Leaderboard

Meh. I guess. Nah. Maybe.

Or you could. If one were to take Romanticism and Modernism in a Kantian sense, we could say that, as noumenal objects, or their products as noumenal objects, there's no fundamental difference between the two: they are both stuff as any stuff ever could be, and only that. They're only distinct, or established as different modes of thought, or are otherwise differentiated, by a hollow and likely false assumption that one thing is necessarily different from another. The phenomenal world, the way we experience things, assumes things to be true by the limited abilities of the apparatus that's experiencing them: the sum of our experience is the sum ability of our experiencing apparatus - as the stomach digests, the ear hears, and the brain thinks, etc. We know that we don't experience things in all conceivable ways - bats have sonar where we don't - and it can be rightly assumed that there could be an infinite number of other ways to experience things that we have no knowledge of. If one were to believe this, one would have to admit that there is no way which one could actually experience anything as it is - which isn't to say that nothing exists, but that nothing that's experienced necessarily exists as we believe it does. One could look at a chair, and it is as it is with what limited experiencing abilities one has; but with extra experiential power, it could be any and an infinite number of other things, if not something so different to one's original understanding of it that the word 'chair' would loose its meaning and another more appropriate word would have to be invented to accommodate the extra experience of the object. There's no way of knowing what's there absolutely. And it could further be the case that, mentioned above, outside of experience there is no difference between anything at all; that the difference between one thing and another is determined by experience rather than their, or its, ultimate reality; and where experience, with more and evermore gained, can never be assumed to be satisfactory, since the knowledge that one has all experiential powers, or a total experience, could only be gained by the experience of that total experience which must necessarily have come from outside the total experience. An impossibility, and an unfortunate paradox. The same could be said about the difference between Romanticism and Modernism. We have no way of knowing if they're different really; to believe they are assumes a likely falsehood since their distinction, as we know it, is determined only by knowledge that's been acquired by entirely insufficient means - by limited experience or experience as such - and the distinction between them is, therefore, empty. Having said that, these two styles of music could be easily treated as though there were no difference between them - and there probably isn't, or no significant or relevant difference anyway. So there's my bit... :dunno: