Quote from: DavidW on August 01, 2023, 05:57:16 AMI'm going to just stream. I almost never blind buy anymore.
I like to buy blind (or deaf). Every couple months or so, I peruse discounted items on Amazon and buy only recordings that cannot be streamed, just for fun. And some foreign market items are blind buys.
Quote from: Florestan on August 01, 2023, 06:36:34 AMA better question is: does ideology influence one's playing style? For instance, Maurizio Pollini is a communist. How does this ideological affiliation reflect in his recordings? Not at all, of course.
Yep. In general, I don't know artists' politics, and I don't care. If and when I learn their politics, I still don't care. The same applies to other unpleasant things artists may do (eg, murder, rape, endorsing restaurant chains).
Quote from: Florestan on August 01, 2023, 06:36:34 AMA better question is: does ideology influence one's playing style? For instance, Maurizio Pollini is a communist. How does this ideological affiliation reflect in his recordings? Not at all, of course.
In a strange way, Levit's leftist political stance is reflected in his style of musicianship. It feels false. Or so it seems to me.
Quote from: Todd on August 01, 2023, 06:56:01 AMYep. In general, I don't know artists' politics, and I don't care. If and when I learn their politics, I still don't care. The same applies to other unpleasant things artists may do (eg, murder, rape, endorsing restaurant chains).
You are an exception. Western society is never slow in cancelling musicians or other cultural figures.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on August 01, 2023, 07:28:16 AMYou are an exception. Western society is never slow in cancelling musicians or other cultural figures.
I'm not so sure about that. Some unpleasant artists take career hits, some don't. That you use the nebulous word "cancelling" is helpful.
Quote from: Todd on August 01, 2023, 06:56:01 AMYep. In general, I don't know artists' politics, and I don't care. If and when I learn their politics, I still don't care. The same applies to other unpleasant things artists may do (eg, murder, rape, endorsing restaurant chains).
I draw the red line at paedophilia. James Levine, for instance.
Quote from: Florestan on August 01, 2023, 07:59:30 AMI draw the red line at paedophilia. James Levine, for instance.
Forever? For instance, do you listen to Saint-Saens? Will you watch a Polanski movie? I listen to Levine's recordings, Saint-Saens' music, and watch Polanski movies. I have no qualms doing so.
Quote from: Todd on August 01, 2023, 08:07:56 AMForever? For instance, do you listen to Saint-Saens? Will you watch a Polanski movie? I listen to Levine's recordings, Saint-Saens' music, and watch Polanski movies. I have no qualms doing so.
AFAIK, Saint-Saens' case is not at all so clear cut, there is no conclusive evidence he was a paedophile. I don't remember having watched any Polanski movie --- for no specific reasons, it just happened.
Quote from: Florestan on August 01, 2023, 08:13:39 AMAFAIK, Saint-Saens' case is not at all so clear cut, there is no conclusive evidence he was a paedophile.
He reportedly stated "I am not a homosexual, I am a pederast."
Do you listen to Gesualdo? He of course murdered his wife. Is that better or worse than what Levine and Polanski definitely did, and Saint-Saens almost certainly did?
Quote from: Todd on August 01, 2023, 08:23:11 AMHe reportedly stated "I am not a homosexual, I am a pederast."
Yes, but he was enamored of, and famous for, quirky jokes and pranks on most other people so that is not conclusive evidence.
QuoteDo you listen to Gesualdo? He of course murdered his wife. Is that better or worse than what Levine and Polanski definitely did, and Saint-Saens almost certainly did?
Murdering one's wife in a fit of jealousy is neither better nor worse than paedophilia, it's different.
But we digress, greatly. Let's say that in 99 % of cases I clearly separate the artist from their art, and in the specific case of political opinions I couldn't care less about them. Some of my favorite writers and musicians are/were diehard leftists or downright communists.
Quote from: Florestan on August 01, 2023, 08:32:37 AMYes, but he was enamored of, and famous for, quirky jokes and pranks on most other people so that is not conclusive evidence.
Not conclusive, not exonerating.
Quote from: Florestan on August 01, 2023, 08:32:37 AMMurdering one's wife in a fit of jealousy is neither better nor worse than paedophilia, it's different.
Well, yes, murder is different from pedophilia. Do you ever listen to Gesualdo, and if you do, how do you rationalize your behavior given that you have taken a moral stance against Levine?
Quote from: Todd on August 01, 2023, 07:54:46 AMI'm not so sure about that. Some unpleasant artists take career hits, some don't. That you use the nebulous word "cancelling" is helpful.
Certainly some people get their careers cut off, some don't. I was referring to the phenomenon itself, which is becoming more noticeable and serious every year. You can use any word to name it.
Quote from: Todd on August 01, 2023, 08:36:02 AMNot conclusive, not exonerating.
Yes. He might or might not have been a paedophile. We will never know.
QuoteWell, yes, murder is different from pedophilia. Do you ever listen to Gesualdo, and if you do, how do you rationalize your behavior given that you have taken a moral stance against Levine?
I don't listen to Gesualdo on a regular basis, not because of his acts but because Renaissance is not among my favorite periods --- but yes, every now and then I do listen to Renaissance composers, Gesualdo included. Yes, he was a murderer but at least he regretted it and made penance for it all his subsequent life. I am not aware of any such repentance from levine.
Quote from: Todd on August 01, 2023, 08:23:11 AMHe reportedly stated "I am not a homosexual, I am a pederast."
Do you listen to Gesualdo? He of course murdered his wife. Is that better or worse than what Levine and Polanski definitely did, and Saint-Saens almost certainly did?
The real question is, do people actually choose what they "do"? And if not, does it make sense to blame and punish them for something they didn't choose?
Quote from: hopefullytrusting on August 01, 2023, 08:36:20 AMI suspect that digging into any artist's past will dredge up something horrific...
What they do has little to do with their craft.
Absolutely. I am interested in the art, not the unsavory behaviors of artists. How many German and Russian and Italian and Spanish artists from the last century would I have to avoid if I worried myself about misbehavior, for instance? Can I enjoy Picasso's blue period given his nastiness? Can I enjoy Ray Charles given his questionable behavior? (The answer is yes to both.) While I don't seek out knowledge of artists' bad behavior, if I do learn about it, I acknowledge it and then move on.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on August 01, 2023, 08:37:51 AMI was referring to the phenomenon itself, which is becoming more noticeable and serious every year.
Not really. The recent apex was during the Me Too movement. It's not as bad now. Indeed, some men felled by Me Too are rehabilitating their careers. People have been condemned by society for various moral reasons for millennia. Occasionally, good art comes out of it. Think Hawthorne. There's nothing new under the sun. Social media merely speed things up.
Quote from: Florestan on August 01, 2023, 08:42:31 AMYes, he was a murderer but at least he regretted it and made penance for it all his subsequent life. I am not aware of any such repentance from levine.
This demonstrates that people can and do rationalize anything.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on August 01, 2023, 08:43:11 AMThe real question is, do people actually choose what they "do"? And if not, does it make sense to blame and punish them for something they didn't choose?
Oh, no, I will most definitely not go into discussing free will.
Quote from: Todd on August 01, 2023, 08:47:46 AMpeople can and do rationalize anything.
Of course, it's in their human nature.
Quote from: Florestan on August 01, 2023, 08:49:42 AMOf course, it's in their human nature.
You missed the point.
I recently read a new book, Monsters by Claire Dederer, that tackles this very subject of "problem" artists with complexity, wisdom, humility, and a willingness to see all sides. She actually starts with the example of Polanski, before moving on to many other so-called "monsters" past and present.
I couldn't possibly summarize all of Dederer's thoughts in this space - it really is one of my favorite books I've read in a long time - but some that were of value to me included:
(a) that we should be honest about the role our feelings and emotions play in our assessment of "problematic" artists;
(b) that it is fine to acknowledge the difference between monstrous behavior that does or does not affect how you perceive the art itself (e.g., I can listen to Saint-Saens without thinking about his personal behavior, but I find Woody Allen's Manhattan deeply creepy and uncomfortable, having knowledge of his real behavior);
(c) that a private consumer cannot really hold any such artist accountable, so the point of managing our own feelings is precisely that: managing our own feelings;
(d) that art critics who say "we feel this" or "we should feel this," with the royal "we," as if their own feelings are normal and right, are grandstanding; and
(e) that there really isn't a wrong answer except to be frustrated at the artists for making us think about these things in the first place.
Quote from: hopefullytrusting on August 01, 2023, 09:06:15 AMWhat's that cliche? You can be right, or you can be happy? The older I get, the more and more I value happiness.
Lovely quote and sentiment.
Quote from: Brian on August 01, 2023, 09:18:03 AMI recently read a new book, Monsters by Claire Dederer, that tackles this very subject of "problem" artists with complexity, wisdom, humility, and a willingness to see all sides. She actually starts with the example of Polanski, before moving on to many other so-called "monsters" past and present.
I couldn't possibly summarize all of Dederer's thoughts in this space - it really is one of my favorite books I've read in a long time - but some that were of value to me included:
(a) that we should be honest about the role our feelings and emotions play in our assessment of "problematic" artists;
(b) that it is fine to acknowledge the difference between monstrous behavior that does or does not affect how you perceive the art itself (e.g., I can listen to Saint-Saens without thinking about his personal behavior, but I find Woody Allen's Manhattan deeply creepy and uncomfortable, having knowledge of his real behavior);
(c) that a private consumer cannot really hold any such artist accountable, so the point of managing our own feelings is precisely that: managing our own feelings;
(d) that art critics who say "we feel this" or "we should feel this," with the royal "we," as if their own feelings are normal and right, are grandstanding; and
(e) that there really isn't a wrong answer except to be frustrated at the artists for making us think about these things in the first place.
Thank you.
I've received a complaint, so I'll be moving this digression to another topic. Stand by!
Yes this thread came from the Beethoven piano sonatas thread. Please post here to continue the discussion.
Quote from: Florestan on August 01, 2023, 08:48:48 AMOh, no, I will most definitely not go into discussing free will.
Agree, there is no point in discussing an issue where the sides positions will stay intakt.
But will say nonetheless, realising that people are not independent in their deeds makes life much easier. More compassion to others and oneselves.
Quote from: hopefullytrusting on August 01, 2023, 11:38:21 AMIf you all are interested, perhaps the best book on free will has recently been published: Do we have free will?: A debate by Robert Kane and Carolina Sartorio.
What's the conclusion of the debate? Do we, or do we not? :D
Quote from: hopefullytrusting on August 01, 2023, 11:38:21 AMIf you all are interested, perhaps the best book on free will has recently been published: Do we have free will?: A debate by Robert Kane and Carolina Sartorio.
Actually I have my answers in this, but thank you anyway :)
Quote from: hopefullytrusting on August 01, 2023, 11:54:39 AMI'll spoil that one is for it and one is against it. :o
I suspected that much. :D
Personally, I side with *for*.
Levit did nothing worse than offensive and stupid public statements using his fame as pianist.
He was just insufferably obnoxious and knows of course that any hard counter can be deflected with the charge of antisemitism.
I would respect him more, if he was not mostly just echoing the juste milieu leftliberal crap but defending an original position. And if I loved his playing more, I'd probably not care.
Certainly, Pollini was a kind of salon? communist 50 years ago, but I never knew about this when I first encountered him on records in the 1980s. Maybe he was vocal in Italy, I don't know.
@Jo498 - what did he say that was stupid? I can't find anything specific online easily, though I can find a lot of general comments like the ones here.
Like Jews in Germany becoming afraid of rising antisemitism. This is doubly misleading.
Normal Germans and all institutions are falling over themselves to avoid the impression of being antisemitic. There are high administrative positions for "watching antisemitism", briefly, it's a trump card you can "cancel" anyone with, so people naturally watch their tongue. Philosemitism and "Right or wrong, my Israel!" are official doctrines of German governments/general policy. To become more anti-antisemitic would be for a vegan to go on hunger strike ;)
Of yourse there are a few thousand far right wing types who don't bother and do it for street cred.
But the main rise of actual antisemitism is due to (mostly recent) oriental muslim immigrants. They openly chant antisemitic paroles at occasions lik "al quds day", they put graffitis on synagogues and beat up people visibly jewish (wearing kipa). This is rarely mentioned because it could increase anti-muslim bias (maybe it should? it's not a prejudice).
It's just disappointing that Levit plays such facile "I am the Jew" cards. He also supports the insufferable Green party.
As I said, it's not something I find (or even less expect someone else to find) highly immoral or offensive, but it was extremely annoying to me, so I ignore Levit nowadays.
Quote from: Jo498 on August 02, 2023, 12:52:05 AMLike Jews in Germany becoming afraid of rising antisemitism. This is doubly misleading.
Normal Germans and all institutions are falling over themselves to avoid the impression of being antisemitic. There are high administrative positions for "watching antisemitism", briefly, it's a trump card you can "cancel" anyone with, so people naturally watch their tongue. Philosemitism and "Right or wrong, my Israel!" are official doctrines of German governments/general policy. To become more anti-antisemitic would be for a vegan to go on hunger strike ;)
Of yourse there are a few thousand far right wing types who don't bother and do it for street cred.
But the main rise of actual antisemitism is due to (mostly recent) oriental muslim immigrants. They openly chant antisemitic paroles at occasions lik "al quds day", they put graffitis on synagogues and beat up people visibly jewish (wearing kipa). This is rarely mentioned because it could increase anti-muslim bias (maybe it should? it's not a prejudice).
It's just disappointing that Levit plays such facile "I am the Jew" cards. He also supports the insufferable Green party.
As I said, it's not something I find (or even less expect someone else to find) highly immoral or offensive, but it was extremely annoying to me, so I ignore Levit nowadays.
Thank you, this is quite informative. I wonder if it is possible to trace the common source from which support for Greens agenda and philosemitism stems?
Quote from: Todd on August 01, 2023, 08:36:02 AMWell, yes, murder is different from pedophilia.
I think one needs to make a distinction between murder committed in a moment of rage or passion compared to something like pedophilia which is something that seems to indicate a more permanent or normalized blot in the soul of an individual. Being a pedophile is closer to being a serial killer in this sense, which makes it harder to imagine a pedophile could ever feel "remorse".
That said, Gesualdo's murder was a particular brutal one and there's something to be said there as well but ultimately it was still the result of momentary rage so the possibility his remorse was genuine is still there. That's important because his music is supposed to reflect his torment and guilt, which ties with the subject of this topic.
Quote from: Opus131 on August 02, 2023, 04:23:30 AMI think one needs to make a distinction between murder committed in a moment of rage or passion compared to something like pedophilia which is something that seems to indicate a more permanent or normalized blot in the soul of an individual.
You do. I do not.
Quote from: Opus131 on August 02, 2023, 04:23:30 AMBeing a pedophile is closer to being a serial killer in this sense, which makes it harder to imagine a pedophile could ever feel "remorse".
I suspect you do not have a background in criminal psychology.
