Deleted member 19654
Working towards recovery.
- Jul 9, 2020
- 1,628
Bit of a hypocrite. He sings/preaches about peace and love but he's been abusive to his partners and he pretty much abandoned his son.
Nihilism masquerading as utopianism/philanthropy.
What he's actually imagining is a world without humans, since humans are inherently selfish/egotistical/violent/hierarchical etc.
Which I'm fine with, as I'm a misanthropist/anti-natalist/quasi nihilist.
But 'living for today'/'living life in peace'/'brotherhood of man'/'sharing all the world' etc? This all goes completely against what we know of human nature.
So in reality, it's wishing humanity away or wishing their essence was different (in which case humanity would be a different species.)
Also, the 'no possessions' line is hypocritical, as Lennon was super rich with many expensive possessions.
So, it's a disingenuous and hypocritical song.
But insofar as it's really a song about a world without humans as we know them, it's a great song.
SoIntoYou
Pillowman
- Jul 9, 2020
- 214
I liked it. I don't tend to attach people's personal inadequacies to their music since I believe that sometimes, when people make music, they are channeling something different, trying to be someone/something else.
I know it's not really the intent behind this thread, but this song actually has great significance for me. It was my first vocal solo at a concert in front of about a thousand people when I was 8 years old. That experience tends to override any philosophical assessment of the work or its author, to be honest.
After The End
The lily whispers, “I wait.”
- Jul 31, 2019
- 135
Astonishingly pretentious, preachy nonsense with very little substance. One of the greatest advertisements for the way marketing and presentation can elevate mediocre product. In this case investing a bit of extremely amateurish and hypocritical poetry with a degree of persuasive power and influence it does not warrant by virtue of its, largely nonsensical, message.
The first verse is the most dated, parochial and childish. Heaven and hell are byproducts of the human imagination. It is harder to imagine that they could exist (in any capacity which does not involve invocations supernatural nonsense) than it is to accept the self-evident fact that they do not. Heaven in particular is notoriously difficult to 'imagine,' (there's no shortage of fictional hells, but fictional heavens are generally only invoked in satire because the notion is inherently fatuous) but 'imagining,' why a supposedly loving and forgiving God would consign his 'children,' to eternal torment for any reason is also quite the head-scratcher.
The only way I can imagine this being possible would be in something like the 'Utopian-Dystopia,' of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. A society in which all the big decisions and long-term plans are out of our hands, and we don't care because we're too busy wallowing in consumerism, mindless sex and suppressing any troublesome existential concerns with chemical assistance. Hell I sincerely believe we're well on our way to something like that, and this sort of mindless Utopianism is part of the problem.
I can't really. I mean yes I can imagine this in the same way I can imaging being a billionaire and having a super-model wife. What I can't imagine is a practical course of action for bringing about such a result. Moreover I'm also aware that the reality need not actually be as Utopian as the fantasy. A global hegemony in the form of a dystopian regime with no external threats to moderate its policies, and from which there is no escape is hardly an unthinkable development, and seems just as credible to be as any Roddenberry-esque fantasy of global harmony and universal uplift.
Of course it's easy to imagine a Utopia. The difficulty is in creating one that we all agree is in fact Utopian without first either silencing or outright liquidating everyone who doesn't.
I literally can't actually even imagine this.
The cognitive biases which underlie religion are an ineradicable reality. It is a cause. Not a symptom. In fact one could argue that channeling this irrationality toward largely metaphysical and spiritual concerns - at least in a culture where there is a clear and robust separation of church and state - is potentially safer than the sort of 'secular religions,' which people cleave to in their absence.
I can imagine a post-scarcity society in which there is no material cause for conflict, but the human capacity for conflict is ineradicable if only because we will always retain the capacity to punch, kick and bite.
I can think of many things to call you.
There has always been an abundance of stupid people.
Brain function does decrease with age so I'll get there eventually if I live long enough.
I'd rather live in a cohesive plurality.
Now here's probably my biggest beef with this song. What sort of lunatic would actually think the abolition of personal possessions is a good thing? Even Marxists believe people have a right to the products of their labor. In fact the traditional concept of abolishing, 'private property,' in the Marxist sense is, in their view, about protecting that right with private property referring specifically to the means by which those who produce nothing exploit the products of other people's labor.
