Justin Vacula

Home
Epica: Epistemology and Subjectivity

Epica's fourth full-length studio album

This post was inspired by the Wiley-Blackwell 'Philosophy and Pop Culture' series.
I am a huge fan of Epica (and the Wiley-Blackwell series!) and thought that a post
like this would be a fitting overview of some of Epica's music and an introduction
to the topic of epistemology - particularly in regards to the notion of
subjectivity. Throughout this post are references to Epica's songs. The headers are
lyrics from the song "Monopoly on Truth" from their fifth full-length studio album
"Requiem for the Indifferent."

I see what you mean

The music of the Dutch symphonic metal group Epica is interesting not only because
of their mixing of harsh and clean male vocals (including grunts and screams) with
mezzo-soprano female vocals in addition to elements of heavy metal blending with
elements of classical music (in some cases a 40-piece orchestra and a 30-piece
choir), but because it leads listeners to reflect on various philosophical themes -
a welcome departure from much of what is considered to be 'pop music' in the United
States. For Epica, the music is not the only thing that can be described as
'bombastic' because the lyrical themes are similarly profound.

Recurring philosophical themes in Epica's songs -- which can easily form a long
list which should attract listeners with varying interests and curiosities [I will
list only a sample of themes and songs here] -- range from concerns about the
environment ("This is the Time" and "Deep Water Horizon"), dangers of organized
religion ("Cry for the Moon" and "Living a Lie"), fate ("Dance of Fate"), the
nature of consciousness ("The Phantom Agony"), love ("The Obsessive Devotion"),
martyrdom ("Safeguard to Paradise"), the nature of truth ("Monopoly on Truth"),
religious pluralism ("The Divine Conspiracy"), isolation ("Blank Infinity"),
addiction ("Chasing the Dragon"), the implications of scientific research and the
conflict between science and religion ("Beyond Belief"), and freedom of speech
("Martyr of the Free Word"). Various songs also touch on events current to album
releases; for instance, "Facade of Reality" includes spoken words by Tony Blair
concerning the September 11, 2011 attacks in New York City and the song "Internal
Warfare" was dedicated to the victims of Anders Breivik.

Epica's website heralded their most recent album, "Requiem for the Indifferent,"
with the following - a very clear indication that philosophically-minded
individuals aren't just drawing implications from their music:
This title refers to the end of an era. Mankind can no longer stick their head in
the sand for the things that are happening around us. We are facing many
challenges. There is an enormous tension between different religions and cultures,
wars, natural disasters and a huge financial crisis, which is getting out of
control. More than ever we will need each other to overcome these problems. As we
are all connected; the universe, earth, nature, animals and human beings, this
period in time will be the prelude to the end for those who still don't want to, or
simply won't see it. A Requiem for the Indifferent but also a possibility for a new
beginning with great new chances!

It's clear what you say

The title track of Epica's 2005 album "Consign to Oblivion," while not necessarily
advocating or arguing for particular philosophical positions, raises a large deal
of philosophical concerns surrounding -- just to name three -- psychological egoism
[the idea that all human behavior, even that which would be considered altruistic
by many, ultimately stems from and is primarily concerned with self-interest],
metaphysics [a domain of philosophy concerned with the nature of reality], and
epistemology [a domain of philosophy concerned with the nature of knowledge].

The "Consign to Oblivion" lyrics which raise metaphysical and epistemological

issues, while perhaps quite apparent to Epica fans, are contained here for the
'indifferent:'
No we can't understand the universe by just using our minds. We are so afraid of
all the things unknown. We just flee into a dream that never comes true.
Too much thinking goes at the cost of all our intuition. Our thoughts create
reality. But we neglect to be! So we're already slaves of our artificial world.
Philosopher George Berkeley (1685-1753) is popular for the notion of idealism -
that material substances [largely referred to today as matter] do not exist, but
rather reality -- or at least the objects which make up reality -- is ideas in
minds of people who percieve. Physical objects, then, do not exist, on this
accounting of reality. Berkeley's ideas, though, have fallen to the wayside in
light of modern science and modern philosophy which both largely consider the idea
of material objects existing independently of minds or observers as an obvious fact
- and perhaps for good reasons (which I won't discuss here).

While ideas of idealism have drifted away by the 'force of the shore' and 'the
tides of time,' what can be said, then, of subjectivity and facts about
individuals? Perhaps a tenable version of "our thoughts create reality" can be had
in some respects?

The truth isn't just a derivative of your views

The phrase 'perception is reality' is quite popular in current times. Following

advances in science (perhaps particularly in the field of quantum physics) and
movements of postmodernism across various disciplines, people have questioned the
nature of truth - to the extreme untenable and self-refuting stance of 'there is no
such thing as truth' (that statement itself appears to be a statement of truth).
While it may be impossible to reach a certain truth on many matters (especially
when considering that the notion of certainty is shaky and might have little to do
with a justified true belief), there seems to be no compelling reason to 'resign to
surrender' as far as epistemology is concerned.

