's Metaphysics 1011b25
> 
> ...


Why do presume that Beethoven is talking about propositional knowledge? Do you think that all knowledge, all understanding, all wisdom, is held in the form of verbal propositions, and is identical to them?


----------



## beetzart (Dec 30, 2009)

Why do the Late Beethoven Quartets have such an effect on me and many others? I am an atheist but i don't think that matters here because I can't understand what is going on with Beethoven. Could a possible hypothesis be that Beethoven actually hallucinated the music?


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

beetzart said:


> Why do the Late Beethoven Quartets have such an effect on me and many others? I am an atheist but i don't think that matters here because I can't understand what is going on with Beethoven. Could a possible hypothesis be that Beethoven actually hallucinated the music?


I agree that Beethoven's late quartets sound like divine revelations, as though he had received auditory hallucinations from on high. The evidence, however, contradicts this hypothesis. Beethoven's sketchbooks reveal that he meticulously revised his late quartets (as well as many other works), rewriting each phrase until he was satisfied with the final result. If he had actually hallucinated the quartets, he wouldn't have needed to engage in such an extensive revision process.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Bettina said:


> I agree that Beethoven's late quartets sound like divine revelations, as though he had received auditory hallucinations from on high. The evidence, however, contradicts this hypothesis. Beethoven's sketchbooks reveal that he meticulously revised his late quartets (as well as many other works), rewriting each phrase until he was satisfied with the final result. If he had actually hallucinated the quartets, he wouldn't have needed to engage in such an extensive revision process.


It tickles me in a good way that we had to "rule out" if he actually hallucinated the works or not! :lol:


----------



## Klassik (Mar 14, 2017)

Bettina said:


> I agree that Beethoven's late quartets sound like divine revelations, as though he had received auditory hallucinations from on high. The evidence, however, contradicts this hypothesis. Beethoven's sketchbooks reveal that he meticulously revised his late quartets (as well as many other works), rewriting each phrase until he was satisfied with the final result. If he had actually hallucinated the quartets, he wouldn't have needed to engage in such an extensive revision process.


Perhaps it could have gone the other way. Maybe the late quartets were written in a normal state and then revised on a high. In one of his shows, George Carlin said he would write his jokes and then "punch" them up on a high. Maybe he was joking. It's hard to tell with a comedian, isn't it?

But, anyway, I agree with what Strange Magic and many others have said. Ole Ludwig may have been pumping up his ego with these quotes. Not that there's anything wrong or unusual with that. A lot of leaders in particular fields thought very highly of themselves.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Dan Ante said:


> I just enjoy music and Beethoven is right at the top but as an atheist cannot say it touches my soul what ever that is or puts me into the presence of god like entities, to elevate music to the realms of the super natural seems to me an attempt to make it into something more than what it is, a fantastic form of entertainment that can be appreciated by all people.


Oh geez man, "soul," when applied to aesthetic appreciation, is figurative even for religious people. I don't believe in supernatural phenomena either, but I have no problem using soul in that sense. It just means a deep and fundamental level of the self.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Why do presume that Beethoven is talking about propositional knowledge? Do you think that all knowledge, all understanding, all wisdom, is held in the form of verbal propositions, and is identical to them?


Knowledge - yes
Understanding - yes
Wisdom - not sure, I suspect not, because of its connection with decision making, knowing what to do. Wisdom is a difficult idea which may or may not make sense. My first point was that Beethoven seems to be talking about knowledge and understanding.

The content of knowledge and understanding is a proposition, I know that P, understand that P. The only type of proposition I've come across is expressible in language. Indeed if it is not I would say it is nonsense.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

JAS said:


> So twisted that trying to follow it might make you an ill lad. (sorry 'bout that)
> 
> It is interesting that it is not clear that Homer really was even a person at all, and that there may be a series of ancient authors we don't know anything about who actually wrote the works attributed to Homer.


Isn't it widely believed that the works of Homer are written versions of epic poems originating in an oral tradition? On this view what we know as the Odyssey bears the same sort of relationship to its oral-tradition source(s) as notated Gregorian Chant does to the improvisatory chant tradition that preceded it. People listened to the bard(s) improvising their tale(s) and transcribed them, just as traveling monks went from monastery to monastery transcribing in musical notation what singers were improvising at services across Christendom.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

EdwardBast said:


> I thought it was well established that the works of Homer are written versions of epic poems originating in an oral tradition(?) On this view what we know as the Odyssey bears the same sort of relationship to its oral-tradition source(s) as notated Gregorian Chant does to the improvisatory chant tradition that preceded it. People listened to the bard(s) improvising their tale(s) and transcribed them, just as traveling monks went from monastery to monastery transcribing in musical notation what singers were improvising at services across Christendom.


