Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Are There Styles of Music Not Compatible With Objectivism?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

 

12 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Regarding the sense of life stuff, that should be in a new thread.

Nicky summed up the point well earlier:

On 4/12/2016 at 10:48 AM, Nicky said:

Ayn Rand said that music can express a sense of life (paraphrasing). So, yeah, if you believe that, then music that expresses a sense of life that contradicts the Oist sense of life...contradicts Objectivism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, epistemologue said:

As for "Objectivist art" - Rand was describing exactly this in The Romantic Manifesto - it's the Romantic school of art.

To be specific, I think she only described what is important about romantic art and why it is important to consume this type of art. I think you could describe a sense of life that embraces certain core spiritual values like self-esteem, but saying there is an Objectivist SoL is going to miss that different SoLs can be an expression of those core values. There could be more than one SoL that still embraces core spiritual values Rand spoke of. I think it is similar to personality, where we can share a philosophy and outlook but still show our individuality in vastly different ways. 

You could say there are styles of music which express certain emotions, but the style itself won't be any more "anti-Objectivist" than feeling sad is "anti-Objectivist". it depends on the specific way you react to it. As I mentioned earlier, I said dark music helps me to introspect, while another person may like it because they use it as an excuse to hate everything. My SoL can still flow from the core values, because it depends on how I think about the music I listen to. For the music itself, we could talk about how it helps or hinders my ability to introspect, or to see the best in life, or anything else important for my happiness and well-being. Listening to music can and does impact a person's thinking and emotions. 

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/12/2016 at 3:35 PM, Jonathan13 said:

Let's look at one of the most controversial rap songs ever, Ice-T/Body Count's Cop Killer: Does it show a fictional person pursuing values? Yes. Which values? Freedom from having brutal force initiated against him by representatives of the state. It shows defiance against having seen his friends and neighbors killed despite acting within their rights (including their rights as defined by Objectivism). It's the fictional story of a man who wants to go all Howard Roark on brutal cops.

Objectivism holds that drug use should be legal. When rappers or metal artists write songs about going vigilante (going Roark, as I put it), shouldn't Objectivists be in agreement with the legalization issue, and shouldn't the experience a positive aesthetic response to the artistic expression of retaliating against the initiation of force, especially when that force comes from the state? (Personally, I don't advocate either cop-killing or building-dynamiting in real life, but I can identify with the aesthetic expression and emotional impact when it's limited to a work of art such as a Randian novel, or rap or metal song.)

Drug use should be legal but that doesn't mean it's moral. There's no rational reason to get righteously indignant about some self-destructive addict unable to legally get high. In no way is that person "persuing values". Objectivists absolutely do not endorse "going vigilante" (and neither do you, apparently) - that's not remotely what Howard Roark did or who he was as a character. Killing cops is not the "retaliation against the initiation of force"; it's criminal. 

There's no reason to "experience a positive aesthetic response" to this as a Romantic, at least not for the reasons you're giving (though I can think of other more Romantic justifications for enjoying some rap or metal music).

On 4/12/2016 at 3:41 PM, Jonathan13 said:

Romanticism can be "depressing in tone." I find We The Living to be very, very depressing. Yet it shows people exercising volition -- choosing their values, and pursuing them. The novel is romantic by Rand's definition even though the hero doesn't succeed! She keeps choosing to try, to fight, to escape, and to live.

On the contrary, the idea of struggling for one's values and being unable to succeed is a demonstration of a Malevolent Universe Premise; it's an anti-volitional aesthetic - it's specifically *not* Romantic by Rand's definition. This goes right into the category Rand outlined with Byron and Shakespeare - heroic characters who are doomed to fail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/13/2016 at 8:49 PM, DonAthos said:

Sometimes I fear that discussions like these get a little bit lost in the abstract. How about a concrete scenario for everyone to consider? (This will be detail-lite, which might not serve everyone's interest, but I like to try to keep things simple for as long as possible.)

Suppose a guy who grows up enjoying heavy metal music. In his late-teens or early-20s, he discovers Ayn Rand/Objectivism and finds himself convinced that this philosophy is correct. He sets about reassessing various features of his life as he integrates this new philosophy.

One day he signs into an Objectivist message board and greets the community, introducing himself as a "big fan of heavy metal." Suppose someone else responds and (rightly or wrongly) says, "Heavy metal? That's not life-affirming; it's not compatible with Objectivism, and you have a lousy sense of life!"

