To me, this is an interesting take on the original question. So essentially the question is: Where does music (from both the listener and creator perspective) stand in relation to truth? Is it a reflection of it like Beethoven and Plato believed, or an escape FROM it like Neitzsche believed. Neitzsche questioned if humankind VALUES music BECAUSE of music is innately bound to truth, or if people VALUE music more because it is a beautiful lie that out souls embrace in order to escape (or ‘transcend’) the what actually is.
Both Neitzche and Beethoven assumed a different definition of truth than you do (keep in mind Beethoven lived in Germany in the 1700’s and absolute truth was the popular trend at the time). But IF you embrace a relativist view of truth such as yours, it will frame the original question in this thread very differently!! It’s an exciting perspective, and I’m really glad you brought it to discussion.
I would THINK that to a relativist (and by that I mean someone who opts for a non absolutist view of truth), the question of music opposing or embracing truth has no definitive answer. If your stated formula for truth is sort of…
Truth ≈ ‘summation’ of our experiences + our creative process…
Then it dismisses the question, but does so in a way that enables someone to simply enjoy art by abandoning the need to define it. The question is still valid (and interesting), but the answer is not contingent on any definitive description of ‘truth’.
Emma, does that sound fairly accurate to how feel about this? Or did I maybe misinterpret something?
Is that kind of like “Weird Science” (the movie)? I assume you meant God Science, but I’m not sure. Yeah the whole concept of God Is Dead can have multiple meanings.
I think if you speak in terms of truth, you have to speak in terms of time. In other words, the experience of a transitory truth, like in a musical experience, can be quite profound yet quite transitory (brief, changing). You might feel changed in that moment, yet the experience could evolve over time. I don’t like the term absolute that much, but perhaps sustained truth could be more accurate. As relates to a human lifetime (~80+ years), a sustained truth might seem more reliable than a transitory truth. Though I think a transitory truth can prompt you towards a sustained truth, if the evidence seems to support the new perception.
An interesting example, IMO, is the Rush song “Freewill”, specifically the line:
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice
This was quite profound the first time I heard it, but also every time since. It kind of seems like an eternal truth. I’m not saying it is, just that it seems to always be true in a sense when you accept that if you choose to do nothing, to accept whatever comes, the choice is kind of made for you despite your own intransigence. Passive acquiescence, if you will.
.
I was basically saying that if you see truth like this:
‘truth is to me what it is to me, and truth is to you what it is to you’ (relativism)…
…then the question ‘does art stand in opposition to (or in agreement with) the value of truthfulness?’ could only be answered in terms of what you music means to you
Yep… I just always struggle with the finite capturing of ideas with discrete words… which I guess is relativism!!
I can never isolate words to minimal definitions, I see colours for them and shapes… am a poet by nature I guess. It makes things ‘denser’ and ‘richer’ but infinitely more complex.
What a topic on a day like today! This is the second day of the Impeachment trial, the final day of the case being made by the House managers.
It is the truth they are Democrats. But there were 11 Republicans that voted with them.
But what they are presenting is a truth that transcends their party. I am weighing all the evidence presented, which I had already mostly known, and I am persuaded that it is true and that Trump is guilty of inciting an insurrection.
I am also persuaded that the Republican Senators who vote not to convict him are not doing it because of the truth.
There are many instances where the truth is impossible to define.
Is there a God? How was the universe created? What is matter? What is consciousness?
But there are many where it is not. Sadly humans are inherently lazy and not bound to be truthful, and worse still many are quite willing to deceive for their own self interests. Humans have to be willing and able to pursue the truth.
Art and music are neutral creative expressions of humans which entertain, inform, persuade, evoke emotion, and tell truths and lies equally. When it is good, it does not mean it is truth or lie, only that it is compelling. It also means it enhances the power to lie, and in a world of real people who aren’t working very hard to know the difference, it probably does create more confusion and misinformation than truth and consequent valuable knowledge. We certainly see that in religion, politics and advertising.
So I agree with Neitzsche in its net effect in reality up to now. And it would require some benevolent AI to fact check equally effectively as art/music to negate its oppositional nature.
This is well done artistically, apparently a parody of another song. It is very thinly veiled anti-mask pro-Trump propaganda though.
It supports the idea that you have a right not to wear a mask. But these same people wear seatbelts. They put their children in child seats. They probably don’t recommend pregnant mothers smoke or drink. There is a long list of things people do for good reasons, some enforced by laws, some not. This couple has singled out mask wearing as if it is a special issue that proves they have a freedom.