I wonder if you even know what you're talking about.
Greed, by definition, is not a byproduct of need. This is simple 'dictionary definition,' stuff. Moreover there is already no need for hunger. Ironically that is a byproduct of greed. We produce enough food-stuffs to feed our population. It's simply more profitable to distribute it in a way that permits wide-spread starvation and malnutrition.
Isn't this sexist?
People are only motivated to sharing in conditions where everyone has something desirable to contribute.
We've already been over this.
I must admit there is a certain delicious irony in how a song written by a millionaire which hypocritically extols the abolition of not just private property, but literally all possessions as a condition of Utopia appeals to so many other millionaires. Most of whom produce nothing of real value on a system of 1:1 exchange, and can only be lucrative thanks to massive systems of marketing and distribution which generate them passive income by exploiting and devaluing the labor of those whose hard work and innovations sustains them.
The first verse is the most dated, parochial and childish. Heaven and hell are byproducts of the human imagination. It is harder to imagine that they could exist (in any capacity which does not involve invocations supernatural nonsense) than it is to accept the self-evident fact that they do not. Heaven in particular is notoriously difficult to 'imagine,' (there's no shortage of fictional hells, but fictional heavens are generally only invoked in satire because the notion is inherently fatuous) but 'imagining,' why a supposedly loving and forgiving God would consign his 'children,' to eternal torment for any reason is also quite the head-scratcher.
The only way I can imagine this being possible would be in something like the 'Utopian-Dystopia,' of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. A society in which all the big decisions and long-term plans are out of our hands, and we don't care because we're too busy wallowing in consumerism, mindless sex and suppressing any troublesome existential concerns with chemical assistance. Hell I sincerely believe we're well on our way to something like that, and this sort of mindless Utopianism is part of the problem.
I can't really. I mean yes I can imagine this in the same way I can imaging being a billionaire and having a super-model wife. What I can't imagine is a practical course of action for bringing about such a result. Moreover I'm also aware that the reality need not actually be as Utopian as the fantasy. A global hegemony in the form of a dystopian regime with no external threats to moderate its policies, and from which there is no escape is hardly an unthinkable development, and seems just as credible to be as any Roddenberry-esque fantasy of global harmony and universal uplift.
Of course it's easy to imagine a Utopia. The difficulty is in creating one that we all agree is in fact Utopian without first either silencing or outright liquidating everyone who doesn't.
I literally can't actually even imagine this.
The cognitive biases which underlie religion are an ineradicable reality. It is a cause. Not a symptom. In fact one could argue that channeling this irrationality toward largely metaphysical and spiritual concerns - at least in a culture where there is a clear and robust separation of church and state - is potentially safer than the sort of 'secular religions,' which people cleave to in their absence.
I can imagine a post-scarcity society in which there is no material cause for conflict, but the human capacity for conflict is ineradicable if only because we will always retain the capacity to punch, kick and bite.
I can think of many things to call you.
There has always been an abundance of stupid people.
Brain function does decrease with age so I'll get there eventually if I live long enough.
I'd rather live in a cohesive plurality.
Now here's probably my biggest beef with this song. What sort of lunatic would actually think the abolition of personal possessions is a good thing? Even Marxists believe people have a right to the products of their labor. In fact the traditional concept of abolishing, 'private property,' in the Marxist sense is, in their view, about protecting that right with private property referring specifically to the means by which those who produce nothing exploit the products of other people's labor.
I wonder if you even know what you're talking about.
Greed, by definition, is not a byproduct of need. This is simple 'dictionary definition,' stuff. Moreover there is already no need for hunger. Ironically that is a byproduct of greed. We produce enough food-stuffs to feed our population. It's simply more profitable to distribute it in a way that permits wide-spread starvation and malnutrition.
Isn't this sexist?
People are only motivated to sharing in conditions where everyone has something desirable to contribute.
We've already been over this.
I must admit there is a certain delicious irony in how a song written by a millionaire which hypocritically extols the abolition of not just private property, but literally all possessions as a condition of Utopia appeals to so many other millionaires. Most of whom produce nothing of real value on a system of 1:1 exchange, and can only be lucrative thanks to massive systems of marketing and distribution which generate them passive income by exploiting and devaluing the labor of those whose hard work and innovations sustains them.
