Print Page | Close Window

Progressive Music as Objective Music

Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Blogs
Forum Description: Blogs, Editorials, Original articles posted by members
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=62580
Printed Date: July 07 2020 at 10:51
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Progressive Music as Objective Music
Posted By: ProgressiveAttic
Subject: Progressive Music as Objective Music
Date Posted: November 04 2009 at 10:41
Objectivism is a philosophy developed by Ayn Rand that advocates:

1.     Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
2.     Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
3.     Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
4.     The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.”
We can see the application of this philosophical system to music in the following way: most “pop” music followers are, as Rand describes in her novel “The Fountainhead”, a shelf of other people’s tastes and opinions (which are concentrated in listings like Billboard’s and magazines like Rolling Stones) which constitutes the aberration of a “collective soul (or mind)”. Added to this, most pop music has no lyrical message or musical depth to be rationally enjoyed.
On the other side we have progressive music (including classical, 20th century, jazz, progressive rock, etc.) which has a rational content lyrically (in the case that there are lyrics) and musical, this substance can be translated in humor (Frank Zappa, Genesis), deep philosophy (Rush, Pink Floyd), optimism (Yes) or any other message or feeling that the musician wants to deliver. Now we have that progressive music followers don’t look for popularity charts but for virtuosity and meaning, an example of this is that albums not as popular as Close To The Edge (Yes) or Selling England by the Pound (Genesis) are more appreciated than 90125 (Yes) or Invisble Touch (Genesis) which did peak at the charts but where less complex and showed less virtuosity. In the words of Ayn Rand, the primary purpose of the artist “is to bring his view of man and of existence into reality” in other words, to deliver his views, feelings and/or opinions (content).
Progressive music, specifically progressive rock, has been called pretentious and it is as pretentious as the first architect that designed a skyscraper defying all previous establishments (as progressive music allways did with people as revolutionary as Mozart, Bach, Bartok, Joplin, Monk, Davies, Emerson, Wakeman or Fripp). Because this pretentiousness and grandiloquence that can compared to Michelangelo’s Sixteenth Chapel are an exaltation of human capacity and nature. This concepts have been presented by Rand in “The Fountainhead” (talking specifically about architecture), “Anthem” (written as an anthem to the man) and “Atlas Shrugged” (an example of this are the compositions of composer Richard Halley which are described as complex and with an implicit message). Rand describes the process of music appreciation in several steps: “from perception—to emotion—to appraisal—to conceptual understanding”. Being the last two the ones that involves reason and therefore impossible in a context in which there is no message or complexity.


-------------
Michael's Sonic Kaleidoscope Mondays 5:00pm EST(re-runs Thursdays 3:00pm) @ Delicious Agony Progressive Rock Radio(http://www.deliciousagony.com)



Replies:
Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: November 04 2009 at 14:02
Michelangelo's Sixteenth Chapel? 

There are some Rand fans here, but I could never get into Objectivism. Maybe it's because I'm religious (sort of), but it always seemed to me like trying to justify being a bad person, which is not to say that all objectivists are bad people.

Otherwise, I'm not really sure what you're talking about.


-------------
if you own a sodastream i hate you


Posted By: CPicard
Date Posted: November 04 2009 at 14:53
The problem with this analysis is that it's disconnected with the historical context of the creation of progressive rock: this genre is born from the "collective soul" of the 60's counter-culture.
It also presents progressive rock as an elitist genre: Michel-Angelo, really?
Moreover, I would tend to see RAP as the true "objectivist" music...


Posted By: rdtprog
Date Posted: November 04 2009 at 15:03
Progressive music is "super subjective". It's over any kind of objectivity. It's what brings many subjects to feel one of the deepest emotion when discovering a work of art created by other subjects that try to communicate this emotion to the public. 

-------------
Music is the refuge of souls ulcerated by happiness.

Emile M. Cioran









Posted By: ProgressiveAttic
Date Posted: November 04 2009 at 15:11
What is the problem with Michel-Angelo (It was just a moment of inspiration... )? wouldn't you consider Close to the Edge a work of art of such magnitude? and why would rap be objectivist?

the only way in which what I said could be interpreted as progressive music being elitist is considering that some people can't appreciate complexity or understand meaningful lyrics....its like a painting, you don't have to be very educated to appreciate a nice landscape drawn with vey complex painting techniques...... but I do think that prog is an elitist genre in the way that its followers are only the people that are aware that popularity isn't a synonym of quality....

-------------
Michael's Sonic Kaleidoscope Mondays 5:00pm EST(re-runs Thursdays 3:00pm) @ Delicious Agony Progressive Rock Radio(http://www.deliciousagony.com)


Posted By: ProgressiveAttic
Date Posted: November 04 2009 at 15:21
true...that is why I said “from perception—to emotion—to appraisal—to conceptual understanding”....you first listen to it, you feel it and then you analyze it.... take Tarkus for example: the first time I listened to it I recognized the beautiful work of art it is and its amaizing message (lake’s anti-war lyrics linked with the extremely emotional music), and then I listened to it more closely, that’s when I realized the complexity of the music…. This two elements (and listens) allowed me to see the whole picture and appreciate the song as the masterpiece it is…..


-------------
Michael's Sonic Kaleidoscope Mondays 5:00pm EST(re-runs Thursdays 3:00pm) @ Delicious Agony Progressive Rock Radio(http://www.deliciousagony.com)


Posted By: Proletariat
Date Posted: November 04 2009 at 18:18
honestly i think that saying that progressive is a truly objective form of music is rather rediculous, but saying that it is THE objective music is downright insulting to artists everywhere. When prog came out it was somewhat revolutionary, but even then only somewhat. Prog musitians can be entirely true to themselves when creating music, but not as a rule. Punk, it could be argued, is atleast as objectivist. When the Sex Pistols came out their sound was LESS POPULAR than prog and it expressed some things that, no matter how rediculous, were what the musicians felt, it was thier outlook. it was objective. I think you could find your so called objectivist artists in any genre of any artform. Including pop.

-------------
who hiccuped endlessly trying to giggle but wound up with a sob


Posted By: Proletariat
Date Posted: November 04 2009 at 18:20
Also i feel that it would be pop rather than prog that would dominate in your "perfect" capitalist world


-------------
who hiccuped endlessly trying to giggle but wound up with a sob


Posted By: Isa
Date Posted: November 04 2009 at 20:48
I'm apparently one of the few people here who have actually read these novels and understand them. Wink

And I know exactly where you're coming from.

Music is NOT all created equal, in a sense, almost nothing is anyways in a non-religious context. I detest anyone who thinks that 50 cent's music has just as much OBJECTIVE artistic quality as Mozart.

With that premise in mind, we can say that progressive music is, in a sense, objectivist music in the sense that most of us here are just as MENTALLY, and thus rationally, stimulated by prog music (which is also why most of us prefer classical music to pop) as we are emotionally stimulated. I resolve, as elitist as anyone might consider me, that prog music in a literal sense (as in educated composition with meaning and inventiveness) is superior to mainstream popular music, which from an analytical standpoint usually has little essence whatsoever. I resolve that progressive music is OBJECTIVELY superior in compositional quality, PERIOD. Let the slandering begin. Tongue


-------------
The human heart longs for that which is true, good, and beautiful. This is why timeless music is never without these qualities.


Posted By: Alberto Muñoz
Date Posted: November 04 2009 at 20:52
I don't think that progresive rock is objetive music as you try to define.
 
You can't put the progressive rock in a context like Rand  try to develop in their novels.
 
And agree with proletariat pop would be dominate far more than truly do in the real world.
 
Is like to say that progressive rock is full of Plato's ideas.


-------------






Posted By: Alberto Muñoz
Date Posted: November 04 2009 at 20:54
Originally posted by ProgressiveAttic ProgressiveAttic wrote:

true...that is why I said “from perception—to emotion—to appraisal—to conceptual understanding”....you first listen to it, you feel it and then you analyze it.... take Tarkus for example: the first time I listened to it I recognized the beautiful work of art it is and its amaizing message (lake’s anti-war lyrics linked with the extremely emotional music), and then I listened to it more closely, that’s when I realized the complexity of the music…. This two elements (and listens) allowed me to see the whole picture and appreciate the song as the masterpiece it is…..
 
You do not have to read Rand to understand Tarkus.LOL
 
Better read this from a more musical point of view:
 


-------------






Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: November 04 2009 at 23:32
Some people apparently did not read OP's post about ObjectivISM since it's not even an issue of objectivity.

In general, the philosophical approach to appreciating art is tedious and boring. As opposed to maybe metaphysics, aesthetics does not seem to have an actual point to it, to me. It might only perpetuate "higher" forms of art, which more people can then say is superior to other scribbles or notes. It all gets one giant MEH from me.


-------------
http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!


Posted By: MaxerJ
Date Posted: November 05 2009 at 02:49
Many express distaste at the idea of 'elitism'. You do realise that this proves that elitism is important? Let me explain. We live in a money-class run capitalist society. The 'elites' - the bourgeoisie - dislike the idea of elitism because they hate anything more elite than them. The 'working man' - us, believe it or not - picks up on this idea and figures that being elite is a bad and unmoral thing to be. After all, the elites are the ones who got us into whatever mess/war we're in!

This example may sound like it's taken from some 1940's european country but it's actually still true today.

As for the idea of objectivism, well, I don't actually believe there is an objective truth or reality... just our perception. We can't ever prove prog is better... sadly, because everyone here knows it is. Also don't go aroudn saying all prog is based on complexity or virtuosity. Some of the old proggers will rage at you like nothing else.


-------------
Godspeed, You Bolero Enthusiasts
'Prog is all about leaving home...' - Moshkito


Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: November 05 2009 at 03:18
Originally posted by CPicard CPicard wrote:

The problem with this analysis is that it's disconnected with the historical context of the creation of progressive rock: this genre is born from the "collective soul" of the 60's counter-culture.


Yeah. The connection between progressive rock and Objectivism didn't exist until Rush and they've to my knowledge been more influential on heavy metal than on progressive rock both musically (I think Adrian Smith from Iron Maiden's biggest influence is Alex Lifeson) and maybe also ideologically. At the very least Objectivism is more compatible with the Nietzschean Übermensch powertrip sensibility of metal than with the hippie movement.

For the record, I also think there right now are too many retro-prog bands for the genre to be a mirror of the artistic ethos that The Fountainhead promotes if the reviews I've read of that book are accurate. The person alive right now who'd be the best candidate for "the Howard Roark of rock'n'roll" might possibly be someone like Mike Patton if we're going from big name musicians.




-------------
"The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook


Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: November 05 2009 at 09:13
I don't buy into Ayn Rand's political philosophy or those who admire it politically and economically speaking.  Noam Chomsky or Orwell anyone?  I'd recommend you check out their writings too if you haven't.

I don't have a problem with reality though.  The selfishness aspect is where it falls apart as a functioning philosophy for how to run things in human societies.  Laissez-faire capitalism is all about having masters and slaves.  Those with money and power are the masters, the rest of us are their slaves.  Another way to look at it is leeches and hosts.  All of these are of course over simplistic...

