It's the angle that English and various artforms are "degenerating" in some fashion. It's total nonsense especially in the case of language: language adapts to suit the circumstances it's used for, there are definitely complications and prestige dialects, but those aren't "better" or "more advanced" than more common speech. It's kind of like calling animals "more evolved" or "less evolved." Animals just evolve to their environment, there's not a hierarchy to it.
I'd argue that people listen to way more classical music these days than you think. Just how do you think the majority of movie scores are put together? Skyrim, Game of Thrones, Lord of the Rings are brimming with classical music, like modern day opera.
I didn't say they're changes for the worse... I twice said the accessibility is good change. I also don't think art is being ruined at all. Music will be just fine. Writing gets its message across just fine. I'm referring to specific types of eras of language and musical ability that may be less prevalent as time is going on.
I don't think I suggested or believe any of the things you are trying to refute. I don't at all think people are less civilized or less educated now than past eras...
You're entire point is that things are "dumbed down" in comparison to the past, and I'm saying that's not accurate. If you compare the total vocabulary of the average person today and 100 years ago, today's is larger. And that would be true no matter how far you go back. As for "classical education" (meaning classical languages like Latin and Greek, formal training in an instrument, etc), that was always reserved for the upper crust.
This is true as well. Language isn't devolving- it's evolving. Words we think of as "classy" weren't always. Shakespeare alone made up a lot of words we think of as highbrow today, but were just absolutely silly at the time.
Really? Was there an option for forcibly destroy and suppress the past?
Consciously allowing the past to die is as good as killing it. Nothing is gained from the loss of culture
The poll is a false choice and you are exacerbating it with specious comparisons. Also, you are now arguing that there is an ethical duty to preserve "culture" regardless of one's own interests or proclivities. I'm interested to hear your thoughts on how this duty should be enforced and who should be the arbiters of what culture is worth preserving.
It's been the same for like 400 years and because it's only been used in a very specific, non-mandatory practice within society it's never been subject to legitimate scrutiny.
I don't need to replace it in order to criticize it. Whatever would take its place shouldn't be concocted by a single person anyway.
This concern has been going on for millennia. Simultaneously, it's also how we arrived at our current state of language and music.
This was English 1000 years ago:
I agree. There is a significant difference between language and music. Older language and vocabulary can be translated and modernized to be understood, but music a completely different thing. Classical music pieces are still going to be heard and enjoyed exactly as they were performed without any need of translation for understanding.
I think that communication becoming more efficient can be considered a bad thing because it limits the thoughts and feelings one can verbally express. Imagine asking two people, one with a limited vocabulary and another with an expansive vocabulary, how they are feeling today. For the purposes of this example, let's just say both of these individuals are having one of the best days of their lives. The limited vocabulary individual might say, "I'm feeling really well today!" The expansive vocabulary individual might say, "I'm feeling positively marvelous today!" This is a basic example, but I think it gets my point across. The individual with the expansive vocabulary can use words with stronger, more specific connotations to convey a statement that is closer to what they are actually feeling and thinking. An expansive vocabulary means less of a discrepancy between what one says and what one means. I also think that this point is not just limited to vocabulary. Having skill in sentence formation, syntactical structures, and figurative language can also lend more veracity to an individual's expression. Intentionally obfuscating communication is another can of worms, however, and I think it should almost always be avoided.
