Cogito ergo sum

I think therefore I am.

Descartes sought to prove the existence of “I” without presupposition.

1.)
P1: I think
C: I exist

This argument seems to presuppose the existence of “I” before the inference. This is a problem if “I” denotes all the qualities and characteristics that make up one’s personal identity. “I” could simply denote the phenomenon of the experience of thinking (see argument 3).

2.)
P1: I think
P2: All things that think, exist
C: I exist

Adding the suppressed premise does not help with the presupposition of “I.”

3.)
P1: Something thinks
P2: All things that think, exist
C: Some thinking thing exists

This argument avoids the problem of presupposing “I,” but subverts a substantive conclusion by doing so. “The thing” it proves to exist has only one certain property (it thinks). This might be the only sound deductive formulation of the Cogito. Using this conclusion, one can easily induce that the thinking thing has all the familiar properties of “I.”

Further attempts at a deduction are welcome.

Defense of meat eating

I do not consider myself morally obliged to be a vegetarian. I believe that the humane captivity and slaughter of non-human animals is morally permissible.¹

I believe that individual animals are not as morally significant as individual persons, even though they do share same the qualities that are the source of value for persons. There is intrinsic value in intentionality and consciousness. All living organisms are beautiful, and are subject to aesthetic morality. Without a doubt, there is normative force behind aesthetic morality. However, I believe that I have different types of moral duties towards persons with a much stronger normative force.

I have a moral contract with other persons to behave in a way that provides a sustainable and enjoyable future for all persons. Moral behavior allows for the cooperation between individuals that is necessary for family, community, and society to flourish. I feel obliged to enter this contract because I recognize that it makes possible all of my intentions, aspirations, and purposes in life. I could never harm another person, since it greatly undermines the contract and puts in danger nearly all of the things I value. Furthermore, I know that I am expected by other persons to uphold this contract, which gives me anticipation that other persons will fulfill their moral duties. This reciprocity encourages my moral commitment.

Non-human animals are not in this contract, since they do not have the capacity to cooperate and play an intentional role in the well being of society, and since they do not expect me to uphold any moral duties towards them. I do not feel obliged to treat them as I would other persons. Their moral status requires other considerations of my values. I recognize that animals have their own intentions and preferences, which I normally do not want to hinder or negate. In a sense, all living organisms have a type of intentionality. Furthermore, the difference between intentional systems and stable systems in general is not at all clear. There is a purpose to all systems, which is continued existence and well being. It is sometimes hard for me to understand why well being matters, especially when the system has nothing to do with my intents and purposes. Nevertheless, I usually feel morally compelled not to harm these systems without due reason.

I eat meat because it tastes good and because it is a good source of sustenance. It is entirely possible for me to choose vegetarian products in lieu of meat. It is rather inconvenient though, since I would consciously have to avoid the normal culinary habits among society and the influence of the commercial market on my purchases. These reasons move me to eat meat more than my convictions to ensure the continued existence of a non-human intentional being. I value their existence for the purpose of their sustenance and good flavor more than I value the purposes of their consciousness and intentionality. I know this sounds callous, and may even denigrate my moral character. Because of these preferences of values, I find it morally permissible to eat meat.

1Factory farming commits serious moral crimes against (human and non-human) animals and the environment on an epic scale. Since 99% of animal products consumed in the U.S. are raised on factory farms, it is certainly difficult to be a consciences omnivore.

Grades and Authority

I was recently thinking about the problems of grades and authority in the classroom. It seems that many teachers nowadays value an egalitarian relationship with students. In principle, this makes perfect sense. In practice, it conflicts with the standard academic system and the commonly held belief that those with more wisdom than you have the authority to evaluate your merits. Constructivist perspectives in education challenge that to some degree. They argue that students' perspectives should be considered as the context for evaluating their work. However, I see no way of justifying grades out of being a somewhat derogatory act, even in the off chance a teacher can really understand a students' perspective.

