Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mit-eddie.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!mcnc!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!think!mit-eddie!nessus
From: nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (Doug Alan)
Newsgroups: net.music
Subject: Re: Good and Bad Music
Message-ID: <4452@mit-eddie.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 13-Jun-85 15:04:54 EDT
Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.4452
Posted: Thu Jun 13 15:04:54 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 15-Jun-85 09:56:22 EDT
Distribution: net.music
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 67

{Why is this line here anyway?}

> [Me] It's not so clear to me that there is any such thing as an
> objective criterion for anything.  Most people accept that 1+1=2, but
> is this really true?  It's really just an assumption that most of us
> make.  If someone says, no 1+1=3, then there isn't much you can say to
> them, except to call them names and refuse to argue with them.
...
> I know I'm right, but there isn't any way I can prove it.  And this is
> just one of the many fustrating facts one has to learn to deal with.


> [Seth Jackson] Of course there's no way you can prove it, because
> you're wrong. You are trying to place an objective judgment on a
> subjective matter.

I don't know how you could say that I'm trying to place an objective
judgement on anything, when I already said that it is my belief that
there no such thing as objective judgement at all.

With any system of "knowledge", you have to start off with axioms.
There is no way to prove one's axioms.  From the axioms, one can then
prove things, but the truth of any conclusion is contingent upon the
truth of the axioms.  Since one can have no way of proving one's axioms,
what one's axioms are is totally subjective, and thus all knowledge
derived from the axioms is subjective.

> Obviously, formula music does scores low on some scale that is
> important to *you*, but calling it 'bad' is clearly wrong.

Are you saying that me saying "commercial, pop, formula trash music is
bad" is bad?  How can you say this in light of what you've already said?

Goodness and badness are matters of subjectivity, just like everything,
including the "fact" that 1+1=2.  It's just a lot easier to get people
to agree upon mathematical axioms than on moral axioms.  One of my moral
axioms is "The degree to which the world is in a 'good' state is equal to
the degree to which people are intelligent, creative, and compassionate."
You seem to have the moral axiom "The degree to which the world is in a
'good' state is equal to the degree to which people are happy."  Please
do tell me if I am misinterpreting you.  If you hold this axiom, then we
will often disagree on ethical and aesthetic matters, but neither can
prove the other wrong, because we won't accept each other's axioms.  I
know of course that I am the one who is right!

> The fact of the matter remains - if there is an audience who
> appreciates music X, then music X is good music - TO THEM! It may not
> be good by *your* standards, but your standards only matter to you.

Well, I still disagree.  Music (like post formula, pop, commercial,
trash music) that encourages stupidity, consistency, and lack of
compassion is good for no one.  Of course this is my subjective opinion
on what "good" is.  (And it's the right subjective opinion.)

I should point out, though, that your view (if I have your view right)
would lead us to the conclusion that we should put everybody in
"pleasure" or "happiness" machines if we ever invent them.  That way
everyone can live out a perfectly safe and wonderfully happy life.  What
an abhorent thought!

			
			"I hold a cup of wisdom
			 But there is nothing within"

			 Doug Alan
			  nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP
			  nessus@mit-eddie.ARPA