Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Jklint]

Not sure what this implies but I have heard many a good song on the devils guitar.

Just a personal observation that it's through the works of mostly these composers, over and above any sacred text or tradition that the idea of God and Divinity ceases to be a barely felt background feeling and become more palpable; an inflection without speech, command or dogma as one would actually expect God to be. Of course, that's only true for me.

[Rederic]

If the main manifestation of religion would be Bach, Handel, Mozart, Beethoven and Bruckner, then I'm a subscriber.

This is because the only people able to afford to employ these composers were royalty & the church. Guess where these institutions got their money from?

[Jklint]

This is because the only people able to afford to employ these composers were royalty & the church. Guess where these institutions got their money from?

True for the Renaissance artists. The Church and the the Medici were among their greatest employers. Far less true or not true at all for the composers mentioned who came at a later date. But what difference would that make anyways.

[Xris]

True for the Renaissance artists. The Church and the the Medici were among their greatest employers. Far less true or not true at all for the composers mentioned who came at a later date. But what difference would that make anyways.

The singer not the song. The song could be about almost anything emotive. The singer ( composer) instills in us an emotion that can only be expressed in music.

[Rederic]

The Church and the the Medici were among their greatest employers. Far less true or not true at all for the composers mentioned

Bach, Handel & Mozart were all employed by the church & royalty at various times in their careers.The Royalty of Europe & the church both gained their wealth from the poor. Therefore it was the poor people of Europe who paid for religious music.

[Bermudj]

Bach, Handel & Mozart were all employed by the church & royalty at various times in their careers.The Royalty of Europe & the church both gained their wealth from the poor. Therefore it was the poor people of Europe who paid for religious music.

And don't the rich become rich from the poor?

[Jklint]

Bach, Handel & Mozart were all employed by the church & royalty at various times in their careers.The Royalty of Europe & the church both gained their wealth from the poor. Therefore it was the poor people of Europe who paid for religious music.

Not really true not the way you posted it. But who cares who paid for it and I have no idea what you're trying to prove. We got the music and that's what counts. Money was never better spent and many times they got paid peanuts or nothing. Having to eat with the servants means you are one. You conveniently forgot to mention that part.

[Xris]

JK I think your post indicated that those composers were inspired by religion. We are making the comment they were simply inspired and when you are being paid by the church it has to have religous connotations.

[Jklint]

JK I think your post indicated that those composers were inspired by religion. We are making the comment they were simply inspired and when you are being paid by the church it has to have religous connotations.

I never meant to imply that they were inspired by religion except perhaps Bach who was certainly paid very little compared to his talent. Musicians in those days were regarded as servants by their employers. It's actually almost ridiculous and sad when you read about it.

What I meant to imply was the metaphysical feeling (for lack of a better word) that music can inspire be it religious or secular or as Beethoven (who read a lot of Kant) put it - and I agree - music is a greater revelation than philosophy.

To quote myself:

..... that it's through the works of mostly these composers, over and above any sacred text or tradition that the idea of God and Divinity ceases to be a barely felt background feeling and become more palpable; an inflection without speech, command or dogma as one would actually expect God to be. Of course, that's only true for me.

There is no reference I can see which says that composers were inspired or only inspired by religion. Wagner for instance was "inspired" by Schopenhauer, Oriental & Greek philosophy. Carl G. Jung regarded the Ring as one of the most visionary works ever created. Many volumes have been written just on this work alone. It a work definitely not for the masses.

[Rederic]

Musicians in those days were regarded as servants by their employers.

They still are. Everybody who needs an income works for somebody else. If the church employed a composer to write a piece of music, then it had to be religious, or at least have a religious title. Handel wrote a lot of music for the church & royalty.

[Grotto19]

It can be considered that way indeed. However before considering it in that fashion you must also consider what parenting is. All parents have an implied duty to instill knowledge and values into their children. Parents will do this generally in the best fashion they know of. For many they believe it to be religion. Any society which values liberty can not impose it's will on the beliefs of others, it can only legislate their actions. Without this basic freedom the society simply is not free (yes I realize this means no society is fully free but that would be an entire thread of it's own).

If you are free to believe in something, anything, regardless of how insane it might be; then it follows you are justified in teaching that belief to your children. Thus it can not be abuse, in fact it would be more like abuse if you didn't teach them.

Now that said I will not be sending my children church because my personal beliefs are that it is abuse. But that is because I do not believe in hell, the devil, or even a god who creates people who by default are going to burn. It would be irresponsible of me to send my child into an environment that tells him he is inherently bad because I do not believe that.

[Belinda]

Grotto wrote:

If you are free to believe in something, anything, regardless of how insane it might be; then it follows you are justified in teaching that belief to your children. Thus it can not be abuse, in fact it would be more like abuse if you didn't teach them.

Quite right. Teach your children by precept and example the belief that they may use violence and oher bullying behaviour towards other kids to get what they want. Next they will teach their own children the same, because they are free to believe it.

[Bermudj]

Grotto wrote:



Quite right. Teach your children by precept and example the belief that they may use violence and oher bullying behaviour towards other kids to get what they want. Next they will teach their own children the same, because they are free to believe it.

I know my family, brought up the same, but we are all so different. I also see others, families, societies and they are all so different. I have had a variety of animals the same happens, you bring them up the same and they are all so different. There is no doubt from early on you want to instill on the young "good" behaviour, but that is obviously not sufficient, and we need to be constantly controlling each other. I am 100% sure that you could teach children to be violent, but they of their own accord will reject this at one point or another.

[Xris]

I know my family, brought up the same, but we are all so different. I also see others, families, societies and they are all so different. I have had a variety of animals the same happens, you bring them up the same and they are all so different. There is no doubt from early on you want to instill on the young "good" behaviour, but that is obviously not sufficient, and we need to be constantly controlling each other. I am 100% sure that you could teach children to be violent, but they of their own accord will reject this at one point or another.

The odds do not represent your views though. Brought up as Muslim you will be 99% certain to remain a Muslim. The same goes for any faith. Problem families generally breed problem children. Just like we should oppose the abuse of instilling an immoral lifestyle on children, so we should give our young the opportunity to approach religion with an open mind.

[Bermudj]

The odds do not represent your views though. Brought up as Muslim you will be 99% certain to remain a Muslim. The same goes for any faith. Problem families generally breed problem children. Just like we should oppose the abuse of instilling an immoral lifestyle on children, so we should give our young the opportunity to approach religion with an open mind.

The world is constantly changing and we live in a very different world to only 10 years ago. We are currently so much more aware of others cultures. So in the past I would agree brought up a Catholic in a Catholic country and the likelihood is that you would remain that. Or brought up an Anglican or Muslim or any religion. I think statistics will show differently in 10 years time.

Problem families generally breed problem children.

Do you have link to studies which show this conclusively? If so I would appreciate them.