Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: May 18 2013 at 06:24
Gerinski wrote:
There's no clear line defining what is philosophy, we can move from the 'hard philosophy' ('are mathematics discovered or invented?' kind of stuff) all the way to just the writings of clever and educated thinkers. Some may say that writers such as Borges or Saramago are more philosophers than fiction writers, their stories always have some message, some deeper meaning, they are written so as to make the reader think about something (not that I'm any expert BTW).
Are 'thinkers' useful to society? I think so, they may not have invented or developed any technological device, but so long as they make people think, that's already a good enough product.
That's all well and good, but does it transpire in the lyric of a song when the lyricist distills that into a paraphrased summary that is itself cloaked in poetic symbolism? Buddhism led to Hermann Hesse writing a novel of self-discovery which in turn led Jon Anderson to pen the lyrics (interspersed with some Foundation Series references and random word-couplings added for rhythmic aesthetics) to three songs that formed an "epic" single track of a much-loved album. Even when we pick apart the lyric to gain insight into their meaning do we all adhere to the message? Does it really make us 'think'? Do we all think that Anderson 'got it right'? Is his reading of the novel better than Nick Drake's or Pete Townshend's? Are we all Buddhists at heart? (well, probably, but that's a different issue and not a direct result of listening to a Prog album).
I'm not the materialist or material reductionist that people paint me as, I do not expect 'thinkers' to produce material objects, nor do I rationalise everything down to physical properties unless that is an appropriate way to analyse an event. Whether 'thinkers' are useful to society is dependant upon how people use those insights and whether they understood them correctly, history hasn't been too kind on that score thus far.
Forum & Site Admin Group
RIO/Avant/Zeuhl & Eclectic Team
Joined: March 16 2007
Location: Boston
Status: Online
Points: 20745
Posted: May 18 2013 at 06:29
Dean wrote:
Do you really think song-writers and lyricists are good philosophers or are they pseudo-intellectually obscuring rather simplistic ideas in pretty rhyming words.
Fantastic, mind if I use that it's terrific?
Ian
Host of the Post-Avant Jazzcore Happy Hour on Progrock.com
There's no clear line defining what is philosophy, we can move from the 'hard philosophy' ('are mathematics discovered or invented?' kind of stuff) all the way to just the writings of clever and educated thinkers. Some may say that writers such as Borges or Saramago are more philosophers than fiction writers, their stories always have some message, some deeper meaning, they are written so as to make the reader think about something (not that I'm any expert BTW).
Are 'thinkers' useful to society? I think so, they may not have invented or developed any technological device, but so long as they make people think, that's already a good enough product.
That's all well and good, but does it transpire in the lyric of a song when the lyricist distills that into a paraphrased summary that is itself cloaked in poetic symbolism? Buddhism led to Hermann Hesse writing a novel of self-discovery which in turn led Jon Anderson to pen the lyrics (interspersed with some Foundation Series references and random word-couplings added for rhythmic aesthetics) to three songs that formed an "epic" single track of a much-loved album. Even when we pick apart the lyric to gain insight into their meaning do we all adhere to the message? Does it really make us 'think'? Do we all think that Anderson 'got it right'? Is his reading of the novel better than Nick Drake's or Pete Townshend's? Are we all Buddhists at heart? (well, probably, but that's a different issue and not a direct result of listening to a Prog album).
I'm not the materialist or material reductionist that people paint me as, I do not expect 'thinkers' to produce material objects, nor do I rationalise everything down to physical properties unless that is an appropriate way to analyse an event. Whether 'thinkers' are useful to society is dependant upon how people use those insights and whether they understood them correctly, history hasn't been too kind on that score thus far.
Couldn't have said it better myself
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”
Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154
Posted: May 18 2013 at 06:42
Guldbamsen wrote:
The last thing I want here, is to get into a verbal joust with you Dean(mostly because I know I'll have my ass handed over to me), but I think philosophy is integral to the history of the world. Still is. I've been discussing the matter with one of my oldest friends, who now is studying to become professor in physics. The never ending discussion. He's much like you are, and the funny thing about it is that I agree with most of what he says - I just come to different conclusions
Your friend will soon learn that much modern serious physics deals with issues which were until recently considered of philosophical nature.
Ask him to delve into the theories of John Archibald Wheeler, Frank Tipler, Roger Penrose, David Deutsch, Leonard Susskind or Juan Maldacena, all of them highly respected physicists.
The last thing I want here, is to get into a verbal joust with you Dean(mostly because I know I'll have my ass handed over to me), but I think philosophy is integral to the history of the world. Still is. I've been discussing the matter with one of my oldest friends, who now is studying to become professor in physics. The never ending discussion. He's much like you are, and the funny thing about it is that I agree with most of what he says - I just come to different conclusions
Your friend will soon learn that much modern serious physics deals with issues which were until recently considered of philosophical nature.
Ask him to delve into the theories of John Archibald Wheeler, Frank Tipler, Roger Penrose, David Deutsch, Leonard Susskind or Juan Maldacena, all of them highly respected physicists.
I know - and I suspect he knows that as well. He is well-read, and he has additionally read philosophy I'm not quite sure why he did that - know your enemy possibly? - Nah, I think most of his stabs at philosophy are done tongue-in-cheek simply because it's such an elusive matter. He recognises a lot of political philosophy, or rather anti-political - as well as ethics, as I suppose most of us do.
