["What if Objectivism doesn't apply to me?"]

Yep, the human has many different requirements, from many different aspects or quas. But the thing that makes it objectively good to fulfil those requrirements is the fact that physical death or not corresponds to existence or non-existence. That is the fundamental alternative that makes it good to look out for your other non-physical health requirements. (Emphasis added)

Maybe this is just nit-picking on my part, but I'm still not sure why you use the term "physical death." I agree that it is death or not that corresponds to existence or non-existence. Why qualify it as "physical" death, though? I assume you don't think there is a soul that goes on living after the body dies. But the issue is whether or not a person goes on living after the mind dies. For example: Terri Schiavo. Was she still alive, after her consciousness had permanently left, but her body was kept going by machines? Your mind can't exist without your body, but your body can't keep itself alive without your mind either. I don't understand why you hold that the physical aspect of life it more fundamental than the mental.. I would think they both start out at the same time, as equals.

[Who here was "Objectivist" before finding Objectivism?]

When I read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, it was more of a completion of myself than a revelation. I had essentially lived my whole life as an Objectivist without having the explicitness provided by Objectivism, and after the extensive introspection that I went through after finding an explicit philosophy, I found I had held very few contradictions. Who else here was like that? Who here was the opposite?

For me, it was like reading my own thoughts.. Except, much more eloquent! Reading Ayn Rand did help me identify some major contradictions that I had been holding though--before her, I had been holding on to a very fragile and bruised, but very serious belief in Christianity, for example (as I understood it, which was incorrectly). After reading ITOE and Atlas Shrugged, it was clear to me how much in opposition that was to everything else I believed in (i.e. reality), and happily dropped it. But then when I read The Fountainhead, which was the next one I read, it was like she was writing it specifically to me. Howard Roark is as close as I've ever seen in art to the embodiment of everything I'm passionate about. So reading a novel based on that, I experienced the things I alone had valued, that nobody else mentioned, transform into objective values that people should and some do value, before my eyes.

All that was my last year and first year after high school (I graduated in 2000). Since then, when I read something new from her, she never ceases to surprise me, or reveal new insights I'd never considered. But it does give me an eerie feeling sometimes, like I'm having my private thoughts repeated back to me, only stated much better. I can't claim to have been a natural Objectivist, because my religion created a whole host of false premises and regrettable moral decisions for me, but I had a deep feeling of recognition and connection with her philosophy and sense of life, and I was never hostile to anything in her works, including her treatment of the idea of God, when I was still a theist.

["What if Objectivism doesn't apply to me?"]

I would say life qua man is the standard: the abstract set of principles you measure your actions against. But the concrete you are trying to preserve is your own continued physical existence. (see your tagline)

Why do you say physical existence? A man qua vegetable has physical existence.. Doesn't the mind have requirements for its health, besides the mere requirements of the body?

What I mean is, doesn't man's life qua rational being require that he has a healthy mind, not only a healthy body?

[Recommendations for Studying Objectivism]

What books/courses should I buy? I'm trying to get as thorough a grounding as possible in Objectivism, especially in areas such as induction.

I think that the most important thing to buy is Ayn Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology (ITOE). In my judgment, this is the most essential single book to read for understanding Objectivism, along with Atlas Shrugged. But, luckily, there are volumes of fascinating courses and books available, on just about any subject.

["What if Objectivism doesn't apply to me?"]

After having a classical liberal vs. traditionalist conservative debate with a fellow student, I was asked these questions about objectivism:

1) Paraphrased: So what if I'm born a billionaire? I can live my entire life without producing any value. Although man "in general" needs to produce value to live, if I'm born a billionaire I don't need to ever and what if I had a different philosophy?

For one thing, being born with a billion dollars does not mean that you will automatically be a billionaire for the rest of your life. You need to at least be productive enough to know how to manage your money, and keep it safe, or at least to be able to distinguish people you can trust to manage it, from those you can't. Then of course, there are the needs of life other than having money, some of which have been mentioned.

2) ON HAPPINESS: If happiness is the achievement of one's values, what if I valued stealing and looting? Would I be happy?

I think that this scenario is possible, for a certain type of depraved person, in an unusual type of situation. But it doesn't matter, because happiness is not the standard of morality (Objectivism is not eudaimonism), life is. Happiness is the goal and reward for being moral, but not the standard (see "The Objectivist Ethics" in The Virtue of Selfishness, specifically pg 27, and pgs 32-33).

MY QUESTION: Was my answer adequate? Furthermore, is it in our nature to be happy by achieving what WE value or what nature REQUIRES us to value? In other words, if I brainwashed myself to value stabbing myself in the gut, would I be happy doinog so?

This depends on the context for your use of happiness. If you mean eudaimonia, or "the good life," which is more than a simple, fleeting emotion, then achieving happiness is more difficult, and would require more objective virtues than it would if you mean hedone, or momentary pleasure. Unfortunately, we only have the one word in English, and sometimes people equivocate on what exactly they mean, so it's sometimes helpful (in my experience) to use the more specific Greek terms. (Usually, when Ayn Rand uses the term, I think she means something closer to eudaimonia. But when a Pragmatist uses it, he probably means something closer to hedone).

She just means physical life, but a psychological side-effect of following the physical life values is happiness.

No--when Ayn Rand speaks of the "life of man qua man," I believe she means, "the life proper to a rational being."

The standard of value of the Objectivist ethics—the standard by which one judges what is good or evil—is man's life, or: that which is required for man's survival qua man.

Since reason is man's basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil.

Since everything man needs has to be discovered by his own mind and produced by his own effort, the two essentials of the method of survival proper to a rational being are- thinking and productive work.

[WHAT ARE METAPHYSICS?]

Skipping a few paragraphs:

To dismiss a claim as "arbitrary" is not the equivalent of pleading ignorance or confessing indecision or suspending judgment. It is not the same as saying "I don't know" or "I haven't made up my mind" or "I have no opinion." These responses presuppose that an issue has a connection to human cognition; they presuppose that there is some evidence pertaining to the issue and, therefore, that it is legitimate to consider, even though one may be unable for various reasons to untangle it. For example, if the field is specialized, a given individual may not have the time to study the evidence, even though it is clear and abundant. Or the data may be so evenly balanced, or so fragmentary and ambiguous—for instance, in regard to judging a certain person's character—that one simply cannot decide what conclusion is warranted. In such cases, "I don't know" is an honest and appropriate statement.

If someone asks a man whether there are gremlins on Venus, however, there is no justification for the reply "I don't know." What doesn't he know? What evidence has he failed to study or been unable to clarify? What is the basis to believe that there is anything to learn on this subject? If the gremlin claim is arbitrary, there is no such basis. In this situation, the proper response is: "I do know. I know that any such claim is to be thrown out as inadmissible."

[WHAT ARE METAPHYSICS?]

That's definately a good way of putting it.

