Necessary evil

            I think that the art of persuasion is a necessary evil. In today’s society, we see persuasion techniques used EVERYWHERE! We see it in ads, when the advertising company is trying to persuade us to buy Crest toothpaste over Colgate. We are currently seeing it between the presidential candidates; this tactic has always been used. It seems that to today’s society that persuasion is more important than the truth. Many people today are so persuasive in their speech that you may believe something they say, even though you know they are wrong. After all, who are the best speakers? Persuasive ones. So when I say it is a necessary evil, I mean that persuasion is a tactic that many people use to make others agree with them; but at the same time, it’s evil because many times the presenter is not presenting the complete truth. For example, a parent may persuade their children to make their bed every night otherwise santa clause won’t come that year. The parent is using a tactic to get their children to do what they want because there is not a better way to make a child make his bed every morning.

            I think that Mo Tzu would not believe in the philosophy of rhetoric. Because it is a fruitless deed, persuasive speaking many times hides the truth or downplays the truth. To me, this is a fruitless act. The truth should be what determines right or wrong, just or unjust. I think that Mo Tzu did not have a problem with music in itself, but that fact that it was a waste of time was what was so evil about it. Instead of making music, a musician could be harvesting the land for crops. Instead of thinking of a way to persuade an audience to a persons beliefs, that person should just present right and wrong. Even as I’m writing this I realized that if two groups don’t agree then each group needs to try to convince the other group that they are the right ones. Okay, persuasion is everywhere and no one can escape it.

A world without music

Casey Denning

Response 5

A World Without Music

 

A world without music would be a very plain place. It is hard to imagine an entire culture without music but if there was one it would be one boring place. Mo Tzu thought that it was a waste of time for the rich aristocrats to be playing music at taxpayer’s expense. I don’t think he was truly against music of any kind but more that he thought it could be time spent doing better things to better the community. This is an arguable point. Personally I would rather have them focusing on thing that could make my life better and other peoples lives better than rather them enjoying music. With statements like those then you get into the idea of poverty, which in entire different debate there. Once again though a world without music would be a terrible one in my opinion. Although Mo Tzu thinks the rich should stop and focus on other things I think they are fine playing music. Without music far less things would get done and if they had stopped back in 400 BCE then what would the world look like today. I think a very boring world. There might not be as many people being lazy but it would be a far more colorful place. I think music creates imagination and creativity, without this it would be a terrib 

Response 5

Michael Piccone

April 11, 2008

Leviathan

Response #5

In response to Mo Tzu and his theory that music is a detriment to society, I don’t agree. As a musician I feel that music provides many things that are a great benefit. It inspires images, words, and actions. I also don’t think that the main focus of Mo Tzu’s paper was music specifically. I think he was trying to point out the difference in social classes and what a problem that can be for any society. When one group gets more than another, it causes problems and unrest. I don’t think that this is completely true. I don’t feel that there should be as large of a gap between rich and poor as there is today, but I don’t think that it causes the problems that Mo Tzu thinks. I believe that the economic systems allow, even call for, a difference in social class. If you don’t have a difference, it’s communism, which has been proven not to work. So in order for any economy to function well, there must be differences in the social class.

Response 5

Michael Chopp

ENG 121

4/11/08

RESPONSE #5

I find it hard to understand how someone can have so much disbelief in the arts or in this case “music” as Mo Tzu does. From that, I do believe he is trying to portray something else in these teachings on the advantages the rich have over the poor.  Back in Mo Tzu’s time, entertainment was much more expensive and hard to come by for the common people. The wealthy had great advantage in how they were the only ones who really could afford to pay for the services. However, I feel he took it too far in how he bashed music.

                Music has become one of the main sources of expression and how someone can share their feelings. The arts, though may be hard to see, are all around us. The buildings we have built were designed by someone in architecture, paintings by painters, and so on. What Mo Tzu doesn’t seem to realize to me is the arts provide jobs for people, whether it is forms of entertainment such as music, or pieces of artwork. Without the arts, people wouldn’t be able to express how they feel or what their wants and needs are through anything words.  Yes, finding time to listen to music back then may have been difficult, but it has to be hard to believe someone couldn’t manage their time to fit it in. Also, whistling and humming are all parts of music. We do it every day.

