|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 6, 2018 23:46:58 GMT
If you agree that baseball exists, why can't you agree that the subject of architecture more impressive than baseball exists? Huh? If you made any sense and had a point here, I would be delighted to answer. Art and architecture give clues to what is going on and I am certain you are aware of that. A building where laws are made has a different appearance than a building where food is served. Restaurants are far less likely to have Greek or Roman elements of architecture, columns, or statues. Sometimes churches have statues, and even a few might have columns, but you can tell they are different from law buildings and restaurants. Many buildings where religious services are held are quite impressive and much religious art, painting and sculpture, is also quite impressive, much more so than the golden arches of McDonald's. This tells you beyond any doubt that something special is going on in buildings where religious services are held. You refuse to admit that anything of consequence is going on when you try to claim there is no god. What I'm saying is that there is definitely something important going on. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Apr 6, 2018 23:58:37 GMT
When it comes to the examples you just gave you are correct. Legal matters and even public perception of morality is ultimately determined by what the majority believes. However FACTS are not determined by what the majority believes. Reality exists independently of what anyone believes (whether its one person or a majority). Because many people believe something to be true does not make it true. And to assume that something is a fact merely because many people believe it to be true IS fallacious logic! The issue is whether you have the "right" to require your opponents in debate to prove their case while failing to prove yours. Uh, no sir. The “issue” is not one of rights at all! It’s about who has the burden of proof. And in debate, the burden of proof is always on the person making the positive assertion. I don’t have to prove a negative. No intelligent and capable debater should require their opponent to prove that something does not exist, because failure to prove that something does not exist is not proof that it does exist. And the central question of “why believe in the existence of something without evidence or reason” remains! Because you have the mind of a small child Ad hominem...it suits you so well in these desperate times.  and cannot see anything from other points of view and you fail to recognize that they have the same rights you do. Which party has any burden in debate must therefore be determined in a political process, not you or your absurd notions of privilege or "fact." Not only is this a complete non sequitur, but it’s based on a false assumption. Again, the issue isn’t one of rights at all. Sensible adults have already recognized the status quo as having less burden in debate than challenges to it. You would do well to understand how that works. But you would do much better to understand why it doesn’t. But I really don’t think you have that capacity. It is easier to apply than "the person making the claim" is because "claims" on casual computer discussions arise in ways that can be difficult to trace. The discussion is often carried on by people not present for the "original" claim. People who hold opinions not supported by any status quo often believe they have some privilege in debate anyway. We do, it’s called logic. And argumentum ad populum is neither logical or reasonable. That is the privilege we enjoy over you. It is unreasonable to assert that because many people believe something it is true! And your entire argument (though clouded in red-herrings) is dependent on that. |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Apr 7, 2018 0:14:38 GMT
The issue is whether you have the "right" to require your opponents in debate to prove their case while failing to prove yours. Uh, no sir. The “issue” is not one of rights at all! It’s about who has the burden of proof. And in debate, the burden of proof is always on the person making the positive assertion. I don’t have to prove a negative. No intelligent and capable debater should require their opponent to prove that something does not exist, because failure to prove that something does not exist is not proof that it does exist. And the central question of “why believe in the existence of something without evidence or reason” remains! Because you have the mind of a small child Ad hominem...it suits you so well in these desperate times. and cannot see anything from other points of view and you fail to recognize that they have the same rights you do. Which party has any burden in debate must therefore be determined in a political process, not you or your absurd notions of privilege or "fact." Not only is this a complete non sequitur, but it’s based on a false assumption. Again, the issue isn’t one of rights at all. Sensible adults have already recognized the status quo as having less burden in debate than challenges to it. You would do well to understand how that works. But you would do much better to understand why it doesn’t. But I really don’t think you have that capacity. It is easier to apply than "the person making the claim" is because "claims" on casual computer discussions arise in ways that can be difficult to trace. The discussion is often carried on by people not present for the "original" claim. People who hold opinions not supported by any status quo often believe they have some privilege in debate anyway. We do, it’s called logic. And argumentum ad populum is neither logical or reasonable. That is the privilege we enjoy over you. It is unreasonable to assert that because many people believe something it is true! And your entire argument (though clouded in red-herrings) is dependent on that. You don't have logic, Cap'n. You have brainless blabber. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 7, 2018 0:54:57 GMT