Thanks. : ) It's sort of a paraphrase of Leonard Peikoff:

The onus of proof rule states the following. If a person asserts that a certain entity exists (such as God, gremlins, a disembodied soul), he is required to adduce evidence supporting his claim. If he does so, one must either accept his conclusion, or disqualify his evidence by showing that he has misinterpreted certain data. But if he offers no supporting evidence, one must dismiss his claim without argumentation, because in this situation argument would be futile. It is impossible to "prove a negative," meaning by the term: prove the nonexistence of an entity for which there is no evidence.

The reason is the fact that existence exists, and only existence exists. A thing that exists is something; it is an entity in the world; as such, it has effects by which men can grasp and prove it—either directly, by perceptual means, or indirectly, by logical inference (e.g., the discovery of atoms). But a nonexistent is nothing; it is not a constituent of reality, and it has no effects. If gremlins, for instance, do not exist, then they are nothing and have no consequences. In such a case, to say: "Prove that there are no gremlins," is to say: "Point out the facts of reality that follow from the nonexistence of gremlins." But there are no such facts. Nothing follows from nothing.

All thought, argument, proof, refutation must start with that which exists. No inference can be drawn from a zero. If a person offers evidence for a positive, one can, if the claim is mistaken, identify his misinterpretations and in that sense refute him. But one cannot prove the corresponding negative by starting from a void.

For the sake of full clarity, I must add the following. One can infer from any truth the falsehood of its contradictories. For example, from "X was in New York during the Dallas shooting of Y" one can infer the falsehood of "X shot Y." Thus one can disprove a claim or "prove a negative" ("X is not guilty")—but only by demonstrating that the claim contradicts established knowledge; i.e., only by relating the claim to a positive cognitive context, when this is available. What one cannot do is prove a negative apart from such a relationship; what one cannot do is establish the falsehood of an arbitrary claim qua arbitrary. One establishes the false by reference to the true, not by reference to nothing.

[WHAT ARE METAPHYSICS?]

I'm affraid you're wrong there. Aristotle's account of nature and the explanations he gives for the natural phenomena have explanatory force only if you accept his 'first philosophy', or 'theology' (this is the translation of a Greek word Aristotle himself employs; I can look up which word if you like). The goal-directedness, or teleology of nature he posits is theological through and through, and is essential to his account of nature / philosophy.

Aristotle's application of final causation (teleology) to the universe as a whole, including inanimate objects, was a mistake, and I would agree that it is the primary theological element in Aristotle. And it is a significant element in his metaphysics. But it is not the most essential element. I would say the most essential achievement in his metaphysics is in his claim that there is only one world, which *is* the world of perception, and that universals exist in particulars, rather than in a supernatural World of Forms. Also, since teleology does exist in (individual) living organisms, some of his observations about final causation were important for subsequent, secular, scientific inquiries.

Science justifies its right to exist pragmatically, just like everything else. You may think it a sad thing, but in the world as it is, Truth has no value in itself; it only has value in an economic kind of way.

If you wish to argue for Pragmatism, the debate forum would be the appropriate place to do so. Ayn Rand was quite radically opposed to the Pragmatist theories of truth and meaning, but it's out of the scope of this thread to name her objections.

Well if he (the medieval philosopher) could explain it, he couldn't claim the explanandum to be unknowable, could he?

Of course he could claim it--a person can claim anything he wants. People are quite capable of uttering contradictions, and medieval philosophy is a great place to look for examples (especially in characters like Eckhardt, who were apparently quite proud of it).

If it was, he wouldn't be able to explain it.

Exactly--it was usually the case that the unknowable would also turn out to be ineffable. But, if you do what the mystic tells you, then you can understand it, and approximate communication about it with analogies or bromides or something. This leads to what Ayn Rand called "the mystic formula": "For those who understand, no explanation is necessary; for those who don't, none is possible." Convenient, eh?

I distinguish between Kant and Kantians.

I'm no expert, but I don't think the former really claims to be able to explain the unknowable. Or is that not what you where getting at?

I'm not an expert either, but based on what I've read from Kant (CPR, Critique of Judgment, and various excerpts, essays and interpretations) it seems that he made quite a lot of claims about the Neumenal World, considering he held that it was entirely unknowable, and inconceivable. Indeed, I believe that was one of Hegel's major criticisms of Kant--if the Neumenal World is unknowble, how do you know there even is one? So Hegel did away with the Neumenal World altogether.

Too easily interpreted as such, I'm sorry. Allow me to rephrase: "The question is not whether the metaphysician thinks whether the things his theory is about can be known or not; the question is whether we have observations of the explanandum so we can actually talk about it, or whether we don't have observations of the explanandum, so we can only speculate about it - to begin with its existence or non-existence for example."

It's still epistemological, because the question is whether you can know something without experiencing a direct sensory observation of it.. Can you make inferences? Can you abstract away from particulars and form concepts? Is it possible to identify scientific principles, or is the best scientific explanation you can hope for along the lines of, "here, now--GREEN... there, now--MOVING," etc.

Technically speaking, yes, I would consider that a possibility, since there is no evidence that there is no Santa Claus.

There is never evidence for the nonexistence of something--nonexistent things don't leave evidence of their not existing.

(Wow, did you just trick me into a formal statement about Santa Claus's existence? )

[Greed]

I didn't read every post in this thread, but on page 684 of Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand says, "The pursuit of wealth is greed, the root of all evil?" I think "the pursuit of wealth" is a good definition for greed, and it is usually what people mean when they use the word (the negative connotations come from most people's negative evaluation of the pursuit of wealth).

[WHAT ARE METAPHYSICS?]

Are you saying that Aristotle's metaphysics wasn't theological?

Yes--not in its essentials, anyway. As I said before, there were still remnants of (theological) Platonism--but theology in Aristotle is so weak and inessential to the rest of his system, that I think it is appropriate to consider Aristotle's metaphysics as primarily secular, and as the basis for subsequent (more consistently) secular systems.

It is my belief that in principle every observable phenomenon is reducable to physics. Do not that I'm not saying that we can do so now, or that it will ever be worthwhile to do so. In the end, I would say, everything we can sensibly talk about is physics.

Well.. the onus of proof is on you.

And whereas physicists may adhere to, or presuppose philosophical positions, I don't think physics does. Any metaphysical views a physicist may have determine his physics only in a negative way: His views on physics depend on his views on metaphysics and epistemology only insofar as he will allow them to - but there is no need to do so.

So, a physicist doesn't need to know whether or not A can equal non-A at the same time and in the same respect? He doesn't need to know whether physical objects obey natural laws, or whether all events are entirely random and unknowable? The conclusions he draws from observable phenomena (assuming that there is such a thing as observable phenomena--a metaphysical assumption!) would not vary greatly depending on his answers to these metaphysical questions? He doesn't need epistemology either? Proper methods of induction (i.e., "the scientific method") and deductive reasoning are not vital for his craft?

If you ask the metaphysician, he will tell you that of course he is not explaining something unknowable, because if it was unknowable, how could he ever explain anything about it?