-------------
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...



Posted By: ProgressiveAttic
Date Posted: November 05 2009 at 16:03
you don't have to read rand to understand tarkus..... that's only a philosophic analysis of the process of appreciation of music....

-------------
Michael's Sonic Kaleidoscope Mondays 5:00pm EST(re-runs Thursdays 3:00pm) @ Delicious Agony Progressive Rock Radio(http://www.deliciousagony.com)


Posted By: fuxi
Date Posted: November 06 2009 at 08:43
Just gimme Mike Angelo's SEVENteenth chapter, any day!
I'm sorry but this popular (?) thinker's theories just don't make any sense.

"Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival."

This is simply untrue.

We perceive most of reality through our (limited) senses.
We try to make sense of it by using reason.
Perception and reason (or logic) are two different things.
Furthermore, we are not only guided by reason but also by our instincts and emotions.

"The pursuit of [man's] own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life."

This is a contradiction in terms. Moralism is concerned with the way human beings interact. How could your own SELF-interest ever be "the highest moral purpose of your life"? And even if Ayn Rand were not contradicting herself, what gives her the authority to pontificate on our highest moral purpose?


"Most pop music has no lyrical message or musical depth to be rationally enjoyed."

This is plain silly. ANY old lyric can be studied, analysed or, erm, "rationally enjoyed", from 'Singin' in the Rain' and 'Billy Jean' to 'The Revealing Science of God'. This doesn't mean, of course. that all lyrics are equally beautiful, but they all are a form of human communication and therefore, to some extent, rational.

Finally, I'm a classic rock/prog/jazz/and classical music nut, and I'm aware that Mozart's operas (to give just one example) are technically more sophisticated than any rock opera you can think of. I also happen to think they're great fun and deeply moving. But who's to say that they've got more "musical depth" than Abba's greatest hits?

First of all, what does "musical depth" actually mean? And secondly, it's well known that Abba's melodies, vocal harmonies, lyrics and instrumental arrangements are sophisticated. They certainly were good enough for the Swedish mezzo Anne Sofie von Otter, who devoted an entire album to them - and not to any other rock band! Von Otter made her name singing Mozart, Handel, Gluck, Richard Strauss, Schumann, Grieg and many other greats. She wouldn't touch Abba with a bargepole if there were nothing in it.

In other words: what may seem shallow to you, will be more than deep enough for plenty of other people.


Posted By: questionsneverknown
Date Posted: November 06 2009 at 09:51


Interesting post and a fine conversation starter.  
Still, as others have already pointed out, Objectivism is a deeply-flawed philosophy (okay, all philosophies are, but there's a reason no reputable Philosophy departments give any space to Rand's system of thought).  
Simply stating that "reality exists as an objective absolute" doesn't make it so.  More to the point Rand never offers a convincing proof that this is the case or is beyond debate.  
Philosophers have long contended with what's called the fact/value distinction (people steal is a fact, stealing is wrong is a value, but we can't say that stealing is wrong is a fact).  This is the ground of Rand's claim.  The problem is that Randists want to believe their value system is outside values, which is obviously a flawed claim, either as self-contradiction or outright hypocrisy.  Furthermore, Rand makes a false and overgeneralized binary of objective/subjective; they are many other gray areas between. 
 
Rand's faith in free-market capitalism is also, obviously, not value-free and hardly objective (or objectivist) in any way.  The only figure who has put Rand's radical economic vision into place is Milton Friedman (who, and here comes my value system a-singing, is a name people should be more aware of and couple with Hitler and Stalin).  Friedman's radical free-market capitalism was put into place in Pinochet's reign, was the ground for Reagan and Thatcher's gutting of help for the poor but not the rich, and part of the thinking behind the invasion of Iraq.  In case, this sounds conspiratorial and nutty, read Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine and David Harvey's A Brief History of Neoliberalism.  Rand's economic vision has been tested again and again and what has been shown is that a true free-market capitalism only exists under dictatorship, and usually one that employs torture.  
So, no Rand fan here.
What all this has to do with progressive music, I have no idea.  The music of an Objectivist (capitalist) world will be Britney Spears and all her successors not Yes, ELP or Univers Zero.




Posted By: MovingPictures07
Date Posted: November 06 2009 at 09:54
People on this forum are so misinformed about Rand's ideology.

You should have never posted this thread; you'll mainly get sh*t responses. Most people around here take any chance they get to bash it; I've since stopped even mentioning it.


-------------


Posted By: MovingPictures07
Date Posted: November 06 2009 at 09:56
Honestly, as a composer myself, I'd say I naturally have always approached composing and music much like Roark approached architecture.

Whether certain progressive composers felt the same way, I don't know. But like I said, this thread will become a useless piece of garbage, unfortunately.


-------------


Posted By: keiser willhelm
Date Posted: November 06 2009 at 10:12
first off, if you've read Rand's philosophy in any sort of depth you'll see that its rife with internal contradictions, let alone fallacies of logic. not much of a fan of her writing either, though ive read all 2000 pages of atlas shrugged.

in terms of the actual content of your post ill have to agree with fuxi mostly, although it seems silly to say that ABBA has as much musical depth as a mozart opera. depth is almost a quantifiable thing e.g range of tones, musical variety, melodies, complexity, arrangements etc. you wanted a definition for musical depth, i think you touched on it with technical aspects. certainly abbas vocal melodies and harmonies are well crafted (enough for Anne Sofie von Otter, even though a mezzo singing abba seems gimmicky to say the least, like a sort of marketing attempt)  Depth could also relate to lyrical subject and sophistication . . . 'momma mia, here i go again, my my, how can i forget you'  is not the deepest, most sophisticated expression of longing or love ive heard. but thats me being nit picky.

however shallow abba's music is when compared to mozart's, its not to say one is objectively better than the other. i personally dont like mozart all that much and would rather listen to a simple, 2/3 chord bob dylan song. 

objective analysis of a subjective thing, music, is just impossible. there are aspects of it you can nail down but as soon as you move to enjoyment or a 'good'/'better'/'best' sort of conclusion you lose any objectivity. 


-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/KeiserWillhelm" rel="nofollow - What im listening to


Posted By: keiser willhelm
Date Posted: November 06 2009 at 10:16
Originally posted by MovingPictures07 MovingPictures07 wrote:

People on this forum are so misinformed about Rand's ideology.

You should have never posted this thread; you'll mainly get sh*t responses. Most people around here take any chance they get to bash it; I've since stopped even mentioning it.

have you studied it at all? il grant you enjoying her books but her philosophy is LOGICALLY wrong - objectively flawed. Wink


-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/KeiserWillhelm" rel="nofollow - What im listening to


Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: November 06 2009 at 11:25
Originally posted by questionsneverknown questionsneverknown wrote:

The only figure who has put Rand's radical economic vision into place is Milton Friedman (who, and here comes my value system a-singing, is a name people should be more aware of and couple with Hitler and Stalin).  Friedman's radical free-market capitalism was put into place in Pinochet's reign, was the ground for Reagan and Thatcher's gutting of help for the poor but not the rich, and part of the thinking behind the invasion of Iraq.  In case, this sounds conspiratorial and nutty, read Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine and David Harvey's A Brief History of Neoliberalism.  Rand's economic vision has been tested again and again and what has been shown is that a true free-market capitalism only exists under dictatorship, and usually one that employs torture. 


I think you're overstating Ayn Rand's influence.

I'm a philosophy student at the University of Copenhagen and can say that while Ayn Rand is studied as the main popularizer of ethical egoism, there are many much more popular philosophers who make similar practical political recommendations for example Robert Nozick and Friedrich Hayek.

Rand is pretty obscure outside the United States so it is not very likely that Pinochet and Thatcher took their cues from her. Hell, I'm not sure even Milton Friedman was anywhere as influenced by Rand as by Hayek, going by the biographies and interviews I've read Hayek pops up as an inspiration much more than Rand does.


-------------
"The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook


Posted By: Henry Plainview
Date Posted: November 06 2009 at 13:39
Originally posted by MovingPictures07 MovingPictures07 wrote:

People on this forum are so misinformed about Rand's ideology.
So is point number three true or not? Because a lot of people have said yes, but a lot of people say no and dilute the statement to "People have to look out for themselves", which has no meaning because everybody believes that.


-------------
if you own a sodastream i hate you


Posted By: MovingPictures07
Date Posted: November 06 2009 at 13:40
Originally posted by keiser willhelm keiser willhelm wrote:

Originally posted by MovingPictures07 MovingPictures07 wrote:

People on this forum are so misinformed about Rand's ideology.

You should have never posted this thread; you'll mainly get sh*t responses. Most people around here take any chance they get to bash it; I've since stopped even mentioning it.

have you studied it at all? il grant you enjoying her books but her philosophy is LOGICALLY wrong - objectively flawed. Wink


I've read all 4 of her books 5+ times, and also many of her other writings.

Just because you don't get it doesn't mean it's objectively flawed. Don't insult other people simply because you disagree with something, thanks. It makes you look like a jackass.


-------------


Posted By: MovingPictures07
Date Posted: November 06 2009 at 13:42
Originally posted by Henry Plainview Henry Plainview wrote:

Originally posted by MovingPictures07 MovingPictures07 wrote:

People on this forum are so misinformed about Rand's ideology.
So is point number three true or not? Because a lot of people have said yes, but a lot of people say no and dilute the statement to "People have to look out for themselves", which has no meaning because everybody believes that.


Point number three is correct, yes.

A person simply has to understand the difference between being rightfully selfish and being "selfish" in a completely irrational and selfless sort of way. This dichotomy is presented perfectly in The Fountainead, where I'd say Roark is the Randian example of the former and Peter Keating the example of the latter.

Additionally, there's a difference between what is advocated in point number three and going out of your way to screw someone else, which is not advocated by implication.


-------------


Posted By: rdtprog
Date Posted: November 06 2009 at 14:02
[QUOTE keiser willhelm



objective analysis of a subjective thing, music, is just impossible. there are aspects of it you can nail down but as soon as you move to enjoyment or a 'good'/'better'/'best' sort of conclusion you lose any objectivity. 
[/QUOTE]

Everyone fall into the same trap of putting subjectivism over objectivism. There's someting like inter subjectivism or super subjectivism that describe the energy that operate in music or any work of art. Something that brings everyone together despite everyone taste and opinions. It's true that expression "Good, better or best" doesn't explain the essence of music, because not only you loose any objectivity but you stay confine in your own subjectivity.  Music is not more subjective than objective.


-------------
Music is the refuge of souls ulcerated by happiness.

Emile M. Cioran









Posted By: Alberto Muñoz
Date Posted: November 06 2009 at 14:07
Originally posted by MovingPictures07 MovingPictures07 wrote:

Originally posted by keiser willhelm keiser willhelm wrote:

Originally posted by MovingPictures07 MovingPictures07 wrote:

People on this forum are so misinformed about Rand's ideology.