Anything short of an A surely discredits some of a student's merits (certainly one could have an A in effort but a D in content). Even A's are sometimes off putting. I recall receiving a C on a paper that I thought was pretty good, and from the same professor an A on a paper that I thought was pretty bad. I felt that I was somewhat duped. I quickly got over it, after considering how hard it is properly to evaluate and consider the (sometimes obscured) meaning that students are trying to get across. It is a hard job for everyone, since students are also faced with the challenge of needing to understand the professor's perspectives.

Consider what a grade is supposed to represent. Admissions officials and employers infer an applicant's ability, knowledge, interest, capacity, motivation, work ethic, etc. from his/her GPA. Therefore, for it to hold valuable purpose, it must represent at least some of those capacities (which ones are a very important question). I see a fundamental flaw in thinking an A in a class represents my knowledge and ability in that subject. In fact, many professors admittedly grade only on the consideration of a student's fulfillment of requirements. They hope to secure meaning in the grades by means of quantitative data alone. But I would argue this attempt is somewhat futile. Outstanding students may fail to meet some requirements for individual reasons (some that a humanist/constructivist would seek to sympathize with). Is it fair to give them unsatisfactory grades? And how about those students who have figured out the easiest way to get an A with little to no genuine work or gain?

It is arguable that quantitative data alone cannot provide insight into a student's ability and knowledge. I believe that it more likely represents something like motivation or work ethic (sometimes, but often inaccurately), but only when grades are averaged over a long period of time. However, my level of motivation has certainly changed a few times in the past 8 years, and I myself am entirely uncertain of my future work ethic. And my GPA certainly doesn't help me know that one. But that is exactly what the admissions officials at universities will inference from my GPA; same with my future employers. They will also try to inference my ability, knowledge, interest, capacities, etc.

The teacher has a position of authority over students in our academic system, in part because they are said to have the wisdom to judge a student's merits rightly, and because they do in fact act as key determiners in every student's academic and professional fate. Therefore, it is the teacher's duty to be absolutely certain that he/she does so properly. This duty is imposed by two facts: 1) they are trusted as being responsible for the student's future, and 2) every student looks to their teacher as a source of information and valuable input into their own self. The teacher will cause harm to all students (since grades are comparative) by failing to perform his/her duties.

Duties to "The Grim Fate of American Future"

I left this response to the article "The Grim Fate of American Future:"

I certainly worry about my future here in the United States. I believe it is rational to worry in the presence of uncertainty, especially nowadays where society’s development has so much momentum. Our course as a whole depends on our rationality as a whole. Luckily nowadays, we have mass open communication to promote critical thought. In my opinion, we have the capacity to decide our course effectively, if only people were more educated.

The average quality of life for a US citizen is much higher than the average Earth citizen in many important aspects. Most people have access to a wealth of information at no cost. Most people feel safe at almost all times. A variety of foods from around the world are available to those who work. Of course we really ought to improve the standards even more, since we have the capability.

The problem is, people are too distracted. I sympathize with Freeman’s portrait of American political and social class perspectives. They frighten me. Especially now when our society is facing tough challenges (namely with natural resources and new environmental concerns). We need to unify as a nation through open communication and democracy, and agree on what the best possible future of America looks like for the immediate and foreseeable future. If we maintain a healthy dialogue, we can merge the rational conclusions from the major perspectives to decide the best course of action towards that ideal future.

In that light, I’d like to oppose Freeman’s demand that “You should Leave the United States of America.” We owe it (morally) to our fellow people and for the sake of this land to ensure its safe future. It is indeed selfish and cowardly to run away from one's nation in a time of turmoil. Every person who understands Freeman’s letter has the duty to use his/her capacity to work towards the ideal future of the United States.

That being said, fast travel and widespread communication is slowly erasing the boarders (mostly culturally, bust also geographically). The US’ position is no longer isolated; almost all nations nowadays depend on the well being of other nations. The U.S. citizen’s duties to the U.S. are no stronger than to other nations around the world. And that stands true for citizens of every country.

I appreciate the article. I hope more people read it and think about it critically.

Plagiarism at its saddest

http://chronicle.com/article/article-content/125329/

Here's a well written article by a professional essay writer about his experience writing for students. I'm not at all surprised that these services exist and thrive (I've had to decline many requests from other students to write their papers). But I am dumbfounded that after all this time professors and teachers have yet to detect his work. I suppose this could happen easier at big universities, where the professors do not have enough time to pay close attention to their students' work (although I hope there's enough time to determine a fair grade).