This depends entirely on which metaphysician you ask. The majority of metaphysicians in history (especially prior to The Enlightenment) were not empiricists. If you asked a metaphysician in the middle ages how he could explain something unknowable, he would have a whole arsenal of answers ready for you--mystical revelation, innate knowledge, intuition, reading the stars, casting lots, came to him in a dream, etc, etc.

But that doesn't only apply to pre-enlightenment philosophers. Try asking a Kantian sometime how he can explain the unknowable. He will undoubtedly have given the issue a lot of thought, and will have a very complicated, highly technical, completely unintelligible answer for you.

I agree with you that one shouldn't try to explain the unknowable--but that's assuming certain principles in epistemology that not every metaphysician subscribes to.

The question is not whether the metaphysician thinks whether the things his theory are about can be known or not; the question is whether they actually can be or can't be known.

That's an epistemelogical question.

I will not claim there is no Santa Claus, but I will let the facts speak for themselves.

You consider it to be a possibility that there is a fat man who lives in the north pole, employing elves to make toys for all of the children of the world, which he will deliver all in one evening, by riding a sleigh drawn by flying reindeer, and squeezing up and down chimneys, with all the toys in a bag? (Just to be sure you know who Santa Clause is--I'm not sure if they have that fairy tale in the Netherlands or not!)

[Homosexuality vs. Heterosexuality]

This can pose a problem, considering that I am 17 and will have to remain at home for another year. He's already saying that if I don't change, then I can just forget about any support in paying for my college tuition.

Hmmm.. You know, I wouldn't be suprized if there were some kind of scholarship available for someone in your type of situation. I don't know how you would go about looking for that, though.

You have every right to feel hurt by your father's position. I hope things work out for you.

[Coping with Death]

Dealing with what aspect of it? In my experience, there are only two psychological issues that arise concerning death that need any form of dealing: fear of death and the idea that death makes life pointless.

Don't you think that losing someone close to you creates psychological issues that need to be dealt with, besides these two?

It seems to me that the death of a human being you love is different from the loss of other high values (for instance, losing your job), and requires special coping skills. Not just after the death, but also, if there is a terminal illness, the whole period after you learn that the person is sick and probably going to die. I don't think that it's fear or apathy driving the emotional state of someone losing or who has lost a loved one.

[Coping with Death]

Try this clip from "Ayn Rand: a sense of life"

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

Awesome, I tried to look for that same clip when I saw this thread yesterday, but didn't see it. That's one of my favorite parts of the documentary.

Does anyone have any speculations about who the Greek philosopher is that she was quoting? It's probably not going to be an exact quote of the translations that we have, since she probably read it in Russian (she said that she was 16). Based on my knowledge of Ancient Greek philosophers (which is still pretty limited), I think Epicurus is a good bet. He had a lot of similar, interesting things to say about death.

[What is a "Sense of Life?"]

Since I don't know what exactly is meant by the term "sense of life" I am asking whether all emotions compose a "sense of life", even if those emotions may come from some brain disorder? The type of disorder itself doesn't matter to me, the question remains the same.

The exact definition of "sense of life" from TRM was quoted in an earlier post by Stephen Speicher: "a pre-conceptual equivalent of metaphysics, an emotional, subconsciously integrated appraisal of man and of existence." But this is greatly elaborated on and explained in the chapter mentioned, "Philosophy and Sense of Life," which is better written and probably shorter than this thread will end up being. I haven't read it in a while, and I could probably stand to freshen up on my own understanding of sense of life--but I'll do my best to answer your questions as far as I think I understand it.

A person's sense of life effects and determines the way he experiences emotions, and it also is a type of emotional experience, or at least involves emotions. Now I think I understand what you're asking enough to say--no, the specific emotional experience that is a direct product of bipolar disorder is not a product of or component of sense of life. In the same way, experiencing the emotion of surprise when you hear a sudden, loud noise has nothing to do with your sense of life.

On the other hand, a person's sense of life will necessarily effect his emotional experience inasmuch as it is a product of his judgments and premises, etc. There are some manic depressives who are cynical, and some who are optimistic--some who are benevolent, and some who are malevolent--some who respect themselves and some who don't; all of those things involve sense of life. If you'll allow me to try some armchair psychology to try and explain it, I would conjecture that a manic depressive with a benevolent sense of life would probably try to obtain medicine and therapy, because when he is down, he would know that it's not normal, that people aren't meant to suffer, and that the world is not metaphysically against him, and yet his emotions might be as low as they would be if that were the case, so he would know something is wrong. A person with a malevolent sense of life, however, might avoid medicine and therapy. He might think that his extreme depressions actually give him a better insight into how things are really, and how a person's emotional state should be, in a world such as this. (Maybe this conjecture would work better for clinical depression than bipolar disorder--I've only known people with manic depression, but have actually experienced clinical depression, so I'm more knowledgeable about it).

To try my example with the sudden loud noise--sense of life won't effect the fact that the initial emotion will be surprise; but it might effect whether the next emotion is courage or cowardice. Does that help at all?

[What is a "Sense of Life?"]

Do emotions count as a part of somebody's sense of life? If so what kind of emotions?

What if someone is manic-depressive. Are those emotions part of their sense of life, even though they don't come from their philosophy?

Is a sense of life simply a view of the world and man, a collection of one's convictions, or an emotion, or some mental atmosphere one has?

Is it possible for a lot of people to share the exact same sense of life? Does sense of life come from some general principles, or from the collection of all of one's ideas?

In other words, can anyone please explain what exactly is a sense of life and give examples?

Have you read "Philosophy and Sense of Life" in The Romantic Manefesto? You seem to be asking a lot of questions that are answered in that.

But the state of a manic-depressive person is not addressed in it (I'm not aware of that topic coming up in any of Ayn Rand's writings).

What if someone is manic-depressive. Are those emotions part of their sense of life, even though they don't come from their philosophy?

What specific emotions are you referring to, when you say "those emotions"? Emotions involve the body and chemicals, but they also involve the mind and philosophy. Is your specific question whether bipolar disorder has a necessary effect on a person's sense of life? If so, I don't think I'd be qualified to answer that. I've had friends who are manic depressive, and I can say it's a real drag, but I don't know enough specific details about its significance to a person's identity, philosophy, or sense of life.

Does sense of life come from some general principles, or from the collection of all of one's ideas?

From all of one's ideas. [edit: At least, I think so.. If I understand you right.]

[WHAT ARE METAPHYSICS?]

It seems that this is coming down to just a quarrel on the correct definition of the word 'metaphysics', which really wasn't exactly the thing I was after; but then, who am I to try to swim upstream the current of the conversation? I'll float along.

Well, I don't know if it's a quarrel, but the name of the thread is "WHAT ARE METAPHYSICS," so I thought that the point was to provide a proper definition.

Let me try to elucidate with an example why I think that if objectivist metaphysics is actually about real things, it should be called physics instead: Not doing so, would be like Big Bang-theorists calling their theory creationism, because it is about the same thing creationists try to explain with their theory. That would be silly wouldn't it? I think you'll think so, and that's why I think 'objectivist metaphysics' sounds silly.

