Music: The Most Intellectually Demanding Artform?

[Lyle]

i like w.a.s.p. because they rock really hard like

.

 

[sumairetsu]

Almost all the great philosophers were raging anti-semites, kike. Intelligence and anti-semitism are closely correlated.

I wonder how this brain trust will feel knowing that many of the great composers have Semitic roots that they tried to hide or keep hidden?

 

[RomanBirddog]

Almost all the great philosophers were raging anti-semites, kike. Intelligence and anti-semitism are closely correlated.

Actually, this is patently false. I'm guessing that you have nothing but a passing acquaintance with pop philosophy, probably the result of doing a few wikipedia searches.

Here's a bit of recalcitrant data for your little correlation. Let's look at some of these "great philosophers."

Anti-Semitic: Heidegger (who hardly counts as one of the "great philosophers").

Not Anti-Semitic: Thales, Archimedes, Pythagoras, Plato, Anaxamander, Anaxagoras, Parmenides, Zeno, Descartes, Spinoza, Locke, Berkeley, Kant, Leibniz, Malebranche, James, Frege, Russell, Whitehead, Carnap, Ayer, Wittgenstein, Plantinga, Lewis.

By the way, hi. Sometimes it takes blatant displays of idiocy in order to motivate someone to actually register at one of these things.

 

[Susperia]

Hi, thanks for registering and explaining that so well, though unfortunately I doubt he'll understand.

 

[Idunnonuten]

That's not entirely true, but I understand where you're coming from.

What i mean is that the image is the only art form you have to analyze. But when I think about it so many things have to be considered in analyzing most paintings and literature that aren't always present in music. Prime example being historical significance and biological background. With music you are given the overall mood through the music and then helped out in discovering the significance through the lyrics. With paintings especially you have to do everything on your own. Choose the mood, choose what the artist was referring to and whether it was on a personal level or on a political level, etc. ...

Now that i have contradicted my original statement let me try and recredit myself a little...
Most bands that really intrigue me musically are those that take an akward approach lyrically. Bands that do layer their music by not doing exactly what's expected. The first band tha tcomes to my mind is Insomnium. THey sound like a folkish influenced old-shool death metal band, but theri lyrics are very melancholy and are often about loss or laments.
That's the kind of "layered" music i was referring to. sorry for not specifying that.

 

[Neurotic]

What i mean is that the image is the only art form you have to analyze. But when I think about it so many things have to be considered in analyzing most paintings and literature that aren't always present in music. Prime example being historical significance and biological background. With music you are given the overall mood through the music and then helped out in discovering the significance through the lyrics. With paintings especially you have to do everything on your own. Choose the mood, choose what the artist was referring to and whether it was on a personal level or on a political level, etc. ...

Now that i have contradicted my original statement let me try and recredit myself a little...
Most bands that really intrigue me musically are those that take an akward approach lyrically. Bands that do layer their music by not doing exactly what's expected. The first band tha tcomes to my mind is Insomnium. THey sound like a folkish influenced old-shool death metal band, but theri lyrics are very melancholy and are often about loss or laments.
That's the kind of "layered" music i was referring to. sorry for not specifying that.

not all music has lyrics....take classical composers, most of their works are instrumental... but i agree has the power to make you feel a certain way.
for example movies, without music movies, a drama for instance. wouldn't have the same impact if it didnt had sad music, same for horror, etc...

 

[Carcassian]

i don't think that music has to be intellectually demanding at all. Most people use it as a sort of soundtrack to other activities, and therefore get their enjoyment from it in a kind of sub-concious, unknowing way. Therefore, when not listened to in an an active, analytical way, music doesn't so much act as language, but in a more primal, less sophisticated though no less powerful way.

Those of us that do analyze the music we listen to are in the vast minority, figuratively speaking. Music does indeed feed my imagination and emotional landscape, but that is generally speaking in a non-specific, (for want of a better phrase) subconcious fashion.

I'm not sure any of that made sense, but I suppose it can be paraphrased as:

"If it sounds good, I like it."

 

[Demiurge]

Anti-Semitic: Heidegger (who hardly counts as one of the "great philosophers").

Not Anti-Semitic: Thales, Archimedes, Pythagoras, Plato, Anaxamander, Anaxagoras, Parmenides, Zeno

You do see how citing these philosophers is ridiculous, right?

Kant

Known anti-semite and racist.

Frege

Never investigated it, but I've heard that he espoused antisemitic beliefs. Frankly, it's too trivial for me to research, but perhaps you should consider it.

Why is Schopenhauer not mentioned in your list?

 

[RomanBirddog]

You do see how citing these philosophers is ridiculous, right?

Of course I do. But the fellow was talking about the "great philosophers," so I mentioned a good few of them. I'd say that his initial attribution of anti-semitism to the "great philosophers" is where the ridiculousness lies, as my citing of these philosophers points out.

Known anti-semite and racist.

And strangely, anti-semitism and racism are completely at odds with his entire philosophical schema. This raises the question - when we discuss the "great philosophers," do we discuss them qua human beings or qua philosophers? Kant qua person might have had some questionable views on race, but Kant qua philosopher most definitely did not.

Never investigated it, but I've heard that he espoused antisemitic beliefs. Frankly, it's too trivial for me to research, but perhaps you should consider it.

My mistake. You're correct on this one. Eh, Frege was more a mathematician anyway. (That is a joke, by the way).

Why is Schopenhauer not mentioned in your list?

Quite simply, because I forgot him. I tend to forget Schopenhauer since I don't think he really made any significant contributions to the philosophical landscape. The fact of the matter, though, is that there is no correlation between intelligence and anti-semitism, and to cite the "great philosophers" as corroboration of such a claim is to not only demonstrate a lack of knowledge about the history of philosophy, but also to show a total misunderstanding of how to back up claims of generalization.

The argument as such is this:
Most of the great philosophers were anti-semitic.
Therefore, we should be anti-semitic.

First of all, the premise is false. Second of all, that argument is not formally valid. Third, it commits the naturalistic fallacy.

It's very easy to cite intellectual history to back up assinine claims, but in the end, those citations are typically hollow and the claims still assinine.

 

[Carcassian]

Of course I do. But the fellow was talking about the "great philosophers," so I mentioned a good few of them. I'd say that his initial attribution of anti-semitism to the "great philosophers" is where the ridiculousness lies, as my citing of these philosophers points out.



And strangely, anti-semitism and racism are completely at odds with his entire philosophical schema. This raises the question - when we discuss the "great philosophers," do we discuss them qua human beings or qua philosophers? Kant qua person might have had some questionable views on race, but Kant qua philosopher most definitely did not.



My mistake. You're correct on this one.



Quite simply, because I forgot him. The fact of the matter, though, is that there is no correlation between intelligence and anti-semitism, and to cite the "great philosophers" as corroboration of such a claim is to not only demonstrate a lack of knowledge about the history of philosophy, but also to show a total misunderstanding of how to back up claims of generalization.

The argument as such is this:
Most of the great philosophers were anti-semitic.
Therefore, we should be anti-semitic.

First of all, the premise is false. Second of all, that argument is not valid. Third, it commits the naturalistic fallacy.

It's very easy to cite intellectual history to back up assinine claims, but in the end, those citations are typically hollow and the claims still assinine.

In the parlance of our times, this reply "pwned ass".

Sorry

 

[Cythraul]

It's obvious even from a cursory study of philosophy. The ideas of the great philosophers are opposed to the ideas of the Jew, in this, philosophy itself is fundamentally anti-semitic. Now get out of my thread, Jewboy.

Examples please.

 

[RomanBirddog]

Examples please.

Yeah, I'd like to see examples too. Especially since each of the "great philosophers" had his own set of ideas based on disagreements with the others, so lumping them together into one group like this fellow did would give you one big contradictory mess.

Also, since it is a mistake to conflate "the ideas of the great philosophers" with "philosophy itself." Philosophy "itself" is rational inquiry and critical analysis - nothing more, nothing less - and takes no stance on issues, period. Philosophers take stances, philosophy does not. That's like saying that since some scientists are X, the scientific method itself is X.

So yeah, let's see these examples...

 

[Idunnonuten]

not all music has lyrics....take classical composers, most of their works are instrumental... but i agree has the power to make you feel a certain way.
for example movies, without music movies, a drama for instance. wouldn't have the same impact if it didnt had sad music, same for horror, etc...

I concur. I was trying to focus on metal though, but i realize that's not what the topic asks for, but...
I think good films can be very underrated. Director's like Kubrik, Darren Arrenofsky, and David Fincher utilize literally every art form. Maybe good
Films deserve this title.

 

[The_Harmathroditic_Ferret]

Almost all the great philosophers were raging anti-semites, kike. Intelligence and anti-semitism are closely correlated.

Baruch Spinoza, father of determinism, pure Jew.

Bertrand Russell, father of logical postivism. JJew lover who worked on Einsteins relativity and had one of the greatest philosophical prospects of the 20'th century who happened to be a jew.

Ludwig Wittgenstein: The prospect.

Husserl: Father of Phenomonlolgy, half jew. Heidegger, his nazi student who declared his humility for the man.

And fuck lets throw Marxism in there for fun.

You're an idiot.

 

[Crimson Velvet]

*you're

 

[The_Harmathroditic_Ferret]

*you're

 

[Devildog11887]

art is in the eye of the beholder

most art can be interpereted in many different ways
one can brainstorm for days and use every bit of intelligence they can muster and then inject it into any art. That doesn't matter. If the audience understands it, then you have suceeded. If the audience doesn't understand it, then you have failed. (that is, of course, if you wanted the audience to be confused.) It is like feeling behind songs. I believe that the bend that Jimi Hendrix pulls in Message to Love in Woodstock has more feeling than anything I have ever experienced in any art, but somebody else could think that it sounded aweful.

 

[MURAI]

art is in the eye of the beholder

most art can be interpereted in many different ways
one can brainstorm for days and use every bit of intelligence they can muster and then inject it into any art. That doesn't matter. If the audience understands it, then you have suceeded. If the audience doesn't understand it, then you have failed. (that is, of course, if you wanted the audience to be confused.) It is like feeling behind songs. I believe that the bend that Jimi Hendrix pulls in Message to Love in Woodstock has more feeling than anything I have ever experienced in any art, but somebody else could think that it sounded aweful.

No. That whole "it's just how you interpret it" is the typical attitude toward art these days just like people's view on life. According to your theory, the more popular and dumbed-down it is then the better. The artist has some kind of purpose behind a true piece of work and it isn't designed to please the audience but to please the artist himself.

By the way, was Nietzsche anti-semitic or was that just his sister?

 

[RomanBirddog]

By the way, was Nietzsche anti-semitic or was that just his sister?

It's up for (some) debate, but most of the evidence points to Nietzsche being strongly opposed to anti-Semitic movements. It's a shame that people like to (mis)quote him to back up their ridiculous ideologies, causing his work to be associated with all sorts of lamery. Nietzsche would have hated those people.

 

[MURAI]

It's up for (some) debate, but most of the evidence points to Nietzsche being strongly opposed to anti-Semitic movements. It's a shame that people like to (mis)quote him to back up their ridiculous ideologies, causing his work to be associated with all sorts of lamery. Nietzsche would have hated those people.

Yes, the Nazis used his work because his idealogies fit their laws of natural selection soundly on a literal level.