Woman and Philosophy: Another Broken Toy

©2010-2012 ~ZeTrystan---(Picture)

I want to write a short blog about this picture. I stumbled upon it a few months ago while writing my review of Run Lola Run and found it to be a very powerful metaphor.

I knew I wanted to blog about it but did not know exactly what I wanted to say until we read the latest section of Beauvoir. This drawing in a way represents what she was saying especially if we take it as losing one’s virginity. The picture could be about violent rape but it could be losing of virginity and rape—and to Beauvoir they are symbolically the same thing.

 This picture takes the romantic ideal parodied with the same symbols in the well-known film Robin Hood: Men in Tights, that the right guy is the “right fit” or even “the perfect fit”. Literally, we are obviously talking about the penis but if we delve deeper, more meaning can be found—essentially going back to the story of Aristophanes where sex is our search to find our other half—our “soul-mate”. The bloody key in this picture is a match to the key hole in the doll where the genitals normally are however, from the mood of the picture we can see that this was not the romantic “deflowering” she had in mind but painful, confusing, unexpected, and that in the process, this “toy” lost something she cannot get back. Physically this is her virginity but metaphorically, it is also her innocence and things like that.

Also the fact that the artists calls her a toy—the concept men have that women are things for their pleasure and amusement that they can “play” with and that, as with most people and their toys, will outgrow, become bored with, and\or move on to a new toy. Essentially that society (as in media and gender stereotypes) perceive women as disposable things—not people, that are transient and can easily be replaced, as the other part of the title of the piece implies—another broken toy.

What do you think of the drawing? Do you agree that these concepts are still real and present in society?

One beautiful day you will find...

The cute little doll.
A little girl easy to play with.
Beautiful little eyes. Beautiful little lips.
Her little heart beats, again and again.

You only have to use your key.
Find the keyhole and turn, turn.
Turn to hear her little voice.
Turn to hear her crying.

And then, you're bored.
You don't want to play with the little doll.
So you put her in the garbage.
Goodbye little broken toy.

...

And one beautiful day you will find...

©2010-2012 ~ZeTrystan---(Poem)

Women and Philosophy: Miss Piggy

“Forgive me for being so forward, but I'm a liberated pig.”—Frank Oz as Miss Piggy on The Muppet Show Season 1

Starting today, I will be doing a blog entry on everything that pops into my mind relevant to the course each day unless I think of nothing. This will mean shorter blogs but more frequent entries. Today’s theme is Jim Henson, the Muppets, and Miss Piggy.

As most people know the Muppets are quite on the liberal side of the fence (though their intention and function is to be enjoyed by all) and this can be said about sexism and feminism.

Now several of the male characters for most the original show made sexist jokes to her but this was a parody on how stupid sexism is. The Muppets are all about parodies and satire. However, the thing that is interesting is the character of Miss Piggy. Several of the main Muppet characters have fully fleshed out personalities just like any good character in a story and like a story there is growth and character development. What is so wonderful about Piggy is that she is the bridge the bridge between stereotypes, eras, and extremes. She is overly feminine in most of her actions—she loves make-up, fashion, acting sophisticated, and being helplessly in love with the frog of her dreams. However, the other side of her is strong, willful, independent, and determined. She knows how to defend herself and she knows how to get what she wants—and rather than use her looks and her body to get what she wants which is the typical way females in television series manipulate male characters (with sex and sex appeal), she uses her strength and her attitude. This was one of the gender stereotypes we used to hear about: men are more assertive and are more likely to get a job and a higher paying salary because they are driven and want to haggle and negotiate.

This is a wonderful message to send to young girls who watched the show and later the movies: that it is ok to be “girly” and feminine but that there are more traits other than those. People are more complex then stereotypes we all know that. Like one of the message of Citizen Kane, people are defined by their contradiction. Simply put, Miss Piggy taught the young audience, both boys and girls that it is ok for a girl to be strong and smart as well as liking glitz and glamour.

Women and Philosophy: Aristophanes

I would first like to apologize for the lack of any blog activity the last week and even this one I’m getting in right before the deadline. I would like to take this time to apologize for this as well as an appearance of lack of enthusiasm in the classroom and my two absences. I would like to explain this behavior as I am not a slacker or a lazy student and I pride myself in my work and want to do my best for my professors to show them the learning that is taking place. That being said, I do not want to give the impression that I am anything less than a serious student. I am about to explain this recent behavior—not excuse but explain. I have been going thru a rough time recently with a depressive episode and have been doing my very best to cope and to push forward and power thru my homework and classes trying my hardest to focus on my studies. At times, it is difficult to even read as I struggle with every word and feel illiterate. On the days, I have missed classes I was in very bad places and had I gone to class I would have not gotten anything out of it and I probably would have concerned the students around me and may have left in the middle of class anyway. On these days, I also felt I could not go to class, not just mentally, but I felt I physically could not move. Like with any severe illness I have good days and bad days and I am working with an on campus therapist to ease the burden of these feelings. This is mainly to apologize to my fellow students because the class is a discussion-based one, that includes the blogging, and when one person neglects this, the whole class suffers. My professors will receive a separate email explaining the situation in more detail. Thank you all for your understanding and I apologize again.

Now on to the blog:

This week I would like to talk about my SLAP since I did not get a chance to on Wed, however, the conversation that we did have was interesting indeed. I turn to the first paragraph on pg. 23. I disagree with her statement that the Platonic myths “take sexual differentiation for granted without attempting to explain it”. I admit that they may take it for granted but the myth she refers to does explain it in a sense. In addition, one could argue that if people did not really care that there was sexual differentiation, they might be more inclined to see the sexes as equal. The myth she refers to is a story that Aristophanes tells Plato to try to explain sexual intercourse. Beauvoir agrees with this but she feels it is only about sex while I interpret this story as being much more romantic than pure sex. One could interpret Aristophanes story to explain why people “make love” I thought of this when I remembered Robert Rowland Smith’s interpretation of the story in his book Breakfast with Socrates that I highly recommend. Smith gives a beautiful interpretation of the story as follows:

“Ever since [our bodies were cut in two], the severed individuals have been seeking to come back to their other half, defining sex—the gluing of fragments—as deep satisfaction of being once more complete. Aristophanes’s story holds no biological water, of course, but like many myths it makes up for it in psychological insight: it interprets the craving for sex as nostalgia, a desire for return to a lost paradise of wholeness and haleness, a site of familiarity and sameness. In tumbling into the exquisite comfort of a lover’s arms, you are seeking to repair your perforated soul.”

He puts it so poetically but I agree with him fully. I know that Beauvoir has a different agenda here, but she does wave her hand over this story of sex as if it does not do as much as it should or that the philosophers were not focusing on the real issue at hand—which may be true. Do not get me wrong, I agree with pretty much everything she has to say, which makes it difficult to make a SLAP being in such agreement.

However, shouldn’t this class talk at least a little bit about male and female relationships? Especially since most of the complaints of either sex are directed at the opposite one as a direct result of relationship problems. Most of the clichés and stereotypes and genders and sexes are based in the differences that cause problem in log term relationships—most sitcoms that deal with couples focus most of their attention on this subject such as Home Improvement and Everybody Loves Raymond, as well as others. The only problem here is that usually the issues refer back to straight couples, as does Aristophanes story, although he never specifically mentions that when the humans were split one-half looks male and the other female, it is almost certainly implied.