Huh? If you made any sense and had a point here, I would be delighted to answer. Art and architecture give clues to what is going on and I am certain you are aware of that. A building where laws are made has a different appearance than a building where food is served. Restaurants are far less likely to have Greek or Roman elements of architecture, columns, or statues. Sometimes churches have statues, and even a few might have columns, but you can tell they are different from law buildings and restaurants. Many buildings where religious services are held are quite impressive and much religious art, painting and sculpture, is also quite impressive, much more so than the golden arches of McDonald's. This tells you beyond any doubt that something special is going on in buildings where religious services are held. You refuse to admit that anything of consequence is going on when you try to claim there is no god. What I'm saying is that there is definitely something important going on. Arlon. Religious architecture can be very pleasing in its genre. People worship there. It is important and special to them. I can be an atheist and appreciate good architecture. You are arguing the popular argument again without foundation. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 7, 2018 1:00:24 GMT
Uh, no sir. The “issue” is not one of rights at all! It’s about who has the burden of proof. And in debate, the burden of proof is always on the person making the positive assertion. I don’t have to prove a negative. No intelligent and capable debater should require their opponent to prove that something does not exist, because failure to prove that something does not exist is not proof that it does exist. And the central question of “why believe in the existence of something without evidence or reason” remains! Ad hominem...it suits you so well in these desperate times. Not only is this a complete non sequitur, but it’s based on a false assumption. Again, the issue isn’t one of rights at all. But you would do much better to understand why it doesn’t. But I really don’t think you have that capacity. We do, it’s called logic. And argumentum ad populum is neither logical or reasonable. That is the privilege we enjoy over you. It is unreasonable to assert that because many people believe something it is true! And your entire argument (though clouded in red-herrings) is dependent on that. You don't have logic, Cap'n. You have brainless blabber. ... and how telling that both you and Arlon, the dunces of the Board, come up with this when actually faced with logical arguments to which you have neither the brain power to understand, nor the competence to refute. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 7, 2018 1:03:21 GMT
The “issue” is not one of rights at all! It’s about who has the burden of proof. And in debate, the burden of proof is always on the person making the positive assertion. I don’t have to prove a negative. No intelligent and capable debater should require their opponent to prove that something does not exist, You are obviously a poor person who attended inferior public schools and depends on people much like yourself to dominate the internet. That is not as "logical" as you imagine it. No, it is not the "positive" assertion that incurs a special burden. It is not whether an assertion is "positive" or "negative" that makes it impossible to prove. It is the scope of a proof that makes it impossible. If a proof has infinite scope it is impossible to prove. Sometimes the scope of an argument can be exceedingly large. For example prove the basketball is not in the Empire State Building. That would certainly be very difficult, but not impossible. It would require searching each floor of a very large building. Prove the basketball is Michael Jordan's. That might seem a simple positive thing to prove, but it is not. Is the basketball signed? Are you certain it is Michael Jordan's signature? Even DNA evidence isn't final proof since maybe Jordan only played basketball with someone else's basketball. Positive or negative makes no difference at all. What makes proof impossible is infinite scope. No, you can't prove something does not exist in the entire universe. The scope of the universe is infinite. But you also cannot absolutely prove quite many positive assertions such as who did kill someone since the possibilities can be just as infinite. That's why courts do not require absolute proof, just proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Now