Hello

[oldsalt]

Manev: You asked what the purpose of tiddly-wink music might be. I think it has the same purpose as any art form that doesn't quite rise to the level of art, and that is pleasure. I enjoy big band music but I don't think it is art qua art. It is pleasurable to my ears, though. A line-drawing is part of an art form, but it takes an extraordinary artist to make a line-drawing a piece of art.

I think the difference may lie between drawing metaphysical, life-enhancing affirmation of values from a great work of art, and deriving a simple pleasure from listening, viewing, or reading something that doesn't have the same emotions of exaltation. Small pleasures, fun, and lightheartedness certainly have a place in our daily lives.

[manavmehta]

Janet - don't mind my constant barrage of questions but I am really at a stage in life where I am trying to find meaning in every single thing I do. The one thing I took away from every single one of Ayn Rand's writings was that there is meaning in every single human thought and human action, and that you should never flinch from linking every idea and action to reality and its significance to human life (and by life, I mean gaining, keeping and enjoying this value which you call your life).

Which is why I find the concept of what you described as the fun and light-heartedness of tiddly-wink music difficult to digest. The pleasures we gain from our productive work and appreciation of art have a significance in our daily lives because our work is our only link to reality, and our only means of survival; and because art is something that provides every human being with a fuel that gives them the strength to continue to strive for happiness. I don't have any difficult digesting the purpose of art or productive work or even romance in a person's life. But tiddly-wink music - you describe it like it is just there without any purpose, just to enjoy, with no necessity of linking it or integrating it into the course of a man's life. "Fun" and "light-heartedness" sound to me like generic, meaningless terms with no link to reality. I don't mean to offend you or anyone else, but I would appreciate you or anyone else helping me to understand this.

[AshRyan]

...But tiddly-wink music - you describe it like it is just there without any purpose, just to enjoy...

What, you don't think that one's own enjoyment is a valid purpose in an egoistic ethics?

[Fred Weiss]

... tiddly-wink music - you describe it like it is just there without any purpose, just to enjoy, with no necessity of linking it or integrating it into the course of a man's life. "Fun" and "light-heartedness" sound to me like generic, meaningless terms with no link to reality. I don't mean to offend you or anyone else, but I would appreciate you or anyone else helping me to understand this.

The enjoyment you get from any art, including music, and perhaps especially music is "an end in itself". It needs no further justification. It contributes to your happiness. That's entirely sufficient.

Keep in mind that you only "need" very little to survive. You don't "need" an attractive home, a garden, a comfortable, fancy car, expensive clothes you love to wear, a rare book collection, etc. But all of these things give you pleasure. If you can afford them, you don't have to justify them any further to yourself and certainly not to anyone else.

It is such things which make life worth living.

Objectivism is not some variant of Puritanism. It is a philosophy for living...for living on this earth and for getting the most enjoyment possible out of it. Which I might add should include having fun in as many of your endeavors as you can possibly can.

Fred Weiss

[Spearmint]

Well, the ARI thing might just be saying that it's improper to claim that Snoop Dogg or Metallica are on the same level as Beethoven and Rachmaninoff.  That's pretty obviously true.  If the author was trying to say anything more, I firmly disagree.

I'm not sure why this would be improper. I'm not a particularly big classical music fan, and I'm not prepared to admit that it is objectively more deserving of the title 'art' than other genres which contain music which I prefer. The criteria others use to judge classical music (complexity and 'depth') are simply not things which I consider important to my enjoyment of music, and there doesnt seem to be any reason why I should accept them as being the only valid decision procedure used to judge the artistic merits of a particular work - in other words, I'm not sure why I would be expected to accept these criteria as being somehow more objective than the ones I personally use, nor why it would be improper for me to deny that the music of Rachmaninoffis is 'art', whereas the music of Apocalyptica (for example) isn't. There seems to be a general consensus that, whether or not you actually like classical music, you are expected to admit that it has some kind of objectively 'good' quality that makes it deserving of respect (and even more deserving of respect than music you actually like!). I dont really agree with this.

