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.

Music and Philosophy 4.5

This is just some links I forgot to include in my blog about absolute music and how certain songs would be rendered pointless and bland if one took the absolute approach to understanding them. I mentioned a few of these in my QA as well. Also i am posting some links that have to do with rythm in everything as we were saying on friday. i agree with most of the ideas we were throwing around.

Anti-Absolutte music:
I give you three exams of very deep and meaningful songs that wihtout their lyrics, feelings, moods, and images fail as quality music altogether, in fact, if you take them just on notes and tones, they are really quite bland or at least the first one is: Aimee Mann: Just What You Are. It's a song that is either about her father or boyfriend/husband and how he will never change becuase he is the way he is. it is very deep in it's meaning the first time i heard it i was hit with this feeling that i couldd relate---like everyone knows someone like this in their lives.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArXL7uEQsEg&ob=av2e

The next one Keane: Somewhere Only We Know. I was a freshmen in highschool when Keane's first album came out with this song as the hit. It's a very artistic song and video it's like art house film for your ears. the lyrics are full of meaning and allagory and metaphore, like most of their songs. When i first heard this song i liked the melody and lyrics and once i really listened to it i felt like the lyrics were directed at me. we all want to go back to our little places in time and space where we were truly safe and happy and as we grow older those places seem farther away:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oextk-If8HQ&feature=related

This next song, I'm not going to lie and I'm not ashamed of it: I literally cried--i'm not talking teared up but serieously cried when i first heard the song. it was a school morning during breakfast and MTV was on which is weird becuase i never really watched MTV. this song came on and it is full to the brim with meaning and emotion and truly is a beautiful song. If you notice all these pieces are songs. Anyway, the song is about things that everyone as human beings go thru in their daily lives. it's about depression, stress, and axieties (so i can relate) but it is also about how we feel so lost, little, and alone when we are in these states, but that we never really are. there are people who care about us. even when we feel like there really is no one
"Alone. That was the dreaded word. He, Arthur Dent, was a lone man, alone and lonely. On loan from another dimension. A low no one with no one to lean on" Eion Colfer.
Someone will always listen. Even a stranger. It can also be taken as a kind of love song. the one singing is telling his loved one that they will never be alone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JI-o25K6B-E&ob=av3e

There are so many other songs that discredit absolute music theory but for now this is a good start. However i would also encourage you all to listen to this i found today. a combination of somwhere only we know and fix you. they work so well together. i was thinking how much i love those songs and that i wish there was a combination. when i google this out of curiosity and blind hope, i came up with this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kx5UPp_-_1M

Then we have the rhythm references. during class on friday all these examples kept poping up. i wrote some of them down to make sure i posted them.  to start with, morse code is a language made from rhythm. we discussed how music would in most cases fail as a language but rhythem is a different story. well here is the more code rhythm found in Bethoven. i saw this flash video back in early highschool back when i was really into flash videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0HrbCbfwlg

Next is another flash video i first saw years ago. it involves the rhythm of an older windows operating system. believe it or not i used to be really into electronics and i thought this video was wicked cool. this guy made a song entirely out of the windows sounds:

http://winnoise.com/

This one is from a fantastic artsy movie that i fell in love with my sophmore year of high school . i highly recommend the movie. I will most likely do a review of it on here at some point. i do plan on review more than just zombie movies, i am after all a cinemaphile. it is mostly becuase i love the deep and hidden meanings in films, the philosophic, socio-political messages. and this blog is perfect for that. i actually just had a thought. we have an essentials of film class and several other film classes. we are a communications college, and we have such David Johnson philosophy classes as Art and Philosophy, Music and Philosophy, Literature and Philosophy (I hope you offer it again as i was unable to take it for next spring), we really should have a Film and Philosophy or Movies and Philosophy or Cinema and Philosophy or something. That would be great. in fact if i do become a professor, that is one of the classes i will teach. anyway, tangent, i digress. here is the link: it is about making music from houshold items:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFa96dBT9VE&feature=related

Also, I mentioned this in one of my first QA's this semester having to do with music and intetion of random background sounds. it involves a Raver (as in clubs) who upon hearing the phone ring, notices other rhythmic sounds around the flat and makes music out of them in his head and begins to dance with them. i meant to post this a while ago but i'm doing now. it's from Simon Pegg's show Spaced which is a great show especially if you are a nerd. it is like a lazy and british version of Big Bang Theory (by lazy i mean the characters are more lazy). it also has pretty much every actor from Shaun of the Dead in it. TANGENT ALERT: if you like Simon Pegg and/or like Nerds in general, i highly recommend his book Nerd Do Well. Anyway, here is the link (sorry about all the tangents, i have has a stressful day and im like half asleep right now....so i also apologize for typos.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9is5gJORl4

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.

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.

Music and Philosophy 2.75 (Halloween Edition)

Hello everyone! I thought it would be fun to post some classic Halloween music that has no lyrics and so there will be one less thing to distracte you will you search for the absolute value of the music. I am also posting links for a fun and scarey music themed horror video. It's about 45 minutes in length and is from Stephen King's anthology series Nightmares and Dreamscapes

(also the reason i'm numbering some of these blogs as inbetween numbers is because they are small little blips that don't have much content while the full numbered ones are more detailed.

