Captain Canada

Music or any art is never about what is seen and heard it is always about where and whe it comes from - that's why today's music is so bad, it's just about the surface - nothing more. Labret is of course correct in this point.

However many of the major changes in music only come about when a particular group gets so popular that change is inevitable - such easy examples that quickly come to mind are Chet Atkins, The Beach Boys, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Patti Smith, The Beatles, Bob Dylan, Tom Petty, Pearl Jam - all of these bands tried to change the way we hear music and they did succeed. It's hard for most people to realize how much of an impact in the recording studio Chet Atkins and The Beach Boys had, each of who adjusted the recording technique to suit the music that they were making. The segregation of the audience based on race and gender that accompanied the rise of Led Zeppelin. The change of view on what could be used to make music with Pink Floyd. Patti Smith challenging the entire system of peace, gender and beauty with her stong emotional unrelenting lyrics. Tom Petty for fighting the system from within and Pearl Jam by fighting from outside the system. All these bands made amazing contributions to music and ultimately to our understanding of art and what art can be.

No one on MTV can ever accomplish the same thing because its simply not where they are coming from.

The singer from Creed was on CNN Headline News yesterday saying that in his mind he firmly believes he invented a new form of rock - he called in Anthemic Rock - the shear stupidity of the statement was akmost too much for the interviewer who did all he could from laughing. The funny thing is, is that there are millions of kids who will believe him - how sad.

Prowler

When i was 12 i listened to skinhead Oi and Punk Rock....

17 years later and I still do......So fuck off all you sellouts ..hehe

Try to listen to a band called TurboNegro <----Good Shit

[Labret]

Impaled Nazarene, Apocolyptica, Amorphis, Mistreat... just off the top of my head. Found all of those in Helsinki. And there are others that I cant remember.

letshunt

hehehehehe

Okay, I admit I am an old guy, pushing fifty. I was around for Vietnam, I was around to go though the punk era...I drove half around the country just to see the Sex Pistols. And have watched an awful lot of bands come and go, no matter what style they played.

I can still remember some the early seminal records that came out of Vox/Stacks recording studios, along with the whole Muscle Shoals Southern rock scene. Very few bands have stood the test of times because they were unable to keep up with the times or simply drugged themselves into oblivion.

I was a performance piano major my first three years in college, so I have a resonable knowledge of classical music, as I played countless recitals that all featured great classical minds.

My point is, unless you have an intimate knowledge of what went into each piece, most are ill equipt to judge any music. Each piece of music must be judged within the historical context it was written and what circumstances were part of that musical composition.

Obviously, many of the titles that have brought up will be little more than an after thought in ten years. Case in point, at one point in my life, I really thought Alvin Lee and Ten Years after were a god send to rock n roll..."If I could change the wordl" is still one of the great tracks ever laid down. You don't exactly hear it dominating the radio waves these days, and only of handful of individuals really know who Alvin Lee was. Let along what his music was about.

The music I have loved in parts of my life include: Black Flag, Circle Jerks, Led Zeppelin, Bruce Springsteen, Warren Zevon, Procol Harem, Bob Dylan, Sex Pistols, Public Image Limited, and a host of others.

Today I enjoy a wide range of music, bluegrass music has a certainly earthiness and authenticity about it that few rock n roll bands can match, Springsteen has reinvented himself in so many different ways that his music carried a certainly revelancy about it that few indivudals can ever hope to match...he just keeps changing as time goes by....as his life changes. Is his music hokey, sometimes, but by inlarge it reflects the confusion many of us feel in 2002...he did stand the test of time. I went to Viet Nam, I shot people, and much of his music reflects the ambiguity that individuals like myself feel. Lets face it, the guy has taken an awful lot of chances in his carrer that few would.

One thing that I have learned, tho, is that people who condemn a certain type of music usually reflects a certain "insecurity" in which thier music belief system lies. The idea that you dislike a certain form of music and means you are unable to understand the political and socio economic conditions at the time. Recently I was in San francisco and went down to the Haight-Asbury section of the town. It is caught in a time warp....I went there for a summer to find myself...all I found were great drugs and a hollow existence. Doesn't make the Greatful Dead of all the bands that followed irrelevent, the times were different.

The Beatles and Elvis existed at a time when their art forms were so new and novel that the mainstream refused to accept who they were. They were the victims of widespread prejedice and they were not allowed to participate in many of the activities that were afforded most artists of their time.

I guess my point is, you need to look at music in the time frame it was written, because a band reflects you viewpoint at a given time doesn't mean it is bad or lacks validity...it means that you simply don't understand the historical viewpoints and events that shaped the music at the time. It is you who have failed to miss the point.

The list of great musicians goes on....woody guthrie, Bob wills and the texs playboys, Rolling stones, Frank Zappa, and a host of others, are you willing to dismiss this music as old fashioned and irrelevent? Or take Ozzie, he is a shell of what he once was, but I can remember when people hung on every word he said and each album, not CD, was pure genius....in retrospect, maybe they weren't, but we thought so.