Quote from: Opus131 on August 02, 2023, 04:23:30 AMThat said, Gesualdo's murder was a particular brutal one and there's something to be said there as well but ultimately it was still the result of momentary rage so the possibility his remorse was genuine is still there. That's important because his music is supposed to reflect his torment and guilt, which ties with the subject of this topic.
I dig Gesualdo's music. I do not engage in mental and moral gymnastics regarding his actions.
the insufferable Green party.???
Please explain.
Well, no, i don't have a background in criminal psychology, it just seems common sense to me that an act committed in a fit of momentary passion is not in the same order as something that requires cold premeditation. Unless you think regret or guilt are simply not possible in the case of a passional murder.
Personally, i can imagine a person being tormented by guilt after a crime of passion. I cannot imagine the same for an act of pedophilia, which involves inflicting pain on an innocent for the sake of pursuing some twisted or perverted personal pleasure. The process of conjuring such an act, and then to go through with it, with all the cold deliberation that implies not to mention the reason for committing such an act being SO self-centered it just simply precludes the possibility of guilt. I'd even put it below a premeditated murder, and i think people in general would agree given the reaction to this incident:
Quote from: pjme on August 02, 2023, 04:38:20 AM the insufferable Green party.???
Please explain.
Certainly it indicates the slippery slope nature of the subject matter this thread. There is a tremendous difference between criminality and support of a view the beholder personally disagrees with. I imagine there are loads of people who like Levit more because of his views.
(I don't much enjoy his pianism so even if Jo is describing my own opinions, it won't make me go buy his new CD.)
Quote from: Opus131 on August 02, 2023, 04:51:31 AMWell, no, i don't have a background in criminal psychology, it just seems common sense to me...
What seems like common sense to you may or may not have anything to do with how criminals think.
Quote from: Opus131 on August 02, 2023, 04:51:31 AMPersonally, i can imagine...
What you can imagine has nothing to do with how criminals think.
Quote from: Brian on August 02, 2023, 04:54:54 AM(I don't much enjoy his pianism so even if Jo is describing my own opinions, it won't make me go buy his new CD.)
His Bach/Beethoven/Rzewski threefer is good.
The topic reminded me of the following...
About 25 years ago, I came across a lunatic book by a certain E. Michael Jones called Dionysos Rising, which attempted to link the Tristan chord (which can be found in works composed well before Wagner was born) and chromatic harmony in general, to the spread of immorality throughout Western Civilization.
The author also claimed that the adultery of Schoenberg's wife caused the composer to emancipate dissonance, i.e. to emancipate evil (or at least what he considered to be evil-sounding music) and that this led to the immorality inherent (I am NOT making this up) in rock-and-roll, as evinced by Mick Jagger. :o
Exactly how those processes worked...unclear. You must accept that connections exist among them because the author says so. Ultimately the author is repeating the ancient Greek (Platonic) belief that Music could affect and perhaps even cause certain behaviors in people, and therefore certain kinds of music had to be avoided or even banned.
Laughable AND appalling at the same time!
If you look at the wikipedia page in Italian you'll see that the facts of the murder are disputed, the contemporary testimony is not obviously coherent and it may not be at all plausible to say that Gesualdo killed his wife and her lover himself.
Another fact to bear in mind is that, until quite recently in some countries (but maybe not the country Gesualdo lived in) passion was an attenuating circumstance of murder.
Quote from: Mandryka on August 02, 2023, 05:18:25 AMIf you look at the wikipedia page
That settles that, I guess.
Gesualdo murdered his wife. Gesualdo was evil. Gesualdo was also an excellent composer. The last point is what interests me most.
Quote from: Todd on August 02, 2023, 05:21:50 AMGesualdo murdered his wife.
Maybe
Quote from: Todd on August 02, 2023, 05:21:50 AMGesualdo was evil.
He may have broken the law in his country at the time.
Quote from: Todd on August 02, 2023, 05:21:50 AMGesualdo was also an excellent composer.
I like some of his music too.
Quote from: Mandryka on August 02, 2023, 05:28:08 AMMaybe
He did.
Quote from: Mandryka on August 02, 2023, 05:28:08 AMHe may have broken the law.
He committed murder.
However, as your posts demonstrate, along with some others in this thread, people can and do rationalize anything and attempt to explain away nastiness which they may find yucky. I like Gesualdo's music even with full knowledge that he murdered his wife.
Quote from: Brian on August 02, 2023, 04:54:54 AMthe slippery slope nature of the subject matter this thread.
Exactly. I fear the worst.
As a rule, I can separate the artist from the art in cases where the artist is dead and gone (unless the art itself is offensive). If an artist is alive, I do not want to materially support an artist I find morally compromised, especially if it facilitates continuation of abuse (i.e. a conductor can keep his or her job and continue abuse). Occasionally morally compromising behavior has an ick factor which makes it hard for me to appreciate an artists work even though he or she is dead and buried.
Quote from: Todd on August 02, 2023, 05:21:50 AMThat settles that, I guess.
Gesualdo murdered his wife. Gesualdo was evil. Gesualdo was also an excellent composer. The last point is what interests me most.
Seems to me like you believe then there is no possibility of remorse for a murder. That to commit a murder, reguardless of the circumnstances, indicates the person is irredeemable.
Would that apply to the father in the video i just posted as well?
Quote from: Opus131 on August 02, 2023, 05:51:46 AMSeems to me like you believe then there is no possibility of remorse for a murder. That to commit a murder, reguardless of the circumnstances, indicates the person is irredeemable.
Of course people can feel remorse for committing murder. So what? Murderers still committed murder. It is the worst crime of all. There are pretty much no circumstances where a person who committed murder can be redeemed. People who commit manslaughter or negligent homicide or similar, lesser crimes that result in another person's death can be redeemed. Indeed, there are very well-established reasons why crimes that result in the death of another person are differentiated. In short, malice matters.
Quote from: Todd on August 02, 2023, 04:55:13 AMWhat you can imagine has nothing to do with how criminals think.
I believe all people imagine or think in the same way.
(Sorry for the convoluted way this post is expressed. I just know that in this sort of discussion the devil is in the detail, so it's best to try to express ideas as clearly as possible, even if it means you end up talking like a lawyer! In particular. In this case, we have to be careful about distinguishing intention, action, bodily movement, freedom, responsibility, moral evaluation etc.)
Let's assume for the sake of argument that Gesualdo took the life his wife after he discovered her in bed with another man.
1. His state of mind, rage, on discovering her in flagrante delicto may have been near the start of a causal chain of events which ended with him forming the intention to kill his wife and taking the knife and stabbing her. That's got to be a real possibility: psychological states cause other psychological states, and they cause actions and bodily movements.
2. It follows from 1 that he was determined to act as he did. He was not free to act otherwise. His bodily movements and intentions were part of a causal process over which he had no control.
3. Nothing follows from 1 and 2 about whether it is appropriate to hold him responsible and punishable. Even if he could have avoided taking the knife to his wife, we may wish to discourage similar actions - that's presumably the function of saying that he was "evil" or using the law to impose sanctions.
4. There's nothing specific to Gesualdo's case in all of this. If 1 is true of Gesualdo's killing his wife, it is true of all our bodily movements, intended or not. And similarly 2, if true in this case, shows that freedom is an illusion generally. 3 shows that there is still an important role for moral judgements.
Quote from: Todd on August 02, 2023, 06:01:38 AMOf course people can feel remorse for committing murder. So what? Murderers still committed murder. It is the worst crime of all. There are pretty much no circumstances where a person who committed murder can be redeemed. People who commit manslaughter or negligent homicide or similar, lesser crimes that result in another person's death can be redeemed. Indeed, there are very well-established reasons why crimes that result in the death of another person are differentiated. In short, malice matters.
If murderers are "ireedimable", would you argue all murderers deserve life in prison? Why release a murderer if one believes the capability of committing such an act implies the person is beyond the pale no matter what (thus liable to murder again given the opportunity)?
By this i don't mean to trivialize how serious a murder is, and how the capability to commit such an action, in "passion" or otherwise, doesn't involve a serious darkening in the soul of a person, but i think the point was wether something of Gesualdo's personality, and by extention his "evil" nature, would reflect in his music, where as the accepted belief is that it is his guilt and remorse that shines through, not his murderous personality.
Essentially, the point i'm trying to make is that not everything about Gesualdo was "evil", not if he was capable of feeling remorse, and thus it is not just "evil" that one hears in his music.
Of course, i guess this opens the question of whether an evil person invariably makes evil art. Personally, i think it must to some degree.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on August 02, 2023, 06:05:07 AMI believe all people imagine or think in the same way.
Some people believe in sasquatch.
Quote from: Mandryka on August 02, 2023, 06:25:03 AM3. Nothing follows from 1 and 2 about whether it is appropriate to hold him responsible and punishable. Even if he could have avoided taking the knife to his wife, we may wish to discourage similar actions - that's presumably the function of saying that he was "evil" or using the law to impose sanctions.
One of the well-established purposes of criminal law is to attempt to deter future criminal behavior.
There is one rather significant item missing from your analysis. Gesualdo was a fancy man, rich and influential. It is unlikely that a peasant would have enjoyed the freedom to continue on with his life in the same manner.
Quote from: Opus131 on August 02, 2023, 06:28:24 AMIf murderers are "ireedimable", would you argue all murderers deserve life in prison?
Yes, murderers deserve life imprisonment as a matter of course. There may be special circumstances where they could be released early - for end of life care for terminal illness, for instance.
Gesualdo's actions were evil. He was evil. People can equivocate about that all day long if they wish.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on August 02, 2023, 02:21:53 AMThank you, this is quite informative. I wonder if it is possible to trace the common source from which support for Greens agenda and philosemitism stems?
There is no common source. Because of German history support for Israel and Jews everywhere is basically an official doctrine; mainstream conservatives might be anti-green but certainly will support Israel and Jews.
To the contrary the far left is split because they favor the Palestinians as an underdog, so they have to be careful not to fall from anti-current policies of the state of Israel to antisemitism.
There was a minor scandal last year because indonesian? artists had presented a mural with barely hidden antisemitic caricatures at the Documenta art exhibition.
(The charge of antisemitism is abused in a ridiculous manner in Germany: If you are against the banks, WTO, "globalism", George Soros or anything that could be some way construed as similar to old antisemitic clich'ees, some people will try to frame you as an antisemite).
Roughly, Levit did nothing worse than being a self-righteous a..hole and used the threat of the antisemitism card to avoid serious debate, because if you dissent with his stance, you're an antisemite. It's hardly worth mentioning but pissed me off sufficiently that I decided ignore his recordings.
Quote from: Todd on August 02, 2023, 06:33:24 AMSome people believe in sasquatch.
People believe in all sorts of imaginary things. Or, there isn't a thing that someone won't believe in. And in that, all people are the same. Serial killers, Nobel Prize winners, or devotees of early polyphony. More importantly, though, people don't choose what to believe.
Quote from: Jo498 on August 02, 2023, 06:57:12 AMThere is no common source. Because of German history support for Israel and Jews everywhere is basically an official doctrine; mainstream conservatives might be anti-green but certainly will support Israel and Jews.
To the contrary the far left is split because they favor the Palestinians as an underdog, so they have to be careful not to fall from anti-current policies of the state of Israel to antisemitism.
There was a minor scandal last year because indonesian? artists had presented a mural with barely hidden antisemitic caricatures at the Documenta art exhibition.
(The charge of antisemitism is abused in a ridiculous manner in Germany: If you are against the banks, WTO, "globalism", George Soros or anything that could be some way construed as similar to old antisemitic clich'ees, some people will try to frame you as an antisemite).
Roughly, Levit did nothing worse than being a self-righteous a..hole and used the threat of the antisemitism card to avoid serious debate, because if you dissent with his stance, you're an antisemite. It's hardly worth mentioning but pissed me off sufficiently that I decided ignore his recordings.
Thank you.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on August 02, 2023, 07:05:29 AMMore importantly, though, people don't choose what to believe.
Explain religious conversion.
Quote from: Spotted Horses on August 02, 2023, 05:51:09 AMIf an artist is alive, I do not want to materially support an artist I find morally compromised
Can you define the word "materially"? If you purchase a recording by sinful conductor X, would the marginal income s/he receives from your purchase be considered material? The same could apply to concert ticket purchases or book purchases. I am unaware of other ways a consumer can transfer money, in material or immaterial amounts, to a classical music performer.
What happens if a very bad person is part of an ensemble? The Cleveland Quartet and one other quartet that eludes my memory now each have one member accused of despicable behavior. Is it fair or just to deprive the other three members of any support, material or immaterial, because of the actions of one member, especially if the ensemble is otherwise exceptionally good? The same line of questioning applies to larger ensembles (eg, orchestras) and companies (eg, record labels). If it is learned that the CEO of UMG committed a crime, or greenwashed corporate behavior to a more egregious than normal level for multinational corporations, or engaged in other corporate malfeasance you find immoral, would you stop buying UMG recordings?
People are of course free to consume whatever content they wish, using whatever selective criteria they choose, but basing consumption behavior on morality seems sloppily selective and fickle. (And that excludes the larger question as to whether consuming recordings in physical formats is itself immoral given potential environmental concerns that arise from consuming luxury products.)
Quote from: Todd on August 02, 2023, 07:12:48 AMExplain religious conversion.
Explain is a big word. At one level, the ordinary way, we'd refer to people's mental states to explain it -- he
wanted to join a community, he
felt comfortable with a group, he
enjoyed going to mass, he
believed that he would feel more fulfilled and a better person if he modelled his life on Jesus's ideas, he
thought he had a revelatory experience etc. These beliefs, desires etc
cause his conversion.
In no case were the beliefs and desires chosen. I can't choose to believe that I'll be more fulfilled as a Christian any more than I can choose to believe that I'm in America now. I can't decide to want to join a community any more than I can decide to want to drink a beer. I can decide to join, and I can decide to drink the beer -- but now we have to take the question one step back -- what caused that decision?
At another level of explanation, the bodily movements which constitute his religious conversion -- going to mass, uttering prayers etc -- have physical causes -- states of our brain and nervous system presumably. And presumably, in some sense, the beliefs, desires are (in some sense -- identity or constitution -- big and difficult questions there!) states of our brain really -- though that may not be very useful for explanations.
Quote from: Todd on August 02, 2023, 07:12:48 AMExplain religious conversion.
The reasons may vary, but they come down to the influence of the environment in which the individual finds themselves.
Quote from: Mandryka on August 02, 2023, 07:45:37 AMExplain is a big word.
It is not.
Quote from: Mandryka on August 02, 2023, 07:45:37 AMAt one level, the ordinary way, we'd refer to people's mental states to explain it -- he wanted to join a community, he felt comfortable with a group, he enjoyed going to mass, he believed that he would feel more fulfilled and a better person if he modelled his life on Jesus's ideas, he thought he had a revelatory experience etc. These beliefs, desires etc cause his conversion.
Notice that I did not refer to conversion to Christianity.
Quote from: Mandryka on August 02, 2023, 07:45:37 AMIn no case were the beliefs and desires chosen.