I'm not sure I follow this analogy. In what respect would these sets be similar? The Big Bang theory and Creationism are both specific attempts to explain the origin of the universe. There are striking similarities between the two--for example, they both hold that the universe appeared ex nihilo. But, as far as I know, Creationism has always been a theological position, in which a Supreme Consciousness "creates" the universe; whereas the Big Bang theory is a supposedly secular explanation of how the universe exploded into existence, using the laws of mechanics on a cosmological scale.

The relationship between metaphysics and physics is different. Metaphysics has traditionally been merely a theory of the nature of the universe--supernatural or not. Originally, in fact, it was not supernatural (with Aristotle). But then people applied the term to religious views as well, so that we had Plato's metaphysics, and Pythagoras' metaphysics, and later Augustine's metaphysics, and so on.

Physics, however, does not mean metaphysics minus the supernatural. Physics is not a theory of the nature of the universe. It is a scientific attempt to explain one delimited portion of the universe--but not the universe as a whole. It only explains the dynamics between physical objects. It says nothing on, for instance, ideas, or the mind (as apart from the physical mechanisms of the brain) and so on. And besides that, the study of physics (as the word is normally used--dictionary.com says "the science that deals with matter, energy, motion, and force" which seems okay to me) is a science which relies on the answers to questions about the nature of the universe that are more fundamental. For example, physics deals with questions like: "how fast will a weight or a feather fall when dropped?" But it doesn't deal directly with questions like: "Are weights and feathers real? Are laws of nature immutable, or can they be molded by human consciousness? Are there any necessary connections between events?"

Compare philosophy to religion, metaphysics to christianity and physics to wicca.

Okay--religion is a type of philosophy. Christianity is a type of religion, which holds positions in metaphysics (different positions depending on which Christian philosopher you mean). Physics and Wicca have no explicit relationship that I'm aware of.

Now, I don't think wiccans or christians would have serious problems with calling each other's ideas a religion; there can be multiple kinds op religion.

Right--religion is the genus, and Wiccans and Christians are both species.

The same goes for there being different kinds of philosophy; we can call both physics and metaphysics philosphical views.

Personally, I think that would be acceptable in a certain sense (if you wanted to consider physics to be a species of metaphysics)--but I have seen people present arguments that an applied science such as physics or paleontology or whatever should not be referred to as "philosophy," on the grounds that philosophy should deal with general principles and should not require specialized knowledge that is not available to everyone (any adult human with a working consciousness, I mean). So it might be more clear to distinguish between what is "science" and what is "philosophy," even though science is necessarily dependent on philosophy. In that case, a physicist (qua physicist) would be a scientist, and a metaphysician (qua metaphysician) would be a philosopher. Inasmuch as physics as a science is dependent on and presupposes philosophical positions, I would argue that it is most dependent on metaphysics and epistemology.

However, would wiccans want to be called christians?

No, because Wiccans and Christians are different species of religion.

I think not, and don't think that scientists should want to be called metaphysicians either. That's one reason why I allow this to work for philosophy in general, but not for metaphysics.

I don't think that they necessarily should, qua scientists. But a specific scientist, if he is also interested in philosophy, could be a metaphysician qua philosopher.

Another reason I will give in reply to your last paragraph.

I'm sorry, I thought it was you who quoted Wikipedia, but it wasn't; τα μετα τα φυσικά means "that/those beyond/after the physics". It's highly ambiguous.

So you dispute the claim that it was called this because it was the section that came "after the physics" when Aristotle's works were compiled? It might be ambiguous if you attempt to derive meaning from the root words without that historical insight in mind, but with it it seems to make sense to me (assuming that it is an accurate historical fact).

And well, of course Aristotle thought his metaphysics was what we would call physical. I don't think any philosopher ever thought his metaphysical theories were not about something; of course they all thought their theories were about the universe as a whole. That's exactly the problem. That's why I say that if objectivist metaphysics is about something real, it should be called physics: You don't want to go about making claims about things you can't know something about, not even whether they're real - do you?

No, but that's an epistemological issue. Metaphysics doesn't (necessarily) attempt to explain things that are unknowable. Aristotle was an empiricist--he didn't believe in innate ideas. He thought that all knowledge was derived from experience, including knowledge of metaphysical principles.

Assuming then, for the sake of the argument, that you do; what difference would there be between a science of being qua being (for as far as we know it; for as far as it's real to us) and physics?

For one thing, physics is a science which requires specialized knowledge of the physical world, whereas metaphysics should be derivable from the knowledge possessed by every adult human. Also, if you are okay with the definition of physics as "the science that deals with matter, energy, motion, and force," that is insufficient for a complete theory of being qua being, since knowledge of more than matter, energy, motion, and force is possible (for instance, knowledge of psychology; or of law as it pertains to government, is also possible, and those are not exclusively dependent on nor are they derivable from knowledge of matter, energy, motion, and force).

Am I supposed to accept or reject a proposition when I don't know the answer to it? Am I to guess? Because I will never know whether there exists more than I what know exists.

A person who accepts the onus of proof principle ("the burden of proof is on he who asserts the positive") would reject any proposition which lacks sufficient evidence (although he would likely employ a gradation from impossible, to possible, to probable, to true, etc). A person who accepts some form of faith would have no problem accepting a proposition without any evidence at all (although he would likely require an appeal to emotion or authority before accepting it, etc).

To accept that a proposition is at least possible, without sufficient evidence, would, I think, require a certain amount of faith. To reject a proposition in spite of sufficient evidence is skepticism. The approach I advocate is to reject a proposition until there is sufficient evidence (I don't think there might be a Santa Claus, only it's impossible to say for sure--I say there is no Santa Claus).

But a person can suspend judgment on a proposition, and at the same time employ any of these principles--faith, skepticism, or onus of proof.

[WHAT ARE METAPHYSICS?]

If, as you say, we can't go by the majority, then there's no reason to follow "most authors in epistemology, [who] have ended up in skepticism or mysticism of some sort," is there?

Sorry, my statement wasn't very clear. What I meant when I said, "You can't go by majority rule in philosophy," is that philosophical terms or ideas should not be defined by whatever the majority of philosophers assumes that they mean. In other words, we should not define "metaphysics" by simply taking a survey of the way that most philosophers have used the term, complete with all of the premises that they base that usage on, and all the conclusions that they reach from it. If you did that, you would have to abandon philosophy as such, because philosophy, historically speaking, usually includes false premises and false conclusions (with a few non sequiturs and logical fallacies in between).

To state it a different way, the same procedure by which you have rejected metaphysics could be used to reject anything about which most people have been wrong--which is nearly everything.

Same goes for following philosophers who were wrong. This does not mean that we are to abandon philosophy altogether; it only means that if we allow our common sense to be guided by contemporary facts, we will end up with a kind of philosophy radically different from classical and enlightenment ones.

Likewise, if we allow our common sense (reason) to be guided by [universal] facts, we will end up with a kind of metaphysics which is radically different from the popular ones. Why do you allow this to work for philosophy in general, but not for metaphysics?