that your method of deciding burden of proof is totally defeated, how can we decide? Suppose there is an argument that family cars should have three wheels instead of four. Who does not have the burden of proof? Why not? People who think that family cars should have four wheels indeed have an advantage. Fours wheels are thoroughly tested and approved already. We call this the "status quo" and it does not have the same burden of proof as the challenge to the status quo. Three wheels, however less than four, are not a "default" position. Neither are two wheels because motorcycles are not "family" transportation. Neither is one or zero wheels. The established number of wheels is four. People who want any other number need more data. Similarly the existence of god is established. Saying there is no such thing as a god is like saying there is no such thing as baseball. Baseball is established. Some people get baseball scholarships. You might not know any but they do. Baseball then is a "thing" going on in this world. So is religion. It commonly advises public opinion on many matters where science is useless. You do not accept that because your concept of a god is particularly childish. God is not an old man with long white hair and beard who lives in the clouds. To some people "god" is an established system of ethics, and those certainly do exist. Furthermore there is evidence of an after life. You refuse to accept it because you have imagined you can refuse because you imagine you are more logical and have privileges in debate others know you certainly don't have. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 7, 2018 1:07:45 GMT
Art and architecture give clues to what is going on and I am certain you are aware of that. A building where laws are made has a different appearance than a building where food is served. Restaurants are far less likely to have Greek or Roman elements of architecture, columns, or statues. Sometimes churches have statues, and even a few might have columns, but you can tell they are different from law buildings and restaurants. Many buildings where religious services are held are quite impressive and much religious art, painting and sculpture, is also quite impressive, much more so than the golden arches of McDonald's. This tells you beyond any doubt that something special is going on in buildings where religious services are held. You refuse to admit that anything of consequence is going on when you try to claim there is no god. What I'm saying is that there is definitely something important going on. Arlon. Religious architecture can be very pleasing in its genre. People worship there. It is important and special to them. I can be an atheist and appreciate good architecture. You are arguing the popular argument again without foundation. Funny choice of words, "foundation." Another funny thing is relativity. There are people who believe in it as certainly as they believe in sunburn. Relativity is important and special to them. Yet they are surprised when others want proof. What is so surprising? |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 7, 2018 1:08:32 GMT
The “issue” is not one of rights at all! It’s about who has the burden of proof. And in debate, the burden of proof is always on the person making the positive assertion. I don’t have to prove a negative. No intelligent and capable debater should require their opponent to prove that something does not exist, You are obviously a poor person who attended inferior public schools and depends on people much like yourself to dominate the internet. That is not as "logical" as you imagine it. No, it is not the "positive" assertion that incurs a special burden. It is not whether an assertion is "positive" or "negative" that makes it impossible to prove. It is the scope of a proof that makes it impossible. If a proof has infinite scope it is impossible to prove. Sometimes the scope of an argument can be exceedingly large. For example prove the basketball is not in the Empire State Building. That would certainly be very difficult, but not impossible. It would require searching each floor of a very large building. Prove the basketball is Michael Jordan's. That might seem a simple positive thing to prove, but it is not. Is the basketball signed? Are you certain it is Michael Jordan's signature? Even DNA evidence isn't final proof since maybe Jordan only played basketball with someone else's basketball. Positive or negative makes no difference at all. What makes proof impossible is infinite scope. No, you can't prove something does not exist in the entire universe. The scope of the universe is infinite. But you also cannot absolutely prove quite many positive assertions such as who did kill someone since the possibilities can be just as infinite. That's why courts do not require absolute proof, just proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Now that your method of deciding burden of proof is totally defeated, how can we decide? Suppose there is an argument that family cars should have three wheels instead of four. Who does not have the burden of proof? Why not? People who think that family cars should have four wheels indeed have an advantage. Fours wheels are thoroughly tested