# Philosophy of music



## helenora (Sep 13, 2015)

"The goal of art and music is not to be beautiful. Its goal is ultimate truth." one of my favorites quotes from this interview.

I wanted to start this thread just because Celibidache expressed clearly what he thinks music is for. May be one can disagree with something, may be it should have been posted in one of those threads where people discuss why a listener listens or about Bruckner as he speaks about him and his music in the video, but I this video contains a lot of substance, it deserves a new thread.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

I haven't heard the interview, but, quite honestly, I don't see how what Celi says can be correct, at least for music which isn't based on a text. "Truth" is just not a concept which seems applicable to something like Mozart's Prague Symphony or Bartok's 4th quartet. "Truth" is a property of propositions: a proposition is true when it says of what is that it is, or when it says of what is not that it is not. And music is not made up of propositions.

Could we imagine music which lies? 

The above sounds more negative than I intend. I hope that something of Celi's idea can be made out, but I think that there's a huge amount of work which will have to be done.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

Nonsense. Truth is ugly and sucks. We have art so that it would not destroy us.


----------



## Guest (Dec 3, 2015)

I agree with the quote. True art seeks to express truth, which may be challenging/questioning/controversial.


----------



## Guest (Dec 3, 2015)

Truth in life is not logical, it is ineffable. But it can be recognised, when art expresses it.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Depends who wrote the music. Many if not most simply wanted to write great music to entertain and to glorify religion. This was especially true further back in time for example with Bach and the Baroque.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

ArtMusic said:


> Depends who wrote the music. Many if not most simply wanted to write great music to entertain and to glorify religion. This was especially true further back in time for example with Bach and the Baroque.


Bach wrote music to glorify God, not religion.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

dogen said:


> Truth in life is not logical, it is ineffable. But it can be recognised, when art expresses it.


I think this is nonsense.



dogen said:


> I agree with the quote. True art seeks to express truth, which may be challenging/questioning/controversial.


Music without text can't express anything which can be true or false, it doesn't have propositional content.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Mandryka said:


> Music without text can't express anything which can be true or false, it doesn't have propositional content.


Who says truth needs to have propositional content?


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

Science is the only method to approach "ultimate truth". 
Music is the best possible illusion of catching a glimpse of ultimate truth, which causes the sensation of freedom and liberation of the spirit.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

Here is an essay version that covers many of the same topics. The paragraph with the pull quote from the OP:



> *Every art has one single goal: freedom. Liberation.* Sound has a non-interpretable relation to our emotional world. All that is reducible to one unit is offered. There is no interpretation. Through this reduction you are liberated from all vectors that have invoked an internal resonance in you and have brought something to life within you and you have experienced this. *It's not that it's beautiful. It is true.* Beauty is just the bait. Beauty is just a stage on the path to the truth, on the path to being able to perceive the sensation of the central cosmic vibration. What makes me capable of this is that *I have no intentions. I liberate myself from all that I know.* I am liberated. And I am liberated even from the desire to liberate myself. My approach to music is not personal at all. The goal of music and art is not to be beautiful. *The goal of music and art is the ultimate truth.* You have to liberate yourself from this contrast (from the conflicts present within all physical world) that shackles your hands and your mind, you must liberate yourself from this conflict and come in contact with the central cosmic vibration. No matter where your interest lies, the final goal is the ultimate truth, which liberates you.


The whole thing is quite interesting, and has little to do with the discussion thus far in this thread. For him music was a very spiritual endeavor.


----------



## hagridindminor (Nov 5, 2015)

Mandryka said:


> I haven't heard the interview, but, quite honestly, I don't see how what Celi says can be correct, at least for music which isn't based on a text. "Truth" is just not a concept which seems applicable to something like Mozart's Prague Symphony or Bartok's 4th quartet. "Truth" is a property of propositions: a proposition is true when it says of what is that it is, or when it says of what is not that it is not. And music is not made up of propositions.
> 
> Could we imagine music which lies?
> 
> The above sounds more negative than I intend. I hope that something of Celi's idea can be made out, but I think that there's a huge amount of work which will have to be done.


