Rock Philosophy

[newdawnfades]

I draw alot of inspiration from philosophers and their attempts to explain the world around us. I found them more real and genuine than thousands of years of religious propaganda that made mythical figures more than what they were in order to satisfy the human need for some grand answer.

Philosophers knew how to ask the question, how to pursue the question, and that is so valuable to me personally. The greatest philosophers all had to ultimately admit that they didn't have the answers, and they were able to exist in this knowing. That takes more courage than I could know.

Remember, we are using philosophical concepts from people who have been removed from this world hundreds of years ago. We only know the fragments of their thoughts that made it to us. We didn't know them as people, we didn't know their full vision of life. We only know what made it to us through time.

 

[Spike]

I was going to respond to NDF's question, but there's not much I can add to this. When a particular lyric connects with me, it's not creating a new philosophic bent to my character; it instead phrases something I already believe in perhaps better than I have (as Spike has done here!).
JcS

Thanks, Joey. Now you got me wondering if I think like a lawyer.

Spike

 

[Spike]

I for one don't think that Socrates and John Locke were much smarter than Jim Morrison and Neil Young... Regardless, I've certainly never read a fiction book that has presented any more evidence to support its philosophical claims than a rock song does...

When I said that I had gotten more of my personal philosophy from books, I didn't mean to imply that I was reading classical philosophers. I was referring to novels. At an impressionable period of my youth in the late 60s/early 70s, writers like Herman Hesse, Nikos Kazantczakis and even Kurt Vonnegut had a big impact on my thinking. I was listening to a lot of Jim Morrison and Neil Young at the time. But I can't say that "People are Strange" or "Down by the River" influenced my personal philosophy of life as much as "Narcissus and Goldman," "Zorba the Greek," or "Cat's Cradle."

Spike

 

[AboutAGirl]

I'm not sure I follow your argument that because there is no universal truth there is only one level of intelligence. Or that wisdom and brilliance only has value if it is applied in a practical way to "succeed".

I'm not percisely sure what term would go to describe how I look at things - realist, rationalist, something like that maybe... but measure things strictly by their applicable value. The reason that I put any good thinker on the level of the revered ones is because to me written philosophy never gets off the ground. It's all just perspectives and ideas, nothing more. Don't get me wrong, I do revere these people, and I think they were absolutely brilliant. I love to read the works, ponder the means, revel in the powerful use of language to explain abstract concepts. But I can't find anything that goes beyond being simple perspectives and possibilities. How am I expected to value one person's thoughts over anothers, when they both amount to the same end? If it has no applicability, then what is its philosophical worth? I'm not going to revere them for any reason other than the applicability of their brilliance, because that is all that I care about. And, being the person that I am, I would never accept a pantheon of people who are supposed to be the best, it's all relative.

What I meant about no universal truth is that in all the philosophies I've experienced, I don't view some as being superior to others as long as they're all well supported. To my head, there is one equal level for all good thinkers who can word their ideas. This is because they all are presenting valid possibilities for the universe. The one factor that could make one idea superior to the other would be truth, and I don't believe in any one truth, so everyone remains equal.

As for old Jim... He said that to function in the society of their peers, people create personas, and we become so attached to our public selves that we are absolutely terrified to lose our false identities and become our inner selves. That's the point that made me respect him as a philosopher. His stuff is to me on par with Pico della Mirandola and Voltaire, but my point was never to compare Jim to Voltaire, my point was that all philosophy is equal to me.

NewDawnFades, that's a great point about us only having glimpses of these people. But it could work to their disadvantage as much as their advantage. For example, I've read Ben Franklin's 'Moral Perfection' and he makes himself look pretty good in there, but I've been told that Ben wasn't exactly a good person in some serious regards.

 

[AboutAGirl]

When I said that I had gotten more of my personal philosophy from books, I didn't mean to imply that I was reading classical philosophers. I was referring to novels. At an impressionable period of my youth in the late 60s/early 70s, writers like Herman Hesse, Nikos Kazantczakis and even Kurt Vonnegut had a big impact on my thinking. I was listening to a lot of Jim Morrison and Neil Young at the time. But I can't say that "People are Strange" or "Down by the River" influenced my personal philosophy of life as much as "Narcissus and Goldman," "Zorba the Greek," or "Cat's Cradle."

Spike

Thank you for clarifying. What affected you personally is, of course, undeniable, but I would still argue that books aren't on a superor level of intellect from music. I absolutely love to read classic books, but to me they seem mainly focused on poetics and I think that most people take their own meaning from the books and that they don't have any particularly solid meaning. I think the same thing about songs. So I may be affected by literature, but I can easily be affected by Neil Young. "Your friends and your lovers can't protect you, they're only passing through you in the end." "When the thrashers come I'll be stuck in the sun like the dinosaurs in shrines, but I'll know the time has come to give what's mine." If music isn't philosophical, then that's a crying shame, since a lot of artists are trying to express themselves and their beliefs through their music.

 

[Big Generator]

As for old Jim... He said that to function in the society of their peers, people create personas, and we become so attached to our public selves that we are absolutely terrified to lose our false identities and become our inner selves. That's the point that made me respect him as a philosopher..

Can Morrison really be credited for originating this point?

 

[AboutAGirl]

Can Morrison really be credited for originating this point?

I don't believe in originality. He certainly articulated the point very clearly, and that's good enough for me.

 

[Big Generator]

I would still argue that books aren't on a superor level of intellect from music. .

Well, it requires far more intellectual engagement to appreciate a great novel than it does to listen to a rock song. Also - a thick musician can still stir our spirits and emotions - whereas a thick writer cannot.

 

[newdawnfades]

I think Morrison's music and especially his spoken word poetry was very profound, but not in a quantifiable, explainable way, but that explains all poetry anyways.

Nagarjuna believed that higher absolute truths have no domain in reason, in the mind, or intellect, but rather they were direct, intuitive, instinctive experiences. In fact, he thought the moment you try to articulate or quantify you lose the essence of these truths. They remain always locked away from articulation.

These are the truths some say reside in the way music makes us feel.

 

[Big Generator]

I don't believe in originality. He certainly articulated the point very clearly, and that's good enough for me.

Well, Anthony Robbins or John Gray write self-help books which articulate commensense points in a clear, easy-to-understand way. Are they on an intellectual par with Socates and Plato too? John Grisham writes thrillers which are clearly articulated. Is he on a par with J.D. Salinger or Hemingway?