How do we assess this situation, and how ought our hero respond (externally and/or internally)?

I came into this thread after this question, but as I said in my first post here, there are two different ways of judging art given by Rand.

First, he can be a big fan of heavy metal music for its technical, esthetic merit, even if it has a malevolent sense of life (or regardless of sense of life entirely), so he could absolutely defend his preference on that basis alone.

Secondly is the question of whether or not it does actually display a malevolent sense of life or not. Where Jonathan quotes Ayn Rand talking skeptically about evaluating sense of life, she actually names exactly the method to do so: "Judge their philosophical convictions." By evaluating the philosophical premises of the music and whether they are adhering to a Benevelont Universe Premise / Benevolent People Premise (or malevolent on the contrary), you can judge the music's sense of life philosophically and objectively. So for example if the heavy metal music is presenting a deep, rich character of man's mind, but this character is reduced to incoherent screaming in pain and horror at the world, we can conclude it's contrary to the Objectivist sense of life by virtue of its Malevolent Universe Premise.

 

On 4/12/2016 at 7:39 PM, Jonathan13 said:

Btw, Rand's position was not that musical tastes are, by nature, subjective. She did not hold the position that mankind will always be limited to judging them as subjective, nor that mankind will always be limited to being unable to declare which tastes in music are objectively superior. She was certain that someday someone would necessarily discover an objective "conceptual vocabulary."

I disagree, just as I would disagree if someone to assert that a "conceptual vocabulary" will inevitably be discovered for flavors, colors and beauty preferences, et.c, and that that discovery would allow for the idea of certain people declaring that their own preference for such are "objectively superior," and than others are therefore wrong to prefer what they do.

Such an objective analysis based on a "conceptual vocabulary" is exactly what I'm doing here, based on the foundation Rand laid for it in The Romantic Manifesto.

Edited by epistemologue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, epistemologue said:

Drug use should be legal but that doesn't mean it's moral. There's no rational reason to get righteously indignant about some self-destructive addict unable to legally get high. In no way is that person "persuing values". Objectivists absolutely do not endorse "going vigilante" (and neither do you, apparently) - that's not remotely what Howard Roark did or who he was as a character. Killing cops is not the "retaliation against the initiation of force"; it's criminal. 

There's no reason to "experience a positive aesthetic response" to this as a Romantic, at least not for the reasons you're giving (though I can think of other more Romantic justifications for enjoying some rap or metal music).

On the contrary, the idea of struggling for one's values and being unable to succeed is a demonstration of a Malevolent Universe Premise; it's an anti-volitional aesthetic - it's specifically *not* Romantic by Rand's definition. This goes right into the category Rand outlined with Byron and Shakespeare - heroic characters who are doomed to fail.

My frustration with WTL has always been related to this. If art is about "what might be and ought to be" then doesn't WTL fail to express these artistic virtues?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Plasmatic said:

Epistemologue said:

Could you do that for music without lyrics?

Yes. See my original post in this thread where my example was the genre of vocal trance in general:

On 4/13/2016 at 9:02 PM, epistemologue said:

As for a style with an incompatible sense of life with Objectivism, take for example vocal trance. The breathy, elongated tones of the woman singing expresses a futility or helplessness, like things are happening and you have no influence over them. This is a prototypical example of a malevolent universe premise style opposed to the romantic Objectivist style.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Epistemologue said:

Quote

As for a style with an incompatible sense of life with Objectivism, take for example vocal trance. The breathy, elongated tones of the woman singing expresses a futility or helplessness, like things are happening and you have no influence over them. This is a prototypical example of a malevolent universe premise style opposed to the romantic Objectivist style.

How do you have elongated tones without words in this context? 

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Plasmatic said:

My frustration with WTL has always been related to this. If art is about "what might be and ought to be" then doesn't WTL fail to express these artistic virtues?

I'm wondering, does Rand say -art- is in its ideal form has to be about what ought to be? If this is Romanticism, then we could say Rand did not take a complete inventory of broad styles. This way, a tragedy might not fit her definition of Romanticism, but still succeed at being art that shows certain spiritual values that are pro-life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Louie asked:

Quote

does Rand say -art- is in its ideal form has to be about what ought to be? If

 

Quote

Romanticism is the conceptual school of art. It deals, not with the random trivia of the day, but with the timeless, fundamental, universal problems and values of human existence. It does not record or photograph; it creates and projects. It is concerned—in the words of Aristotle—not with things as they are, but with things as they might be and ought to be.