I think what he means is, and what many other people mean by music being the "ultimate truth" is that it guides the psyche to the highest aspect of being, or at least indirectly does so. There is a philosophical argument that because I have the ability to conceive of the most perfect thing it exists (in his case it was god). So if playing devil's advocate, if music somehow diverted the psyche to a lower state of being, maybe that music is a lie?


----------



## Steatopygous (Jul 5, 2015)

dogen said:


> Truth in life is not logical, it is ineffable. But it can be recognised, when art expresses it.


I think there is something in this. But clearly you are operating with a different understanding from Mandryka's, and you need to clarify. He has given his definition, which is roughly the correspondence theory of truth. This is usually regarded as an oversimplified account, but this is a classical music forum and too many caveats would just get in the way. 
For example, philosopher Iris Murdoch regarded truth as love, and gave a philosophical account of why this should be so. I think you are more on this spectrum.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

DeepR said:


> Science is the only method to approach "ultimate truth".


True, and to anyone hoping to approach it, I'm available for a fee.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

> Every art has one single goal: freedom. Liberation. Sound has a non-interpretable relation to our emotional world. All that is reducible to one unit is offered. There is no interpretation. Through this reduction you are liberated from all vectors that have invoked an internal resonance in you and have brought something to life within you and you have experienced this. It's not that it's beautiful. It is true. Beauty is just the bait. Beauty is just a stage on the path to the truth, on the path to being able to perceive the sensation of the central cosmic vibration. What makes me capable of this is that I have no intentions. I liberate myself from all that I know. I am liberated. And I am liberated even from the desire to liberate myself. My approach to music is not personal at all. The goal of music and art is not to be beautiful. The goal of music and art is the ultimate truth. You have to liberate yourself from this contrast (from the conflicts present within all physical world) that shackles your hands and your mind, you must liberate yourself from this conflict and come in contact with the central cosmic vibration. No matter where your interest lies, the final goal is the ultimate truth, which liberates you.


I really don't understand what most of these things mean. "Through this reduction you are liberated from all vectors that have invoked an internal resonance in you and have brought something to life within you and you have experienced this." I need more literal language. I don't know how that kind of language communicates anything.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Can I ask again a question I asked yesterday. Can someone give me an example of a piece of music (not based on a text) which lies?


----------



## Guest (Dec 4, 2015)

Steatopygous said:


> clearly you are operating with a different understanding


"Philosophy" as a term covers a wide area of subject areas and approaches. But there often seems to be a tendency to take it to only mean classical Western philosophy or modern analytic philosophy. This is all fine and good but they do not have a monopoly on the term "philosophy." Personally, classical Western philosophy and modern analytic philosophy are of little interest; I've read a couple of "primers" and that was more than enough to assuage my curiosity.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Maybe there is no truth. Music's just a bunch of sounds that happen.


----------



## Stavrogin (Apr 20, 2014)

Mandryka said:


> Can I ask again a question I asked yesterday. Can someone give me an example of a piece of music (not based on a text) which lies?


For being a fan of logic and science, this is not a very good question, if your aim is to demonstrate that music cannot express the truth.


----------



## Stavrogin (Apr 20, 2014)

By the way it seems clear to me that we are talking at two separate levels here.
Someone is talking about truth as "factual evidence or scientific demonstration of a theory".
Someone else is talking about truth as "subjective perception of enlightening concepts" (bear with me).

Can music express the latter? No.
Can music support/help/foster the second? Of course.


----------



## Andolink (Oct 29, 2012)

I completely agree with the points made by Mandryka. Music has absolutely nothing to do with truth and falsity. 

These are conceptual/propositional issues. 

Music and, indeed, art in general, deal with aesthetic issues which are emotional responses to the creative productions of artists.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

Andolink said:


> I completely agree with the points made by Mandryka. Music has absolutely nothing to do with truth and falsity.
> 
> These are conceptual/propositional issues.
> 
> Music and, indeed, art in general, deal with aesthetic issues which are emotional responses to the creative productions of artists.


So, art deals with aesthetic issues but not aesthetic truths? Can we not talk about aesthetic truths?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Xaltotun said:


> Can we not talk about aesthetic truths?


Not as far as I can see for music without text, no.