                If Mo Tzu had had it his way, there would be no music, no self expression through music. If only he knew what impact it would have on how people think and show their feelings. Today, music is huge. One of our biggest entertainment type industries even through all the cheating and stealing people do through free downloads. Music is in such high demand that the prices are much more suitable for all the people. It may not have been that way back then, but it has exploded now. Bashing music the way he did makes me feel like he was in a situation at one time of not being able to obtain the entertainment. Feelings like his are too strong to go without something impacting his decision to be that irrational. Mo Tzu needs to find away to listen to it and find its true beauty it beholds.

 

MUSIC!!!!

Benjamin Burns

Araina Paliobagis

English 121

4/11/08

Response 5

What would life be like without music? This question is an impossible question to answer, however we do know that music does no one any harm and it is absolutely necessary in today’s society. Could you imagine not being able to sing and dance? Going to concerts, listening to the radio, and playing and instrument would be non existent. Music is there in every aspect of life and in almost everything you do. It is an ever present sensation. Every individual person has a brain that is attracted to patterns, and music is really a pattern of sounds that appeals to the mind. It is a necessary part of life and Mo Tzu is absolutely crazy for believing that it is wrong. But then again, Mo Tzu wrote this passage a long time ago when music was first introduced; or when instruments were first introduced rather. Instruments themselves do not make music, Mo Tzu did not say that instruments were wrong!! He stated that music was wrong; this is a very bold statement. He argues in his text that it is wrong because it distracts people from constructive things that they should be doing, and that it only entertains the rich because instruments are so expensive. 1 of these arguments I can understand given the time that Mo Tzu wrote this text, but the other one is just garbage. The one that I agree with is the fact that it only entertains the rich. Instruments were expensive then and it would be hard for anyone without an extensive amount of money to buy one; but I believe that music doesn’t distract people from things. Music is a proven stimulator of the cerebellum and it can enhance cognitive thought and creativity. In today’s society, both of Mo Tzu’s arguments would be false. Instruments are cheap and available to everyone, and music is so omnipresent that it is impossible to think that it interferes with any aspect of our everyday lives.

Response #9

Mary Alice Dewees

April 11, 2008

English 121

Response #6….WHISTLE WHILE YOU WORK

Since we have the chance to pick our own topic for this response, I decided I wanted to focus on Mo Tzu argument concerning ‘music’. Could you imagine having no one sing you “Happy Birthday”?? While this idea is a bit extreme, it must be pointed out what role it plays in the life of everyday people. For centuries music has been used to soothe the soul of the broken; to liven’ the party and yes even help one celebrate another year of life. Music helps people express themselves in a way that living for the basic needs cannot, which is why I find Mo Tzu belief that “Making music is wrong!”(286) to be a ridiculous one.

Although I would not know the hardships of ancient Chinese society, I have a hard time understanding why Mo Tzu was so against music and arts. He argues that there are only “three things the people worry about: that when they are hungry they will have no food, when they are cold they will have no clothing, and when they are weary they will have no rest”(284). While basic needs are vital to living, in what ways does it contribute to the societies’ morale? Simply living life only for what you need brings little to no joy. I visualize Mo Tzu’s world to be one which is silent, laborious, and ‘black and white’.

Overall, people need stimulation/motivation and music and the arts is one way to achieve this. I sure many people can recall times when music made the work day go by faster or even made a long road trip more enjoyable. It is mere instances like these that make me wonder why Mo Tzu could not see the benefits music and the art contributes. Personally, I just think it is too bad that Mo Tzu did not have the chance to witness how much art and music can promote individuals within society.