and approved already. We call this the "status quo" and it does not have the same burden of proof as the challenge to the status quo. Three wheels, however less than four, are not a "default" position. Neither are two wheels because motorcycles are not "family" transportation. Neither is one or zero wheels. The established number of wheels is four. People who want any other number need more data. Similarly the existence of god is established. Saying there is no such thing as a god is like saying there is no such thing as baseball. Baseball is established. Some people get baseball scholarships. You might not know any but they do. Baseball then is a "thing" going on in this world. So is religion. It commonly advises public opinion on many matter where science is useless. You do not accept that because your concept of a god is particularly childish. God is not an old man with long white hair and beard who lives in the clouds. To some people "god" is an established system of ethics, and those certainly do exist. Furthermore there is evidence of an after life. You refuse to accept it because you have imagined you can refuse because you imagine you are more logical and have privileges in debate others know you certainly don't have. That is a lot of silly words to say two things. 1.The existence of God is established. ~ No it isn't. 2. There is evidence of an afterlife. ~ No there isn't. In both cases the burden of proof is on you with your positive assertions. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 7, 2018 1:14:41 GMT
Arlon. Religious architecture can be very pleasing in its genre. People worship there. It is important and special to them. I can be an atheist and appreciate good architecture. You are arguing the popular argument again without foundation. Funny choice of words, "foundation." Another funny thing is relativity. There are people who believe in it as certainly as they believe in sunburn. Relativity is important and special to them. Yet they are surprised when others want proof. What is so surprising? An argument without foundation is basically an argument without evidence provided. To prove arguments claimed as facts such as the ones I just answered re your claim there is both a God and an afterlife, required proof or evidence. It is logical to want proof and relativity is totally irrelevant to such matters concerning universal truths. What matters [/b]to them[/b] is totally irrelevant. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 7, 2018 1:28:47 GMT
Funny choice of words, "foundation." Another funny thing is relativity. There are people who believe in it as certainly as they believe in sunburn. Relativity is important and special to them. Yet they are surprised when others want proof. What is so surprising? An argument without foundation is basically an argument without evidence provided. To prove arguments claimed as facts such as the ones I just answered re your claim there is both a God and an afterlife, required proof or evidence. It is logical to want proof and relativity is totally irrelevant to such matters concerning universal truths. What matters to them is totally irrelevant. I'm really getting annoyed at trying to prove that god as defined by you does exist. I can and have proved god exists if you use my definition of god. If I say "god" is an established system of ethics, you certainly cannot deny there are indeed established systems of ethics. Maybe you can argue particulars, most people of faith do, but you have absolutely lost the argument of sheer existence. While that is indeed religion, it is not science. The intelligent designer is science. An "established system of ethics" did not assemble the first life on Earth without a necessarily more hands on approach. Now there you have two proofs, one for a god and one for an intelligent designer. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 7, 2018 1:44:45 GMT
An argument without foundation is basically an argument without evidence provided. To prove arguments claimed as facts such as the ones I just answered re your claim there is both a God and an afterlife, required proof or evidence. It is logical to want proof and relativity is totally irrelevant to such matters concerning universal truths. What matters to them is totally irrelevant. I'm really getting annoyed at trying to prove that god as defined by you does exist. I can and have proved god exists if you use my definition of god. If I say "god" is an established system of ethics, you certainly cannot deny there are indeed established systems of ethics. Maybe you can argue particulars, most people of faith do, but you have absolutely lost the argument of sheer existence. While that is indeed religion, it is not science. The intelligent designer is science. An "established system of ethics" did not assemble the first life on Earth without a necessarily more hands on approach. Now there you have two proofs, one for a god and one for an intelligent designer. Sweetpea, you can have your definition of God and your God 24X7X365 until the day you die believing in an afterlife. There is, however no 'proof'. ...and no, that is not your definition of proof. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Apr 7, 2018 1:50:18 GMT