Moreover, since ALL types of relationships and gender\sex differences are equally valid, it may be a waste of time for our class to discuss these issues, which seem to be on a different level than our class. This was all just some food for thought and since that, it was these blogs are for I hope I sparked some thoughts about the nature of intercourse at the very least.

Film Reviews: Run, Lola, Run (Lola Rennt)

“Did you run all the way here?”

"The breathless pace of Run Lola Run is positively exhausting, stimulating and inspiring." (filmsondisc.com)

Dedicated to Paul Nnodim

Hello. I am back. I know it has been awhile since my last review. I took a break during winter vacation and then when I got back some stuff happened and I did not really feel like blogging but I am back

The first time I heard about this film was about three years ago when, bored one day, decided to watch I Love The 90’s, and there was a segment on this film. However, I wouldn’t see it until a year later in my German Philosophy course.

Run Lola Run is one of my favorite films of all time. The actual title is Lola Rennt, which translates as ‘Lola Runs’. RLR is a German film that came out in 1998. It was written and directed by Tom Tykwer and is his masterpiece. The film stars Franka Potente as Lola and Mortiz Bleibtreu as her boyfriend Manni. Filmed on location in Berlin.

The essential plot of the film is that due to a series of unfortunate events, Manni is potentially in a heap of trouble with an organized crime syndicate. Lola didn’t pick him up at the meeting place because her moped was stolen and so Manni took the subway where he lost a bag full of money that he was delivering to his boss and he now has only 20 minutes to find 100,000 Marks ($60,000) or else he is dead. The rest of the plot is Lola desperately trying to acquire the money to save her boyfriend.

However, though this is the plot, it is essentially not, what the film is about. On the surface, this seems to be a crime thriller or action flick but that is far from the case. In truth, the work is an existential film focusing on the nature of time and second chances. The films creative story draws on three films. One well-known classic that the other two films also draw on is Rashomon. This story we have all seen in some form—one story told from several perspectives suggesting that the nature of truth could be subjective. The second film is Blind Chance, which shows the same story happening three different times with slight differences that affect the outcome greatly. Finally the film Sliding Doors which came out the same year as RLR (though RLR is exceedingly better) which shows the same story from essentially two different universes.

I really do not want to give too much away because I could easily break the film down scene by scene and explain its genius, however, that could potentially spoil it for most who have not seen it. I will go into further detail though. The film is 80 minutes long and those 80 minutes are broken down into sections. The first is the opening credits and introduction along with the set up of the plot. Then there are three 20 minutes segments, which are the same twenty minutes in time with different outcomes. In-between these segments are flashback scenes filmed in red to distinguish them as well as express the importance of love as a factor in the film, which are about 1-2 minutes each. Finally, there is the conclusion and credits, which make up the final six minutes.

The film’s point is focused on the cliché of ripples in the pond, the butterfly effect, etc—that the littlest of things can make the biggest differences. Lolo tries to get the money and save Manni three times which means she obviously fails the first two times (I’m not going to disclose if she is successful in the end). However, unlike Blind Chance or Sliding Doors, Lola remembers each of the twenty minutes and the film hints at this in a few subtle but important ways. For Lola, the entire film is linear and so it has been an hour for her, but for Manni, it has just been twenty minutes, which is similar to a later film the most likely was inspired by RLR, Groundhog’s Day.

Tom Tykwer does some wonderful things with the cinematography. Run, Lola, Run has almost every artistic style of camera work thrown into it, each for something particular. All the flashback scenes where Lola and Manni are explaining what happened in the beginning are all in black and white to make a distinction in time. Certain crucial scenes are shot in split-screen to emphasize and build tension. Digital camera are also used for a few scenes to show that they are not part of the main story but are important in affecting the main story and the eventual outcome of the 20 minutes. For the rest of the film 35mm cameras are used. During many scenes, Tykwer uses snorkel camera, which gives the scenes a great movement effect. There are also a few birds-eye-shots. Tykwer also uses still photography for future events and outcomes. Each time Lola goes through the 20 minutes she encounters a few characters that she affects. Despite only touching their lives for less than five seconds, their lives are significantly altered. Tykwer ends the film with this photograph effect but only shows us the first picture rather than showing us what is now in-store for Lola and Manni.

The sounds to the film are also a component of the overall effect of the film. For example, when Lola is running through all the people she could go to for help in the beginning and thinking about who would be best, if you pay close attention, we hear the sound of a roulette wheel, which is symbolic of her choosing a person, but also is very significant to the events in the third 20 minutes. The main soundtrack is mostly sung by Franka Potente, which gives us a bit of insight into Lola’s thoughts as she is running because even when we are panicked our minds are never on just one thing. The music also has a panicked and adrenaline feel to it which fits perfect for the pace of the movie and really gets your heart beating in sync with Lola’s.

There are a few things to pay attention to. A few events do not change for any of the segments. These are fixed either points that happen without Lola doing something different, or things that cannot be changed. Try to spot them. One of them is very important. There is a further sub-message about the passage of times in regards to a woman outside the bank in the first 20 minutes. At first she is blurred and in the distance and she is played by a young woman. However, once she is next to Lola, we see she is played by an elderly woman. One final thing to pay attention to that few people ever make the connection, is that the man who in the beginning stole Lola’s moped is the man on the moped in the third sequence and the theme of Karma is introduced which one could suggest is another theme of the film.

One more thing, the credits at the end go from top to bottom rather than the standard bottom to top which is cool and could further be a critique on time and space

Run, Lola Run is a flawless film. It is aesthetically pleasing, it sounds great, and the sound, camera work, and everything else, line up perfectly with each other to form a genius work of art. The film is so straightforward despite its not entirely linear plot, that the dialogue is essentially unnecessary. That is not to say the script is written badly—the script is also fantastic and the love scenes are especially dependant on dialogue and that dialogue is important to the overall film. What I mean is that if you watch it without subtitles or dubbing you can still fully understand the films plot and message. Speaking of which, if you ever buy the DVD use the subtitles and not the dubbing because the dubbing sound ridiculous. The voices do not match the bodies at all in the right way and the dialogue is changed in stupid ways that I feel takes away from the film. I love the existential heavy message of the movie. The acting is phenomenal and there is nothing one could argue was ineffective in the film or lacking. Even though it is not mathematically possible, I give Run, Lola, Run 6 out of 5 stars!

P.S be on the look-out for Simon Pegg week!

©2010-2012 ~ZeTrystan---(Picture)

Women and Philosophy: The Beckdale Test

Welcome all to the first edition of a new philosophic category on my blog. Like with music and philosophy, this too is for a class. However, instead of music, I will be discussing women. Anyone who reads my blog knows I am a fan of film and the genre of film is a great medium to discuss not only philosophical points but also women and so today’s blog is about film.

Rather than be a about a particular film, I will be discussing the issue of the Beckdale test. The Beckdale test was first created in a comic called Dykes to Look Out For and the first film they mention that passes it is Aliens although Alien also passes.

Here is how the test works: watch a movie, any movie, or even a particular episode of a television series, and then see if it fits the following criteria:

1)      There are at least two female characters that are credited with actual names so it does not count if they are called “female officer 1” or “girl at diner”.