I don't care to point fingers at who's at fault. But I do believe that there is a fault in these academic institutions if this kind of thing occurs regularly. Professors and students need to work together more closely, so that professors can recognize a student's ability and foster the areas that need improvement. Furthermore, we ought to expect professors to grade (evaluate) students on more than just their work, but also on their ability, interest, motivation, reliability, and all the other factors that employers want to know and would otherwise inference from their GPA.

Dialogue in the spirit of the Sophist and Statesman

Poet

Socrates: We have painted excellent portraits of both the sophist and statesman and we are well on are way to digging out the philosopher. But wait! It seems these experts are missing their good friend the poet. It would be unfortunate indeed for us to overlook his beauty.

Visitor: You're right Socrates. We will have to find him quickly though, because we will certainly need our strength to tackle our next target. The poet is a tame goose in comparison to the mighty philosopher.

Socrates: You are probably right. I am an old man and all this excitement is making me rather tired. To save my strength for the philosopher, I will sit this one out once again and let my young friend Plato here do the talking. His young heart has produced some fine poems. Plato, recite to us the epigram you wrote to Xanthippe.

Young Plato: I will recite my poem, but I should let you know I have not practiced much philosophy. I am not sure that I am the best candidate for the chase. I prefer to rest in the beauty of poetry. Listen: “I am an apple; one who loves you throws me at you. Say yes, Xanthippe; we fade, both you and I.”

Visitor: By god, Plato. Were I Xanthippe, I could not say no after hearing these words. You are as you claim a poet, beautiful, but I wonder why you prefer the beauty of poetry over the beauty of philosophy. Do you think they are both equally beautiful? Or which one do you think is more beautiful and why do you prefer poetry?

Young Plato: I believe poetry is more beautiful. The poet speaks directly from his heart only about beautiful things, while the philosopher speaks about all things that come to his mind. The poet speaks words that teem with emotion, while the philosopher's words are often sterile. Maybe I have not ever seen the true beauty and capabilities of philosophy, in which case I am not a fair judge.

Visitor: Fair enough for now. Although I am not so sure you are correct in making these distinctions between the words of a philosopher and the words of a poet. The best philosophers speak with just as much passion as the best poets. And the words of any good poet are surely true. Or could there be a good poet who speaks falsely?

Young Plato: Certainly no. A good poet speaks the purest truth strait from his heart. Otherwise I would not allow myself to be called a poet.

Visitor: Then I suspect the poet and the philosopher are very similar creatures. We should be extremely alert not to mistake one for the other on our hunt. Speaking of the hunt, where do you suppose we should look first for the poet?

Young Plato: You've found me!

Visitor: Oh and what a marvelous child you are! Speaking on a whim for the sake of entertainment! Do you think your reply represents the poet? Should we use the child to guide us to the poet?

Young Plato: Let's give it a try.

Socrates: I think we already are.

Visitor: If we use the child as a model, it will bring us down a different path than the angler did for the sophist, and the weaver for the statesman. The child will be more confusing, and is likely to change on us, even though on the surface they have telling similarities. But unlike the other models, the child is not a type of expertise. For now, lets use the same dichotomy we used for the sophist.

Young Plato: Fair enough.

Visitor: We suggested earlier (Sophist 219b-c) that there are two types of experts; those that handle production and those that handle acquisition. And unlike the sophist, the poet would certainly take the role of production. As I see it, there are two categories of production. There are persons that produce things for practical use, such as buildings, weapons, and clothes. All other persons produce things for the sake of enjoyment. These items would include things like toys, musical instruments, and plays. Is this an appropriate division?

Young Plato: Quite appropriate.

Visitor: And what type of production is the poet responsible for?

Young Plato: Things of practical use serve to ensure the well being of both the individual and the city as a whole. Practical things could also be tools of some sort. Poetry merely causes the well being of just the individual. So, the poet must produce for the sake of entertainment.

