Sissel - Pie Jesu

Sissel sings the Andrew Lloyd Webber song "Pie Jesu" in her PBS concert "All Good Things" on DVD.

• Category

  Music

[Lille di Lorenzo]

I'm a 71 year old man and I don't often cry anymore. This just made me cry. This is almost unbelievably beautiful.

[Robert Matthews]

dont watch this while cutting onions i tell you...damn onions...!!

[kseismoloj]

She sang in a language that almost no one speaks, if anyone does at all, on a daily basis; Latin. This language is the language on which western languages (i.e. English, Spanish, French, Italian, etc.) are based. I don't understand it, but it is one of the most beautiful songs I have ever heard.

[Idol2011no]

Maybe you're just bad with words. What you wrote was this:

"The "self-evidence" is the proof you see within the statement itself."

The complete sentence which I broke after "proof" because the rest didn't add anything meaningfull. If your statement is to be anything else but incoherent rant it must mean you believe something that is self-evident is a proof. When we define our words meaningfull self-evident is only something that can be said of axioms and nothing else.

[ilogliu2]

Trolling?

Don't cut peoples sentences!

I never wrote "proof is self-evident". My statement was about the visibility of the truth. Read my statement again and you will see that you are arguing against something i did not write. What i wrote means: The truth in an axiom is visible(evident) because axioms have their complete internal logic presented as part of being axiom. "Proof" means i can hold an argument without leaking, just as a bucket is water-.proof when not leaking.

[Erik Yang]

i am a chinese, very regretful i can not understand what is she singing, but i was greatly touched when i listend to this song, and i can not explain why. Thans for unloding!

[Idol2011no]

"The "self-evidence" is the proof(...)"

No, a proof is not self-evident. A proof can only rest upon axioms and axioms cannot be proven nor disproven. If an axiom could be proven, you would neen even more fundamental premises to rest such a proof and these premises would become axioms.

You should not be so very willing to write about something you have no clue what so ever.

[ilog liu]

Nothing is more fundamental than axioms. Axioms are the only fundaments of philosophical truths. Evidence can prove, but proof is not always evident. Axioms are postulates where proof is part of the original statement. The "self-evidence" is the proof you see within the statement itself. If a statement postulates something and also contains proof within the same sentence, then it is self evident, but a tall man saying he is tall is also self-evident, but not an axiom.

[drdave313]

Very good..

[Idol2011no]

Axioms which are self-evident can most certainly not be proven. If it could, it had to rest upon something more fundamental which comes in conflict with what an axiom is.

[ilog liu]

Actually axioms always contains the proof of its own postulation.

A cannot give you the premisses of beauty because they are neither topological

or temporal in my axiomatic approach. If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, then the proof will be restricted to the beholders pleasure and the truth is only perverse.

But it still is evident because it looks like people find her pleasurable to gaze upon.

[PNCCaine]

Stupenda!!!!!!!!