Looks like somebody is triggered. 😀
Anyway, since you are into philosophy, I would recommend you to read Formalized Music by Xenakis (it can be downloaded from *ahem* certain Russian sites). He mentions Herakleitos and Plato a lot. At the beginning of the chapter "More Thorough Stochastic Music" he says "Indeed, the challenge is to create music, starting, in so far as it is possible, from a minimum number of premises but which would be "interesting" from a contemporary aesthetical sensitivity, without borrowing or getting trapped in known paths." A bit later he says "Therefore, we find ourselves in front of an attempt, as objective as possible, of creating an automated art, without any human interference except at the start, only in order to give the initial impulse and a few premises, like in the case of the Demiourgos in Plato's Politicos, or Yahweh in the Old Testament, or even of Nothingness in the Big Bang Theory." Why did I quote him? To show you that he actually has a philosophy. In his aforementioned book there is a whole chapter called "Towards a Philosophy of Music". He also respects people like Bach and Beethoven, so it's not like he just hates everything that's old, in case you had that impression.
In the chapter "New Proposals in Microsound Structure" he mentions the failure of the classical Fourier theory (additive synthesis) to convincingly synthesize the sounds of the classical instruments (remember that this was pre-FM) and he also explains what are in his opinion some of the causes of that failure. So he says "We shall raise the contradiction, and by doing so we hope to open a new path in microsound synthesis research - one that without pretending to be able to simulate already known sounds, will nevertheless launch music, its psychophysiology, and acoustics in a direction that is quite interesting and unexpected." And then comes that disorder concept. So it was like " the usual approach doesn't work, let's try a different one and see what we can come up with". He is not pretending that his approach will solve everything, such an approach doesn't exist.
Re: that whole "advanced" business - maybe I chose the wrong word, I admit that. I like to shill academic music around here because I think that it is worth shilling, and that it's not just a technical wankery (at least I don't want it to be). And I want to point out here that I don't think that everything "academic" is good, on the contrary, a lot of it is boring. Same as with the "normal" music. What does the word "academic music" even mean? It means that it was made by somebody who has a formal training in music, and that there is an artistic goal behind it. Is that a good thing? It depends, like everything else. Some people think that the music theory is just a limiting factor, and that it has to be avoided at all costs. I think that the theory can help you understand some things better and work out some compositional aspects faster than without the theory. But there is always of course the matter of your personal taste, none of us are robots. What I have discovered, listening to the academic stuff that I think is good, is that it is really rich in sounds and rewarding if you pay close attention. In the end I will just post these two FM-heavy pieces which I think are brilliant:
P. S. This is now officially "Academic Electronic Music Thread".