Visitor: But what about the great poet Homer? Don't his stories serve practical use? Many people rely on his poems for guidance when they need advice. Or do people's reliance on his poems differ in some way from their reliance on the laws or education?

Young Plato: I am inclined to view education differently than both the laws and people's use of Homer's poetry in this manner. Education allows individuals to be autonomous on their own critical thinking, while the laws and suggestions in Homer's poetry merely give examples of how to act.

Visitor: That seems fair. You make this distinction on the same grounds that we dismissed the laws as necessary during our hunt for the statesman. But without a critical thinker to guide one's actions, the laws and, by extension, Homer's poetry can serve a practical use.

Young Plato: In this scenario, wouldn't the poet be serving the same purpose as the lawmaker?

Visitor: A very similar purpose, if not the same.

Young Plato: I see this as a problem. When I write poetry, it comes from the urge to express myself, not to guide other's actions.

Visitor: But what about the poem you just recited to us? Didn't you suggest to Xanthippe that she should accept your love?

Young Plato: Indeed she should, but not because I told her to. After witnessing the beauty of my words and feelings for her, it will be her heart that will tell her to accept my love. In this case, it seems that poetry may guide others' emotions. Mere laws and advice cannot influence an individual's decisions in this way.

Visitor: So then poetry has practical use, different from the laws and advice. The poet can use his words to touch the souls of his listeners, which will influence their decisions from the deepest level.

Young Plato: The poet is certainly a powerful creature. Like the songs of the Sirens, the poet's words can enchant any passerby. I am becoming wary of the poet.

Visitor: Let's stay alert to the dangers of the poet as we continue our hunt. We've decided that the poet's production is concerned with matters of practical use. As I see it, experts can be concerned with the production of two types of things: physical objects and immaterial objects.

Young Plato: That is obvious enough.

Visitor: Well then, it is also obvious in which category poetry falls.

Young Plato: In the category of immaterial objects.

Visitor: That's right. But how should we divide this category, so that no single immaterial object shares features of both categories?

Young Plato: I do not yet see how.

Visitor: Me neither, at least not in a way that will help us find our target. Let's try this; we can make a category out of language and words, and another category out of all immaterial objects that are non-language and non-words. Both categories would include things like sound.

Young Plato: You've chiseled out language from other immaterial objects with expert precision.

Visitor: And I see a dividing line between all language.

Young Plato: Yes, I believe I do too. One can either speak language truthfully, about the things that are eternally and universally true. To speak about these things is to speak about the most beautiful things. Otherwise one can speak can speak myths, lies, and nonsense. Surely these things are vulgar, and are not the concern of the good poet.

Visitor: That is approximately where I would draw the line too. But I am not so sure the poet does not concern himself with myths and the like.

Young Plato: How so?

Visitor: Well consider Hesiod's and Homer's poetry. Surely you can think of many examples of far-fetched tales in their poetry that seem unreal.

Young Plato: Yes, there are some questionable tales in their poetry. But even if they are not real, they serve as illustrative and entertaining examples of virtue, or other qualities like courage or honor. Others illustrate the effects of misbehavior. These are portraits of true aspects of life.

Visitor: Then the poet uses myths and metaphors to show images of the truth. But tell me, are the virtuous characters in these poems examples of the form of virtue itself, or do they simply participate in the form?

Young Plato: Of course, they can only participate in the form.

Visitor: So then the poet's images of virtue are only imitations of images. And even if the poet has direct knowledge of the forms of these things, his words only have the ability to reflect images of these forms.

Young Plato: It seems that the line we used to divide language is itself divided.

Visitor: That's right. And so far it seems that the poet only produces things that fall into the category of imitations.

Young Plato: But poetry of this sort is nearly useless. Indeed, imitation is not even a type of production. Their depictions fall flat, and only show one side of the forms. The poet is free to show only the beautiful sides of forms, leaving out the vulgar parts. And this is precisely what the poet will do, since it is his job to produce only beautiful things. The foolish listener might be left unaware of the whole truth, thinking things about forms that are not true. This is not at all an admirable occupation.

