3 steps ahead said:What do you all think? Can a single music critic realistically judge every conceivable genre, much like we see happening so frequently in our American newspapers? In my view, it is impossible to offer a professional opinion on music that one doesn't even listen to regularly. They lack the fundamental understanding of what works and what fails because, to them, everything sounds essentially the same. Consequently, they far too often misinterpret and misjudge the music they cover.
As an average listener, anyone can voice an opinion on any subject. If they possess the literacy to articulate that opinion effectively, then the basic prerequisites for becoming a critic have been met. Now, since we all possess varied tastes—though that isn't the point here—we will naturally hold differing views on the subjects we write about. Furthermore, occasionally we might find common ground with someone else's palate. In those instances, we tend to agree more easily. We won't mind if such a critic writes about a wide variety of albums because, quite likely, our perspectives will align. Conversely, if someone's taste is vastly different from ours, we simply won't enjoy their writing.
A secondary issue arises if the individual is a poor writer; I would certainly agree that the ability to express oneself clearly is far more vital than the critic's specific taste. The idea is that people read to think. However, if the prose is substandard, we never actually reach the underlying thought.
There is also another pitfall in criticism: many people engage in it solely for the paycheck. In other words, they remain superficial, merely transcribing others or copying existing sentiments. That isn't a critic; that is a reporter. Such work should be framed accordingly (using phrases like: "...as noted by the critic at that particular magazine...").
To be a true music critic means possessing knowledge that extends beyond mere personal preference—after all, everyone knows what they like and dislike. One must understand technical proficiency, recording quality, and the nuances of production. You need to be versed in dimensions that transcend simple taste. Even then, objective criticism remains an impossibility. What such expertise provides is the weight of authority—the ability to hear when a drummer is off-beat, to recognize poor vocal technique, or to sense when the lyrics were penned by some half-literate amateur. The vast majority of critics lack this depth. Therefore, they aren't really critics at all; they are just rambling. 😉
You’re really struggling to grasp the concept here. Look—you don't actually need to "possess" food. Food exists as an entity in its own right; it simply *is*. But that distinction isn't what we're debating. It’s perfectly obvious that any living, breathing organism needs to consume nutrients to survive. However, consider the sequence of events. At the very beginning of our discussion—whether we are talking about a human, an animal, a plant, or even Bog himself—there had to be a moment of emergence. Existence must precede possession (regardless of whether "possession" is even a coherent concept). The only way you could argue that a cause is contingent upon a prior effect is if you're operating within a system that completely disregards standard logic. Try to wrap your head around this: the ability to possess something, or even the sensation of ownership, can only exist if there is a subject present to do the possessing. The air, the food, and the other elements you kept bringing up in your examples existed long before us and will persist long after we're gone... but before we arrived, there was nothing for us to "have," and once we are gone, there is nothing left to hold. We don't begin to exist because we acquire something; we acquire things only after we have already begun to exist. You previously agreed that animals don't "own" anything. Does that mean they don't exist?
Bradley Fisher20 said:Do you see the contradiction in how you’ve interpreted my text?
Of course I see it. You are the one claiming that there can be no cause without an effect! Do you realize what you're saying? You're suggesting that the consequence is a prerequisite for the cause to exist in the first place. To me, that sounds completely backwards (my apologies if you disagree), so let me try to simplify it with a classic American idiom—though I suspect you might struggle with the nuance here: do you live to eat, or eat to live? That phrase touches on the very purpose of existence, but perhaps you'll just tell me you live to eat, implying food is your sole purpose. It hardly matters... why don't you take a break, clear your head, and then we can finally close this illogical debate.
Bradley Fisher20 said:To exist, you need food, air, water, shelter, warm clothes, security, and so on. Without those basics, existence isn't even possible.
