Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

Tuning emotions

Philosophy Forum
» Ethics
» Tuning emotions

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

This thread comes directly from the Music forum.

http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/popular-culture/music/1795-why-do-humans-like-music-4.html#post34287

It started because I asked why humans like music (it's been worrying me for a while), and ended like this:

Theaetetus;33175 wrote:

I think this may be why the general population does not like classical music. Much of it is created to illicit certain emotional responses and the common population does not take the time to learn or are never taught this aspect of listening to music, thus do not understand higher orders of music. This may also help explain why terrible pop music tends to be popular. It works on emotions that associate with primal hedonistic urges, which may go on to explain the short lived popularity of many pop songs.

Aristotle's ethics are about training the emotions so we respond to stimuli correctly so you are definitely right in those regards. People that respond wrongly to emotional stimuli spend more time working through the emotional responses and their lives end up more complicated. Anyway, this diversion on emotions would probably start a healthy discussion in the Ethics forum.

Well. The fact is, the reason most people give for us to like music is that it makes us happy. Ok. I agree. The next question is... Is that good or bad?

What first made me suspicious of music is that it seems to be free happiness. And nothing is for free, in the end. It does have an effect, and I wonder wether that effect (along with many others, I wonder how many...) induces us not to take care of the root problem.

If something does improve our life by soothing an emotion, doesn't that mean that our emotional reactions are not correct? Wouldn't it be better to learn to emotionally react the way we should rather than control our unfit reactions once they are unleashed?

Why do we all develop a need for things or activities that, strictly speaking, don't increase our probability of continuing to stay alive (which seems to be a clear trend, if nothing else, of any live being)?

@BeatsMeWhy,

Well I guess we would have to determine what it is to be alive or the purpose of living. I disagree that not being happy means that we have an inherent flaw in control of our emotions. I think that it means that we are experiencing the full spectrum of emotion which is very healthy. If you are always happy then you are never happy since happiness and despair seem to define each other.

You're correct in saying that nothing is for free (TANSTAAFL) but that doesn't mean that music is a free fix for emotions. Example, when I am depressed, I listen to depressing music. When I am happy, I listen to happy music. Music does not just create happiness as you would lead us to believe. What it does is enhance the emotion that we are feeling at the time. Makes it stronger, more towards the surface, allows us to get our mind around it and to understand it better. If you don't understand the true depth of something, you can't hope to control it.

@Icon,

Any thing that is unaffected, "pure", or uninhibited, will always feel and appear to be accurate. At least more so then theory and hope.

@BeatsMeWhy,

"If something does improve our life by soothing an emotion, doesn't that mean that our emotional reactions are not correct? Wouldn't it be better to learn to emotionally react the way we should rather than control our unfit reactions once they are unleashed?"

Alas! We are free human beings and not programmable automatons, and we are free to react to music, or any artistic phenomenon, in a natural, spontaneous, and personal way. It would be difficult to argue that one kind of response is "correct" and another is not. At the premiere, in 1913, of Sacre du Printemps, for example, half the audience rioted in disapproval, the other applauded with great enthusiasm for the new music. Which side had the "correct" response?

@Icon,

Icon wrote:

Well I guess we would have to determine what it is to be alive or the purpose of living. I disagree that not being happy means that we have an inherent flaw in control of our emotions.

I have never meant that. In fact I guess my objective in life is to be as happy as possible as much time as possible.

Icon wrote:

You're correct in saying that nothing is for free (TANSTAAFL) but that doesn't mean that music is a free fix for emotions.

No, that doesn't mean that. I agree Smile

Icon wrote:

Example, when I am depressed, I listen to depressing music. When I am happy, I listen to happy music. Music does not just create happiness as you would lead us to believe. What it does is enhance the emotion that we are feeling at the time. Makes it stronger, more towards the surface, allows us to get our mind around it and to understand it better. If you don't understand the true depth of something, you can't hope to control it.

You are right about happiness: I have used the word happiness too lightly, and that has made my assertions less understandable. Thanks for pointing that out.

So, allow me to rephrase it. Let's talk about... satisfaction. About the feeling we are doing something that is good to us.

Now I can answer you. Not too fair an answer, since I have just corrected the assertion you were talking about, but, to save time...

Are you possitive? I think nobody ever does nothing that will cause them to feel worse. Don't you think there is a chance that by artificially increasing whatever you happen to be feeling you obtain some other kind of satisfaction that makes the action emotionally worthwhile?

