List what you think are

[whateverman42]

No no, this is fun for me, you don't get anywhere without conflict, and conflict doesn't deserve the negative connotations its ascribed with. But I don't like the assumption you make that I'm not a satisfied person Isn't this one way of bringing my thoughts into action anyways?

I don't agree with

When you gain something, you lose something else.

because you make the assumption that a human being can't take things along with them as they develop. Not every old person is a grumpy old crank you know. Some people have the ability to learn new things and balance them along things learned in the past. Who says you can't be mature and fun-loving?

Sure, Neil likes his fluff, as do I on occasion, but the key word here is balance. How much fluff does he himself actually produce? Right, almost zilch, saying something about how highly he regards it. But on the occasion I listen to trance or the radio hits, I know what I'm doing. I'm deciding to turn my brain off for a bit. I'm balancing mindless fun and critical introspection. Are you telling me the people who listen to the radio and watch Idol balance that with good music?

I'm not condemning brainless pop; it is what it is. Its just so much more popular than good music, and I tend to wonder why. People aren't thinking. And you say there is no intelligence, only awareness. Semantics. You know what I'm talking about. Who would you guess is more able to have stimulating conversations: a Beehtoven fan or a Fall Out Boy fan? Your arguments tend to be vague, far-reaching pie-in-the-sky rhetoric, and I'm just speaking common sense. Maybe a bit stereotypical, but stereotypes exist for a reason. A Chinese person is more likely to enjoy rice than an eskimo. Maybe not in every case, but odds are good. That's the essence of my argument. Formulaic entertainment is for people who are less adept at using their brains, and the fact that it overpowers original creativity tells me the masses have a problem.

When you get TV in the home, you lose story time with family, et al. Pop music is not progress from classical. For you technology has improved, thus things are better. Yet take the email. It seems to have destroyed letter writing.

This is actually in line with what I'm saying. E-mails, when written with proper punctuation and grammar, improves letter writing. We still have the ability to write nicely with the added benefit of speed and convenience. TV can add to a familial experience if there's good programs on (yeah right) and its not overused. In the same way people abuse emails and tv, they abuse music and popularize utter crap. Yet for the intelligent people, emails, computers and music are making life better. Who is to say opera is better than pop music? It doesn't matter, we make the arts fit our lives, and our lives have changed rendering opera obsolete. With technology, we can listen to music in the homes now, and albums were inevitable. That's progress. Yet we've also retained the opera and theatre (quite unnecessarily IMO).

[York Minster]

You value what you call balance. Aristotle also believed in moderation. Probably a good idea, but again, it's a value call. A Beethoven fan might be horrible to have a conversation with if that person can't relate his music and time to other music and time, since I, personally, don't know much Beethoven other than a few of his symphonies. This goes for the Fall Out Boy fan as well. Potentially, the Fall Out Boy fan will be much more interesting to talk to. Some may listen to classical only as background music or as atmosphere for rich living that they don't process like we do PSB music. But if they do or they don't, neither way is better than the other. One just involves more introspection.

I'm pie in the sky, and you're common sense. Yet, is there common sense? What exactly is that? You prefer original creativity. Many prefer formula. One is not better than the other, that's the value you impose. You are the one who is pie in the sky with all the statements about what you do being better than what the masses do. I am much more egalitarian in my thinking. Your thinking is very one directional, moving to a sort of betterment, a continual progress. What I'm saying is that doesn't exist. Yes, a couple people can add fun loving and maturity, sure. But there is no such thing as progress. It's all value calls, and all value calls are relative. IF you think logic and thinking are so amazing, I ask you why? Where are you headed with all that thinking that these people are not headed? What is your end game here? If they all loved PSB or more mature music the world would be better for all because___________.

[whateverman42]

Values are inherent in humans. Generally people live by a moral and ethical code, and if they don't, they at least understand how they differ from society. In the same way we have the ability to appreciate good music. There's always easier, cheaper routes and as humans, I feel they compromise our potential. A good example is fast food; we know its bad for us but we give into temptation and satisfy our base pleasures, which is what the tepid pop/rock radio hits do for our psyche. But where am I headed they are not?