You did not show that at all.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on August 02, 2023, 07:48:51 AMThe reasons may vary, but they come down to the influence of the environment in which the individual finds themselves.
And the choices they make.
Quote from: Todd on August 02, 2023, 07:49:29 AMNotice that I did not refer to conversion to Christianity.
I know, I just wanted an example.
Quote from: Todd on August 02, 2023, 07:49:29 AMYou did not show that at all.
I think at least this: the concepts of choosing to believe, choosing to desire are problematic. I choose to want X, I choose to think X. Can you find me an X which we would all agree about, where it's clear in ordinary terms that someone chose to believe or desire X? You see, I don't think it makes sense.
Quote from: Mandryka on August 02, 2023, 07:56:16 AMCan you find me an X which we would all agree about, where it's clear in ordinary terms that someone chose to believe or desire X?
Gravity.
Without passing judgment on the discussion at all, not meant derogatorily at all, just: I will probably move this to Off Topic soon.
Quote from: Mandryka on August 02, 2023, 06:25:03 AM(Sorry for the convoluted way this post is expressed. I just know that in this sort of discussion the devil is in the detail, so it's best to try to express ideas as clearly as possible, even if it means you end up talking like a lawyer! In particular. In this case, we have to be careful about distinguishing intention, action, bodily movement, freedom, responsibility, moral evaluation etc.)
Let's assume for the sake of argument that Gesualdo took the life his wife after he discovered her in bed with another man.
1. His state of mind, rage, on discovering her in flagrante delicto may have been near the start of a causal chain of events which ended with him forming the intention to kill his wife and taking the knife and stabbing her. That's got to be a real possibility: psychological states cause other psychological states, and they cause actions and bodily movements.
2. It follows from 1 that he was determined to act as he did. He was not free to act otherwise. His bodily movements and intentions were part of a causal process over which he had no control.
3. Nothing follows from 1 and 2 about whether it is appropriate to hold him responsible and punishable. Even if he could have avoided taking the knife to his wife, we may wish to discourage similar actions - that's presumably the function of saying that he was "evil" or using the law to impose sanctions.
4. There's nothing specific to Gesualdo's case in all of this. If 1 is true of Gesualdo's killing his wife, it is true of all our bodily movements, intended or not. And similarly 2, if true in this case, shows that freedom is an illusion generally. 3 shows that there is still an important role for moral judgements.
During Gesualdo's time, he would have lost face (as a nobleman) had he not acted as he did. Your analysis is anachronistic.
Quote from: Todd on August 02, 2023, 07:49:29 AMAnd the choices they make.
Merely responses to the stimuli.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on August 02, 2023, 08:10:50 AMMerely responses to the stimuli.
You cannot prove that. You can believe it.
Quote from: Mandryka on August 02, 2023, 07:56:16 AMI think at least this: the concepts of choosing to believe, choosing to desire are problematic. I choose to want X, I choose to think X. Can you find me an X which we would all agree about, where it's clear in ordinary terms that someone chose to believe or desire X? You see, I don't think it makes sense.
I just saw a better way of responding
@Todd . Even if "he chose to believe X" is true, it doesn't follow that his choice was not caused, and (hence) was free.
Quote from: Mandryka on August 02, 2023, 08:15:18 AMEven if "he chose to believe X" is true, it doesn't follow that his choice was not caused, and (hence) was free.
You cannot prove the cause, internal or external. You can only
choose to believe what you believe.
How about killing enemy soldiers during war? Does moral maximalism (all murderers should be locked up fpr life) apply in this case too? Should John Doe, or Max Mustermann, or Ivan Ivanov, upon returning home in 1945, have been trialed for serial murder (it is reasonable to assume that each one of them killed dozens of people in combat)?
Actually, how about Napoleon? He was directly responsible for the death of hundred thousands people all across Europe. Is he a murderer or a hero?
Quote from: Todd on August 02, 2023, 08:18:13 AMYou cannot prove the cause, internal or external.
That's true, it may be random, like a quantum phenomenon. Either way, caused or random, there's no freedom.
Or do you think there's a third possibility?
Quote from: hopefullytrusting on August 02, 2023, 08:27:25 AMFor this, I look to the work of the Millers on the Armenian Genocide, where they state that "Killing human beings, however noble the ideal, is in hindsight a moral embarrassment."
This applies to Napoleon*, but in the case of ordinary soldiers it's not that much a question of noble ideals but of mere survival. Either you kill the enemy or they kill you.
*although it's questionable whether the noble ideals he espoused were not a mere cover up for a much less noble one, ie his power hunger.
It varies, I cant listen to Roger Waters now, but have no problem with the classic Pink Floyd albums
Murderers > child molesters, so Gesualdo is OK (and acted within societal norms) but I never found Saint-Saens that interesting. Britten gives me qualms, but Nocturnal is a great piece. Never had heard of Lost Prophets, but no way could I listen to them again if they were my favorite band. I listen to classic Burzum, even though Varg is a murderer and Nazi POS, but stopped listening to Inquisition after it came out that Dagon had downloaded child porn (but I still listen to Pete Townshend)
Cant think of any Levine discs I am committed too, but if there were think I would still listen to them.
Actors are different - would be hard to watch Kevin Spacey or Bill Cosby in a new production, would keep thinking of their issues/crimes rather than the performance
Authors are mixed, Nonfiction is different - I think I could read Foucault again, even though it came out he was a child molester, but would probable dump a fiction author under the same circumstance
Quote from: Florestan on August 02, 2023, 08:20:50 AMHow about killing enemy soldiers during war? Does moral maximalism (all murderers should be locked up fpr life) apply in this case too? Should John Doe, or Max Mustermann, or Ivan Ivanov, upon returning home in 1945, have been trialed for serial murder (it is reasonable to assume that each one of them killed dozens of people in combat)?
Actually, how about Napoleon? He was directly responsible for the death of hundred thousands people all across Europe. Is he a murderer or a hero?
All organized states make certain legal exceptions for killing people during time of war. Even then, there are limits. People can be and are tried for criminal murder (and torture, etc) during wartime. This does not make legal, organized killing moral.
But then you knew that already.
Quote from: Mandryka on August 02, 2023, 08:30:08 AMEither way, caused or random, there's no freedom.
That does not follow.
Quote from: Todd on August 02, 2023, 08:05:03 AMGravity.
I believe in gravity, I don't chose to believe in gravity.
I could chose to behave as if gravity were true, while secretly suspending belief - I'm arguing that in such a case, the choice (like all choices) would not be free.
Quote from: Todd on August 02, 2023, 08:14:35 AMYou cannot prove that. You can believe it.
Prove you choose anything.
Quote from: Todd on August 02, 2023, 08:32:26 AMThat does not follow.
Do you think that if an action is free, it must have been physically possible for the agent to have acted otherwise - in the same context (same physical state of agent, same time and place etc.) ?
Quote from: Mandryka on August 02, 2023, 08:35:20 AMDo you think that if an action is free, it must have been physically possible for the agent to have acted otherwise - in the same context (same physical state of agent, same time and place etc.) ?
The original context of this thread of back and forth is religious conversion. In such a context, it is physically possible for someone to choose to believe in religion X, or Y, or Z. There is no physical activity beyond brain activity. One can flit between thoughts with no physical activity. For instance, I am no longer thinking of how delicious the bagel I had for breakfast was - and it was yummy - but now I am thinking about the burrito I will have for lunch. Note that I may choose to have a ham sandwich instead. I have not made a final choice. But I will choose. This choice will be separate from the act of eating, and the choice involves no physical anything, other than neurons moving to and fro.
Quote from: Todd on August 02, 2023, 08:45:08 AMOne can flit between thoughts with no physical activity.
Thoughts cause physical events - my thinking that the bagel is tasty combined with my hunger causes me to eat the bagel. Yet you want to say that thoughts are not physical. What does that mean? You have to be able to explain the category of the mental in a way which will allow for its causal interaction with the physical.
For me the problem doesn't exist. In my opinion, each one of my mental states is (=) a physical state. I hold this view partly because I think the problem of (Cartesian) mind/body interaction is unsolvable, and that there's no way of explaining the psychological/physical causal relationship without holding that the psychological is physical.
Quote from: Mandryka on August 02, 2023, 09:00:10 AMThoughts cause physical events
Thoughts can cause physical events. Thoughts do not always cause physical events.
Well let's just focus on the first. We agree that thoughts cause physical events, but you say they are not physical. I say that you need to explain how that causal relationship is possible and that prima facie it's incoherent.
Quote from: Mandryka on August 02, 2023, 09:15:55 AMWe agree that thoughts cause physical events, but you say they are not physical.
That is not what I wrote. You can reread what I wrote if you choose.
Quote from: Todd on August 02, 2023, 09:19:17 AMThat is not what I wrote. You can reread what I wrote if you choose.
Excellent, sorry about that. The bit I missed was " and the choice involves no physical anything, other than neurons moving to and fro." I would say that the choice is the neuron's moving, which is a physical event and so itself is caused or random.
Maybe this will help - I think "he chose to do X" is a psychological description of a physical event (neurons moving)
Quote from: Mandryka on August 02, 2023, 09:00:10 AMThoughts cause physical events - my thinking that the bagel is tasty combined with my hunger causes me to eat the bagel. Yet you want to say that thoughts are not physical. What does that mean? You have to be able to explain the category of the mental in a way which will allow for its causal interaction with the physical.
[..]
Of course. You didn't choose the bagel to be delicious and you didn't choose to feel hungry. You felt hungry, the bagel appeared in front of you. If the bagel and the doughnut had appeared, you reacted to the stronger of stimulus. Motivation led to action and eventually, the bagel or doughnut is in your stomach. Or both. And only after that a thought may appear: "I choosed the bagel to be eaten!!"
Quote from: AnotherSpin on August 02, 2023, 07:08:44 AMLevit did nothing worse than being a self-righteous a..hole
and
It's just disappointing that Levit plays such facile "I am the Jew" cards
Seriously?
Der Pianist Igor Levit hat eine antisemitisch gefärbte Morddrohung erhalten. Das schreibt der Musiker in einem Gastbeitrag für den ,,Tagesspiegel am Sonntag". Gleichzeitig warnt er, Rassismus, Antisemitismus und rechtsextremer Terror würden in Deutschland immer noch systematisch unterschätzt. Das Land befinde sich ,,mitten in einer massiven Normverschiebung innerhalb unserer Demokratie, die nicht mehr dieselbe sein wird, wenn wir geschehen lassen, dass Antisemitismus, Rassismus und Frauenhass immer weiter Raum gewinnen".
Es gehe längst nicht mehr um Einzelfälle, so Levit weiter: ,,Es geht um Opfer, immer und immer und immer wieder. Und es geht um systematischen Antisemitismus und Rassismus, um Rechtsextremismus, Terror und völkische Gewalt." Die Behörden seien angesichts ihrer Aufgaben unterbesetzt
und überfordert.
Levit erhielt nach eigenen Angaben Mitte November eine Mail, in der ihm ein Mordanschlag bei einem konkreten Konzert in einer Stadt in Süddeutschland angedroht wurde. Nach Angaben seiner Sprecherin schaltete der jüdische Pianist die Polizei ein. Das Konzert spielte er trotzdem, wobei es Personenschutz und aufwendige Sicherheitsmaßnahmen gegeben habe.
Pianist Igor Levit has received an anti-Semitic death threat. The musician writes this in a guest article for the "Tagesspiegel am Sonntag". At the same time, he warns that racism, anti-Semitism and right-wing extremist terrorism are still being systematically underestimated in Germany. The country is "in the midst of a massive shift in norms within our democracy, which will never be the same if we allow anti-Semitism, racism and misogyny to continue to gain ground".
It's no longer about isolated cases, Levit continues: "It's about victims, over and over and over again. And it's about systematic anti-Semitism and racism, about right-wing extremism, terror and ethnic violence." Given their tasks, the authorities are understaffed
and overwhelmed.
According to Levit, he received an email in mid-November in which he was threatened with assassination at a specific concert in a city in southern Germany. According to his spokeswoman, the Jewish pianist called the police. He played the concert anyway, although there was personal protection and extensive security measures.
https://www.spiegel.de/panorama/leute/pianist-igor-levit-erhielt-morddrohung-per-e-mail-a-1303016.html
Quote from: Mandryka on August 02, 2023, 09:26:31 AMMaybe this will help - I think "he chose to do X" is a psychological description of a physical event (neurons moving)
And thus choice becomes deterministic. I wonder if neurologists view neurology the same way?
If whatever we do, from eating dpughnuts to killing adulterous wives to molesting children, is the inescapable result of physical forces acting without our knowledge and will, if we are not morally responsible for our acts any more than the Nile is morally responsible for flowing northwards, then Hitler is no better than Mother Theresa and we should immediately do away with all criminal codes, courts of law, trials, judges, juries, sentences and prisons for they are nothing but a violation of human nature and the top of injustice.
Quote from: Florestan on August 02, 2023, 09:41:06 AMIf whatever we do, from eating dpughnuts to killing adulterous wives to molesting children, is the inescapable result of physical forces acting without our knowledge and will, if we are not morally responsible for our acts any more than the Nile is morally responsible for flowing northwards, then Hitler is no better than Mother Theresa and we should immediately do away with all criminal codes, courts of law, trials, judges, juries, sentences and prisons for they are nothing but a violation of human nature and the top of injustice.
You may continue to cherish codes, courts, trials, judges, juries, sentences and prisons. Anyway you have no choice in this. But try to see, is all this really helps to prevent any crimes?
Quote from: pjme on August 02, 2023, 09:36:53 AMSeriously?
Der Pianist Igor Levit hat eine antisemitisch gefärbte Morddrohung erhalten. Das schreibt der Musiker in einem Gastbeitrag für den ,,Tagesspiegel am Sonntag". Gleichzeitig warnt er, Rassismus, Antisemitismus und rechtsextremer Terror würden in Deutschland immer noch systematisch unterschätzt. Das Land befinde sich ,,mitten in einer massiven Normverschiebung innerhalb unserer Demokratie, die nicht mehr dieselbe sein wird, wenn wir geschehen lassen, dass Antisemitismus, Rassismus und Frauenhass immer weiter Raum gewinnen".
Es gehe längst nicht mehr um Einzelfälle, so Levit weiter: ,,Es geht um Opfer, immer und immer und immer wieder. Und es geht um systematischen Antisemitismus und Rassismus, um Rechtsextremismus, Terror und völkische Gewalt." Die Behörden seien angesichts ihrer Aufgaben unterbesetzt
und überfordert.
Levit erhielt nach eigenen Angaben Mitte November eine Mail, in der ihm ein Mordanschlag bei einem konkreten Konzert in einer Stadt in Süddeutschland angedroht wurde. Nach Angaben seiner Sprecherin schaltete der jüdische Pianist die Polizei ein. Das Konzert spielte er trotzdem, wobei es Personenschutz und aufwendige Sicherheitsmaßnahmen gegeben habe.