Unfortunately, they do not prove their free thinking, they prove the exact opposite, that their thinking is selfish and flawed.
People wear masks because it saves lives. That is undeniable. But you can use art and music to persuade people to deny that truth, and while you’re at it a litany of other lies.
The irony is the most gullible are the people who take this seriously, and looking at the comments on YouTube, there are a lot of them.
I wonder how many of them are cigarette smoking, beer drinking pregnant women.
And for me, once I have seen the bias in their alternative news/views here, it is impossible to not question anything else they might have to say about anything, no matter how compelling the art.
It isn’t a case of suspending one’s bias bubble so much as reinforcing it in this example of telling lies.
Honestly, I watched the whole thing wondering if it were a parody of a parody, as if they intended people to be so offended they would realize the opposite of what they were saying was true, but I do not think they are that smart. I truly think they were serious.
So do you think humans find it COMPELLING because it’s truthful, or because art by definition leads us AWAY from truth?
Lets presuppose for a moment that this is factually correct. That people aren’t working very hard to know the difference. Do you think that effects the way we perceive art in the current day and age?
Neitzsche and Richard Wagner both saw a need to push the question a couple steps further. Why do we WANT to transcend the ‘physical form’ and ‘communicate from the soul’?
They don’t have to necessarily be mutually exclusive. Yogis and Buddhists strive to become “awake”, not as an escape but to bridge the physical and metaphysical while incarnated. To achieve enlightenment while incarnated in a human body is considered a high achievement. Literally to transcend suffering whilst living amongst it.
Hmmm. I’ve never asked a Buddhist this question. I agree that the theme (at least in classical buddhism) is to transcend suffering. I wonder if most would say (from their world view) that it is good to embrace that which is not, in order to escape that which is.
So I think there are two things for me to address there. First, I don’t know that the word “escape” is helpful. I understand the sentiment, but a basic tenet of Buddhism is that suffering is caused by both “attachment” (what I want) and “aversion” (what I don’t want). So to say you want to escape something because it’s presumably ‘bad’ or unwanted seems like aversion. The goal as I understand it is to accept “what is” and to try to “see things as they really are”.
Which brings me to the second point. Another tenet is that basically our senses do not tell us the truth. They do not - for the most part - help us to see things as they really are. Obviously we rely on them and have to use them to the best of our ability, but if you assume there is a metaphysical truth or more truthful reality out there (Thích Nhất Hạnh calls it “the ground of being” or “ultimate reality”) you are going strive for going beyond the senses for truth or more accurate perception. No easy task, for sure. To elaborate on the senses, we have come to assume (or been told) that the senses tell us the truth, but I’m sure you’re familiar with optical illusions, psycho-acoustics, subliminal messages, and the general unreliability (or subjectivity) of eye-witness accounts. Also, the “telephone game”. You might argue it’s not so much the senses - but our mental programming interpreting them - that can deceive us. And so that’s basically where you start with a deep meditation practice. It’s actually a lot of incredibly hard work to examine your programming and perceptions and try to sort things out and go beyond that.
Another note, per my first point about accepting “what is”, which may seem like a passive approach and go-with-the-flow … there’s actually a moral and ethical imperative to help alleviate suffering whenever possible, even in the political sphere. Buddhist monks do actually get involved in protests and political movements at times.
So as I consider how or why some things I post might be (or seem) controversial, it does bring up some questions. If I can help people question their reality and liberate them from unhelpful programming, am I alleviating suffering? Ironically, the openness to reevaluation of programming can create suffering at first, as the attachment to old beliefs screams to live on. The relief comes after the attachment has been discarded or dealt with. Also, can I really help? Things have become so polarized there seems like little flexibility for debate. I think I actually rate high on the “openness” characteristic (The Big Five), but I’m also passionately opinionated. That whole topic (politics) is obviously very subjective.
Yeah… that’s pretty much what Nietzsche was trying to get at. You gotta pin that down a little better before progressing with that thought. This to me is something eastern philosophy is notoriously weak at.
Kant and Descartes both went to great lengths to show this. They also concluded you can arrive at absolute truth without the use of your senses. Check that article on the other thread about apriori and posteriori knowledge.
If your stated formula for truth is sort of…
I assume you meant God Science, but I’m not sure. Yeah the whole concept of God Is Dead can have multiple meanings.
