A must watch, a scientific talk on music and what it does to our brain.

The guy doing the talk is a Christian!

Very very interesting

A must watch, a scientific talk on music and what it does to our brain.

The guy doing the talk is a Christian!

Very very interesting

If it's a heretic I wouldn't say Christian

There are a number of good talks by Dr. Andrew Childs of St. Marys, Kansas on the nature of good music that align far better to Catholic philosophy and theology than this talk, although there are some good points in it. The problem with listening to non-Catholics (as it was with the Index) is that truth and error can be so closely intermingled that the layman often may become confused, and this confusion can become the source of danger for the faith.

I recall that Kurt Poterack of Christendom College also has some essays on modern music that are fairly insightful. Of course, there are Bishop Williamson's lucid and arresting essays.

I have only listened to a little over half of the talk now, but from the tenor of it so far, I can make a few comments, from my humble opinion, for those who wish to listen to the talk in its entirety. I would point out the following to keep in mind as "corrections" to some of the erroneous assertions of this speaker:

1) when he asserts that music "causes" certain effects, or that the devil can make use of certain music to "force a conversion," this must be clarified. As St Thomas pointed out, music does not cause virtue or vice directly but rather, as an imitation of the passions, it disposes us one way or the other. Thus its relationship with character in the individual and culture in the community is dispositive, indirect, and symptomatic. That is, one can feel the "pulse" of a culture by looking at its fine arts, especially its music, just as one can tell something of a person's character by the things he surrounds his life with, as Josef Pieper noted. So whenever the speaker says, "causes" or "forces," one should understand this to mean "disposes" or "inclines." Ultimately, the will follows an act of the intellect; no one, not even the good God, can force our wills to do something.

2) it should come as no surprise, but the speaker has a mistaken notion of human nature when discussing neuroscience. When the speaker discusses the relationship between "brain waves" or states and the different rational functions, he tends to reduce the soul into a materialistic function of brain activities. He goes so far as to say that rationality is contained in, e.g., the pre-frontal cortex. This is, of course, the exact opposite of how the soul and brain relationship should be conceived. The soul is the form of the body and therefore of the brain. The soul makes use of the brain as its natural "vehicle" to exercise its normal functions, but we should not therefore think that the soul is "compartmentalized" into different areas of the brain, as though the intellect is here, the will is there, etc. As spiritual, the soul is simple in nature, not composed of parts, and its ontology and functions are ultimately independent of the integrity of the body.

Therefore, instead of thinking that the brain has a direct and ultimate causal power over the soul, as the speaker almost implies, we should return to St Thomas' principle of the dispositive. The physical states of the brain and body can dispose the soul, and sometimes very strongly especially because of the wounds of original sin. But the soul makes all of this possible as the form of the body, and the intellect and will are the ultimate seat of personality and decision-making.

3) the relationship between music, the mind/soul, and the occult are matters that were beginning to be discussed with great precision and growth in the early to mid 20th century, but as with all good things, were cut short by Vatican II. One of the few post-conciliar theologians who spoke well and with scholastic precision of the fine arts who comes to my mind was the late Fr Benedict Ashley, OP, and Fr Jordan Aumann's earlier work on aesthetics. The manner in which non-physical relations interact with various aspects of creation, whether in a physical place, or between persons, or even with the demonic, is something regularly seen in the experience of exorcists, but a full and rigorous philosophical and theological analysis is still forthcoming. To put it more briefly, we do not yet fully understand how the physical, the relational, and angelic/demonic interact, and perhaps we never fully will until after this life, but there is good reason to believe, from sound principles of scholastic philosophy, that the interaction is often far more profound, wondrous, and sometimes horrible than modern society would have us believe. This is why it behooves good Catholics to guard their senses and to fill the mind, imagination, and passions with those things that will ever dispose us to God.

There are a number of good talks by Dr. Andrew Childs of St. Marys, Kansas on the nature of good music that align far better to Catholic philosophy and theology than this talk, although there are some good points in it. The problem with listening to non-Catholics (as it was with the Index) is that truth and error can be so closely intermingled that the layman often may become confused, and this confusion can become the source of danger for the faith.

I recall that Kurt Poterack of Christendom College also has some essays on modern music that are fairly insightful. Of course, there are Bishop Williamson's lucid and arresting essays.

I have only listened to a little over half of the talk now, but from the tenor of it so far, I can make a few comments, from my humble opinion, for those who wish to listen to the talk in its entirety. I would point out the following to keep in mind as "corrections" to some of the erroneous assertions of this speaker:

1) when he asserts that music "causes" certain effects, or that the devil can make use of certain music to "force a conversion," this must be clarified. As St Thomas pointed out, music does not cause virtue or vice directly but rather, as an imitation of the passions, it disposes us one way or the other. Thus its relationship with character in the individual and culture in the community is dispositive, indirect, and symptomatic. That is, one can feel the "pulse" of a culture by looking at its fine arts, especially its music, just as one can tell something of a person's character by the things he surrounds his life with, as Josef Pieper noted. So whenever the speaker says, "causes" or "forces," one should understand this to mean "disposes" or "inclines." Ultimately, the will follows an act of the intellect; no one, not even the good God, can force our wills to do something.