Well then, what is it that endeavors that claim to be, or are said to be metaphysical have in common? It is that none of them is about any physically observable thing; they concern τα μετα τα φυσικά, those things trans physicam, the supernatural, the things beyond nature.

Unfortunately, I can't read Greek, so I don't know what those characters mean (there is a phrase in English for when something is unintelligible, which comes to mind-- "It's Greek to me!"). But based on the part that I do understand, I think you have set up a straw man as your definition for Metaphysics. You have chosen a specific species of Metaphysics (supernaturalism) to stand for the whole concept. But I think the essential definition of Metaphysics is simply that it is a theory to describe the nature of the universe as a whole. In this definition, "physics" would be merely a subset, or application, of the broader concept "metaphysics." I believe my definition is more consistent with the original meaning of the term, because Aristotle himself was not a supernaturalist, in any significant way--there were still remnants of his mentor Plato's (supernaturalistic) philosophy in his metaphysics, but he was for the most part an empiricist (of a much different kind than the post-Humean nominalist/sensualist variety, since he did believe in universals, but thought that they existed in particulars) and an advocate of the reality and exclusivity of this world, as opposed to a supernatural one.

I think the only scientifically correct way of dealing with things metaphysical is a "Who knows? Not I..." kind of attitude.

I think agnosticism evades the issue, because: just because you don't know something doesn't answer the question of whether you accept the proposition or reject it.

[WHAT ARE METAPHYSICS?]

That is exactly the question most authors in metaphysics answer, be it explicit or implicit, with a big 'yes'.

You can't go by majority rule in philosophy.. Most authors in epistemology have ended up in skepticism or mysticism of some sort. Should we do away with epistemology too, then? Most philosophers, in general, have ended up with false conclusions of practically every kind imaginable, and many impractical and unimaginable kinds, too. Should we abandon philosophy altogether?

Yet Ayn Rand is a perfect example of a metaphysician who rejected the supernatural, and there are others who did to varying degrees also. Why should metaphysics suffer this guilt by association you attribute to it? Is that just?

[Happy Birthday GreedyCapitalist!]

Happy birthday, David!

POW!!

::CONFETTI FALLS EVERYWHERE::

[Thoughts On: "The Death Of Pop Music"]

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say here or what point you're arguing against. What are we boiling down? Synthesizers have been around since the 1920's if you count the theremin.

By the way, an excellent early performer of theremin music whom I've recently discovered is Clara Rockmore. She is interesting on many levels!

[Thoughts On: "The Death Of Pop Music"]

I decided to post my full response, but if you want to continue this discussion, but don't have anything specifically related to the thread to add, please PM me!

Or, we could start a new thread on Billy Corgan vs Madonna.

[Worst Event In History]

On another note, speaking of God, isn't He the most logical being? Just like the skyscrapers didn't build themselves; just like the RailRoads don't run themselves; how can you beleive that the world can run itself? how do you think the blood flows through your body and your heart beats with such perfect rhythm? how does the sun keep burning and the universe keeps revolving around stars? who do you think invented gravity? who invented friction? who invented heat? defying God is like defying existance! 'the day God was invented??' or did you mean 'the day God invented us?'

This is known as the "argument from design" defense of the existence of God. I reject this argument primarily because I hold existence, rather than consciousness (human or divine), as primary. I don't think that anyone invented gravity or friction, etc, because I think that those things are inherent in the nature of the universe--the nature of existence as such. Also, I think it is wrong to apply teleology (intentional or goal oriented behavior) to the universe as a whole. The universe is what it is, and not because any mind or minds made it that way--the function of a mind is to perceive, not to create, existence.

But I agree with you about the injustice in regards to sympathy for the terrorists. I hadn't considered what it must be like for children who live in New York City, to try and understand what happened. It's hard enough for me, as an adult, living halfway across the country, to deal with it. : (

[Worst Event In History]

I'll go with the day a god was invented.

I strongly disagree with this, since the first day a god was invented was probably one of man's earliest attempts to discover a (primitively) philosophical approach to understanding the universe (i.e., a metaphysics).

Here's an historical question: if Christianity hadn't dominated the Roman Empire, would a different Mystery Cult simply have taken its place? When I compare the bits of Augustine (early Christian philosopher) with the bits of Plotinus (late pre-Christian philosopher) that I've read, the differences seem very subtle in the most important places. There were many other cults similar to Christianity in Rome at the time, but there are (mostly tactical) reasons that Christianity dominated. But if Christianity had never been thought of, would events have turned out in an almost identical way with an almost identical religion, or is there something special about Christianity that made it so devastatingly influential?

As to the primary question of this thread: I don't know what the worst even in history was, but I do know that seeing the Towers crash on TV was the worst historical event that I ever witnessed while it was happening. The spectacle of watching Bush appease and let the enemies escape and more or less get away with it, in near sympathy with the prevailing views of the world has been almost as disturbing to watch.

[Gold Standard in Currency]

What are your opinions on Gold or Silver Standards versus fiat currency? How should the money system work in a capitalist country?

I guess it's obvious from my SN what type of currency I favor. I recommend looking up some of Richard Salsman's many articles on the Gold Standard, and the elimination of Central Banking. He goes into lots of detail about how it would work out, from an economist's perspective. I'm not an expert on economics, but all of the articles and lectures that I've read or heard by him have made a lot of sense to me.

[Thoughts On: "The Death Of Pop Music"]

I decided to post my full response, but if you want to continue this discussion, but don't have anything specifically related to the thread to add, please PM me!

I guess that depends primarily on what you consider to be a boring or not-boring composition.

Well, since there is as of yet no objective way to qualitatively evaluate music, I'm afraid I have to rely on the only definition that's possible to me now: a "boring" composition is one that makes me bored or is painful to listen to in some way, and a "not-boring" one is one that interests me or makes me feel pleasure of some kind. It's personal; and I think there are some objective principles underlying this that will allow me to relate to other people (but not necessarily all people in all contexts), but nobody knows what these are exactly, so any criteria I give would be largely speculation for what I think is involved.

A good example of what I consider to be "boring folk music" is: "Vincent" by Don McLean--YAWN!!

As I said in response to the other gentleman on here, simply utilizing a lot of tools musically is not going to guarantee that your work is good (or even having a lot of tools at your disposal). There are a lot of musical compositions that are really interesting on a musical level that require immense talent and musical training just to play, let alone actually write. However, that doesn't mean the music is necessarily enjoyable or interesting just because it is complex. Take The Mars Volta for example.

Never heard Mars Volta, but I think I agree with your point.

I realize that a song like "For Martha" off of Adore isn't super complex. The piano could be played by a 9 year old with a year of piano lessons most likely. [...]

Besides, a good chunk of Madonna's catalog is equally if not more boring. I mean...if a 9 year old could play the piano on "For martha" a monkey could play the keyboard part on "Borderline."

Even if that were true, the ability to play a part is not the same as the ability to create that part.

