Beethoven uses music in the form of the “9th Symphony” to express the mood and atmosphere of joy in which words cannot. The message is deemed as being eternal due to the fact that it can be felt at nearly any century at any time. An “eternal message” is crafted in a manner that all humans can relate to it, notwithstanding the surrounding contemporary circumstances. The message in popular music is often superficial and fleeting. More often than not, pop music collections are discarded and forgotten after a few months of playability. Names such as “New Kids on the Block,” “La Bouche,” “Paula Abdul,” and even the earlier collections of “Britney Spears” serve little purpose other than to collect dust. The message of these songs are often quick to captivate and quick to jade. The distinguished American political philosopher Alan Bloom credits the transience of Popular music to the fact that “there is room [in the message] for only the intense, changing, crude, and immediate” (Bloom 45). A strong example of Bloom’s opinion is the following excerpt from Spears’ song, “I’m a slave for you”: “What’s practical is logical. What the hell, who cares? All I know is I’m so happy when you’re dancing there” (Stitzel) These sentences rarely construct a coherent sentence, let alone convey a message or experience. It is for this reason that popular music cannot be considered art. The term ‘popular’ holds true due to the fact that it has achieved a high-level of playability and media coverage.
In order to classify as popular music, the “non-art” must attain certain degree of coverage. Advertising, media playability via “telintrad,1” and merchandising aspects of the “non-art.” Advertising should reach a level of which the typical American consumer is made aware of the performer or song. Media playability includes achieving “high” or “medium” rotation on mainstream music channels on the “telintrad.” Merchandising should soon appear to promote aspects of the song.
Popular music will give rise to thousands upon thousands of performers and an even higher number of songs. Coverage will “popularize” the music that is not art. The term “popular music” will forever classify widespread music that has failed to achieve the criteria to be defined as art yet continues to earn millions of dollars from the pockets of the consumer.
Works cited
Swafford, Jan. “Why haven't we figured out his Ninth Symphony yet?” Slate 30 June. 2003.
<>
Stizel, Kim. Home page. 1997. <http://www.all-britney-spears-lyrics.pair.com/lyrics-i-am-a-slave-4-u.html >
Woolman, Micheal. Ways of Knowing – An Introduction to Theory of Knowledge.
Victoria : IBID Press, 2000.
Bloom, Alan. Closing of the American Mind. New York : Hall, 1987
Footnotes
1 After slight annoyance with thr readability of television, internet, and radio, I constructed the abbreviation for TELevision, INTernet, and RADio as “Telintrad”
Ramy Alani
ENGL 101: section 054
Paper One: Definitional Argument
Draft 1/X
Explain X. slightly explain Y and Z. Is X a Y or a Z
Knowledge is an experience, or the understanding of a concept achieved throu
studying, whether formal such as in a designated school or informal. The concept
must be generally acceptable as truthful. "Cars do not need fuel" or "hemlock
improves the human immune system" are not knowledge since most people
knowledgeable in respect to cars or hemlock will agree the statements are false.
Statements intended to be deceptive are not knowledge since the data are
purposely false. Studying geography in school, reading the ingredients on food
products, or listening to the local weather station on the radio is knowledge.
All knowledge can be used to help mankind, as well as to harm it. Even
knowledge intended for good can be used to harm. Even though the study biology
was intended to be beneficial to mankind, it is not always the case. An
understanding of bacteria and viruses are applied in numerous ways. It is
sometimes used to help the sick through the creation vaccines and medicine to
cure the illness. It is also used to harm through the creation biological
weapons designed to infect victims with deadly diseases. Similarly, knowledge
intended for harm can be used to used for benefit of mankind as well.
Understanding of nuclear fission originally led to production of weapons of mass
destruction. Destruction was its sole purpose initially. Its concepts were later
applied to power plants which supply civilians with electricity. A mathematical
proof could further develop math as a discipline, as will as speed calculations.
The calculations can make corporations more efficient and lower the cost for
consumers. The calculations can also enhance the accuracy of smart bombs, making
destruction more efficient. Even military research have civil applications.
Knowledge of historical events can enlighten people by expanding their minds.
Roman history for example, influences many aspects of daily life, such as art.
Roman history can also be used in war propaganda. At the peak of Roman power,
the empire stretched from Britain to North Africa to the Persian Gulf. During
World War II, Hitler proclaimed Germany’s destiny to rule over Eurasia as the
Romans did centuries ago. He declared it was Germany’s rightful destiny to
conquer, a justification for war.