I believe that it is accepted that they are later written forms from earlier oral traditions. The question, which I understand is still a matter of debate, is whether those oral forms meaningfully trace back to one person named Homer.


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

I more or less agree with the O.P.

I think music is indeed something beyond comprehension and indeed the highest artform. I hate the terrible commonplace "music is emotion". That's a terrible simplification (of music as well as emotions) and my heart bleeds when I hear professional musicians use that commonplace. Because music is far beyond any emotion (paradoxically at the same time emotion is far beyond any music). It can trigger an emotion or can be a nice "soundtrack" with a certain emotion and maybe there are some parallels in the way human emotions are in a same way complex and beyond comprehension but music is definitely not emotion, that's the way I feel.

I have never ever had the feeling when having strong emotions (be it negative or positive) "well, this feels like music". Although you can look at music as a metaphor for human emotion and it may evoke some basic emotions.


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

and yet I used the word "emotion" 11 times.

ahum....


----------



## Guest (Mar 30, 2017)

beetzart said:


> "Music is ... A higher revelation than all Wisdom & Philosophy"


I'd like to know what he means before I can decide whether I agree with it. To begin with, a 'revelation' of what? I also suspect that the early 19th C meanings of Wisdom and Philosophy are not exactly the same as their 21st C counterparts.


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

BUT

this girl definitely knows what music is:


----------



## dzc4627 (Apr 23, 2015)

Phil loves classical said:


> But there is no objective truth.


 Is that an objective truth?


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Mandryka said:


> Truth is a straightforward concept, anyone who doesn't understand it just needs to read Aristotle's Metaphysics 1011b25


It's not straightforward. Defining truth as "what is" doesn't get you anywhere at all.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

isorhythm said:


> It's not straightforward. Defining truth as "what is" doesn't get you anywhere at all.


Yes it does get me somewhere. It gets me to reality - truth as a relation between what is said and how things are.


----------



## beetzart (Dec 30, 2009)

I have to put Schubert's 15th String Quartet...dare I say it...almost on par with Beethoven's late quartets. It is an extremely special piece of music. It is almost dream like, especially the 1st movement. Beethoven, Bach, Schubert for me at this present moment.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

I think there are many affinities between philosophers and music connoisseurs, though from personal experience I'd say that the latter tend to be much more given to argument.


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

It seems that some people have a desire to interpret music as some divine message or experience and LvB latter quartets seem to be the example used mostly are there no other works that qualify, did the composer purposely set out to create this feeling and do the musicians in an orchestra have this feeling when performing, does the concert goer also experience this during a concert? I can’t speak as a composer but as a musician and concertgoer I have to say I have not seen or had any experience of this, would you also take this approach with Jazz, Pop, Rock etc ? 
Music is entertainment pure and simple in my book.


----------



## beetzart (Dec 30, 2009)

How much do you want to be entertained? Listen to the 16 th sq and you will realise it wasn't written for casual entertainment.


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

JAS said:


> It is interesting that it is not clear that Homer really was even a person at all, and that there may be a series of ancient authors we don't know anything about who actually wrote the works attributed to Homer.


True story, Beethoven wasn't really a person at all either. I mean, really, it's obvious, for example not only are the symphonies obivously out of order, but "8" is clearly an example of the style of the 1780s while 9 is clearly an example of the style of the 1870s - "Beethoven" would have had to write "8" at 15 and "9" at 95!


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

dzc4627 said:


> Is that an objective truth?


I was referring to music and all art has no objective truth. But the objective truth exists out there. For this reason I don't believe music or other art could ever reveal a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy. To believe they can is a Romantic illusion. That is what Beethoven and other Romantic artists strove for: a common purpose for all, using Art as a key to knowledge. It is just a wild, but appealing, assertion Beethoven was making, and assigns the Artist a nobler purpose. Is there value in dying for the cause of music or art? The Romantic view is yes.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Mandryka said:


> Yes it does get me somewhere. It gets me to reality - truth as a relation between what is said and how things are.


"How things are" is not any more straightforward than "truth." You've just substituted some words.

I think we all agree that music doesn't express propositional truths that could be put in sentences. That's not what it's for.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Mandryka said:


> The content of knowledge and understanding is a proposition, I know that P, understand that P. The only type of proposition I've come across is expressible in language. Indeed if it is not I would say it is nonsense.


Sensing is knowing. Perceiving is knowing. Feeling is knowing. Loving is knowing.

Language attempts to describe experience, which is the basic form of knowledge that makes propositions possible, but the translation of knowing into language is not inevitable and often unnecessary or impossible. Not having words for something doesn't mean there's nothing there. Life - the knowledge of what it is to live - is not a recipe book or a computer program.

