|
Showing 1 - 7 of
7 matches in All Departments
This lively and lucid introduction to the philosophy of music
concentrates on the issues that illuminate musical listening and
practice. It examines the conceptual debates relevant to the
understanding and performing of music and grounds the philosophy to
practical matters throughout. Ideal for a beginning readership with
little philosophical background, the author provides an overview of
the central debates enlivened by a real sense of enthusiasm for the
subject and why it matters. The book begins by filling in the
historical background and offers readers a succinct summary of
philosophical thinking on music from the Ancient Greeks to Eduard
Hanslick and Edmund Gurney. Chapter 2 explores two central
questions: what is it that makes music, or, to be precise, some
pieces of music, works of art? And, what is the work of music per
se? Is it just what we hear, the performance, or is it something
over and above that, something we invent or discover? Chapter 3
discusses a problem pecullar to music and one at the heart of
philosophical discussion of it, can music have a meaning? And if
so, what can it be? Chapter 4 considers whether music can have
value. Are there features about music that make it good, features
which can be specified in criteria? Is a work good if and only if
it meets with the approval of an ideally qualified listener? How do
we explain differences of opinion? Indeed, why do we need to make
judgements of the relative value of pieces of music at all? This
engaging and stimulating book will be of interest to students of
aesthetics, musical practitioners and the general reader looking
for a non-technical treatment of the subject.
Philosophy of Music is for anyone who has ever wondered whether or
not music means anything or why some music is thought to be more
significant than other music. It is a lively and lucid introduction
to the aesthetics of music and to the issues that illuminate
musical listening, understanding and practice. The book assumes no
philosophical training on the part of its readers, only an interest
in music and our reactions to it. It provides an authoritative
analysis of the central issues, enlivened with a real sense of
enthusiasm for the subject and its importance. At the heart of the
book lie three key questions: What is the work of music? Can it
have meaning? Can music have value? R. A. Sharpe guides the reader
through the philosophical arguments and conceptual debates
surrounding these questions while anchoring the discussion
throughout to instances and examples from Western classical music
and jazz. Unlike some other accounts of the philosophy of music,
which view music as a branch of metaphysics, raising questions
about sounds, tones and musical movement, Sharpe's approach is
problem-orientated and the questions he raises are predominantly
questions about the value of music, about the individuality of our
assessments and about the way in which we prize music for its power
to move us. He argues persuasively, and controversially for a
philosopher, that when it comes to music philosophical analysis has
its limitations and that one should not be surprised that the
aesthetics of music can harbour contradictions and that our
judgement of the value of music may be impossible to make
internally consistent. This engaging and stimulating book will be
of wide interest to music-lovers, critics, practitioners alike as
well as students of aesthetics looking for a non-technical
treatment of the subject.
"Making the Human Mind" is an attack on the widespread assumption that the mind has parts and that it is the interaction between these parts which accounts for some of the most characteristic human behaviour, the sorts of irrational behaviour displayed in self-deception and weakness of will.;The implications of this attack are considerable: Professor Sharpe contests a realism about the mind, the belief that there is an inventory which an all-seeing deity could compile and which could contain answers to all the questions we could ask about people. With this goes a hermeneutic approach to the understanding of human behaviour: these forms of understanding are markedly different from that suggested by the scientific model and favoured by those who partition the mind.;Finally, the author undermines eliminative materialism and the idea that the way we talk about the mind constitutes a "folk psychology", arguing that what is distinctively human about the human mind has been created by self-consciousness and is self-created.
In his book "The Moral Case against Religious Belief" (1997), the
author argued that some important virtues cease to be virtues at
all when set in a religious context, and that, consequently, a
religious life is, in many respects, not a good life to lead. In
this sequel he takes up the theme again because 'the intervening
decade has brought home to us the terrible results of religious
conviction'. He writes in the Introduction: 'Most religious people
are conventionally devout. Religion does not play a huge part in
their everyday lives and their moral life is not continuously under
its gaze. I regard this as a thoroughly good thing...My suspicion
is that the more intense the religious devotion the more the
morality is in danger.'
Robert Sharpe examines the humanist conception of music as a language - as expressive and intelligible - which has traditionally been dominant in Western culture. He argues against the view that the way in which music is expressive is by causing certain states in us: rather, our beliefs about music are integral to our appreciation of it. Differences in musical taste are not just irresolvable differences in sensitivity: they are the result of differences in circumstance and upbringing, of associations and ideology.
This short book is intended to be read in an evening or even a
sitting, though it provokes reflections that will go on for far
longer. What it has to say is largely directed at the Christian
faith, though it may apply to Judaism and Islam as well. Professor
Sharpe is a philosopher and writes as a post-Christian. He does not
believe in God for moral reasons and argues that in some ways
morality is corrupted by religion. He claims that religious belief
does not necessarily make its possessor an authority on matters
moral and that spokesmen and spokeswomen for religion are often
badly wrong about moral questions as a result of their religious
commitment. Some virtues cease to be virtues when given a religious
context, and consequently a religious life is not, in many
respects, a good life to lead. Professor Sharpe has few quarrels
with the teaching of Jesus and has tried to develop his argument as
far as possible on the basis of values shared by Christians and
non-Christians. But he firmly believes in the autonomy of morality.
God is not required to guarantee morality and all the sureties and
recognizances of morality are internal.
|
|