 

Romantic Manifesto

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On April 13, 2016 at 0:12 AM, Plasmatic said:

Louis said:

The only thing I have found her say we have no conceptual vocabulary for is music.

RM

 

You are correct!

But, despite the fact that Rand never mentioned the lack of objective "conceptual vocabularies" for any of the other art forms other than music, she never actually identified any either, other than that of literature (which would need no one pointing out its conceptual vocabulary since it's readily self-apparent that literature deals with language, which is by definition a conceptual vocabulary).

Neither Rand nor any other Objectivist has ever proven/demonstrated that non-literary works can actually reliably meet her criteria for art: It has not yet been shown that, say, dance or visual art can communicate "artists' meanings" without the viewer having access to "outside considerations" (such as concert program notes, gallery placards, or other external sources of artistic intentions).

I've done a lot of testing of people's abilities, or lack thereof, to implement Rand's criteria for art, and for "esthetic judgment," including many Objectivists (or regular posters at Objectivist sites). Of all of the many samples of visual art that I've posted over the many years, no one in an Objectivist forum has yet succeeded in complying with Rand's requirements. Nothing -- no realistically painted images -- yet qualifies as art. Despite those paintings presenting realistic likenesses of objects from reality, no one has identified their thematic subjects or meanings.

And beyond that, I've even posted very famous, world-renowned and almost-universally adored realistic paintings by Romanticist artists such as J. M. W. Turner which certain viewers here at OO couldn't distinguish from abstract art, "toddler art," or what one called "lesser art."

I think such little tests and the responses reveal that there's quite a lot of philosophical work that needs to be done to firm up the positions taken by Objectivism in regard to art and aesthetics. There's a lot of proof missing to back up the theories and conclusions. Or, conversely, there are a lot of aspects of the theory of Objectivist Esthetics that need reconsideration and revision.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On April 13, 2016 at 9:42 PM, Eiuol said:

 

Back the the OP more concretely. Imagine this:

Listen to this song, Disintegration: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Prpk5KKfBA. It is obviously anti-life. It sounds depressing in its tempo and minor keys, and its lyrics are nihilistic. This is totally anti-man. Since aesthetic evaluations come from one's sense of life, which is in turn affected by one's explicit views on reality, if you enjoy this song, you are implicitly anti-life. Look into why you like such nihilistic music, because this suggests your psycho-epistemology is warped. Check your premises.

This is wrong for several reasons.

How do you know it's anti-life?
How do you know that I get the same feeling as you from it?
Even if some feelings are shared, how do you know I like this song because of the anti-life parts?
How do you know how my thinking must be working?

When it comes to styles of music, you can appreciate many kinds for many reasons. It helps to be aware of how your emotions crop up, and listening to music of all kinds can help with introspection exactly because emotions go with it. For instance, most people would recognize a song like the one above (which is actually one of my favorite songs ever) as sad or depressing.

Even if it is depressing, and it might make you less upbeat, it doesn't mean you are worshiping or enjoying being depressed. Personally, I like a lot of stereotypically dark music, and recognize it as dark, most of my value in it is how it seems to enhance my ability to introspect. 

 

Very well said!

Darkness in art doesn't mean that the artist or fans of his work are anti-man, nihilistic, or whatever. That's way too simplistic and naive of an interpretation. Dark works, such as We The Living, are usually explorations into how we handle adversity. To me, Rand's view of art is that it boils down to a simulation experience as a model-building guide to living. It's like stepping into a Star Trek holodeck. The idea isn't limit yourself to sunshine and bunnies and happy gumdrop fun times, but also to challenge yourself, and to experience some fears and few brushes with potential anguish and other bad things in order to prepare and fortify yourself. It's about growing and becoming stronger, not confining yourself to your innate "sense of life" preferences.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On April 13, 2016 at 11:12 PM, JASKN said:

Music is so emotional, and it might be useful to say that your reaction is "subjective." But, we know that all of reality is objective, so what you're really terming "subjective" is simply the unknown reasons behind the emotional responses of your mind.

All of reality IS NOT objective. Objectivity is a process. It's mental activity. Some mental activity is subjective.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On April 14, 2016 at 4:21 AM, DonAthos said:

Thus, if Objectivists are expected to share a sense of life (insofar as they understand or have integrated the philosophy), then it would seem that we could expect Objectivists to respond to music, or appraise it ("enjoyable or painful, desirable or undesirable, significant or negligible") in the same rough fashion, and accordingly share in the same general likes and dislikes.

