Is classical music merely self-aggrandizing?

[lukeottevanger]

I can't cope with threads like this. So my reply, in defence of Domenico, is limited to: K 206

[PSmith08]

While I must disclaim any actual responsibility, I am so sorry for you.

There is a trembling in the Zentralfriedhof.

I can't cope with threads like this. So my reply, in defence of Domenico, is limited to: K 206

Nice choice.

[karlhenning]

I can't cope with threads like this. So my reply, in defence of Domenico, is limited to: K 206

Nice choice.

Luke has a nice flair for these things, but I won't be parted with the K 491

[Don]

No one picked up on this but I consider the most significant statement that Michel has made in defence of his views is this:

Watching this discussion from the beginning, it struck me that this guy has not simply been peddling some private view of  classical music appreciation which he has thought up for himself, but has been trotting out a version of some possibly well-established philosophical viewpoint to which he has evidently become attracted, either recently or possibly of more long-standing duration.

I couldn't be sure exactly what it was, and I've been scanning my philosophy books for clues.  It was clearly materialistic in tone and I guessed Hegel.  At last he spelled it out: it's largely inspired by the philosophy of Feuerbach, who was a disciple of Hegel.   Feuerbach's main work was The Essence of Christianity (1841).  This was quite revolutionary at the time because it tried to comprehend religion from a human point of view. Feurebach believed that the mainspring of religion is man's desire to clarify his own essence, and saw "God" as the purified essence of man himself, i.e. "God" is nothing more than the ideal of man's capabilities and aspirations.

This anti-religion view was quite popular in certain sections of the philosophy profession, and elsewhere, the mid-nineteeth century.  For example, Marx and Engels picked up on some of it to develop their materialistic philosophy.  Feurebach, however, was quite soon forgotten, but has more recently made a bit of come-back among certain sections of the philosophical intelligentsia.  A central theme is the claim that "self-aggrandisement" motivates much of human behaviour, a view that has certain other philosophical antecedents.

Thus, more or less regardless of what any of you say on a purely musical plane, you won't shift this guy's views.  This is evident from the confidence of many of his replies. The only way to tackle them is by counter-philosophical arguments, and I'm not going to bother, as it's not worth it.  I will only say that I think his views, and those of Feurebach, are badly misconceived.

Excellent research!  So let me see if I've got this right - Michel thinks he's God?

[Don]

I am not the one who even spoke initially of spiritual content, I just referenced it as I know some of Don's favourite composers are obviously dramatic, such as Shostakovich. It was an argument to be used purely against him,

That's all I can tolerate.  To be a target on this board is totally unacceptable.  I demand to be taken in by Rob for the "Target Relocation Program".  Can I take all my cds with me to Bermuda?

[karlhenning]

Back to the safehouse in Weehawken for you, Don!

[Don]

Back to the safehouse in Weehawken for you, Don!

I need a safehouse.  My wife's thinking of kicking me out, the IRS thinks I've not been thruthful in my returns and the local loanshark wants some serious money by next week.  And now I've got the God-like Michel hunting me down, armed with Scarlatti's trivial (but well decorated) scores and brain-kicking electric guitars from the Mettalica warehouse.  I smell danger around the corner.

[mahlertitan]

if Michel indeed just wanted to discuss philosophy, why couldn't he used some other example? Last time i paid attention, this particular thread is for "anything, music excepted".

[Don]

if Michel indeed just wanted to discuss philosophy, why couldn't he used some other example? Last time i paid attention, this particular thread is for "anything, music excepted".

By using classical music, he gets a bigger rise out of his audience.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

Well, the way I see it, if this were a forum full of lion-tamers, stuntmen, crocodile-hunters, snake charmers, bungee jumpers, and the like...

...endeavours where our very lives are at stake and right before the public eye...

I could see the problem.

But CLASSICAL MUSIC?!?!??

Hmmmmm........

[mahlertitan]

By using classical music, he gets a bigger rise out of his audience.

No one should be doing that.

[Michel]

I still believe at lot of these comments are proving my point. Its laughable that we have now descended into a debate about whether or not Scarlatti is spiritual - what an absurd question!

And as I said before, why do we not have these arguments over Metallica? The answer: because we put people like Scarlatti up in exalted towers and bow down to their "greatness", so we're not allowed to critisize them and must constantly search for profundities. Its pathetic. We are all, yet again, self-aggrandizing. What a bunch of deluded fools we are.

[mahlertitan]

I still believe at lot of these comments are proving my point. Its laughable that we have now descended into a debate about whether or not Scarlatti is spiritual - what an absurd question!