The subtleties and depths of experience music can bring to us can never be fully translated into language nor encompassed in propositions. The phenomena of consciousness elude our rational intellect, yet the sounds and movements of music, the sensations and forms of art in general, can bring us face to face with worlds of meaning we cannot otherwise speak. A discovery of great art is a self-discovery, and an enlargement of the self to include more of what we thought, or felt, was other.

Philosophy seeks to enlarge us through propositions, but propositions are only the intellect's map of the territory which the magic of art shows us directly. The show may be an illusion, but if we're receptive it may help us actually to know - to experience - what, before, we could only chatter about. And when that happens, our propositions, when they don't seem shallow or futile, are likely to become more truthful.


----------



## beetzart (Dec 30, 2009)

There must be something there with music as to why there is a musical hierarchy. Objective values can be shoehorned into music because Beethoven's string quartet's will always be regarded as better then Czerny's string quartets. I realise it is still subjective to a degree though and you could't say with absolute certainty that Beethoven is the greatest.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

When I experienced "emotions" while listening to Schoenberg's Five Pieces for Orchestra, I realized how inadequate that term is, and how much more complex the experience is. So I now say that music evokes "states of being."


----------



## Richard8655 (Feb 19, 2016)

"Music is the one incorporeal entrance into the higher world of knowledge which comprehends mankind but which mankind cannot comprehend.”

I think Beethoven's interpretation goes a little overboard. He seems to say music is a separate mystical realm entered as an out-of-body experience outside our powers to comprehend.

As others have implied, music is simply a human invention and emotional state of mind. It's entertainment that often produces euphoria, akin to religious rapture. But to me there's no soul, spirit, or divinity involved, just our own personal psychological dramas. Nothing more, nothing less.

But I don't fault Beethoven for his enthusiasm. We may otherwise not have had his music.


----------



## beetzart (Dec 30, 2009)

millionrainbows said:


> When I experienced "emotions" while listening to Schoenberg's Five Pieces for Orchestra, I realized how inadequate that term is, and how much more complex the experience is. So I now say that music evokes "states of being."


I like that term you use. When I get overwhelmed with a piece of music I usually cry and get very euphoric; I call it a brain orgasm. Some music is like sexual intercourse. The 1st movement of Mahler's 2nd builds up to that amazing transition into the recapitulation. It is like a musical orgasm.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

beetzart said:


> There must be something there with music as to why there is a musical hierarchy. Objective values can be shoehorned into music because Beethoven's string quartet's will always be regarded as better then Czerny's string quartets. I realise it is still subjective to a degree though and you could't say with absolute certainty that Beethoven is the greatest.


You can indeed say with certainty that Beethoven is greater than Czerny. There's nothing of which I'm more certain. That doesn't mean I can prove it to the guy next door. He'll need to acquire that knowledge himself. There's no guarantee that he will, and no certainty that he can. But there's only one way for anyone to do it.

Listen.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

I don't think this quote is particularly meaningful except that it shows his complete passion and love for music.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> You can indeed say with certainty that Beethoven is greater than Czerny. There's nothing of which I'm more certain. That doesn't mean I can prove it to the guy next door. He'll need to acquire that knowledge himself. There's no guarantee that he will, and no certainty that he can. But there's only one way for anyone to do it.
> 
> Listen.


Now I'm no empiricist, but I was convinced that Beethoven was superior to Czerny before having heard either of them.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

He didn't have to worry about revisions. I'm sure his a-hole publishers would have done the favor for him; the "new and improved" late Beethoven Quartets.

"Nah, he couldn't have meant a C# over here..."


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

isorhythm said:


> "How things are" is not any more straightforward than "truth." You've just substituted some words.
> 
> I think we all agree that music doesn't express propositional truths that could be put in sentences. That's not what it's for.


Not just substituted words because I've claimed a link between truth and facts. I'm also denying that there are truths which can't be expressed as propositions.


----------



## beetzart (Dec 30, 2009)

Why is Beethoven a better composer then Czerny?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Richard8655 said:


> But to me there's no soul, spirit, or divinity involved, just our own personal psychological dramas. Nothing more, nothing less.


Who are you to say? Yes, we know that the metaphysical is unprovable, but who are you to say that it cannot exist? This sounds like proselytizing in reverse.

Besides that, people who profess to be religious, or spiritually aware, or who think such things are possible, do not require that they be provable, so why does the assertion that they are not provable matter to them?

Further, to say that metaphysical things are unprovable is moot; it only adds insult to those who subscribe to such things. The 'believers' of such things do not require proof.

This is the problem with atheism, agnosticism, and philosophies which rely solely on logic and scientific proof; they tend to negate those things which do not fit their requirements of logic and proof.

Nobody is saying that metaphysical things are science, or are provable. You either believe or not.