Yet... I think that if we were to compare notes, we would find that this isn't the case? (Unless everyone out there is listening to "tiddlywink music," and I'm just unawares.) Which appears to me to cast this idea that there is an "Objectivist sense of life" into some measure of doubt, at least.

I've been comparing Objectivists' interpretations and responses to artworks for a decade and a half now, and they definitely don't all respond the same or interpret individual works the same. Not at all. The only one thing that they appear to have in common is that, when facing differences of artistic interpretation and response, a very high percentage of them take the position that they are right and everyone else is wrong -- they each believe that they have more properly integrated Objectivism than all of their fellow Objectivists, and have acquired more the ultimate in rational command over their senses of life and all other emotions, and they've become instant experts at interpreting and evaluating art.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On April 13, 2016 at 1:08 AM, Plasmatic said:

I don't see the problem. There are ethical implicit concepts in the preconceptual stage like any other. Likewise, I supplied quotes explaining how a sense of life can be integrated with a fully conscious and explicit philosophy.

Yes, you supplied quotes, but quotes aren't proof of a philosophical position. Where is the research to back up the claim that a sense of life, or any other emotional state, can be reliably integrated with a fully conscious and explicit philosophy?

To me it seems that you're looking for a way to allow your emotional reactions to be considered "objective." It's like a shortcut. It's like saying, "No, I didn't carefully consider all of the evidence involved in this case, test any theories, or contemplate rigorous criticisms. Rather, I just felt my emotional response. But that's just as good, because I've previously integrated all of my explicit philosophy, so now my emotions count as being objective even though I didn't actually follow Rand's requirement that each individual case under consideration must follow the specific process of volitionally adhering to reality via logic and reason using a clearly defined objectivist standard of judgment. I've graded myself as having properly integrated my emotions, so now I can just skip the step of actual objectivity."

 

On April 13, 2016 at 1:08 AM, Plasmatic said:

 

 I think it rather is a case of a sense of life that is consistent with having objective values.

In what context? All contexts? A child born under political tyranny and deprivation should have the same "proper" sense of life as a child born under freedom and wealth? A young man who has spent his life in slavery should have a "sense of life consistent with having objective values"?

 

On April 13, 2016 at 1:08 AM, Plasmatic said:

 

No, clearly not all Objectivist are at the same level of integration.

How would you objectively measure Objectivists' levels of philosophical and emotional integration?

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/14/2016 at 8:12 AM, epistemologue said:
On 4/14/2016 at 5:21 PM, DonAthos said:

All right.

Given this: "It is the viewer’s or reader’s sense of life that responds to a work of art by a complex, yet automatic reaction of acceptance and approval, or rejection and condemnation."

Would you say that we should expect Objectivists to share the same general interests in/responses to art (in terms of "acceptance and approval, or rejection and condemnation")? We should like the same sorts of movies, music, and so forth, with increasing agreement insofar as we have integrated the philosophy? Or would that not follow?

Yes, exactly!

Well, excellent.

I'm not agreeing to this -- my inclination is skeptical, and I wish to challenge it presently -- but your agreement gives us something we can test (albeit in limited and anecdotal ways) and explore.

Do you find it to be the case that Objectivists share the same responses to art? Do we find that happening in this modest thread, and across the small sample of Objectivists sharing their preferences that we have access to? Historically -- insofar as we know it -- do Objectivists like and dislike the same things?

In my experience there is often some agreement, artistically between Objectivists... and also some disagreement. I have not yet been struck that this is different from the general population. Nor have I found my own tastes changing dramatically from before I was an Objectivist to now (many years later); my childhood loves remain close to me. Do you account this to insufficient integration among self-professed "Objectivists," possibly including myself? (Or is it perhaps a testament to my golden sense of life, dating back to even when I held some fairly foul explicit beliefs? It is probably that!)

If an Objectivist does not share Ayn Rand's interest in "tiddlywink music," can he take that as a sign that he is yet at some... immature stage? And actually, Rand was alive and philosophically active, writing on aesthetics, at a time of some rather dramatic changes where popular music in the USA was concerned: the 50s, 60s, 70s... does anyone know whether she commented on any of that music? If there is Objectivist Music, I should like to build a playlist. Which is more moral -- Motown or Merseybeat?

On 4/14/2016 at 9:41 AM, epistemologue said:

I came into this thread after this question, but as I said in my first post here, there are two different ways of judging art given by Rand.