2)      Any two named female characters must then at some point in the film have a conversation with each other.

3)      This conversation must last at least 45 seconds…

4)      …and it must be on any topic other than boys, men, or males in general.

It is in fact quite scary to discover just how few films pass this test. This test does not prove that a movie is bad or sexist, chauvinistic, or anti-feminist. There are plenty of masterpiece films that do not pass the test simply because the plot never allows for it. However, it is a very each fix. Some films, but not all could easily switch the gender roles of characters and it would be fine. This of course only applies to films where the gender of certain characters really does not matter. Although that raises the question of “should it ever even really matter?” The real problem is not that every film passes this test but that films are made typically centered around male characters and male stories and plots. Even certain films in which the main title character is female and the film for the most part follows her around, fail the test. Take for example Run, Lola, Run (which coincidentally will be the next film I review. I promise I will start doing zombie films again also). RLR is a fantastic masterpiece of existential and empirical bliss. I can honestly say it is in my top-five-favorite-movies-of-all-time-list. However, it fails. Of course, Lola never talks to any character really for more than five minutes and the film is not exactly dialogue driven but the fact still remains. Again, the point is not that these failing the test makes these films bad or anything like that—it simply makes one think a bit more about popular culture. There are dozens of films where this problem could be erased by switching roles of minor characters or just adding an extra character or something and none of this would ruin the feel fo the film. Some films must fail the test simply because of their plot, theme, and message like the film No Country For Old Men—another fantastic film. If a scene or character was added or a role was reversed in this film, it might take away from the films mood. I am not saying that women in films take away from the film—all I am saying is that in a film about middle-aged men that is a work on middle-aged men encountering certain plot points, it would make little sense to change it. You can even watch it and decide. An example of a great film that I love that fails the test but could have passed it if it wanted to is Dawn of the Dead 1978. In one of the opening scenes when Fran is in the television newsroom, she interacts with many characters and none of the dialogue refers to men. The best way to fix it I can think of it when the one of the crew tells Fran they are shutting down later so it is okay if she leaves, the cameraman could easily be changed to a female and then given a name with simple dialogue like Fran responding “You sure Jen?” or “ok Ruth” or something simple like that.

What can we do about this? We can always make a few more female centered films, which would not only solve this problem but the simple bigger problem that not many films still today are female centered.

In addition, I challenge you to:

Go watch your favorite film and see if it passes

If you are a film lover like me, own a ton of DVD’s that you have seen countless times, and think you can remember without re-watching them if they pass, go thru your collection and see how many out of how many pass.

Determine which films that fail, regardless of how great they are, could not be altered to pass the test such as NCFOM.

Feel free to report back with your findings and leave them in your comments.

Music and Philosophy: Book Review

Douglas Adams Existential Philosophy: The Restaurant at the end of the Universe

Introduction

For my book review, I chose the second book of three in his six part series, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe. I could write a book on all the philosophical messages in this series but I chose this book because it touches on the subject of music and Adams philosophy on music. His books are all existential works if one is willing to look past all the science fiction and comedy that they are known for. Like Doctor Who, the laughs and the science are merely vehicles to convey philosophical points. Restaurant has many various philosophical messages that I will discuss in this paper but I will start with his critique of Music and the arts, specifically the case of Hotblack Desiato.

Music: Hotblack Desiato

“The Universe…1) Area: Infinite: bigger than the biggest thing ever and then some. Much bigger than that in fact, really amazingly immense, a totally stunning size, real, ‘wow, that’s big’ time. Infinity is just so big that by comparison, bigness itself looks really titchy. Gigantic multiplied by colossal multiplied by staggeringly huge is the sort of concept we’re trying to get across here…6) Art: none. The function of art is to hold the mirror up to nature, and there simply isn’t a mirror big enough—see point one.” (Adams, 1980)

            The above quote sums up Adams view of reality—a cynic, a critic, but hopeful and hilarious. There is no music-technical theory in this work and so neither will there be in this paper, only existential question and attempt to answer. Hotblack Desiato is the creator of the ‘plutonium rock’ band, Disaster Area, from the Gagrakacka Mind Zones. The band is “generally held to be not only the loudest rock band in all the Galaxy, but in fact, the loudest noise of any kind” (Adams, 1980). Essentially, Disaster Area is the polar opposite of John Cage. Part of the bands artistic style is to, at concerts, fly autopilot spaceship into a star, which then explodes. Their songs also reflect this, they “mostly follow the familiar theme of boy-being meets girl-being beneath a silvery moon, which then explodes for no adequately explored reason” (Adams, 1980).

            The music is so loud that the band remotely controls their instruments from a ship orbiting a different planets while the audience is typically situated in a concrete bunker thirty-seven miles from the stage.

            Is this music? Is this art? What is Douglas Adams trying to say about music? To begin with, when Adams is talking about Hotblack Desiato & Disaster Area he also mentions that the band is seen as one of the worst in the history of the galaxy and that because of this, they are also one of the most popular. It is clear what Adams means by this—it is a critique of what society declares as good and popular. This view of Adams is similar to Danto’s idea that in order to judge art properly, one must be educated about art, the history of art, various creative forms and styles, and the  artists own background. This is also similar to a much older concept dating back to the days of Plato, who said that to truly be a philosopher; one must be at least thirty years old so that they will have had enough life experience and education. Funny enough, this is the typical age that people graduate with a PhD. Adams is simply suggesting that the public at large does not understand what good quality music is. Adams concept of Disaster Area is also a critique of the first days of metal and punk, which were beginning to creep up when he wrote this account of Desiato. Music that is extremely loud and includes random explosions

            The band’s performances are certainly artistic, the audience has found the perfect way to listen to the music, albeit it is 37miles away in a concrete bunker, but there is a specific perspective to listening to Disaster Area. I therefore conclude that at the very least it is sound art—and the spaceship crashing into a star and then the star exploding, though expensive and a bit excessive, is still a statement, a statement on what, I’m not sure but regardless, the performances of Disaster Area are art. The next issue to tackle is whether or not it is music. It is at least musical and it is widely accepted as music. With the limited description of the band and everything that we have learned over the semester, I would say that the stylings of Hotblack Desiato are in fact music. I would say it is bad music but that is just my opinion and the opinions of most of the fictional galaxy of Adam’s works. I can safely say that Adams does like classical, jazz, and rockabilly as indicated throughout the rest of the series.

This all being said, I am not fully convinced that Disaster Area’s sound-art is music, it is a question, which should have further debate. We have discussed the question of how long can pauses in music be before it ceases to be music as well as silence as music, which we determined as not music—but what about volume? Does music cease to be music at a certain volume? Should there be a limit on how loud music can be to be considered music? If the answer to these questions is yes, then at what point is music too loud to be classified as music?

The Dish of the Day: An Ethical Quandary

This next philosophical endeavor is unrelated to the field of music, however, since this is a book review for a philosophy class, I feel that this, being the other philosophical statement in this book should be examined While the main characters are at the restaurant (at the end of the universe), they are asked if they would like to meet the dish of the day—to meet the meat. People got so tired of the bickering of animal cruelty that they genetically engineered a bovine like creature that is specifically bread to be eaten. This animal wants to be eaten; its only purpose in life is to be consumed. This raises a huge existential and ethical question. It goes back to the problem of ignorance with the question ‘is a slave a slave if they don’t know they are enslaved?’ Essentially, it refers to the main philosophical message of the Matrix film series, which goes back to Plato’s Cave.