Apparently some rationalists take this as an insult; so be it, insult returned.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

beetzart said:


> Why is Beethoven a better composer then Czerny?


You had to ask...


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> This is the problem with atheism, agnosticism, and philosophies which rely solely on logic and scientific proof; they tend to negate those things which do not fit their requirements of logic and proof.


No, this is not "the problem" with atheists etc. Their "problem" is people who pretend to know what atheists etc. think and believe.

Please refer to post #64 above. It was written by an atheist. Then go sit on a park bench under some shady trees, think how it's possible for a nonbeliever in supernatural entities to talk like that, and get back to us.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> .
> 
> Language attempts to describe experience, which is the basic form of knowledge that makes propositions possible, but the translation of knowing into language is not inevitable and often unnecessary or impossible. Not having words for something doesn't mean there's nothing there. Life - the knowledge of what it is to live - is not a recipe book or a computer program.


What I'm denying is the possibility of _knowledge that _ which is inexpressible in language.



Woodduck said:


> Sensing is knowing. Perceiving is knowing. Feeling is knowing. Loving is knowing.


Sensing yes -- assuming you mean using one of the five senses.
Perceiving is a sort of sensing, maybe a synonym for sensing. 
Feeling -- if you mean feeling an emotion or a desire than no, it's not knowledge
Loving is not knowledge, though it involves acquaintance. This discussion is about savoir not connaître .



Woodduck said:


> The subtleties and depths of experience music can bring to us can never be fully translated into language nor encompassed in propositions.


Why not?



Woodduck said:


> Sensing is knowing. Perceiving is knowing. Feeling is knowing. Loving is knowing.
> 
> A discovery of great art is a self-discovery, and an enlargement of the self to include more of what we thought, or felt, was other.


Discovery implies knowledge and hence is propositional



Woodduck said:


> The phenomena of consciousness elude our rational intellect, yet the sounds and movements of music, the sensations and forms of art in general, can bring us face to face with worlds of meaning we cannot otherwise speak.


You mean things that are inexpressibe in language? Well that's just begging the question.

(sorry -- the order of my responses aren't in the order of your post!)


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> Sensing is knowing. Perceiving is knowing. Feeling is knowing. Loving is knowing.
> 
> Language attempts to describe experience, which is the basic form of knowledge that makes propositions possible, but the translation of knowing into language is not inevitable and often unnecessary or impossible. Not having words for something doesn't mean there's nothing there. Life - the knowledge of what it is to live - is not a recipe book or a computer program.
> 
> ...


Isn't music just another form of language, but without words? If music can show something directly, can some words show us something more directly than music on the flip side? Yes, music may require a lot of words to describe and never fully translate, but a word also requires a lot of music to describe and not fully translate (eg. Love, as in Tchaikovsky's Romeo and Juliet or Bach's Jesu the Joy of Man's Desiring?). Both Have certain advantages and disadvantages, i believe. Philosophy uses propositions (with word objects, as normally associated with the term), but aren't there propositions in music as well? Music's non-use of words does not necessarily mean more direct, as it uses other elements. Is a deaf person from birth, who never heard music, lacking in revelation or knowledge more than a blind person?


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

double post 15 characters


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> Who are you to say? Yes, we know that the metaphysical is unprovable, but who are you to say that it cannot exist? This sounds like proselytizing in reverse.
> 
> Besides that, people who profess to be religious, or spiritually aware, or who think such things are possible, do not require that they be provable, so why does the assertion that they are not provable matter to them?
> 
> ...


I think we all experience similarly wonderful effects from music; some people connect this with spirituality and religion while others, such as me, don't. I am a science minded, rationalist, atheist, whatever, and I do believe it is all in my head, yet you can be sure that the beauty, the mystery and all those intangible, indescribable things in music mean just as much to me as to any music lover.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Mandryka said:


> What I'm denying is the possibility of _knowledge that _ which is inexpressible in language.
> 
> Sensing yes -- assuming you mean using one of the five senses.
> Perceiving is a sort of sensing, maybe a synonym for sensing.
> ...


By taking as your premise that "to know" means only "to hold as a proposition," you are immediately and permanently making nonsense of the fundamental subject under discussion: the function and power of non-verbal art (music in this case) in enlarging the sphere of consciousness and deepening our capacity for awareness.

Perceiving is not "a sort of sensing." It is a cognitive act in which sense data are organized into comprehensible, meaningful patterns, making it possible for us to interact constructively with our environment. Sensation is the first stage of pre-verbal knowledge. Perception is the second, built upon the first.

Sensory knowing leads to perceptual knowing, and art uses both to show us new dimensions of feeling, which is also knowing. Propositions need not enter into it.

In any case, if you're determined to remain within a tight definitional circle, I don't know what more to say that would be of any use in advancing the conversation.