I think the biggest miracle yet is that you could find the work of Mozart unimpressive. Like or dislike is one thing, but nobody who knows what they're hearing can listen to the finale of the Jupiter symphony without being impressed. Especially impressive is the fact that Mozart's No.41, judged by many (including myself) as the greatest symphony of that century, was the third of three symphonies that were written over a period of just a few weeks. Indeed, though I tend to think he’d been working on them in his head for longer than it took to write them. The 41st is one of the three pinnacles of the genre IMO, the other two being Beethoven’s 9th and Mahler’s 2nd. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Apr 7, 2018 1:50:33 GMT
I'm really getting annoyed at trying to prove that god as defined by you does exist. I can and have proved god exists if you use my definition of god. If I say "god" is an established system of ethics, you certainly cannot deny there are indeed established systems of ethics. Maybe you can argue particulars, most people of faith do, but you have absolutely lost the argument of sheer existence. While that is indeed religion, it is not science. The intelligent designer is science. An "established system of ethics" did not assemble the first life on Earth without a necessarily more hands on approach. Now there you have two proofs, one for a god and one for an intelligent designer. Sweetpea, you can have your definition of God and your God 24X7X365 until the day you die believing in an afterlife. There is, however no 'proof'. ...and no, that is not your definition of proof. I have described to you in perfect detail what proofs of the spirit are. That such events have never happened to you is sad indeed but not a lack of proof on my part. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 7, 2018 1:57:56 GMT
Sweetpea, you can have your definition of God and your God 24X7X365 until the day you die believing in an afterlife. There is, however no 'proof'. ...and no, that is not your definition of proof. I have described to you in perfect detail what proofs of the spirit are. That such events have never happened to you is sad indeed but not a lack of proof on my part. ...and yet there remain no proof(s) of the spirit, just your opinion/faith albeit shared by others, yet not in anyway as a proof. As an agnostic atheist I will claim that there probably isn't one. I would further venture to say that being delusional in thinking that there is either a God/spirit or an afterlife, does NOT make me sad at all, just a reasonably rational educated human being. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Apr 7, 2018 2:02:03 GMT
Huh? If you made any sense and had a point here, I would be delighted to answer. Art and architecture give clues to what is going on and I am certain you are aware of that. A building where laws are made has a different appearance than a building where food is served. Restaurants are far less likely to have Greek or Roman elements of architecture, columns, or statues. Sometimes churches have statues, and even a few might have columns, but you can tell they are different from law buildings and restaurants. Many buildings where religious services are held are quite impressive and much religious art, painting and sculpture, is also quite impressive, much more so than the golden arches of McDonald's. This tells you beyond any doubt that something special is going on in buildings where religious services are held. You refuse to admit that anything of consequence is going on when you try to claim there is no god. What I'm saying is that there is definitely something important going on. You know, I actually like the point you bring up here. I don't agree with what inference you're drawing from it, but it's nice to see someone else besides myself has thought about this before. I actually agree that religion has been a remarkable inspiration in art and architecture, and for some reason it does have a greater tendency to inspire more "transcendental" work than secular subjects. Now, this isn't universally true as there are certainly secular works that have reached those same heights, and there's plenty of religious-inspired work that falls short of their counterparts; but in general I agree with the point you're making. I especially think of this in terms of classical music, and a good illustration of the difference is Handel's operas (wholly secular) vs his oratorios (usually religious) and how different they are in feel and tone. OTOH, I think a composer like Beethoven was better in his secular works--symphonies, piano sonatas, string quartets--than in his religious-inspired works. I think Haydn and Mozart were equally adept at both, but I think Haydn reached his pinnacle in the religious works, Mozart in the secular works. On a more general note, the operas of Verdi and Wagner provide an interesting contrast, as Wagner's were mostly religious in nature (even when they were pagan in nature), and Verdi's were mostly secular. Both tried their hands at more secular and religious works respectively, but with the exception of Wagner's Tristan & Isolde (which, even though it lacks anything overtly religious, still feels quasi-religious to me; it just makes love & loyalty its religious subject) the result was a bit awkward for both. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Apr 7, 2018 2:02:15 GMT
