Frontiers of Philosophy in China

, Volume 6, Issue 2, pp 284–297 | Cite as

The ontology of musical works: A philosophical pseudo-problem

Research Article
  • 80 Downloads

Abstract

A bewildering array of accounts of the ontology of musical works is available. Philosophers have held that works of music are sets of performances, abstract, eternal sound-event types, initiated types, compositional action types, compositional action tokens, ideas in a composer’s mind and continuants that perdure. This paper maintains that questions in the ontology of music are, in Rudolf Carnap’s sense of the term, pseudo-problems. That is, there is no alethic basis for choosing between rival musical ontologies. While we have no alethic basis for choosing any ontology of music, pragmatic reasons can be given for favoring certain ontologies of musical works over others.

Keywords

ontology pseudo-problem ontological relativity phplosophy of music 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Caplan, B., and Matheson, C. (2006). “Defending Musical Perdurantism.” British Journal of Aesthetics, 46(1): 45–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Carnap, R. (1950). “Empiricism, Semantics and Ontology.” Revue Internationale de Philosophie, 4(2): 20–40Google Scholar
  3. Davies, D. (2004). Art as Performance. Malden, MA: BlackwellCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dodd, J. (2000). “Musical Works as Eternal Types.” British Journal of Aesthetics, 40(4): 424–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dodd, J. (2007). Works of Music: An Essay in Ontology. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  6. Davies, S. (2001). Musical Works and Performances. Oxford: Clarendon PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kivy, P. (1993). “Platonism in Music: A Kind of Defense.” In: The Fine Art of Repetition. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  8. Levinson, J. (1990). “What a Musical Work Is.” In: Music, Art and Metaphysics. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University PressGoogle Scholar
  9. Quine, W. V. O. (1960). Word and Object. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  10. Quine, W. V. O. (1980). “Two Dogmas of Empiricism.” In: From a Logical Point of View, 2nd ed. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
  11. Thomasson, A. L. (2004). “The Ontology of Art.” In: Peter Kivy (ed.), The Blackwell Guide to Aesthetics. Oxford: BlackwellGoogle Scholar
  12. Thomasson, A. L. (2005). “The Ontology of Art and Knowledge in Aesthetics.” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 63(3): 221–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Thomasson, A. L. (2006). “Debates about the Ontology of Art: What Are We Doing Here?” Philosophy Compass, 1(3): 245–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of VictoriaVictoriaCanada

Personalised recommendations