Douglas Adams has this great way of introducing a potential solution to a problem but adding something extra. As it stands now, the argument for the exploitation of animals, is, as we have said in class, they are failed humans and therefore have less intrinsic value than people have have and therefore, humans can do whatever they want to them. This argument is founded on the principle that animals, though sentient, are not as self-aware and intelligent as people are. If people could prove that a certain species of animals say, chickens, for example, actually wanted to be eaten and that furthermore, people could prove that chickens are meant to be eaten by people and that is their sole purpose in life, the debate, at least in the case of chickens would be settled. However, the problem with the ‘dish of the day’ scenario is that the bovine-like creature depicted in The Restaurant as the End of the Universe is in-fact relatively close to the average intelligence of a so-called higher-thinking being such as humans. This animal can not only express its intense desire to be killed and eaten, but also can articulate this in a very sophisticated manner and therein lies the conflict.

We are left with the question of is it any more or less ethical to kill and cook (actually in the books scenario the beast kills itself after assuring the patrons that it will be very human about it) an animal if it can articulately express how much it desires to be dinner but at the same time, is also as intelligent as a typical person without a survival instinct or a will to live. Is it ethical to kill anything for consumption in the first place especially when it is not necessary to ones actual survival? The book actually makes the joke that vegetables are extremely intelligent but have no way of expressing it so in fact it is more ethical to eat the beast that wishes to be eaten. What do you think?

Conclusion

            Douglas Adams was a wonderful man who is certainly missed. His works were all very philosophical as well as having socio-political significance. Like Monty Python, which he worked with, all the meanings are done with satire and laughs and like Doctor Who, which he also worked on, the vehicle used to get these messages across is science fiction. I believe that comedy and sci-fi both work well to convey certain ideals, which is why novels and shows like these are so successful. We may never have a decent definition of music or art but we will continue to ask these questions because, as Adams pointed out repeatedly, philosophers constantly ask these questions knowing they will never get answers, and that is why they all still have jobs.

In Loving Memory:

Douglas Adams

March 11^th, 1952 – May 11^th, 2001

Sunday, December 18^th, 2011 3:40 PM

Edited: Wednesday, December, 21^st, 2011 12:10 PM

References\Citations\ Bibliography

Adams, Douglas. The Ultimate Hitchhiker's Guide: Five Complete Novels and One Story. New York: Gramercy, 2005. Print.

Bowie, G. Lee., Meredith W. Michaels, and Robert C. Solomon. Twenty Questions: an Introduction to Philosophy. 6th ed. Australia: Thomson/Wadsworth, 2007. Print.

Colfer, Eoin, and Douglas Adams. And Another Thing--: Douglas Adams's Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Part Six of Three. 1st ed. New York: Hyperion, 2009. Print.

Hamilton, Andy. Aesthetics and Music. London: Continuum, 2008. Print.

Hardcastle, Gary L., and George A. Reisch. Monty Python and Philosophy Nudge Nudge, Think Think! Chicago, IL: Open Court, 2006. Print. Popular Culture and Philosophy.

Hinman, Lawrence M. Contemporary Moral Issues: Diversity and Consensus. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2006. Print.

The Matrix. Prod. Andy Wachowski and Larry Wachowski. Dir. Andy Wachowski and Larry Wachowski. By Andy Wachowski and Larry Wachowski. Perf. Keanu Reeves. 1999.

Newman, Sydney. "Doctor Who." Doctor Who. Prod. Verity Lambert. 1963-2011. Television.

Music and Philosophy: Final Musings of the Semester

This is the final official music and philosophy blog of the semester. I do plan to continue with the blog however even after the semester is over, so if you are still interested in music and philosophy, check back once in awhile.

I agree with what Johnson said at the end of class today about blogging and I wish I had blogged more often—I just get a bit absentminded every now and then. I hope everyone saw the blog posts not directly called music and philosophy but included music and philosophy. They are all under the Music and Philosophy blog page. In addition, I hope you all checked out the existential blog post about music and zombies—the link can be found on the same page as the rest of the MP stuff. I will miss the class and all the fun conversations and unfortunately, I will not be in Lit and Phil with Johnson but I will certainly be in his Epistemology class next fall as well as Paul’s existentialism class. Like with the other holidays, I will leave you with some Christmas music suggestions. There are so many in various genres so I will just list a few:

The Heavy metal version of Must be Santa by Paincakes

O Tannenbaum and Christmas Time Is Here by Vince Guaraldi

There are so many others but I need to post this blog so I can go to dinner and pack.

“So much time and so little to do. Wait, strike that…reverse it.”

Music is like art, music is a type of art so I guess music is art, not like art….what I mean is that both terms are hard to define and pin down. We know that a cookie is not music. The cookie could be used to make music but the cookie itself is not. Like with art in general, I think the best way to define music is have an open definition to allow for future innovations but at the same time a definition that can conclusively say what is not and should never be music. I think I started a good framework of a definition like this in my last QA, which is also accessible on this blog, again simply go to the music philosophy page. I will also post my book review today or tomorrow for whoever is interested.

Thank you all for the great discussions and a great semester. I look forward to seeing any of you in my classes in the spring. I can easily say you are all creative talented thinkers and artists of various kinds and I wish you all a wonderful break, a safe journey to and from, and a Happy Hanukkah, Happy Yule and Winter Solstice, Merry Christmas, Happy Kwanzaa, and a Happy New Year!

Feel free to continue checking out the blog. I plan to work more on the philosophy side over break, talk more on art, zombies, politics, film, books, and anything else I think I should post.

Goodnight and Good luck

Dasvidaniya

Music & Philosophy: “Question and Answer”‘s

First, I want to share with you all a hilarious, but possibly deep, clip of a type of art. Since most of use in the class have, are, or will be in Johnson’s Art and Philosophy class. This is another clip from the show Spaced. Except instead of Tyres, I’m showing you brian:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhUMRgZjKr8

Hello all. This may or may not be the last Music and Philosophy post. I feel as though it will not be because I do plan to keep it on my blog and to add posts when ideas strike me—so at the very least, it will be less frequent. There may also be another post before the end of the semester so look out for that. If not I wish you all a good break and a safe journey. Recent forecasts predict snow on the days of travel so be careful. I have enjoyed the class and encourage you all to read other sections of my blog you find interesting. I welcome comments and constructive criticism. This post will be, as the title suggests, the Q\A’s from the semester all in one place if anyone is interested. Some of it will be repeated things from the posts and things said in class but a lot of it, if memory serves, is not.

I tried putting all my QA’s on one post but it was way too long, so I am putting them on the Music and Philosophy page under the first post. Just scroll down if you are interested.

Music and Philosophy: Winding Down

I’m sorry it’s been a little over a week since I did one of these, I just haven’t had much inspiration lately but I got some great ideas in class today I just hope I remember them. Also, I’m done using numbers for these entries as I have done more entries than the numbers reflect.

I wanted to talk about context, content, intent, and perception as these are all issues in defining music.

