Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 105

Thread: Does Classical Music Study Turn One Against Liberalism?

  1. #61
    dogen
    Guest

    Default

    meh

    ..............
    Last edited by dogen; May-23-2018 at 15:15.

  2. Likes ldiat liked this post
  3. #62
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    344
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    The reality is if you get the government to subsidise classical music you are forcing everyone to pay for something that only a few people want. Saying that Classical Musicians should get paid more because they are talented is ridiculous. I could be really talented at throwing toast over long distances after having gone to toast throwing school for five years. However, if no one cares about toast throwing and there is no immediate use, practically, for toast throwers than I will get paid nothing despite my obvious talent as a toast thrower.

    To answer the original question I believe Classical Music has very little (probably next to no) effect on political orientation. A poll done a while back showed that (of the users that took the poll) the majority were liberal. I would guess, however, that Classical Music listeners who use forums are in general more liberal than Classical Music listeners that don't use forums.

    On Jordan Peterson (who seems to come up in every internet political discussion) has, like many people, probably has some good ideas and some bad ones. I tend to agree, and find reasonable, most of what he said in his earlier videos and the core of his message, however, I find he occasionally says exceedingly dumb things to stoke controversy. Like the forced monogamy comment, or the comment that feminist accept Muslims because they secretly like to be dominated. Monogamy may be a good thing (every highly successful society throughout history has been largely monogamous) but to have the government enforce it would be a blatant disregard for peoples freedoms.

    Edit: Also I believe the OP incorrectly uses the term Liberalism. Liberalism is the philosophy that was created during the Enlightenment; it is highly individualistic and has very little to do with what modern day liberals believe in.
    Last edited by BachIsBest; May-26-2018 at 05:57.

  4. Likes KenOC, haydnguy liked this post
  5. #63
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    7,120
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by regenmusic View Post
    Do you think that after knowing classical music, it tends to make a person less liberal and more moderate or conservative?
    No.

    Actually, rereading the OP, I'm confused. There are two separate questions.

    Do you think that after knowing classical music, it tends to make a person less liberal and more moderate or conservative?
    and

    asking people [...] if the values that it takes to listen to and even play classical music has less of a chance in a liberal mindset than conservative.
    I've not read the whole thread - did someone already point this out?
    Last edited by MacLeod; May-26-2018 at 06:43.

  6. #64
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Les Pays-Bas
    Posts
    3,214
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BachIsBest View Post

    Edit: Also I believe the OP incorrectly uses the term Liberalism. Liberalism is the philosophy that was created during the Enlightenment; it is highly individualistic and has very little to do with what modern day liberals believe in.
    Only the U.S. seems to have this later unusual usage. Every other country I am aware of seems to know exactly what liberalism means, as distinct from various sorts of conservatism and various varieties of socialism along with other tangents from these three.

    'Liberal' as it is now used in the U.S seems to me to be chiefly used as a pejorative term to mean variously: not conservative; not a capitalist cheerleader; not a closet racist or homophobe. In effect they have made it meaningless.

  7. Likes Becca, MacLeod, TurnaboutVox liked this post
  8. #65
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    344
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eugeneonagain View Post
    Only the U.S. seems to have this later unusual usage. Every other country I am aware of seems to know exactly what liberalism means, as distinct from various sorts of conservatism and various varieties of socialism along with other tangents from these three.

    'Liberal' as it is now used in the U.S seems to me to be chiefly used as a pejorative term to mean variously: not conservative; not a capitalist cheerleader; not a closet racist or homophobe. In effect they have made it meaningless.
    I can assure you that here in Canada if you said 'I'm an adherent of Liberalism' people would assume you were left of centre and a liberal which would most certainly not be the case if you were using the term correctly.

    However, I don't think your characterisation of liberal is entirely fair. Liberal is generally understood to mean 'left of centre' and conservative 'right of centre' of course, where exactly the 'centre' is and what is 'right' and 'left' of this point is somewhat ambiguous. But such broad political categories as conservative and liberal are bound to have some ambiguity. This is not to say they are entirely useless as if I, for example, told you I'm a conservative you would certainly guess I would favour lower taxes and a smaller government.

  9. #66
    Senior Member arpeggio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Burke, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,358
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    ………………….……………………… ………………...
    It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious. And I am a very ingenious fellow

  10. #67
    dogen
    Guest

    Default

    There are certainly differences between countries over the meanings of such words. Take liberalism:

    "Over time, the meaning of the word "liberalism" began to diverge in different parts of the world. According to the Encyclopædia Britannica: "In the United States, liberalism is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal programme of the Democratic administration of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe it is more commonly associated with a commitment to limited government and laissez-faire economic policies". Consequently, in the United States the ideas of individualism and laissez-faire economics previously associated with classical liberalism became the basis for the emerging school of libertarian thought and are key components of American conservatism.

    In North America, unlike Europe and Latin America, the word "liberalism" almost exclusively refers to social liberalism." (Wikipedia)

    Easy to see how confusion can arise

  11. Likes eugeneonagain, MacLeod, TurnaboutVox liked this post
  12. #68
    Senior Member Simon Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    1,125
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eugeneonagain View Post
    Only the U.S. seems to have this later unusual usage. Every other country I am aware of seems to know exactly what liberalism means, as distinct from various sorts of conservatism and various varieties of socialism along with other tangents from these three.