Visitor: But if the poet's job is to produce beautiful things, then he must know beauty itself. He need not know the whole form of things, but only the parts of things that participate in beauty. The poet needs not be an expert at all things to create beautiful poetry, but only an expert in beauty.

Young Plato: That's true. But I do not believe the poet actually produces beautiful things. By merely imitating beautiful things, he makes his poetry appear beautiful.

Visitor: But nevertheless, the poet must see the form of beauty in these things to be able to illustrate only these parts. Therefore, the poet's words are illustrations of beauty itself.

Young Plato: That may be the case, but his words are not always about beauty. What the poet often speaks about explicitly are mere imitations.

Visitor: That may very well be the case. But consider this; there are things other than beauty that the poet talks about with complete understanding.

Young Plato: What other things are there?

Visitor: The things that are most close to him. Like you said earlier, the good poet speaks truth directly from his heart.

Young Plato: That's right.

Visitor: These things are the poet's emotions. They are as pure as truth itself. And since the poet speaks of these things directly, he is producing actual images of these emotions. Therefore, the poet's occupation remains in the category of production.

Young Plato: That's true. But what good do these emotions have? Pure emotions are devoid of reason. And the poet combines these unreasonable emotions with imitations of images. What a scornful and dangerous role the poet has!

Visitor: Indeed not many men are well suited to this role.

Young Plato: This role is not suitable for any man.

Visitor: But we might still be able to save the poet.

Young Plato: For what reason?

Visitor: Good reason. We said before that the poet has the ability to speak directly about emotions and beauty. Why must he stop there? If he has the knowledge of the forms of other things, then he will be able to speak about these things too. His poetry could serve to educate people about all important things.

Young Plato: This is the type of man I would like to be. But wait! This man is not the poet, but the wise philosopher. For the poet will only speak of beauty, and ignore other parts of things.

Visitor: Your eyes are sharp my boy; you may very well become that type of man. But I believe there is much more to the philosopher than what meets your eye. We have made distinct only the poet. I think it's time to start our hunt for the philosopher.

Conceptual Meaning in Music

I'm wondering about the capabilities that music has to express meaning. Neurologists have observed brain activity that is a direct response from musical perception. If one considers this brain activity to be the same thing as an emotional response, then music can directly express emotion. But does this allow one to consider music meaningful, or maybe even a language?

The definition of “meaning” is crucial. I'd split “meaning” into two parts. Meaning can be either conceptual or emotional in nature. Both temporal and spacial objects can express either type of meaning, and can be experienced through any mode of sensation. Objects that express conceptual meaning make reference to specific non-subjective information (for example, comprehensive text, speech, braille, and images). Objects that express emotional meaning do not refer to anything specific, but directly cause a subjective emotional experience. The vast majority of perceivable objects and events fall into this category (including music). Emotional responses can include moods, physical experiences like pain and pleasure, and everything on this list. It is not necessary to divide out all the types of emotions that music can express. It may in fact prove to be all types.

It seems true that perception of emotional meaning triggers conceptual responses, and visa-versa. These secondary responses are an indirect result of perceiving an object. They are subjective, and do not represent objective features of the object. Davies argues that a proper evaluation of music only describes features of the music itself, and not the listener's subjective response. I agree with Davies, but disagree with the implied notion the listener must ignore the concepts that she subjectively experiences as a result of perceiving music.

When I listen to music that causes conceptual responses (see my descriptions of Philip Glass's Metamorphosis and Bon Iver's The Wolves), I value the music for its ability to cause those responses. These conceptual responses are certainly found indirectly through direct emotional responses to the music. However, I feel like “I got it right” in the two examples mentioned above. I am pretty certain that the artists intended to evoke certain conceptual responses by expressing specific emotional meaning. But doesn't this suggest that music can contain in some significant way conceptual information?

Epistemological Theory of Forms (Plato)

Here's a link to my essay. I created a new blog as to not clutter up this one.

http://platoessay.blogspot.com/

Signficance of intentional silence

I'm still bothered by the idea that silence as the absence of intentional sound has less significance than intentional sound. It is certainly the case that artists often intentionally incorporate silence between sounds, not just to emphasize the sounds, but for the sake of the silence itself.