Context is important to content in order to understand something properly, like a piece of music for example, and intent is part of the context of the content. (I am beginning to realize this all sounds somewhat lyrical). The problem with intent is that it is very different from perception. What one intends by a statement, song, poem, artwork, etc, does not always line up with the perception of the people, well…perceiving it. This all brings in two figures we discussed in the Philosophy of Art that we also touched upon in Music and Philosophy: Tolstoy and Danto. Tolstoy, as we know believed if the precise and exact emotion the artist was trying to express in his\her art was not the emotion that anyone who viewed it took away from it or interpreted it as, fails as an artist. I disagree with this to an extent and say that it would be worse if people looked upon the art and felt nothing at all let alone the precise intended emotion. As long as they feel something the art is somewhat affective, I also feel that if the art was meant to inspire grief but it only inspires sorrow, it is close enough to the intention. I would also side with Danto more and put the blame on the perceiver (audience) and not the intender (artist). Blame is actually too strong of a word. What I mean is, Danto believed that for one to truly appreciate art in its fullest purpose, one needs to be versed in the art world or as the phrase goes one must be cultured. One must understand the historical context, the artist, the artist’s background, etc. I think that this is all important but not fully necessary. In addition, most museums these days have pamphlets or audio tours providing all the background information for you. Most times art is rejected due to simple poor communication. Art is for everyone and not some art exclusive world.

This all being said, I have a query for all of you.

I have heard talk recently about rap being more sound art than music. What are your opinions on this?

First, I want to say a few things. I personally am not a big fan of most rap though I do like some. However, personal feelings aside: calling rap sound art rather than music is not an insult. It is in no way degrading it (for that would imply sound art is a lesser art form than music), or insulting it, or anything negative at all. Many people have a problem with seeing rap as music and I think this would solve the problem. It would be lyrical sound art like Revolution 9 by the Beatles.

At the very least, the argument can be made that rap pieces are not songs in the same way that classical pieces are not songs. The words “song” and “sing” are synonymous with each other and sound very much alike except for having different vowels. Sing is the verb and Song is the noun. I would argue that if there is no singing, then it is not a song. Now some rap pieces do have singing and therefore I would categorize those as songs. However, I suppose all of this depends on ones definition of singing

My point is I am not against rap, I am just pontificating on a conversation that cropped up at lunch one day.

Music Philosophy blog 6

I know I’ve been gone for awhile over the break but like I said my keyboard is broken. Today’s discussion got me thinking about covers, versions and parodies of various pieces of music. I really wish my keyboard still worked properly because then I could blog more easily but alas.

The first example I wanted to expose you to is one that I enjoy thoroughly. Bitches Ain’t Shit by Ben Folds. I was first introduced to this song by my freshman roommate who is in the best sense of the word a hippie. Ben Folds essentially does folk Indi music. For those of you who have never heard of him if you have seen Over the Hedge Folds does the entire soundtrack. Bitches Ain’t Shit is originally a Dr. Dre song. Folds does the song in the style of his own music. Now in my opinion the songs do have different meaning due to being different songs—as we discussed in class. Of course, this is entirely my opinion but I feel the original version is vile, disgusting, rude, crude, and lacking any socio-politically redeeming value. I find Folds version to be funny and fun, satirical (obviously), entertaining, and a statement on not all but certain types of rap. Now I am not demonizing Dre or praising Folds and I am not necessarily saying that the things I said about Dre’s version are bad things—some people enjoy the rude and the like. So what do you think? Do you think style can change the intent of the lyrics so greatly. I can say that Folds version is more “musical” in the sense that Folds actually is singing the whole time and there are instruments being played. I am of course referencing the Wait, Wait Don’t Tell Me episode I linked in a previous blog.

Dre’s Version:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTw287pA-00&feature=related

Folds’ Version:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjFRy8jQ_0U&feature=related

A similar situation would Down With the Sickness, originally by Disturbed. The jazz singer Richard Cheese does his own jazz cover of the song. But I don’t think that the Disturbed version is all that bad.

Next, there is the matter of the song You Spin Me Round by Dead or Alive. This song is about a person seeing someone at a club and instantly being filled with lust and desire. I’m not going to sugar coat it—even though I hate the new version of the song—the singer wants to take this person home for sex however the singer does admit to falling in love with the person at the sight of them in the club. So there is a subtext of sex but overtones of love stipulated in the lyrics.

You Spin Me Round by Dead or Alive:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUatnbaNfEo

The remake You Spin my Head Right Round is by Flo Rida and its meaning is simple and clear: oral sex. That’s it. Oral sex.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ND_gFPNu-V0

A song that’s meaning isn’t lost in one of its reinterpretations is the Dusty Springfield song Only Want to be With You.

Dusty Springfield:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYbzW-6tvIM

Then there is the relatively recent Metal version of the song that I actually really, really like and enjoy and I am not a big fan of Metal. I am very particular about the Metal I like. The band is called Volbeat.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ts19Nn-xyGs

I also wanted to talk about two songs that have been remade countless times; so many times, in fact there is probably a version for every genre of music: Mad World and Video Killed the Radio Star. Just YouTube them and you will see what I mean. I absolutely love these songs and all of their various versions, covers, and parodies. The reason I love all the versions is I have yet to come across a version that did not do the originals message justice. Now I am all for creativity and improvisation but some classics should not be messed\with such as Mr. Lonely which in my opinion Akon did not do it justice. Half the song sounds like if Alvin from The Chipmunks was on crack while singing. Sometimes sampling works—sometimes it does not (what do you think?) An example of it working is Jay Z’s Hard Knock Life. Anyway, I wanted to link you to a cool version of VKRS—the country western version. I think it is great but then again VKRS is one of my all tome favorite songs.

Handsome Hanks Video Killed The Radio Star:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70B9bHE-4HQ

Finally, I leave you with a parody, I’ve done covers and versions so I might as well do a parody. This is a Christmas parody and I know there are tons of those and I like a lot of them but this one is pretty fun and it has zombies and you all know I love zombies:

Zombie night:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mo8xEnu1DYs

and the outtakes which include bits of other parodies:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAY8OQntMUQ

Music and Philosophy 5: Rhythm

Hi all. Over the long weekend, I stopped blogging due to several unforeseen factors. However, I am back and I plan to try to make an entry in every category today so wish me luck. I have so much to talk about but I wanted to start with this one since it is really the only section I’m required to do and I had ideas for it a few days ago and don’t want to forget any more than I already have.

Rhythm. Hamilton is right about this. Rhythm is in everything we do and it is even inherent in our biology, our DNA gives us rhythm. He even goes as far to say that music and biology/evolution are entwined. I can really see what he means. First, I wanted to show you all a clip that I did not link to last time that is about rhythm. It has a Christmas theme to it and I know it is not even Thanksgiving yet but it is very relevant to what Hamilton speaks of:

Ok so I could not find the clip it’s self so just click on this link and skip to 7:20 in.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zF4e4dATsQ&feature=related

Now most of you have probably seen this movie and remember this but I thought it was funny thinking about what Hamilton writes. Music is so connected to our existence and even to our physiology that for mystical beings like Santa Claus, the rhythm of his heartbeat is Christmas related. This also reminds me of another Christmas movie, (this is a tangent) where Santa is arrested and when they finger print him, his fingerprints look like snowflakes, so why wouldn’t his heartbeat synchronize up to Jingle Bells?

