Maybe I wasn't clear enough, Chris. I certainly asked what the speaker meant by 'understanding' IN THIS CONTEXT" (i.e. the context of her talk). I was asking as she clearly understood what she meant by the phrase 'to understand music' - which she had been using repeatedly. I explained that I could see what it meant, for example, in the context of a mathematical proof; but what did it mean here?
I wasn't of course suggesting that the phrase was meaningless. I was in effect inviting her to explore the difference between understanding a work of art and for example understanding a mathematical theorem or, indeed, any kind of argument. And since she had been using the phrase so often, and with such apparent confidence (not to say glibly), it seemed only reasonable to raise the issue. My reference to the 'average person' was, as I said, simply to cut short her claim that understanding music meant understanding the mechanics of music (changes of key etc). I was very surprised she started off with that. How could that be the relevant meaning? If it were, I have never understood any music in my life and neither have millions of other music lovers who, like me, can barely read music. I think the bottom line was that she had not thought about the matter. Which surprised me greatly. I would have thought it an obvious question for a philosopher of art to ask themselves. (Not just about music either.) I'm not sure, finally, why you say that 'clearly [Derek] was only trying to assert his own concern'. Certainly I was asking a question that interested me I would hardly ask one that didn't. But it was also highly relevant to the talk. If that turns me into a 'heckler' I don't really know what the acceptable conditions for asking a question might be. DA http://www.home.netspeed.com.au/derek.allan/default.htm wrote: > Now remember - that even though Derek has asked us: "What does it mean to > 'understand' a work of art?" --- he had asked that beleaguered speaker: > > > "what she meant by 'understanding' IN THIS CONTEXT " (i.e. the context of her > discussion) > > She gave that answer -- which can only be inadequate if it contradicts her own > usage -- but Derek went on to assert that he was "talking about the average > person" > > At which point, the speaker could have told Derek that this was the kind of > understanding that her discussion was not addressing. > > (and she probably should not have let Derek ask any more questions - since > clearly he was only trying to assert his own concerns, and not attend to > hers) > > Yes -- Derek is a heckler -- which is a disaster at a real-time conference - > but only an amusement on the internet. > > > ******************** > > > "I was at a conference recently where one of the speakers, who writes a > lot about music, kept talking about understanding music. In question > time I asked her what she meant by 'understanding' in this context. I > said I could see how one could talk about understanding a mathematical > proof, for example, but what did the word mean in relation to music > (and I really meant all art). > > She first began to answer by saying that one understood if one could > recognise shifts in keys etc. But I said I was talking about the > average person not someone schooled in the techniques if music." > > ____________________________________________________________ > Looking for insurance? Compare and save today. Click here. > http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/Ioyw6ijmN4Knn2d3GNXYRs34RZ1a17 > em1Rwzi54kYq7ctJm5mGW1zG/ > > -- Derek Allan http://www.home.netspeed.com.au/derek.allan/default.htm