You should have never posted this thread; you'll mainly get sh*t responses. Most people around here take any chance they get to bash it; I've since stopped even mentioning it.

have you studied it at all? il grant you enjoying her books but her philosophy is LOGICALLY wrong - objectively flawed. Wink


I've read all 4 of her books 5+ times, and also many of her other writings.

Just because you don't get it doesn't mean it's objectively flawed. Don't insult other people simply because you disagree with something, thanks. It makes you look like a jackass.
 
So, Moving Pictures07 enlight us, if you think that we are misinformend about Rand, or you going to do what Roark done, saving his ego for the best. Wink


-------------






Posted By: Alberto Muñoz
Date Posted: November 06 2009 at 14:11
Besides, i read Naomi Klein Book, (Shock Doctrine), and i agree with Toaster, Rand have little or no influence outside U.S.
 
I think it's like Paulo Coelho book's he write good novels but don't expect a philosophical book in there. 
 
And i wonder if Coelho is big outside latinamerica.


-------------






Posted By: MovingPictures07
Date Posted: November 06 2009 at 14:22
Originally posted by Alberto Muñoz Alberto Muñoz wrote:

Originally posted by MovingPictures07 MovingPictures07 wrote:

Originally posted by keiser willhelm keiser willhelm wrote:

Originally posted by MovingPictures07 MovingPictures07 wrote:

People on this forum are so misinformed about Rand's ideology.

You should have never posted this thread; you'll mainly get sh*t responses. Most people around here take any chance they get to bash it; I've since stopped even mentioning it.

have you studied it at all? il grant you enjoying her books but her philosophy is LOGICALLY wrong - objectively flawed. Wink


I've read all 4 of her books 5+ times, and also many of her other writings.

Just because you don't get it doesn't mean it's objectively flawed. Don't insult other people simply because you disagree with something, thanks. It makes you look like a jackass.
 
So, Moving Pictures07 enlight us, if you think that we are misinformend about Rand, or you going to do what Roark done, saving his ego for the best. Wink


Don't patronize me; it's degrading on your part.

Don't you think it's disrespectful for an individual (or individuals) to come in here and totally imply that anyone who finds any sort of logical value in Rand's writings and what she valued in her life as incorrect or stupid?

In reality, it takes a certain type of mindset to be able to relate with Rand's ideals (I hesitate to use the word Objectivism, as I personally dislike restrictive labels). If anyone has actually given her books a chance and honestly came to them with an open mind and thereafter concluded that the idealistic system doesn't make sense to them, then that's great. Simply don't advocate it then, but don't go around implying that Rand or anyone who does find value in her writings is of substandard intelligence simply because they don't make sense to you. I'm sure you (and others) wouldn't like the same treatment.

Rand wouldn't have asked for anyone to follow her ideals; they were simply how she saw the world. I'm the first person to admit that I do not follow anyone else's views and that I do not 100% agree with everything that Rand advocated.

The main tenants of what has become the Objectivist philosophy, however, are ideals in which I've found value and a sense of logical order in reality and specifically in my life's journey. The clear fact is... every individual looks at reality through his or her own individualistic lens. It makes reality itself no different, but simply the perception is different living through the eyes of any particular person. It does not change anything that may be self-evident in actuality. The four basic summaries that were provided at the beginning of the thread are particularly indicative of this Objectivist philosophy; and they are points that I find to be invaluable and logical in every sense of both words.

If you're closed-minded, there's nothing I can do to convince you otherwise that they make sense. Besides, it doesn't hurt me if you don't find value in a certain ideal; you are free to live your life however you wish so long as you do not violate anyone else's same right. I simply find it ridiculous when people come into a thread like this and proclaim that something that is rationally founded as illogical; it's almost like a bunch of religious zealots complaining about people having beliefs that are different than theirs.


-------------


Posted By: questionsneverknown
Date Posted: November 06 2009 at 14:24
Originally posted by Toaster Mantis Toaster Mantis wrote:

 

I think you're overstating Ayn Rand's influence.

I'm a philosophy student at the University of Copenhagen and can say that while Ayn Rand is studied as the main popularizer of ethical egoism, there are many much more popular philosophers who make similar practical political recommendations for example Robert Nozick and Friedrich Hayek.

Rand is pretty obscure outside the United States so it is not very likely that Pinochet and Thatcher took their cues from her. Hell, I'm not sure even Milton Friedman was anywhere as influenced by Rand as by Hayek, going by the biographies and interviews I've read Hayek pops up as an inspiration much more than Rand does.

Yes, I concede--I was overstating the case.  Nozick and Hayek were clearly much more directly influential on Friedman than Rand.  My point wasn't meant to be so much about direct influence, though; merely that Friedman's model of radical free marketism is the most concrete model in practice we have of Rand's economic ideals.  Poorly stated (and implied) on my part.  
I think you are right about placing Rand in a line of thinkers of ethical egoism, a type of thinking which has found adherents in nineteenth-century anarchists and twentieth-century libertarians and beyond.  Rand's model is just, for me, not consistent or persuasive (and yes I have read her works).  



Posted By: MovingPictures07
Date Posted: November 06 2009 at 14:28
Originally posted by questionsneverknown questionsneverknown wrote:

Originally posted by Toaster Mantis Toaster Mantis wrote:

 

I think you're overstating Ayn Rand's influence.

I'm a philosophy student at the University of Copenhagen and can say that while Ayn Rand is studied as the main popularizer of ethical egoism, there are many much more popular philosophers who make similar practical political recommendations for example Robert Nozick and Friedrich Hayek.

Rand is pretty obscure outside the United States so it is not very likely that Pinochet and Thatcher took their cues from her. Hell, I'm not sure even Milton Friedman was anywhere as influenced by Rand as by Hayek, going by the biographies and interviews I've read Hayek pops up as an inspiration much more than Rand does.

Yes, I concede--I was overstating the case.  Nozick and Hayek were clearly much more directly influential on Friedman than Rand.  My point wasn't meant to be so much about direct influence, though; merely that Friedman's model of radical free marketism is the most concrete model in practice we have of Rand's economic ideals.  Poorly stated (and implied) on my part.  
I think you are right about placing Rand in a line of thinkers of ethical egoism, a type of thinking which has found adherents in nineteenth-century anarchists and twentieth-century libertarians and beyond.  Rand's model is just, for me, not consistent or persuasive (and yes I have read her works).  



That's fine by me, frankly. If you've read her works and find even absolutely nothing of any value whatsoever in them, I don't care. That's the wonders of everyone being different, unique individuals; you get differences in perspectives.

I also echo that Rand's influence was not in the right historic era nor popularized enough in Europe or many places outside of the U.S. to have that magnanimous of an impact. I'd agree that Thatcher and others probably were not directly influenced by Rand.


-------------


Posted By: Alberto Muñoz
Date Posted: November 06 2009 at 14:38
Originally posted by MovingPictures07 MovingPictures07 wrote:

Originally posted by Alberto Muñoz Alberto Muñoz wrote:

Originally posted by MovingPictures07 MovingPictures07 wrote:

Originally posted by keiser willhelm keiser willhelm wrote:

Originally posted by MovingPictures07 MovingPictures07 wrote:

People on this forum are so misinformed about Rand's ideology.

You should have never posted this thread; you'll mainly get sh*t responses. Most people around here take any chance they get to bash it; I've since stopped even mentioning it.

have you studied it at all? il grant you enjoying her books but her philosophy is LOGICALLY wrong - objectively flawed. Wink


I've read all 4 of her books 5+ times, and also many of her other writings.

Just because you don't get it doesn't mean it's objectively flawed. Don't insult other people simply because you disagree with something, thanks. It makes you look like a jackass.
 
So, Moving Pictures07 enlight us, if you think that we are misinformend about Rand, or you going to do what Roark done, saving his ego for the best. Wink


Don't patronize me; it's degrading on your part.
 
I do not patronize you, you are feeling like that

Don't you think it's disrespectful for an individual (or individuals) to come in here and totally imply that anyone who finds any sort of logical value in Rand's writings and what she valued in her life as incorrect or stupid?
 
I haven't said that  in the first place, would you mind if you read what i say?

In reality, it takes a certain type of mindset to be able to relate with Rand's ideals (I hesitate to use the word Objectivism, as I personally dislike restrictive labels). If anyone has actually given her books a chance and honestly came to them with an open mind and thereafter concluded that the idealistic system doesn't make sense to them, then that's great. Simply don't advocate it then, but don't go around implying that Rand or anyone who does find value in her writings is of substandard intelligence simply because they don't make sense to you. I'm sure you (and others) wouldn't like the same treatment.
 
I haven't said that she was or have substandard intelligence, i say that is a good writer but i didn't say that she was stupid or sor of.

Rand wouldn't have asked for anyone to follow her ideals; they were simply how she saw the world. I'm the first person to admit that I do not follow anyone else's views and that I do not 100% agree with everything that Rand advocated.
 
Agree

The main tenants of what has become the Objectivist philosophy, however, are ideals in which I've found value and a sense of logical order in reality and specifically in my life's journey. The clear fact is... every individual looks at reality through his or her own individualistic lens. It makes reality itself no different, but simply the perception is different living through the eyes of any particular person. It does not change anything that may be self-evident in actuality. The four basic summaries that were provided at the beginning of the thread are particularly indicative of this Objectivist philosophy; and they are points that I find to be invaluable and logical in every sense of both words.

If you're closed-minded, there's nothing I can do to convince you otherwise that they make sense. Besides, it doesn't hurt me if you don't find value in a certain ideal; you are free to live your life however you wish so long as you do not violate anyone else's same right. I simply find it ridiculous when people come into a thread like this and proclaim that something that is rationally founded as illogical; it's almost like a bunch of religious zealots complaining about people having beliefs that are different than theirs.
 
So, being in disagree with Rand ideas convert me in a close minded person?? that sounds like  you are an intolerant person, and i think you are not that kind....
 
Your freedom that you praise in your last paragraph, vanish when people don't agree with your ideas.
 
Shame on you.
 
And don't mind to answer i will not read your post, not interest for me



-------------






Posted By: MovingPictures07
Date Posted: November 06 2009 at 15:00
Originally posted by Alberto Muñoz Alberto Muñoz wrote:

Originally posted by MovingPictures07 MovingPictures07 wrote:

Originally posted by Alberto Muñoz Alberto Muñoz wrote:

Originally posted by MovingPictures07 MovingPictures07 wrote:

Originally posted by keiser willhelm keiser willhelm wrote:

Originally posted by MovingPictures07 MovingPictures07 wrote:

People on this forum are so misinformed about Rand's ideology.

You should have never posted this thread; you'll mainly get sh*t responses. Most people around here take any chance they get to bash it; I've since stopped even mentioning it.

have you studied it at all? il grant you enjoying her books but her philosophy is LOGICALLY wrong - objectively flawed. Wink


I've read all 4 of her books 5+ times, and also many of her other writings.

Just because you don't get it doesn't mean it's objectively flawed. Don't insult other people simply because you disagree with something, thanks. It makes you look like a jackass.
 