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

beetzart said:


> How much do you want to be entertained? Listen to the 16 th sq and you will realise it wasn't written for casual entertainment.


I have never mentioned casual entertainment why did you find it necessary to use that word and how do you know what LvB had in mind?


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

beetzart said:


> "Music is ... A higher revelation than all Wisdom & Philosophy"
> 
> It is an interesting comment, very interesting. First maybe counter the bias he would have being a musician of course, but I have to agree with him. For me music (Beethoven's music) is the most powerful form of art there is; and I don't know if I am not intelligent enough to know why or that no one can ever know. He answers this quote by composing his late quartets for they are beyond the comprehension of our collective intellect. So I would adjust the quote to:
> 
> ...


Beethoven was correct for those folks hypersensitive to the power of music, as many of us here are on TC.

But there are plenty of folks who are not and for them I suggest religious studies.

Get thee to a nunnery!


----------



## Richard8655 (Feb 19, 2016)

hpowders said:


> Beethoven was correct for those folks hypersensitive to the power of music, as many of us here are on TC.
> 
> But there are plenty of folks who are not and for them I suggest religious studies.
> 
> Get thee to a nunnery!


That means we'll need to merge the Myths and Folklore thread with this one!


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Richard8655 said:


> That means we'll need to merge the Myths and Folklore thread with this one!


I beg of you, whatever you do, PLEASE keep it on the main classical music forum!!

I can't keep learning new sophisticated passwords to enter secret, exclusive TC trap doors!


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Well, I'm sure glad Beethoven was actually able to enter into this "higher world of knowledge which comprehends mankind [how else could he have known this?] but which mankind cannot comprehend [wait, I guess he couldn't know after all]" and enlighten us about it. Or maybe he not human.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Meanwhile during this Age of "Enlightenment", people were doing then what they are doing now-going to war to kill and maim each other. I guess Beethoven needed to write more repeats to drive the message home through all those thick, violent skulls!


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

Mandryka said:


> But if you're agreeing with Beethoven that music is a way of getting to know things, then my question is what? What do you know through music which you wouldn't have known through more conceptual or analytic procedures?


As I see it you know that there's a lot of things beyond comprehension, you know that you can't comprehend music by analysing it. In a way music becomes in that sense a metaphor for the limits of human thought. You know human cerebral thought has its limits and in a way music takes us a step further and shows us that there are things beyond thought, beyond words.

The gods just gave us music to mess with our heads, that's the way I see it sometimes.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> No, this is not "the problem" with atheists etc. Their "problem" is people who pretend to know what atheists etc. think and believe.


A typical invalidation tactic. Make the 'target' focus back on themselves, and introvert, thus avoiding real discussion. The fact is, you have not defined atheism, if there is a definition of such a 'negating' philosophy. All atheism can do is react against that which is outside its logic. Therefore, it is simply an argument, not a way of living.


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

If you think about it, music in fact is ridiculously incomprehensible and takes abstract thought into the absurd. And that's what's so beautiful about it.

When you think a lot about music, those thoughts almost become pure abstract thoughts and yet you're thinking them with a conscious and rational mind. 

When Beethoven uses a motive and some bars further he transforms that motive into something slightly different, something with a little more tenderness for example, it is like those two motives are communicating with each other, those two motives are two entities that have a strong connection, could be maybe a metaphor for human connection between two persons, I don't know and what it means doesn't really matter. But when you start looking at it with some distance, it becomes absurd, because these abstract thoughts are just a result of sound organized by human beings without a clear purpose.
What I'm trying to say with this example is that music is full of these things and mostly those things are far less explainable then the thing that happens with the two motives. That just happens to be a thing that I more or less can explain in words but most of the concepts or thoughts I have about music, I just can't express in words and yet I know them rationally, incomprehensible knowledge so to say.


----------



## pcnog11 (Nov 14, 2016)

beetzart said:


> "Music is ... A higher revelation than all Wisdom & Philosophy"
> 
> It is an interesting comment, very interesting. First maybe counter the bias he would have being a musician of course, but I have to agree with him. For me music (Beethoven's music) is the most powerful form of art there is; and I don't know if I am not intelligent enough to know why or that no one can ever know. He answers this quote by composing his late quartets for they are beyond the comprehension of our collective intellect. So I would adjust the quote to:
> 
> ...