Deleted member 19654
Working towards recovery.
- Jul 9, 2020
- 1,628
I definitely rolled my eyes when celebrities were singing it to try and make us all feel better during the start of lockdown. It was a little tone deaf
After The End
The lily whispers, “I wait.”
- Jul 31, 2019
- 135
The gesture had nothing to do with making people feel better. The lock-down had cut these people off from their usual sources of adulation and approval, and many tried to seek validation on social media to compensate. Some, i.e those with the talent to produce interesting content (as opposed to simply being human props within productions founded on the talents of others) succeeded. The rest not only failed to produce anything of value, but many also unwittingly exposed just how detached from reality they are, but it's hardly like they created the cultural conditions in which such absurdities are cherished and once again instead of cultural introspection we saw moral outrage.
Garbage Person
Eating snowflakes with plastic forks
- Jan 17, 2020
- 305
Eh, a bit overplayed. Bit of a daydream, always nice to think of what could be, but it's very much just a nice thought and not realistic on the world's current path. I'm not convinced that even cultural differences could ever be put aside and that's just the tip of the shit tier iceberg that makes up society. No need to even get into the humanity aspect, just beating a dead horse. It has all been said in the thread already.
Deleted member 18655
Enlightened
- Jun 4, 2020
- 1,422
I read somewhere that even he thought people believing in the concept of the song were foolish. I can't find it but I did find a good article on the man behind the words - it's just a song he wrote, obviously nothing he lived by:
www.theodysseyonline.com
John Lennon: Why He Was One of the Greatest Hypocrites In History
Imagine all of his famous lyrics to be lies.
www.theodysseyonline.com
ravergirl
Death becomes her
- Jul 22, 2020
- 294
I hate it. It basically says "imagine that there were no differences between people so we can all get along". As someone who always has been very different, I find that fucking offensive.
Wayfaerer
JFMSUF
- Aug 21, 2019
- 1,938
DeadButDreaming
Specialist
- Jun 16, 2020
- 362
I'm repulsed by sentimentality. If the lyrics concerned a mundane matter this song would never have garnered the reputation it has.
Sinai Silence
I think I'ma die alone inside my room
- Jul 6, 2020
- 810
John Lennon was a sh*tty person anways and just like a lot of musicians he sang what people wanted to hear. I think whatever meaning is behind the lyrics is lost on it. People like making covers of it and a lot of people find some sentimentality in the song no matter how hypocritical it is.
Phill
Student
- Dec 19, 2019
- 150
XYZ
I just can’t get these damn wrists to bleed
- Jul 22, 2020
- 800
The best part of the song is when he says Yuhuuuuuu.
Nah, seriously now, I prefer Ozzy Osbourne's Dreamer.
Nah, seriously now, I prefer Ozzy Osbourne's Dreamer.
XYZ
I just can’t get these damn wrists to bleed
- Jul 22, 2020
- 800
Can you believe this guy is still standing? May I suggest you listen to Black Sabbath's Planet Caravan... it has a really special, dreamy feel to it
You might like it.(*dreamy is euphemism for stoned)
Mm80
Enlightened
- May 15, 2019
- 1,604
Overrated and pretentious.
Give me Ringo's 'Octopus's Garden ' any day.....much better...
ForcedLifeResistant
Member
- Jul 12, 2020
- 62
Everyone is inevitably a hypocrite. But not all hypocrites make great tunes!
Lupgevif
.
- Jul 23, 2020
- 928
Tired and overused. A litte platitude-y.
I kind of agree with those observations. I think he was intending to sing about an unrealistic human Utopia. But I also think that was why it was called 'Imagine'. He knew it was a flight of pure fantasy, but still wanted to imagine it.
GrumpyFrog
Exhausted
- Aug 23, 2020
- 1,913
This is a very simple fantasy of how this man imagines a perfect world. It is, of course, incredibly unrealistic. Nothing particularly unusual or profound about the content of the song. The melody is nice.
Similar threads
Suicide Discussion
justkatie