My point is we even recognize that rhythm and music are so related to our being that in our fiction we joke about this phenomenon making puns out of it!

The real question goes back to the chicken and the egg: Are we musical because it is in our biology, or since we love music and rhythm, we can recognize it in our biology. To put it more simply which came first, Santa or Jingle Bells? Well in that example, it is of course Santa. However, it makes you think did we notice the rhythm of our hearts and then make music, or make music then notice it has a similar beat to our hearts? I know I just repeated myself several times and I apologize, I am just trying to find the best way to phrase it. However, I am sure you all get the point.

We admit that we are musical biologically, not just our heart beats, but as Griffin said in class, our brains are designed to recognize patterns such as beats, our breathing has rhythm which is consistent with our activities, meaning the rhythm changes depending on what we are doing but it is still rhythmic, we blink rhythmically, we need, crave, and desire music in our daily lives so much that at times we will find music where there is none, like Tires in the clip from Spaced I had in my last blog. We put in our music to escape from reality, but could it be we are actually trying to connect further with reality, if we stipulate that reality is music? Some of us would love life to be even more musical, like some of us wish to live in a musical where everything that goes on is explained with a song and dance that everyone somehow knows the words to.

Music picks us up when we are depressed, humbles us when we need perspective, angers us when we need to vent, and frightens us when we need to remember life is not always safe. Music can stop wars, start revolutions, get people assassinated or knighted, and because of all this, we do not just ascribe biology with music, but spirituality with music. We use music to meditate, Neo-Platonists would argue music connects us closer to the world of being, we use music in our religious ceremonies to pray to our higher power, we use music to connect to the human condition and we create phrases and clichés about how mystical music is. That music has so much power, it could be false power we give to it or real power we have discovered in it but either way we believe that music is essential to life, the universe, and everything.

Philosophy Blurb of the Week: Egosim

Hello. This week the topic is Egoism. Now I will not always do actual lessons on the philosophies of others with my own interpretations and twists, I will also be doing my own philosophy blips. Hmm…blips, that’s good. Maybe I should call this blog Philosophy Blips instead of Blurbs. What do you think? Let me know.

So Egoism. Egoism, like Utilitarianism is one of the founding philosophies the United States government and economics are based on. The first time the philosophy of Egoism came up it was in Plato’s Dialogues Called The Ring Of Gyges. The Ring of Gyges is a story Glaucon gives explaining that if any person found a ring that rendered one invisible and therefore was free from the consequences of his/her actions, this person would go about doing exactly how he/she pleases stealing, murdering, raping, etc. Socrates and Plato disagree and have hope for humanity. I also disagree. It is quite presumptuous to make generalized statements such as these. To know the character of another’s soul and the what goes on in another’s mind is impossible, especially for philosophers like Descartes who purported that all one can truly know is that one is alive and one is real in that one instance. Meaning you think and therefore you know you are alive and exist outside yourself but you cannot be sure that anyone or anything still exists. However, I am not here to talk about that today.

To begin with, I will explain the Ego. The Ego is a term first coined by Sigmund Freud along with the Id and the Super Ego.  I am going to sum them up because that is all that is necessary in this context, if you would like to research them further, be my guest.

Id: Id is our base animalistic needs and desires. The pleasure center of our brains. Our brains tell us “I’m hungry, feed me now!”  “I’m thirsty. Drink now!” “I am horny. Get sex Now!” That is all it does. We are born with it and it is useful in getting the things we need when we are babies. We cry to get what we want and are needs are more often than not met.

Then the Ego comes along: Egoism sounds like it is talking about the Id at first but read this carefully: The Ego develops when we realize as the song goes “you can’t always get what you want” While the Id dealt with irrationality in the sense that in reality we don’t get everything we want all the time but the Id wants to, the Ego says: “I know I can’t get everything I want, so I will just focus on what I need. There will be times when I cannot get what I need or want, so rather than trying to take it, I will be patient. If I try (and this is where Egoism comes in) to always get what I want (i.e. steal and rape) I will hurt my chances of continuing to get a lot of other things that I really need and want (i.e. freedom from imprisonment)

Then we have the Super Ego:  The Super Ego is the mediator between the Id and the Ego. The SE is where moral and ethic codes develop. Need a better example? Remember Jiminy Cricket? Remember how he was supposed to be Pinocchio’s’ conscience? Well that is the Super Ego. It says I know you are hungry but dinner is in an hour stealing can get you in trouble, wait and you shall receive. The SE relieves the conflict in the mind.

So what does all of this have to do with Egoism? Well Egoism was founded by Thomas Hobbs. Egoism, in short, is the belief that everything and anything anyone and everyone ever does is only done out of self-interest. Egoism negates selflessness. No one ever does anything for nothing. This is how we get so many fun phrases like the ones I have been mentioning. Need a nice example? Well Egoism Retcons the Super Ego saying there is not right and wrong only them and me. For example: you decide not to rape someone, not because rape is terrible, awful, and unethical and immoral, but because you yourself do not want to be raped and you do not want to get in trouble. Want a positive example? You walk an old lady across the street not because she needs help and it is the right thing to do but because it makes you feel good about yourself.

Egoism is also the belief that we did not create laws to keep us, safe, we created laws so bad things do not happen to “me” (when I say me I don’t mean myself I mean the person making the law). They look at their world and say, “ok I don’t want to be killed. Even though I may want to kill other people, I do not want to be killed myself. Therefore, it should be a law that no one kills anyone that way I will not be killed. I’ll still want to kill others but I won’t so that others won’t kill me”

Do you see the thinking? It is a very pompous philosophy and there is no way to argue against it. It is infallible. Look, you say, no I hold the door for people to be nice, the Egoist asks you if you like being nice, you say yes, and they say you open the door because it makes you happy. Everybody wants to be a, and is their own, martyr according to Egoism. See? You cannot argue against it.

Me, personally I reject Egoism. I believe that people are good for the sake of being good. In addition, just because people feel good by being good, does not make that the primary reasoning behind that doing good things, it is more of an after affect.

Can I relate Egoism to music? Well…I can sure try:

How about people who write music: Egoist would say: you write music for yourself. It makes you happy. It may get you fame and fortune and your messages will get out to many people. You want people to follow your messages because you think you are right, not because you want to make things better, and even if you do want to make things better, ultimately, you want to make them better so they will be better for you”

Music and Philosophy 4: Music as Experience

Today I want to talk about music as an experience. This has been touched on many times in the book as well as in class. Being the Empiricist that I am, I thought it would be fun to do an entry following that philosophy. Do not get me wrong, I am also a Rationalist, I just believe that experience is paramount in life. Really, I am an Aristotelian—claiming reason is important but one needs the experiences first. The only thing I do disagree with Aristotle on is his pedophilic tendencies. But enough about that.