Guernica expresses powerfully the idea that war is horrific, but it does so because of conventions which make the component images scary etc. The conventions function like the Lutheran exegeses of hymn texts associated with, eg, a Bach choral prelude.

(When I was an undergraduate I used to think that Guernica was funny, like a funny cartoon strip!)


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Mandryka said:


> Can I ask again a question I asked yesterday. Can someone give me an example of a piece of music (not based on a text) which lies?


Not one I endorse myself, but several writers have suggested that the finale of Shostakovich's Fifth Symphony lies, masquerading as an expression of triumph and optimism as codified in the doctrine of socialist realism, whereas what it actually accomplishes is to parody the concept. Would that count?


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

Aside from his comments about the limitations of recorded media, which are sound and reasonable explanations for his aversion to making studio recordings, I don't really understand much of Celibidache's apologia. It comes across like a lot of spiritual mumbo jumbo, deliberately vague rhetoric alluding to some esoteric knowledge that he cannot simply address, but must dance around, presumably because it has little substance when stated plainly. In other words, I find he speaks nicely and convincingly but ultimately communicates little of value.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

EdwardBast said:


> Not one I endorse myself, but several writers have suggested that the finale of Shostakovich's Fifth Symphony lies, masquerading as an expression of triumph and optimism as codified in the doctrine of socialist realism, whereas what it actually accomplishes is to parody the concept. Would that count?


Yes that occurred to me, Edward, and I think there's a similar thing with the last movement of Prokofiev 7.

With the Shostakovich, it would be interesting to know why it's a parody (in the sense of something which ridicules by exaggeration.) Whether it's due to internal features alone or to associated texts.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Mandryka said:


> Yes that occurred to me, Edward, and I think there's a similar thing with the last movement of Prokofiev 7.
> 
> With the Shostakovich, it would be interesting to know why it's a parody (in the sense of something which ridicules by exaggeration.) Whether it's due to internal features alone or to associated texts.


Some have made the argument based on internal features alone, on the tone being over the top - as you say, by exaggeration. Of course, that is a difficult call, since Shostakovich simply trying too hard to please the powers that be might have produced the same effect. There is another argument relying on the fact that some material in the finale relates to a texted work that was unpublished at the time of the premier. So both and either, depending on who is doing the interpreting.


----------



## tortkis (Jul 13, 2013)

I think Celibidache was expressing his own religion, not philosophy. Each religion pursues "the ultimate truth," but it actually means what it thinks the most valuable thing to life. Whether the word "truth" is used in logical or religious context, I like music free from "truth."


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

DeepR said:


> Science is the only method to approach "ultimate truth".


Not at all. Science is so powerful precisely because it refrains from making any claims about "ultimate truth."



Mandryka said:


> Not as far as I can see for music without text, no.
> 
> Guernica expresses powerfully the idea that war is horrific, but it does so because of conventions which make the component images scary etc. The conventions function like the Lutheran exegeses of hymn texts associated with, eg, a Bach choral prelude.
> 
> (When I was an undergraduate I used to think that Guernica was funny, like a funny cartoon strip!)


You can't separate textual and musical meaning like this. All of the symbols we use to understand the world and ourselves are seamlessly connected in myriad ways, some more direct than others.

Many truths can't be put into words fully or at all - from complex emotional truths to the ineffable mystical truths proffered by all of the world's religions. Music can sometimes get closer than words.

A "false" piece of music might be the sort of New Agey kitsch used to accompany TV commercials featuring images of happy families enjoying consumer products together, but that's only the most obvious example.

This is a huge subject so I'll just leave it at these vague hints for now.


----------



## hagridindminor (Nov 5, 2015)

Mandryka said:


> Can I ask again a question I asked yesterday. Can someone give me an example of a piece of music (not based on a text) which lies?


First we need to define what it means for something to be true and what it means for something to be false.

We first need to get rid of the assumption that truth can only be something which is empirical. For example, there is a wall in front of me, Bob went to school today, my phone weighs three pounds. While these things certainly have a much higher chance of being true, it does not mean that non empirical aspects are untrue. For example after you die your soul goes to disney land.