I think the biggest miracle yet is that you could find the work of Mozart unimpressive. Like or dislike is one thing, but nobody who knows what they're hearing can listen to the finale of the Jupiter symphony without being impressed. I'm that way with JS Bach in that I find much of his work mightily impressive, but often dull as clockwork. Of the baroque composers, give me Handel any day. To my point of view Mozart's piano concerto #21 is his most impressive work. He was 29 years old when he wrote it. Mozart’s piano concertos are my favorite concerto cycle by a good distance (TBF he doesn't have a lot of competition). 21 is indeed great, but I have difficulty picking between them; I may have a slight preference for the 24th and 23rd . They were also basically a training ground for what he was to do in his mature operas; working out how to dramatically set a solo voice against an orchestra and working symphonic forms organically into dramatic forms. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 7, 2018 2:08:13 GMT
Art and architecture give clues to what is going on and I am certain you are aware of that. A building where laws are made has a different appearance than a building where food is served. Restaurants are far less likely to have Greek or Roman elements of architecture, columns, or statues. Sometimes churches have statues, and even a few might have columns, but you can tell they are different from law buildings and restaurants. Many buildings where religious services are held are quite impressive and much religious art, painting and sculpture, is also quite impressive, much more so than the golden arches of McDonald's. This tells you beyond any doubt that something special is going on in buildings where religious services are held. You refuse to admit that anything of consequence is going on when you try to claim there is no god. What I'm saying is that there is definitely something important going on. You know, I actually like the point you bring up here. I don't agree with what inference you're drawing from it, but it's nice to see someone else besides myself has thought about this before. I actually agree that religion has been a remarkable inspiration in art and architecture, and for some reason it does have a greater tendency to inspire more "transcendental" work than secular subjects. Now, this isn't universally true as there are certainly secular works that have reached those same heights, and there's plenty of religious-inspired work that falls short of their counterparts; but in general I agree with the point you're making. I especially think of this in terms of classical music, and a good illustration of the difference is Handel's operas (wholly secular) vs his oratorios (usually religious) and how different they are in feel and tone. OTOH, I think a composer like Beethoven was better in his secular works--symphonies, piano sonatas, string quartets--than in his religious-inspired works. I think Haydn and Mozart were equally adept at both, but I think Haydn reached his pinnacle in the religious works, Mozart in the secular works. On a more general note, the operas of Verdi and Wagner provide an interesting contrast, as Wagner's were mostly religious in nature (even when they were pagan in nature), and Verdi's were mostly secular. Both tried their hands at more secular and religious works respectively, but with the exception of Wagner's Tristan & Isolde (which, even though it lacks anything overtly religious, still feels quasi-religious to me; it just makes love & loyalty its religious subject) the result was a bit awkward for both. I agree and I think I touched on this when Arlon was asking about my 'pilgrimage' when I said that the delights of the Spanish experience ( especially in architecture as was his point at the time) gave me pleasure over and above my dislike of current ( especially Catholic) religion. |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Apr 7, 2018 14:31:06 GMT
Art and architecture give clues to what is going on and I am certain you are aware of that. A building where laws are made has a different appearance than a building where food is served. Restaurants are far less likely to have Greek or Roman elements of architecture, columns, or statues. Sometimes churches have statues, and even a few might have columns, but you can tell they are different from law buildings and restaurants. Many buildings where religious services are held are quite impressive and much religious art, painting and sculpture, is also quite impressive, much more so than the golden arches of McDonald's. This tells you beyond any doubt that something special is going on in buildings where religious services are held. You refuse to admit that anything of consequence is going on when you try to claim there is no god. What I'm saying is that there is definitely something important going on. You know, I actually like the point you bring up here. I don't agree with what inference you're drawing from it, but it's nice to see someone else besides myself has thought about this before. I actually agree that religion has been a remarkable inspiration