So, Moving Pictures07 enlight us, if you think that we are misinformend about Rand, or you going to do what Roark done, saving his ego for the best. Wink


Don't patronize me; it's degrading on your part.
 
I do not patronize you, you are feeling like that

Don't you think it's disrespectful for an individual (or individuals) to come in here and totally imply that anyone who finds any sort of logical value in Rand's writings and what she valued in her life as incorrect or stupid?
 
I haven't said that  in the first place, would you mind if you read what i say?

In reality, it takes a certain type of mindset to be able to relate with Rand's ideals (I hesitate to use the word Objectivism, as I personally dislike restrictive labels). If anyone has actually given her books a chance and honestly came to them with an open mind and thereafter concluded that the idealistic system doesn't make sense to them, then that's great. Simply don't advocate it then, but don't go around implying that Rand or anyone who does find value in her writings is of substandard intelligence simply because they don't make sense to you. I'm sure you (and others) wouldn't like the same treatment.
 
I haven't said that she was or have substandard intelligence, i say that is a good writer but i didn't say that she was stupid or sor of.

Rand wouldn't have asked for anyone to follow her ideals; they were simply how she saw the world. I'm the first person to admit that I do not follow anyone else's views and that I do not 100% agree with everything that Rand advocated.
 
Agree

The main tenants of what has become the Objectivist philosophy, however, are ideals in which I've found value and a sense of logical order in reality and specifically in my life's journey. The clear fact is... every individual looks at reality through his or her own individualistic lens. It makes reality itself no different, but simply the perception is different living through the eyes of any particular person. It does not change anything that may be self-evident in actuality. The four basic summaries that were provided at the beginning of the thread are particularly indicative of this Objectivist philosophy; and they are points that I find to be invaluable and logical in every sense of both words.

If you're closed-minded, there's nothing I can do to convince you otherwise that they make sense. Besides, it doesn't hurt me if you don't find value in a certain ideal; you are free to live your life however you wish so long as you do not violate anyone else's same right. I simply find it ridiculous when people come into a thread like this and proclaim that something that is rationally founded as illogical; it's almost like a bunch of religious zealots complaining about people having beliefs that are different than theirs.
 
So, being in disagree with Rand ideas convert me in a close minded person?? that sounds like  you are an intolerant person, and i think you are not that kind....
 
Your freedom that you praise in your last paragraph, vanish when people don't agree with your ideas.
 
Shame on you.
 
And don't mind to answer i will not read your post, not interest for me



I never said anything about "Alberto Munoz" in there, did I? I never said you were closed-minded; I said "if you are closed-minded, then...". Additionally, it would be closed-minded of you to not even listen to the opposition argument but proclaim that it doesn't make any sense.

I find it hilariously ironic that you will not read any responses to your post and then call me intolerant.


-------------


Posted By: Alberto Muñoz
Date Posted: November 06 2009 at 15:04

^ Moving Pictures07 , don't try to play the fool on me ok??AngryAngryAngryAngry

 
See the quotes for adittional info. Did you read my name (actually is my real name BTW) and you answer to me if you quote my post.
 
 


-------------






Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: November 06 2009 at 15:43
Originally posted by MovingPictures07 MovingPictures07 wrote:

I simply find it ridiculous when people come into a thread like this and proclaim that something that is rationally founded as illogical; it's almost like a bunch of religious zealots complaining about people having beliefs that are different than theirs.
 
Well if it is, then it should be debunked (perhaps with zeal).
 
Personally, I've never been arsed to read much of her work because (1) she struck as standoffish arrogant person (2) most of them are long as f**k (3) "selfishness" as a foundational basis for acting seems bad. Could be otherwise, but other philosophies appeal to me more.


-------------
http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!


Posted By: fuxi
Date Posted: November 06 2009 at 16:34
1. Moving Pictures, you react to rational criticism (of Rand's ideas etc.) in a highly emotional manner.

2. There's no doubt in my mind that composers like Mozart (or Beethoven, or Prokofiev, or Duke Ellington, or Miles Davis, or Frank Zappa) wrote a large amount of music that's of much greater value than the collected works of Abba.

Why - just for Mozart's piano concertos I'd gladly give up the collected works of Abba, Prince AND Bobby Dylan for ever!

Bjorn and Benny, Abba's composers, seem to go along with this way of thinking. Time and time again they've expressed amazement that their (instantly disposable) music from the 1970s has apparently lasted. They never had too many artistic pretensions.

Nevertheless, if you'll allow me to return to Anne Sofie von Otter (one of the most ravishing female voices to emerge in the past 30 years): when you hear her sing one of Abba's obscurest tracks, "Like an Angel Passing through my Room" (on the album she recorded with Elvis Costello), it sounds just as beautiful as anything she ever performed by Schumann or Grieg. And NOT just because of that voice.


Posted By: Alberto Muñoz
Date Posted: November 06 2009 at 17:15
Originally posted by fuxi fuxi wrote:

1. Moving Pictures, you react to rational criticism (of Rand's ideas etc.) in a highly emotional manner.

.
That's usually is when a (insert word here) ism is around .


-------------






Posted By: CPicard
Date Posted: November 06 2009 at 17:57
Originally posted by fuxi fuxi wrote:



2. There's no doubt in my mind that composers like Mozart (or Beethoven, or Prokofiev, or Duke Ellington, or Miles Davis, or Frank Zappa) wrote a large amount of music that's of much greater value than the collected works of Abba.



WHAT??? ShockedShockedShockedShockedShockedShocked AngryAngryAngryAngryAngryAngry







Zappa is overrated.


Posted By: MaxerJ
Date Posted: November 07 2009 at 05:01
Going back to the start with Progressive Attic to show some of the downfalls of objective thinking:

1. Reason is an objective absolute? Sorry, no. Facts are not facts... they are probabilities. Hypothetical situation: You grow seven identical sunflowers in seven identical boxes in identical sunlight. After they grow, you record how they grow, the speed of growth and various facts about the plants.

Here's the clincher: You still can't say you know for a fact how a sunflower grows.

You could do the exact same test a billion times and you still couldn't give any solid facts about the growth of the sunflowers. What you can give is probabilities, and that's all you can give. Law of Gravity? Probability. Thermodynamics? Probability. There is no such thing as facts, because to prove a fact would require an infinite number of identical tests, and I don't have that amount of sunflower seeds on me at this time.

2. 'Reason is man's only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge...' Close, but not quite. Actually, perception is man's only means of perceiving reality. As proven above, reason is an empty idea. Man has no reason, save the reason he creates himself.

You talk as if reason was some universal force, sweeping across humanity to help rational people make good choices. That's the biggest load of bullocks I've ever heard.

3. Yeah, I got nothing. This is basically true on a biological scale, where self-preservation is only overpowered by the need to reproduce. However, sociologically, self preservation and happiness is not a higher purpose than anything else: there is no higher purpose, no reason for us to do one thing instead of the other.

Stick that in your objective pipe and smoke it.

4. Capitalism will never be the ideal political-economic system. I don't know what is, but laissez-faire or not, it's not the big C.

Unfortunately, now that we've started the capital rocking bull, it's not ever gonna stop. It's like someone who is immortal, but still gets older. It just keeps getting worse and worse, but you know it's never gonna die.

Why does everyone, even proggers, think that pretensiousness or elitism is a bad thing? It's no better or worse than being simplistic and base. It's just different. Christ, this pisses me off.

Honestly, you probably are really well-read and have excellent thinking, but this just sounds like me when I first read Alan Moore... just some guy who thinks the universe has opened up to them. Then again, i did to a very similar http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=61684 - thread .

Originally posted by rdtprog rdtprog wrote:

Progressive music is "super subjective".

Precisely.Clap


Originally posted by Proletariat Proletariat wrote:

Also i feel that it would be pop rather than prog that would dominate in your "perfect" capitalist world

Yeah. It would rely on tried and true methods, and that's not prog (no, not even prog-by-numbers bands)


Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

  Noam Chomsky or Orwell anyone?

Doesn't Chomsky hate subjectivity? He always came across as a real right-winger... maybe I'm just taking this off him getting angry at post-modernists.

The point about pop having less value objectively than prog... yes this is true completely. It is less.... everything!

Originally posted by rdtprog rdtprog wrote:


Everyone fall into the same trap of putting subjectivism over objectivism.

That's because it is over objectivism.

Originally posted by rdtprog rdtprog wrote:


Something that brings everyone together despite everyone taste and opinions.

No. That is called a 'super-cultural artifact' in post-modernism. It's something that pervades all cultural groups because it is an intregal part of their cultural construct. Everyone may love Stairway to Heaven or Bohemian Rahpsody, but all that shows is that they are pervading cultural boundaries(I could explain how but it would take me a long time), not that they are 'universally loved'. Ask if you really want this explained more.


In an objective world, we could think of ourselves as looking for 'heightened music' much in the vein of philosophers trying to define poetry (what is poetry? we can only say 'heightened language') than we can say that mainstream music is less heightened - musically, emotionally, mentally. It would then be easy to prove this to everyone, and we could overcome the pathetic attempt at music that we call 'The Top 40' and all would be good in the world.
Oh and the classic Genesis lineup would announce this kickass tour and then afterwards go into the studios and record seven albums simultaneously and destroy cities with their magnitude.

Sadly, we do not live in an objectivist world. If there's one point teenage pop-lovers have taken away from post-modernism (and they repeat it until you want to goddamn kill them) it's 'Well, that's just your opinion!'

And they're right. It is just my subjective opinion. We are all socially constructed by our environment, so how can we say our choices are subjectively better than anyone elses? We can't, not in a subjective world where there is no truth, no facts. Musical depth? Can't prove anything. All music, whether it's a 200-strong orchestral suite or a thirteen-year old stumming on an acoustic, all the figures in the world couldn't say one is better than the other.

So here's a new tact to take. If someone says to you (and they will) 'All music is equal, man!' Say back to them, 'You can say all music is equal, but then you have to say not all music is given equal chance.' Because prog isn't, and this is the only holding card we've got. Mainstream shies away from music with too much complexity or depth, and we must demand that this music is given equal publicity with all the cheap, cookie-cutter music.

P.S. Moving Pictures07 - Rage, man. Rage all you want. But it doesn't mean that Rand's philosophy is any less objective and therefore LOGICALLY and PHILOSOPHICALLY wrong. You brought it upon yourself with 'sh*t responses'. Yet again someone carried away in their own 'mystic snake oil'.

I can't prove subjectivity to anyone. But that's the whole goddamn point.


-------------
Godspeed, You Bolero Enthusiasts
'Prog is all about leaving home...' - Moshkito


Posted By: fuxi
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 14:43
Originally posted by CPicard CPicard wrote:


WHAT??? ShockedShockedShockedShockedShockedShocked AngryAngryAngryAngryAngryAngryZappa is overrated.



Now what do you mean by THAT, sir? I didn't say Zappa was as great as Duke!


