Advertisement

Topoi

pp 1–12 | Cite as

Music Pluralism, Music Realism, and Music Archaeology

  • Anton KillinEmail author
Article

Abstract

According to pluralism about some concept, there are multiple non-equivalent, legitimate concepts pertaining to the (alleged) ontological category in question. It is an open question whether conceptual pluralism implies anti-realism about that category. In this article, I argue that at least for the case of music, it does not. To undermine the application of an influential move from pluralism (about music concepts) to anti-realism (about the music category), then, I provide an argument in support of indifference realism about music, by appeal to music archaeological research, via an analogy with Adrian Currie’s indifference realism about species licensed by paleobiological research.

Keywords

Conceptual pluralism Music concepts Indifference realism Music archaeology 

Notes

Acknowledgements

For comments on previous versions of the material I thank Adrian Currie, Marilynn Johnson, Brandon Polite, Jason Waller, Ellen Clarke and anonymous referees. I thank audiences at the 2018 Joint Conference of the South Carolina Society for Philosophy and North Carolina Philosophical Society at Winthrop University, the 2018 Joint Conference of the Australasian Association of Philosophy and New Zealand Association of Philosophers at Victoria University of Wellington, the 2018 workshop on Art, Evolution and Cognition at Macquarie University, Sydney, the 2019 American Society for Aesthetics Eastern Division Conference in Philadelphia, and the 2019 Ohio Philosophical Association Conference at Wittenberg University.

Funding

This study was not funded by any external Grants.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

I declare that I have no conflict of interest.

Research Involving Human Participants and/or Animlas

No animal nor human subjects were used in this research.

References

  1. Adler D (2009) The earliest musical tradition. Nature 460:695–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barker MJ (2018) Eliminative pluralism and integrative approaches: the case of species. Br J Philos Sci 70(3):657–681.  https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axx057 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Born G (2010) For a relational musicology: music and interdisciplinarity, beyond the practice turn. J R Music Assoc 135:205–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Both AA (2009) Music archaeology: some methodological and theoretical considerations. Yearb Tradit Music 41:1–11Google Scholar
  5. Boyd R (1999) Homeostasis, species, and higher taxa. In: Wilson R (ed) Species: new interdisciplinary essays. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 141–185Google Scholar
  6. Brigandt I (2003) Species pluralism does not imply species eliminativism. Philos Sci 70:1305–1316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chase P, Nowell A (1998) Taphonomy of a suggested middle Paleolithic bone flute from Slovenia. Curr Anthropol 39:549–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Conard N, Malina M (2008) New evidence for the origins of music from the caves of the Swabian Jura. In: Both AA, Eichmann R, Hickmann, E, Koch L-C (eds) Challenges and objectives in music archeology. Studien zur Musikarchäology VI, Orient-Archäologie 22. Verlag Marie Leidorf GmbH, Rahden, pp 13–22Google Scholar
  9. Conard N, Malina M, Münzel S (2009) New flutes document the earliest musical tradition in southwestern Germany. Nature 460:737–740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cross I (2012) Cognitive science and the cultural nature of music. Top Cogn Sci 4:668–677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Currie A (2016) The mystery of the Triceratops’s mother: how to be a realist about the species category. Erkenntnis 81:795–816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Currie A (2019) Scientific knowledge and the deep past: history matters. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Currie A, Killin A (2016) Musical pluralism and the science of music. Eur J Philos Sci 6(1):9–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Currie A, Killin A (2017) Not music, but musics: a case for conceptual pluralism in aesthetics. Estetika 54(2):151–174Google Scholar
  15. d’Errico F, Lawson G (2006) The sound paradox: how to assess the acoustic significance of archaeological evidence? In: Scarre C, Lawson G (eds) Archaeoacoustics. McDonald Institute Monographs, Cambridge, pp 41–57Google Scholar
  16. d’Errico F, Henshilwood C, Lawson G et al (2003) Archaeological evidence for the emergence of language, symbolism, and music—an alternative multidisciplinary perspective. J World Prehistory 17:1–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Davies S (2004) John Cage’s 4’33”: is it music? In: Davies S (ed) Themes in the philosophy of music. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 11–29Google Scholar
  18. Davies S (2012) On defining music. Monist 95:535–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Diedrich C (2015) ‘Neanderthal bone flutes’: simply products of Ice Age spotted hyena scavenging activities on cave bear cubs in European cave bear dens. R Soc Open Sci 2:140022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dimkaroski L (2014) Musical research into the flute. From suspected to contemporary musical instrument. In: Turk I (ed) Divje babe I. Upper Pleistocene Palaeolithic site in Slovenia. Part 2: archaeology. ZRC Publishing, Ljubljana, pp 215–222Google Scholar
  21. Dodd J (2018) What 4’33” is. Australas J Philos 96(4):629–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ereshefsky M (1992) Eliminative pluralism. Philos Sci 59:671–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ereshefsky M (1998) Species pluralism and anti-realism. Philos Sci 65:103–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ereshefsky M (2001) The poverty of the Linnaean hierarchy: a philosophical study of biological taxonomy. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ereshefsky M (2017) Species. In: Zalta E (ed) Stanford encyclopaedia of philosophy (Fall 2017 edition). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2017/entries/species. Accessed 11 Jan 2019
  26. Finlayson C (2009) The humans who went extinct: why Neanderthals died out and we survived. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  27. Griffiths PE, Stotz K (2013) Genetics and philosophy: an introduction. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Guilfoy K (2012) William of Champeaux. In: Zalta E (ed) Stanford encyclopaedia of philosophy (Winter 2012 edition). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2012/entries/william-champeaux. Accessed 11 Jan 2019
  29. Horner JR, Lamm ET (2011) Ontogeny of the parietal frill of Triceratops: a preliminary histological analysis. CR Palevol 10:439–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kania A (2010) Silent music. J Aesthet Art Crit 68:343–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kania A (2011) Definition. In: Gracyk T, Kania A (eds) Routledge companion to philosophy and music. Routledge, London, pp 3–13Google Scholar
  32. Killin A (2016) Rethinking music’s status as adaptation versus technology: a niche construction perspective. Ethnomusicol Forum 25(2):210–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Killin A (2017) Plio-Pleistocene foundations of hominin musicality: coevolution of cognition, sociality, and music. Biol Theory 12(4):222–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Killin A (2018) The origins of music: evidence, theory and prospects. Music Sci.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2059204317751971 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kitcher P (1984) Species. Philos Sci 51(2):308–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Levinson J (1990) Music, art, and metaphysics. Cornell University Press, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  37. Lewis D (1978) Truth in fiction. Am Philos Q 15(1):37–46Google Scholar
  38. Longrich NR, Field DJ (2012) Torosaurus is not Triceratops: ontogeny in chasmosaurine ceratopsids as a case study in dinosaur taxonomy. PLoS ONE 7(2):e32623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Maconie R (1990) The concept of music. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  40. Mag Uidhir C, Magnus PD (2011) Art concept pluralism. Metaphilosophy 42:83–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mariorino L, Farke AA, Kotsakis T, Piras P (2013) Is Torosaurus Triceratops? Genomic morphometric evidence of late maastrichtian ceratopsid dinosaurs. PLoS ONE 8(11):e81608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McKeown-Green J (2014) What is music? Is there a definitive answer? J Aesthet Art Crit 72(4):393–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Merriam A (1963) Purposes of ethnomusicology, an anthropological view. Ethnomusicology 7:206–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Merriam A (1964) The anthropology of music. Northwestern University Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  45. Mishler B (1999) Getting rid of species? In: Wilson R (ed) Species: new interdisciplinary essays. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 307–315Google Scholar
  46. Mithen S (2005) The singing Neanderthals. Weidenfeld & Nicolson, LondonGoogle Scholar
  47. Morley I (2006) Mousterian musicianship? The case of the Divje Babe I bone. Oxford J Archaeol 25:317–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Morley I (2013) The prehistory of music: human evolution, archaeology, and the origins of musicality. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Scanella JB, Horner JR (2010) Torosaurus Marsh, 1891, is Triceratops Marsh, 1889 (Ceratopsidae: Chasmosaurinae): synonymy through ontogeny. J Vertebr Paleontol 30:1157–1168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Slater M (2015) Natural kindness. Br J Philos Sci 66(2):375–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Taylor H, Vickers P (2017) Conceptual fragmentation and the rise of eliminativism. Eur J Philos Sci 7:17–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tuniz C, Bernardini F, Turk I et al (2012) Did Neanderthals play music? X-ray computed micro-tomography of the Divje Babe ‘Flute’. Archaeometry 54:581–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Turk I (ed) (1997) Mousterian ‘bone flute’ and other finds from Divje babe I cave site in Slovenia. Založba ZRC, LjubljanaGoogle Scholar
  54. Turk I, Bastiani G, Blackwell BA, Horusitzky Z (2003) Putative Mousterian flute from Divje babe I (Slovenia): pseudoartefact or true flute, or who made the holes? Arheološki vestnik 54:71–72Google Scholar
  55. Turk M, Turk I, Dimkaroski L et al (2018) The Mousterian musical instrument from the Divje babe I cave (Slovenia): arguments on the material evidence for Neanderthal musical behaviour. L’anthropologie 122:679–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wilkins J (2018) The reality of species: real phenomena not theoretical objects. In: Joyce R (ed) Routledge handbook of evolution & philosophy. Routledge, New York, pp 167–181Google Scholar
  57. Wilson RA, Barker MJ, Brigandt I (2007) When traditional essentialism fails: biological natural kinds. Philos Top 35:189–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wynn T, Coolidge FL (2012) How to think like a Neandertal. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  59. Zilhão J, Angelucci DE, Badal-García E et al (2010) Symbolic use of marine shells and mineral pigments by Iberian Neandertals. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107:1023–1028CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Philosophy and Centre of Excellence for the Dynamics of LanguageAustralian National UniversityActonAustralia
  2. 2.Department of PhilosophyMount Allison UniversitySackvilleCanada

Personalised recommendations