I would say that some of To Sheila definitely studio effects like the cricket-sounding noise in the intro. However, the tones are a direct product of the instruments used (obviously). That isn't completely "studio tricks" or Flood's "black magic voodoo production" (I'm joking here, btw... ). If you really wanted to, you could easily pull out a Piano, a mandolin, and two guitars (an acoustic and electric) and replicate this song completely with little loss in terms of quality (assuming all of the band members were there and Billy was singing, obviously).

It's a shame you wrote such an epic tome, apparently on the premise that I thought To Sheila was only "studio tricks." But that's not what I said or what I meant. I said tones and sound effects.

The difference between the sound of a vintage piano vs a toy Casio keyboard, or a Fender Jaguar vs a Squire guitar, or a saxaphone vs a kazoo are examples of "tone" (or "timbre" if you prefer). The difference between a guitar signal being recorded "direct," vs the sound being processed through a Mutron Biphase, a Lexicon reverb, a Marshal Stack and then a microphone is an example of "sound effects."

The fact that you could replicate To Sheila live (and maybe even do it better!) is 100% irrelevant to what I'm saying.

That song is NOT synth heavy or effects heavy unless you want to count the cricket sounds or perhaps Billy's overdubbed vocals singing harmony with his main vocal line.

But it is effects heavy. In fact, I think that's one of its primary virtues. For starters, there is a ton of reverb on Corgan's (main) vocals. Then, when the chorus starts, the guitar that strums on every downbeat has a quick delay, distortion, strange EQ, and is drenched in feedback. Then the drum machines come in, heavily filtered. There is some kind of effect on the piano, that comes in on the next part (probably Lexicon reverb, I'm guessing--probably run through a filter, too). Then in the next chorus, all the instruments with effects are blending together for the first time.

Then in the next verse it goes crazy with the effects. While he's saying "Laayytly" the guitar does a cool little harmonic bend with all the delay and reverb, then the mandolin comes in with lots of reverb, such that it sounds like it's being played on some Eastern mountain top.. and this is the most interesting part so far, because there is still all the reverb on the vocals, so it gets a really strange vibe-- on the next verse it sounds like the reverb on the vocals gets cranked up even more, not to mention all the compression, which makes it sound very distant and at the same time very close. Then at the last part there are some little runs on the piano while the guitar comes in with so much effects it doesn't even sound like a guitar anymore, but almost like a violin.

Now, on the other hand.. Before Adore came out there was a little bootleg tape that was in circulation, of Billy Corgan playing a lot of the Adore songs with an acoustic guitar, at a place called the Viper Room. It sounded like "Vincent," and it was a little hard for me to get into the album after hearing that tape. But now I like it, because it does have some good sounds.

Not all of Billy Corgan's songs were like that though.. Mayonaise, for example, sounded awesome acoustic, as it appears on the Viewphoria video (hm, okay, maybe that one is better than Madonna! ; D).

In which case, you could still preserve the beauty of the song by simply getting a backup singer (like Madonna does). I don't think simply taking away an actual recording of the song would just make it a "boring" folk song.

Me neither.

Once again, I think some clarity is in order on the "boring" issue. Whether or not you are doing a simple 3 chord progression using a syn th or doing it on an acoustic guitar changes little about whether or not the actual composition is boring or not. On one hand you do say it is a beautiful song, but studio effects or not, you are saying the actual composition is boring...which leads me to believe you are using the term in a more descriptive sense. As such, I think some explanation of what your own personal musical evaluations come down to. A song in your eyes might be boring, but still beautiful (and in my eyes as well). So when judging whether a Madonna song versus a Smashing Pumpkins song, there might be another element thrown into the mix to determine what you personally think is a better song. I personally think that element isn't simply the recording itself.

No, you're right. It isn't.

I can definitely say that there are songs that were done with WAAAAAY less technology available in the 60's or 70's that rival a lot of modern songs (in both composition and in quality) even though the recordings don't sound as hot as the latest Pro-Tools heavy album on the top 40.

.....Did you think I was trying to argue that the improved technology in the 90's was responsible for the music being a poorer quality?? No, I meant that it is a poorer quality in spite of the better technology. And, even though there was great technology in the 60's and 70's too, the same technology was much cheaper as the years went on (and is quickly becoming cheaper still). So that makes it easier for the average musician to have access to it, and so more people should be learning how to use it and how to apply it in ever more interesting ways. If that isn't happening, it's because of aesthetic philosophy and its descent, and because of the culture; the technology is there for anyone who wants it and knows how to use it (even for my broke-@$$. )

If you want to boil it down to recording techniques, technology, and studio evolution...I don't think you have much ground to stand on. After all, synthesizers have been around for quite some time. Frank Zappa for example was a music pioneer when it came to recording techniques as far as technology went and he was a bit before even Madonna's time.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say here or what point you're arguing against. What are we boiling down? Synthesizers have been around since the 1920's if you count the theremin.

Even Pro-Tools has even been around since 1987 (though it was originally called "Sound Tools"). I don't think the gap in recording techniques etc is as great as you are making it sound here.

That's interesting (and I didn't know that), but I still don't see the point.

As far as "Oh Father" goes musically/composition wise, it is ok I guess. I like the music, but it certainly isn't complex. The bass line is extremely basic (you are looking at like 5 notes repeated over and over).

If I were to discuss "complexity" (which I haven't yet), I would mean it in terms of the relationships of the intervals, not the number of notes. It's an interesting progression.. I like that type of chord progression (actually, it's kind of similar to "Soma" by SP, now that I think of it).

The synthesizer is pretty basic too. The drumming isn't really complex either for that matter. This song has boat loads of whole notes. If you can't keep the rhythm to this song by tapping your leg, well...you are probably a stereotypical white guy (also joking).

Are you using "complex" to mean: "difficult to play"? If so, why?

Seriously though, the song is good and I like it. The subject is interesting (child abuse), the music is very pretty, and Madonna's vocals are great (Madonna as a vocalist is amazing as she has boatloads of vocal talent).

Yeah, the music is pretty. But why is it? To be honest, I don't have an answer for that. Maybe it has something to do with complexity, or maybe something else! Actually, I like the arrangement-- the tones and sound effects! That slide guitar sounds awesome. But it's also very catchy. A memorable melody is very important to me. A song that doesn't have a memorable melody is what I would consider a "filler" song. There are several filler songs on Adore, but they usually have other virtues besides the melodies.

However compositionally this song isn't really interesting on a purely musical level either (at least based on the way I'm reading your use of the term "interesting.").

Interesting means I like it! : D Interesting is whatever it is that makes you say, "the music is very pretty," because I want to figure out why, and to me that is an interesting problem that wants a solution--therefore, it is interesting.

Yes, I acknowledged that Landslide was a cover. The point of even putting it up there was to show how Billy as a musician has a significant ability to even improve on a non-original work.

Oh. I like the Fleetwood Mac version better. I love Stevie Nicks--she brings me to tears often. I don't think she sounds like a goat at all.