Music is meant to be experienced, whether it is a performance, clear HD on a laptop, or on vintage vinyl, that gives one an old fashioned and nostalgic feeling. See? Even then, I used experiential language: feeling. That is how we always talk about music: “the Van Halen performance was an experience”; “you had to be at Woodstock to really get the full experience”, “listening to Glenn Miller on record is a fuller way to truly appreciate and experience his genius.” Music is synonymous with our senses and our experiences. Quite often people will say one should listen to a particular song while high on various substances to get the full experience and understanding of the song. We feel and hear the music. We talked about this earlier in the semester about how music invokes feelings in us that are fundamentally human. Music makes us want to dance in the streets, burst out singing while at the library or on the tread mill, music can make us cry, get angry, feel scared, and cause self-reflection.

Whole sub-cultures are created out of types of music: Goths, punks, metal-heads, hippies, etc. Music can lift up a generation, inspire young artists, stop a war, and end an empire. People are assassinated for the music they make. All this data, all these facts lead to one conclusion: music is engrained in our souls and our DNA. It affects us on fundamental levels and therefore is one of the most important experiences one must have in one’s life. And of course one will have this experience to some degree no matter what the circumstances. As we mentioned in class today, music comes out of our evolution, even people trapped for their whole lives in the darkness of a cave will begin to create rhythm and make songs in their heads. A person cannot escape music. It is all around us. We even have music about music: Rock n’ Roll is Here to Stay, Music by Madonna,

I further believe that music should be experienced in all its various forms. I know we all have our tastes but to truly appreciate our tastes and understand music more fully, we must listen to the music we do not like. I am a big believer in Yin-Yang theory: if we have nothing bad, we cannot know what is good. This applies to all forms of art, not just music. Also, by expanding your palate to all music’s you may come to find out you like other things and that you may even like things you thought were examples of bad music. I admit I am not a big fan of pop but Lady Gaga does have a few songs that are moving and have hidden meaning if one knows where to look.

Church of Sense and Reason 3: Science Being Compatible With Christinaity

I’m not sure if this blog will be as long as the previous two but I hope it is found to be interesting. This blog is about, of course, science and religion. Can science and religion be compatible. Are they mutually exclusive? Let’s look at some of the main arguments.

Let’s start at the beginning: The creation of the earth Bible says seven days, science say millions of years. Well this is easily and quickly fixed if you are one of those people who interpret the Bible as metaphorical. Even if you take it as literal, still seven days is a bit tricky. It clearly can be allegorical for the days of the week and it makes sense to order things in such a way. But what is a day to God? I mean this is predating the earth and the other planets here. Therefore, there was no such thing as a day defined as a 24 hour period in which the earth revolves around the sun. There was no earth, no sun, and no concept of “hour”. I suppose one could argue that after the first day, there were such things as the earth and the sun. However, God is, as defined by Judeo-Christian-Islamic doctrine: omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent which means all-knowing, all-powerful, and everywhere simultaneously, respectively. God is also described as being the Alpha and the Omega, which means the beginning and the end. Basically predated existence and existing outside of the known universe while still being to a degree transcendental (knowable in the world).

Now, if God is all these things, then what is a day to God? I mean the average life span would be a blink of an eye to a perpetually existing force or being. There is even a joke about it:

Well a man says to God “What’s a million years to you?” God said “A minute.” And the man said to God “What’s a million dollars to you?” God said “A penny” So the man said to God “Well can you give me a penny?” And God said to him “Yes I will…in a minute.”

Point being we do not know the mind of God and it is pretentious and presumptuous to try to work it out or assume that we already do.

What is my point? My point, if we go by the scale of the joke, (which is silly but run with it), then the Earth would be even older than scientists say it is. Point is a day is an arbitrary term to God. In fact, I’ll go as far as to say, mostly any concept is arbitrary and in flux to God.

Big issue: Creationism Vs. Evolution. I believe and accept both concepts as being accurate. How can I do this? Am I not contradicting myself? Well no. Let’s look at Genesis 1 (the one where man and woman are created equal). The account of creation is very similar to the progression of evolution. Evolution roughly states that basically, we were single celled nothings, then creatures of the sea, then lizard things, then mammals, then human beings we are now. What is the order in  Gen 1? Let’s see: First the ocean is filled with life, then the sky with birds, then the lizards, bugs, then mammals, and finally? Humans! So what exactly is the problem here? I mean honestly. I accept the foundations of biology, psychology, chemistry, physics, etc, and I also believe in God, an after-life, Jesus, etc. Is that so wrong? I don’t find it hypocritical at all.

Philosophy Blurb of the Week 1/Music and Philosophy 3.1

(if you are only here to look at the Music section, scroll done or "ctrl f"' and search 'music'

Hello. I know I'm starting to get really involved in this blog but as previously stated somewhere on here, it is really cathartic and Zen for me and really helps me to deal with my stresses, anxieties, paranoia, and depression, so why not go crazy with it? Plus I figure the more interesting stuff I have on here, the more likely people will find it and start to read my entries.

This is a blog dedicated to explaining philosophical ideologies in my own way. I mean that my ideas of the idea. I’m not sure if I am making sense here. I mean like…ok, I got it! See, I’m a philosopher, and what do philosophers do? Come up with their own ideas. However, as mentioned in the Tanakh, which was written roughly around the same time Socrates was giving lectures, “there is nothing new under the sun”. Meaning? Philosopher’s read and here ideas and then use them, debunk them, or change/adapt them to suite their own means. I don’t mean they take the ideas out of context, merely that they are inspired by one another. This is what this blog will be about. My own ideas/versions of famous philosophic concepts.

This week I am focusing on John Stuart Mill’s Hierarchy of Pleasures (Mill is also one of the primary fathers of the philosophy of Utilitarianism, which I also support).

The Hierarchy of Pleasures was formulated to explain how one should live their life to a degree in order for Mill’s Utilitarianism to make more sense to people. Mill’s Utilitarianism is the idea ethical theory that to figure out what the right thing to do is one should contemplate on how it affects people. Mill believed in the highest quality pleasure for the highest quantity of people.

I agree with Mill 100% when it comes to his Hierarchy of Pleasures. He defined what was more important in life than base pleasures. The way one figures this out is thru contemplation of the deed in question. Does it further one’s existence? Does it involve socially/politically/philosophically redeeming value? Are you seeking this out for basic physical pleasure or is there an underlying cause? Does follow more of a “contemplation lifestyle or a “pleasure”/”honorable” lifestyle (as stipulated by Aristotle which I will also go over in a blog entry. I wanted to do this first because of things that have been bugging me.)

So, we have all these questions, but does that really clear it up? How about some examples. Well base animal pleasure, such as eating; drinking for simple nourishment is low on the hierarchy as well as sex for pleasure/reproduction. Things high on the list would include true art and true beauty, contemplation, etc.

Still not clear? Well let me give you better examples:

The difference between “fucking” and making-love”:

If you are having sex /masturbating for purely physical reactions that induce pleasure, than it is a base pleasure low on the list. There is no contemplative or spiritually redeeming value and you are doing it out of instinct, lust, etc. However, if you and your partner are making-love: there is a spiritually redeeming quality. You are engaging in this activity for the greater pleasure of bodies becoming one, souls becoming one, to be intimate with ones lover, for contemplation about life, to feel something greater than and outside of yourself. A true and full experience as Aristotle would say.