People, though, often think of justified true belief as a matter of 'feeling' or

'gut thinking' (I just happen to believe this certain way because it seems right
'to me') as opposed to considering or thinking (whether they think in terms of
these categories or not -- ideas of justification, warrant, coherence). For some,
if something is believed and perhaps 'felt,' doubt simply can not or does not enter
the picture. Self-reflection, then, is tossed to the side in favor of over-reliance
on one's own views on a matter just because, as it seems, one happens to hold
particular views or 'feel' a certain way. Can some beliefs, though, be justified in
a very hasty manner because one might just happen to believe a certain proposition
without much thought or needed reasons?

Various non-controversial claims such as 'the table is red,' 'it is raining

outside,' 'I will experience pain if I kick that table,' etc. may as well be
warranted simply by the fact that one holds the belief and the belief is not
coupled with a good reason for an observer or the person holding the belief to
doubt it. We understand, through past experience with a realization that our five
senses are not faulty, and perhaps -- for the more advanced -- Bayesian analysis
that such non-controversial beliefs are justified true beliefs although Hume may
throw a wrench in the machine.

Truth is a fiction of your views

Non-controversial beliefs aside, what can be said of people who -- expressing

certain feelings about a certain matter -- appear to be acting in a fashion
contrary to an appraisal of a certain situation by outside observers? A person,
Jane, might believe that all of her actions end in failure while holding a
superstitious belief that the world is 'out to get her.' Despite a friend -- Jack
-- discussing facts about Jane (who happens to live in a brand new home, has a
secure well-paying job, two healthy children, and an affluent and happy spouse),
responses of 'this is how I feel' are the answers to anything Jack proposes. Jane,
in this situation, believes that because she holds a particular belief or 'feels' a
certain way, her belief is a justified true belief.

Does simply 'feeling' something, then, make a belief true? It seems obvious that in
this case the answer should be 'no.' One would be foolish, though, to deny that
this person believes a particular proposition (and the person who is presenting
contrary evidence certainly is not doing so) despite protestations from the person
who may continue to utter phrases like 'you are telling me how I feel' or 'you are
telling me I don't have a right to believe a certain way' - conversation-stoppers
which are not relevant to the discussion or are otherwise distortions of what a
conscientious objector with good intentions may hold. The belief and the 'feeling'
is acknowledged by the person who presents evidence contrary to a certain belief
(even though there is disagreement) - the dispute, though, lies not with one's
'right to believe' or whether one is 'entitled' to feel a particular way, but
rather with whether the belief is a reasonable one for a person to hold [given
contrary evidence].

Protestations of one lacking open-mindedness or empathy are similarly conversation-

stoppers and unwarranted assumptions. A version of open-mindedness 'worth wanting'
is one in which a person is willing to amend beliefs provided new information is
presented, not, as some would think, a cognitive shift that takes place merely
because someone asserts something to be true. One can be justified, in many cases,
as should be obvious, in not changing a belief because the information presented
was not sufficient enough to warrant the change. Similar is the case with empathy.
One can listen to what someone says and even understand a particular perspective
but also happen to disagree with a person's evaluation or reasons for holding the
belief.

Your fury can no longer stand

Perhaps people are quick to respond to objections concerning matters they find to
be personal and believe to be very evident (even though much evidence to the
contrary might exist) because they hold positions in which they envision their
beliefs as 'parts of their person' instead of viewing propositions as a result of
particular stimuli and reflections (taking a 'disinterested perspective' a la
Thomas Nagel's "The View From Nowhere"). A person such as this might then view
disagreement, even if voiced by others in a very civil and non-attacking manner, as
disrespectful in that a person voicing an objection to a particular [cherished]
belief is acting in an immoral fashion.

Persons with an attitude like this aren't acting in intellectually virtuous manners
or employing what is often referred to as an attitude of skepticism (not to be
confused with the classical philosophical notion) in which one is willing to modify
any belief considering sufficient argument, evidence, and reason is presented to
justify a modification. Instead of engaging with objections to their ideas -- as
detailed above -- persons with this unhealthy attitude levy personal attacks at
their detractors assuming sinister motives when there may not be any good reasons
to do so.

This hauteur will come to an end

It is healthy to apply a reasonable measure of doubt to certain beliefs one may

hold - especially when said beliefs can be 'beset in gold.' Since our beliefs can
(and do) very often inform our actions, it should be important to 'just think it
over now' and consider 'another point of view'. Instead of responding to detractors
-- especially when they seem to be expressing genuine concern while being
thoughtful and charitable -- with 'no discussion,' one should take the words of
Epica's "Monopoly on Truth" to heart and sing along saying, "It's time we realized
our errs." As the song goes, "If you look around and you see all the things that
are not meant to be, then you know it's time to let them go."