New bands are exploring new territory, too. Is it good? bad? It is good for now, is anyone going to remember Henry Rollins as some sort of visionary? I doubt it. How about Iggy Pop, maybe a beter chance....he was doing shit in the sixties that is just now sounding relevent.

What is ignorant, tho, is judging music based upon how it sounds at the time of release, sure it may touch a chord with you today...but will it stand the test of time, probably not. And therein lies the rub. Music affects all of us in certain way, our hopes, or ambitions, sometimes it seves as an excuse for bolstering out own insecurities.

I know one thing, tho....Bob Dylan still writes about real things that are happening today...and I am not a Bob Dylan fan, but you sure have to understand where he has been and look forward to where he is going.

__________________
The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his. -George Patton

Amputate Your Head

interesting thread here guys....

while I am inclined to agree with Labret's position, I can't. At least not 100%. I'm very much into Mozart's work, and even though he made almost no money at all, there is no question that he was the "top 40" of his time (and location..... music was not global like it is now). There's also no question that he was a fucking musical genius. So, where does that leave him? Musical god? Or sellout?

End user musical listening preference (musical taste) really is rather irrelevant here. I personally detest eminem AS WELL as angry white boy death metal. In my eyes (or rather, ears) they suck equally bad. If I was forced to choose, I'd probably listen to eminem over Morbid Angel, and I fuckin' hate eminem. But That crap that the hardcore (or whatever the fuck you wanna call it) bands put out.... please..... that is so far away from being any kind of music it's laughable that they make any money at all putting out that shit. I've heards cats screaming and fucking that sound better than that. So again.... that's MY preferences getting in the way here. If you choose to dub that shit with the title of "music", hey.... more power to ya. I can't do it.

So, if we boil away the preference issues... we're left with the question of "selling out", "soulless corporate monkeys", "fat whire balding lyric writes seeking to infuse inspiration in the blind sheeple of the world".... etc....

and honestly.... I can't see that it matters. Unless, of course, you have some lofty preconceived notion of what "good" and "harmonious" and "right" in the path to musical legendry.

Like I started out with here.... my initial impulse was to agree with Labret's position.... however.... it seems that's a fanatical kind of view towards what's "real" music and what's not. If some kid on 6th street can belt out a tune with a talent that 4 billion other people don't have, and some corporate money bag matches him up with a fuckin' top 40 tune, who cares? If it's garbage, no one will buy it or listen to it. If he's good, he's good regardless of what he's singin'.... and people will buy. There are three different interests at work here....

1. The kid. He's singin' cuz it's what he loves to do.
2. The corporate monkey's: They're all about the bling bling.
3. The Listener: They just wanna hear what makes them feel good. Period.

In fact, the only thing that really wedges itself into that system, IS the people that have the lofty ideas about what "real" music is and/or should be. Personal preference doesn't really push itself into that system, but instead, simply eliminates #3 if it ain't your thing.

Labels (meaning, "Alternative", "Metal", "Rap", etc) are basically for convenience so that we know what we're talking about when we discuss these things.... you really shouldn;t take them so literally. After all, it's not really metal.... there's nothing metal about it. It's intangible audio. So as far as something being "truly" alternative" or being some label that MTV is trying to brainwash you into thinking that's what it is.... c'mon.... is that really fucking important? If it is, you probably buy clothes because of the name on the label too.

__________________
SIG TOO BIG

Kimmykim

Colin, that is SOOO not a country song. You didn't mention mama, prison or a train track once.

Danny_C

Amputate: I'm not sure if the Mozart thing was a response to my statement, but just in case, I want to clarify what I meant...

He probably was top 40 of his time, you're right. But music was different then. There had been no market studies at that time. There were no boards of executives deciding what music lives and what dies, with huge investments to protect. There were no discernable trends and copycat fads (that I know of) watering down and even ruining music that COULD be good.

So my point was that commercialism has killed good art, and that's what I dislike. In Mozart's time, he was seen for the genius he was. But if he were coming of age today, he would either be making cheesy dance beats or on the streets playing for spare change.... and I think that's sad.

GENIUS musicians who will never be recognized for what they rightfully deserve: Mr. Bungle, Estradasphere, Loppybogymi, Dillinger Escape Plan... just to name a quick few. And it's really sad to me that they struggle with sales while MTV spoonfeeds the masses their musical tastes based on the will of their corporate interests. That's not what music's about... at least not for me.

Amputate Your Head

there absolutely WAS..... remember, he was composing for royalty, which I'm sure was a helluva lot harder on composers/musicians than today's corporate suits are.
again, yes there was. People tried to rip off Mozart just like anyone else.

no.... he wasn't.... he died and was buried in a pauper's mass grave. No one viewed him as a genius in his time. A curiosity maybe, but certainly not the way we see him now.
I seriously doubt that.

__________________
SIG TOO BIG

mrbling

I have read the first page, and the first thing that comes to my mind is:

Labret = IQ is 60 or below, can not keep up an arguement, has to call names, has to call everybody ignorant.