Next the question is can some statements be more true than others. If I were to ask you what 8 x 5 is, and you responded saying "Alabama is a state", that statement as a whole is not untrue. However, if it was a test, it would be marked wrong. Why? because the answer 40 seems to be more true than the answer "Alabama is a state" (in response to the given question)

Similarly, if I was angry at someone, but when i'm angry instead of yelling I start stuttering, wouldn't we say that incoherent ramble would be not as true as if i were to jot my thoughts on a piece of paper to describe my issues with that person. Or if I were to ask a girl out and I also began stuttering, wouldn't we say that was a misrepresentation of words, and thus not as true as something else?

So I wouldn't say music can lie, but rather music can be more true than other music, the same way music may be more true than words, and the way some words can be more true than other words


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

hagridindminor said:


> First we need to define what it means for something to be true and what it means for something to be false.
> 
> We first need to get rid of the assumption that truth can only be something which is empirical. For example, there is a wall in front of me, Bob went to school today, my phone weighs three pounds. While these things certainly have a much higher chance of being true, it does not mean that non empirical aspects are untrue. For example after you die your soul goes to disney land.
> 
> ...


Okay, now show how it works in music.


----------



## mountmccabe (May 1, 2013)

Mandryka said:


> Can I ask again a question I asked yesterday. Can someone give me an example of a piece of music (not based on a text) which lies?





Andolink said:


> I completely agree with the points made by Mandryka. Music has absolutely nothing to do with truth and falsity.


The type of truth that Celibidache is talking about is not really the opposite of lying. He's talking about ultimate truth, as in perception, reality. He believed that music - some music, at least - could help reveal ultimate truth about reality, about the nature of the universe. Transcendence.

In the interview he specifically mentions Ravel and Debussy as composers that paid attention to overtones and their interactions. And that his famously slow tempos were designed such as to help the (live, in the hall) listener perceive all that was going on (though of course there were also times he chose quicker than normal tempos). To be able to hear and understand the flow of the piece, and how the entire score was a unified whole.

The opposite of this ultimate truth is not lies or even falsity, exactly, but distraction.

And this perhaps has as much to do with how the music is performed as what the music is. Shostakovich's 5th symphony can be performed in a way that the oneness of the piece can be perceived, little else matters. Similarly, the meaning of the text of a piece is not necessarily important.


----------



## hagridindminor (Nov 5, 2015)

Crudblud said:


> Okay, now show how it works in music.


okay without disrespecting any genre of music or particular artist, if you were to call me a **** I get angry so I pull out my violin and play the c major scale. That would not be an accurate representation of the soul, but if you don't believe in a soul, the human psyche or what not


----------



## hagridindminor (Nov 5, 2015)

mountmccabe said:


> The type of truth that Celibidache is talking about is not really the opposite of lying. He's talking about ultimate truth, as in perception, reality. He believed that music - some music, at least - could help reveal ultimate truth about reality, about the nature of the universe. Transcendence.
> 
> In the interview he specifically mentions Ravel and Debussy as composers that paid attention to overtones and their interactions. And that his famously slow tempos were designed such as to help the (live, in the hall) listener perceive all that was going on (though of course there were also times he chose quicker than normal tempos). To be able to hear and understand the flow of the piece, and how the entire score was a unified whole.
> 
> ...


I agree with this


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

hagridindminor said:


> okay without disrespecting any genre of music or particular artist, if you were to call me a **** I get angry so I pull out my violin and play the c major scale. That would not be an accurate representation of the soul, but if you don't believe in a soul, the human psyche or what not


I'm afraid I don't understand what you're getting at.


----------



## Guest (Dec 5, 2015)

DeepR said:


> Science is the only method to approach "ultimate truth".


Only for your version of "truth".



Steatopygous said:


> Iris Murdoch regarded truth as love, and gave a philosophical account of why this should be so. I think you are more on this spectrum.


A better idea of what "truth" can mean when we move away from the linear 'truth v falsehood'.



Stavrogin said:


> By the way it seems clear to me that we are talking at two separate levels here.
> Someone is talking about truth as "factual evidence or scientific demonstration of a theory".
> Someone else is talking about truth as "subjective perception of enlightening concepts" (bear with me).