Posted By: geddyx12112
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 15:12
I would agree that prog is indeed objective to a certain extent, and i know where your coming from because I have read a few of Rand's books. the thing with prog though is that not all of the bands are objective. I would never consider Dream Theater or Marillion particularly objective bands. However, bands like Rush, Zappa and King Crimson were all very, very objective.  I say this because they wanted to revolutionize music, and they did so by going about it their own way.  It works the same way in a lot of other genres. For example, in rap, I would consider Run DMC and Tupac to both be onjective, because they revoluitionized music with their own beliefs, regardless of how much I hate rap they were damn influential. Whereas musicians like Marillion or 50 cent just sort of refurbished other peoples concepts. My point being that their are indeed a lot of objective progressive bands, their is objectivity in a lot of other genres as well, it exists in basically all of them except for pop.


Posted By: CPicard
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 15:38
Originally posted by fuxi fuxi wrote:

Originally posted by CPicard CPicard wrote:


WHAT??? ShockedShockedShockedShockedShockedShocked AngryAngryAngryAngryAngryAngryZappa is overrated.



Now what do you mean by THAT, sir? I didn't say Zappa was as great as Duke!


I never said I was serious.


Posted By: debrewguy
Date Posted: November 08 2009 at 19:56
funny coincidence  ... my buddy was telling me about how much pot he used to smoke in college and discuss Philosophy until the pizza delivery man arrived LOL

-------------
"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.


Posted By: Dorsalia
Date Posted: November 09 2009 at 15:23
Make light of those who don't make light of themselves, for nobody will inherit the earth.


Posted By: Alberto Muñoz
Date Posted: November 09 2009 at 17:56
Originally posted by debrewguy debrewguy wrote:

funny coincidence  ... my buddy was telling me about how much pot he used to smoke in college and discuss Philosophy until the pizza delivery man arrived LOL
 
LOLLOLLOLLOLLOLClap


-------------






Posted By: RoyFairbank
Date Posted: November 10 2009 at 21:33
Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

I don't buy into Ayn Rand's political philosophy or those who admire it politically and economically speaking.  Noam Chomsky or Orwell anyone?  I'd recommend you check out their writings too if you haven't.

I don't have a problem with reality though.  The selfishness aspect is where it falls apart as a functioning philosophy for how to run things in human societies.  Laissez-faire capitalism is all about having masters and slaves.  Those with money and power are the masters, the rest of us are their slaves.  Another way to look at it is leeches and hosts.  All of these are of course over simplistic...


Here here.

I've only read this far in this thread but there you go, that just about says it.

I would add too what others have said: Prog emerged from the 60s causally modernist counter-culture. Prog was/is a broadly modernist art form in a period of decline for social modernism and the period of ascent of post-modernist art forms, which really came into their own with Punk coinciding with the final gutting of what was underlying Prog socially in the 1970s.

Consider "Back in NYC" from Lamb Lies Down: Animals, The Final Cut, "you must believe in the human race" from Tarkus... this is spontaneously modernist, materialist music, Neil Peart aside. The ideologues of Capitalism, like Pierce, began with a Pragmatism (or Pragmaticism with Pierce) that was still much like materialism, but starting with William James and developing rapidly until you get Rorty you have Pragmatism turning into a post-modernistic ideology.

Interestingly, one of those who inspired Orwell to write 1984, James Burnham, was a New York intellectual who went from being a Trotskyist to being one of the founding fathers of Neo-Liberalism, a cold war hawk and the winner of a medal from Reagen. Orwell was on the same path. The rejection of modernist principles of society, social contradictions and historical development leads into the dead-ends of post-modernism, skepticism, positivism, solipsism and always the crassest individualism and worshiping of the accomplished fact (namely, capitalism and society as it is today).



Posted By: tamijo
Date Posted: November 11 2009 at 08:09
I Agree with Everything said in this tread.
 
Subjetively that is !
 
But im a Zen Buddist you know, i have to love everything.
 
Subjectively that is !
 
Objectively i know its all just Bullshizt, and would be so absurd if we were all starving african's.
 
  


-------------
Prog is whatevey you want it to be. So dont diss other peoples prog, and they wont diss yours


Posted By: Silverbeard McStarr
Date Posted: November 11 2009 at 15:38
Originally posted by Proletariat Proletariat wrote:

Also i feel that it would be pop rather than prog that would dominate in your "perfect" capitalist world

Not really. In a capitalist world there would be markets. They would be of different in size, but that's natural seeing as more people are involved in certain markets than other. Sure, pop would have the biggest market. but there would be a market for prog as well. As long as there is a demand there is an output.


Posted By: keiser willhelm
Date Posted: November 12 2009 at 15:18
Originally posted by MovingPictures07 MovingPictures07 wrote:

Originally posted by keiser willhelm keiser willhelm wrote:

Originally posted by MovingPictures07 MovingPictures07 wrote:

People on this forum are so misinformed about Rand's ideology.

You should have never posted this thread; you'll mainly get sh*t responses. Most people around here take any chance they get to bash it; I've since stopped even mentioning it.

have you studied it at all? il grant you enjoying her books but her philosophy is LOGICALLY wrong - objectively flawed. Wink


I've read all 4 of her books 5+ times, and also many of her other writings.

Just because you don't get it doesn't mean it's objectively flawed. Don't insult other people simply because you disagree with something, thanks. It makes you look like a jackass.


4 or 5 times each! Shocked
That must have taken years.

Just because i "dont get it" ? Now who's insulting who. ive read atlas shrugged in my own time and most of fountainhead as well as "The Virtue of Selfishness", the later of which ive STUDIED. in depth. and i wasnt just disagreeing with her philosophy, i was telling you that its inherantly flawed and her arguments dont make logical sense, which is ironic seeing as she tauted rationality as the highest order of existence (the only order in fact)

 i had no intention of insulting you, your post was just condescending enough to warrant a response. I just got uptight when you implied that everyone on this forum who disagreed with ayn rand was misinformed and eager to spew sh*t from their frothing, foaming mouths. my bad, i guess that makes me a jackass.




-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/KeiserWillhelm" rel="nofollow - What im listening to


Posted By: MovingPictures07
Date Posted: November 12 2009 at 18:00
Originally posted by keiser willhelm keiser willhelm wrote:

Originally posted by MovingPictures07 MovingPictures07 wrote:

Originally posted by keiser willhelm keiser willhelm wrote:

Originally posted by MovingPictures07 MovingPictures07 wrote:

People on this forum are so misinformed about Rand's ideology.

You should have never posted this thread; you'll mainly get sh*t responses. Most people around here take any chance they get to bash it; I've since stopped even mentioning it.

have you studied it at all? il grant you enjoying her books but her philosophy is LOGICALLY wrong - objectively flawed. Wink


I've read all 4 of her books 5+ times, and also many of her other writings.

Just because you don't get it doesn't mean it's objectively flawed. Don't insult other people simply because you disagree with something, thanks. It makes you look like a jackass.


4 or 5 times each! Shocked
That must have taken years.

Just because i "dont get it" ? Now who's insulting who. ive read atlas shrugged in my own time and most of fountainhead as well as "The Virtue of Selfishness", the later of which ive STUDIED. in depth. and i wasnt just disagreeing with her philosophy, i was telling you that its inherantly flawed and her arguments dont make logical sense, which is ironic seeing as she tauted rationality as the highest order of existence (the only order in fact)

 i had no intention of insulting you, your post was just condescending enough to warrant a response. I just got uptight when you implied that everyone on this forum who disagreed with ayn rand was misinformed and eager to spew sh*t from their frothing, foaming mouths. my bad, i guess that makes me a jackass.




Not everyone on this forum; it's simply extremely annoying when people completely disregard Ayn Rand's books when then thereafter they illustrate hardly any understanding of her philosophy. At times it seems like pretty much everyone is that way, but I do know that's not true.

If you think her arguments don't make logical sense, then there's nothing I can do.


-------------


Posted By: Epignosis
Date Posted: November 12 2009 at 18:46
Ayn Rand is an awful fiction writer.

Otherwise, Objectivism ftw.

And I'm a Christian.

How do you like that?  Approve


Posted By: Alberto Muñoz
Date Posted: November 12 2009 at 18:48
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Ayn Rand is an awful fiction writer.

Otherwise, Objectivism ftw.

And I'm a Christian.

How do you like that?  Approve
 
Clap


-------------






Posted By: fuxi
Date Posted: November 14 2009 at 03:26
If any self-styled philosopher's ideas are posted here, in the spirit of "take 'm or leave 'm", and if they are associated in a rather haphazard manner with what we call "Progressive Music" (an extremely broad church!) surely it is acceptable to criticise them.

But I don't want to sound nasty - I really adore ProgressiveAttic's icon.

By the way, does anyone study literature here? If you do, you will know that, throughout the centuries, all authors you can think of have been subjected to criticism of a Christian, post-Christian, humanist, rationalist, sentimentalist, romantic, idealist, Marxist, feminist, anti-communist, modernist, postmodernist, post-colonialist, neo-historicist [etc. etc.] nature. You could easily do the same to "Progressive Music". To ALL its different strands. You could make your career that way - bonne chance!


Posted By: Silverbeard McStarr
Date Posted: November 14 2009 at 10:55
To be a real objectivist I'd say you'd have to give up religion. Religion is anything but objectivist, it's subjective and while religion can be a perfectly fine way to live your life, it's not objective. I am an objectivist myself, and while I'd love for people to get involved with the philosophy, I really don't get how religious people can so proudly call themselves objectivists.


Posted By: Bitterblogger
Date Posted: November 16 2009 at 22:37
Originally posted by Silverbeard McStarr Silverbeard McStarr wrote:

To be a real objectivist I'd say you'd have to give up religion. Religion is anything but objectivist, it's subjective and while religion can be a perfectly fine way to live your life, it's not objective. I am an objectivist myself, and while I'd love for people to get involved with the philosophy, I really don't get how religious people can so proudly call themselves objectivists.
If you'd "love" for people to become objectivists, then you can't be one, since that's subjective.Wink


Posted By: Prometheus
Date Posted: November 17 2009 at 23:06

if the tenets of Objectivism have anything to do with Prog music, or music in general, it can only be inasmuch as we like to think that it is the creative product of an individual purely for the sake of that individual's desire to create. This is an absolute ideal, and so likely a stretch, but beyond that what is it about prog that makes us say this? nothing. it can be said about any genre from classical to country. i mean this in the nicest way possible, but stop using your pop-philosophy to uphold your personal aesthetics.
Objectivism is flawed from the get-go by merely assuming the objective existence of an external reality; i'd go so far as to say that it begs the question by assuming the nature of what it's epistemology out to deduce, but even if that isn't the case it's just silly. Rand pulls together a weak version of Platonic epistemology, grafts it to out-of context versions of Kantian ethics and politics, and just otherwise ignore the rest of Western Philosophy. I strongly suggest that you go and pick up The Critique of Pure Reason by Kant if you want a real philosophy, one that utterly destroys Rand's feeble attempt (she obviously chose to ignore it)
ultimately the only thing that makes music meaningful is your own subjective perception of it, and ultimately the only thing that differentiates it from mere noise or the jumble of the senses is your own subjective mind. objectivity, in any case, has no place in a discussion of aesthetics, and only a limiting role in epistemology or metaphysics, i'd say.