Colin = Puts up an arguement with facts, backs it up with examples, lays it out for the mass to understand easily, does not call names, does not call anybody ignorant.


This quote cracks me up:

"
They have no videos on mtv. A show with them in any given city would probably ony draw a hundred people MAX, and that would be if there were other bands as well, and the crowd would be comprised of people loyal to the hardcore scene. "

The reason why it only draws a hundred people is because nobody likes it, nobody cares about it. Its like if I had a show of me taking a big shit, very few people will come because its SHIT.


The reason why popular music is "good" is because many people like it.

Do you like the hot girl everybody liked in 5th grade? Yes she was popular.

Do you want that new laptop everybody drools over? Yes the laptop is popular.

Do you want to be the popular jock on the football team who fucks a different girl each night? YES he was popular.


As you can see, popular means good, not the other way around.


How does everybody like my break down for the stupid(labret) explanation?

ps. labret, don't argue when you are so ignorant and dumb please.

__________________
millionare by 18 , beat that hOES

Captain Canada

I think you should change your sig to "idiot by eighteen" moron at the moment.

Plat

eminem pwns ju too

__________________
Im fuckin retired

Amputate Your Head

eminem is gay.

__________________
SIG TOO BIG

mrbling

captain,
if your going to call names, back it up with some examples and facts.

but obviously you can't do that, so name calling is so much easier for a dimwit like you.

Thank you, Come again for another schooling!

__________________
millionare by 18 , beat that hOES

mrbling

popular = 95% of the time means GOOD , approved by everyone.


There is that 5% of the time where the popular things aren't good.


what is popular?

mercedes benz
dodge viper
ferrari moderna
porsche 911 turbos
frosted flakes
britney spears
poland spring (do you drink mr tippys h20?)
hoover vaccums
CISCO routers ( you use cisco routers right?)
DELL servers
google.com
yahoo.com

I can go on and on and on, but the point is, if it wasn't good, How the FUCK Did it become popular?

Yes the 5% exception we will keep in mind.


Thread closed, lets move on and not keep labret and others make a fool out of themselves too much longer.

mrbling owns your minds, you know it.

__________________
millionare by 18 , beat that hOES

Captain Canada

An example of why you should change your sig to "idiot by eighteen":


I have read the first page, and the first thing that comes to my mind is:

Labret = IQ is 60 or below, can not keep up an arguement, has to call names, has to call everybody ignorant.

Colin = Puts up an arguement with facts, backs it up with examples, lays it out for the mass to understand easily, does not call names, does not call anybody ignorant.


This quote cracks me up:

"
They have no videos on mtv. A show with them in any given city would probably ony draw a hundred people MAX, and that would be if there were other bands as well, and the crowd would be comprised of people loyal to the hardcore scene. "

The reason why it only draws a hundred people is because nobody likes it, nobody cares about it. Its like if I had a show of me taking a big shit, very few people will come because its SHIT.


The reason why popular music is "good" is because many people like it.

Do you like the hot girl everybody liked in 5th grade? Yes she was popular.

Do you want that new laptop everybody drools over? Yes the laptop is popular.

Do you want to be the popular jock on the football team who fucks a different girl each night? YES he was popular.


As you can see, popular means good, not the other way around.


How does everybody like my break down for the stupid(labret) explanation?

ps. labret, don't argue when you are so ignorant and dumb please.

mrbling

When you call people idiot, it usually means the opinion they made is false.

Try proving the example I made is false.

damn you are retarded, no wonder you are an adult webmaster, you couldn't get a job anywhere else


HAHAHAHAHHAHA ,
let me guess, your 24-35 , making $200 a day max, runs around message boards acting all smart and shit right?


Let the big boys talk now ok?
your wasting bandwidth biatch.

__________________
millionare by 18 , beat that hOES

Captain Canada

does your mommy know your still up?

mrbling

ahhh, poor boy, got your feelings hurt?


let daddy make it all better for you, heres 50 cents bitch.
give me your email address and I'll paypal it over for you so you can move out of your moms house.

__________________
millionare by 18 , beat that hOES

Captain Canada

mrbling

You are right.

I have been up too late and I should know better than to argue with a 15 year old.

I'm of to get some sleep and so should you - it is a school day tomorrow and I hear that they are voting for hall monitor - so if you get up nice and early and pick out your favorite Eminem T-shirt, brush your teeth real nice and pretty - you might have a chance to win.

Good luck - and don't forget to post the results.

ADL Colin

Punkworld,

Your questions look like review qustions for an Introduction to Western Philosophy class.
Know how I know? I took that class.

I was a physics major. By nature, one gets very interested in philosophy, as there is a philosophy of science that is very important to understand. One should know Bacon, Popper, et.al as modern science is predicated on their ideas. Popper has had a particularly strong influence on the philosophy of science in the past century.

That being said, many of the philosophers I did not care to read. Sartre and Heidegger for
example. I think part of this may be because they did not write in English and the translations are not that good. Something gets lost in the foreign language translations I think.