I would certainly put a fair amount of contemporary music on the same pedestal as classical, and in many cases I would claim that it is better.

[MinorityOfOne]

Spearmint,

You're implying that I'm taking a position which I'm not. The issue I raised isn't whether Beethoven and Rachmaninoff are "more deserving of the title 'art'" than other artists. I don't think that's a valid question, for the same reason that I wouldn't wonder whether Atlas Shrugged is more deserving of the title 'book' than Ulysses. The issue is of quality, not of kind.

Maybe that was just a misstatement, and if so, just take the preceding as clarification. Speaking of clarification, I'm not clear on what you mean when you say "I'm not sure why I would be expected to accept these criteria as being somehow more objective than the ones I personally use, nor why it would be improper for me to deny that the music of Rachmaninoffis is 'art', whereas the music of Apocalyptica (for example) isn't." I'm sure there's a typo in there, but I won't presume to know where it is. So if you feel like rewriting that, I'll address it when you do.

In any case, as for the gist of your post, I'll simply repeat what I said before: there is much in art that is optional. There's no Divine Edict demanding that you enjoy Rachmaninoff more than Guns'n'Roses. But it is worthwhile to attempt to distinguish between what you enjoy and what you consider objectively good -- and I admit, this is quite difficult for music, so I don't want to get too deep into the subject of what sorts of standards might be appropriate here. To give an example outside of music, I've recently started reading Robert Ludlum novels. I think they're great, I've enjoyed all three that I've read so far immensely. Do they compare to Dostoyevski in terms of art? I don't think so. Objectively, Dostoyevski is a much greater artist. He's much more thematically focused, he addresses more fundamental issues, he's an innovator in many ways, etc... but I still like Ludlum better. Contradiction? Nope, just personal preference, based on what I consider important and enjoyable.

I'm probably not going to pursue this conversation much further, since I really don't think I have anything new or interesting to say about what should constitute a standard of evaluation for music. But if you want to try to clean up some of what you said, who knows, I might find something more to say about it.

[manavmehta]

Ash and Fred - I do believe Ayn Rand talked about the quality of happiness in all her works. The one fact stressed repeatedly is that just being happy is not an end in itself. It is WHAT you find happiness in that determines how moral you are (which is the same thing as saying "how rational you are"). If you find happiness in murder and mayhem and destruction, you are one kind of person (the kind who deserves Guantanamo Bay). If you find happiness in productive work, creativity, etc. you are entirely another kind of person (the kind I suspect Ayn Rand would have supported). This is why I find it difficult to digest the whole concept of music that is just there to provide you with a "joy of life", so to say. This is why I will oppose anyone who says "Happiness is just an end in itself...".

So let me ask my question again - what is the significance of tiddly-wink music in a man's life? What is the purpose of something that just gives you a feeling of joy without actually making any metaphysical statement of its own. I am also interested in understanding the psychological mechanism by which such music induces joy in a person. Also, if a person was rational, would he find joy in such music irrespective of who he was i.e. is the appreciation of such music a universal thing? Is there an objective standard by which such music can be judged (like there is an objective standard for judging art)?

[y_feldblum]

Manav Mehta, in my humble opinion, you should quote the phrase "tiddly-wink" (when one is referring to a kind of music). Tiddly-Wink is not the proper name, nor is tiddly-wink the kind. "Tiddly-wink" is Ayn Rand's personal name for a style, nothing more (in my humble opinion), and the quotation marks serve to identify that fact.

[Betsy]

Ash and Fred - I do believe Ayn Rand talked about the quality of happiness in all her works. The one fact stressed repeatedly is that just being happy is not an end in itself.

But it IS.