Whether or not knowledge will be used for good or harmful purposes are
not dependent upon the categories the knowledge falls in, such as the system of
knowledge, the knowledge type, or its nature. The uses are dependent upon the
people in control of the knowledge. Since all knowledge has the potential to
help mankind, or to hurt it, only people can decide which uses dominate. All
knowledge regardless of category has equal potential to benefit mankind, or harm
it. Whether or not mankind is benefits or suffers is dependent upon the people
with the knowledge, and people with power over them. Explosives were originally
used for entertainment by the Chinese as fireworks. European nations tend to be
more aggressive militarily, such as in colonizing large parts of the globe with
force. The hostility is reflected in its application of the same knowledge, in
firearms. More civil minded uses of explosives include rock mining or clearing
mountains to build roads. Knowledge normally associated with harmful
applications reflects the nature of the people, not the knowledge.
Since all knowledge can have the potential to be both beneficial or
harmful, there is no category of knowledge which should be avoided because of
its association with harm. There is no knowledge which we should not seek, since
knowledge is neutral. Some people disagree however. They are avidly against the
availability of all knowledge, to everyone. One example is the various
information available to the public on the Internet. There are virtually more
recipes to make pipe bombs than there are to make apple pie. The accessibility
of dangerous information worries civilians and governments. They fear someone
who has not yet developed a respect for others will discover certain knowledge,
and use it maliciously. When one person or even a billion reads the texts and
discovers how to build a pipe bomb, what changes? Is someone instantly injured
by this act? Nobody suffers from the accumulation of knowledge whether it is he
who gains the knowledge or someone else.
Suppose someone is curios enough to build the bomb. This act is simply
acquisition of further knowledge. No one has been harmed yet. Suppose he then
uses the bomb to maliciously attack someone. The victim is harmed both
physically and emotionally, not by knowledge, but by the malicious intentions of
the person who built the bomb. Knowledge did not harm the victim, the person who
used the bomb did. Knowledge has no will of its own, it is the people in control
of the knowledge that dictates whether it is used for beneficial or harmful
purposes.
Suppose the bomb is accidentally set off, and the person is hurt. There
were no malicious intent yet someone was harmed in the process. The accident was
not caused by the knowledge itself, but the lack of knowledge. An expert bomb
builder would not have made the mistakes which detonated the bomb. Knowledge can
safeguard accidental detonations. For example, people will usually need to learn
to drive, before being permitted to do so. In Canada, everyone first prove their
knowledge of driving during a written exam before being allowed to physically
learn to drive. This is not to protect people from knowledge of driving. It is
to ensure they are not a threat to anyone else on the road. The knowledge is not
dangerous, the lack of knowledge makes the people dangerous. Only the drivers
can harm through their vehicle, not the knowledge.
Suppose someone compiles a list of weapons of mass destruction. The
compilation includes a method of assembly which allows the average person to
easily build the weapon with minimum effort, requiring very basic materials
which are easily attained. If this compilation is distributed to everyone, chaos
would probably follow. I need to sleep. There are many sociopaths and psychopaths who would cause
mass destruction. If the compilation is hidden, and nobody gains the knowledge,
there would not be chaos. Although there is a direct relation between knowledge
and harm, the link is connected by people. Any damage would be caused by the
harmful intentions of the person who compiled the list, and the harmful
intentions of the person who utilized the compilation for mischief. Another
person could easily use the data for beneficial purposes, such as crime
prevention. The result of knowledge is dependent upon the person. Possessing
knowledge itself does not harm anyone, nor benefit anyone. Knowledge from a
harmful person can be passed to a good person without resulting in harm. The
second person still has the choice of whether to use the knowledge for good or
harmful purposes.
Even though the risk of knowledge causing harm exists, it does not
overcome the potential to benefit mankind. If nuclear research was abandoned
because of the risk of a meltdown, then nuclear propulsion would be impossible.
Knowledge is not a pandora’s box, it is directed by the people who use it.
People control both new and old knowledge. Any new knowledge is no different
than pre-existing knowledge. Each new concept or experience uncovered leads to a
decision: good or harmful. Seeking new knowledge opens possibility for further
harm, or further benefits. Since knowledge is neutral, good and harmful features
of new knowledge should be similar to the proportional to the ratio of benefits
to harmful features. If the ratio stays the same, then the amount of harm in
respect to benefits (and vice versa) stays constant. The only difference is the
amount of options available to do good, or harm. It is still the people who
decides how to use knowledge.
Only people can be harmful, knowledge itself cannot help anyone nor
harm anyone. If someone is harmed, that is the result of a person. It is his
will and harmful intent to harm the victim, not the will of knowledge. Since
knowledge is neither good nor harmful, and whether the results of the knowledge
will be beneficial or harmful is independent of any categories knowledge may lie
within, there is no reason to avoid certain categories of knowledge. Every type
of knowledge equally has the potential to enhance daily life, and that potential
should be allowed to be exploited even at the cost of releasing harmful
potentials. All systems of knowledge should be researched and taught because it
does not harm, only people harm. Knowledge has will of its own.