Pianist Igor Levit has received an anti-Semitic death threat. The musician writes this in a guest article for the "Tagesspiegel am Sonntag". At the same time, he warns that racism, anti-Semitism and right-wing extremist terrorism are still being systematically underestimated in Germany. The country is "in the midst of a massive shift in norms within our democracy, which will never be the same if we allow anti-Semitism, racism and misogyny to continue to gain ground".
It's no longer about isolated cases, Levit continues: "It's about victims, over and over and over again. And it's about systematic anti-Semitism and racism, about right-wing extremism, terror and ethnic violence." Given their tasks, the authorities are understaffed
and overwhelmed.
According to Levit, he received an email in mid-November in which he was threatened with assassination at a specific concert in a city in southern Germany. According to his spokeswoman, the Jewish pianist called the police. He played the concert anyway, although there was personal protection and extensive security measures.
https://www.spiegel.de/panorama/leute/pianist-igor-levit-erhielt-morddrohung-per-e-mail-a-1303016.html
It wasn't my quote.
Quote from: Florestan on August 02, 2023, 09:41:06 AMhen Hitler is no better than Mother Theresa and we should immediately do away with all criminal codes, courts of law, trials, judges, juries, sentences and prisons for they are nothing but a violation of human nature and the top of injustice.
No, because certain behaviours are less conducive to human well being than others. There are good reasons why a society seeks to discourage violence and theft. And the moral/criminal code has an effect -- people are less likely to steal and to hurt others if they think they will be punished, either on earth or in heaven as it were. That's a very good reason to keep judges and prisons.
Quote from: Todd on August 02, 2023, 09:39:47 AMAnd thus choice becomes deterministic. I wonder if neurologists view neurology the same way?
Thanks for an interesting discussion -- a welcome way of spending a really wet and miserable London afternoon!
Quote from: Todd on August 02, 2023, 07:27:50 AMCan you define the word "materially"? If you purchase a recording by sinful conductor X, would the marginal income s/he receives from your purchase be considered material? The same could apply to concert ticket purchases or book purchases. I am unaware of other ways a consumer can transfer money, in material or immaterial amounts, to a classical music performer.
What happens if a very bad person is part of an ensemble? The Cleveland Quartet and one other quartet that eludes my memory now each have one member accused of despicable behavior. Is it fair or just to deprive the other three members of any support, material or immaterial, because of the actions of one member, especially if the ensemble is otherwise exceptionally good? The same line of questioning applies to larger ensembles (eg, orchestras) and companies (eg, record labels). If it is learned that the CEO of UMG committed a crime, or greenwashed corporate behavior to a more egregious than normal level for multinational corporations, or engaged in other corporate malfeasance you find immoral, would you stop buying UMG recordings?
People are of course free to consume whatever content they wish, using whatever selective criteria they choose, but basing consumption behavior on morality seems sloppily selective and fickle. (And that excludes the larger question as to whether consuming recordings in physical formats is itself immoral given potential environmental concerns that arise from consuming luxury products.)
I don't have anything to add to my comment, except that there are, of course, grey areas where discretion is exercised.
The first violinist of the Cleveland Quartet on numerous occasions sexually abused young women who were selected for a masterclass held by the quartet. I would not consider purchasing any recordings by the Cleveland Quartet since, although the quartet is disbanded, Preucil is not yet dead. Perhaps you are thinking of the Leipzig Quartet, whose first violinist barged, naked, into an elderly woman's hotel room and attempted to strangle her to death before hotel staff intervened. He protested his innocence, since at the time he was under the influence of drugs he had been given by the prostitute he was frequenting before the incident. I consider myself fortunate that I don't find the Leipzig Quartet to be a particular favorite.
Quote from: Mandryka on August 02, 2023, 09:54:13 AMNo, because certain behaviours are less conducive to human well being than others. There are good reasons why a society seeks to discourage violence and theft. And the moral/criminal code has an effect -- people are less likely to steal and to hurt others if they think they will be punished, either on earth or in heaven as it were. That's a very good reason to keep judges and prisons.
More judges and prisons = less crime? Why do you think the US has a 4 percent of the world's population and yet a 20 percent or so of the world's incarcerated?
Quote from: Spotted Horses on August 02, 2023, 09:59:46 AMI don't have anything to add to my comment, except that there are, of course, grey areas where discretion is exercised.
Can you at least define "materially"?
Quote from: Todd on August 02, 2023, 10:11:12 AMCan you at least define "materially"?
I think it was pretty clear, although I would assume that the purchase of a
used CD would be fine.
Also, with many CDs no longer paying artist royalties, on a label by label basis, but rather simply flat fees, I don't know how one (well, Spotted Horses) would calculate one's position in those cases. For example, I think Naxos pays something like $1000 upfront to the artists and no more. If a scandal emerged about Kevin Mallon, it would be a different calculation from a scandal about Klaus Heymann.
Quote from: Todd on August 02, 2023, 10:11:12 AMCan you at least define "materially"?
Doing something that would increase the artist's income or professional standing. Purchasing a CD, etc.
It is not that imagine the artist cursing his or her fate, since because Spotted Horses didn't buy the CD he or she will be able to enjoy one stick package of chewing gum. If everyone declined to support problematic artists they would be supplanted by other artists, and I don't derive satisfaction from supporting problematic artists.
Quote from: Brian on August 02, 2023, 10:24:56 AMI think it was pretty clear, although I would assume that the purchase of a used CD would be fine.
Also, with many CDs no longer paying artist royalties, on a label by label basis, but rather simply flat fees, I don't know how one (well, Spotted Horses) would calculate one's position in those cases. For example, I think Naxos pays something like $1000 upfront to the artists and no more. If a scandal emerged about Kevin Mallon, it would be a different calculation from a scandal about Klaus Heymann.
Purchasing used CDs depletes availability of used CDs and increases demand for new CDs. And even if a label pays no royalties, they are less inclined to engage artists that don't sell well. Having a CD with good sales generally increases the prospects of an artist.
Quote from: Brian on August 02, 2023, 10:24:56 AMI think it was pretty clear, although I would assume that the purchase of a used CD would be fine.
This comes down to definitions of materiality and the perceived importance of one's purchasing behavior. When I buy one CD, I suspect that less than one dollar goes to an artist. When I buy one download, it's less. When I stream, it is less yet. Those are not material amounts. I'm guessing the living solo artists I've personally supported directly more than any others are Hilary Hahn and Benjamin Grosvenor, and that's because I've seen them in person multiple times. Grand total, I've probably given them what, $50, $75, (much) less? (I've likely given more money to members of the Oregon Symphony over the years.) My purchasing behavior is irrelevant and has no impact on anything. The same applies to everyone here. People can certainly base their consumption behaviors on whatever criteria they choose, but it means nothing in practical terms.
Quote from: Spotted Horses on August 02, 2023, 10:34:14 AMDoing something that would increase the artist's income or professional standing. Purchasing a CD, etc.
See above.
Quote from: Cato on August 02, 2023, 05:03:20 AMUltimately the author is repeating the ancient Greek (Platonic) belief that Music could affect and perhaps even cause certain behaviors in people, and therefore certain kinds of music had to be avoided or even banned.
I think there's a truth there (in what Plato believed i mean). In fact Greek modes seem similar to the ragas in Hindu classical music, which are also believed to be able to induce certain states of being in the listener.
I'm not going to say how that would apply to modern music but i wouldn't be surprised if there aren't some deleterious effects to certain type of melodies or modes employed in an age like ours where basically "everything goes".
Quote from: BWV 1080 on August 02, 2023, 08:32:07 AMIt varies, I cant listen to Roger Waters now, but have no problem with the classic Pink Floyd albums
Murderers > child molesters, so Gesualdo is OK (and acted within societal norms) but I never found Saint-Saens that interesting. Britten gives me qualms, but Nocturnal is a great piece. Never had heard of Lost Prophets, but no way could I listen to them again if they were my favorite band. I listen to classic Burzum, even though Varg is a murderer and Nazi POS, but stopped listening to Inquisition after it came out that Dagon had downloaded child porn (but I still listen to Pete Townshend)
Dear lord this is an unsettling list of names. I have no idea what any of those people did and now i'm afraid to look. Except for Varg i knew him having gone through an Heavy Metal phase as a teen.
Quote from: Opus131 on August 02, 2023, 11:01:00 AMI think there's a truth there. In fact Greek modes seem similar to the ragas in Hindu classical music, which are also believed to be able to induce certain states of being in the listener.
I'm not going to say how that would apply to modern music but i wouldn't be surprised if there aren't some deleterious effects to certain type of melodies or modes employed in an age like ours where basically "everything goes".
The opposite is also true. The concepts of people, in particular of a musician or composer, influence the music he or she creates. Can we assume that a bad person makes bad music and a good person makes good music?
Quote from: Florestan on August 02, 2023, 08:20:50 AMHow about killing enemy soldiers during war? Does moral maximalism (all murderers should be locked up fpr life) apply in this case too? Should John Doe, or Max Mustermann, or Ivan Ivanov, upon returning home in 1945, have been trialed for serial murder (it is reasonable to assume that each one of them killed dozens of people in combat)?
Actually, how about Napoleon? He was directly responsible for the death of hundred thousands people all across Europe. Is he a murderer or a hero?
According to traditional conceptions of "just war", such as the one espoused by Aquinas, soldiers must devote themselves to good and not evil. I estrapolate from this that "killing" is only justified between the men of war themselves, within the confines of a purely chivarlic contest.
The second you start cleansing civilians, even assuming that would give one a tactical advantage of some kind (though i cannot see that actually ever being the case), you have already violated whatever moral precept one agrees can be applicable during war.
Quote from: Opus131 on August 02, 2023, 11:23:38 AMAccording to traditional conceptions of "just war", such as the one espoused by Aquinas, soldiers must devote themselves to good and not evil. I estrapolate from this that "killing" is only justified between the men of war themselves, within the confines of a purely chivarlic contest.
The second you start cleansing civilians, even assuming that would give one a tactical advantage of some kind (though i cannot see that actually ever being the case), you have already violated whatever moral precept one agrees can be applicable during war.
When has there ever been a 'purely chivalric contest'? All wars, just or not, involve mass deaths of civilians, either directly, or indirectly through disease and starvation.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on August 02, 2023, 11:09:17 AMThe opposite is also true. The concepts of people, in particular of a musician or composer, influence the music he or she creates. Can we assume that a bad person makes bad music and a good person makes good music?
define what constitutes a 'good' or 'bad' person
Quote from: AnotherSpin on August 02, 2023, 11:09:17 AMThe opposite is also true. The concepts of people, in particular of a musician or composer, influence the music he or she creates. Can we assume that a bad person makes bad music and a good person makes good music?
I think this is a crucial point in this discussion, one that i feel won't probably be solved but needs to be addressed.
I personally don't think a tainted individual can produce truly beautiful art, but there's nothing preventing an "evil" person from possessing all the intelligence and talent in the world, which makes the problem somewhat complex.
In the case of someone like Saint-Saens (what did he do btw?), i neither loved nor hated his music. Always found him to be a competent and technically proficient composer but his works have always left me somewhat cold, so if you told me he was an evil man, i wouldn't have a problem accepting it.
But a Bach, or a Beethoven? I don't think i could believe it or accept it.
Quote from: BWV 1080 on August 02, 2023, 11:29:08 AMWhen has there ever been a 'purely chivalric contest'? All wars, just or not, involve mass deaths of civilians, either directly, or indirectly through disease and starvation.
I think they happened more than you think in acient socities. Much of the atrocities described in ancient documents were intended to be propaganda, much like the number of people slain in official royal annals was also intentionally inflated to make the king look better.
Not saying ancient warfare was all roses either, but i do believe there was an element of chivarly and honor. This was obliterated after the industrial revolution and the invention modern weaponry, which dehumanized warfare to a degree that only senseless slaughter remained. When you can just kill thousands with the press of a button i don't think you can even remotely speak of honor anymore.
Quote from: Opus131 on August 02, 2023, 11:39:48 AMI think they happened more than you think in acient socities. Much of the atrocities described in ancient documents were intended to be propaganda, much like the number of people slain in official royal annals was also intentionally inflated to make the king look better.
Not saying ancient warfare was all roses either, but i do believe there was an element of chivarly and honor. This was obliterated after the industrial revolution and the invention modern weaponry, which dehumanized warfare to a degree that only senseless slaughter remained. When you can just kill thousands with the press of a button i don't think you can even remotely speak of honor anymore.
What ancient warfare was not ultimately about taking plunder for the empire or warlord?
Quote from: Opus131 on August 02, 2023, 11:39:48 AMI think they happened more than you think in acient socities
Which ones?
Quote from: BWV 1080 on August 02, 2023, 11:46:52 AMWhat ancient warfare was not ultimately about taking plunder for the empire or warlord?
This seems like begging the question to me. I disagree with the idea that "all" ancient warfare was "ultimately" about taking plunder for the empire or warlord, which is the conclusion being pushed in what appears to be a question but isn't.
I think this kind of thinking is part of the general notion that all history can be reduced to a matter of economics, an idea mastefully refuted by HG Chesterton:
https://www.worldinvisible.com/library/chesterton/everlasting/part1c7.htm
Quote from: Todd on August 02, 2023, 11:54:30 AMWhich ones?
Ok, what plunder did the crusaders had in mind when they sought to retake Jerusalem? Was St. Bernard thinking of any specific loot when he exorted people to enlist in the effort to retake the holy city?
What about when Charles Martel finally defeated the Moors, was he being motivated purely by the prospect of material wealth? Were the campaigns of Charlemagne driven entirely by a desire for personal enrichment, or was he genuinely attempting to establish an holy empire?
I just find this kind of reductionist thinking to devalue the importance of history. It's also too facile to just reduce every motivation to the crassest one imaginable. Were the early Muslim conquests driven purely by a desire for material spoils? Does that explain the lighting strike expansion of Islam?
Quote from: Opus131 on August 02, 2023, 12:01:08 PMThis seems like begging the question to me. I disagree with the idea that "all" ancient warfare was "ultimately" about taking plunder for the empire or warlord, which is the conclusion being pushed in what appears to be a question but isn't.
I think this kind of thinking is part of the general notion that all history can be reduced to a matter of economics, an idea mastefully refuted by HG Chesterton:
https://www.worldinvisible.com/library/chesterton/everlasting/part1c7.htm
Not saying all wars (or history) is economics, but the wars motivated by tribal hatred, religious zealotry or whatever
A) had a strong economic / social status benefit for some of the participants
B) tended to be far less chivalric that wars waged for purely economic / power politics reasons (say the 30Y war vs the 7y war)
Quote from: BWV 1080 on August 02, 2023, 12:14:41 PMNot saying all wars (or history) is economics, but the wars motivated by tribal hatred, religious zealotry or whatever
A) had a strong economic / social status benefit for some of the participants
B) tended to be far less chivalric that wars waged for purely economic / power politics reasons (say the 30Y war vs the 7y war)
Again, i don't think wars were "always" and invariably motivated by the crassest concern possible (given that the domain of a lord or king was the temporal order it goes without saying wars were often waged for territory and the like, but there were also deeper concerns there), but i'd like to point out that the motivation for war has nothing to do with how war was conducted. Those are two distinct arguments. What i said reguarding the "chivalric" nature of anciet warfare applied mainly to the conduct of war itself, given the argument was whether it is moral for a soldier to commit "murder".