As Ayn Rand wrote approvingly of The Enlightenment view of man and morality:

"For centuries, the dominant moralists had said that man must not seek his ultimate fulfillment on earth; that he must renounce the pleasures of this life—whether as a flesh-mortifying ascetic or as an abstemious toiler—for the sake of God, salvation, and the life to come. With the new view of reality and of man, this could no longer be taken seriously. Now, a new concept of the good moved insistently to the forefront of men's mind: the purpose of life, it was held, is to live, to live in this world and to enjoy it. Men refused to wait any longer: they wanted to achieve happiness—now, here, and as an end in itself."

[The Ayn Rand Letter, Vol. III, No. 5 December 3, 1973]

It is WHAT you find happiness in that determines how moral you are (which is the same thing as saying "how rational you are").

Actually, it's the other way around. It how moral (rational) you are which determines whether you will be happy or not. To keep it straight, remember that morality is the means (the cause) and happiness is the end (the effect).

As John Galt said:

"Virtue is not an end in itself. Virtue is not its own reward or sacrificial fodder for the reward of evil. Life is the reward of virtue—and happiness is the goal and the reward of life."

Virtue --> Life --> Happiness. Got it?

This is why I find it difficult to digest the whole concept of music that is just there to provide you with a "joy of life", so to say. This is why I will oppose anyone who says "Happiness is just an end in itself...".

But that IS Ayn Rand's view.

So let me ask my question again - what is the significance of tiddly-wink music in a man's life? What is the purpose of something that just gives you a feeling of joy without actually making any metaphysical statement of its own.

This is how Ayn Rand expressed it in her notes for Atlas Shrugged:

"Test: do you enjoy a book or play for its own sake?—or do you "enjoy" it as a means to an end, the end being that self-conscious sense of acquiring some virtue from it? Joy is an end in itself. My pattern of enjoyment is: I'm good, and if this thing has given me enjoyment, then it is good. [...]

"My pattern holds joy as its own end, man's end. "

[The Journals of Ayn Rand, 13 - Notes While Writing: 1947-1952, August 28, 1949

Note Regarding Art vs. Entertainment, emphasis Ayn Rand's]

[Fred Weiss]

... I find it difficult to digest the whole concept of music that is just there to provide you with a "joy of life", so to say. This is why I will oppose anyone who says "Happiness is just an end in itself...".

But note, if you are living the moral life Ayn Rand advocates and which you seem to uphold yourself, what are you likely going to experience in your life and/or what kind of view of life do you want affirmed if you are going through a period of struggle toward some worthy longer term goal. Isn't it joy? That's what the music expresses and that's what you will want to hear (just as you will want that affirmed in every aspect of your life).

So let me ask my question again - what is the significance of tiddly-wink music in a man's life? What is the purpose of something that just gives you a feeling of joy without actually making any metaphysical statement of its own.

But the expression of joy is its metaphysical statement. That's the power and essence of music that it can evoke those emotions.

I am also interested in understanding the psychological mechanism by which such music induces joy in a person. Also, if a person was rational, would he find joy in such music irrespective of who he was i.e. is the appreciation of such music a universal thing? Is there an objective standard by which such music can be judged (like there is an objective standard for judging art)?

That's a separate question for which Objectivism doesn't have an answer. Aspects of it may also be more in the realm of psychology - even neurology - rather than philosophy.

Fred Weiss

[scottkursk]

I heard somewhere that the band Rush writes a lot of Objectivist based lyrics. And they claim to be a big fan of Ayn Rand's works.

Actually I've been a Rush fan much longer than I've been an Objectivist. Check out the album Fly By Night. My old LP jacket had a dedication to Ayn and if you check out the song Anthem, it's pretty obvious where they took their inspiration from. Actually the whole album's "rock opera" concept follows the feel of Anthem. Plus, I've seen a couple interviews where I think it was Geddy Lee mentions he's been influenced by Rand quite a bit.

[AshRyan]

You didn't really answer my question. But let me ask you another:

What is the purpose of something that just gives you a feeling of joy without actually making any metaphysical statement of its own.

You don't think that a joyous work of art makes a metaphysical statement--that we live in a benevolent universe, in which joy is possible to man?