And as I said before, why do we not have these arguments over Metallica? The answer: because we put people like Scarlatti up in exalted towers and bow down to their "greatness", so we're not allowed to critisize them and must constantly search for profundities. Its pathetic. We are all, yet again, self-aggrandizing. What a bunch of deluded fools we are.

don't exactly know who you are referring to by "We", i am pretty sure that i am not part of the "We", if you think that you are a fool, that's fine with me, just don't drag us innocent bystanders into it, I don't even listen to Metallica or Scarlatti.

[PSmith08]

I still believe at lot of these comments are proving my point. Its laughable that we have now descended into a debate about whether or not Scarlatti is spiritual - what an absurd question!

And as I said before, why do we not have these arguments over Metallica? The answer: because we put people like Scarlatti up in exalted towers and bow down to their "greatness", so we're not allowed to criticize them and must constantly search for profundities. Its pathetic. We are all, yet again, self-aggrandizing. What a bunch of deluded fools we are.

I do hope you're just being provocative, because you're leaving out several highly non-trivial steps from your proof (i.e., this above-quoted statement). Let me number your sentences (1) through (5), and I am going to discard immediately (3) because it is a rhetorical flourish that doesn't do anything, but hold on to that spot. It becomes important later. You pose a problem in (1) and offer, without proof, a solution in (2). That's the first major non-trivial step you've pretty much just left out, but not the last. Where your indictment in (3) is, there should be an argument connecting (2) with (4), i.e., showing how this - for lack of a better term - secular deification yields a self-aggrandizement. I'll just explode that argument now, and move on, with the premise that criticism requires some understanding: if you cannot criticize something, then you cannot say that you any understanding of it. If you cannot say that you have any understanding of it, then you are admitting a weakness. If you admit a weakness, then you are not aggrandizing yourself - quite the opposite. That was unnecessary, since you admit that we suborn ourselves before these "exalted towers." Self-abasement is, with no air for argument, not self-aggrandizement. With that pleasant interlude, we come to the final - and, really, fatal - flaw: you do not connect (4) with (5). In other words, you do not show that self-aggrandizement is delusion. In other words, I do not see that you have made an argument in your brief summa so much as made a series of unconnected pronouncements. I don't see how you can make an airtight and elegant argument out of this, since so much depends on premises to which most people will not agree.

[Michel]

I do hope you're just being provocative, because you're leaving out several highly non-trivial steps from your proof (i.e., this above-quoted statement). Let me number your sentences (1) through (5), and I am going to discard immediately (3) because it is a rhetorical flourish that doesn't do anything, but hold on to that spot. It becomes important later. You pose a problem in (1) and offer, without proof, a solution in (2). That's the first major non-trivial step you've pretty much just left out, but not the last. Where your indictment in (3) is, there should be an argument connecting (2) with (4), i.e., showing how this - for lack of a better term - secular deification yields a self-aggrandizement. I'll just explode that argument now, and move on, with the premise that criticism requires some understanding: if you cannot criticize something, then you cannot say that you any understanding of it. If you cannot say that you have any understanding of it, then you are admitting a weakness. If you admit a weakness, then you are not aggrandizing yourself - quite the opposite. That was unnecessary, since you admit that we suborn ourselves before these "exalted towers." Self-abasement is, with no air for argument, not self-aggrandizement. With that pleasant interlude, we come to the final - and, really, fatal - flaw: you do not connect (4) with (5). In other words, you do not show that self-aggrandizement is delusion. In other words, I do not see that you have made an argument in your brief summa so much as made a series of unconnected pronouncements. I don't see how you can make an airtight and elegant argument out of this, since so much depends on premises to which most people will not agree.

What a waste of time!

[Don]

What a waste of time!

Yes, but you started it.

[PSmith08]

What a waste of time!

True, true. It does not, though, have the all-thread prize in that regard.

Still, you might want to close some of the holes in your argument if you want it to be taken seriously.

[Mark]

Another thought occurs (based on Topaz's nice bit of investigation): Does not one publically quote philosophical ideas as an act of mere self-aggrandising? After all, the masses don't read Hegel or Feuerbach. So how much cleverer than they do we look when we espouse the thinking of such thinkers?

[Florestan]

There is an old Romanian saying that reads: A fool throws a stone in the water and ten wise men can't take it out.  

I'm flabbergasted to see that Michel's mind-boggling crap resulted in the fastest-growing thread, second only to Rod Corkin's equally crappish one.  

[Mark]

There is an old Romanian saying that reads: A fool throws a stone in the water and ten wise men can't take it out.  

I'm flabbergasted to see that Michel's mind-boggling crap resulted in the fastest-growing thread, second only to Rod Corkin's equally crappish one.  

To contest is human. It doesn't surprise me at all that we've been sucked into this thread. Perhaps by posting our thoughts and opinions here, we're merely self-aggrandising ...