in art and architecture, and for some reason it does have a greater tendency to inspire more "transcendental" work than secular subjects. Now, this isn't universally true as there are certainly secular works that have reached those same heights, and there's plenty of religious-inspired work that falls short of their counterparts; but in general I agree with the point you're making. In my opinion there's a much simpler explanation for the impressiveness of religious pieces of art: The commissioners (like the Church, or Prince-Bishops) had lots of money and could afford to pay great artists. Artists will do the works their commissioner pays for. The commissioner wants a Madonna? The artist makes a Madonna. The commissioner wants a scene from Greek mythology? The artists makes a scene from Greek mythology. And in former times, before the French revolution, it was often the churches that had the money. I especially think of this in terms of classical music, and a good illustration of the difference is Handel's operas (wholly secular) vs his oratorios (usually religious) and how different they are in feel and tone. OTOH, I think a composer like Beethoven was better in his secular works--symphonies, piano sonatas, string quartets--than in his religious-inspired works. I think Haydn and Mozart were equally adept at both, but I think Haydn reached his pinnacle in the religious works, Mozart in the secular works. On a more general note, the operas of Verdi and Wagner provide an interesting contrast, as Wagner's were mostly religious in nature (even when they were pagan in nature), and Verdi's were mostly secular. Both tried their hands at more secular and religious works respectively, but with the exception of Wagner's Tristan & Isolde (which, even though it lacks anything overtly religious, still feels quasi-religious to me; it just makes love & loyalty its religious subject) the result was a bit awkward for both. I'm not sure I agree with all the points. I believe that Mozart's C Minor mass KV 427 and parts of his Requiem are at least as impressive as the Magic Flute or his late symphonies and sonatas. As for Wagner, his "Meistersinger von Nürnberg" is a secular work, with a secular message (tradition and innovation are both important), but I missed the awkwardness. And one can argue whether Haydn's latest symphonies are less of a pinnacle than his late oratorios "Creation" and "Seasons". You didn't mention Bach. Maybe because you find him "dull as clockwork"?  He wrote both religious works (very impressive ones, like the Mass in B Minor) and secular works (Well-tempered clavier, art of fugue). His cantatas were religious and secular; depending on who payed him. He even wrote music that might be considered "easy listening" today, like the Brandenburg Concertos. But examining them closely reveals that they are musical masterpieces. Bottom line: Whether art is great is less a matter of religion or non-religion; more a matter of ability of the artists, and the willingness of patrons to pay for the art. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Apr 7, 2018 23:45:20 GMT
The “issue” is not one of rights at all! It’s about who has the burden of proof. And in debate, the burden of proof is always on the person making the positive assertion. I don’t have to prove a negative. No intelligent and capable debater should require their opponent to prove that something does not exist, You are obviously a poor person And your obviously a dumb person as evidenced by the fact that the majority of posters here believe you are (your rules). Nothing else read; end of debate! |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Apr 8, 2018 1:44:42 GMT
You know, I actually like the point you bring up here. I don't agree with what inference you're drawing from it, but it's nice to see someone else besides myself has thought about this before. I actually agree that religion has been a remarkable inspiration in art and architecture, and for some reason it does have a greater tendency to inspire more "transcendental" work than secular subjects. Now, this isn't universally true as there are certainly secular works that have reached those same heights, and there's plenty of religious-inspired work that falls short of their counterparts; but in general I agree with the point you're making. In my opinion there's a much simpler explanation for the impressiveness of religious pieces of art: The commissioners (like the Church, or Prince-Bishops) had lots of money and could afford to pay great artists. Artists will do the works their commissioner pays for. The commissioner wants a Madonna? The artist makes a Madonna. The commissioner wants a scene from Greek mythology? The artists makes a scene from Greek mythology. And in former times, before the French revolution, it was often the churches that had the money. In some cases yes, but in many cases artists earned just as much from secular works as religious works, especially as stuff like secular operas gained in popularity. Still, I do think there tends to be a different feel and approach when it comes to artists inspired by religion. I think it's because there's a very natural affinity between the kind of thinking that inspired religion (and that religion inspires) and