I've been wanting to play Bon Iver's "The Wolves" in class for a while to emphasize this point. The silence in this song has special significance. The album which this song is on was recorded (for the most part) in solitude when the artist Justin Vernon retreated to a cabin in Wisconsin. Many of his songs include random sounds of the environment around him, which makes the listener feel like he/she is there with him. In the case of "The Wolves", the silence serves to emphasize his solitude. I'd even argue that the build up in sounds near the end serves to emphasize the silence, not the other way around. This might be why he chose to make it chaotic and unpleasant sounding; he didn't intend the listener to focus on the sounds but instead the silence.

Here's the song. It's not my favorite on the album but is interesting nonetheless:

Response to "Subject-of-a-life"

I had a rather different idea of what characterizes a “subject-of-a-life” when Professor Johnson first mentioned it in class than what is described in the Blackwell Reference Online. I first thought that a subject-of-a-life is an entity that has a meaningful story to it. Things that have a long history, like an old church, an old ship, a favorite pair of shoes, or a heavily played and worn out guitar all seem to have a sentimental value to it simply because of its history. This is the reason I can place significant value on my instruments; for their capacity to have an especially rich history.

It seems to me that Reagan's subject of a life doesn't have much to do with honorary persons. Certainly honorary persons are to be valued for the same reason as regular persons, or else they would be given a different title.

Philip Glass' Metamorphosis

Here is an excerpt (part 3 of 5) from Metamorphosis by Philip Glass, performed by Branka Parlic.



This is an example of a minimalist composition. Everything going on is very clear and perceivable. The simplicity of the music is what makes it so difficult to perform. I believe this is a much better interpretation of the piece than Philip Glass' original recording. Parlic teases out so much emotion with not much to work with.

Metamorphosis as a whole is a really unique piece. It is worth watching each part in order to see the whole thing unfold. Most music does not contain a concrete concept like this. A serious event occurs in this piece: a metamorphosis. Each part evolves from the previous part. The beginning lets the listener know that something serious is about to happen. It all goes down in parts three and four. Part five calms back down, and reflects on the whole process.

Are Metamorphosis and other concept pieces more artistic than any given hit single?

Response to Abby Lindamood

Abby Lindamood asked "Is it preferable to have music or no music during a crucial scene in a film?"

I like this subject a lot. When I was in high school, I used to collect songs that I thought would be good candidates for movie scores. I read that two of my favorite directors at the time said they shape their movies around music because it was so important. One of the best examples of effective use of music is in Steven Spielberg's movie Empire of the Sun. The choir song “Suo Gan” serves as a powerful motif as well as an emotional protagonist.

If I were the filmmaker, I would determine what type of feeling should accompany the scene. There are a lot of variables that would influence the effects of having music or silence. If there is a lot of background sounds in the scene, music may not add much. Otherwise, music will usually influence the emotive response to the scene by making it something different or by making it artificially more intense. I would choose whether or not it is appropriate to alter the mood or make it artificially more intense.

Sometimes, the absence of music can be extremely intense. Especially after a period of commotion, silence can make a viewer focus on the immediate events. Silence can add a dreadfully serious and realistic mood to the scene. Sometimes, too much silence in a movie can make it boring. I would certainly not want to have a crucial scene be boring.

On a slightly sillier note, I have occasionally thought how it would be to have a soundtrack to life. I have heard multiple people say "I wish wherever I went, Lord of the Rings music would play. My life would be so epic." Since music does alter a person's emotional perception of events, there is some truth to this idea. Doing laundry or making dinner would feel a lot more epic along with epic music.

What is the role of music in daily life? Do you need to listen to music to accomplish certain tasks?

Response to Keane Lundt

Keane raised the question: “How does the blurring of objects, or viewing objects from a distance, (specifically block imagery) paradoxically aid in our recognition process?” I believe that in this case, the close up viewer's perceptions are clouded by mass input. A brain can only handle a certain amount of information. We filter excess information both physically (in our sense organs) and mentally (by only processing some information and forgetting other). The close up viewer is not filtering enough information for our brains to start recognizing the patterns at a more distant level. Instead, the close up viewer's brain is recognizing the patterns at the smaller levels, losing sight of the bigger picture.

