John Noble (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
jackofallgeeks) wrote2001-11-27 09:56 pm
jackofallgeeks) wrote2001-11-27 09:56 pm
Entry tags:
Inconceievable!
Tonight I got to talking with Nifer, and as much as I like the girl, I must say that she bewildered me.
It's not easy to explain, simply because I find it hard to follow. I guess I should just describe the conversation...
First we started talking about music, and she said that she liked Disturbed, the group. Now, I like there music, to a point, but I said that it turns me off when a group digresses into screaming obscenities in the middle of a song. She said she liked it because of the message and raw emotion it conveyed - that it was art. I said it wasn't art because art should have style, class - art should be something redeaming, not uhm, the opposite there of. She asked if art should always be positive and light. I almost said no, not always, but after thinking for a moment, yes, is should. Art should reflect truth and goodness. There should be some aspect of beauty in it. This brings up interesting questions about whether some of what we call art really is, but I think I would have to argue the point, and I think it's much more complicated than it at first seems. I can't understand, really, how to explain it.
Anyways, we went on to general philosophies on the nature of humans. I personally believe that people are basically good. She said she believed people are basically selfish, and that every human action is selfish. As a counter-point I brought up soup kitchens, and she said that the people who set those up have a desire to relieve sufering, and so doing so makes them feel better - ie, it's selfish.
But wouldn't the actual desire to HELP someone other than yourself, isn't that desire itself selfless? And wouldn't having that desire make one a selfless person?
By Nifer's definition, a man who jumped infront of a small child to sheild him from incoming gunfire would be a selfish man, due to the fact that he was fulfilling a desire to save the child. I don't know, but it just doesn't seem to fit right to me.
Anyways, I got to the point where I KNEW that somehow my belief was right - I KNOW it is, the world doesn't make sense anyways, life doesn't make sense otherwise - I just couldn't find HOW, in light of her argument.
Sometimes I fear for the girl...
It's not easy to explain, simply because I find it hard to follow. I guess I should just describe the conversation...
First we started talking about music, and she said that she liked Disturbed, the group. Now, I like there music, to a point, but I said that it turns me off when a group digresses into screaming obscenities in the middle of a song. She said she liked it because of the message and raw emotion it conveyed - that it was art. I said it wasn't art because art should have style, class - art should be something redeaming, not uhm, the opposite there of. She asked if art should always be positive and light. I almost said no, not always, but after thinking for a moment, yes, is should. Art should reflect truth and goodness. There should be some aspect of beauty in it. This brings up interesting questions about whether some of what we call art really is, but I think I would have to argue the point, and I think it's much more complicated than it at first seems. I can't understand, really, how to explain it.
Anyways, we went on to general philosophies on the nature of humans. I personally believe that people are basically good. She said she believed people are basically selfish, and that every human action is selfish. As a counter-point I brought up soup kitchens, and she said that the people who set those up have a desire to relieve sufering, and so doing so makes them feel better - ie, it's selfish.
But wouldn't the actual desire to HELP someone other than yourself, isn't that desire itself selfless? And wouldn't having that desire make one a selfless person?
By Nifer's definition, a man who jumped infront of a small child to sheild him from incoming gunfire would be a selfish man, due to the fact that he was fulfilling a desire to save the child. I don't know, but it just doesn't seem to fit right to me.
Anyways, I got to the point where I KNEW that somehow my belief was right - I KNOW it is, the world doesn't make sense anyways, life doesn't make sense otherwise - I just couldn't find HOW, in light of her argument.
Sometimes I fear for the girl...
Just my opinion...I could be wrong
As for "art"...what do you define as "redeeming"? I don't know...my favorite band can be very dark and dirty, and somewhat offensive at times, yet I believe it's some of the most beautiful, artful work I have ever heard. Yet...some dark things do go too far...I don't know, there are so many sides to this arguement.
And as for "knowing" things...I will leave the end to Jhonen Vasquez, since I am already babbling on for far too long, and since what he says pretty much sums up my opinion: "How lovely it would be to KNOW something. Well, perhaps 'lovely' is the wrong word for indisputable knowledge, but the sensation would surely be an interesting one, to say the least. Human beings are described as 'creatures of reason' - this in no way means that the reasoning the mind allows itself to be sustained by, in order to function in the world, in order to keep from slipping off it, is indisputable. Information seems to function as the ultimate placebo (so long as we feel it is worth something, we allow ourselves to continue living our lives by it). To say one 'knows' something is deceptive, for, what they really seem to be doing is trusting in a concept, an ideal, all the while never truly knowing the object being referred to, but trusting in the explanations fed to them in association with that object. It's like never, honestly, seeing something, rather only using our eyes to see the colored light bouncing off of its surfaces...but, then again, what do I know?"
Sorry for this. I felt philosophical. ^_^ Do forgive me.
Point and Counterpoint