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”
Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154
Posted: May 18 2013 at 06:57
Dean wrote:
Gerinski wrote:
There's no clear line defining what is philosophy, we can move from the 'hard philosophy' ('are mathematics discovered or invented?' kind of stuff) all the way to just the writings of clever and educated thinkers. Some may say that writers such as Borges or Saramago are more philosophers than fiction writers, their stories always have some message, some deeper meaning, they are written so as to make the reader think about something (not that I'm any expert BTW).
Are 'thinkers' useful to society? I think so, they may not have invented or developed any technological device, but so long as they make people think, that's already a good enough product.
That's all well and good, but does it transpire in the lyric of a song when the lyricist distills that into a paraphrased summary that is itself cloaked in poetic symbolism?
As with everything there are degrees, maybe no rock lyricist deserves being called a profound thinker, but there's no reason why there couldn't be one, and even if on moderate levels, if they make some young (or not so young) people think about some stuff, it's a bit better than your typical pop hit lyrics.
Dean wrote:
Whether 'thinkers' are useful to society is dependant upon how people use those insights and whether they understood them correctly, history hasn't been too kind on that score thus far.
That may be true but it's the fault of the receiving people, not of the thinker / philosopher. That might change, I personally doubt it but let's not loose hope.
In the best cases, I find lyrics can be interchangeable with my own thoughts on life, love and death. The Japanese call this Satori, a sudden glimpse into life's big scheme - and even if we're dealing with something as porous as meta-physics - I tend to feel comfort and insight, whenever this happens.
Bob Dylan does this for me as well as Brendan Perry and Peter Hamill
Edited by Guldbamsen - May 18 2013 at 07:15
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: May 18 2013 at 12:41
Gerinski wrote:
Dean wrote:
Gerinski wrote:
There's no clear line defining what is philosophy, we can move from the 'hard philosophy' ('are mathematics discovered or invented?' kind of stuff) all the way to just the writings of clever and educated thinkers. Some may say that writers such as Borges or Saramago are more philosophers than fiction writers, their stories always have some message, some deeper meaning, they are written so as to make the reader think about something (not that I'm any expert BTW).
Are 'thinkers' useful to society? I think so, they may not have invented or developed any technological device, but so long as they make people think, that's already a good enough product.
That's all well and good, but does it transpire in the lyric of a song when the lyricist distills that into a paraphrased summary that is itself cloaked in poetic symbolism?
As with everything there are degrees, maybe no rock lyricist deserves being called a profound thinker, but there's no reason why there couldn't be one, and even if on moderate levels, if they make some young (or not so young) people think about some stuff, it's a bit better than your typical pop hit lyrics.
Because when the sun shines, we'll shine together,told you I'll be here forever, said I'll always be your friend, oceans drifting sideways, I am pulled into the spell, I feel you around me, I know you well, took an oath, I'll stick it out to the end. Stars slice horizons where the lines stand much too stark; Now that it's raining more than ever. I feel I am drowning - hands stretch in the dark, know that we'll still have each other, you can stand under my umbrella.
Joined: August 22 2010
Location: Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 20619
Posted: May 18 2013 at 12:51
Dean wrote:
Because when the sun shines, we'll shine together,told you I'll be here forever, said I'll always be your friend, oceans drifting sideways, I am pulled into the spell, I feel you around me, I know you well, took an oath, I'll stick it out to the end. Stars slice horizons where the lines stand much too stark; Now that it's raining more than ever. I feel I am drowning - hands stretch in the dark, know that we'll still have each other, you can stand under my umbrella.
makes yer think?
Mansun lyrics...?
One does nothing yet nothing is left undone. Haquin
Joined: May 25 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 10970
Posted: May 18 2013 at 19:55
The T wrote:
False. We could still have music, history, and all the rest without philosophy. All the rest have an specific objective/purpose/matter/whatever. Only philosophy concerns itself with answering unanswerable questions. History tells us what happened. Music entertains us. So does poetry. Philosophy asks obvious questions and poses no real answers. I'm not seeing the connection you make. Music, history, poetry, is the here and the now (or "then" in history). Philosophy is the "what the hell".
What? You do know that epistemology, politics, and other things (Google them) are branches of philosophy, right? That said, philosophy has anything and everything to do with science and politics.
Also, what is this with people telling each other what is true and what is false? Like they know better, like they know what is objectively true or false. What are we, on Jeopardy? Are we taking an exam?
False. We could still have music, history, and all the rest without philosophy. All the rest have an specific objective/purpose/matter/whatever. Only philosophy concerns itself with answering unanswerable questions. History tells us what happened. Music entertains us. So does poetry. Philosophy asks obvious questions and poses no real answers. I'm not seeing the connection you make. Music, history, poetry, is the here and the now (or "then" in history). Philosophy is the "what the hell".
What? You do know that epistemology, politics, and other things (Google them) are branches of philosophy, right? That said, philosophy has anything and everything to do with science and politics.
Also, what is this with people telling each other what is true and what is false? Like they know better, like they know what is objectively true or false. What are we, on Jeopardy? Are we taking an exam?
Now let's quit rambling about philosophy and get
Thank god at least one of us had a good breakfast this morning.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.172 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
The Prog Mind
Topic Options
Gerinski wrote:
), but I think philosophy is integral to the history of the world. Still is. I've been discussing the matter with one of my oldest friends, who now is studying to become professor in physics. The never ending discussion. He's much like you are, and the funny thing about it is that I agree with most of what he says - I just come to different conclusions
You do know that epistemology, politics, and other things (Google them) are branches of philosophy, right? That said, philosophy has anything and everything to do with science and politics.