I'll start with the Ontological proof of God. There is no ONE ontological proof of God. There are many (somewhat similar) versions of this proof. Descartes was one of the more modern ones and basically stated that what one perceives in the idea of something is true of it. He then goes on to say that he perceives existence in the idea of God and that therefor God exists. The argument has flaws as it proves the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy also. I say Descartes was one of the later ones because Kant came along and smashed the whole thing to pieces and rid us of this scourge.

Tertullian. Another theist. Tertullian said that whatever Christ said is true. What is in the
Bible is Christ's words and therefore true. His argument was circular. Sounds like today's
televangelists. Anyway, I he didn't like philosophy and said it should be abandoned.
He also said Christianity is a true philosophy. Not sure if that is the contradiction you
meant but it's contradictory. Maybe not though if we permit people to change their minds about
things over time -- which seems fair to me.

YOU wrote "God is a Taoist". Question number 2. .You forgot already?

Evolutionary Ethics. Man has, by natural selection, evolved morality. Stephen Jay Gould would turn over in his grave. What do you think, punkworld? For one, I don't think there are any universal morals. Take murder for example. Every society murders. I don't know of any society that doesn't permit killing the enemy. Maybe that is the moral. Kill gooks but not your neighbor. Interesting thing to evolve. I think it's BS.

You asked "Why did Berkeley consider his theory non-sceptic?" Which theory? He had many.
These the questions from notes to a philosophy class or something? The question assumes
having just studied something in particular about Berkeley. You probably mean his "Theory of Immaterialism". More BS. Science was right and has marched triumphantly on. Philosophy is being killed by Science. One of my professors liked to pronounce his name BARKLEY. I don't know if that is correct or not.

The mind-body problem is the "hard problem". Really not so hard. The mind is a construct. I'm
a materialist. There is no problem.

Karl Popper, my favorite philosopher, proved verification to be an invalid method of scientific proof. Well, I don't know if I would call it a proof. He did point there was some circularity in doing science that way. George Soros was very influenced by Popper. I think he ran into him at Columbia. If you are into investing, check out "the Alchemy of Finance" by Soros.

Jews exterminating "heathens". It's in the Torah. Leviticus or Deuteronomy I am nearly sure.
(I don't know the Hebrew names for these books). Lots of stuff in there I consider crazy. If your kids disobey you, they should be put to death. If a man shall lie with a man, he shall be brought to the city gates and stoned to death. Yes. the bible is very homophobic. Kill gays it says. Nice book.
What Eminem has written should be considered less controversial than what is in Leviticus.

On Kant's categorical imperatives. There are more than two. Which do you consider to be
"main" and why? I don't think Kant ever chose two and said they were "main". Maybe after he
was dead, someone thought them that important.

Anyway, One is that one should universalize any possible action one may commit. If you are about to do something, imagine everyone else doing it. If you wouldn't like the world this way, then that defines the actions as moral or immoral. Of course, I think we all think that is silly. Take porn for example. We all have very different ideas as to the morality of porn. One can discover nothing by asking this question of oneself. I think Rousseau's "Social Contract" is much better than this argument of Kant. More realistic anyway. The cool kids today all say "Real Politik". I highly recommend it.

Another of his categorical imperatives is basically a restatement of the Golden Rule. Do unto
others as you would have them do unto you. Kant didn't put it exactly that way but it means the same thing.

Well. about the history of punk question. I don't know what you want as an answer. It was
called punk ROCK. All the early artists had been rock musicians. So I say rock. Extremely
drunk rockers at that.

You wrote "I will only ask questions, and supply answers if you fail to answer any of them.
since you said you know more about anything than I do, answering all the questions correctly
is the only way to prove it."

I disagree with that. The only way to know if I know more than you on any subject is to pick
the subject and have a random person ask us a lot of questions from that subject. if you ask
the questions, you have slanted the questions to ones you already know, which is, well,
cheating. It's rigging the contest.

A neutral person is the only one that can ask the questions. I've read your English. It is nearly flawless.

For the record, if you call a person an idiot for their cultural tastes, you do not seem to
be a very wise person, certainly not studied in the philosophy questions you are asking
me. Well, maybe you studied Nazi philosophy. They had similar ideas.

__________________

skype = "adultdatelink"

ADL Colin

letshunt,

I really like your post. Everyone should print it out and frame it.

Amputate- that was a nice post too :-)

mrbling seems extremely wise for his young age.
watch out for this guy. :-)

__________________

skype = "adultdatelink"

ADL Colin

"Colin, that is SOOO not a country song. You didn't mention mama, prison or a train track once.
"

I still have to grow as an artist. I got a pickup truck in there though!

__________________

skype = "adultdatelink"

[Labret]

There you have it. Thank you 17 year old Mr. Bling. You couldnt have illustrated my point any more clearly.