It is very difficult to prove if Beethoven is right. However, let image a moment what the world would be if there is no music but we all live based on wisdom and philosophy.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> A typical invalidation tactic. Make the 'target' focus back on themselves, and introvert, thus avoiding real discussion. The fact is, you have not defined atheism, if there is a definition of such a 'negating' philosophy. All atheism can do is react against that which is outside its logic. Therefore, it is simply an argument, not a way of living.


millionrainbows, why not return again to the religion Group to air your always interesting insights into atheism. You were there for a while, and I'm positive your views would get a serious hearing there.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

pcnog11 said:


> It is very difficult to prove if Beethoven is right. However, let image a moment what the world would be if there is no music but *we all live based on wisdom and philosophy.*


A heck of a lot better than it is now with 1% of the world's population listening to Beethoven.


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

Razumovskymas said:


> If you think about it, music in fact is ridiculously incomprehensible and takes abstract thought into the absurd. And that's what's so beautiful about it.
> 
> When you think a lot about music, those thoughts almost become pure abstract thoughts and yet you're thinking them with a conscious and rational mind.
> 
> ...


Great points. In other threads, I've written about how Beethoven's approach to music reminds me of literature. His motives often seem to behave like characters in a novel. They undergo various changes as they experience different situations. Also, as you observe, his motives sometimes interact with each other and even take on each others' qualities, as if they were friends who make compromises to get along - or enemies who try to outdo each other, in some cases.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

As in the great slow movement of Piano Concerto No. 4: the debate between an angry, aggressive orchestra vs. a plaintive, gentle piano. Eventually, resolving in peace for both sides. A remarkable movement.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> A typical invalidation tactic. Make the 'target' focus back on themselves, and introvert, thus avoiding real discussion. The fact is, you have not defined atheism, if there is a definition of such a 'negating' philosophy. All atheism can do is react against that which is outside its logic. Therefore, it is simply an argument, not a way of living.


Atheism is the absence of a belief in the supernatural entities known as "gods." That is _all_ atheism is. It is not a philosophy of life or a way of living.

Your fantasies about what atheists believe or don't believe, what kind of people they are or aren't, how they listen to music, and how they live or don't live, are yours and yours alone. They clearly present a problem for you, but you must solve your problem without forcing it on others. Who do you suppose is interested in your prejudices about atheists? Certainly not atheists themselves. No one enjoys being mischaracterized and insulted.

You've been asked in the past - repeatedly - to keep this presumptuous and insulting stuff out of the music forum, it is a clear violation of the rules here, yet here it is again. You're making your own issue an issue for others. Kindly stop it.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

pcnog11 said:


> It is very difficult to prove if Beethoven is right. However, let image a moment what the world would be if there is no music but we all live based on wisdom and philosophy.


Mankind's philosophies are rationalizations of reality. Art is reality itself.

Given a choice, I'll take the latter.


----------



## Lenny (Jul 19, 2016)

Back to OP's question... Was Beethoven right? No, I don't think he was. But I tend to agree with Woodduck in that music is _closer_ to our _core_ (whatever you call it, be it reality, unconscious, soul) than any conscious, rational logic.

If I were cynical I'd just say Beethoven lived in an age of romantics, read some Vedanta and smoked a little bit too much of something very unhealthy. That's okay, it can happen to anyone. But I'm not cynical (yet at the same time I think he did some of that, too...). I really think he saw the reality more clear than most of us, and had the skills to communicate that. This is very crucial in my argument. It's all about the skills, because all humans are equal in their core. Some people are just blessed with the ability to see and communicate.

But where he wasn't "right" (according to OP, if I got it right) is that music is _the_ way to communicate these core ideas of humankind. Some might call them archetypes. My personal opinion is that there is no progression. Everything just goes in cycles, and humans express the archetypal ideas over and over again, in different forms. Music is just one of them. What piles up - technological progression, or the so called technosphere, or for that matter, musical forms - is not relevant. Still the core human reality is unchanged, archetypal, unconscious, unspoken.

But music is very close to our pre-language core. Why is that, or is it at all like that - that's an interesting debate in its own. I've read somewhere in the interwebs (must be right) that some scientists think humankind was communicating with singing, like birds, before spoken language. That feels very nice and beatiful idea, so I stick to that (nowadays it is more about what feels right, right?  ).


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

Lenny said:


> But music is very close to our pre-language core. Why is that, or is it at all like that - that's an interesting debate in its own. I've read somewhere in the interwebs (must be right) that some scientists think humankind was communicating with singing, like birds, before spoken language. That feels very nice and beatiful idea, so I stick to that (nowadays it is more about what feels right, right?  ).


So not swinging big hard clubs and grunting or do you mean when he was Shrew like.


----------



## Lenny (Jul 19, 2016)

Dan Ante said:


> So not swinging big hard clubs and grunting or do you mean when he was Shrew like.


Beethoven? I apologize if I cannot connect your question correctly to what I wrote earlier.. but I think Beethoven was a true genius of his time.


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

*Lenny *_ I've read somewhere in the interwebs (must be right) that some scientists think humankind was communicating with singing, like birds, _

*Dan * So not swinging big hard clubs and grunting or do you mean when he was Shrew like.

