Musical Taste and Lifestyle

According to Meriam-Webster, the definition of music is :
"1 a: the science or art of ordering tones or sounds in succession, in combination, and in temporal relationships to produce a composition having unity and continuity b: vocal, instrumental, or mechanical sounds having rhythm, melody, or harmony
2 a: an agreeable sound"
While I agree that music is all of this, I think that music is something else, too; music is something that speaks to people, that makes people feel something. Music is in the "ear" of the beholder-- a genre that is beautiful to one person might be torture to another. I personally know people who say that rap is not music because they do not like that particular genre, but doesn't rap fulfill M-W's requirements? Just because a person does not like a certain type of music does not mean that it is not music. Music is a collection of unified sounds that is either pleasing or displeasing to the ear depending on the person. I know that I am not a fan of country music in general, but I cannot condemn every country song because each song gives the listener a new experience; one country song might have a pleasing element that another one does not. I've always found it intriguing how one person might love a song that another person absolutely hates. What makes people love or hate certain types of music? Personality? Or does it depend on where the person was brought up? Perhaps it depends on the person's lifestyle, although (especially in younger people) the type of music you like determines who you are friends with, wht you wear, etc, so I suppose in a way, music helps to decide a person's lifestyle. Thinking back on middle and high school, music really did play a huge role in determining social status, wardrobe, etc. Those who wore mostly black and had "crazy" hair and makeup usually listened to heavy metal or punk, people who wore tie-dye, head bands and the like listened to "hippie music", kids who wore preppier clothes generally listened to pop or mild rap. Alot could be said about a person by their musical taste. Although the influence of musical taste on lifestyle tends to wane as people get older, it is still quite prevalent. It's really quite amazing how much music affects people and their lives, and the variety of music to choose from.

Music

I have yet to meet anybody who says they do not like music, and it is doubtful that I ever will. Music is something that speaks to everyone through different genres and sounds, and yet it is extremely difficult to define what music actually is. To me, music is something that is essential; I cannot picture a life without it. Music inspires, comforts, and excites, as well as creating a mood for all situations and allowing listeners to escape for a little while.
The Wikipedia article has a section describing the theory that music is a sort of language, and I agree with this wholeheartedly. Music not only speaks to people, but creates emotions such as sadness, joy, desire, anger, frustration, elation, etc. In my eyes, such a sound that evokes so much in the listeners can only be described as the language of the soul. Every culture across the world has some sort of music, thus why music is sometimes called the “universal language.” Music is constantly changing as cultures grow and change, just as language grows and changes. A hundred years ago people would have been shocked by the grinding guitars and growling vocals of some of the current rock bands, and yet today people (especially young people) all over appreciate this kind of music. Some music has passed the test of time, such as the works of Mozart or tribal music from all over the world.
Music is a powerful force that most people cannot live without. Music brings people together and can “soothe a savage beast.” Music affects people in so many different ways, and yet it is extremely difficult to pin down an exact definition of what music truly is.

Q&A# 8

There are several definitions of patriotism that must be considered before deciding whether or not to agree or disagree with Jensen’s position that American patriotism needs to die out. The first definition of patriotism that Jensen gives is that patriotism relies on loyalty to the war effort. If this is so, then American patriotism is long gone, as most Americans do not agree with the current war in Iraq and disagree with the government’s decisions, actions, and beliefs. The second definition given is that patriotism is a critique of the war effort as opposed to support of it. I believe that critique is closer to real patriotism than blind loyalty, as by critiquing the war people are using their right to express their opinions and safely disagree with government policies. Citizens of every country need to think about what is being decided for them and what their government is doing in the name of the people. Blind loyalty creates a country of sheep that do what they are told, when they are told to do it without thinking about why or what the consequences could be.
Jensen claims that people should concentrate on being globally patriotic as opposed to nationally patriotic, and I agree with this. As the world gets smaller and people can reach each other more easily, it becomes more and more important for people to feel pride in their planet and everything living on it. Pride in one’s country was a good thing, but it is better for people to concentrate on what can be done for the benefit of the entire world. This doesn’t mean sticking our noses in other country’s wars, but becoming more aware of what is happening outside of our borders and appreciating all cultures. As most people know, the environment is suffering due to human behavior. In order for this problem to be fixed, people need to become globally patriotic as Jensen suggested, and start becoming conscious of what is going on outside of our borders.

