How does civilization survive w.o. the "Sublime".

[Aglifter]

IMO, the Reformation, and the attendant emotions resulting from focusing on the personal relationship between Man and God*, lead to the Enlightenment, and modern civilization.

God, "Truth", Beauty, etc are all, more or less, different terms to refer to the same thing, to me - I realize others do not feel that way - so long as individuals believe in something along those lines, the idea of the "sublime" should make sense.

I guess my point is how do we have Newtons and Franklins - men who are motivated by a love of the nature of the world - if we don't have Bachs...

Operas were "pop" entertainment - usually a bit more high-brow than Shakespeare's Street Theater - but they, mostly, express adult, developed emotions.

Romantics tend to make the leaps which push civilization forward - leaps shored up by those seeking profits. And, without that Romantic tendency, Freedom, Duty, Honor, become mere words.

Logical men do not start fights with tyrants. Logical men do not write "Tosca," they write "99 problems, but a b*tch ain't one", and cash the check...

*To me, that relationship is the most fundamental expression of "The Sublime." It is what Bach wrote about - it is what all great music is about. It is why great music transcends culture - it addresses something fundamental to us all.

I am not so sure about Art - some, very good, Art, is also very frightening.

[moose42]

To respond I think I'll quote Shepard Book.

Why when I talk about belief, why do you always assume I'm talking about God?

Most people in this world believe in something higher than themselves. Be it a god, gods, karma, goodwill, brotherhood, the flying spaghetti monster, Cthulhu or 'the sublime.'

Really when it all boils down to it, does it really matter what inspires people?

[Aglifter]

To respond I think I'll quote Shepard Book.

Why when I talk about belief, why do you always assume I'm talking about God?

Most people in this world believe in something higher than themselves. Be it a god, gods, karma, goodwill, brotherhood, the flying spaghetti monster, Cthulhu or 'the sublime.'

Really when it all boils down to it, does it really matter what inspires people?

Potential inflammatory direction aside... Maybe. My concern is that the main inspiration now seems to be fame or money - and, while those drives are important, a society fails when those are the only drives. (Indian society, as one of the oldest "civilized" societies, is an excellent example of this.)

[Yogimus]

To respond I think I'll quote Shepard Book.

Why when I talk about belief, why do you always assume I'm talking about God?

Most people in this world believe in something higher than themselves. Be it a god, gods, karma, goodwill, brotherhood, the flying spaghetti monster, Cthulhu or 'the sublime.'

Really when it all boils down to it, does it really matter what inspires people?

Potential inflammatory direction aside... Maybe. My concern is that the main inspiration now seems to be fame or money - and, while those drives are important, a society fails when those are the only drives. (Indian society, as one of the oldest "civilized" societies, is an excellent example of this.)

When your motivation to succeed depends on your peers, you tend to become that asshat in grade-school that eats worms for attention.

[Greg]

Interesting. But you have to remember that (capital R) Romanticism in anything but the most moderate doses, is deadly poison that is capable of destroying civilizations. And more or less, it has.

[Aglifter]

I suppose - but I would classify most scientists as Romantics, as well as many of the more adventurous businessmen - the FF were. There has to be at least streak of the Romantic in anyone who assigns meaning to words like, "Honor, Duty, Freedom, etc."

Out of curiosity, which civilizations do you think were destroyed by Romantic.

[Greg]

I suppose - but I would classify most scientists as Romantics, as well as many of the more adventurous businessmen - the FF were. There has to be at least streak of the Romantic in anyone who assigns meaning to words like, "Honor, Duty, Freedom, etc."

Out of curiosity, which civilizations do you think were destroyed by Romantic.

Ours.

The FF preceded the Romantic Movement, which might explain why our Revolution remained sane.

[Mike OTDP]

Interesting discussion.

Great engineering takes a blend of crazy romanticism and hard-nosed realism. Only a romantic would even think of going to the Moon. It's not the sort of thing you do for money, or to be popular. You do it because it's a grand, glorious adventure. And that dream will nurture you through the hard times.

And there will be hard times. Because actually going to the Moon will demand the deepest committment, the most fanatic determination. You start in high school, studying math and science instead of beer and drugs. You go to college, majoring in Engineering instead of Partying. Then start on solving the problems involved in going to the Moon. Propulsion. Navigation. Life Support. Communications. It takes years - long, hard years of work to solve those problems. And the only solutions come from hard-nosed, brutal realism.

But harness that realism to romanticism, and you can write your name in the rock of History in letters of solid gold.

[Aglifter]

You think modern civilization is Romantic?

Also, have you read the FF? I would agree that they were not, completely, Romantic - Lee was - but the FF definitely had them.

The South's rebellion was an act of Romanticism, and one known to be ultimately futile by Lee, Davis, etc - and the Civil War in general involved an over-dose of "Glory."

[MarkD]

I think it's sort of a feedback loop. You can't have the sublime if you're spending all your time feeding yourself at a subsistence level, so you need a certain amount of civilization to be able to create art of any type. Once that's happened, art becomes a way of passing on the culture of the civilization to the next generation, who strengthens and improves upon it, making time for yet more art, until eventually you have people whose sole function is to produce beauty and people have enough resources to be able to spend some of them on things that exist just to be beautiful.

I don't know if either art or civilization can exist and be sustained without the other.

Regarding your question about how you have Newton without Bach, I suspect Newton saw a world of surpassing beauty and order, and Bach found a way to express that beauty and order in music.