You’re missing the point entirely. It’s the old philosophical dilemma: do you eat to live, or do you live to eat? What you're attempting to argue here is that you live merely to consume. Fine. But regardless, you haven't grasped the distinction between being and having, nor have you engaged with what Fromm was actually writing about. Let’s try this one more time: YOU don't need to possess anything in order for YOU to be (and please, emphasize the YOU). This isn't just true for you as an individual, but for everything in existence—everything that simply *is*. Anyone who exists does so primarily by virtue of being. Existence comes first; only then can the concept of possession even be contemplated. Being is the foundation; having is essentially a virtual appropriation of something that can only be perceived by a fraction of what truly exists. And even that fraction must first *be* before it can *have*. In fact, the more one ceases to "be," the less one is capable of "having." Beyond that, focusing on "having" is actually a distorted way of viewing "being." You might prefer to say you HAVE a wife rather than saying you ARE married. You’ll say you HAVE a job instead of saying you ARE employed. But there is no point in me laboring over this further; you will likely just repeat the same argument and continue to miss the mark...👋
Bradley Fisher20 said:You have to have, in order to be.
So, does this imply that possession is a prerequisite for existence? That’s certainly how it reads. "To have, in order to be." It sounds as though you're suggesting that having precedes being. As if you're trying to tell us that possession is more vital because, without it, existence is impossible—not just more important, but an absolute necessity that must precede any state of being.
Hmm... I can't seem to recall a single shred of evidence that supports this line of reasoning. What exactly must one HAVE in order to BE? From my perspective, the logic is quite the opposite: in order for someone to even claim they possess something, they must first exist. Being comes before having. You cannot own anything if you don't exist first. So, my friend, your logic is completely backward. 😉
The film is frankly a disaster. However, there was one bright spot in American cinema that emerged a few years after that "Russian meat" debacle which offers some hope for a better future—"fin dead girl." If you haven't seen it, give it a look. I found myself quite pleasantly surprised...
Here are a few anthems that typically get the crowd moving:
DEXY'S MIDNIGHT RUNNERS - Come On Eileen STEVE HURLEY - Make Me Smile SPECIALS - Rudi, A Message To You R.E.M. - It's The End Of The World MADNESS - Baggy Trousers BRYAN FERRY - Let's Stick Together PINK - Get The Party Started B-52's - Love Shack DEPECHE MODE - Just Can't Get Enough BRONSKI BEAT - Why? US3 - Cantaloop BLONDIE BLONDIE - Hanging On A Telephone BLUR BLUR - Song 2 KNACK - My Sharona FUN LOVIN' CRIMINALS - Korean Bodega MANU CHAO - Bongo bong MANO NEGRA - King Kong Five KINKS KINKS - All day and All of The Night MONKEES - I'm a Believer SMASH MOUTH - Walkin MONKEES - I'm A Believer SMASH MOUTH - Walkin' on The Sun .......
To return the favor of your question from that other thread: do you honestly believe anyone is going to catch on to this? 😁
No. 😉 And frankly, I couldn't care less. If they figure it out, fine; if they don't, let them struggle. 😁 Or, to offer a response inspired by a point made elsewhere—one cannot simply exist at the starting line forever, constantly announcing how they are taking that initial step. For heaven's sake, one actually has to walk, not just stand there after the first stride. The first step is necessary, certainly, but it is utterly insufficient...
Alright. But really, what is the point of all this sharing? Is it just a way for those folks at the fourth level to convince themselves they’re the spiritual elite of humanity? And honestly, who is qualified to claim which level is closer to God? We spend our lives categorizing ourselves by nationality, religion, and endless other labels... It’s all quite futile. I came across a fascinating headline in the paper today: "There is only one man in the world." I haven't actually read the article, nor do I know if it has anything to do with spirituality, but the title struck a chord with me. If you look at it closely, you'll see that there isn't just one man in the world, but rather one single being... much like the undeniable truth we hold in our hearts that there is only one God.
Richard Howard2 said:You seem to be conflating the concepts of what is "normal" versus what is "morally right."
Take slavery, for instance. Even if we look back at the dynasties of Ancient Rome—incest was often standard practice, even if it wasn't exactly rational. Or perhaps it was, depending entirely on how one chooses to define "rationality."
To attempt an explanation regarding that vague sentence about perceiving absolute truth:
Einstein proved that the absolute truth is that everything is relative; he discovered this by observing an object from its own frame of reference rather than its own. The reverse applies as well. That is how we can grasp the truth.
Einstein didn't prove that the absolute truth is that everything is relative. That simply wasn't his field of study. He was a physicist, and the only relativity he actually demonstrated was the relativity of time. Whether that constitutes an "absolute truth" is something he didn't prove, nor is it even provable. There is a fundamental reason for this: not just physics, but no natural science possesses even a fraction of the power required to explain *why* something happens. They can only describe *how* it happens. The answer to "why"—which is the most basic question humans have asked since their very first sentences ("Why is it like this? Why is it like that?")—remains unknown to us.