    'Liberal' as it is now used in the U.S seems to me to be chiefly used as a pejorative term to mean variously: not conservative; not a capitalist cheerleader; not a closet racist or homophobe. In effect they have made it meaningless.

    Yeah, is seems that the word 'liberal' has fallen out of favor in the US with those that would have once described themselves as such.

    'Progressive' seems to have taken its place, and probably is more accurate.

    I don't think I've ever called myself a liberal. But I've described myself as a progressive as far back as I can remember.
    Last edited by Simon Moon; May-30-2018 at 18:27.
    And if there were a god, I think it very unlikely that he would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence - Russell

  13. Likes N/A liked this post
  14. #69
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    579
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    I am not conservative because there is little to nothing I wish to conserve in today's political environment. I embrace the moniker 'regressive.' Classical music makes me sympathize with monarchism and Christianity, but I'm not those either. All I've ever wanted was an Athenian city-state.

  15. #70
    Senior Member Strange Magic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Nova Caesarea
    Posts
    5,004
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    I like the old formulations: "flaming liberal" and "bleeding heart liberal", though "progressive" is also nice--it hearkens back to the days when Republicans (Teddy Roosevelt) could be progressive. Then they kicked Teddy out of the party, and we got Warren Gamaliel Harding, Calvin Coolidge, and Herbert Hoover instead. Plus The Great Depression.

  16. #71
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    344
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange Magic View Post
    I like the old formulations: "flaming liberal" and "bleeding heart liberal", though "progressive" is also nice--it hearkens back to the days when Republicans (Teddy Roosevelt) could be progressive. Then they kicked Teddy out of the party, and we got Warren Gamaliel Harding, Calvin Coolidge, and Herbert Hoover instead. Plus The Great Depression.
    Yes but the Democrats would have fit the modern definition of 'conservative' back then and played to southern racism. Plus the fed's caused the great depression. It wasn't any sort of action on either of the two political parties.

  17. #72
    Senior Member Strange Magic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Nova Caesarea
    Posts
    5,004
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Both parties' reputations on race were in tatters by the end of the 'twenties. The came that Great Depression. What happened during and after begins to tell the tale of the widening gap between the parties on race, economics, and a whole lot more. And now it's today.....

  18. #73
    Senior Member science's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    The Eastern and Northern
    Posts
    18,235
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    51

    Default

    From the time I was 16 or so, I have only gotten more liberal with each passing year. If loving and listening to classical music had any effect, it either helped make me even more liberal or it wasn't enough to counteract the effect of the rest of my experiences.
    Liberty for wolves is death to the lambs.

  19. #74
    Senior Member fluteman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    1,798
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Larkenfield View Post
    For me, it’s made me more liberal and conservative at the same time as I’ve gotten older. You can still be wild and openly adventurous to the new and untried and still have conservative standards for what you accept. Music is called one of the liberal arts, not one of the conservative arts. One of the conservative arts seems to be trying to get rid of the liberal arts because it costs too much or it’s not practical like a hammer and nails. But who asks why music is considered one of the liberal arts in the first place? People can’t do without it but they never think about why it was taught and considered important as part of classical education. The liberal side is the freedom of creative expression, and the conservative side is that everything has its limits. Both can intensify in interest over the years and work together.
    Well said, Larkenfield. Freedom of expression, very much including artistic expression, must be nurtured and encouraged as it is essential for social and cultural innovation and growth. At the same time, we want to preserve and maintain certain positive social and cultural values, though without becoming unduly rigid and static, so a balance is needed between liberalism and conservatism in that sense. All I can add as an American lawyer is, too many Americans seem to assume that our values are carved in stone in our Constitution, and that's that. Nope. The world changes too much and too fast for that. A constitution is a good source of guidance for certain core values and principles, but we always have to be ready to reconsider how those values and principles apply.
    That's why it saddens me to see posters here who want today's composers to write like Mozart, or who reject 20th and now 21st century music in its entirety, or who ridicule or disparage provocateurs and subversives like Arnold Schoenberg and John Cage (as if they alone represent all western music of the 20th and 21st centuries). The rebel and the reactionary each have their essential place in a dynamic and healthy culture.

  20. Likes Thomyum2, eugeneonagain, TurnaboutVox liked this post
  21. #75
    Senior Member haydnguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    1,886
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    No, I don't think classical music turns anyone against liberalism. I was involved in a development plan for our city several years ago. One of the proposed elements was a fine arts center. The (American) conservatives said that we shouldn't have it because it wouldn't pay for itself.

    I tried to tell them that very few arts centers are going to pay for themselves by the tickets sold at the door. In times past, corporate donations helped pay the cost. The head of corporations now are younger and don't necessarily see the need to donate to classical music.

    From the conservative view, if a private sector company wants to pay for the arts that's fine. If tax money is used they are against it. In the past, however, pubic schools both secondary and colleges have used tax money for music, literature, etc. The reason being that the arts are seen as promoting a better quality of life. That's where IMHO the U.S. falls short. Buying the latest new car does not improve your quality of life and even the internet doesn't depending on how it's used.

    We still need music, philosophy, literature, and religion to fulfill our quality of life.

  22. Likes Larkenfield, MacLeod liked this post
Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •