>I then said “but if the people who like that thing won’t stop saying how great it is and how everyone needs to try it then it’s probably good". I remember. I already explained that we refrain from recommending atonal music to earlets because it's out of their reach, not because it's bad. Modern normies don't get tonal music either, they can appreciate some of the most superficial aspects, like I can appreciate the beat in a French rap song. At that one time when classical was THE genre, 1 it wasn't really, folk music existed, 2 people were much more into music, more people played instruments, could read sheet music, had a decent ear. It was a completely different environment.
Henry Carter
I listened to etudes by Chopin, Liszt/Lyapunov, Skriabin and Debussy.
Should I quit playing piano?
Juan Butler
no
Camden Smith
Now listen to etudes by György Ligeti.
Adrian Scott
Listen to Sorabji.
Landon Bell
today while playing a few delicious preludes and fugues at the pianoforte (many don't know it is actually called that) my dirty crusty asshole began to itch tremendously. i squished my buttocks a bit to the side and let slide one of the juiciest meltiest farts your ears did ever hear or your nose did know. mine dirty crusty asshole was quenched and the amalgam of dead skin and faeces began to slide down my legs. but i was so overtaken by the power of the HOLY SPIRIT that i did not miss a beat. is this the true power of JS bach's music?
Xavier Brooks
partial subjectivity is also partial objectivity. I readily scede that things are in many ways partially subjective. but as soon as i say something is partially objective the subjective fags pounce on me and say "reee justify yourself", then i do, then they no longer argue, they just resort to name calling and LOL DIDNT READ ing.
you must wait three minutes before posting a duplicate reply
Leo Martinez
>it's out of their reach just know that what you are enjoying isn't music - it's sounds. If you say "i like how it sounds", i wont give you shit. But if you say "this is music", then i will.
Thomas Barnes
>the subjective fags pounce on me and say "reee justify yourself", then i do not really
Sebastian Baker
exactly as expected. zero argument, just blind contradiction. no substance at all.
Camden Butler
what do you expect when you autistically repeat yourself ad nauseam and disregard arguments in bad faith
Christopher Morris
Nope, I think it's music. But if you disagree, give me some sort of definition!
Something that is partially objective is just subjective(also partial subjectivity does not exist), no way around it. If you can't say that something is certain, with no other alternatives, you can't call it objective. There is no such thing as objectively bad music, no matter how much you hate dissonance
Nathan Cooper
(1/2)
At the root of the neurological enjoyment of music is the ability to place one'self firmly within the work as it unfolds through time. It should lend itself to comprehensibility on one level, but unpredictability on another.
What makes a good narrative is that the person experiencing the work is able to understand what's happening. Integrating newly discovered information and fitting it into your current understanding is an immensely satisfying activity. That's the reason why people enjoy a dramatic narrative. There is a flow of new information that affects your understanding - each new piece of information could be useless, or it could have a large effect on your current concept of the situation. This effect is amplified when the user knows that this information is coming, but cannot predict what effect it will have on the structure of their understanding. A drama becomes useless as a drama when the person becomes lost, and new information fails to have any valence on the existing structure that was being built from the very first bit of information. That's why tv show's have episodes, but also a larger scheme - There is some drama to be enjoyed in each episode such that a newcomer can get something out of it, but there is also a larger scale drama that unfolds over the course of the entire season, or show. Even within one episode there are micro dramas the open and close in the matter of only a minute, or even seconds.
Drama is why people enjoy fighting, or engaging in a competitive activity, or arguing. Anything in which there is some chaotic thing to be sorted out and made sense of as it comes bit by bit is a drama. And the better the drama, the more enticing it it. Granted, one's taste in a drama might depend on their taste in things in general. Some people like dramas that regard cooking, or baseball, or trains, etc... the subject manner, in that way, does augment the enjoyment one takes.
Parker Bell
Hans, i hope you get corona and die
Joseph Ramirez
>Integrating newly discovered information and fitting it into your current understanding is an immensely satisfying activity Prove it
Kayden Harris
Why do you faggots keep entertaining him
Camden Murphy
the fact that you decided to reply to me proves that you are begging for new information. you will scan over this message with eager anticipation for new information that will be added to your understanding of this conversation (drama). If you didn't think the little burst of enjoyment you would get from your latest dose of new information would outweigh the negative feeling you get from arguing with someone then you wouldn't have replied in the first place. In a sense, YOU proved it.
Xavier Foster
It's funny Like trying to watch a monkey figure out how to use a fork
Jonathan Gray
both of my grandmas are alive
Samuel Fisher
Prove it. Prove I'm taking any satisfaction from this.
Jackson Jackson
Ok I just hope you realize he's being ironic
Wyatt Cooper
Music is almost a perfect drama. It is basically pure information that is rapidly assimilated into one's understanding of that thing as it comes, note by note. When you enjoy music, at the heart of your enjoyment is the fact that you constantly maintain an understanding of the piece, but that understanding is constantly being augmented by new information.