Links for show:
http://www.viddler.com/explore/ZombieGeniusss/videos/8/

http://www.fanpop.com/spots/stephen-king/videos/118902/title/know-hell-band

You'll need to donwload the divx plugin to watch the show with this link but i can assure you it is safe and has never given me any problems: http://stagevu.com/video/infnwxswlqbk

And here is the music as promised:

Night on Bald Mountain--Mussorgsky: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCEDfZgDPS8
The Grat Pumpkin Waltz--Vince Gauraldi: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IymAMEzEoDo

Happy Halloween Everyone

Music and Philosophy 2.5

Ok so I mentioned in class and in my QA a few things that I can link people to for thsoe interested. There is also one that I didn't mention but thought humorous

Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me: Not My Job: Lil' Ed Williams: http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=105369000&m=105368986

I know anyone that googles Muzak could find this but the tag line in the google link just made me want to post it: http://www.muzak.com/

Society for the Rehumanization of American Music:
This is the organization that makes the bumper sticker I have: Once there were Songs. He also has one about real drums vs sythesized ones. I couldn't find a real webstie for him but I found this article:
http://articles.latimes.com/1995-09-06/entertainment/ca-42642_1_john-wood

Also, for any Doctor Who fans, I never had heard about the music of the spheres in philosophy before, but I had heard a reference in a special in the show. It's kind of fun for anyone interested:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvHcE0dgHy4

AND, that annoying Jeep commercial I mentioned in class:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mi0SbrrGaiw

That's it for now. I'll see if I can find anything else for the blog of the week.

Music & Philosophy Blog 2

Ok, so I've been thinking about how to go about defining concepts that are a bit harder than simply dog or chair like art, music, etc. and here's what i've come up with, i touched briefly on how i feel about defining things in my extended Philosophy of Art paper which you can view at My papers/essays link on my main blog page. This blog may seem irrevevant at times or just a big tangent but bear with me.

To start with God: now in most cultures, God (or god or gods/goddesses) typically are simply summed up with three terms: omnipotent (all powerful), omniscent (all knowing), and omnipresent (everywhere simultaniously). Now, logically what this means is the God in most cases (esp in Judeo/Christan/Islamic terms) is infinite and limitless. Now there is a problem with defininf infinite concepts because language is finite and therefore no matter what, when you try to describe an infinite concept with finite language you are essentially limiting it and therefore the true message will not get across. for example refering to God as He, he, She, or she. Such is the problem with language: we don't always have the right words. This can also be said of absract concepts such as truth, beauty, freedom, justice, etc. The problem with refering to God comes into play with these terms because for the most part they are all subjective and have different meanings for different people and unless you are a Kantian and/or a Platonist/Neo-Plantonist,  there really is no objective concept of Truth, Beauty, Freedom, or Justice. and even if you do follow Kant or Plato, both of them still agree that as a single physical person, one will not truly know the full nature and objective meaning of these concepts. Therefore it can be difficult to define things like Music, Art, Dance, Literature, etc. You will end up limiting them and not taking into account all possibilites that exist or that may one day come along.

That being said, I also don't think it is a good idea to not have any base definition for these things either. I don't like the idea of opening floodgates so that anything can be anything. Definitons are important to an extent. I mean don't get me wrong, I'm not one of thsoe people who needs a label and classification for all things to feel safer and more comfortable with the world. This is something we all do to an extent as to not feel like we live in a world of chaos and uncertainties. However as I said, definitons are useful and helpful and they do weed out certain ridiculous or bad examples of a concept to be classified as such. For example. an iguana is not a cow. In the first place, an iguana isn't even a mammal so it fails even at the basic neccesities for being a cow.

Which bring me to my next point, once again, tangetn alert. I'm about to use zombies as a way to explain how to define music, Art, or art in general.:

Now at it's core a zombie follows certain things. Even before the days of George Romero who set the standard for the modern zombie, zombies were almost always previously dead things. I admit at times there were movies and books that had zombies as simply living people under hypnosis who did the bidding of the "zombie king" , the one who did the voodoo. But even if they were dead this figure was refered to as the zombie king. One, could look at these people in a trance as metaphorical zombies. the same way when parents say their kids are zombies in the morning. These parents do not actually mean their kids are zombies, undead, or being controlled by anyone. They know full well their kids are not among the walking dead.
So at our basis, zombies are dead that are somehow acting not dead. This is clear if we look at the synomyms for zombies: the living dead, the undead, the walking dead. See? Dead. Dead, dead, dead. Zombies are dead. More this, only the brain is typically functional. This means zombies don't need any of thewir other organs, which is why if you shoot or stab them in the chest or stomach they are not phased. it is the brain that still drives them and the only way to kill a zombie is to damage or remove the brain. now we all agree on this. But many many people have a tendency to label movies like 28 days later, evil dead, or i am legend as zombie movies. this is false. you can argue it anyway you want but in the end it comes down to whether they are dead or not. not only that but the writers of these movies usually clearly state their creatures are not zombies. out of those three films i listed, the only one that comes close to being zombies is the evil dead becuase in fact, the creatures are dead. but i nwill be going into a deeper argument about this in another post on debunking pseudozombie movies pretty much unrelated to this post but will recap and continue the specific discussion on the nature of zombies.

Anyway my point is if we don't somewhat close off definitons to at least not let in some things i feel we may be in trouble or else vampires could technically be zombies, cell phones could be works of art, computer system sounds of a laptop booting up could be music, etc.