[y_feldblum]

... ie, "that joy is means that it is possible, achievable, and to be expected."

[oldsalt]

Manuv, others have answered your questions very well, especially with the quotes from Miss Rand herself. I'll just tell you what music means for me.

When I need fuel, there are certain pieces of classical music that I listen to (depending on my mood and my need). Some of it gives me rest, some inspires me to action, certain pieces help me to clear my mind of clutter and helps me to focus. One thing these favorites all have in common is that they seem to form new pathways of thought with each hearing. I gain understanding. It is the same with certain great paintings, scultures, novels, poems, etc. Such works of art help me to apprehend the whole my life at once, if that makes any sense to you.

But no one lives every moment on such a level. Does that mean that the rest of our time must be lived in stoic endurance? Should there be no pleasure in even the everyday processes of life? Since the metaphysical is existence, then we are talking about the daily, moment to moment existence of an individual.

Life is full of things in which we may find pleasure, even joy, and which carry no further significance than that. Not everything has to be of earth-shattering import in order to bring significance to the happiness of the individual. This in no way lessens the metaphysical importance of the highest forms of art to an individual's life, but (speaking for myself) actually enhances the highest forms. The simple paves the way for a greater understanding and appreciation of the more complex. The ability to find joy in life's simpliest actions is a moral accomplishment. It means that one is able to give a degree of significance to all aspects of one's life.

Objectivism is the antidote to stoic endurance. It teaches that the joy of living and earning one's happiness is the proper reward for the daily practice of virtue. This is the natural condition of a moral man's life, and it is therefore to be found in every aspect of life. Even in the simple pleasure of "tiddly-wink," whatever form it takes.

[manavmehta]

Thank you very much for all your replies. I appreciate you answering all my annoying questions

I am on board with the fact (thank you, Betsy for correcting me) that happiness is the purpose of life, and that morality is the means to life and happiness, not the other way around.

I am on board with the fact that a benevolent view of existence is the proper thing for any work of art to express.

I am on board with the fact that a work of art that induces joy in you makes a metaphysical statement of it's own.

I am on board with the fact that the degree of joy (or significance, as "oldsalt" put it) that you derive out of a given moment is of no consequence to that moment's contribution to the whole sum of your life.

The only thing that still confuses me is, does it or does it not matter what the source of joy is? Joy is the end, but that does not mean that the means to joy do not matter. And this is what bothers me about "tiddly-wink" music and what "oldsalt" called the simple pleasures of life. I cannot accept the fact that those small pleasures were right for me to feel until I am able to integrate them into the rest of my life's experience and say, for instance, that the reason I immensely enjoyed an infant's wide-eyed and curious stare at a stranger performing a complex task was because it showed me the whole joy of life as a learning experience, which does not depend on how old you are, but begins the moment you start forming concepts.

Am I making any sense?

[Betsy]

The only thing that still confuses me is, does it or does it not matter what the source of joy is? Joy is the end, but that does not mean that the means to joy do not matter. And this is what bothers me about "tiddly-wink" music and what "oldsalt" called the simple pleasures of life. I cannot accept the fact that those small pleasures were right for me to feel until I am able to integrate them into the rest of my life's experience and say, for instance, that the reason I immensely enjoyed an infant's wide-eyed and curious stare at a stranger performing a complex task was because it showed me the whole joy of life as a learning experience, which does not depend on how old you are, but begins the moment you start forming concepts.

Am I making any sense?

Sure, but step back and see what this issue all adds up to.

It seems as if you are operating on the premise, "It's wrong unless proved right. I'm guilty until proved innocent." That's being extremely unjust to yourself.

Why not assume, more properly, "Innocent until proved guilty?" I would recommend trusting yourself, giving yourself the benefit of the doubt, and giving yourself permission to enjoy the pleasures of life, big and small. Don't doubt your choices and desires unless you have a reason to.

I wouldn't give that advice to everybody, but you seem very morally conscientious, if not overzealous, and you tend much more toward unearned guilt than whim worship.