-------------
"Tell me why world, unfathomable and good,
The beauty of everything is infinite and cruel."
--Kayo Dot


Posted By: freyacat
Date Posted: November 19 2009 at 18:02
I think of progressive music as having greater kinship to Romanticism, art of the flowery, indulgent kind, which dares to seek cosmic truth in the act of music-making.

I actually don't think of Ayn Rand as a very musical philosopher.  But I think that the musical expressions which would fit her worldview best are forms which don't depend on collective composition or improvisation.  Singer-Songwriters or solo instrumentalists.  Anything that aggrandizes the individual.

By the way, Ayn Rand was an atheist, and it gives me a twinge of irony when I hear Christian conservatives espousing her ideas.


-------------
sad creature nailed upon the coloured door of time


Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: November 20 2009 at 02:47
Originally posted by Prometheus Prometheus wrote:


Objectivism is flawed from the get-go by merely assuming the objective existence of an external reality; i'd go so far as to say that it begs the question by assuming the nature of what it's epistemology out to deduce, but even if that isn't the case it's just silly. Rand pulls together a weak version of Platonic epistemology, grafts it to out-of context versions of Kantian ethics and politics, and just otherwise ignore the rest of Western Philosophy. I strongly suggest that you go and pick up The Critique of Pure Reason by Kant if you want a real philosophy, one that utterly destroys Rand's feeble attempt (she obviously chose to ignore it)


Actually, it would be more accurate to say that Ayn Rand basically set out to push the reset button on Western philosophy post-Kant: She thought that the Soviet Union's totalitarianism was the logical practical conclusion of German Idealism (e. g. Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer) so it would be weird then if her ethics are of mostly Kantian origin. I'd have thought she'd borrow more from Locke but then again I've only read short excerpts of Rand.

In a way Ayn Rand was like a right-wing version of http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/adorno/#2 - Theodor Adorno , who considered totalitarianism the logical conclusion of the Enlightenment.


-------------
"The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook


Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: November 20 2009 at 03:00
Originally posted by freyacat freyacat wrote:

I think of progressive music as having greater kinship to Romanticism, art of the flowery, indulgent kind, which dares to seek cosmic truth in the act of music-making.


I agree, you could even draw parallels between progressive rock falling out of favour in the more cynical late 1970s and how Romanticism withered away in the mid-19th century because increased industrialization made its themes look irrelevant to a now-urban audience... both movements also had resurgences later.

Hell, there's even parallels between how the stagnation of progressive rock was followed by the rise in popularity of punk and metal, and the rise of Modernism after Romanticism died out. Don't think it's a coincidence that one post-punk band called itself Bauhaus. LOL In both cases, it's less that one artistic movement displaced the other than times just changing and the overall cultural climate that supported a specific movement no longer existing.


-------------
"The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook


Posted By: ProgressiveAttic
Date Posted: November 20 2009 at 09:30
Excerpts form Rand's "ROMANTIC MANIFESTO":

"Philosophically, Romanticism is a crusade to glorify man’s existence; psychologically, it is experienced simply as the desire to make life interesting."

"What the Romanticists brought to art was the primacy of values, an element that had been missing in the stale, arid, third- and fourth-hand (and rate) repetitions of the Classicists’ formula-copying. Values (and value-judgments) are the source of emotions; a great deal of emotional intensity was projected in the work of the Romanticists and in the reactions of their audiences, as well as a great deal of color, imagination, originality, excitement and all the other consequences of a value-oriented view of life. This emotional element was the most easily perceivable characteristic of the new movement and it was taken as its defining characteristic, without deeper inquiry.

Such issues as the fact that the primacy of values in human life is not an irreducible primary, that it rests on man’s faculty of volition, and, therefore, that the Romanticists, philosophically, were the champions of volition (which is the root of values) and not of emotions (which are merely the consequences)—were issues to be defined by philosophers, who defaulted in regard to esthetics as they did in regard to every other crucial aspect of the nineteenth century.

The still deeper issue, the fact that the faculty of reason is the faculty of volition, was not known at the time, and the various theories of free will were for the most part of an anti-rational character, thus reinforcing the association of volition with mysticism."

-------------
Michael's Sonic Kaleidoscope Mondays 5:00pm EST(re-runs Thursdays 3:00pm) @ Delicious Agony Progressive Rock Radio(http://www.deliciousagony.com)


Posted By: fuxi
Date Posted: November 21 2009 at 06:36
Who, exactly, would you call "classicists"? And what makes you think they neglected so-called "values"?

Mind you, I adore mystics (Blake, Hafiz, St. John of the Cross) just as much as the next person, but I don't trust mere LABELS.

And no, I haven't talked to the Winds of Time either.


Posted By: ProgressiveAttic
Date Posted: November 21 2009 at 17:05
Originally posted by fuxi fuxi wrote:

Who, exactly, would you call "classicists"? And what makes you think they neglected so-called "values"?

Mind you, I adore mystics (Blake, Hafiz, St. John of the Cross) just as much as the next person, but I don't trust mere LABELS.

And no, I haven't talked to the Winds of Time either.


Rand's definition of classicism:

". . . was a school that had devised a set of arbitrary, concretely detailed rules purporting to represent the final and absolute criteria of esthetic value...and can serve as an example of what happens when concrete-bound mentalities, seeking to by-pass the responsibility of thought, attempt to transform abstract principles into concrete prescriptions and to replace creation with imitation. (For an example of Classicism that survived well into the twentieth century, I refer you to the architectural dogmas represented by Howard Roark’s antagonists in The Fountainhead.)

Even though the Classicists had no answer to why their rules were to be accepted as valid (except the usual appeal to tradition, to scholarship and to the prestige of antiquity), this school was regarded as the representative of reason.(!)"



-------------
Michael's Sonic Kaleidoscope Mondays 5:00pm EST(re-runs Thursdays 3:00pm) @ Delicious Agony Progressive Rock Radio(http://www.deliciousagony.com)


Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: November 22 2009 at 02:32
I think Ms. Ayn Rand is referring to what's today called http://www.huntfor.com/arthistory/c17th-mid19th/academism.htm - Academic Art , which was basically visual arts before Romanticism which to my knowledge was the first self-conscious artistic movement and displaced the academics to the extent that they've almost been forgotten with a few exceptions. So today when people think of the art from the early 19th century they inevitably think of the Romantics. Does she come with any specific examples, i. e. naming particular artists and works?

The funny thing is that Romanticism quickly became the next establishment and had by the mid-19th century stagnated with the exception of the more "out-there" fringes, which provoked a movement away from idealized representation and towards extremely realistic painting led by http://cgfa.acropolisinc.com/courbet/index.html - Gustave Courbet . Ironically, Courbet was a huge source of inspiration for the Impressionists who got the entire Modern Art ball rolling...


-------------
"The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook


Posted By: fuxi
Date Posted: November 22 2009 at 10:00
Originally posted by Toaster Mantis Toaster Mantis wrote:


I Ms. Ayn Rand is referring to what's today called http://www.huntfor.com/arthistory/c17th-mid19th/academism.htm - Academic Art , which was basically visual arts before Romanticism which to my knowledge was the first self-conscious artistic movement and displaced the academics to the extent that they've almost been forgotten with a few exceptions. So today when people think of the art from the early 19th century they inevitably think of the Romantics. Does she come with any specific examples, i. e. naming particular artists and works?The funny thing is that Romanticism quickly became the next establishment and had by the mid-19th century stagnated with the exception of the more "out-there" fringes, which provoked a movement away from idealized representation and towards extremely realistic painting led by http://cgfa.acropolisinc.com/courbet/index.html - Gustave Courbet . Ironically, Courbet was a huge source of inspiration for the Impressionists who got the entire Modern Art ball rolling...


This is exactly what I was going to say as well.

There's nothing wrong with classicism as such. Racine (France), Alexander Pope (England) and Joseph Haydn (Austria) were all classicists, but that doesn't mean their work is sterile. On the contrary, it tells you quite a lot about the "human condition".

On the other hand, Romanticism is responsible for a lot of misery in people's lives, by telling them, for example, that their life isn't worth living if they haven't found a love which totally consumes them. Even in the 21st century, you may find it difficult to live without being bothered by romantic clichés! (All of which cannot deny that I greatly enjoy lots of romantic art, e.g. WUTHERING HEIGHTS, the paintings of J.M.W. Turner, the symphonies of Berlioz and yes - even TALES OF TOPOGRAPHIC OCEANS.)


Posted By: CPicard
Date Posted: November 22 2009 at 11:28
Since I'm French and have spent many years at school, high school and college, I'm nearly shocked by the definition of 'Classicism' given by Ayn Rand!
Her definition makes me think that she has a poor knowledge and understanding of what Classicism was: she seems not to know that Classicism was not a "school", but a name given to the generation of artists before the Romantics by the same Romantics...
Plus, the Classicism was above all a rather loose theory created in reaction to the so-called excesses of the Baroque age.
Once again, it seems to me that Ayn Rand could talk about any subject, but with the same thematic: the exaltation of the Individual in any field of the human activities, would it be politics, philosophy, arts... No matter the subject, it's always the same goal: to glorify the individual action against the rules of the common social life.




Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: November 22 2009 at 11:30
Originally posted by fuxi fuxi wrote:

On the other hand, Romanticism is responsible for a lot of misery in people's lives, by telling them, for example, that their life isn't worth living if they haven't found a love which totally consumes them. Even in the 21st century, you may find it difficult to live without being bothered by romantic clichés! (All of which cannot deny that I greatly enjoy lots of romantic art, e.g. WUTHERING HEIGHTS, the paintings of J.M.W. Turner, the symphonies of Berlioz and yes - even TALES OF TOPOGRAPHIC OCEANS.)


Eh, that pretty much pales in comparison to how Modernism is responsible for the entire "cynicism is automatically sophisticated" mentality which permeates most of Western culture, sure it was genuinely challenging back in the early days of capital-m Modern art but after it hit the mainstream in I think it was the 1980s or so it's just been generalizedly watered down into a cheap post-adolescent "everything sucks" nihilism that right now is pretty much everywhere.


-------------
"The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook


Posted By: fuxi
Date Posted: November 23 2009 at 05:15
Excellent point, Toaster M, I wonder which is now more common: naive sentimentalism or "cool" cynicism?


Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: November 23 2009 at 14:23
Depends on where you look, in the end both of them are dumbed-down versions of perspectives that in their original and undiluted form were (and might still be) quite valid. So it goes...

-------------
"The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook


Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: November 23 2009 at 15:44
I just rad an artcle recently in the New Yorker.  Anyone know that Rand used Benzedrine to write her novels?

-------------
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...