While in most wars violence does have a tendency to spill over into the civilian population, by the large it seems to me ancient warfare seemed to involve fighting parties almost exclusively. 20th century wars by contrast seemed to just target civilitian populations indiscrimately, and on a massive scale given the destructive nature of modern weaponry.
Like i said i'm not trying to paint a purely idealistic vision of the ancient world, i'm just attempting to push back against the opposite tendency, that of imputing the most vile and crassest of motivations to anything that happened in pre-modern societies.
At any rate, i think this is starting to become a massive derailment on a thread that was already a derailment. Maybe we should drop the morality of war argument and go back to talking about artists, their personal proclivities and how those affect their works.
Quote from: Opus131 on August 02, 2023, 12:10:49 PMOk, what plunder did the crusaders had in mind when they sought to retake Jerusalem? Was St. Bernard thinking of any specific loot when he exorted people to enlist in the effort to retake the holy city?
What about when Charles Martel finally defeated the Moors, was he being motivated purely by the prospect of material wealth? Were the campaigns of Charlemagne driven entirely by a desire for personal enrichment, or was he genuinely attempting to establish an holy empire?
Talk about question begging - and false choices. People who fought in the Crusades had religious, political, imperial, and downright grubby aims. Some peasant soldiers were explicitly promised riches to go along with salvation. Carolus Magnus absolutely was driven by lust for empire, among other motives. The Hammer wanted to defeat the infidels and secure power, among other things.
You offer romantic visions of war. Wealth and power are part of all wars, everywhere, all the time. Sometimes more wholesome motives may be part of the mix.
Quote from: Todd on August 02, 2023, 12:33:29 PMTalk about question begging - and false choices. People who fought in the Crusades had religious, political, imperial, and downright grubby aims. Some peasant soldiers were explicitly promised riches to go along with salvation. Carolus Magnus absolutely was driven by lust for empire, among other motives. The Hammer wanted to defeat the infidels and secure power, among other things.
You offer romantic visions of war. Wealth and power are part of all wars, everywhere, all the time. Sometimes more wholesome motives may be part of the mix.
Yeah but you were the one making the argument about what wars in pre-modern societies were "ultimately" about. I never said crass motivations were not part of the picture as well. That's a given considering socities are not monolithic and in any population you get a vast assortment of human temperaments, some more noble than others (and in the case of someone like Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, the most noble possible), but motivations extending beyond the most base materialism did exist and that was all my argument required.
Quote from: Opus131 on August 02, 2023, 12:38:46 PMYeah but you were the one making the argument about what wars in pre-modern societies were "ultimately" about.
Where?
Quote from: Opus131 on August 02, 2023, 11:01:00 AMI think there's a truth there (in what Plato believed i mean). In fact Greek modes seem similar to the ragas in Hindu classical music, which are also believed to be able to induce certain states of being in the listener.
I'm not going to say how that would apply to modern music but i wouldn't be surprised if there aren't some deleterious effects to certain type of melodies or modes employed in an age like ours where basically "everything goes".
Yes, but that is not the same as causing a behavior.
Jones, the author in question, was claiming actual causal behavior, e.g. (since people have mentioned him here) becoming a killer
because you had listened to
Gesualdo!I believe I am correct in recalling that he claimed that
Schoenberg's first wife committed adultery
because Music in early 1900's Vienna was using Wagnerian chromatic harmony, i.e. Chromatic Harmony turned people into robots unable to exercise free will because they were "under the spell" of the Tristan Chord! :o
For the same reason - denial of free will - Plato's claim is to be rejected as well.
Quote from: Cato on August 02, 2023, 01:10:55 PMI believe I am correct in recalling that he claimed that Schoenberg's first wife committed adultery because Music in early 1900's Vienna was using Wagnerian chromatic harmony, i.e. Chromatic Harmony turned people into robots unable to exercise free will because they were "under the spell" of the Tristan Chord!
I know the Tristan Chord has led me to do all manner of unspeakable things.
Quote from: Todd on August 02, 2023, 01:17:11 PMI know the Tristan Chord has led me to do all manner of unspeakable things.
Oh my! ;D Well, I will not pry any further into that confession!
I hope a jury is not involved: your defense might be a hard sell! ;)
Quote from: BWV 1080 on August 02, 2023, 11:31:01 AMdefine what constitutes a 'good' or 'bad' person
There can be different definitions. Plato considered a good man the one who lives in accordance with virtue and moral principles. However, it is not the definition of good and bad that matters. Is it possible to feel in the musicianship of this or that musician what's inside his/her mind and soul, figuratively speaking?
Quote from: Opus131 on August 02, 2023, 11:33:05 AMI think this is a crucial point in this discussion, one that i feel won't probably be solved but needs to be addressed.
I personally don't think a tainted individual can produce truly beautiful art, but there's nothing preventing an "evil" person from possessing all the intelligence and talent in the world, which makes the problem somewhat complex.
In the case of someone like Saint-Saens (what did he do btw?), i neither loved nor hated his music. Always found him to be a competent and technically proficient composer but his works have always left me somewhat cold, so if you told me he was an evil man, i wouldn't have a problem accepting it.
But a Bach, or a Beethoven? I don't think i could believe it or accept it.
Intelligence yes, talent yes. Is it enough? Should we expect anything more/else from those with whom we interact, literally trusting a part of ourselves and our strengths?
Quote from: AnotherSpin on August 02, 2023, 09:59:41 PMIntelligence yes, talent yes. Is it enough? Should we expect anything more/else from those with whom we interact, literally trusting a part of ourselves and our strengths?
We should if we believe human beings are more than the sum of their attributes, that there's something more substantial and profound about the human essence.
If an artist can merely be reduced to "talent" you are essentially thinking of the artist as nothing other than a mere biological automaton. Eventually, you might end up believing a machine could replace the great artists of the past. There are some who actually do believe this, that AI could eventually replicate human genius.
Quote from: Cato on August 02, 2023, 01:10:55 PMYes, but that is not the same as causing a behavior. Jones, the author in question, was claiming actual causal behavior, e.g. (since people have mentioned him here) becoming a killer because you had listened to Gesualdo!
I believe I am correct in recalling that he claimed that Schoenberg's first wife committed adultery because Music in early 1900's Vienna was using Wagnerian chromatic harmony, i.e. Chromatic Harmony turned people into robots unable to exercise free will because they were "under the spell" of the Tristan Chord! :o
For the same reason - denial of free will - Plato's claim is to be rejected as well.
This seems similar to the kind of thinking that makes some believe school shootings happen because kids play violent video games.
Even if i were to posit Wagner had some kind of deleterious psychological effect on people of the following generation it would definitely be a bit of a stretch to say Schoenberg's wife committed adultery because of Wagner (did she commit adultery btw? First time i heard this. Maybe it was Schoenberg's own music that did it).
Quote from: Opus131 on August 02, 2023, 10:38:24 PMWe should if we believe human beings are more than the sum of their attributes, that there's something more substantial and profound about the human essence.
If an artist can merely be reduced to "talent" you are essentially thinking of the artist as nothing other than a mere biological automaton. Eventually, you might end up believing a machine could replace the great artists of the past. There are some who actually do believe this, that AI could eventually replicate human genius.
Yes, with one caveat. Essentially humans are all the same, it is their mind and all imaginary things it produces that make people seemingly different.
Quote from: Opus131 on August 02, 2023, 10:48:10 PMThis seems similar to the kind of thinking that makes some believe school shootings happen because kids play violent video games.
Even if i were to posit Wagner had some kind of deleterious psychological effect on people of the following generation it would definitely be a bit of a stretch to say Schoenberg's wife committed adultery because of Wagner (did she commit adultery btw? First time i heard this. Maybe it was Schoenberg's own music that did it).
It seems to me that Wagner was actively opposing what Schoenberg's music and some of the dominant trends in culture and society from the early 20th century onwards embodied.
Quote from: Opus131 on August 02, 2023, 12:10:49 PMwhat plunder did the crusaders had in mind when they sought to retake Jerusalem?
Constantinople, for instance, which they plundered and partially destroyed in 1204 during the Fourth Crusade. The famous bronze horses at the St. Mark's basilica in Venice were stolen from the Hippodrome on the occasion.
Quote from: Opus131 on August 02, 2023, 11:33:05 AMBut a Bach, or a Beethoven? I don't think i could believe it or accept it.
Well, Beethoven was not exactly the gentler and friendlier person of his time and milieu and his behavior towards his nephew Karl could be described as psychological abuse. Not a murderer, not a paedophile, yet not a St. Bernard of Clairvaux either.
Quote from: Opus131 on August 02, 2023, 10:38:24 PMthat there's something more substantial and profound about the human essence.
Jack D Ripper agrees.
(https://img.theepochtimes.com/assets/uploads/2022/08/02/drstrangelove02-1200x675.jpg)
Quote from: Florestan on August 03, 2023, 12:38:52 AMWell, Beethoven was not exactly the gentler and friendlier person of his time and milieu and his behavior towards his nephew Karl could be described as psychological abuse. Not a murderer, not a paedophile, yet not a St. Bernard of Clairvaux either.
My opinion is that if had been born in the middle ages he might have risen to be a saint, but that this possibility was precluded from him is a sign there was something inherently wrong with him as well. His violent temperament is certainly an indication of a disturbed soul, his troubled life (including his various illnesses, his chronic stomach pains and of course his degenerative hearing loss) is a sign he needed a "correction".
That said, his late works just point to such an high degree of trascendence i just can't accept underneath his human flaws there wasn't a spark of divinity, such as would not be present in a throughly evil man.
A human soul can still hold an high degree of beauty within itself even in the presence of serious flaws, but not so much in the case of outright evil.
Quote from: Opus131 on August 03, 2023, 04:24:02 AMMy opinion is that if had been born in the middle ages he might have risen to be a saint
Contrafactual musings have no merit.
Quote from: Opus131 on August 03, 2023, 04:24:02 AMMy opinion is that if had been born in the middle ages he might have risen to be a saint,
The Middle Ages could not have produced a Beethoven any more than the Enlightenment could have produced a Dante.
Quote from: Opus131 on August 03, 2023, 04:24:02 AMMy opinion is that if had been born in the middle ages he might have risen to be a saint, but that this possibility was precluded from him is a sign there was something inherently wrong with him as well. His violent temperament is certainly an indication of a disturbed soul, his troubled life (including his various illnesses, his chronic stomach pains and of course his degenerative hearing loss) is a sign he needed a "correction".
That said, his late works just point to such an high degree of trascendence i just can't accept underneath his human flaws there wasn't a spark of divinity, such as would not be present in a throughly evil man.
A human soul can still hold an high degree of beauty within itself even in the presence of serious flaws, but not so much in the case of outright evil.
What if Beethoven had been born a peasant instead of into a family of musicians?
Quote from: BWV 1080 on August 03, 2023, 05:05:38 AMWhat if Beethoven had been born a peasant instead of into a family of musicians?
I don't think this would have been much of a hindrance for him. Haydn and Dvorak were born of peasant stock and rose to worldwide fame and acclaim, and one could argue that it was the very resilience and stubbornness which are characteristic of peasantry pretty much everywhere that greatly helped them in the process. It would have been the same with Beethoven.
Quote from: Florestan on August 03, 2023, 05:17:48 AMI don't think this would have been much of a hindrance for him. Haydn and Dvorak were born of peasant stock and rose to worldwide fame and acclaim, and one could argue that it was the very resilience and stubbornness which are characteristic of peasantry pretty much everywhere that greatly helped them in the process. It would have been the same with Beethoven.
Haydn's father was an urban tradesman not a peasant, and apprenticed FJ to musician when he was 6. Had FJ been born to a rural peasant that opportunity never would have arisen.
Quote from: BWV 1080 on August 03, 2023, 05:59:57 AMHaydn's father was an urban tradesman not a peasant, and apprenticed FJ to musician when he was 6. Had FJ been born to a rural peasant that opportunity never would have arisen.
Dvorak was not a peasant either. His father was an innkeeper who sent his son to live with relatives in Zlonice to study music at age 12.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on August 02, 2023, 09:53:02 PMIs it possible to feel in the musicianship of this or that musician what's inside his/her mind and soul, figuratively speaking?
In performance maybe. My favourite example is the Paul Jacobs and Gilbert Kalish's recording of En blanc et noir, which was made when Jacobs knew that his death was near. There's a palpable feeling of anger, frustration and resentment and bitterness even, IMO.
Quote from: Florestan on August 03, 2023, 04:43:25 AMThe Middle Ages could not have produced a Beethoven any more than the Enlightenment could have produced a Dante.
I didn't say anything about the middle ages producing a "Beethoven" (as in, a composer of his kind). What i said is that he had the qualifications of being a "saint".
Because of what he was able to communicate to us through his music, we are afforded the rare privilege of knowing something about what was going on inside his innermost essence as a person, and what was there was so profound that it excludes, first of all, the possibility he was altoghether evil, despite his many human faults, and in the second place, it makes one speculate how far he could have gone spiritually had he been afforded more favorable opportunities in that direction. Had he lived in the middle ages, he MIGHT have become a St. Bernard of Clairvaux.
Quote from: Florestan on August 03, 2023, 12:31:06 AMConstantinople, for instance, which they plundered and partially destroyed in 1204 during the Fourth Crusade. The famous bronze horses at the St. Mark's basilica in Venice were stolen from the Hippodrome on the occasion
Things had degenerated considerably by the Fourth Crusade and the sacking of Constantinople was a result of a complex series of events, certainly not as simple a matter as you make it out to be. The Latins had been promised funds to continue their way towards Jerusalem. Banking on the financial support of the Byzantines, they found themselves stranded when a catastrophic series of political and financial blunders left them bereft of the necessary resources to continue their campaign. Enraged by the Byzantines when they withdrew their promised support after an abrupt change in leadership, and enflamed further by the Massacre of the Latins, they decided to plunder Constantinoble under the pretext of getting what was due to them and exacting revenge for the betrayal recieved by the new Byzantine leadership. Once the funds were secured, only a portion of the invading army left for Jerusalem, while the rest ferried the booty back to the Venecians who were a very "suspect" character in this whole affair and probably one of the reasons the Fourth Crusade was such a disaster.
Ultimately, the Pope excumincated all the knights who partook in the sacking of the city, which to me shows that the mentality of that age was closer to what i am suggesting.