Libertine

Apparently they didn't teach you the right stuff then, since most of your answers are either wrong or ambiguous.
Just as a sidenote: I'm sure you know more about some things than I do. However, to say you know more about every single subject is just plain ignorance, without a decent foundation (even the languages thing shows that).
Another thing I'd like to point out that I am not calling people idiots for liking music of little quality. Much of the music I listen to merely serves entertainment purposes, nothing more, nothing less. However, to say that music is of high quality is a completely different matter. One who listens to it and enjoys it certainly doesn't have to be an idiot, but one who is under the impression that there is no difference in quality to be found between the mass-produced music that is usually to be found in the top 40 and music which combines experiment, creativity, originality and perfectionism, either is an idiot or doesn't pay much attention.
Is the maker of a cover of some all-time classic song who just copies the melody and puts a generic housebeat under it of equal talent to the maker of the original song? I think not...

Now, for the questions:

The ontological proof: Although there are many ontological proofs of God, there is only one known as "the" ontological proof. That's the one by Anselm. "God is that than which no greater can be conceived. If that than which no greater can be conceived does not exist outside of my understanding, then that than which no greater can be conceived is in fact not that than which no greater can be conceived, because one could also conceive of something like that but existing outside of my understanding."
Obviously, his reasoning is flawed. Also, there are 2 variations of this proof, but I won't go into further detail.

Tertullian basically said that after the bible, there was no more need for philosophy after the bible, and stated philosophy should be destroyed and replaced with belief. (something like "After Christ we desire no subtle theories, no acute inquiries after the gospel" - don't quote this though, not sure if this was the exact wording).
However, the dialectic he used to make his point, his wording and his argumentation, all were great examples of philosophic reasoning. Therefore, he contradicted his own words by using those words.

Smullyan wrote "God is a Taoist". On of the most entertaining texts in the whole of philosophy.

Modern evolutionary ethics actually holds that cultural evolution has caused morality, not genetical evolution.
Personally, I tend to agree. It indeed seems likely when looking at history that the most efficient ethical systems prevail. (kill=>don't kill=>don't kill those of your own family/tribe/country (unless ofcourse they pose a threat), but kill those outside of it when they get in your way)
The idea of an objective moral "good" seems a bit awkward to me, almost like a religion.

Berkeley's (which is indeed pronounced as "Barkley") most well-known theory is indeed immaterialism. However, the question should also have made clear which theory I was talking about, since the whole goal of this theory was to refute scepticism, which it tries to do by creating a very materialistic universe (which, strangely, consists of the thoughts that God gives us) in which we can't deny the existence of anything. He, in fact, is not only an anti-materialist, but at the same time a materialist - just without the matter.
(oh, and no, I did not use notes from a philosophy class. I used memories from a philosophy university study.)

The "hard problem" may be part of the mind-body problem, but they are most certainly not the same. The "hard problem" (called that by David Chalmers) is the problem of the qualia, in other words, the problem of why consciousness not only consists of the normal cognitive functions, but also of phenomenological experience.
It may well be a construct (that is in fact what I believe it to be), however, that statement is pretty empty without an exact explanation of how it works - and giving that explanation is the whole problem.

Karl Popper indeed proved verification to be false, and yes, one can call it a proof:

verification:
A -> B
B
--------
A

"If it's raining, the streets are wet. The streets are wet, so it's raining." That is verification, which is logically incorrect. An important note is that he actually repeated much of what Hume had said already.

The bible => Deuteronomy is the place where that specific passage can be found, which not only said to kill heathens, but also the jews living in the same cities with them.

Kant's categorical imperatives: There are indeed more, but there are 2 he spends most time on and seems to lay most weight on (judging from what he wrote).

You are making a common mistake on the first one. He actually does not say we should universalize actions before doing them and seeing if would like a world in which they were common laws, he says "you should do only those actions that conform to rules that you could will to be adopted universally." Notice the could. He actually is talking about (semi-logical) contradictions, not about personal preferences. E.g. If we adopted the rule "Lying is permissible", people would stop believing eachother, and lying wouldn't work anymore. It's basically a self-defeating rule. At least, that's what he says.
What you stated was not one of Kant's categorical imperatives, but a neo-Kantian one.

The second main formulation is that "we should always see other people not only as goals to an end, but also as ends in themselves".

Now, you say that the Social Contract theory is more acceptable? I beg to differ.
First big problem it faces is that it doesn't allow room for change. A social contract could include slavery. Would that make slavery good? And, would it make it bad to abolish slavery?
The social contract talks about rules as a foundation for ethics. It takes the whole thing backward.
Another problem are those that cannot participate in the social contract. Like animals. Is it morally acceptable to torture and mutilate animals? They aren't part of the social contract, so apparently, you can't say anything about it...
And what about the mentally impaired? Many of those are disabled to an extent which makes it impossible for them to participate in the social contract. So should we just go ahead and torture them?


Now, punk. The punk movement started in the 50's with the surf kids in california who had illegal parties and such (note that I was talking about the punk movement, not the music).


I think I can easily prove I know more on certain subjects than you do. For instance, the dutch language. (and, since you didn't read heidegger and sartre because of their respective languages, I think I can most likely add two more languages to that)
By the way, why would it be cheating? If I raise a subject in a question, and you fail to answer it, that most likely shows you know less about it than me.