First, he can be a big fan of heavy metal music for its technical, esthetic merit, even if it has a malevolent sense of life (or regardless of sense of life entirely), so he could absolutely defend his preference on that basis alone.

Well...

I mean, personally? I agree. I'm not speaking technically here (this conversation has already surpassed my competence, although that's not much of a feat), but just based on my naive and unexplored experiences, different people will find different things in art (and not just music alone), and give varying aspects weight, and accordingly they will respond differently.

Typical of my age group, I suppose, I did not much enjoy Star Wars: The Phantom Menace. Yet I have a good friend who defends the movie on the basis of its special effects and visual grandeur. I account that "disagreement," where it seems to account to a difference in the emphasis we place on such things, to sense of life. Normally I leave it there. I don't try to talk her out of her opinion, which I don't even consider "wrong," per se, and I don't infer anything about her morality from it.

But am I mistaken in this? Is it possible that it isn't in my interest to be friends with someone who likes The Phantom Menace?

If we can imagine two Objectivists who have differing opinions on some piece of heavy metal -- one who does not enjoy it due to the malevolent sense of life he believes it to express, and the other who enjoys it due to its technical virtuosity, or similar -- can we say that one is right and the other wrong (in that there is one proper emotional response to the music; one correct sense of life -- the "Objectivist sense of life")?

Perhaps the man defending heavy metal due to its esthetic merit is being evasive regarding its sense of life; or perhaps it is the man who dismisses it due to its malevolence, who evades its aesthetic merits. Certainly they should both judge one another as immoral on the basis of their musical tastes, yes? (Or maybe not "immoral"; perhaps they can account one another to have made an "honest mistake," if they are young enough.)

Or... is it possible that they are both correct? Correct that the song expresses a malevolent sense of life, correct that it is expressed with great skill, and insofar as one has a sense of life which emphasizes the former -- and the other, the latter -- correct in their differing emotional reactions to the same song?

56 minutes ago, Jonathan13 said:

I've been comparing Objectivists' interpretations and responses to artworks for a decade and a half now, and they definitely don't all respond the same or interpret individual works the same. Not at all. The only one thing that they appear to have in common is that, when facing differences of artistic interpretation and response, a very high percentage of them take the position that they are right and everyone else is wrong...

Well, it would have to be that way, wouldn't it?

Maybe I'm wrong here, but as expressed above, I think that the way the "Objectivist sense of life" discussion trends (and must trend) is that one's artistic tastes are a referendum on one's morality. Therefore, in the case of disagreement, the choice is: either I am immoral or you are (again, allowing for some few "honest errors").

I expect that the sum of this is to turn a grand world of artistic diversity into a moral minefield, and to encourage either what you describe, in holding one's own opinions/reactions as unchallengeable, or on the other hand, repression and an abdication of independent judgement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DonAthos said:

If an Objectivist does not share Ayn Rand's interest in "tiddlywink music," can he take that as a sign that he is yet at some... immature stage? And actually, Rand was alive and philosophically active, writing on aesthetics, at a time of some rather dramatic changes where popular music in the USA was concerned: the 50s, 60s, 70s... does anyone know whether she commented on any of that music? If there is Objectivist Music, I should like to build a playlist. Which is more moral -- Motown or Merseybeat?

I think to make it simpler, the important questions are:

Is an SoL a type of emotion? Intuition? Personality? Something else?

Couldn't there be more than one SoL that follows from Objectivist premises?

Do things besides philosophical premises also impact SoL?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jonathan13 said:

Yes, you supplied quotes, but quotes aren't proof of a philosophical position. Where is the research to back up the claim that a sense of life, or any other emotional state, can be reliably integrated with a fully conscious and explicit philosophy?

You appear to have been infected with the upside down view of philosophy. One does not prove philosophical tenets the same way one does special science theory via "research" or "testing". All the facts necessary to validate a philosophical premise are ubiquitously available to anyone in any age.

4 hours ago, Jonathan13 said:

To me it seems that you're looking for a way to allow your emotional reactions to be considered "objective." It's like a shortcut. It's like saying, "No, I didn't carefully consider all of the evidence involved in this case, test any theories, or contemplate rigorous criticisms.

