Philosophy of music...purpose?

[Sergei Sebastian Ravel]

I was taking a shower and I was thinking and I thought some of the most prominent thoughts of my life.

This is the question I was trying to answer. We are often in a struggle to decide whether a music we don't like is 'good' or 'bad', which is a truly subjective matter.

Aristotle posed four types of purposes that everything serves and I came to the conclusion that if we 'assume', or consider, music as a realm on its own, we can come to some interesting conclusions. The four types of causes are material, formal, efficient and the final cause (his innovation). I know purpose and cause are not the same thing, but from author's purpose what people in the realm of music see as the cause for the existence of that particular piece of music? Well, yes.

So I go on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle
You can find a brief description of the causes there. I am not going to explain them. The material cause of music is the instruments and the performers. (continues)
The formal cause is the form (sonata, symphony, etc) and the author's purpose, which is in most cases served fully. This is sort of a reality and therefore an assumption. I believe in it. I think Beethoven DID serve his music well. The efficient cause is writing the piece. And finally and most importantly, is the final cause. What would be the final cause? I think it is to convey that particular mood and quench the writer's thirst for writing.

What do you think is the final cause?
And according to this philosophy, who are some musicians that wrote purposeful (and perhaps good, but again an assumption music? It mostly depends on the final cause.
Definition os a reality: a fact coming from experience. It's I think called abstract thinking.
*of
Please, ask me if you need more explanation. And btw, this is all dependent on the assumption that Aristotle was right, which I think makes sense because the composer does exist in this case.
And another note: the first three causes are objective; consequently, lack of any of the three means is possibly a lack of purpose in this school of thought I just created.

So chance music is now screwed.
Shattered, interesting simile and answer. Thank you!
not having these=no music

You can call it chance noise IMHO. LOL!
Harmony and melody and everything go under formal cause probably. And it is probably arguable whether or not new harmony can be invented. I think it can as long as it's (1) planned out (which equals to purposefulness and (2) serves the last cause.
Parrots, that's interesting too!
Parrots, 'for art's sake' is the Final Cause in your way of thinking, so your philosophy's backfiring on you. lol! But if you actually were to choose, what would be the final cause? And what is 'art's sake'?

*tries to be Socrates for awhile*
Symphony being an epitome is a subjective decision, isn't it?
Btw, I am not trying to be mean. I am just trying to stretch everybody's minds including mine. LOL!

[Pampered Parrots]

I think first we must agree on terms.

In order to discuss music, you have to find ways of explaining yourself objectively. Believe it or not, this can, and must be done. To have true musical discourse, you must speak objectively. Here's an example:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AjcewbnsaGJ95PIzjBdGEF_ty6IX;_ylv=3?qid =20071120093521AATUAtR&show=7#profile-info-AA11618848

Now, are we discussing popular music, art music, tribal music, etc. I'm assuming we're discussing Western art music. Most musicologists accept the idea that Western art music is art for art's sake. Given this conclusion, can we hold it up to The Four Causes? It can't fit the Final Cause because art doesn't have need or motivation.

Geez, now my brain hurts.