__________________
/(bb|[^b]{2})/

mika

oooohh philosophy. interesting.

now what has philosophy contributed to the society during the last 2 decades. my guess: nothing

ADL Colin

First of all, Punkworld. I obviously don't think I know more about you than EVERYTHING. The
fact that you take that so seriously as to point out you know Dutch better than me is laughable.

That should have been sign enough you wouldn't understand humor when you saw it.

I think most people that read this board will see that I understood your questions and their answers. I think most people that read this board understood I was joking when I said I knew more than you about anything.

The fact that i stated there were many ontological proofs and discussed one of Descartes' proofs shows I knew what you were asking. Since the questions were philosophy questions, I thought you'd enjoy a little humor when you asked about "God is a Taoist". My answer WAS correct - in a funny sort of way. Again, I think the joke was obvious. You're right about the evolutionary ethics deal. I got that confused. I think I know what you mean now. memes, etc. I do agree with you also.

No, I don't think your question about Berkeley was clear. Maybe it got messed up in your
translation from Dutch since you claim to not be able to handle English well enough for a radio show. Didn't like the BARKLEY joke either? I know. I know. Pretty corny. Probably even
more so to an English as a second language speaker.

You asked "In which part of the Bible" .. you didn't ask which book. You asked which part.
You can't tell when you are being played with. I could just look that up in five seconds. Instead I give "It's in the Torah. Leviticus or Deuteronomy I am nearly sure."

As far as I know, Kant never called them his "main formulations." That is your judgement or
someone elses? Neo-Kantian. How horrible. I think I'll shoot myself therefore I am. Now, you'll probably think I subscribe Cartesian philosophy to Kant.

Don't know about the Social Contract being "more acceptable". Just that I like it more. My sentence starts "I think". That's my very clever way of saying "I think" ... Yeah, and fuck animals! Other than for food and clothing.

"If I raise a subject in a question, and you fail to answer it, that most likely shows you
know less about it than me."

That's horrible logic. Anyone can ask questions someone doesn't know the answer to. That is
quite easy. In a fair contest of knowledge, both people have to answer questions. You're
trying to rig a contest. I also think (haha) any such contest would have to be live to be
fair.

For the record, I agree with Mika. Philosophy is pretty boring for the most part.

__________________

skype = "adultdatelink"

ADL Colin

Labret,

I think you'd be a fair judge. Would you be so kind as to grade my "paper' while I prepare punkworld's 10 question philosophy exam?

__________________

skype = "adultdatelink"

[Labret]

sure.

Im not even sure how you got yourself into this mess.

ADL Colin

10 Question Quiz for Punkworld:

1. What was Socrates' mom's name?
2. Did Rousseau masturbate?
3. Are rainbows real?
4. Name three philosophers whose works burned in the Library of Alexandria.
5. Are UFOs visiting Earth?
6. Why does Voltaire begin his poem "A Horace" by discussing pussy?
7. Are atoms real?
8. Can we consider the Rolling Stones to be philosophers?
Example:

You can't always get what you want
but if you try sometime
you just might find
you get what you need

9. What is Labret's philosophy of existentialism?
(No cheating)
10. Why are most people bored by philosophy?

__________________

skype = "adultdatelink"

Libertine

Colin, obviously you have missed the entire point I was making.
You said that you "know more than anything than me". Even though this hopefully wasn't meant completely serious (if it was, you'd indeed be a fool), it most certainly showed how you apparently consider yourself superior.
With these questions I merely proved how there are certain fields of knowledge in which you clearly are everything but superior.
Sure you did well... for the average person only interested in philosophy. Please note that these questions were about the easiest I could think of. Any first-year philosophy student would answer them with ease. (Not that there is anything wrong with you not being specialized in philosophy - I most likely know far less about quantum physics than you, or traditional physics for that matter, or math even.)
Apparently you didn't get the language thing either. It's not the fact that I know more about the dutch language than you - which is completely unimportant - but the fact that while I speak your native language "nearly flawless" (in your own words) you don't speak a single word of mine.
The whole thing I'm saying is that if you are going to be saying you are superior, you'd better be able to back it up with superior knowledge on every single front - which, up to date, nobody in history has been able to do.

Anyone can ask questions someone doesn't know the answer to, yes. But when someone can't give a satisfying answer to a question like "what is the EPR-paradox?", one can safely assume that that person knows relatively little about quantum physics.
These were all questions at the same (low) level of knowledge.
Now, if I would have brought Hegel's dialectics up, it would have been a completely different matter.

Note on Kant:
The common consensus in the philosophic world at this moment is that the two mentioned formulations are the "main" ones. Having read his works, I tend to agree.

Note on the social contract:
Something I neglected to mention is that Latour has recently also given quite compelling evidence that the whole view it is based on is flawed.

Note on the bible:
I actually considered the answer you gave as the right one.