>>As far as recording techniques? Some clarity here would definitely be in order. What sort of differences or gaps do you think are really important between the 80's and mid 90's?>>

Differences? I'm totally at a loss to why you think that's so important to my argument. I think effects were cheaper in the 90's, and some interesting new ones were invented. I think more bands should have made good use of them, but I don't really think it's that big of a deal.

>>Keep in mind Madonna released 7 original studio albums from 1992 up until the present versus 6 original works (I'm not counting "hits" collections on either end) prior to 1992.>>

I don't want to keep that in mind, because it's mainly just her 80's stuff that's good.

>>The song "Oh Father" is from Like A Prayer which was released in 1989. The Smashing Pumpkin's first album came out in 1991. So for over HALF of Madonna's career she had access to the same technology and recording techniques (more so actually, since she was one of the biggest artists in the world in 1991).>>

A technique isn't the kind of thing you have "access" to. It's an idea--you either have it or you don't. Just because you have a certain kind of equipment doesn't necessarily mean you're going to use a specific technique with it.

>>Well Madonna didn't write anything approaching "Oh Father" or "Material Girl" either (musically speaking). That is my point. Like A Prayer was co-written by Patrick Leonard and Steven Bray. Madonna had really nothing to do with the music there. Both actual musicians. Madonna is a vocalist who writes lyrics (I'm not even sure if her lyrics are always entirely written by her or not). She does not write music. Madonna poses as a solo artist when really that isn't a remotely accurate picture. When she goes on tour, she has her "touring band" to play the music that other people wrote. Compositionally, Madonna is capable of putting out stuff like Borderline. Material Girl wasn't even composed by Madonna! It was written by Peter Brown and Robert Rans.>>

Who cares? They were written for her weren't they?

>>Once again, the terms "interesting" and "boring" seem remarkably arbitrary the way you are using them.The sort of bopping music of Material Girl is NOT musically complex whatsoever. I'm not saying Billy Corgan or The Smashing Pumpkins are like Beethoven, but neither is early Madonna. Material Girl certainly isn't complex or or interesting melodically (if you are using interesting to mean complex, difficult, or even all that unique).>>

In the sense that you seem to be using the terms, I'm definitely not using the term "interesting" to mean "complex".. And I don't see why anyone in any context would equate the term with "difficult." And I do think Material Girl has a unique melody. And it's catchy. It's got a good vibe.. It puts me in a good mood. I enjoy listening to it, and those are a few reasons I think it's interesting.

>>If you want to pick 80's musicians, why oh why did you have to go with Madonna?>>

Because, I wanted to compare the most generic, but representative pop star from the 80s with the most creative and original, but representative pop stars of the 90s, to prove that the 80s were unequivocally better. Remember the topic of the thread? : )

>>Why not Pat Bennetar or Blondie...or...ANYONE other than someone who doesn't actually compose (Madonna *cough cough*).>>

For one thing, because I think that's totally irrelevant. In fact, I would hypothesize that the prevalent mentality which concludes that an artist who doesn't compose his own music is somehow thereby inferior to the ones who do is one of the *primary causes* of the death of pop music. In the 1960's, songwriters as such went largely out of style. A band who sucked but wrote their own stuff was admired more than even a band who expertly performed songs that were specifically composed for that band by professional songwriters. To me, that's completely absurd. That's like saying the company who installs the plumbing in a building is no good unless they were also the architects who designed the building. There's no reason that an artist shouldn't write his own songs, but there's no reason he shouldn't play other people's songs too--especially if that would be an improvement in the situation.

>>Btw, I actually really love 80's music. I think most of it beats the hell out of 90's stuff, to be honest. I just don't think Madonna is really all that impressive musically or even lyrically.>>

I think she's underrated! (I mean, her 80's stuff). I actually think people were envious of her because she was so successful, and that negatively influenced their opinions of her, and then she just got a bad image and a lot of people got tired of her (I'm not accusing you of that; it's just something I've noticed before with people in general).

>>Perhaps I just find The Smashing Pumpkins to be a lot more meaningful lyrically and aesthetically precisely because they do write their own lyrics and music.>>

I've heard many people voice this type of opinion, but never once heard an intelligible explanation as to how it makes any sense. Were the lyrics and aesthetics meaningful up until the moment Madonna started singing them?

>>So you mean like half of the producers, writers, etc of the 80's and 90's versus The Smashing Pumpkins then?>>

No, only the 80's.

>>My main issue with your post was your choice of Madonna. I personally think that Prince (talent wise musically speaking) kicks the crap out of Madonna (not entity-Madonna but individual Madonna... ) as do most of the people she worked with.>>

Don't you see.. the fact that there was better music in the 80's than Madonna was my whole point in choosing her as an example; that and the fact that she's representative of a lot of pop music in the 80's. Because, the same can't as easily be said for Smashing Pumpkins. I can think of a couple of groups in the 90's that were better, but they were not representative of the 90's, and they were almost completely ignored in the United States, and are to this day. If you can think of a dozen artists from the 80's that are better than Madonna, then that just proves my point even more (assuming you agreed with me that Madonna's songwriters were better than SP, which I guess you don't).

>>My issue was more with your example as it relates to The Smashing Pumpkins because Madonna is just such a horrible example in my opinion. I'm a huge Pumpkins fan, but I definitely can concede that there were definitely superior musicians (pop and otherwise) in the 80's and 90's. Madonna though or songs in her catalog? Not in my book, Mr. >>

Oh well, close enough. The point of the thread is that 80's were better--so wouldn't it have been enough to say, "Well, I don't think Madonna was better than SP, but there were plenty of other 80's groups that were so I see your point"? : /

>>As far as the image thing goes, grunge was definitely an important aspect of The Pumpkin's success. I'm not disputing that. However, Madonna as an individual (not entity-Madonna) sold records nearly exclusively off of the talent of other people and by peddling sex and controversy.>>

No way. She sold records because she was a great dancer and a great singer, and she had great songs--and nobody in the 80's cared that she didn't write them herself (that only became a sin when grunge got popular; the rules were you had to write your own songs, never do a guitar solo [one reason SP was less popular than Nirvana, I think, too many badass guitar solos], and always write about mopey or disturbing topics).

>>However, take the shock rock aspect out of Marilyn Manson and you have an interesting, yet mediocre rock band. Same with Madonna.>>

No way. Manson is 100% boring and lame even with the shock value. He's not as good of a singer or dancer as Madonna. His band is not just mediocre but lousy (IMO), even for the kind of music they play, which is already pretty bad, even if it's good!.. OTOH Madonna's band was always really awesome musicians. Omar Hakim, who played drums for David Bowie's band for a long time, played drums on a lot of her albums and tours. Lots of cool people played with her. She had lots more substance than Manson, Brittany Spears, and etc.

>>Take away Madonna humping the floor of Radio City Music Hall during the first ever MTV Video Music Awards...and you have a mediocre pop act based on the talent of other people. That is why I don't really like your choice of Madonna nor do I think the image thing between Madonna and Marilyn versus The Smashing Pumpkins is really accurate.>>

I never saw her hump the floor, but I still like her. : ) And I said Madonna and the Cure vs Manson and SP.