Getting completely wasted on beer vs. a fine glass of wine with friends or at a party:

If you drink for simple reason to get physically drunk and to poison your body, you are certainly focusing on animalistic pleasures. You have no respect for the people or environment around—getting drunk to the point of disregarding your surroundings, possibly being very annoying, disruptive, rude, and end up physically sick in the morning. Mill would say this is pointless. In the end it not only has no value, but the base pleasure turns into discomfort with hangovers, blackouts, vomiting, etc so it in the end cancel’s out the little base pleasure being drunk gives. If you enjoy a glass of wine, cider, something handcrafted, made locally or organically, something with character as it were, and not to the point of getting drunk, disruptive, and sick, at the very least you become tipsy or buzzed. And this drinking is not done alone, it is at a nice party with rewarding and redeeming topics of conversation, in a social environment where one can freely interact with other people, perhaps accompanied by art, a film, some music, perhaps some cheese to experience a heightened sense of taste pleasure not found in McDonald’s cheeseburgers, expanding your pallet, trying new things, and if you drink for the whole experience, not just the physical, and your reasoning behind the physical is that it relaxes you slightly, and you can enjoy the food and the mood, then it is redeeming.

Potheads vs. Hippies:

If you smoke pot, (or do any drug for that matter) for the sole purpose of the physical result of pleasure that it induces, to do so much you get completely stoned out of your mind and are now a nuisance to those around you, just as with being drunk, rude, loud, annoying, etc. it is for the wrong reasons and has no redeeming value, the only reason you are getting high is in it as itself. Meaning you get high to get high. However, as Hippies (and others, not just hippies) will attest, there is great spiritually, mystically, and contemplative redeeming values. They are always willing to give some of their drugs away for free because it is not about being addicted or needing a fix or anything like that. It is about sitting around, enjoying each other’s company, trying to connect to something spiritual, trying to “expand the mind” and work out the mysteries of the universe, being polite and respectful of other people.

Listening to music:

I guess now this will go under my other blog as well. So Mill on Music:

This is a touchy subject because if I were to quantify types of music in relation to each other or quantify the artists in relation to each other, I could easily offend hundreds of thousands of people. There are also several factors to consider so I will try to be careful and use a great deal of tact:

First, it would depend on the reasoning behind listening to music. If you listen to it as a distraction from reality (not a cathartic escape but as a “distraction”) or as background to simply drown out another unwanted sound or for some other reason, this would probably be seen by Mill as the wrong approach to music. If you are listening to it to understand the message of the piece, the state of the artist, to feel the emotions connected with it, then you are probably going about it the right way. Therefore, Mill would disagree with absolute music as defined as one listening to music devoid of distractions including lyrics, messages in the piece, images it brings to mind and feelings it conjures. However, Mill would agree that Muzak is evil, and if it is not evil, then it is on the bottom rung of the Hierarchy of Pleasures. Mill, contextually (meaning his time and place) would most likely have a problem with most types of modern pop, rap, etc. Mill would accept pop only as far as in it brings a great deal of pleasure to a great number of people. However, that is missing the point. Mill would say they are mistaken in their opinion of the pleasure interpreting it as a higher quality than it is and if they do not understand the pleasures inherent in the classics or the songs with great messages of social strife, he would say they just have not listened to it properly. Mill would be of the belief that higher quality music requires skill, creativity, and talent, meaning that music that is written by the person who really thought on the lyrics and did not write simply what the people wanted to hear, played instruments, and actually sang, he would accept this as high quality music. However music that is auto-toned such as Kesha, or devoid on actual instruments (and if they are present, then they are in the form of prerecorded stock sound) such as in the rap of today and some forms of pop today.

If the music brings about pleasure of the mind and spirit on top of physical pleasure (such as making love), is creative and talented, has some sort of significance and redeeming value, Mill would be okay with it.

Kitsch vs. Art:

To fully understand this, I suggest reading Beauty, Kitsch, and Glamour by Kathleen Higgins; the link is posted on my blog but I'll link it here as well: http://www.thereitis.org/gmc/philosophic-reflections/higgins_beauty-kitsch-glamour.pdf

Kitsch is stock art. And when I say art I mean I have no other way to describe it. Kitsch can be knick knacks, motivational posters, mass produces stock footage things that take no effort, skill, creativity, and do not spark contemplation as in they don’t make one think of something new or different rather than an idea they are already comfortable with, like posters of girls from movies hugging cars, or random scenes of nature with messages that sound like something out of 1984. The messages are mindless encouragement. Another good example is tattoos. Is your tattoo a cliché skull or snake that hundreds of people have that you picked out of a book? Alternatively, is it an artistic conception that you may or may not have designed yourself that has true significant meaning to you in some way that others who see it may not understand at first glance and therefore encourages conversation? Kitsch in essence is fake art just as Glamour is defined as fake beauty.

Music and Philosophy Blog Entry 3

I know my blogs tend to have nothing to do with the readings and if they do, it is something obscure, but my Q/A’s focus more on the readings and I do not want to be repeating myself. I already repeat myself saying class what is also in my Q/A. I would hate to repeat myself three times.

This week, after watching Dance of the Dead with some friends, I started thinking about the phrase “music soothes the savage beast” In the movie, zombies cease attacking when a band plays their music. I went looking online for the origins of the phrase and here is what I came up with: The phrase is from a 1697 poem, The Mourning Bride by William Congreve. Here is the poem:

Musick has Charms to sooth a savage Beast (in some translations it is ‘breast’),
To soften Rocks, or bend a knotted Oak.
I've read, that things inanimate have mov'd,
And, as with living Souls, have been inform'd,
By Magick Numbers and persuasive Sound.
What then am I? Am I more senseless grown
Than Trees, or Flint? O force of constant Woe!
'Tis not in Harmony to calm my Griefs.
Anselmo sleeps, and is at Peace; last Night
The silent Tomb receiv'd the good Old King;
He and his Sorrows now are safely lodg'd
Within its cold, but hospitable Bosom.
Why am not I at Peace?

It is a very deep and well-written poem. In the original context, the phrase has an entirely different meaning but this poem still has a lot to say about music. Clearly, the Congreve is speaking of music as a mystical thing that is hard to define (and seeing how we have this class, we are still defining). He feels music is metaphysical and full of power. The power to heal, to change the world, and he feels he has no music in his soul. (This just gave me an idea for another blog).

Clearly Congreve is depressed and heartbroken and music the power to fix these problems.

But why do we still say the music can soothe any monster, animal, or damaged person?

Is there any truth to this?

I think there is. And here is where the blog ties in with my Q/A:

If we take the definition of absolute music as discussed in class as interpreted from Hamilton, music loses most of the powers and capabilities roughly sketched out in this poem. I fully reject this theory of music. I could on about it here but I will elaborate in my Q/A. Essentially though, I believe the point of music is to feel something human, to connect to something else, to have images created in one’s head due to the nature of the piece, and to send messages of soci-political, philosophical, or otherwise significant messages to people. And in doing so, listening to music in this way, one will contemplate on the nature of the piece, what it wants to express. Breaking it down to tones and notes entirely misses the point.

We have this idea, of music soothing the hurt and the cruel because we feel so strongly about music and the effects it can have on anyone or anything. Music can unite a nation, start or stop a war, heal a broken heart, paint wonderful pictures in our minds, and do so much more. And a message of the poem: without music we are nothing, we are broken, and unable to cope, basically, music makes us human.