Note on the ontological proof:
The fact that you said there are many and that you discussed Descartes shows you know what ontological means and know more than the average person about philosophy, but are not specialized in philosophy (since if you were, you would have immediately known which one I was talking about).

Note on Smullyan:
If something isn't funny, I don't consider it humor. My bad I guess.

__________________
/(bb|[^b]{2})/

ADL Colin

"Colin, obviously you have missed the entire point I was making. You said that you "know more than anything than me". Even though this hopefully wasn't meant completely serious (if it was, you'd indeed be a fool), it most certainly showed how you apparently consider yourself superior."

No, you're missing the point, pinkworld. And even more obviously. Remember calling me an idiot and calling my 15 year old sister a "total and complete moron" because of our taste in music?

Yeah, was that you? Yup. Pinkworld the Wandering Philosopher thinks himself superior to others because he listens to punk music. That is a joke. If you think playing barchords at fast speeds is vastly superior to writing 4 part harmonies, good for you! I find it comical.

No, you haven't proven anything because it was so absurd in the first place. Do you really know anyone that thinks themselves superior at every subject in the world? Do you really think I am that one person? Maybe you should have studied psychology instead of philosophy.

You showed an incredible amount of pretentiousness to make such an assertion that someone is an idiot for liking popular music.
I tried to follow up on that pretentiousness with an equal amount of pretentiousness. Did I succeed or fall short?

__________________

skype = "adultdatelink"

Frank W

Great post re proofs. Thanks!

__________________
"If you hate a person, you hate something in him that is part of yourself. What isn't part of ourselves doesn't disturb us." -- Herman Hesse

ADL Colin

"If you think Eminem and Linkin Park are good, you yourself are also an idiot" - Punkworld

"I am not calling people idiots for liking music of little quality." - Punkworld

__________________

skype = "adultdatelink"

Libertine

Apparently, you have missed all points I was making.
I didn't call your sister an idiot for her taste in music (I hate the beatles myself, like I said before), but for her lack of historical knowledge. The beatles may have been a sucky band, but they most certainly played a large historical role. Besides that, they have also received lots of attention in the media, even in the past few years.
Now, apparently your sister has missed all of that, has missed every single discussion about the Beatles, etc. For that, she would have to have the memory of a goldfish.
Now, like I said before, I also didn't say you were a moron for liking that music, but for thinking it is "good". You see, there is a difference between thinking Linkin Park is nice to listen to, and thinking they are good musicians.

Also, it seems you failed to read what I said about most punk music. I don't consider it of higher quality, merely entertaining.
However, I don't go around saying it's very good music, because most of it is not. (did you entirely miss what I wrote to Labret???)

Basically, it seems you are purposely misinterpreting everything I say... perhaps your ego is hurt because you have been shown not to be the all-superior keeper of all knowledge?

__________________
/(bb|[^b]{2})/

Danny_C

Amputate: Wow, you did a great job of calling me on the fact that I'm not an expert on Mozart's life... and then completely missing my point.

And you're wrong in the most important aspect: There WERE no market studies. Mozart got where he was, in his time, because he was a musical genius. If his music came in our time, he would NOT win an MTV VMA. If you really want to argue my point, explain to me why the bands I've listed play in small clubs while P.O.D. is filling stadiums.

Mika: Philosophy has gotten us nothing? You obviously don't understand philosophy or its history. Philosophy has been the determining factor in the molding of societies, including our own. It's the backbone of civilization. Philosophy should be required in public schools and in universities... it's a shame that people aren't encouraged to think in our society. That's probably why they watch American Idol and listen to Papa Roach. (just joking... kind of)

As for the argument that popular things are good because they're popular... well, that's about the most ridiculous argument yet. Do you honestly believe that Jennifer Lopez is a better musician than, for instance, experimental jazz musicians who are constantly innovating new sounds and complex song structures, but whose albums sales never reach more than the thousands? Marketing determines what's popular, and the market studies have shown that the average listener doesn't want to be challenged or forced to think by their music. They want to stay in familiar, safer territory. They want nothing more than a catchy dance beat and uniform pop lyrics.

Look, I'm not on the side of the people arguing that you guys are idiots for listening to pop... that was never my intention. I just want you to admit that the system is flawed... that a lot of great musicians are kept out and forced to work for scraps while complete garbage is allowed to flood the airwaves. Who can possibly deny that simple fact? I'm not saying everything that's not popular is great, and everything that's popular sucks (I like some popular music). My beef is with the system that keeps great musicians from ever having a chance, and forces many of them to give up their recording carreers.

ADL Colin

I also didn't say you were a moron for liking that music, but for thinking it is "good".

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

There's that ambiguity of yours creeping up again.
For days, this conversation goes in circles. Punkworld decides what music is "good" aka "higher quality". If you disagree, you are an idiot.

Ego hurt from what? Don't you know I am actually
so flattered by your comment that "Sure you did well... for the average person only interested in philosophy. " that I have printed this post out and gone to the local print shop to get a frame for it? Hopefully, I will see you at a show someday and you can sign it for me.