I used to work in an auto-shop doing the most menial and back-breaking mind-numbing work ever, and what was on the radio? Alternative garbage rock. My co-workers were mean-spirited jocks who simply needed angry music to get through the day because using your brain at that job was pointless. I simply want to use what was given to me; a body and brain. I have more compassion and empathy due to thinking. Bill Hicks said we should have a beautiful world our children can come to, and that would be knowing your world. Ignorance is the root cause of all the problems in the world today.

And some music is better than others. Me scratching away at a guitar vs. a PSB song is easy to differentiate. It gets a bit harder as we get to able musicians, but songs can still suck even if the tones are in some semblance of order. You even compare PSB songs, deciding which are best and perfect, and wouldn't you think it natural that West End Girls has a higher standing among their canon than The Atom Splitting? Why should it be different in the entertainment world? Shouldn't the best and most creative stuff be the most popular? Why is formulaic cheese dominant? Aren't these good questions to ask without roadblocking them with vague 'what is good?' questions which gets us nowhere? We know when something is right and proper and vice versa because common sense is as natural in us as breathing and sleeping.

Isn't the abolition of slavery progress? And if we ever shed sweat-shops would that not be progress? Learning how to treat one another only comes from thinking. Listening to good music and watching good movies and turning off the tv are small steps in bettering the world. But then, according to you, we might as well all be serfs pledging allegience to our lords and dukes and the church. Because after all, what are values lol?

What is a white tablecloth for that matter? You can drive yourself crazy questioning reality. I'm just trying to make sense of the reality I've been presented.

[BlueSwan]

60's:
Let's face it, nothing from the 60's is worth listening to today.

70's:
1) Abba
2) Jean Michel Jarre
3) Bee Gees

80's:
1) Pet Shop Boys
2) Stock/Aitken/Waterman
3) Bad Boys Blue

90's:
1) Ace Of Base
2) Dream Theater
3) Depeche Mode

00's:
1) Lady Gaga
2) errrmmmm.... Blue Swan?
3) ????

[Drico One]

60s: Lennon/McCartney
70s: Andersson/Ulvaeus
80s: Tennant/Lowe
90s: Drummond/Cauty
00s: Jürgensen/Lauest

[One of the crowd]

60's:
Let's face it, nothing from the 60's is worth listening to today.

Bullshit.

Im not a fan of 60s music but it wasnt all Beatles and The Stones.

There's some classic Motown, Bacharach & David in there for starters.

..and you listed Ace Of Base

[York Minster]

In the same way we have the ability to appreciate good music.

As you can see in this forum, what is "good", even among PSB fans differs. Some dislike all Pet SHop Boys music. Your contention is likely that if people were less ignorant, did more thinking, they would like the Pet Shop Boys, or at least respect them. Yet, you don't show much respect for Beethoven.

Alternative garbage rock.

Your opinion, man. I like Stone Temple Pilots. I'm not sure what goes into this category though. Music with hate or music that has qualities that you don't want to hear doesn't make it any better or worse then Pet Shop Boys. I might agree that I, personally, don't enjoy much what I call "crap rock", being Creed, Nickelback, etc. But, in a way, these songs are very much pop songs, just done in a different style, and appealing to a different "culture". When you don't like the culture that a song appeals to, then you won't like the song. If the Pets did a Nickelback song, it might be really good, but as it is, I don't like sound.

I simply want to use what was given to me; a body and brain

That is your teleological lookout, it may not be other peoples. Some people are mostly body, like weight lifters, some mostly mind, like Chess masters, some mostly tuned into environment like forest rangers.

Values are inherent in humans.

Yes, this certainly exist, just like religion exists, however I don't have a religion. Do I have values? Of course. They are mostly utilitarian based. Others values are based on religion, or on role modeling, or whathave you. But no matter why they are there, they are relative to the time/place/and person.

[York Minster]

Ignorance is the root cause of all the problems in the world today.

I agree this is a major issue. I feel like cultural literacy is just so poor that most people just can't follow basic events in the times of their country. What goes on in the government and economy and what our basic place in the world is remains a mystery to people. That said, it's a bit of a simplistic statement to make.

And some music is better than others. Me scratching away at a guitar vs. a PSB song is easy to differentiate.