>>*sighs.* It only sold like 70,000 copies. It didn't even remotely approach a gold record last I heard.>>

Is it expected for an album to reach gold in the first month, these days? Geeze.

>>Reviews of the album were pretty mixed as well. People either loved it or had a generally lukewarm opinion of it as well.>>

They loved it or liked it? That's bad? Hm, I guess the industry does have high standards these days! : / Almost every album review I've read about a band I liked, that wasn't taken from that band's website or something, has been negative, not just lukewarm. But I thought that's just because culture is crap right now. Still, I didn't think most of those bands were hurting for money or anything--sometimes their labels would drop them but not usually.

>>Darcy wasn't that hot of a bassist (Melissa Auf Der Maur could fill in just fine) but it would be cool if she was back.>>

Everything you've said so far is forgivable besides this. LOL. Darcy was the best bassist out of all the American bands of the 90's, hands down. And she was the most talented person in the band besides Billy Corgan. Yes, this is coming from an ex-drummer! I learned every drum beat from Siamese Dream start to finish from memory, but I still think Darcy is better than JC.. Also, I'm probably the only person in America who bought James Iha's solo album, liked it, and still listens to it today! But Darcy's tone.. her timing.. everything, was completely awesome. Also, her image and stage presence was one of the best things about the band. Everyone they got to try to replace her was horrible. They would do better to just used synthesized bass lines than have that L7 chick with her wonky tone and no sense of rhythm.

>>To be it just seems hasty and a commercial move to claim that The Pumpkins are reunited if James Iha isn't at least involved. I guess we will see, right?>>

Well, as long as they don't get those idiots from Zwan to play in it again, I'll go see it!

>>Compare like 10 different musicians and people with one band all under the banner of Christina Aguilera. To me that seems a bit unfair.>>

Why?

>>Well...catchy doesn't necessarily equal good. Just having a song stuck in your head doesn't necessarily mean quality. I don't mean to sound presumptuous here, but I'm willing to lay odds that most of us in life that listen to music with any frequency or depth have had a crappy song stuck in one's head that one doesn't really "like" per-se. A hooky chorus or repetitive phrase that gets stuck in one's head might be completely inane and uninteresting. That alone doesn't say much.>>

A catchy melody isn't the only component necessary in a really good, well crafted song. But it is a necessary element (for me).

>>You are using melodic in a more normative and not descriptive sense which is where I think our conflict is being generated here.>>

Yes, I think you're right.

>>I'm sure if you look at Brittney Spears, you can find different emotions she sings about, but that doesn't make the compositions quality compositions or her a quality artist even if she covers that ground (even assuming she writes her own stuff).>>

Sings about is not the same as conveys. Mediocrity cannot convey a broad spectrum of emotions.

>>Take Madonna's song "Boderline." That song seems to be (lyrically) about romantic frusteration...yet it is poppy, upbeat, and leaves one with the feeling of being happy. I mean...I have been romantically unhappy before and I don't feel like going out and busting a fresh dance move in a club (ha ha). That sort of "fitting the mood with the music" thing seems a bit more intuitive to people who write their music themselves and generate lyrics in a more organic process versus fitting words to music (mo matter what that might be).>>

Maybe you haven't busted many fresh dance moves in clubs. But if you ever try it, it can be a great place to vent romantic frustration.. and express your emotions and basically allow yourself to experience yourself fully. And you can overcome a lot of frustrating emotions that way, which is encouraging and does make you feel happier, so songs like that can be perfect for that sort of thing. Similar with certain songs by the Smiths.

>>I'm not saying one has to be uber-cliché and scream loudly in a song if you are angry. However, it seems a bit superficial to have lyrics that speak of deep pain or anger and sing that song with a slow tempo but pop songs just seem to often lack that depth.>>

I disagree.. in fact, that kind of contrast is one of my favorite things about the Smiths and Morrissey.. And the Cure, for that matter. Dark depressing songs with broody mopey music is draining and boring and pointless, the way I see it. If you want music to also be poetry, it should be a discussion and an interpretation, and a resolution to the lyrics, not just a naturalistic approximation of the mood of the lyrics.

>>Take "Spaceboy" off of Siamese Dream and you are looking at a song about Billy's brother who was physically handicapped (and both were actually abused by their crappy parents). Billy ended up taking care of his brother and trying to watch out for him and that song covers some of that territory. If you didn't know the background, would you necessarily think that? However, you can totally feel that really emotionally tormented vibe that just a bit more real. Perhaps that is just me though.>>

Personally, I think it's lame when people sing about their real life experiences. I want to tell them-- can't you be a little more creative? I don't care what kind of accidental or unfortunate crap happened to you when you were a kid. What difference does that make to me and my life? I don't even care about the accidental or unfortunate crap that happened to me when I was a kid--deal with it; move on!

>>If you are going to compare two bands and say one is better because of X,Y, and Z reasons...you need some justification for using those as criteria. I'm open and totally receptive to arguments on behalf of more melody being an intrinsicly good thing. Maybe it is. I want to hear your arguments on that though or at least get a better picture on what it is you personally use (and why) to make musical aesthetic judgments.>>

Not necessarily more melody.. Just better and more memorable melodies.

>>To me that is far more elucidating, productive, and interesting than simply just stating criteria.>>

Hmm--maybe, maybe not!

>>I'm with you on The Cure versus The Smashing Pumpkins in most areas...though I think TSP could write some amazing stuff that rivals The Cure on a match up basis. Overall, though...I agree. As far as Madonna V. The Cure? I don't think that even the people that wrote for Madonna can't match the intensity of stuff like "If Only Tonight We could Sleep" or "Friday I'm in Love" in my book.>>

Yeah, I never said Madonna vs the Cure, but I agree.

>>The Cure is dark, no doubt. They are prototypically Romantic in every way and I mean romantic in the literal art-history sense, not the Objectivist re-definition.>>

I don't believe Ayn Rand re-defined romantic. She just offered a new variation on it-- "romantic realism."

>>Even so, you end up with stark images and lyrics that pain t some very dark pictures, but with depth versus the fluffiness of a lot of Madonna's catalog.>>

Yeah, I get annoyed with the Cure's dark gothy stuff. I like their sweet, happy stuff, like Lovecats, or their punky stuff like Fire in Cairo the best. But they had lots of great material. And a bass player who was even better than Darcy!

>>Also keep in mind that I don't think that she is bad. I guess I should have made that clear a long time ago. Much in the same way that you are a Smashing Pumpkins fan, I like Madonna as well and respect her much in the same way you respect TSP. I think she has boat loads of talent and pulls off some amazing songs. Like "Ray of Light" for example (I know it is a techno dance song, but it is pulled off brilliantly). Anyway...>>

Well, I wasn't trying to be un-controversial in making the comparison. I think it was a provocative comparison for the right reasons that I wanted to emphasize.