__________________

skype = "adultdatelink"

ADL Colin

Hey PW,

When are you going to answer my quiz questions?

__________________

skype = "adultdatelink"

Pleasurepays

you guys dont know what great music is...

David Hasselhof
John Tesh
Snow

you guys all suck

mika

Feel like goin off-topic, when I just return to the original topic

Anyway, does this Eminem guy has some kind of anti-violence message? Correct me if I'm wrong, I just got that impression somehow.

I think it's great that when in reality (like it or not) the guy has probably a lot of influence in young people, and still his message is a nice one. It's easy for intellects to say this and that about his music but I cannot see what harm he's doing to anyone - vice versa.

Pleasurepays

yeah, he is TOTALLY against violence... why do you think his rap single " kumbaya motherfuckers!" was a runaway hit with Jehovas Witnesses?

ADL Colin

Mika,

Much of Eminem's lyrics are about his life. He expresses extreme anger at his mother and ex-wife. He raps about almost shooting his wife and then says that would have been the biggest mistake of his life and he is glad he didn't.
He raps about his love for his daughter.

Much of his lyrics are satirical .. in a song called "White America" he writes

So to the parents of America
I am the derringer aimed at little Erica,
to attack her character
The ringleader of this circus of worthless pawns
Sent to lead the march right up to the steps of Congress
And piss on the lawns of the White House and replace it with a Parental Advisory sticker
To spit liquor in the faces of in this democracy of hypocrisy
Fuck you Ms. Cheney!
Fuck you Tipper Gore!
Fuck you with the freest of speech this divided states of embarassment will allow me to have, Fuck you!

and then the next lyrics are:

"I'm just kiddin' America, you know I love you..."

__________________

skype = "adultdatelink"

mika

Hehe guess I got the wrong impression then. Thanks for correcting me. Never listened to his lyrics

ADL Colin

More Eminem ...

They say music can alter moods and talk to you, well can it load a gun up for you ,
and cock it too?

Well if it can, then the next time you assault a dude, just tell the judge it was my fault
and I'll get sued

See what these kids do is hear about us totin' pistols and they want to get one cuz they think the shit's cool

not knowin' we really just protectin' ourselves
we entertainers
of course the shit's affectin' our sales
you ignoramus

But music is reflection of self,
we just explain it,
and then we get our checks in the mail.
It's fucked up ain't it?

How we can come from practically nothing to being able to have any fuckin' thing that we wanted

That's why we sing for these kids
who don't have a thing except for a dream,
and a fuckin' rap magazine

who post pin-up pictures on they walls all day long,
idolize their favorite rappers and know all they songs

Or for anyone who's ever been through shit in their lives
till they sit and they cry at night wishin' they'd die

Till they throw on a rap record and they sit,
and they vibe.

We're nothin' to you but we're the fuckin' shit in they eyes

that's why we seize the moment try to freeze it and own it
squeeze it and hold it,
cuz we consider these minutes golden
and maybe they'll admit it when we're gone.

__________________

skype = "adultdatelink"

Libertine

So you think mass-produced stuff is of high quality?
You think McDonalds is haute cuisine?
You think Bob Ross is a superior painter?
You think Barbie is a sculpture of high artistic value?
You think The Bridges of Madison County is a literary masterpiece?

While all might have their merits, it is quite obvious that they are entertainment, and not high quality art. You might call me an elitist for saying that and disagree, however, in that case I am proud to be an elitist.

I must admit though that what I said may have been a bit ambiguous. I most certainly have no objections to people liking top 40 music, and in fact believe it is no worse than much punk, metal or any other kind of underground music.
However, it's contemporary entertainment. No more, no less. Not original, creative or of high quality. The lyrics are not profound poetry, but clever marketing. The music is not intricate art, but standardized beats and guitars. It's a mass-product, like the Whopper - certainly not high quality food, but I admit it can be tasty at times.

__________________
/(bb|[^b]{2})/

[Labret]

You sick sonofabitch.

The man was a god damn genius.

Nobody could top that mans happy clouds and sad trees.

Pleasurepays

you sound very much like a 15 year old talking over your own head.

YOU decide what "quality art" is for others
what is "art"
what makes one piece of art better than another?
is that true for you or a universal fact?

the simple point was made that something is considered good by virtue of the fact that it is popular... hence, some proof that the majority believes that it is good. or the that the belief or opinion or view that typifys those of most people, is that it is good.

Just because your opinion and tastes suck ass... doesnt mean the rest of the planet is wrong.

mika

yo punkworld take that damn quiz. I need answers - questions 8-10 are especially interesting.

ADL Colin

"You think Barbie is a sculpture of high artistic value?"

YES! Who the hell doesn't agree with THAT?

About that quiz ... why you avoiding it?

__________________

skype = "adultdatelink"

ADL Colin

Bob Ross is a sculpture himself. That hair is beautiful, man!

__________________

skype = "adultdatelink"

[Labret]

He is too punk rock for that quiz. hehe

If he was punk he would scan a pic of his sharpy marker in his ass and tell you to fuck yourself.