artistic creativity. Much of this I think was touched on by Blake and Stevens (the poets). I especially think of this in terms of classical music, and a good illustration of the difference is Handel's operas (wholly secular) vs his oratorios (usually religious) and how different they are in feel and tone. OTOH, I think a composer like Beethoven was better in his secular works--symphonies, piano sonatas, string quartets--than in his religious-inspired works. I think Haydn and Mozart were equally adept at both, but I think Haydn reached his pinnacle in the religious works, Mozart in the secular works. On a more general note, the operas of Verdi and Wagner provide an interesting contrast, as Wagner's were mostly religious in nature (even when they were pagan in nature), and Verdi's were mostly secular. Both tried their hands at more secular and religious works respectively, but with the exception of Wagner's Tristan & Isolde (which, even though it lacks anything overtly religious, still feels quasi-religious to me; it just makes love & loyalty its religious subject) the result was a bit awkward for both. I'm not sure I agree with all the points. I believe that Mozart's C Minor mass KV 427 and parts of his Requiem are at least as impressive as the Magic Flute or his late symphonies and sonatas. As for Wagner, his "Meistersinger von Nürnberg" is a secular work, with a secular message (tradition and innovation are both important), but I missed the awkwardness. And one can argue whether Haydn's latest symphonies are less of a pinnacle than his late oratorios "Creation" and "Seasons". You didn't mention Bach. Maybe because you find him "dull as clockwork"? He wrote both religious works (very impressive ones, like the Mass in B Minor) and secular works (Well-tempered clavier, art of fugue). His cantatas were religious and secular; depending on who payed him. He even wrote music that might be considered "easy listening" today, like the Brandenburg Concertos. But examining them closely reveals that they are musical masterpieces. Bottom line: Whether art is great is less a matter of religion or non-religion; more a matter of ability of the artists, and the willingness of patrons to pay for the art. I don't disagree strongly about Mozart and Haydn; certainly the Cm mass and Requiem are among the greats of religious music, but I still think his contributions to the symphonic, concerto, and operatic repertoire were more impressive. Certainly his biggest innovation was in opera, where he was largely responsible in turning opera into the true "hybrid art" that was to reach its zenith in Wagner and Verdi. In the other genres he was more of a perfecter than an innovator. With Haydn, I also immensely prize many of his late symphonies and string quartets, but I'd still say The Creation (and Seasons) would be the best candidate for showing his genius encapsulated in one work. It always struck me how much the opening of The Creation foretells the opening of Wagner's Ring. For Wagner, I don't dislike Meistersinger, but Wagner apparently didn't get the message that brevity is the soul of wit. Viewed in pieces it's as impressive as anything he ever did and also more approachable, but a 4.5 hour comedy is a rather unwieldy proposition. I don't think a comedy is meant to have the same level of weight and grandeur as a tragedy or a mythological epic. Compare the heaviness of Meistersinger against the light-as-air comedies of Mozart, or even Verdi's Falstaff, and the difference is clear. With Verdi I mostly had Aida in mind, which, while not overtly religious, borrowed more from religious music than was Verdi's wont. I once said that if Verdi was Shakespeare and Wagner was Milton, then Aida was Shakespeare trying to write Paradise Lost and Meistersinger was Wagner trying to write The Tempest. Their genius as composers make them work, but I think you can tell they were both a bit out of their comfort zone and element. Not unlike Beethoven was with Fidelio; it works because of his sheer force of will, but you can hear the laboring in it, the fact that it didn't come as naturally to him as the symphonies and sonatas. Bach is an interesting case too in that, again, his secular and religious works have a very different feel to them. I also feel he was generally better in the religious works though there are exceptions (I do love the WTC; but not more than, say, his organ repertoire, which could be seen as either religious or secular). I should clarify that I don't necessarily dislike Bach, but he does wear on me faster than other greats. I'm hot-and-cold on much of his output: love the WTC, but don't care for the Goldberg Variations; love the organ works, but not the harpsichord works; love the Bm Mass, but not St. Matthew's Passion; love the works for solo violin, but not the Art of Fugue. It seems that the more overtly intellectual he got, like with Art of Fugue especially, the more I tune out. He can do that too in, say, the organ works, but in that I think he had an instrument whose grandeur lent a dramatic weight to his ideas. The Passacaglia & Fugue in Cm is perhaps my ultimate example; it's intellectually spell-binding, but with the right performance it can also bring down the house with its dramatic power and force. |
|
