Parallels Between Music and Reality

Socrates: Hello, John.

John: Hello, I have a profound thought I wanted to talk about with you. 

Socrates: A profound thought? What is it?

John: Well, I noticed a really interesting parallel between music and reality. I was talking to my brother once about sameness and change. Apparently, the earliest philosophers had to wrestle with this question: is all of reality sameness or change? 

Socrates: Yes, and like a lot of people do, some chose one side, other people chose the other side.

John: Yeah. Some philosophers, my brother told me, chose the first option: that all reality is sameness. But this leads to absurdity because all differences between things would only be illusions. Some philosophers chose the second option: that all reality is change. But this also leads to absurdity because then nothing exists. Either way, nothing would be as it seemed. 

Socrates: So what is the solution to this dilemma?

John: Both sets of people made the mistake of assuming that it was either one way or the other. But why couldn't it be both? Couldn't things change in some ways, and yet remain the same in other ways? I think that they could. We can observe this truth in the way that objects in the universe have accidents (changing features) and essences (unchangeable, necessary features). 

Socrates: Certainly. So how does this relate to music? 

John: Well, I've noticed that music seems to strongly resemble reality in that it is a balance of sameness and change--or at least it should be. Music with too little change is minimalist, while music with too much change is total chaos. So good music has a balance between these two extremes. That is why I consider works like "Duel of the Fates" and "Battle of the Heroes" from "Star Wars" and Beethoven's Fifth, Bach's Brandenburg Concerto No. 4(?) etc. to be so great, because they are so much the same throughout, but they change so much. 

Socrates: Yes, indeed. 

John: Sorry for doing all the talking, Socrates. I hope you don't feel left out.

Socrates: Left out? No, I'm just listening. I'm sure that I will have plenty of questions to ask next time.

The Essence of Marriage: Part 5

X: So let's get started, Socrates. I think that we have now gotten to a point where we can actually define marriage.

Socrates: Hopefully we have, nameless one, since we've gotten rid of a lot of confusion. You aren't going to reveal your name, are you?

X: Um, no. I'm going to keep it the way it is.

Socrates: Why?

X: Because it's the name I've had for the past few dialogues. I might as well keep it until I can find a better one.

Socrates: All right then; back to our discussion. We've discarded one or two definitions of marriage, finding them insufficient or absurd, and we've also discussed the problems with one of the alternatives of marriage. But we never mentioned one definition of marriage that stands out like a sore thumb: the "traditional definition", as many would call it. What is this definition? Enlighten me.

X: All right, Socrates. This is what it is. Marriage is the covenant between one man and one woman who agree to love each other till death, and to accept and raise the children that they procreate through their union with each other.

Socrates: Thank you. What is a covenant?

X: An exchange of persons.

Socrates: So a marriage is a union in which a man and a woman exchange their very selves?

X: Yes.

Socrates: May they or may they not use contraception?

X: They must not. It is forbidden.

Socrates: Then the definition should be slightly clarified on that point. Why is it forbidden?

X: Because contraception separates the act of procreation from the pleasure experienced. This is a problem because it teaches spouses to use each other as objects, since they no longer need to "suffer" the consequences of their actions, and it also shows that they are not truly living their covenant. If they do not give themselves to each other in every way--their fertility included--then they are lying to each other and breaking their vows, since their vows demand a total self-surrender.

Socrates: Oh. If those are the reasons, then the definition you gave above is already sufficient by itself. Still, in your wreck of a world, it could use clarification.

X: Yes indeed it could. I wonder, is there anything more to be said, or should I just leave it at that? I can't think of anything else to say about marriage--at least not right now.

Socrates: I suppose that you could close the matter here--unless someone has objections to the definition?

X: I don't think I do, unless the definition needs more clarification. But that can be done later.

Socrates: So I suppose that wraps up our discussion about what marriage is.

X: Yes. I think our next topic will be who instituted marriage. I'll see you soon to talk about that, Socrates.

Socrates: I look forward to it.