Exactly so.



mountmccabe said:


> The type of truth that Celibidache is talking about is not really the opposite of lying. He's talking about ultimate truth, as in perception, reality. He believed that music - some music, at least - could help reveal ultimate truth about reality, about the nature of the universe. Transcendence.


So, "truth" as an attribute of things, not as a thing in itself?

Looking the word up in Oxforddictionary, aside from the definitions, I find this...

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/truth

OriginOld English _trīewth_, _trēowth_ 'faithfulness, constancy' (see true, -th[SUP]2[/SUP]).
MORE

This comes from the same root as true and also originally suggested qualities of faithfulness and loyalty. 


I must say I like the idea of 'truth' as 'constancy'. It suggests to that 'truth' can be whatever the individual comes to rely on as a spiritual companion.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> It suggests to that 'truth' can be whatever the individual comes to rely on as a spiritual companion.


It seems, then, that "true" will have to join "great" as one of those words that, in the context of art, is roughly synonymous with "what I like a lot".


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

"Ultimate truth" is neither ultimate nor true. Like peanut is neither a pea nor a nut. 

I think it's a completely useless concept.

You get a similar thing going on with "real" in continental philosophy, "more real " seems to mean "makes a greater subjective impact"


----------



## Guest (Dec 5, 2015)

Nereffid said:


> It seems, then, that "true" will have to join "great" as one of those words that, in the context of art, is roughly synonymous with "what I like a lot".


No, certainly not! It's much more than mere subjective liking, but I concede it will encompass a range of possible "truths".

For Celibidache, it's music. For some it will be another of the arts or their faith, but it doesn't have to be something that comes with an objectively, traditional label.

For example, I'm trying to recall a film or story where a gunslinger or soldier says something deeply (or archly) philosophical such as "My Colt 45 is the only truth worth knowing." Probably _Shane_.

It's the idea that a concept or a way of life makes complete sense to us, and it may be symbolised by something, making the ineffable, effable.

How about the meme that runs through The Hudsucker Proxy? "You know...for kids"


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> No, certainly not! It's much more than mere subjective liking, but I concede it will encompass a range of possible "truths".
> 
> For Celibidache, it's music. For some it will be another of the arts or their faith, but it doesn't have to be something that comes with an objectively, traditional label.
> 
> ...


Yes, I suppose when I was writing "great" above I didn't actually mean the sense of "here are the 10 greatest composers", but something more like the "This is the greatest thing _ever_!" feeling we sometimes get when listening to music (or watching a sunrise, or whatever). Which comes, I think, from roughly the same place in the soul (or whatever you want to call it) as statements like "My Colt 45 is the only truth worth knowing".
I was going for a cheap shot with "I like it a lot", but ultimately this more profound feeling is just as subjective and arbitrary.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

It's easy, my opinion is the truth. My justification is that Buddha statue I have in my house. If you disagree you are unmusical, deceived and untrue.


----------



## Guest (Dec 5, 2015)

MacLeod said:


> Only for your version of "truth".
> 
> A better idea of what "truth" can mean when we move away from the linear 'truth v falsehood'.
> 
> ...


Yes, I'm reminded of when one says "to remain true to oneself." Nothing to do with a linear true/false choice.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

The Colt 45 is interesting.

Truth is what theoretical reasoning aims for, it's what scientific discourse is seeking to establish. The gun is another way of putting a stop to argument - if you've got the gun noone's going to rationally challenge you, just like noone's going to rationally challenge you when you've established the truth. 

So truth plays a special role in the establishment of explanatory predictive theories of the universe. 

There may well be other ways interacting with the world, other than trying to explain what you observe and predict how it will behave. 

Maybe there's an aesthetic stance, as opposed to a scientific rational stance. And maybe some musics have a special role from this point of view, analogous to truth in science. 

I'm sceptical myself, I think all that's a load of rubbish. But I am open to being convinced of the error of my ways.


----------



## OperaChic (Aug 26, 2015)

Logical positivists tend to assimilate all forms of truth-seeking about the world to science, and in consequence of this they judge all truth-seeking activities by the criteria governing those of science, and judge the validity of all utterance by the rules appropriate to scientific utterance. Only what can be verified by observation or experience can be known about the world, and only what can produce valid grounds for stating could validly and justifiably be said.