Can't agree. Lou Reed put out a 4 side record of scratching. Given, most people hate it, but there are some out there who don't. I would agree with your statement if you mean that some music took more talent to make than others. Certainly true. However, one of the original philosophies of the Pets is, they don't need the talent to cut it. Yet, they obviously have it, and Neil and Chris work well together.

Aren't these good questions to ask without roadblocking them with vague 'what is good?' questions which gets us nowhere?

Yes, they are good questions to ask. Asking questions is a good thing to do, I do it all the time. Basically, I'm Socrates. But I'm not exactly "roadblocking". The question "what is good" is tough isn't it? You can make claims all day long about what you feel is good and not. But that doesn't mean that you've gone and solved the debates that happen in aestethics classes over the last few centuries. Of all the philosophy I've read, the one area that is the least clear, with the least well thought out treatises, even by the "greats" is the area of Beauty and Art. Some argue the exact opposite of you. They may say Mozart is better than R.E.M. because R.E.M. hide their chords in their music (can't remember what exactly the argument was). All depends what you are looking for.

We know when something is right and proper and vice versa because common sense is as natural in us as breathing and sleeping

Well, if there is one thing I'm going to take issue with it's this. Really, think this out a bit more. What is common sense? Why is it "natural"? Is "common sense" the same in the US as in New Zealand, Sweden, Niger, and the Seychelles? Things are common sense within a paradigm. I should not kill you is common sense if I don't want to go to prison. But if I DO want to go to prison, it all changes. In fact, common sense is in theory what is in common, that we share, that we all agree on. This again is cultural, and even within the US or UK culture at large, it's tough to find much that has a 90 precent + agreement rate. Certainly some things are prudent for most people most of the time in America, but trying to apply this to a discussion of the Back Street Boys won't do much good. A quote from wikipedia is as follows:
Whatever definition one uses, identifying particular items of knowledge as "common sense" becomes difficult. Philosophers may choose to avoid using the phrase when using precise language. But common sense remains a perennial topic in epistemology and many philosophers make wide use of the concept or at least refer to it. Some related concepts include intuitions, pre-theoretic belief, ordinary language, the frame problem, foundational beliefs, good sense, endoxa, and axioms.

IF it were all so common, we wouldn't need such debate over it. We don't have much debate over whether we sleep or not. I remember reading about and early 20th century philosopher, when I was reading about semotics who set out to list all the things he "knew". It was Derrida or Wittgenstein or someone of that era, I don't remember. They weren't deductive things, just things he thought were certain. That philosophy didn't turn into a major movement it seems. In a metaphysical sense, I do think when we talk about red, we probably all see a red that looks somewhat similar, but I don't think that's what you're talkinga bout.

So

[York Minster]

Isn't the abolition of slavery progress? And if we ever shed sweat-shops would that not be progress?

Why don't you go back in time and ask, even as recently as the 19th century in America if those who had slaves thought it was progress or not? You value getting rid of human pain and increasing human dignity. Me too, me too. But it terms of what is right and wrong, we just can't know. Abolition of slavery is progress insofar as it brings it closer to the ideals set out in our constitution already. But when it comes to the perennial debate of how much equality there should be in the country, we all know the vitrol spewed between the "socialist" democrats and the republicans.

But then, according to you, we might as well all be serfs pledging allegience to our lords and dukes and the church. Because after all, what are values lol?

Exactly. And if I was a serf, it might be better in some ways. I might be more sure of what I needed to do in life. There may or may not be more security. Or, it could be god awful. But I'm pretty sure most in America, if not Europe pledge some sort of tribute to the church. As the last sentence of Vonnegut's Deadeye Dick states "The Middle Ages are not over" (or something like that). Where you see progress, I see the same arguments going on between groups as went on 200, 2000 years ago. Hegal, though a bit totally crazy, writes about this in his dialectics of history.

What is a white tablecloth for that matter? You can drive yourself crazy questioning reality. I'm just trying to make sense of the reality I've been presented.

Yet, your questions are questions about reality. You can drive yourself crazy with to much existential thought, I've done it myself. Being engaged in other activity is good. But don't fault me for bringing forward difficult questions just because they make your head hurt. And what is a white tablecloth? I enjoy questions like that.