My own thoughts on patriotism.

The way I see it right now, patriotism is failing miserably in America because of the failure of the government to listen to the people. Before the Bush administration, I felt proud to live in America and to be considered American. Of course this could be attributed to the fact that I was much younger and more impressionable, but even now I see younger children who are being effected by the lack of patriotism. My own siblings are not proud to be in America, and they are both still under the age of 14, which is a very sad thing. When I was in elementary school I remember learning about what a great and free country America is. As I got older, I became more cynical about America and its policies. When I went to Europe two years ago I was told to tell anybody who asked where I was from that I was Canadian. It's a sad state of affairs when a person is afraid to be truthful about their own home.
I do not consider myself a patriotic person, but I can recognize that America has its good points. Yes, most of the world disagrees with our goverenment's actions, and even most of it's own citizens disagree with the war, but at the same time America is still fairly free. The freedoms are being taken away, mind you, but as of right now we still have it alright. Don't get me wrong, I am NOT in any way a supporter of the war, American government, or some of its policies, but it's good to think positively. But the fact that I feel that I have to explain that I am not patriotic means something, as well. I feel that if I were to admit to being patriotic or to having the smallest positive thought about American government, I would come under attack from those who disagree. This has happened in the past, before I decided that I completely disagreed with the war a few years ago. Friends got angry at me for expressing the tiniest bit of support for anything to do with America, and if I had any positive comments about Bush (which I have few) I came under even fiercer attack. A country whose own people come under attack for expressing patriotism is in a bad state indeed.
Then again, I do not believe that support of wars is the definition of patriotism. Patriotism is the love and pride of a country as a whole, not just how it handles its foreign affaris. A person may diagree with it's government's policies, but still be proud of the history and culture of their country. Although I don't find American history to be the most interesting, I can appreciate the struggle that early Americans went through to make this country. In that respect I suppose I am patriotic, as I believe that appreciation for a country's history and struggle is an important part of patriotism.
More on this later.

Meat-Eating

I do not believe that eating meat immoral, not do I believe that being a vegetarian is immoral. The immorality lies in how the animals are treated before they are eaten. Humans have been eating meat for thousands of years, but the difference is that primitive peoples generally used up all of the animal while today large meat companies waste what is left over from the animal. Also, keeping animals in small cages and atrophying their muscles for tenderness is not only wrong, but disgusting. Human beings are omnivores, therefore we need both meat and natural-grown foods to survive. Those who choose to not eat meat find other ways to get the protein that meat provides, but in the long run the benefits of some meats can not be reproduced.
It is wrong for people to assume that we own everything and therefore can do whatever we want with nature. Animals are not here solely for our use, but they provide us with the food that we need to survive. In the wild other animals eat each other, and most people see nothing wrong with that. Why should eating meat as a human be any different?

Defending Meat-Eaters

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=grill This webpage is not meant to be taken 100% seriously, but it does make a good argument if you read in between the cynical humor. It's also quite amusing if you like that kind of humor.

Responce to Q&A #5

Both from my own experience and reading the articles online, I have come to the conclusion that Agnosticism is the more rational belief. When I take into account the Agnostics that I know, they seem more open-minded about many topics and rarely rule anything out, as opposed to Atheists who seem a lot more close-minded about topics regarding religion especially. Atheists want the definite knowledge that they are correct in their assumption that there is no god, and while Agnostics many or may not believe in a god, they are open to the possibility. Although I doubt the existence of god, I like to keep my mind open enough not to reject the possibility. It is impossible for anyone to know for sure whether there is a god or not, as there is not enough proof on either side of the argument. Theists claim that miraculous events are the work of god, which is enough proof for many of them, while many Atheists use reason and logic to explain what others believe is the work of a god. Agnosticism seems to be the right balance between Atheism and Theism, as it is more a belief in possibilities rather than definites. I am sure that there are arguments claiming that Atheism is the more rational belief, because honestly it is rather unrealistic to believe in an all-powerful god that watches over all of us. Gods were invented by early peoples looking for explanations for things that could not be explained through their primitive methods. Nowadays it is a lot easier to determine cause and effect using science and logic, therefore some people believe that there is no longer a reason to have a god/gods. While this does make a lot of sense, I still believe that it is necessary to be open to any possibility, and therefore Agnosticism makes more sense than Atheism.