Why do some think "music" (not gear, trading, etc.) is the ultimate end?


A recent thread spurred a debate about the word "audiophile." Again. It went round and round in the usual ways.

What I don't understand is why so many take for granted that loving music is superior to loving gear. Or that gear is always -- and must be -- a mere *means* to music, which is the (supposedly) true end.

But if you stop and think about it, why do we love music? It gives us enjoyment.
Isn't that why people love gear? The enjoyment?
Or even, to push the question, buying, selling, changing gear? That's for enjoyment, no?

So, it raises the difficult question: Why do some think that "music" as an "enjoyment" is better than "gear" or "shopping, buying, selling, trading"?

Not everyone believes this, but it is the most prevalent assumption in these discussions -- that "love of music" is the end-which-cannot-be-questioned. 

So, while music is the largest end I'm personally striving for, I do realize that it's because it brings me enjoyment. But the other facets of the hobby do, too. And I'm starting to realize that ranking them is an exercise but not a revelation of the "one" way everything should sort out. It's all pretty subjective and surely doesn't seem like a basis on which I could criticize someone else's enjoyment, right? 

What do you think? On what grounds do you see it argued that "music" is a *superior* or *ultimate* end? Whether you agree or not, what reasons do you think support that conclusion?
128x128hilde45
If you use the analogy of cars plenty of people (well perhaps mainly men) love cars for cars own sake and not just as a means of getting places.  OTOH I paint, and for many, watercolor painting supplies are just a means to paint—though to be sure, there are people who are just as into painting supplies as many are into stereo equipment.  
I like the car analogy. Made me remember the old "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" (Pirsig) which showed that the technology of the motorcycle and its maintenance were not mere means to the rides, but they too were also ends. All these ends were related without reduction and part of a whole. The need to split things apart -- into "means" and "end" -- and then to elevate one above the other is our Western cultural inheritance, but it is not the final and only truth, that book suggested.

Some analogies (or dis-analogies, perhaps) where a process is not just the means to the end:

Some who cook love the process as much as the plated food. The "slow food movement" adds in the local region as part of that larger process. 

Some baseball players love the game as much as the end score. There is an "art" to the game, which is the pitching, catching, strategy, etc. (Might one not see this in the equipment we use, discuss, in audio?)
Etc.

Without music equipment is worthless, roberjerman points out. I see the point. But a stack of records with nothing to play them on doesn’t seem much better.

Great story. 

It's the actual music that stirs emotions. Not the gear, cables, etc. You do see threads that appear to contradict my opinion though.

If it came down to it, I would listen to  a clock radio and be fine. I'm grateful having the opportunity to hear music thru "better" equipment.

One other thing, as a longtime sufferer of tinnitus and hearing loss, everyone needs to be  more conscious of their hearing health. I love loud R&R, but RARELY ever  push the volume these days.
I was going to use the car analogy, but @berner99 beat me to it.

What is the purpose of cars?  To get from A to B?  To go fast?  To tackle a curvy mountain road?

Are cars sitting in a garage/warehouse and never driven an obscenity?  Are they the equivalent of the guy who has a store's worth of audio equipment in his house and only owns 5 carefully selected audiophile LPs?