Life without Music

Keely Boulton

Response 5

April 10, 2008

Could you imagine life without music? Dancing around your bedroom in your pajamas, playing your favorite instrument, listening to you i-pod, or listening to the radio. None of these activities would exist without music. When you watch a television show, or a movie, how boring would it be without music? Think of the cheesy chick-flicks, what good would a perfect ending be without a sappy song to make the scene? In every aspect of life, music is there. Music is there in sadness, music is there in laughter, music is there in joy. From a young age children learn to love music and they carry it into their lives as they grow. Music is a part of American culture, and all of life. For these reasons, and many others, I think Mo Tzu is wrong to suggest music is a distraction and a waste of money.

Although music can be distracting sometimes it serves as an outlet for human emotions and allows people to express what they feel in a way all people will understand. Music has added success in all areas of my life. Music allows me to see the joy in life, and has been an amazing part of my walk with Christ. I can praise Him when I sing at church, or when I’m singing with the songs on the radio. Psalms 66:2 says, “Sing the glory of His name; make His praise glorious.” Here we see music is important to God. We are commanded to sing the glory of His name and praise Him. Music is an important part of our culture, and therefore a huge part of life. My life has been so blessed by music and the amazing things I have gained from music. There is no way I could see music as a distraction, because music adds to the quality of one’s life. Music is also not a waste of money because it brings about creativity and ingenuity—in music there no inequality.

Be it singing, dancing, having fun, working, or watching a movie, music is there. Music is all around us whether we realize it or not. Music lends success in society, school, intellectual development, and life. The study of music and music itself are important to every aspect of life. I ask you to ask your selves what life would be like without God’s gift of music. Students who want to support music need to get to together. Speak out. Write letters to your local newspaper, attend school board meetings and speak for music at public hearings. Write your congressmen and tell them your views or go online and sign a petition to keep music in our schools. After all, no matter what you say or who you tell, you’ll never change anything by remaining silent.

Poverty

Samantha Kujala

4/10/08

Poverty

            I think Mo Tzu felt there was a lot of poverty in the world so he used music as an excuse and cause for poverty. The world will always have poverty no matter what time period it is. This is because there are so many lazy people in the world, being well educated itself will not pull the world out of poverty. Today, there are many opportunities available for people to receive help in getting a job. It the laziness of certain people, that causes them not to have jobs and live in poverty.

            This is not completely true for everyone, sometimes identity theft or bankruptcy happens and suddenly you do not have any money. But for the majority of those living in poverty, I would say it is mainly because of the laziness of people not using the resources that are available for them to get the help they need to get a job. I work for the Career Service office, we will help anyone job search, critique their resumes, and do practice interviews for them. There are so many available resources for people to use and unless they do use them and still do not get a job then I would feel bad for them. But there are so many people who do not even try to get the help they need and I really do not feel pity for that group of people living in poverty. I would say this is directed more to those living in the U.S., because some other countries do not have these resources available and live in very different situations.

            So back to Mo Tzu’s idea about getting rid of music to make society more productive, I don’t think would solve anything. Except make life less enjoyable, music is a gift that should be openly expressed whenever. But if music was abandoned completely like Mo Tzu wanted I think society today would be very different. In a way it could make us far more productive. Without any type of entertainment, people would probably just be working all the time. Schools may not have even really existed because our main goal and focus in life would have been working to give us food, shelter, and clothing. I think this would make our society today extremely boring in every way. This still would also not solve poverty, because like I said there will always be slackers that do not make any effort in life.

            Mo Tzu should not blame poverty on music and he should realize that all music is not bad. He categorizes all types of music into one group and claims all music is bad. He also hints that those people who choose to waste their time on music will die, because God does not approve. Where in the world would this idea that music is almost like a sin come from? I believe God gifts us with talents such as music and would not take these away from us. How does Mo Tzu explain then singing in churches is a bad thing? Mo Tzu is wrong about music and makes a bad judgment. Music does not cause poverty and it being destroyed will not cure poverty. Mo Tzu is just jealous because he did not receive the gift of music.   

 

Mo Tzu is retarded.