And now... do you think you are really increasing that way your possibilities of continuing alive? When we feel something I'd say the point is to detect the cause. In the method you suggest, music only seems to get mixed with the original cause, so it's bound to be less clear.

@jgweed,

jgweed wrote:

Alas! We are free human beings and not programmable automatons, and we are free to react to music, or any artistic phenomenon, in a natural, spontaneous, and personal way.

Well, as far as I know we have a set of data we have learned during our life and we react to music according to it. We like what we have learnt to recognize. I don't know how much freedom [1] is involved...

jgweed wrote:

It would be difficult to argue that one kind of response is "correct" and another is not. At the premiere, in 1913, of Sacre du Printemps, for example, half the audience rioted in disapproval, the other applauded with great enthusiasm for the new music. Which side had the "correct" response?

The fact is I think emotions are useful. I think emotions' use is to help us to react to situations in which we are involved that may be changed by acting to our advantage.

So, if music is something to what there can't possibly be defined an optimal emotional reaction, which seems to be the case... then we are getting an emotion out of nowhere, which will only get mixed with the emotions caused by real facts.

-----
[1] I would define freedom as the knowledge to choose the best for oneself. We always choose what we think best for us, and I think the better we make our choices the more free we are.

@BeatsMeWhy,

I must confess to some confusion regarding the core question or issue here. Does it revolve around the idea that Emotions are Faulty, or a need to mitigate, control or "tune" them?

Help!

*flailing about helplessly in the choppy seas*

@Khethil,

I would think that this topic is best described as "balancing" emotions.

@Khethil,

Khethil wrote:

I must confess to some confusion regarding the core question or issue here. Does it revolve around the idea that Emotions are Faulty, or a need to mitigate, control or "tune" them?

Help!

*flailing about helplessly in the choppy seas*

I think emotions are useful, as an indicator that you have the possibility to act in such a way that your chances to survive increase.

I used the word tune because I think we don't "use" them correctly. And I think it is possible to learn to... well... tune them. If there is a better word for it, let me know.

@BeatsMeWhy,

BMW wrote:

I used the word tune because I think we don't "use" them correctly. And I think it is possible to learn to... well... tune them. If there is a better word for it, let me know.

... not at all. Was just trying, there, to discern where we were going.

Emotions simply "are". Simultaneously something to contend with while also having the potential for adding joy. They're a source of great strength yet can reduce the mind a mish-mash of absurd soup. They prod us to hope where we shouldn't, hate where there is no cause, love with no thought of recompense and everything in between.

The notion of "using" or "tuning" I think is worthy; not because it'll ever really be "done" per say, but because the ability to mitigate strong emotional effect can help one to stay more directed - more "on course" - without some of the more destructive emotional baggage. It doesn't matter that this won't be every fully accomplished - any little bit can help Smile

As to how this might be done; I'd think that a very clear self-awareness of one's own emotional currents coupled with a very intense desire to tune them (in whatever direction that person sees fit) would be a good place to start.

Thanks

@BeatsMeWhy,

It's funny because Music has been a major part of my life for quite some time. I use it to increase productivity at work, seduce beautiful women at home, increase enjoyment of house chores, move to a natural beat of my life. I ALWAYS listen to music. To completely analyze emotions takes the fun out of living in my opinion.

@Icon,

[quote=Icon]It's funny because Music has been a major part of my life for quite some time. I use it to increase productivity at work, seduce beautiful women at home, increase enjoyment of house chores, move to a natural beat of my life. I ALWAYS listen to music.[/quote]

I don't think we can pay attention to two different things at the same time.

Nevertheless I assume you don't have a mechanical, repetitive job, that doesn't seem to suit you. So, unless I am very wrong, you increase productivity by dividing your attention between your work and some music... There's bound to be some method to increase productivity more.

As for beautiful women, in case I'm right and it is impossible to record several things simultaneously, as far as they are reacting to music they are not reacting to you...:perplexed:

Anyway, I'm still where I was. We tend to use the resources we have at hand to mend things that don't go well. That doesn't mean at all that we have found an optimal solution, and it tends to have side effects.

[quote=Icon]To completely analyze emotions takes the fun out of living in my opinion.[/quote]

How would you define fun?

@BeatsMeWhy,

Icon wrote:

To completely analyze emotions takes the fun out of living in my opinion.

But if you do not analyze emotions, how will you know when you are enjoying something that you should abhor? How will you overcome your suffering?

Philosophy Forum
» Ethics
» Tuning emotions

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

Tuning emotions

Quick Links

My Account

able2know