Quote from: BWV 1080 on August 03, 2023, 05:59:57 AMHaydn's father was an urban tradesman not a peasant,
Quote from: Spotted Horses on August 03, 2023, 06:16:55 AMDvorak was not a peasant either. His father was an innkeeper
Both Rohrau and Nelahozeves were villages. To apply the term urban to them is to considerably stretch the definition of urban. Besides, peasantry and tradesmanship or inn-keeping are not at all mutually exclusive.
Quote from: Opus131 on August 03, 2023, 07:55:46 AMhe had the qualifications of being a "saint".
I guess you mean saint in a totally figurative way of speaking which has got nothing to do with the saints of the Church. In either cases, Beethoven was far from possessing the necessary qualificatiuons. Your insistence in this respect is puzzling.
Quote from: Opus131 on August 03, 2023, 08:29:20 AMThings had degenerated considerably by the Fourth Crusade and the sacking of Constantinople was a result of a complex series of events, certainly not as simple a matter as you make it out to be. The Latins had been promised funds to continue their way towards Jerusalem. Banking on the financial support of the Byzantines, they found themselves stranded when a catastrophic series of political and financial blunders left them bereft of the necessary resources to continue their campaign. Enraged by the Byzantines when they withdrew their promised support after an abrupt change in leadership, and enflamed further by the Massacre of the Latins, they decided to plunder Constantinoble under the pretext of getting what was due to them and exacting revenge for the betrayal recieved by the new Byzantine leadership. Once the funds were secured, only a portion of the invading army left for Jerusalem, while the rest ferried the booty back to the Venecians who were a very "suspect" character in this whole affair and probably one of the reasons the Fourth Crusade was such a disaster.
Ultimately, the Pope excumincated all the knights who partook in the sacking of the city, which to me shows that the mentality of that age was closer to what i am suggesting.
You claimed that the Crusaders were motivated exclusvely by noble ideals and had no pillaging in mind when sailing East. I gave you perhaps the most conspicuous evidence to the contrary. You argued that the Fourth Crusade was a degenerate one. Okay, let's go back to the very First Crusade then, the one preached by St. Bernard, which resulted in the Sack of Jerusalem in 1099, an event no less bloody and brutal than the Constantinople one.
As in the Beethoven case, your insistence on presenting a rosy, naively romantic vision of the past in total contrast with the documented historical reality is bizarre.
Quote from: Mandryka on August 03, 2023, 07:52:48 AMIn performance maybe. My favourite example is the Paul Jacobs and Gilbert Kalish's recording of En blanc et noir, which was made when Jacobs knew that his death was near. There's a palpable feeling of anger, frustration and resentment and bitterness even, IMO.
Didn't know this recording, found it on Qobuz.
My question was rhetorical, I am sure there are always connections. The other thing is whether we are willing and able to feel it.
Quote from: Florestan on August 03, 2023, 09:31:23 AMBoth Rohrau and Nelahozeves were villages. To apply the term urban to them is to considerably stretch the definition of urban. Besides, peasantry and tradesmanship or inn-keeping are not at all mutually exclusive.
True, and music was definitely a trade - something beneath the upper classes - in the 18th century. Many of the Neapolitan composers, like Cimarosa, were orphans given over to the conservatory for training. But that does not mean that the children of agricultural peasants had wide opportunities to learn a trade, let alone become court musicians
Quote from: Florestan on August 03, 2023, 09:44:47 AMYou claimed that the Crusaders were motivated exclusvely by noble ideals and had no pillaging in mind when sailing East. I gave you perhaps the most conspicuous evidence to the contrary. You argued that the Fourth Crusade was a degenerate one. Okay, let's go back to the very First Crusade then, the one preached by St. Bernard, which resulted in the Sack of Jerusalem in 1099, an event no less bloody and brutal than the Constantinople one.
As in the Beethoven case, your insistence on presenting a rosy, naively romantic vision of the past in total contrast with the documented historical reality is bizarre.
Obviously a siege is going to the result in the "sacking" of a city. That doesn't mean the entire purpose of the crusade was to loot Jerusalem. After their victory, the crusaders siezed control of the city and created a kingdom that lasted two centuries. So your not so hidden implication, that the purpose of the entire crusade was the simple pillaging of a single city, as if that alone would have made up for even a tiny fraction of the expenditure of the entire campaign, is outright false since the historical record shows the crusaders achieved their stated goal: the retaking of Jerusalem under a Christian stewardship.
It's also a bit absurd to accuse me of trying to paint a rosy, naively romantic vision of the past merely for pushing back against this excessively reductionist understanding of the past which would reduce every historical event to the most base, crass motivation possible, usually a purely materialistic one.
Once again, i'd like to refer to the Chesterton link i posted to before:
QuoteBut there is a deeper fallacy besides this obvious fact; that men need not live for food merely because they cannot live without food. The truth is that the thing most present to the mind of man is not the economic machinery necessary to his existence; but rather that existence itself; the world which he sees when he wakes every morning and the nature of his general position in it. There is something that is nearer to him than livelihood, and that is life. For once that he remembers exactly what work produces his wages and exactly what wages produce his meals, he reflects ten times that it is a fine day or it is a queer world, or wonders whether life is worth living, or wonders whether marriage is a failure, or is pleased and puzzled with his own children, or remembers his own youth, or in any such fashion vaguely reviews the mysterious lot of man. This is true of the majority even of the wage slaves of our morbid modem industrialism, which by its hideousness and inhumanity has really forced the economic issue to the front. It is immeasurably more true of the multitude of peasants or hunters or fishers who make up the real mass of mankind. Even those dry pedants who think that ethics depend on economics must admit that economics depend on existence. And any number of normal doubts and day-dreams are about existence; not about how we can live, but about why we do. And the proof of it is simple; as simple as suicide. Turn the universe upside down in the mind and you turn all the political economists upside down with it. Suppose that a man wishes to die, and the professor of political economy becomes rather a bore with his elaborate explanations of how he is to live. And all the departures and decisions that make our human past into a story have this character of diverting the direct course of pure economics. As the economist may be excused from calculating the future salary of a suicide, so be may be excused from providing an old age pension for a martyr. As be need not provide for the future of a martyr, so he need not provide for the family of a monk. His plan is modified in lesser and varying degrees by a man being a soldier and dying for his own country, by a man being a peasant and especially loving his own land, by a man being more or less affected by any religion that forbids or allows him to do this or that. But all these come back not to an economic calculation about livelihood but to an elemental outlook upon life. They all come back to what a man fundamentally feels, when he looks forth from those strange windows which we call the eyes, upon that strange vision that we call the world. No wise man will wish to bring more long words into the world. But it may be allowable to say that we need a new thing; which may be called psychological history. I mean the consideration of what things meant in the mind of a man, especially an ordinary man; as distinct from what is defined or deduced merely from official forms or political pronounce ments. I have already touched on it in such a. case as the totem or indeed any other popular myth. It is not enough to be told that a tom-cat was called a totem; especially when it was not called a totem. We want to know what it felt like. Was it like Whittington's cat or like a witch's cat? Was its real name Pasht or Puss-In-Boots? That is the sort of thing we need touching the nature of political and social relations. We want to know the real sentiment that was the social bond of many common men, as sane and as selfish as we are. What did soldiers feel when they saw splendid in the sky that strange totem that we call the Golden Eagle of the Legions? What did vassals feel about those other totems, the lions or .the leopards upon the shield of their lord? So long as we neglect this subjective side of history, which may more simply be called the inside of history, there will always be a certain limitation on that science which can be better transcended by art. So long as the historian cannot do that, fiction will be truer than fact. There will be more reality in a novel; yes, even in a historical novel.
And this incessant and monotonous tendency to ascribe to every historical event a purely economic or materialist motive is always pushed by relying on the fallacy just refuted by Chesterton in the above passage. All one has to do is bring out the fact that man has to eat in order to then push the argument that men live entirely to procure food. Thus, in our case, someone will mention that peasants were also promised some material gains, and this simple suggestion is supposed to then prove that ALL peasants were motivated purely by some kind of material reward (how much wealth could a single city contain anyway?). Because peasants had to eat and by ceasing to work the land would have had to be compensated in some form in order not to just starve to death, suddenly the suggestion is made that their entire motivation for joining the crusade was purely material.
In truth, by poiting out that peasants have to eat and have families to feed doesn't say anything particular about their reasoning for joining the crusade. It's a given of our earthly existance that man has to eat to live, in a spiritual age like the middle ages as at any other time in history. That still doesn't mean that man lives just to eat. The peasants were also concerned about their own salvation. How could it be otherwise? The middle ages were ruled by faith, or are we going to deny this as well?
Quote from: Opus131 on August 03, 2023, 01:55:53 PMIt's also a bit absurd to accuse me of trying to paint a rosy, naively romantic vision of the past merely for pushing back against this excessively reductionist understanding of the past which would reduce every historical event to the most base, crass motivation possible, usually a purely materialistic one.
You do hold a romantic view of war.
People do engage in war for other than purely material reasons. Some engage in war for glory or fame. Some engage in war to satisfy bloodlust, a desire to kill and destroy that cannot be sated any other way. Some engage in war to kill in their god's name. They are the most evil of all. Some may engage in war for good and pure motives.
One must of course distinguish between what motivates the men in the trenches from what motivates the men who start wars. The motives of the men who start wars are very often base, vile, and corrupt, though they are often disguised with the most lovely prose, the most high-minded of purposes, the soundest of logic. Alas, the words are almost always putrid lies.
See, we have completely different perspectives here. I think engaging in war in the name of God is the most good and noble of motives.
I also reject this notion that the words of the men who start the wars are always "putrid lies", given that i believe in the possibility of a just war.
Ultimately, this is an argument between opposed world views, each of us presenting our own as established fact, but only one of us being used to having this perception challenged.
Quote from: Opus131 on August 03, 2023, 02:52:53 PMSee, we have completely different perspectives here. I think engaging in war in the name of God is the most good and noble of motives.
It is not the year 1200 anymore.
Objective facts do not align with your outlook.
Quote from: Todd on August 03, 2023, 02:55:49 PMIt is not the year 1200 anymore.
Objective facts do not align with your outlook.
Something is either true or false chronology has nothing to do with it, and i firmly believe it is the modern world that is in the wrong. Not to say the 1200s were perfect or anything, but then a perfect human society cannot exist, human nature itself being flawed and all the more so because of the fall.
In fact, i don't think it is useful to rank human societies or cultures based on the amount of virtue present in the people inhabiting said societies, for that is always going to be a mixed bag no matter what. What makes a society superior in my view is the soundness of the principles upon which it is founded.
Quote from: Opus131 on August 03, 2023, 03:03:11 PMSomething is either true or false chronology has nothing to do with it, and i firmly believe it is the modern world that is in the wrong. Not to say the 1200s were perfect or anything, but then a perfect human society cannot exist, human nature itself being flawed and all the more so because of the fall.
In fact, i don't think it is useful to rank human societies or culture based on the number virtue of the people inhabiting said societies, for that is always going to be a mixed bag no matter what. What makes a society superior in my view is the soundness of the principles upon which it is founded.
Please, keep posting.
Quote from: Opus131 on August 03, 2023, 02:52:53 PMSee, we have completely different perspectives here. I think engaging in war in the name of God is the most good and noble of motives.
I also reject this notion that the words of the men who start the wars are always "putrid lies", given that i believe in the possibility of a just war.
Ultimately, this is an argument between opposed world views, each of us presenting our own as established fact, but only one of us being used to having this perception challenged.
People start wars because they feel they are lacking something. There's nothing good or noble about war. Merely a venture of a sick mind.
At the same time killing is an instinct, like sex and the desire for sweetness in food.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on August 03, 2023, 03:07:39 PMPeople start wars because they feel they are lacking something. There's nothing good or noble about war. Merely a venture of a sick mind.
At the same time killing is an instinct, like sex and the desire for sweetness in food.
Disagree with this entirely. Once again, you are just pushing a specific world view (man is an animal without a spiritual nature) under the guise of making an argument.
Which is not to say the motives for wars are always invariably "pure" in nature, but human motivations, even when it comes to war, are far more complex and profound than just "cave man smash".
Quote from: Todd on August 03, 2023, 03:05:02 PMPlease, keep posting.
I will, as i just thought of a good argument to attempt to settle this issue.
The topic of this thread was about whether there was any correlation between the beliefs or personal proclivities of a composer and his works. Now i happen to think to some degree there is indeed a connection. Some here likely don't, but if we posit that this is indeed the case, what happens when we apply the same logic to an entire society or human collectivity?
To which i'd like to ask, what does the manifestation of a Dante Alighieri, a Bernard of Clairvaux, or a Gothic cathedral, say about the innermost feelings and thoughts of the era they lived in, compared to what we happen to produce today?
Does this indicate a particular mentality or spiritual disposition of the men of the middle ages:
(https://s3.amazonaws.com/cms.ipressroom.com/173/files/20151/54da4641299b5043d9005180_1280px-Sainte-Chapelle-Interior.2/1280px-Sainte-Chapelle-Interior.2_261a086f-da29-4b25-8a8a-a3f63bb57650-prv.jpg)
Compared to this?
(https://www.domusweb.it/content/domusweb20/en/architecture/gallery/2021/01/29/il-brutalismo-madrileo-ritratto-da-roberto-conte/jcr:content/image-preview.img.rmedium.jpg/1611998537465.jpg)
(https://i0.wp.com/designedtotravel.ro/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/DSC_0793.jpg)
Quote from: Opus131 on August 04, 2023, 12:16:26 AMDisagree with this entirely. Once again, you are just pushing a specific world view (man is an animal without a spiritual nature) under the guise of making an argument.
Which is not to say the motives for wars are always invariably "pure" in nature, but human motivations, even when it comes to war, are far more complex and profound than just "cave man smash".
Totally wrong. The essential nature of man is pure, untainted spirituality. But we strive in every way to obscure and confuse this nature with the help of various tricks of the mind.
Did Jesus preach war? Or noble war, perhaps? Would you classify Jesus as an animal?
Know the truth and truth will set you free. I think what Jesus says is, recognise who you really are, set yourself free from sense of lack and limitation and set yourself free from the war in your head and the need of the war in the world.
However as long as people are captive to the false concept that they are separate, confined in their mind/body, war is inevitable.
Quote from: Opus131 on August 03, 2023, 02:52:53 PMI think engaging in war in the name of God is the most good and noble of motives.
So the Taliban are good and noble, right? The ISIS are good and noble, right?
You seem to be a Christian. Please show me the NT chapter(s) and verse(s) where Jesus Christ, or the Apostles, preached war, even in the name of God.
QuoteI also reject this notion that the words of the men who start the wars are always "putrid lies", given that i believe in the possibility of a just war.
You just shot yourself in the foot here, because a just war is always defensive. One cannot
start a just war.
Quote from: Opus131 on August 03, 2023, 01:55:53 PMObviously a siege is going to the result in the "sacking" of a city. That doesn't mean the entire purpose of the crusade was to loot Jerusalem. After their victory, the crusaders siezed control of the city and created a kingdom that lasted two centuries.