Posted By: keiser willhelm
Date Posted: November 23 2009 at 17:33
Originally posted by CPicard CPicard wrote:

Since I'm French and have spent many years at school, high school and college, I'm nearly shocked by the definition of 'Classicism' given by Ayn Rand!
Her definition makes me think that she has a poor knowledge and understanding of what Classicism was: she seems not to know that Classicism was not a "school", but a name given to the generation of artists before the Romantics by the same Romantics...
Plus, the Classicism was above all a rather loose theory created in reaction to the so-called excesses of the Baroque age.
Once again, it seems to me that Ayn Rand could talk about any subject, but with the same thematic: the exaltation of the Individual in any field of the human activities, would it be politics, philosophy, arts... No matter the subject, it's always the same goal: to glorify the individual action against the rules of the common social life.

Rand never seems to give clear examples of what shes talking about  and gives few examples aside from her own work to back up her position (Howard Roark's speech... howard roark says... ) and in general has a rather naive view of the topics she opposes. It sounds as if she heard about classicism and decided to write about it but never fully understood what it was, the context of the movement, or the true nature of what the composers were trying to do. its not only with classicism that she does this. Shes quite good at taking a critique or opposing position to her own, repeating her rhetoric without much added argument (wheres the beef?) and then stating "Boom, roasted. So much for that problem. next?"  It'd be much easier to take her position seriously if she gave credible, relevant examples or actually argued something rather than restate her position. 

i googled up a quick critique of her philosophy as laid out in "the Virtue of Selfishness." and hold many of the same issues with the work as does the author (Huemer, PHL Prof. @ Colorado University)
if you like rand's work i suggest reading it and while you may not agree with the argument, at least try to come up with a better response than Rand did. something to think about. the philosophy is attractive but maybe it needs to be repackaged? 

http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/rand5.htm#Detailed%20comments. - LINK.



-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/KeiserWillhelm" rel="nofollow - What im listening to


Posted By: Teaflax
Date Posted: November 24 2009 at 01:06
That initial post may be one of the most stupid things I've read all year. Congratulations. Sixteenth Chapel is an absolute classic, though.

Rand's books are to philosophy as the Harry Potter books are to magic; you might as well write about how Prog relates to Quidditch.


-------------


Posted By: Teaflax
Date Posted: November 24 2009 at 01:09
Originally posted by ProgressiveAttic ProgressiveAttic wrote:


Even though the Classicists had no answer to why their rules were to be accepted as valid (except the usual appeal to tradition, to scholarship and to the prestige of antiquity), this school was regarded as the representative of reason.(!)"


Kettle? Pot on line one. Something about your fuliginousness, apparently.

Project much, Ayn baby?


-------------


Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: November 24 2009 at 07:30
Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

I just rad an artcle recently in the New Yorker.  Anyone know that Rand used Benzedrine to write her novels?


Tis a pity a bottle of same was not included with each of her books for the reader


-------------


Posted By: aprusso
Date Posted: November 25 2009 at 00:52
Interesting. I'm reading Atlas Shrugged right now. I'm not a liberal (rather a socialist) but I agree with most of Rand's philosophy. I'll come back to this topic when I finish the book, but I'm glad that somebody brought it up.


Posted By: sealchan
Date Posted: November 25 2009 at 17:05
I've read all of Ayn Rand's major works of fiction and will read them again...highly recommended and entertaining...sort of like reading old school science fiction with its explicit philosophical content (go Asimov!).
 
I think this is an interesting topic and one that I would have to consider deeply to answer fully but I have the following thoughts to throw into the ring...
 
1.  I like Ayn Rand's philosophy and it appeals to me directly
 
2.  I approach philosophy through Jung's Psychological Typology and in my personal view, philosophy is dead without a theory of personality and the kinds of epistemological biases a person's personality creates.
 
3.  A person cannot escape their personality.  They must develop a self-consciousness of it and, in so doing, better contextualize their philosophy as a result.  Contextualization of a philosophy is necessary as no rational system of knowledge is adequate without a self-recognition of its limitations.
 
4.  Putting personality as a basis out of which a philosophy arises results in a system of epistemologies that is multi-modal rather than mono-modal...that is, the truth arises out of a finite set of "truth-systems" (aka ways of knowing) that have differing strengths and are self-dependent (independent).  Combining two such "truth-systems" requires an extra effort of the personality to contain conflict and stress a sense of individual integrity.  Such combinations tend to offend the mono-modal perspectives.  The best analogy from the sciences is how Einstein showed that the laws of physics depend on your inertial frame of reference...so they are both subjective (depend on personal truths) and objective (can be made to correlate if personal truths are taken into context).
 
5.  Ayn Rand and I have the same basic personality, type NT according to the Kersey Temperament Sorter (derived from the Jungian model of personality types) and while I can appreciate Rand's views and see them as elegant and true, I realize there are some major gaps and that you would have to force such views on a majority of personality types in a way that goes beyond any argument of "ignorance".  In fact, NTs are relative rare.
 
There are some aspects of progressive rock that probably appeal more to NT types but I would not say that categorically...although I have been thinking it.  I think that progressive rock might do better at expressing ideas than human emotion (and feeling is a rational type just as thinking is).
 
I also disagree with Rand that knowledge is based on the Rational since the Rational is also based on the Irrational, that is, perception and axiomatic beliefs which even mathematics cannot escape.  Furthermore the world of sensual phenomena is coequal to the inner forms that the instincts/brain/mind seem to bring into our knowledge (aka archetypes of the collective unconscious/Platonic ideas).  I personally have coined the phrase "we humans look at the world through brain-colored glasses". 
 
Rand has a definite rational agenda.  Art, at its best, has an irrational agenda.  Not that the two can't be made to work together but then you are "crossing the streams", that is, you are entering a multi-modal, irrational, mystical kind of truth in that context which is inevitably more subjective (= context sensitive).  When I read Rand again I will expect  find that some of her Rationality is based on Irrational premises that she has not made self-conscious.  Some of those Irrational premises allow her to "transcend" certain Rational dilemnas.  A creative application of Rationality goes in to hide these aspects...
 
Philosophers still are stuck in the idea of producing perfect systems of truth without significant boundaries or limitations...and we students of philosophy are forced to accept or reject philosophical systems unless we are in an environment that encourages open discussion and consideration of those systems.  I think philosophy is interesting but people who are stuck in arguing in absolute terms about philosophy (and we can easily throw religion in here) come off as a bit silly.
 
 


Posted By: sealchan
Date Posted: November 25 2009 at 17:08
Oh and anyone who wants to use the phrase "brain-colored glasses" I encourage you to do so.  I just Googled the phrase and saw that there were no results for this.  This is my chance to be famous!  LOL


Posted By: sealchan
Date Posted: November 25 2009 at 17:16
Quote
Excerpts form Rand's "ROMANTIC MANIFESTO":

"Philosophically, Romanticism is a crusade to glorify man’s existence; psychologically, it is experienced simply as the desire to make life interesting."

"What the Romanticists brought to art was the primacy of values, an element that had been missing in the stale, arid, third- and fourth-hand (and rate) repetitions of the Classicists’ formula-copying. Values (and value-judgments) are the source of emotions; a great deal of emotional intensity was projected in the work of the Romanticists and in the reactions of their audiences, as well as a great deal of color, imagination, originality, excitement and all the other consequences of a value-oriented view of life. This emotional element was the most easily perceivable characteristic of the new movement and it was taken as its defining characteristic, without deeper inquiry.

Such issues as the fact that the primacy of values in human life is not an irreducible primary, that it rests on man’s faculty of volition, and, therefore, that the Romanticists, philosophically, were the champions of volition (which is the root of values) and not of emotions (which are merely the consequences)—were issues to be defined by philosophers, who defaulted in regard to esthetics as they did in regard to every other crucial aspect of the nineteenth century.

The still deeper issue, the fact that the faculty of reason is the faculty of volition, was not known at the time, and the various theories of free will were for the most part of an anti-rational character, thus reinforcing the association of volition with mysticism."
 
...it's fun to philosophize just before the weekend...
 
I wonder if Rand uses mysticism in a primarily negative context...it is an interesting trait, if so, since intuition (the 'N' in NT) is the primary cognitive function supporting mystic thought and I suspect a strenght in her personality.  Sensation, which tends to eschew, or be enraptured by, mysticism was probably in Rand's shadow...if she undervalued it.  But if she had done some significant shadow (as in the Jungian meaning of shadow) work, her philosophy might be an effort to champion her own weakness...a good way to creatively produce a multi-modal perspective.
 
I've been tempted to pick up one of her philosophical works.


Posted By: Time Signature
Date Posted: December 05 2009 at 10:24
Can't progressive music be constructivist music?

-------------
This user has left the PA fora, but will occasionally post reviews so as to support artists.


Posted By: jv_neXus
Date Posted: December 06 2009 at 08:55
I have read a small fraction of the posts on this topic but I have to say that I was immediately struck by the initial argument.  I have read three of Rand's fiction books on objectivism (Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, and Anthem) and I have to say that I have a pretty good understanding of the philosophy.  Good enough to understand where the philosophy starts to contradict human nature as much as Collectivism does (that is a later topic for another day).  But my point is this, Progressive Rock, at least to me, has absolutely no representation of Objectivism (even though I see where all of you are coming from with the individualist aspect) because of one of the main points you originally asserted contradicts the nature of Progressive Rock.

Even though Objectivism is largely an individualist philosophy, it still asserts the idea that there is NO subjective reality.  meaning:  reality is completely concrete, unchangedable, and finite.  1. If you ask any quantum physics professor if they believed this they would probably start laughing, and 2. That in no way represents progressive rock.  Progressive Rock (even though its highly individualist) represents a constructed form of expression by whoever is playing or composing it.  It has no finite properties, it is probably the most infinite form of music.  Trying to call it objectivist is quite appalling coming from a writer and musician who composes a lot of progressive pieces.  If you wish to nail down Progressive Rock into a specific philosophy (which would also contradict its nature, because you are trying to shove it into another genre) then check out constructivism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivist_epistemology

The basic idea is that the true nature of external reality is completely separate from human cognition.  Meaning, what we see is an illusion of what is really there because of what our limited senses "construct" for us to see.  Any one could really see the world in anyway they like depending upon how they program their brain to perceive the world.  This is becoming a very large topic in the scientific community as they are becoming more and more aware of how limited human sensory perception is, and how infinite the universe is.


-------------
"The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion." -Albert Camus


Posted By: jv_neXus
Date Posted: December 06 2009 at 09:33
Can't progressive music be constructivist music?
Sorry Time Signature, I didn't see your post before I posted mine.  Looks like I wasn't the first person to make that observation.


-------------
"The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion." -Albert Camus


Posted By: freyacat
Date Posted: December 18 2009 at 16:15
Did anyone ever see the Simpsons' take on the "Ayn Rand Day Care Center"?  Little Maggie and the rest of the babies were left to fend for themselves.

Progressive Rock has too much love to be involved with Ayn Rand.  That's why even Rush grew up and left her behind.