60's:
Let's face it, nothing from the 60's is worth listening to today.

I will not dignify this with a response.

00s: Jürgensen/Lauest

OK, I'm ignorant, who is this?

[BlueSwan]

OK, I'm ignorant, who is this?

You don't know?

[York Minster]

Jürgensen/Lauest

Oh, right, quite sorry about that, I just am not up on my Denmark based electro bands with less than stellar vocals. I will make sure it doesn't happen again. Maybe for one of the videos you could do a recreation of the girls who stripped in the cafeteria for good seats.

[whateverman42]

I wonder if anyone else is reading this discussion lol.

I don't think humans are infinite wondrous creatures. We are limited, at least in relation to whatever secrets exist at the heart of the universe. Human behaviour is especially finite. Therefore values that exist for us can be measured in some form or another. I am only arguing about what is right for us. You're right about asking what is right and wrong, but not in relation to humans. We have rights and wrongs. We inherently know when we're being bad or good.

Feel free to argue in the abstract, but I'd like a comfortable life. If ignorance didn't exist, life would be much better. And I don't think saying ignorance is the root cause of all problems is simplistic. Its true.

High five Blueswan! The 60's sucked. As an example, would you prefer to use the first phone invented on a daily basis? Or would you rather use a cordless push-button you can buy at any shop? Respect should be reserved for the pioneers, but their achievements are always built on. Standing on the shoulders of giants. The 60's are irrelevant now.

[York Minster]

We inherently know when we're being bad or good.

This sums up your position, which frankly, is rediculous. If anyone else were reading this thread, I assume I would be backed up on this point. Now, I suppose you could argue this: most humans feel like they know what good and bad is, because of their culture, and they know when they are going against it. They even feel it in their bones. Yes, quite true. But I must tell you myself, personally, that I don't inherently know when I'm being good and bad, so your thesis fails right there. There are to many times of "is this the right thing to do"? And on the other side, there are a couple percent of the population who fall into th schizos and sociopaths who don't FEEL the same way we feel, even if they "know" what is right and wrong by the larger society.

I would like you to elaborate on that statement "We inherently know when we're being bad or good". Define it, give examples, if you still believe it. Because to me that's an amazing thing to think. You yourself may know, quite certainly, but don't say that about everyone.

You can also argue that all humans try to do good at all points, even if that good is relative, they try to do what is good for them. But then you have the altruism problem. Discussion at the real world level involves what you believe at a deeper level, and those deeper building blocks will influence your thinking at all levels. Worth thinking about them a bit more.

[glennjridge]

if ideas of good and bad werent somehow known inherantly I dont see why babys always cry rather than laugh when adults get into an argument. why not find it comical? despite having almost zero life experience,the almost uniform reaction is crying.
even they can tell bad from good inherently.

[York Minster]

if ideas of good and bad werent somehow known inherantly I dont see why babys always cry rather than laugh when adults get into an argument. why not find it comical? despite having almost zero life experience,the almost uniform reaction is crying.
even they can tell bad from good inherently.

WE have a severe problem of semantics here. What is good and bad? You are using pain as an argument. Humans have SOME instincts, there is no doubt. Of course, not 100 percent of babies will cry as you say, some are "abnormal" in one way or another, perhaps they have Asperger's. Thought is what gives a choice. Thought it was allows choice between good and bad. A young baby has no real conscious thought yet, at least not as we do as adults. If you took a young baby, kept it away from mass society completely, and raised it to think such things as murder can be a good thing, of course they will find that good later on. In fact, this has happened in past societies. In modern society, we have Japan where it is "more good" to die then to shame the family. In Jordan, which is liberal mind you, for the middle east, a father or brother will kill thier son or sibling if they shame the family. This still happens around 20-30 times a year it's estimated. It's not seen as bad by those doing it, and the larger society is so indifferent to it (yes there are action groups against it) that the courts can barely impose any penalty for that sort of killing.

Furthermore, to believe that there is an absolute good and bad, then we wouldn't have such concepts as anomie, or existential dread. If the answers were all that obvious.