Kurt Dudley

Ariana Paliobagis

April 10, 2008

Mo Tzu

            Many people spend their whole lives in the pursuit of the arts.  This can be any type of art but mainly the kinds with the expression of self involved.  However, there are some philosophers who believe that art is a waste of time and that without the great paintings of Marc Chagall, the Metamorphoses of Ovid, or even the Parthenon built by the great architects of Greece, society would excel into a great place where everyone is equal.  Mo Tzu is one of these philosophers.  Mo Tzu claims that music should be banned because it will, “Bring no benefit to the common people”(284).  To me, Mo Tzu underestimates the purpose of art.  The purpose of Art is to express one’s self.  The reason that we make beautiful music, and paint colorful murals, and write perfect epics is to create joy and a reason for living. 

            The fruit fly has one purpose.  And that is to mate with another fruit fly, successfully procreate and die.  Humans are slightly more complex than the fruit fly.  In order to find their life worthwhile, a human needs many things.  The science of psychology has shown us that.  But one of the main things that we need in our lives is the social interaction and understanding that we connect with others.  Art is one of the many ways of doing this.  Mo Tzu ignorantly says, “Music-making interferes to such an extent with the people’s efforts to produce food and clothing!  Therefore Mo Tzu said: Making music is wrong!”  People are always going to satisfy their basic needs when they need satisfying.  But what is to satisfy the humans search for expression?  That is also a need, though slightly less important than food, it is a need.

The Opinionated Mo Tzu

Carley Buttelman

English 121

4-10-08

Response 5

The Opinionated Mo Tzu

            Mo Tzu makes it very clear that he thinks that “music is wrong” (284). I was trying to think if I or know someone that has a belief or an opinion as strong as his. I couldn’t think of anything. Yes, I have my beliefs but nothing as radical as “music is wrong.”

            Mo Tzu seems to being holding a grudge towards the people that can afford listening to music. This may be because he didn’t have the luxury to listen to it. There was definitely a social class back then, and he must have not been a part of the upper class. He seems so threatened by the people that get to listen to music. He says that people’s tax money was taken for the rich to listen to the music. However, anyone can sing and anyone can turn a trash can over and play it like drums. Music doesn’t have to be all about expensive instruments.  

            He also makes the point that music distracts people from their everyday tasks. He believes that music exhausts the mind and the body. Farmers and men that work for the government can’t perform their jobs to the fullest because music sidetracks them. If music was in the everyday lives of the lower class people, Mo Tzu thinks that the women could not spin, weave, and produce clothing. He even thinks that there “will not be enough cloth” (287). Can’t people multi-task? He obviously thinks that music is so distracting that these people cannot do two things at once, which is absolutely crazy. This piece of writing definitely made me giggle with laughter.    

Art: Not a Waste of Time

Bethany Van Dyke

English 121-31

Response Paper 5

It is interesting how some people, such as Mo Tzu, believe that the arts (specifically music) are a waste of time and money.  I do not think Mo Tzu was specifically referring to art and music in his piece Against Music, but more so about how it is wrong for people to indulge in unnecessary or extravagant things.  I think he did not realize the true importance of music at that time, and therefore felt it was a waste.

In this day and age I do not think anyone would agree with Mo Tzu that music, or the arts in general, are a waste of time and money; partly because the arts are no longer an activity of only the wealthy.  Instead, music and art have become a big part of every culture and are enjoyed by people from all different backgrounds.   

What I think it most important about the arts is that it is an outlet for creativity.  Sure it may not seem extremely productive if a person spends hours upon hours working on a single painting, but at the same time it can be the beginning of something great.  I always like to look at art and music as the beginning of a great idea.  A person may have a hard time getting their ideas out on paper (such as for an essay), but find it easier to paint them or express them through song or poetry etc.  For example, a person might be having a hard time condensing their ideas for a paper, so they can decide to make a painting to express their thoughts and ideas.  And through that process I believe they are able to condense their thoughts and perhaps even provide more detail.  Then, when they are asked to explain their painting, they may find it easier to talk about their ideas and clarify what they were thinking. 