You might have noticed that when you listen to a piece, you'll like it much more on the third listen than on the first listen. Why? Because you comprehend it to a greater degree. Naturally, by listening 100 you'll get a little bored of it, because you are able to anticipate almost every note and phrase - you have comprehended it almost completely, and thus, it's no longer an interesting object. There is no new information about that thing left to be assimilated. But the key thing to take away from the last few sentences is that you enjoy a piece the more you are able to track it, while still being reminded of little features you have forgotten since the last listen.
It is for this reason that music that is TOO SIMPLE is extremely boring - it almost isn't even music anymore. there is no drama, there is nothing to be understood, it it comprehended completely on the first try with almost no effort. Music for kids is like this. In the opposite sense, music that is TOO COMPLICATED is also extremely boring, because the drama in that music is almost completely missing due to its extreme complexity, if there is any there at all. There might even be no drama, each new piece of information is almost completely random and follows some structure (if there was any plan at all) that only the composer is privy too. The lack of comprehensible drama is what separates music from mere noise.
A surface structure that can be readily comprehended, combined with an ever blossoming complexity that lies beneath the surface that lends itself to further exploration on each listen is what makes great music.
I can't because reality is not objective, but working under the assumption that the material world is the true reality, you can't prove that I take any satisfaction from conversation. For all you know, I'm taking part because I pity you and wish to lead you to the correct conclusion
Anthony Wright
>reality isn't objective >reality, the thing that is defined as the objective thing that we all agree on, isn't objective
user, i...
Aiden White
>reality, the thing that is defined as the objective thing that we all agree on >he doesn't know Read more pleb
Samuel Ross
then jump off a cliff
don't worry, it's all in your mind bro. you'll live.
i know. i've thought about it. you think you're deep but you're not. real patricians take the objectivity pill. every 20 something college midwit buys the "maaan its all subjective, like, maaan *puff puff* " meme.
Robert Evans
There's no proof of what's after death or if the reality in which I currently exist is a true one. I could jump off a cliff or hang myself, it's an option. Who knows what could happen, you certainly don't
Luke Thompson
>real patricians are dead
Dylan Miller
reality is subjective. you can't say that.
Mason Young
that's subjective, you can't say that
Luke Powell
imagine thinking you need to be at least a midwit to appreciate self-evident truth
Hunter Gonzalez
Prove the existence of objective reality right now And before you post some empiricist cop out, our sense have proven to be unreliable and easily tricked, therefore can't be trusted
Gabriel Cox
lol at objectibrainlets thinking that you can disarm any subjectivity with its own subjectivity like it's an infinite recurring loop (much like their arguments)
read a fucking book, this argument was solved and resolved and re-resolved a million times between 1500 and 1900
William Baker
>hans comes back >thread instantly speeds up 10x so this is the power of hans
Eli Hill
faux-hans
Tyler Sanders
wtf i love hans now
Daniel Ortiz
then why don't you do it and find out?
the problem with your argument is that while you can say you don't believe in objective reality, you actually do.
it is similar to a person saying "i am a moral relativist". the only true moral relativists are psychopaths. you can be aware of the relativity of morality and still believe strongly in your own morality. most people do.
in the same way, you can say "you can't prove the objective world exists", but you still believe it. if you didn't believe it, then you would act much differently.
awareness of one's chains doesn't free one from them. whether or not objective reality exists, you believe it does.
Joseph Brown
>reddit spacing eveyr one of your posts has been and will be discredited and disregarded for ever
Holy shit, rekt! ... I agree. Taking the objectivity pill is roughly equivalent to taking the "mathematics can describe aspects of reality"-pill. Note that I didn't say "the fabric of reality IS mathematics". There's a difference, but I don't think most of people in this thread have the background to understand. Sorry, pal. Either you do the work or you have accept that you bear no importance to this discussion. Not really.
Easton Ward
>Either you do the work I did, and it's clear the lot of you haven't. >Not really. ya objectively rly
Matthew Bell
>I did, and it's clear the lot of you haven't. Nope. You just said someone else had done the work. You didn't even post the work. This is a really common form of intellectual dishonesty.
Bentley Parker
>objectifags sperging out, incapable of proving the unprovable and raging when the opposite "team" can't either because that's their point
Did a philosophy major fuck your wife? What's with this retarded larp?
Jaxson Clark
you weren't even responding to me
this general is a clusterfuck
you didn't even argue, because of the formatting of the post
it is easier to read a post like this
if you don't like it, eat my ass, bitch nigga
Justin Butler
>You didn't even post the work oh, you want to be spoonfed. Just google early modern + late modern philosophy and maybe watch a few shitty introductory videos that are up (down) to your level
>it is similar to a person saying "i am a moral relativist". the only true moral relativists are psychopaths. you can be aware of the relativity of morality and still believe strongly in your own morality. most people do. That's the point retard
Logan Powell
retard it's not even readable
Ryan Long
imagine being so sad and pathetic that you either took the time to do this garbage, or, worse yet, saved it from elsewhere