-------------
sad creature nailed upon the coloured door of time


Posted By: Toaster Mantis
Date Posted: December 19 2009 at 04:20
This thread makes me want to start one about how Frank Zappa was the Friedrich Nietzsche of rock music. Hell, it's not just the entire sarcastic iconoclast thing, as well as structuring their works in a chaotic manner, they also both had huge moustaches and are often accused of misogyny... and Nietzsche http://nietzschemusicproject.org/ - did compose a bit of music for that matter.

(that said, there's other planned prog blogs of mine that I'm much more interested in)


-------------
"The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook


Posted By: fmotp
Date Posted: December 26 2009 at 09:46
I hate it when I'm almost done with what I've written, and then I inadvertently erase it by hitting a button by mistake.  In light of this, here is a much shorter response to this thread.  The writer assumes that lovers of prog music are by definition more intelligent or rational than lovers of "pop" music.  This is simply unprovable.  He also assumes that rationality in music is necessarily a good thing.   It's not.  The root appeal of music is emotional. I love King Crimson's music.  I also like Rihanna's and Billy Joel's music, examples of so-called "pop" music.   

-------------
Prog lover, proud parent, teacher, and Christian


Posted By: jv_neXus
Date Posted: December 28 2009 at 20:12
Originally posted by freyacat freyacat wrote:

That's why even Rush grew up and left her behind.


Haha, I laughed at that one.  I was the same way though.  At one time I was a huge fan of Ayn Rand, reading Anthem, Fountainhead (which I still think is a very good book at least for the individualism in art aspect), and Atlas Shrugged.  I "grew up" though and moved onto bigger and better things philosophically.


-------------
"The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion." -Albert Camus


Posted By: PabloVzla
Date Posted: December 31 2009 at 19:54
I notice a Vytas Brenner cover album...are you venezuelan.


Posted By: ProgressiveAttic
Date Posted: January 02 2010 at 20:50
Originally posted by PabloVzla PabloVzla wrote:

I notice a Vytas Brenner cover album...are you venezuelan.


Yep and a huge fan of Vytas'

-------------
Michael's Sonic Kaleidoscope Mondays 5:00pm EST(re-runs Thursdays 3:00pm) @ Delicious Agony Progressive Rock Radio(http://www.deliciousagony.com)


Posted By: Bonnek
Date Posted: January 21 2010 at 06:01
I have a knack for joining threads after all life and interest have left them.
Here's my 2 cents anyway.

1.     Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
--> What a strange thesis.
As if feelings, wishes, hopes or fears aren't equally real as reality. Besides, we can only see reality through our subjective senses so objective reality remains unknown to all of us.

2.     Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
--> Dream on. I might prefer it if reason would guide our actions, but I'd say were probably even more driven by instinct and emotion.

3.     Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
--> That's simply romantic individualistic overstatement. But it seems like Rand had at least a good feeling of where things would head with society in the 21st century (western society at least). I'd say an individual is nothing without recognition within a social group. We're social animals as much as predators. There's not much thought gone in this philosophy really...

4.     The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism.

--> Yeah right, I think we've seen the last two years that this is complete nonsense. Even hard-core capitalist wouldn't believe that anymore.

I once read one book from her. I suck at titles but it was something about an architect. I managed to survive it for 3/4 of its length. It's a great defence of artistic integrity and unbound creativity. Which is great, but I can't relate it to all 4 points of her philosophy. I guess she was relevant at her time but like many philosophers she seems not to realize that our complex reality will never be described with just one theory.

PS. When it comes to music, I'd say point 1,2 and 3 are the credo of black metal rather then prog.


Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: January 21 2010 at 06:41
Originally posted by Bonnek Bonnek wrote:


4.     The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism.

--> Yeah right, I think we've seen the last two years that this is complete nonsense. Even hard-core capitalist wouldn't believe that anymore.



You would be surprised at how many people still believe that, at least here in the USUnhappy. It seems like the events of the past two years never happened for them.


Posted By: Bonnek
Date Posted: January 21 2010 at 07:04
"at least here in the US"
-->Phew you must be an early riser. And immediately checking the forum. That's what I call prog dedication Clap
It's actually quite frightening what you say. I thought hardcore capitalism was given more critical thought in US as well.



Posted By: ProgressiveAttic
Date Posted: January 21 2010 at 19:52
Originally posted by Raff Raff wrote:


Originally posted by Bonnek Bonnek wrote:


4.     The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism.--> Yeah right, I think we've seen the last two years that this is complete nonsense. Even hard-core capitalist wouldn't believe that anymore.
You would be surprised at how many people still believe that, at least here in the USUnhappy. It seems like the events of the past two years never happened for them.

There are reasons to believe (and many economists think so) that the cause of the crisis was government intervention... but since I am not from the U.S. (and this isn't the political discussions thread) I won't go any further...

-------------
Michael's Sonic Kaleidoscope Mondays 5:00pm EST(re-runs Thursdays 3:00pm) @ Delicious Agony Progressive Rock Radio(http://www.deliciousagony.com)


Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: January 21 2010 at 20:03
Originally posted by ProgressiveAttic ProgressiveAttic wrote:


There are reasons to believe (and many economists think so) that the cause of the crisis was government intervention... but since I am not from the U.S. (and this isn't the political discussions thread) I won't go any further...


yyyeeaaahh I don't know about that, chicken & egg-- it's like saying your doctor made you sick.  Also it depends what intervention you speak of;  Before the crisis?  During?  After?  Do you mean imprudent real estate allowances and home loans?  Corporate regulation/deregulation?  What, man, what?




Posted By: ProgressiveAttic
Date Posted: January 21 2010 at 20:19
Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:


Originally posted by ProgressiveAttic ProgressiveAttic wrote:

There are reasons to believe (and many economists think so) that the cause of the crisis was government intervention... but since I am not from the U.S. (and this isn't the political discussions thread) I won't go any further...
yyyeeaaahh I don't know about that, chicken & egg-- it's like saying your doctor made you sick.  Also it depends what intervention you speak of;  Before the crisis?  During?  After?  Do you mean imprudent real estate allowances and home loans?  Corporate regulation/deregulation?  What, man, what?


I don't believe in Keynes' theory that the state should play the role of "doctor" in economy because the government has power and definite functions (police, tribunals and army) and it is dangerous to give to it more power and responsibilities (believe me...I live in Venezuela which now days is the example of what happens when you take that to an extreme)... anyways, as I said before I prefer not to comment about a country that isn't my own...(if you want to discuss about it I have no problem )
but if you insist... here is a link for you to read (it is just an opinion that I find logical): http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=24015 - http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=24015

-------------
Michael's Sonic Kaleidoscope Mondays 5:00pm EST(re-runs Thursdays 3:00pm) @ Delicious Agony Progressive Rock Radio(http://www.deliciousagony.com)


Posted By: progpositivity
Date Posted: April 13 2010 at 21:03
In Ryand's vision, authority figures tyranically squelch individual expression.  The antidote is the elevation of the individual's self-interest above all else.  One appeal of Objectivism is its celebration of the autonomy and value of the individual. 
 
I *do* see a connection to Progrock or Avant music in that they can be somewhat contrarian (even self-righteous), daring to stand up for what it believes in despite ridicule and persecution.  No doubt, some of the Objectivism's ideas are positive and constructive. 
 
Ironically, when put into practice in the real world, the philosophy of Objectivism insists upon such singular devotion to the *self* that it squelches individual expression of ideas that are deemed "altruistic" or "non-objective".  In so doing, it sadly degenerates into one of the things it so passionately seeks to prevent:  a form of tyrrany against individuals who don't conform to its established requirements.  So, in a most unusual and unanticipated way, within the social setting of the real world, time and again Objectivism becomes the very monster it promises its followers that it will defeat.
 
These are not abstract and unfounded accusations.  This is what a dispassionate person can witness time and again wherever the tenets of Objectivism are implemented within a social (group) setting. 
The first (but not only) case study to observe is the Objectivism put into action by Ann Ryand within her own social circle.  This is well documented.  I don't need to go into the details here.
 
Objectivism, despite its good in promoting responsibility and encouraging self-reliance, neglects to dig deeply into the communal aspect of humanity.  It fails to recognize how deeply and intricately altruism and self-interest are interwoven one within another in the human psyche.  Indeed, a full development of  *community* is a little neglected within Objectivist thought, is it not?  Yes, we are all individuals that must not get subsumed by a greater whole.  But are we not also, by our very nature, social beings that wither and fall if isolated from a greater whole?   We live so much of our lives in groups (families, workplaces, towns, counties, countries) - not in silos of self empowered isolation. 
 
Ryand called Objectivism a philosophy for living, But I suggest that we "live" more fully when both self interest and altruism coexist...  This need not be an "either / or" proposition. 
 
To quote a certain 'philosopher' out of context...  I'll just say that I belive "self interest" and "altruism" can be united into a "single, perfect sphere". 


-------------
Positively the best Prog and Fusion 24/7!
http://www.progpositivity.com


Posted By: VanVanVan
Date Posted: April 13 2010 at 21:35
This thread really interests me. I've read the Fountainhead once and Atlas Shrugged twice, and while I think that some of Ayn Rand's ideas are absolutely batsh*t insane and that the woman herself was nothing short of ridiculous to the point of hilarity, I do agree with a lot of what she said. 

That said, I can see where the OP is coming from with calling progressive rock objective music. The obvious connection is to [Atlas Shrugged character] Richard Halley, who (like many prog musicians) wrote his music not for any sort of acclaim but as an expression of himself; nothing more. He did not write it for anyone else, he wrote for himself. I certainly think that prog embodies this musical better than any other philosophy, but I don't know if that means you can call it purely objective music.

Brilliant idea; though, I never would have thought of this.


-------------
"The meaning of life is to give life meaning."-Arjen Lucassen


Posted By: ProgressiveAttic
Date Posted: April 13 2010 at 21:53
Originally posted by VanVanVan VanVanVan wrote:

This thread really interests me. I've read the Fountainhead once and Atlas Shrugged twice, and while I think that some of Ayn Rand's ideas are absolutely batsh*t insane and that the woman herself was nothing short of ridiculous to the point of hilarity, I do agree with a lot of what she said. 
That said, I can see where the OP is coming from with calling progressive rock objective music. The obvious connection is to [Atlas Shrugged character] Richard Halley, who (like many prog musicians) wrote his music not for any sort of acclaim but as an expression of himself; nothing more. He did not write it for anyone else, he wrote for himself. I certainly think that prog embodies this musical better than any other philosophy, but I don't know if that means you can call it purely objective music.
Brilliant idea; though, I never would have thought of this.


That is precisely the idea!

Thanks! I actually got inspired while reading to Richard Halley's words in Atlas Shrugged

Nonetheless I do think that Rand's philosophy is for the most part correct... but I have to admit that she was a bit (well...more than a bit)crazy...

-------------
Michael's Sonic Kaleidoscope Mondays 5:00pm EST(re-runs Thursdays 3:00pm) @ Delicious Agony Progressive Rock Radio(http://www.deliciousagony.com)



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2014 Web Wiz Ltd. - http://www.webwiz.co.uk