Some scientists say we evolved from a Shrew like creature not Adam and Eve, revolutionary eh


----------



## Lenny (Jul 19, 2016)

^ Oh, Shrew, right  Well, he for sure is singing in the picture!


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I agree that music can have an effect that wakes us up and become aware somehow inside. I was heavily into Zen poetry, and found it has the same effect as music. The poetry of Li Bai, Tu Fu, and Basho really presents the world in a new perspective. Li Bai (or Li Po) was the author of one of the songs in Mahler's Song of the Earth. They use regular language and simple everyday things and somehow your mind sees more to it than the words, something indescribable as music, at least to me. Here is the most famous Haiku of all time:

The old pond (in silence)
A frog jumps in
- The sound of water


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Beethoven's statement that music is a higher revelation than philosophy is the quintessential perception of the artist, who, if he is great enough or lucky enough, experiences first hand and with matchless intensity the power of art to plumb his deepest inner spaces and discover the most hidden and inarticulate corners of his being. What distinguishes Beethoven from lesser artists is that his music can make so many people experience something akin to this as they listen to it. 

I'll never be able to explain what Beethoven is saying in his greatest works, especially those last quartets. But I knew when I first heard them as a young man that among all the music I knew, those works afforded a glimpse of the highest level of being I had ever encountered. And I know now, if I only suspected it then, that that's a level to which no amount of philosophizing can take me.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Beethoven's statement hence his symphony no.9. He lived up to his own words.


----------



## Guest (Apr 1, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> You can indeed say with certainty that Beethoven is greater than Czerny. There's nothing of which I'm more certain. That doesn't mean I can prove it to the guy next door. He'll need to acquire that knowledge himself. There's no guarantee that he will, and no certainty that he can. But there's only one way for anyone to do it.
> 
> Listen.


I'll not ask for proof, but a little evidence wouldn't go amiss. As for 'listening', of course, yet if I don't know what I'm listening for, how does that help?



millionrainbows said:


> Who are you to say?


I think what was being said is that whatever the experience being described, one chooses to characterise it as a spiritual/transcendental experience, and the other chooses to characterise it as a sensual/material experience. So we're all entitled "to say" which applies without others assuming our rejection of what doesn't apply as an insult.



millionrainbows said:


> Therefore, it is simply an argument, not a way of living.


Yes...and...?

(I wonder what I was missing in my life that prompted me to return to the Forum just to resume an old argument about atheism?)


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I have another thought on this. Beethoven was a master of hyperbole both in music, and in word. In his stating Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy, was he a master in the latter 2? Plato warned against some artists in their promotion of wallowing in emotions. The sense of identification with certain art can be harmful, if you don't take it with a grain of salt. Plato believes artists are only provide imitations of real life.

Beethoven's statement still reflects a certain philosophy. He can't step outside of Philosophy. Not to be taken seriously.


----------



## pcnog11 (Nov 14, 2016)

pcnog11 said:


> It is very difficult to prove if Beethoven is right. However, let image a moment what the world would be if there is no music but we all live based on wisdom and philosophy.


We should ask Aristotle and Plato if they like Beethoven!


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

pcnog11 said:


> We should ask Aristotle and Plato if they like Beethoven!


LOL! Too bad we can't go back in time and play Beethoven's music for them. Luckily, though, we do have some information on how 19th-century philosophers felt about Beethoven's music. I know (based on my readings, not on seances!) that Schopenhauer and Nietzsche loved Beethoven's symphonies. However, not all philosophers were enamored of Beethoven - Hegel seemed to prefer Rossini instead.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Beethoven ushered-in the age of the individual, when all men were beginning to be seen as equal. No wonder he has so many "rugged individualist" fans who "don't need anything greater" than themselves. A higher power like a metaphysical "God" might steal the spotlight away from their self-absorbed, self-sufficient egos.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

It would never occur to me to ask whether Beethoven's statement is true or not. Some musicians relate to reality, external and especially internal, primarily in musical terms. For such people, musical epiphanies can be higher revelations than wisdom and philosophy. Asking right or wrong is to miss the point.



millionrainbows said:


> Beethoven ushered-in the age of the individual, when all men were beginning to be seen as equal. No wonder he has so many "rugged individualist" fans who "don't need anything greater" than themselves. A higher power like a metaphysical "God" might steal the spotlight away from their self-absorbed, self-sufficient egos.


Better to be self-sufficient than to fret and dither over what other people believe and don't believe. Do people confident in their perceptions of reality and their place in it make you uncomfortable?


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

millionrainbows said:


> Beethoven ushered-in the age of the individual, when all men were beginning to be seen as equal. No wonder he has so many "rugged individualist" fans who "don't need anything greater" than themselves. A higher power like a metaphysical "God" might steal the spotlight away from their self-absorbed, self-sufficient egos.


Actually, Beethoven was a very religious man - his letters are filled with references to God and faith, and he wrote a number of sacred works (Mass in C, Missa Solemnis, the Heiliger Dankesang in String Quartet No. 15, etc). So I don't think we should blame him for the rise of atheism!


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> Beethoven ushered-in the age of the individual, when all men were beginning to be seen as equal. No wonder he has so many "rugged individualist" fans who "don't need anything greater" than themselves. A higher power like a metaphysical "God" might steal the spotlight away from their self-absorbed, self-sufficient egos.


Interesting possible link between notions of equality and self-absorption (atheism?) both triggering and triggered by the music of Beethoven. Welcome fodder for an in-depth essay and discussion in a Religion Group. Looking forward to millionrainbow's forthcoming exegesis there.


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

millionrainbows said:


> Beethoven ushered-in the age of the individual, when all men were beginning to be seen as equal. No wonder he has so many "rugged individualist" fans who "don't need anything greater" than themselves. A higher power like a metaphysical "God" might steal the spotlight away from their self-absorbed, self-sufficient egos.


All men seen to be equal? Really I think that will never happen, any way the www would be more likely to be the originator of 'individuality' than LvB.
I would class myself as a Beethoven Fan but readily accept that there are millions of people better than my very humble self in reality I am just an 'Alf Average' so the absence of my belief in a religious God has nothing to do with moving the spotlight of me.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Strange Magic said:


> Interesting possible link between notions of equality and self-absorption (atheism?) both triggering and triggered by the music of Beethoven. Welcome fodder for an in-depth essay and discussion in a Religion Group. Looking forward to millionrainbow's forthcoming exegesis there.


Great sense of humor, Magic! There's nothing like a statement riddled with cliches, misconceptions, fallacies, disparagements and sneers to make one look forward to more from the same source, is there? In fact, one needn't look forward: there's plenty of it already on the boards - especially in threads where it's out of place and forbidden by the rules of the forum - if anyone cares to search.


----------



## Richard8655 (Feb 19, 2016)

millionrainbows said:


> Beethoven ushered-in the age of the individual, when all men were beginning to be seen as equal. No wonder he has so many "rugged individualist" fans who "don't need anything greater" than themselves. A higher power like a metaphysical "God" might steal the spotlight away from their self-absorbed, self-sufficient egos.


So, individualism leads to equality which leads to lack of belief in an omnipotent being? I don't think that's what Beethoven had in mind. I also don't see how this follows in terms of equality. Religion historically subjugated the individual to its latest dogma. "Higher powers" put Galileo under house arrest and did worse to heretics. Music can do fine without that historical complication.

Yes, probably best if all these were in the Religious Group section.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Bettina said:


> LOL! Too bad we can't go back in time and play Beethoven's music for them. Luckily, though, we do have some information on how 19th-century philosophers felt about Beethoven's music. I know (based on my readings, not on seances!) that Schopenhauer and Nietzsche loved Beethoven's symphonies. However, not all philosophers were enamored of Beethoven - Hegel seemed to prefer Rossini instead.


Too bad we can't go back and play Beethoven's Eroica Symphony for HIM with one of our world class orchestras. He deserved it.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Beethoven ushered-in the age of the individual, when all men were beginning to be seen as equal. No wonder he has so many "rugged individualist" fans who "don't need anything greater" than themselves. A higher power like a metaphysical "God" might steal the spotlight away from their self-absorbed, self-sufficient egos.


I think he ushered in not just an age of equality, but one in which the artist was seen as an actual higher form of life. 



Bettina said:


> Actually, Beethoven was a very religious man - his letters are filled with references to God and faith, and he wrote a number of sacred works (Mass in C, Missa Solemnis, the Heiliger Dankesang in String Quartet No. 15, etc). So I don't think we should blame him for the rise of atheism!


As far as I know he wasn't conventionally religious though - he didn't go to church (though he did receive Catholic Last Rites, I think?). I think he probably espoused a sort of unitarianism, in an age when it was best not to talk about your religious views if they did not conform to the norm.


----------



## pcnog11 (Nov 14, 2016)

Bettina said:


> LOL! Too bad we can't go back in time and play Beethoven's music for them. Luckily, though, we do have some information on how 19th-century philosophers felt about Beethoven's music. I know (based on my readings, not on seances!) that Schopenhauer and Nietzsche loved Beethoven's symphonies. However, not all philosophers were enamored of Beethoven - Hegel seemed to prefer Rossini instead.


They do not know what they are missing! Too bad....I consider many of us much more fortunate.


----------