Others believe that everything that is most important cannot be stated at all but only, at the very best, indicated by our use if language. It may possibly be shown, but cannot be said. The Tractatus by the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein is one world-view that makes this case. All that propositional language is good for is to articulate empirical and analytic truths, that is to say, matters of fact and logic. Outside those spheres it is more likely to mislead than to be useful. Therefore all the issues that matter to us most lie outside its scope. Questions about ethics and morals and values, about the meaning of life, about the nature of the self and of death, and about the existence of the world as a whole, are questions that that can be settled neither by observation nor by logic, and are therefore such as proportional language cannot handle, with the result that if we insist of trying to deal with them In proportional language we get into a mess.

Artistic experience, it seems to me, is in a very different category from most other experience, and penetrates life to the core. I believe that art stands close to other intellectual disciplines like science and philosophy as being among the most important and valuable of human concerns and endeavors, and for similar reasons: they are truth-seeking pursued at the deepest level that human beings are capable of penetrating to. Both are trying to see the ultimate nature of things, the ultimate mystery of existence; and if they fail it is only at the limits of human understanding that they fail. As Schopenhauer put it, the philosopher is doing _in abstracto_ what the artist is doing _in concreto_. The scientist and the philosopher has no recourse but to articulate their findings in concepts, and it may be from the ineluctable generality of concepts it follows that philosophy and science cannot bite as deep as art can, but at they same time there are things they can do that art cannot. When Iris Murdoch said "For better and worse art goes deeper than philosophy", she was right to imply that there are some respects in which philosophy surpasses art, and also right to imply that it comes short of it overall.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

So far, there's been plenty of talk about this "truth" notion, and I'm happy to accept that it's not the same as "truth" in the scientific sense.

Fair enough. But could someone please provide an actual example of a piece of music and shed some light on how exactly it offers us these deep insights into the mysteries of existence?

I mean, I get the notion that certain pieces of music make us feel particular feelings, and that we can discern generalised ideas such as triumph, grief, and so forth from our interpretation of what we're hearing, but is there something more specific than that, and if so what is it?


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

I have been partial to the esthetics of John Dewey: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_as_Experience


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mandryka said:


> Can I ask again a question I asked yesterday. Can someone give me an example of a piece of music (not based on a text) which lies?


Yes: the Star Wars theme, because it glorifies violence. Oh, I forgot: it was used in a context. Can someone give me an example of a piece of music (not based on a text) which has no context?

~Music = Pitch = Frequency = Sound
Music = Rhythm = Duration = Time

It's all very simple, really


----------



## Ilarion (May 22, 2015)

Bravo to the originator of this thread:tiphat::tiphat::tiphat:

Not having really studied The Philosophy of Music, I will refrain from making a comment in the specific discipline - However, I would like to share an observation: If music communicates that which it outside ourselves - or greater than ourselves e.g. works of JSBach - His music as Music of the Eternal Timeline - The Time before Time as we know began through to the Time when Time as we know has ended...*That* music expresses a Love Most Supreme.


----------



## Guest (Dec 5, 2015)

OperaChic said:


> Logical positivists tend to [etc]


It's a tricky business, this philosophy thing, especially when one of the most fundamental human activities - using language, which is a crucial tool for the philosopher - has doubt cast on its ability to explain. There's no doubt that if we set language aside (not an easy thing to do in daily life) and try to encounter our world more directly, we might be more liable to experiences that some might choose to describe as 'spiritual', whether its listening to music, gazing at paintings, holding hands and enjoying physical closeness with a loved one, going for a walk somewhere spectacular, looking up at the sky and wondering about the stars...

Does this really mean that we are getting closer to a 'truth', or finding our way to some kind of 'beyond'?

I think not, though I am not certain.



Nereffid said:


> But could someone please provide an actual example of a piece of music and shed some light on how exactly it offers us these deep insights into the mysteries of existence?
> 
> I mean, I get the notion that certain pieces of music make us feel particular feelings, and that we can discern generalised ideas such as triumph, grief, and so forth from our interpretation of what we're hearing, but is there something more specific than that, and if so what is it?