 Listen, if you want to debate the Oist conception of objectivity, start a thread on it. As it stands you don't appear familiar with it. Again there are no "philosophical theories" because the facts that are the domain of philosophy are ubiquitous and timeless. If your notion of objectivity regarding philosophy entails the above, you are certainly not accepting the Oist view on this (as your straw man below pretends to). I'd expect more of an "informed criticism" given your premises which lead to this thread. Nothing in the comment you quoted of me is remotely an instance of what you are describing, whatever.

Quote

Rather, I just felt my emotional response. But that's just as good, because I've previously integrated all of my explicit philosophy, so now my emotions count as being objective even though I didn't actually follow Rand's requirement that each individual case under consideration must follow the specific process of volitionally adhering to reality via logic and reason using a clearly defined objectivist standard of judgment. I've graded myself as having properly integrated my emotions, so now I can just skip the step of actual objectivity."

Nonsense! I have in fact expressed the opposite of "I've previously integrated all of my explicit philosophy, so now my emotions count as being objective". I described the process of challenging ones emotional states in this very thread and called it "emotional responsibility". What you describe above is a strawman that is impossible anyway. Emotional states are indicators of value judgments in relation to particular contexts, so no such passivity regarding justifying emotional states is rational.

Quote
On ‎4‎/‎13‎/‎2016 at 1:08 AM, Plasmatic said:

I will only say now that any emotion which is known to be unjustified by rational evaluations must be resisted. An example is an irrational fear of some harmless cause. That is part of emotional responsibility. Reasserting the facts that make that automatized response an irrational one. That process will eventually brings emotional harmony with factual evaluations. I don't mean pretending that you don't have such and such emotion but rationally evaluating its cause every time it shows up.

 

If you want to continue having a exchange with folks who are sincere in their intent to understand and be understood, you had better make a better effort to represent their positions as stated by them.

 

Edit:

Jonathan asked:

Quote

In what context? All contexts? A child born under political tyranny and deprivation should have the same "proper" sense of life as a child born under freedom and wealth? A young man who has spent his life in slavery should have a "sense of life consistent with having objective values"?

Another strawman! I said nothing of the sort. The question doesn't even make sense to me. Again, nothing I said can be construed as such a non sequitur.

Are you proposing that a sense of live is disconnected from ones values?

 

Quote

How would you objectively measure Objectivists' levels of philosophical and emotional integration?

By observing their actions in relation to their premises and whether they correspond to one another.

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Jonathan13 said:

All of reality IS NOT objective. Objectivity is a process. It's mental activity. Some mental activity is subjective.

There is more than one meaningful sense of objective, the metaphysical and the epistemic. I'd like to hear your definition of this sense of subjective you profess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yaron Brook has gone on record saying that Rand would dislike a lot of the music he listens to, like Rock music for example. It's a nonissue.

I like all sorts of music but dislike country for being too repetitive and melodramatic. It doesn't have philosophical significance. The lyrics of a particular song can have depraved messages, but even then, I really enjoyed some of Taylor Swift's songs for a long time - until I paid attention to the lyrics. Lyrics can often be overlooked or unnoticed, and subliminal messages are a marketing myth.

Rand wrote in Romantic Manifesto that music cannot be objectively analyzed - right now. She said it would require a scope of psychological knowledge of how elements of music affect people that we don't possess. We'd have to know whether country music necessarily correlates to a depraved philosophy or misguided values, or it causes such things. We don't know anything like that, we can't  know right now, and philosophical implications of music are only speculation as a result.

*shrug* Rand said herself that musical taste can only be viewed as "subjective", until scientific knowledge expands. Music would have to stop being music for it to be objectively bad. It would have to cross the line from music to noise, which includes ceasing to have rhythm or including sounds too obnoxious and irritating (high pitched or "scratchy") .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Not Lawliet said:

Yaron Brook has gone on record saying that Rand would dislike a lot of the music he listens to, like Rock music for example. It's a nonissue.

I'm not so certain, based on some of the arguments I've seen in this thread...

Have you considered the possibility that Yaron Brook has something other than an Objectivist sense of life, due to his failure to sufficiently integrate his explicit philosophy? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Jonathan13 said:

I answered in my first post on this thread: "No, there are not."

J

That directly contradicts the rest of your post, which leaves open the possibility that there answer is "Yes.". You are, at the same time, answering "No." and "Maybe." to the same question. Obvious contradiction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Not Lawliet said:

*shrug* Rand said herself that musical taste can only be viewed as "subjective", until scientific knowledge expands. Music would have to stop being music for it to be objectively bad.

Wait what? Surely, you see the difference between the meaning of your fist sentence, and the meaning of your second sentence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...