2) it should come as no surprise, but the speaker has a mistaken notion of human nature when discussing neuroscience. When the speaker discusses the relationship between "brain waves" or states and the different rational functions, he tends to reduce the soul into a materialistic function of brain activities. He goes so far as to say that rationality is contained in, e.g., the pre-frontal cortex. This is, of course, the exact opposite of how the soul and brain relationship should be conceived. The soul is the form of the body and therefore of the brain. The soul makes use of the brain as its natural "vehicle" to exercise its normal functions, but we should not therefore think that the soul is "compartmentalized" into different areas of the brain, as though the intellect is here, the will is there, etc. As spiritual, the soul is simple in nature, not composed of parts, and its ontology and functions are ultimately independent of the integrity of the body.

Therefore, instead of thinking that the brain has a direct and ultimate causal power over the soul, as the speaker almost implies, we should return to St Thomas' principle of the dispositive. The physical states of the brain and body can dispose the soul, and sometimes very strongly especially because of the wounds of original sin. But the soul makes all of this possible as the form of the body, and the intellect and will are the ultimate seat of personality and decision-making.

3) the relationship between music, the mind/soul, and the occult are matters that were beginning to be discussed with great precision and growth in the early to mid 20th century, but as with all good things, were cut short by Vatican II. One of the few post-conciliar theologians who spoke well and with scholastic precision of the fine arts who comes to my mind was the late Fr Benedict Ashley, OP, and Fr Jordan Aumann's earlier work on aesthetics. The manner in which non-physical relations interact with various aspects of creation, whether in a physical place, or between persons, or even with the demonic, is something regularly seen in the experience of exorcists, but a full and rigorous philosophical and theological analysis is still forthcoming. To put it more briefly, we do not yet fully understand how the physical, the relational, and angelic/demonic interact, and perhaps we never fully will until after this life, but there is good reason to believe, from sound principles of scholastic philosophy, that the interaction is often far more profound, wondrous, and sometimes horrible than modern society would have us believe. This is why it behooves good Catholics to guard their senses and to fill the mind, imagination, and passions with those things that will ever dispose us to God.

Your post was insightful, interesting to know this ... thank you!

There are a number of good talks by Dr. Andrew Childs of St. Marys, Kansas on the nature of good music that align far better to Catholic philosophy and theology than this talk, although there are some good points in it. The problem with listening to non-Catholics (as it was with the Index) is that truth and error can be so closely intermingled that the layman often may become confused, and this confusion can become the source of danger for the faith.

I recall that Kurt Poterack of Christendom College also has some essays on modern music that are fairly insightful. Of course, there are Bishop Williamson's lucid and arresting essays.

I have only listened to a little over half of the talk now, but from the tenor of it so far, I can make a few comments, from my humble opinion, for those who wish to listen to the talk in its entirety. I would point out the following to keep in mind as "corrections" to some of the erroneous assertions of this speaker:

1) when he asserts that music "causes" certain effects, or that the devil can make use of certain music to "force a conversion," this must be clarified. As St Thomas pointed out, music does not cause virtue or vice directly but rather, as an imitation of the passions, it disposes us one way or the other. Thus its relationship with character in the individual and culture in the community is dispositive, indirect, and symptomatic. That is, one can feel the "pulse" of a culture by looking at its fine arts, especially its music, just as one can tell something of a person's character by the things he surrounds his life with, as Josef Pieper noted. So whenever the speaker says, "causes" or "forces," one should understand this to mean "disposes" or "inclines." Ultimately, the will follows an act of the intellect; no one, not even the good God, can force our wills to do something.

2) it should come as no surprise, but the speaker has a mistaken notion of human nature when discussing neuroscience. When the speaker discusses the relationship between "brain waves" or states and the different rational functions, he tends to reduce the soul into a materialistic function of brain activities. He goes so far as to say that rationality is contained in, e.g., the pre-frontal cortex. This is, of course, the exact opposite of how the soul and brain relationship should be conceived. The soul is the form of the body and therefore of the brain. The soul makes use of the brain as its natural "vehicle" to exercise its normal functions, but we should not therefore think that the soul is "compartmentalized" into different areas of the brain, as though the intellect is here, the will is there, etc. As spiritual, the soul is simple in nature, not composed of parts, and its ontology and functions are ultimately independent of the integrity of the body.

Therefore, instead of thinking that the brain has a direct and ultimate causal power over the soul, as the speaker almost implies, we should return to St Thomas' principle of the dispositive. The physical states of the brain and body can dispose the soul, and sometimes very strongly especially because of the wounds of original sin. But the soul makes all of this possible as the form of the body, and the intellect and will are the ultimate seat of personality and decision-making.

3) the relationship between music, the mind/soul, and the occult are matters that were beginning to be discussed with great precision and growth in the early to mid 20th century, but as with all good things, were cut short by Vatican II. One of the few post-conciliar theologians who spoke well and with scholastic precision of the fine arts who comes to my mind was the late Fr Benedict Ashley, OP, and Fr Jordan Aumann's earlier work on aesthetics. The manner in which non-physical relations interact with various aspects of creation, whether in a physical place, or between persons, or even with the demonic, is something regularly seen in the experience of exorcists, but a full and rigorous philosophical and theological analysis is still forthcoming. To put it more briefly, we do not yet fully understand how the physical, the relational, and angelic/demonic interact, and perhaps we never fully will until after this life, but there is good reason to believe, from sound principles of scholastic philosophy, that the interaction is often far more profound, wondrous, and sometimes horrible than modern society would have us believe. This is why it behooves good Catholics to guard their senses and to fill the mind, imagination, and passions with those things that will ever dispose us to God.

Excellent post Canis!  At my current daily posting rate, I'll be able to give this a thumbs-up 16 years from now.