Listen to this logic loop! If we were all to agree that defining "normal" or "healthy" is an impossible task, we would essentially be stating an absolute truth—specifically, the truth that such definitions cannot exist. However, if it is an absolute truth that no definition exists, then it follows that the state of being undefinable becomes the very definition of what is normal and healthy. In that case, we could effectively absolve everything by claiming that "normal" is simply whatever defies definition, and "healthy" is whatever remains unclassifiable. But here is where the logic collapses: if we accept that no definition can exist, we are simultaneously questioning the validity of that very premise. We end up concluding that a definition *must* exist, yet it can never be articulated because the act of defining it destroys its own essence. Therefore, I find myself compelled to DISAGREE with the notion that it is impossible to define the absolutely normal and healthy. Why? Because if we accept that, we fall into the trap of making "undefinability" the new standard... and frankly, that would be our undoing. 😁
I don't necessarily get up every single time. If I notice someone struggling to stay upright, then I’ll stand. Or if there is an elderly person—regardless of gender—or perhaps someone with a restless child, I'll offer my seat. One has to realize that some people might feel patronized if we offer them a seat. Take blind individuals, for instance. I actually witnessed a situation once where a young man stood up for an elderly gentleman, roughly eighty years old, only for the man to snap back that he wasn't quite so decrepit that he couldn't handle standing for a few subway stops... and he refused to sit. That is why I usually ask first: "Would you like to sit down?" Regarding this, there was a rather cheeky incident back in high school: a guy asked an older lady, "Would you like to sit?" She said, "Yes, thank you," to which the brat replied, "Unfortunately, I need to sit too, so you'll have to find a spot somewhere else!" 😁
As for why I bother getting up? Initially, it was simply because I was taught to. Later on, I stopped doing it—or at least, very rarely. As I grew older, I started doing it again, though I’ll admit it’s a somewhat selfish motivation. Selfish? Perhaps. I stand up because it makes ME feel better; there is a certain satisfaction in performing a decent deed (at least for me). I don't expect any praise when I stand, but I am perfectly fine letting those who truly cannot stand take my seat. Now, if a healthy 60-year-old walks in, looking fit and not particularly exhausted, I don't feel an automatic obligation to stand just because they are older than me. Nor do I stand if someone demands it rudely. However, if someone actually asks me politely, I will always give up my seat to anyone who requests it.
On that note, here is a story from my former English teacher: She was riding the subway, seated, with a young man sitting directly in front of her. An older gentleman boarded and began eyeing the young man quite rudely—muttering under his breath, acting quite cantankerous because he wanted a seat. My teacher stood up and offered him her seat: "Please, take my seat!" To which he retorted: "No, no, don't bother; there are plenty of younger people here who could stand instead." "Oh, really? Well, thank you for the compliment." "No, no... that's not what I meant..." To that, my formidable teacher told him that if he wanted to sit, he should sit, and if he didn't, he shouldn't annoy everyone around him with that sour expression.
I find myself in agreement with the notion that humanity simply doesn't progress. If a minor Julius Caesar were born today, he would fit perfectly into modern society without skipping a beat. Just as a dog remains a dog, humans have remained fundamentally the same for thousands of years—perhaps even longer. How long this will continue, or if we will ever truly change, is ultimately irrelevant. It’s all trivial. We lack the capacity to make ourselves either changeable or immutable; that level of control lies entirely outside our grasp.
However, regarding the distinction between humans and animals, I must first point out that I am unclear on which specific animals are being referenced. Within the animal kingdom, there are greater disparities than those between humans and certain species. What is the difference between an orangutan and a toad, a fox and a snail, or a fish and an elephant? None at all? Fine... absolutely none. They all breathe oxygen, possess DNA, and reproduce. So, if we examine how we have aggressively lumped all these creatures into one single category just to pit them against humanity, I can confidently say there isn't much of a distinction to be found. If the original poster was instead referring to intellectual differences, my view is that such gaps aren't significantly larger than the difference in mobility between a snake and a lion, or a caterpillar and an eagle.