Being an outlet for creativity is just one of the many arguments supporting the arts.   The arts have been around for many, many years so it is obvious that people all over the world value it and believe it is extremely important.   The world would be a very different place without the arts, and would surely lack creativity and the great ideas derived from making it (whether it is in the form a picture, painting or music etc.)

who is to decide

 

So I guess this section is on rhetoric, language and social contract, that is persuasion and demeanor. This can apply to the lives of pretty much everyone. In a society that is constantly being bombarded with pictures and sounds trying to convince you that their product is the best; that this is what you should be doing, and here is why you need to be doing it, and this is what will happen if you don’t. Millions of dollars go into rhetoric and the persuasion of people every year. Sometimes these persuasions have a socially beneficial purpose, other times they are in the self-interest of but a few, and are at the cost of many. Deciding which ones to believe and put your trust into, without being entirely ignorant, can require hours of research. What is the purpose of all of these choices? Do they make the world a more productive place or is a giant waste of time and energy? The power of an argument is dependent upon the confidence in the ideas and validity of its support. In Plato’s Gorgias, the self titled character seemed to believe that the support was not nearly as an important a factor in an argument that rhetoric was, and the ability to apply rhetoric effectively was all that was needed to persuade people of things that were not true. Though the art of persuasion is endeed powerful, and possibly made of falsehoods, should it not then be used than with caution, as Gorgias prescribed “the rhetorician ought not to abuse his strength..” As it should go for any person in power. For most the rhetoric of today, I do not think it is helping society in the long run.

Chris Kurz
ENG 121
Response 5

What if only the extremely wealthy portion of society had enough money to afford music, television, and other forms of art? Would it upset enough people that one of them would write that music is the root of all evil? I am not sure that Mo Tzu was someone that may have faced a situation similar to this but his writings come across as those of someone who is bitter about not getting what he wants.
I don’t understand where Mo Tzu is coming from when he makes this into an issue of social class and wealth. Yes it is true that instruments are expensive but everyone has the ability to make music in its crudest forms. Everyone can sing. Everyone can beat on something that will make a drum-like sound. These are the roots of music and although they may sound rough, good sounds can arise from them.
To say that music does not contribute to society and that it decreases the amount of work that gets done is laughable. My response to this would be to take away all the arts and see where society is after that. Without the arts, television included, today’s society would be lost. If you included sports as an art form then even more people that don’t care about the arts would be hopeless. Sure, initially the work rate might increase but eventually people would go underground in search of simple pleasures like a song.
While there may be other pursuits that contribute more to society, to say that, “Making music is wrong!” (285) goes too far.
One could also say that too much money is spent on funding the written word, which can also be considered a distraction and an art form. What would Mo Tzu have to say to that?
Music, writing and all the other arts are not only available for the rich. In fact, the expression that one can make through music can make the poorest individual rise above the wealthiest.

Response 5

I have been thinking about using the TV show ‘King of the Hill’ as my contemporary source from the media. I think this might work because I can tie it into the texts we are reading. After reading Mo Tzu’s work, you may think that he does not like music, but if you look into it a little farther, you will realize that he is opposed towards things that exclude the poor people and do not have an overall benefit. It can easily be argued that now music is beneficial but back in Tzu’s day, music was only afforded by the rich people. This could be compared to cars that are very very expensive or maybe resorts that are extremely expensive so that only the rich can get in, but they really aren’t any different than a cheaper resort. When the group that can have these things is exclusive, Tzu argues that it is wrong to enjoy these things when a person could be directing their money into other areas and helping out the general public, not just basking in their wealth while other people are suffering or living poorly.

I will have to work a little harder to tie this into ‘King of the Hill’ or I may have to use a different TV show, but I definitely want to use a contemporary TV show, as I think it would be both funny and have a serious side as well. From the reading about Plato, I found the dialogue to be somewhat interesting but it can be hard to pull much from it. Plato is essentially just trying to find a working definition for rhetoric, and I believe that this excerpt from ‘Gorgias’ did pretty well. One thing I wonder about is if Gorgias would actually stick to his word. He almost seems to flip flop a little bit in the dialogue, but this may be because of the way that he is conversing with the character Socrates. Overall, I think that rhetoric was better defined and that its purpose was clarified.