No, I don't think so - triumph and grief, joy and anger can all be accessed through listening to music, and I recognise that for some, the intensity of experience prompts thoughts - even certainties - about the 'meaning of life'.

Me, I'm just a logical positivist...and a liberal too, so I'm probably well fallible!


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

Some ideas to throw out there:

A deed can be moral or immoral, according to a standard. Composing, performing, and listening to music is a deed. Therefore, music can be moral or immoral, depending on a standard. Or else, if music is not allowed to be controlled by such restrictions, does that mean then that there is such thing as a deed which _cannot _have a standard put on it? Or perhaps music is not a deed? What is it then? And that's a stance few would believe. All actions have quantitative and qualitative value when put up against a standard, and life is void of actual relativism. (Relativism is a theory, not a reality)

So going back to the OT. Is a deed a truth? No. A deed can _express _a truth, but it doesn't have to. Remember, standards. Therefore, not all music is actually truth, and not all music is untruth. Also, can something be true and untrue at the same time? A lot of relativists like to "round down" and say rather than believe everything to be true, don't believe anything to be THE truth. But you could "round up" just the same and it wouldn't matter because life doesn't matter...

I might as well composer music that expresses the Absolute Untruth, and a relativist wouldn't notice the difference between that and the Absolute Truth. But they might like it for its humble stance. :lol:

I like the idea of music having a "purpose" rather than just being there in "take-it-or-leave-it" fashion. Because I'm an objective individual who has accepted this about myself. If music does have a purpose, which would be to tell the truth rather than untruth, then it also means music has_ free will_ to do the opposite, which is a very powerful force. Music, and the people who write, perform and listen to it, _must have free will_, and then it can perform its purpose. If music by nature _only _expresses truth, it has no free will, and so the idea of having a "purpose" would be void. Purposes are given to things that have potential not to be used in its objectively deemed way.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> A deed can be moral or immoral, according to a standard. Composing, performing, and listening to music is a deed. Therefore, music can be moral or immoral, depending on a standard. Or else, if music is not allowed to be controlled by such restrictions, does that mean then that there is such thing as a deed which _cannot _have a standard put on it? Or perhaps music is not a deed? What is it then? And that's a stance few would believe. All actions have quantitative and qualitative value when put up against a standard, and life is void of actual relativism. (Relativism is a theory, not a reality)


Composing, performing, and listening to music may all be deeds, but it does not logically follow that music itself is a deed.


----------



## Guest (Dec 6, 2015)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Some ideas to throw out there:
> 
> A deed can be moral or immoral, according to a standard. Composing, performing, and listening to music is a deed. Therefore, music can be moral or immoral, depending on a standard. Or else, if music is not allowed to be controlled by such restrictions, does that mean then that there is such thing as a deed which _cannot _have a standard put on it? Or perhaps music is not a deed? What is it then? And that's a stance few would believe. All actions have quantitative and qualitative value when put up against a standard, and life is void of actual relativism. (Relativism is a theory, not a reality)
> 
> ...


Unless 'deed' has a special meaning here (and not just 'act'), I disagree. Making a cup of tea is morally neutral.

And I'm interested in what you mean by 'relativist'. You say that a relativist wouldn't notice the difference between an absolute truth and an absolute untruth. I think she would.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> Unless 'deed' has a special meaning here (and not just 'act'), I disagree. Making a cup of tea is morally neutral.


I must differ! What if your cup of tea refreshes Hitler and allows him to plan further outrages? Or energizes Herr Wagner and encourages him to sew more swastikas onto his underwear? Or serves as a pick-me-up for Mr. Cage....well, never mind!


----------



## Guest (Dec 6, 2015)

KenOC said:


> I must differ! What if your cup of tea refreshes Hitler and allows him to plan further outrages? Or energizes Herr Wagner and encourages him to sew more swastikas onto his underwear? Or serves as a pick-me-up for Mr. Cage....well, never mind!


Yes, yes, yes...of course if you string a few acts together, you can make a case for a moral dimension (did it have to be him, though??) So an act _can _be moral or immoral, but it isn't necessarily one or the other. I was just making tea for myself at the time.


----------

