Prog and Intellect

 

 

I don't think Rocktopus meant that critical thinking was the only tool against the world's wrongs. In sating that it is the best tool, I suspect that he meant that, without it, other tools such as action are likely to be misdirected and unfocused, or not to happen at all. I don't think anyone here would suggest that one can fix the world's problems just by thinking about them, but thinking about them is a necessary step toward fixing them.

Not sure how this relates to prog specifically, though. Lot's of music deals with the world's problems, often with considerable intelligence and often not.

And as i say it aplies also to him.......Yes, the antiphilosophical trend is just diluted philosophy ( if you want), but anyway  (not entering in  califications) is philosophy: Is escepticism.

Is the same with ateism wich is negative religion, so religion anyway ( see "manhood religion" of first Mach and Feuerbach).

But if the problem is you dont understand what they say so you automatically think they saying nothing....dont know it remembers me to the fable of the fox and the grapes...

It would be quite unfair if i disspised mathematicians because i cant understand maths...to say the least.

Anyway philosophy got this characteristic that you have only three options in respect it:

reject it without knowing it, reject it with knowldedge of it, or embrace it...but as long as you dont choose the first option it all solves in the oposing thoughts, antinomies, so in philosophical argumentations, that morover is what interesting not rejecting or embracing just thinking it.

And people wich listen to music wich needs concentration, atention...wich in other words you need to listen to it several times ( the same with philosophers) and wich is not inmediate like Surf, Punk, whatever i think should understand it.

Theres somethings you have to work deeply in for enjoying them but when you do is the greatest and sublime joy/pleasure- and thats for me a clear connection between philosophy and prog.

Also prog is  not for anygiven social situation, it doesnt allows you to "dance to an easy beat", !the same with philosophy! ( lets say "think with an easy beat"  ).

 

About Schopenauer- yes he said the music is the way passions have to feel themselves, and  in this pure affecting of passion  by itself, the will with its blind urge just calm down ( it dont have to go out to the world, it just rest in its own element)..So for him music is a will´s fire extintor in fact...and this being interesting i find it reductionist and ( a little bit) depressing.

 

And yes action without thinking is much more dangerous that thinking without doing

I don't think any one is criticising Fred for being too intellectual - though whether you consider that to be derogatory or not is dependant on how much worth you attach to it.

shockedjazz wrote: And as i say it aplies also to him.......Yes, the antiphilosophical trend is just diluted philosophy ( if you want), but anyway  (not entering in  califications) is philosophy: Is escepticism. Is the same with ateism wich is negative religion, so religion anyway ( see "manhood religion" of first Mach and Feuerbach).

That's just playing with words. Philosophy (with a capital "P") is an academic discipline, philosophy (with a small "p") is just thinking about stuff at some abstract level. You can't dilute philosophy, (though I do concede that it is technically possible to dilute a philosophy), it either is or it isn't. The Scientific Method is practically skepticism by definition which separates it from the academic discipline of Philosophy by the simple virtue that hypotheses are subjected to empirical testing - something that you cannot do with any Philosophical statement. I'm not getting into the "Atheism is a religion" argument again because people have a nasty habit of misusing words like "proof" "belief" "theory" and "truth" .

shockedjazz wrote: But if the problem is you dont understand what they say so you automatically think they saying nothing....dont know it remembers me to the fable of the fox and the grapes...

I understand what they are saying. Both in literal terms and in the context in which it is said. But what if the grapes really are sour - what then?

shockedjazz wrote: It would be quite unfair if i disspised mathematicians because i cant understand maths...to say the least.

Bad analogy. Strike every mathematician who ever lived from the record and throw away every mathematical concept and the modern world would not exist, we'd still be living in the stone age, yet we'd still fight each other over silly "philosophical" concepts like whether you break an egg at the Big-end or the Little-end. Discard philosophy and nothing changes, humanity progresses, things get invented, designed and built. Philosophy isn't a higher form of intellect - it's alchemy without the experimentation, application or valid useful results, it does not provide answers or solutions and it hasn't changed anything or brought about universal enlightenment - it's an ouroboros that feeds on itself and serves no practical use, it's perpetual motion and squaring the circle combined into a single task.

shockedjazz wrote: Anyway philosophy got this characteristic that you have only three options in respect it: reject it without knowing it, reject it with knowldedge of it, or embrace it...but as long as you dont choose the first option it all solves in the oposing thoughts, antinomies, so in philosophical argumentations, that morover is what interesting not rejecting or embracing just thinking it.

Of course thinking + action is the best combination, and no-thinking+no-action the worst.  (so obvious). 

But action without thinking may leave to errors, mistakes, from which we LEARN. 

Thinking without action leads to .... a smart vegetable. 

Besides, the French-educated ones who started Year Zero were highly intellectual..