This is the case in the perceptions of sound, and maybe the perceptions of concepts. A thinker can move to different levels of abstraction of the same concept and discover new meaning. Do you think this is the same thing or an analogy of what is occurring with those paintings?

Response to Emily Burke

I believe that seeing musicians perform music enhances the listener's experience. The problem with music videos today is that they try to be artistic creations on their own, in addition to the music. This can take away from the musical experience. However, actually seeing the musicians perform the piece makes the viewer/listener's experience more personal. There is something to witnessing the musician's expressions along with the music. This is why sitting close to the stage is so much better at a live performance, even though the sound quality is usually better in the center of an auditorium.

I have always found Louis Armstrong's facial expressions particularly interesting. They are so strange that the first time I watched him sing I started laughing. I got over it and realized that his facial expressions might be a result of him putting so much expression into his singing. Check out this video and see what you make of him:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnRqYMTpXHc

Musical communication

I have always been fascinated by the communicative abilities that music has. I am sure most people feel that tingling sensation from an exceptionally moving song, or at least some strong emotional experience. People usually share very similar emotive experiences from music. This is to me is truly amazing.

Music has the ability to express certain emotions that language cannot. Try reading some lyrics to a song before ever hearing the accompanying music, then compare it to the experience of listening to the lyrics with the music. The additional information is usually a good experience in some way and can effectively influence the meaning of the lyrics.

Why is music such a valuable part of our lives?

Response to Krystal's Question

Krystal Maynard asked the question “What elements are occurring in society, in your opinion, that makes it able for what is deemed popular music to shift drastically?”on her blog.

I do not believe the shifts in the styles of music are very drastic, but are instead rather gradual over the course of a few years. Musicians alter existing conventions to a variable degree. If the alteration is too extreme, the music is generally “hard to get used to.” If there is not enough alteration, the music is “unoriginal.” Finding a good medium helps a band grow in popularity. Once a band is in the mainstream, their sound influences the modern conventions of music.

Interestingly, there seems to be many more types of conventions nowadays than ever before. There were certainly not as many genres in the 1950s as there are now. It makes it difficult for someone to have decent overall knowledge of all types of modern music.

I'm sure mass media has a role in spreading music. The internet makes music readily available and helps artists gain popularity. With a more rapid and thorough spread of music, it is no wonder there is so much and so many types of music.

I've always wondered what music will look like in 50 years and how our kids will think of our favorite music.

Plato's claim that "Music is the highest philosophy."

During class I asked professor Johnson where he found Plato's quote “Music is the highest philosophy." This quote intrigued me because of Plato's rather peculiar beliefs about music. He believes that music has the ability to touch the soul directly by creating a sort of raw emotional experience in the listener. Stemming from his Theory of Forms, he also believes music and art are twice removed copies of the truth. For this reason, he believes music and art provide distorted images of the truth. He criticized the poets and musicians (almost one in the same in that time period) to a degree that seems completely ridiculous to us now.

At the same time, Plato seems to believe that music plays an extremely important role in education. When setting up an educational program in the Republic, Socrates (Plato's mouthpiece) asserts that young people must learn music before the more substantive material. He advocates an extreme censorship of certain musical modes and harmonic instruments so that only “good” (i.e. virtuous) music will be taught. Since music has the ability to touch the soul directly, he asserts that being trained in only good music will align the students' souls with “the Good.” They will better be able to judge good and bad, not just in music, but in all aspects of life. While music is only a part of the educational program that allows students to be “good” people, it is a crucial component.

I still struggle to understand why Plato would have made the claim that “music is the highest philosophy.” To me, it seems a misrepresentation of his beliefs. Perhaps he meant that being trained in music (just like being trained in philosophy), will allow the student to make accurate judgments about the most important things: good and bad. This would be more clear if the statement was translated “Music allows for the highest philosophy.”

I am uncertain of the long term effects of music on an individual's soul (or personality). I find worthwhile qualities to literally all genres, depending on the specific artist. Does anyone have any insight on the negative, positive, and neutral effects to listening to certain genres?