Big deal, two centuries of constant warfare ending in complete debacle. The historical perspective seems to be lost on you. What did the Crusades ultimately achieved? Nothing good and a lot of bad. When the last Crusade was over, Jerusalem was back under Muslim rule and remained so for centuries. The only lasting effect of the Crusades has been the poisoning of the Christian-Muslim relationships to an unprecedented degree; they sown such deep resentment, mistrust and hate that their effects are still felt today. And to think that all that was done in the name of God...
Quote from: Florestan on August 04, 2023, 01:03:09 AMBig deal, two centuries of constant warfare ending in complete debacle. The historical perspective seems to be lost on you. What did the Crusades ultimately achieved? Nothing good and a lot of bad. When the last Crusade was over, Jerusalem was back under Muslim rule and remained so for centuries. The only lasting effect of the Crusades has been the poisoning of the Christian-Muslim relationships to an unprecedented degree; they sown such deep resentment, mistrust and hate that their effects are still felt today. And to think that all that was done in the name of God...
In the sixteenth century, Michel de Montaigne gave a rather vivid account of the Crusades. His comparison of the cultural level of the Muslim East and the Christian West at the time of the Crusades was particularly compelling.
Quote from: Florestan on August 04, 2023, 12:46:00 AMSo the Taliban are good and noble, right? The ISIS are good and noble, right?
No, but the wars of Muhammad were in fact sacred in a similar way the Biblical wars were also sacred.
I don't see the point of this kind of retorts as i don't remember ever declaring that war is invariably good in and of itself. I merely suggested the possibility that it CAN be (or perhaps a better way to phrase it would be to consider it a necessary evil if the goodness resulting from war warrants it). It can also be utterly evil. Since the beginning of modernity, they almost invariably always are just that, usually, precisely because they are not fought in the "name" of God.
Quote from: Florestan on August 04, 2023, 12:46:00 AMYou seem to be a Christian. Please show me the NT chapter(s) and verse(s) where Jesus Christ, or the Apostles, preached war, even in the name of God.
War is not a part of the foundation of Christianity because war pertains to the temporal order, where as the path taught by Christ was a purely inward one (the "sword" he brought of course concerned the greater war, the inner war, what the Muslims call the "greater" Jihad). War is absent from the New Testament for the same reason a law akin to that of the Jews is also absent. Now neither a law nor war are absent in the Old Testament, which shows that in principle God does not disfavour either.
Later on, when Christians were tasked with the problem of extending the Christian way over an entire collectivity, "temporal" questions had to be dealt with, and so both a law (build in part on Roman law) and a sacred "temporal" order (the Holy Roman Empire) had to be established.
It's also worth pointing out that the conversion of the Romans was facilitated by the social stability created by the "Pax" Romana. I think Providence likely had an hand in that as well. I wouldn't go so far as claiming that Ceasar somehow antipicated Constantine, but it's likely the hand of God played a role in providing a social situation which allowed early Christianity to be completely "free" of temporal burdens. When Christianity was forced to adapt itself to a temporal situation, the more "pure" Christic path found a home in the monasteries.
Quote from: Florestan on August 04, 2023, 12:46:00 AMYou just shot yourself in the foot here, because a just war is always defensive. One cannot start a just war.
Pre-emptive wars can be seen as defensive. If Charlemagne hadn't crossed the Alps in what is arguably one of the most heroic military expeditions in history in order to prevent the Arian Lombards from laying seige to the Vatican as they were planning of doing the seat of legitimate western Christianity might have fallen at the hands of heretics.
That to me is an example of a "noble" war. As were the wars led by Joan of Arc, who i believe was tasked by God to save Catholicism in France.
The very fact that Christianity allows for monarchs to be saints is in itself an aknowledgement that the temporal functions of a king or an emperor are not completely opposed to the spiritual, even though the canonization of kings appears to be a rare occurance, and there's likely something to be said there as well.
Quote from: Opus131 on August 04, 2023, 01:31:52 AMNo, but the wars of Muhammad were in fact sacred in a similar way the Biblical wars were also sacred.
I don't see the point of this kind of retorts as i don't remember ever declaring that war is invariably good in and of itself. I merely suggested the possibility that it CAN be (or perhaps a better way to phrase it would be to consider it a necessary evil if the goodness resulting from war warrants it). It can also be utterly evil. Since the beginning of modernity, they almost invariably always are just that, usually, precisely because they are not fought in the "name" of God.
War is not a part of the foundation of Christianity because war pertains to the temporal order, where as the path taught by Christ was a purely inward one (the "sword" he brought of course concerned the greater war, the inner war, what the Muslims call the "greater" Jihad). War is absent from the New Testament for the same reason a law akin to that of the Jews is also absent. Now neither a law nor war are absent in the Old Testament, which shows that in principle God does not disfavour either.
Later on, when Christians were tasked with the problem of extending the Christian way over an entire collectivity, "temporal" questions had to be dealt with, and so both a law (build in part on Roman law) and a sacred "temporal" order (the Holy Roman Empire) had to be established.
It's also worth pointing out that the conversion of the Romans was facilitated by the social stability created by the "Pax" Romana. I think Providence likely had an hand in that as well. I wouldn't go so far as claiming that Ceasar somehow antipicated Constantine, but it's likely the hand of God played a role in providing a social situation which allowed early Christianity to be completely "free" of temporal burdens. When Christianity was forced to adapt itself to a temporal situation, the more "pure" Christic path found a home in the monasteries.
Pre-emptive wars can be seen as defensive. If Charlemagne hadn't crossed the Alps in what is arguably one of the most heroic military expeditions in history in order to prevent the Arian Lombards from laying seige to the Vatican as they were planning of doing the seat of legitimate western Christianity might have fallen at the hands of heretics.
That to me is an example of a "noble" war. As were the wars led by Joan of Arc, who i believe was tasked by God to save Catholicism in France.
The very fact that Christianity allows for monarchs to be saints is in itself an aknowledgement that the temporal functions of a king or an emperor are not completely opposed to the spiritual, even though the canonization of kings appears to be a rare occurance, and there's likely something to be said there as well.
You don't seem to be quite distinguishing between proclaimed principles and actual events. But that's quite normal. Not natural, but normal.
Quote from: Florestan on August 04, 2023, 01:03:09 AMBig deal, two centuries of constant warfare ending in complete debacle. The historical perspective seems to be lost on you. What did the Crusades ultimately achieved? Nothing good and a lot of bad. When the last Crusade was over, Jerusalem was back under Muslim rule and remained so for centuries. The only lasting effect of the Crusades has been the poisoning of the Christian-Muslim relationships to an unprecedented degree; they sown such deep resentment, mistrust and hate that their effects are still felt today. And to think that all that was done in the name of God...
That is besides the point since the object of the discussion was the motives of the crusaders (which you claimed were purely predatory), not their success in the long term.
I think the ultimate purpose of the Crusades (fromt he point of God, not that the Crusaders would have kown this) was to keep the Muslims expansion in check and allow the Christian millenium (in which Satan was to be chained) to run its full course. The earthly Jerusalem in itself is not that important. The heavenly Jerusalem and its reflection on earth is all that matters.
I also don't see what kind of "relations" there could be between Christians and Muslims, when those religions are mutually exclusive. The encounter between Muhammad and the Najran delegation shows the kind of "relationship" the Muslims expected to have with the Christians. This is not a "pact" the majority Christian nations could have ever been willing to subject themselves to.
Quote from: Opus131 on August 04, 2023, 01:31:52 AMi don't remember ever declaring that war is invariably good in and of itself. I merely suggested the possibility that it CAN be. It can also be utterly evil. Since the beginning of modernity, they almost invariably always are just that, usually, precisely because they are not fought in the "name" of God.
I fail to see why killing and maiming people and looting and destroying their peoperty in the name of God is nobler than doing the same things in the name of the King, the Fatherland, The Nation, the Class, the Race, Liberty-Equality-Fraternity or whatever other slogans have been used for starting wars.
Quote from: Florestan on August 04, 2023, 01:58:22 AMI fail to see why killing and maiming people and looting and destroying their peoperty in the name of God is nobler than doing the same things in the name of the King, the Fatherland, The Nation, the Class, the Race, Liberty-Equality-Fraternity or whatever other slogans have been used for starting wars.
Because God is the only thing that matters. Our life in this world is temporary. The one in the next world is forever. A war in the name of God is also a war in the name of good against evil by definition, since God is ultimate Goodness, and anything that opposes God is ultimately evil.
Of course, i'd like to precise that not every war ostensibly waged in the "name" of God is actually being fought for the sake of God. The Taliban claim to be serving God. It's clear that they are actually serving Satan, something even many Muslims agree. It is Gog and Magog, the devil playing both sides and duping even though who think they are serving God.
Quote from: Opus131 on August 04, 2023, 01:53:53 AMthe object of the discussion was the motives of the crusaders (which you claimed were purely predatory)
I claimed no such thing.
QuoteI think the ultimate purpose of the Crusades (fromt he point of God
So now you pretend to know the point of view of God. That settles the matter then, no further discussion is necessary.
Pax tecum!
Quote from: Opus131 on August 04, 2023, 02:01:42 AMBecause God is the only thing that matters. Our life in this world is temporary. The one in the next world is forever. A war in the name of God is also a war in the name of good against evil by definition, since God is ultimate Goodness, and anything that opposes God is ultimately evil.
Ussama bin-Laden himself could not have said it better.
Quote from: Florestan on August 04, 2023, 02:02:44 AMI claimed no such thing.
So now you pretend to know the point of view of God. That settles the matter then, no further discussion is necessary. Pax tecum!
I'm inferring the purpose of God's plan reguarding the crusades from the vantage point of looking at the consequences of such wars against Islam from Charles Martel across the centuries all the way to the Battle of Vienna, which was clearly to give Christedom a space to live. I say clearly, as that was the defacto consequence of those wars.
I don't know if you noticed, but now that Christedom has been rejected in the west Islam is making an encroachment once again. And the Islamification of Europe is not a superficial matter either. One of the more interesting religious figures in modern England, Timothy Winters, happens to be a native British convert. When the more "serious" religious seekers begin to convert you know something substantial is actually occurring.
Quote from: Opus131 on August 04, 2023, 02:10:57 AMI'm inferring the purpose of God's plan reguarding the crusades from the vantage point of looking at the consequences of such wars against Islam from Charles Martel across the centuries all the way to the Battle of Vienna, which was clearly to give Christedom a space to live. I say clearly, as that was the defacto consequence of those wars.
I don't know if you noticed, but now that Christedom has been rejected in the west Islam is making an encroachment once again. And the Islamification of Europe is not a superficial matter either. One of the more interesting religious figures in modern England, Timothy Winters, happens to be a native British convert. When the more "serious" religious seekers begin to convert you know something substantial is actually occurring.
A can full of worms which I am not willing to open and I advise you not to, either.
Quote from: Opus131 on August 04, 2023, 02:01:42 AMBecause God is the only thing that matters. Our life in this world is temporary. The one in the next world is forever. A war in the name of God is also a war in the name of good against evil by definition, since God is ultimate Goodness, and anything that opposes God is ultimately evil.
[..]
Turn your attention from non-permanent objects (things) of apparent world toward your self and you will see without a doubt that you are the infinite life itself, pure existence beyond limitations of time and space. No God, or Satan required.
Godefroy de Bouillon vs. Krishnamurti. ;D
(https://previews.123rf.com/images/blueskyimage/blueskyimage1310/blueskyimage131000565/22817396-men-at-the-cinema-excited-young-men-watching-movie-at-the-cinema-and-eating-popcorn.jpg)
Reference to authority is not necessary to know that you are.
P.S. There have been at least two famous authors with the surname Krishnamurti - Jiddu and U.G. There is little in common between them, and each is interesting in its own way.
Quote from: Opus131 on August 04, 2023, 12:25:27 AMI will, as i just thought of a good argument to attempt to settle this issue.
The issue of anachronistic religious zealotry?
Quote from: Todd on August 04, 2023, 04:01:07 AMThe issue of anachronistic religious zealotry?
Did you read what followed?
For me, the fact those so called "anachronistic religious zealots" made art that was infinitely more transcendent than any of the grotesque buffoonery of modern times shows their inner world might have been far more profound than what you are giving it credit for.
I would also add that religious zealotry actually describes the moderns to perfection, given their blind faith in the superiority of their credo despite all evidence to the contrary considering the sordist state of the modern world. You have lunatics like Yuval Noah Harari tell us that AI could now write the Bible and somehow i'm supposed to take this deranged nonsense seriously.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on August 04, 2023, 02:39:46 AMTurn your attention from non-permanent objects (things) of apparent world toward your self and you will see without a doubt that you are the infinite life itself, pure existence beyond limitations of time and space. No God, or Satan required.
"I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me"
"The Kingdom of God is within you"
And so forth.
And pure existence beyond limitations of time and space is precisely what God is:
https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/augustines-push-against-the-limits-of-time/
BTW, i suspect this notion of one becoming "pure existence beyond limitations" is not something to be taken literally. While it is possible to realize something of the divine essence within ourselves (theosis), to "literally" become pure exitence would ipso facto to cease to exist in what can only be described as an atheistic death. And that is because there cannot be more than one "pure existence beyond limitations". There's only one Absolute, and to literally become it means to just disappear altoghether.
Quote from: Opus131 on August 05, 2023, 10:11:30 PM"I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me"
"The Kingdom of God is within you"
And so forth.
And pure existence beyond limitations of time and space is precisely what God is:
https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/augustines-push-against-the-limits-of-time/
BTW, i suspect this notion of one becoming "pure existence beyond limitations" is not something to be taken literally. While it is possible to realize something of the divine essence within ourselves (theosis), to "literally" become pure exitence would ipso facto to cease to exist in what can only be described as an atheistic death. And that is because there cannot be more than one "pure existence beyond limitations". There's only one Absolute, and to literally become it means to just disappear altoghether.
Already taken more literally than any thing else. You don't doubt that you are, do you? Who knows that he is? Who knows that he has a body and a mind? Are you confined in your body and mind or your body and mind are in your knowing?
You are, and you are now only. In eternal now, knowing all appearing objects (things) equally. Thus, you are beyond time and space, which are hypothesis of the mind.
Quote from: Opus131 on August 05, 2023, 10:01:41 PMDid you read what followed?
Yes. It supplied additional evidence of your zealotry.
Quote from: Todd on August 06, 2023, 04:38:31 AMYes. It supplied additional evidence of your zealotry.
Or maybe the zealotry is entirely yours.
If all you can see when looking at the celestial beauty of medieval art is "zealotry" maybe you are just speaking out of a blind hatred of religion. In fact, i would ask if there is a way in your mind in which one can be religious and NOT be a zealot.
Quote from: Opus131 on August 06, 2023, 01:51:16 PMOr maybe the zealotry is entirely yours.
No, not at all. Let's revisit the most important, revealing, and anachronistic thing you wrote:
Quote from: Opus131 on August 03, 2023, 02:52:53 PMI think engaging in war in the name of God is the most good and noble of motives.
That is zealotry - best case.
It is very easy for people to be religious and not be zealots. Most people I know fall into that category. Also note that I do not hate religion. That is a false construct.
Quote from: Todd on August 06, 2023, 01:59:09 PMThat is zealotry - best case.
Not necessarily zealotry. Maybe somewhat hyperbolised poetry.
https://youtu.be/TKeJifOXAnA
Quote from: AnotherSpin on August 06, 2023, 09:00:55 PMNot necessarily zealotry. Maybe somewhat hyperbolised poetry.
https://youtu.be/TKeJifOXAnA
Dreadful singer. An another example that the middle ages were utterly superior to modernity:
Reminder that the notion of just war isn't exclusive of Christianity as well:
https://blogs.icrc.org/religion-humanitarianprinciples/bhagavad-gita-ethics-war/
Anyone who is actually serious about belief in God and isn't following a religion purely as some kind of social activity would agree if it must come to war, and God forbid if it does, there is no more noble object than to wage war for the sake of God, who himself is the most noble object of all.
I consider the unification of the Holy Roman empire under Charlemagne to have been such a noble aim. Charlemagne saved Catholicism in the west and created a temporal order that was truly "traditional". The mutual kneeling between the emperor and the pope, where the emperor submitted to the spiritual authority of the pope and the pope in his turn submited to the temporal authority of the emperor was the perfect model for establishing a truly sacred social order.
Alas, this balance was lost due to the insurmountable loss of political stability and loss of central authority created by the fall of the western Roman empire, the incessant bickering between the temporal powers eventually leading to an usurpation of authority by the same, with Philip IV of France being the first monarch to put temporal concerns over spiritual ones in an absolute fashion, and his actions is what ultimately led to the eventual downfall of the medieval civilization and paved the way for that pagan revolution that was the Renaissance.
By the high middle ages, the only thing that mattered were temporal concerns. This extended to the Church itself, who, deprived of a "champion" in the temporal order such as Charlemagne had been, or as Constantine had been centuries before, took it upon itself to become embriodered in temporal affairs out sheer self-preservation, which sullied and put into question its own spiritual authority. The warnings of Savonarola being discarded, the matter devolved into a conflict that was more about feelings of nationalism between the Italians and the Germans than concerns about legitimate authority, spiritual or otherwise, which is also what prepared the field for the fracturing of western Christedom during the Reformation.
So you see, when wars begun to be fought for purely temporal or secular concerns instead of being fought according to the will of God, the entire sacred order of western Christedom collapsed which opened the way for the modern secular west and its satanic downfall into the reign of the anti-Christ in the 20th century.
Ultimately, the main fallacy with those who spur the idea wars should ever be fought for the sake of God is the inhability to understand that war will ALWAYS be with mankind. Thus, if one removes God from the equation, you will still have wars, but those will invariably always be fought for secular reasons, which are hardly ever justified. Even questions of "self-defence" become hollow if the social order being preserved is anti-traditional, like a communist country "defending" itself from a foreign incursion as if communism was worth preserving.
Quote from: Opus131 on August 07, 2023, 12:15:28 AMDreadful singer. An another example that the middle ages were utterly superior to modernity:
Reminder that the notion of just war isn't exclusive of Christianity as well:
https://blogs.icrc.org/religion-humanitarianprinciples/bhagavad-gita-ethics-war/
Anyone who is actually serious about belief in God and isn't following a religion purely as some kind of social activity would agree if it must come to war, and God forbid if it does, there is no more noble object than to wage war for the sake of God, who himself is the most noble object of all.
I consider the unification of the Holy Roman empire under Charlemagne to have been such a noble aim. Charlemagne saved Catholicism in the west and created a temporal order that was truly "traditional". The mutual kneeling between the emperor and the pope, where the emperor submitted to the spiritual authority of the pope and the pope in his turn submited to the temporal authority of the emperor was the perfect model for establishing a truly sacred social order.
Alas, this balance was lost due to the insurmountable loss of political stability and loss of central authority created by the fall of the western Roman empire, the incessant bickering between the temporal powers eventually leading to an usurpation of authority by the same, with Philip IV of France being the first monarch to put temporal concerns over spiritual ones in an absolute fashion, and his actions is what ultimately led to the eventual downfall of the medieval civilization and paved the way for that pagan revolution that was the Renaissance.
By the high middle ages, the only thing that mattered were temporal concerns. This extended to the Church itself, who, deprived of a "champion" in the temporal order such as Charlemagne had been, or as Constantine had been centuries before, took it upon itself to become embriodered in temporal affairs out sheer self-preservation, which sullied and put into question its own spiritual authority. The warnings of Savonarola being discarded, the matter devolved into a conflict that was more about feelings of nationalism between the Italians and the Germans than concerns about legitimate authority, spiritual or otherwise, which is also what prepared the field for the fracturing of western Christedom during the Reformation.
So you see, when wars begun to be fought for purely temporal or secular concerns instead of being fought according to the will of God, the entire sacred order of western Christedom collapsed which opened the way for the modern secular west and its satanic downfall into the reign of the anti-Christ in the 20th century.
Ultimately, the main fallacy with those who spur the idea wars should ever be fought for the sake of God is the inhability to understand that war will ALWAYS be with mankind. Thus, if one removes God from the equation, you will still have wars, but those will invariably always be fought for secular reasons, which are hardly ever justified. Even questions of "self-defence" become hollow if the social order being preserved is anti-traditional, like a communist country "defending" itself from a foreign incursion as if communism was worth preserving.
She was a great singer.
It's ridiculous to reduce Gita to war propaganda. Similarly, Christ's word can be reduced to promoting hippie lifestyle.
You advocate war in the name of God, but deny secular war, if I understand correctly. In that case, war has no place in the secular world, does it? On the other hand, one can see God's will in any horrible incident, be it war, pandemic, WEF, greens agenda, cancel culture, etc.
The Gita was revealed for the Kshatriya, the warrior caste. That is why it sanctions war, because war is their domain.
In Hinduism, as far as i understand it, the chief purpose of the Kshatriya is to provide the security and peace necessary for the Brahmins to safeguard the teachings of the Vedas. In order to do this, sometimes war is necessary.
Christianity did not have a dissimilar arrangement. Ever since Constantine, the role of Christian kings has been that of safeguarding Christedom. The peace and security of the land was not something that was sought for its own sake, but for the sake of the Church and the path towards salvation it offered to the people (again, man does not live to eat, peace and prosperity for their own sake doesn't mean anything because human beings are not grazing animals with no other purpose in life but to fill their bellies undisturbed).
Now of course the fall means no perfect human society can be created. Man is both limited and fallen, human desires and motivations can often be base if not outright vile, but that too is part of why war is inevitable. It is not so much that i advocate war in the name of God, but that i see war as a permanent fixture of human existance, and war being inevitable, it should at least be waged for the right reasons to that degree that is actually possible. It is the inevatibility of war which made it necessary to define the notion of what a just war ought to be, as opposed to simply preaching for the abolishing of all wars, which most Christians thinkers were not naive enough to believe could be done.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on August 07, 2023, 01:16:36 AMShe was a great singer.
Don't see it, least of all in that video you posted.
Quote from: Opus131 on August 07, 2023, 02:43:34 AMDon't see it, least of all in that video you posted.
That's fine.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on August 06, 2023, 09:00:55 PMNot necessarily zealotry. Maybe somewhat hyperbolised poetry.
https://youtu.be/TKeJifOXAnA
Bob Marley's song has a message that needs repeating again and again and Sinead O'Connor was unfairly attacked after her protest (tearing the photograph).
Quote from: San Antone on August 07, 2023, 06:07:33 AMBob Marley's song has a message that needs repeating again and again and Sinead O'Connor was unfairly attacked after her protest (tearing the photograph).
The whole episode of this concert celebrating the thirtieth anniversary of Bob Dylan's career is extraordinarily moving. A fragile woman under a storm of whistles from an audience of many thousands in the MSG with very different song instead of planned Dylan's number. And her look at the end, the look of triumph.
https://youtu.be/3HwWDOQoCBM
Comparing St. Constantine the Great with Charlemagne is ridiculous. The former was a legitimate Roman emperor who fostered the unity of the Church. The latter was a parvenu and an usurper who subminated Church unity, a Frankish warlord crowned "emperor" by the Patriarch of Rome who had no more authority to create an emperor than Charlemagne had to create a supreme spiritual authority in the Church. Charlemagne usurped the imperial title and the Patriarch of Rome usurped the collegial authority of the other four Patriarchs, among whom he had been just primus inter pares, not the supreme authority. The so-called Holy Roman Empire was conspicuously neithet holy nor Roman. The one, true and only Roman Empire was ruled by the Basileus in Constantinople (Byzantine is an ideologically motivated misnomer for what was never officially called anything else than Basileia ton Romaion, the Empire of the Romans). The last legitimate Roman emperor was Constantine XII Palaiologos, missing in action during the Fall of the Roman Empire in 1453.
Quote from: Florestan on August 07, 2023, 09:51:57 AMComparing St. Constantine the Great with Charlemagne is ridiculous. The former was a legitimate Roman emperor who fostered the unity of the Church. The latter was a parvenu and an usurper who subminated Church unity, a Frankish warlord crowned "emperor" by the Patriarch of Rome who had no more authority to create an emperor than Charlemagne had to create a supreme spiritual authority in the Church. Charlemagne usurped the imperial title and the Patriarch of Rome usurped the collegial authority of the other four Patriarchs, among whom he had been just primus inter pares, not the supreme authority. The so-called Holy Roman Empire was conspicuously neithet holy nor Roman. The one, true and only Roman Empire was ruled by the Basileus in Constantinople (Byzantine is an ideologically motivated misnomer for what was never officially called anything else than Basileia ton Romaion, the Empire of the Romans). The last legitimate Roman emperor was Constantine XII Palaiologos, missing in action during the Fall of the Roman Empire in 1453.
And, Constantine's niece Sophia Palaiologina became the second wife of Prince Ivan of Muscovy after the fall of Constantinople. Since that time, the Muscovy rulers began to call themselves tsars (a derivative of "Caesar"). This marriage became an important moment in the formation of the concept of "Moscow, Third Rome" and Moscow's claim to the succession of ancient Rome and a special imperial role in the world, the consequences of which we can witness today.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on August 07, 2023, 11:04:06 AMAnd, Constantine's niece Sophia Palaiologina became the second wife of Prince Ivan of Muscovy after the fall of Constantinople. Since that time, the Muscovy rulers began to call themselves tsars (a derivative of "Caesar"). This marriage became an important moment in the formation of the concept of "Moscow, Third Rome" and Moscow's claim to the succession of ancient Rome and a special imperial role in the world, the consequences of which we can witness today.
The Roman Empire had no legitimate heirs. Russian claims in this respect are entirely a figment of their inagination.
Quote from: AnotherSpin on August 07, 2023, 06:28:43 AMThe whole episode of this concert celebrating the thirtieth anniversary of Bob Dylan's career is extraordinarily moving. A fragile woman under a storm of whistles from an audience of many thousands in the MSG with very different song instead of planned Dylan's number. And her look at the end, the look of triumph.
https://youtu.be/3HwWDOQoCBM
I dislike Bob Dylan as much as i dislike this woman so i was doubly non-plussed by this.
I'm not into being "moved" in such a way. Sentimentalism is another aspect of the modern world that i simply cannot suffer, and the worst thing is that it has become the dominating force in religion.
Quote from: Florestan on August 07, 2023, 09:51:57 AMComparing St. Constantine the Great with Charlemagne is ridiculous. The former was a legitimate Roman emperor who fostered the unity of the Church. The latter was a parvenu and an usurper who subminated Church unity, a Frankish warlord crowned "emperor" by the Patriarch of Rome who had no more authority to create an emperor than Charlemagne had to create a supreme spiritual authority in the Church. Charlemagne usurped the imperial title and the Patriarch of Rome usurped the collegial authority of the other four Patriarchs, among whom he had been just primus inter pares, not the supreme authority. The so-called Holy Roman Empire was conspicuously neithet holy nor Roman. The one, true and only Roman Empire was ruled by the Basileus in Constantinople (Byzantine is an ideologically motivated misnomer for what was never officially called anything else than Basileia ton Romaion, the Empire of the Romans). The last legitimate Roman emperor was Constantine XII Palaiologos, missing in action during the Fall of the Roman Empire in 1453.
It is the prerogative of the Orthodox to see things this way (and i tend to think the Orthodox are simply a purer form of Christianity than either Catholicsm or Protestantism) but for me it is unequivocal that Charlemagne was a true champion of western Christedom, and his greatness was such that it inspired friendship even from a Muslim caliphate who was equally notable for his eroic qualities within the Muslim world.
Without Charlemagne, western Christedom would have been swept away entirely, and western Europe would have fallen to the Arians or remained within the grips of a decadent paganism.
Quote from: Opus131 on August 07, 2023, 01:43:05 PMI dislike Bob Dylan as much as i dislike this woman so i was doubly non-plussed by this.
It wasn't about Bob Dylan either. But, no problem :)
Quote from: Florestan on August 07, 2023, 11:19:18 AMThe Roman Empire had no legitimate heirs. Russian claims in this respect are entirely a figment of their inagination.
Which of their claims is not imagination? But, it is purely rhetoric, any claim is a product of imagination.
Quote from: Opus131 on August 07, 2023, 01:54:49 PMIt is the prerogative of the Orthodox to see things this way (and i tend to think the Orthodox are simply a purer form of Christianity than either Catholicsm or Protestantism) but for me it is unequivocal that Charlemagne was a true champion of western Christedom, and his greatness was such that it inspired friendship even from a Muslim caliphate who was equally notable for his eroic qualities within the Muslim world.
Without Charlemagne, western Christedom would have been swept away entirely, and western Europe would have fallen to the Arians or remained within the grips of a decadent paganism.
One could certainly see the hand of God in the fact that the Franks were the only Germanic tribe that adopted Nicene Christianity instead of Arianism, which ultimately secured the supremacy of Roman Catholicism in Western Europe for centuries. On the other hand, I fail to see the catastrophy that would have befell on Europe if Arianism would have got the upper hand. The differences between Nicene and Arian Christianity were of interest and import for theologians; the people were much less, if at all, interested in such Christological subtleties --- and the Romance people were Nicene Christians anyway, it's only the political and military elite of the Germanic kingdoms that were Arian. In terms of practical life, there would have been all the same if Arianism would have asserted itself as the dominant version of Christianity instead of Catholicism. You picture Arian Christians as particularly dangerous for civilization but nothing warrants such a view.
Besides, your claim that Charlemagne saved Western Europe from either Arianism or Paganism is not supported by chronology. Both Arianism and Paganism had been exhausted long before Charlemagne's birth. The last Arian king in Europe, Garibald of Lombardy, died in 671. As for Greco-Roman Paganism, it was already history in the times of Justinian. The only Pagans Charlemagne fought were the Saxons, but to claim they were a terrible menace for the whole Western Europe is greatly exaggerated.