Clark, Are you saying that we should judge music like we judge medicine—e.g., just because certain music works for me doesn't mean music that doesn't work for me is bad? Similarly, should we judge music like we judge mathematics relative to their applications?
Just like I can recognize that a class of certain medicine doesn't work for me but does for others, I can recognize that certain subsets of that class are more effective. This recognition is by analogy. By analogy I can recognize that that the surprise in Haydn's Surprise Symphony was invigorating to people in the Classical Period, even though its not invigorating to me because I can relate to more modern musical surprises. Are you saying that we'll always have a way to properly judge music from other times? That can always there will always be an over-riding category to adjudicate the objects being compared Matt On Dec 8, 2015, at 1:41 PM, Clark Goble <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Is the quality of music determined by the final opinion of that music? >> >> My first response is that "in the long run" for Peirce is a normative idea >> in science and does not apply necessarily--maybe only very little, or not at >> all--to the fine arts. >> >> It is true that Bach and Mozart, for example, after hundreds of years, still >> have considerable appeal. In my opinion, some of this is the result of (or >> at least involves) acoustical phenemona which they >> exploit--harmonies,counterpoints, etc.--which really do have a visceral >> effect on the human nervous system. But I do not think that it is at all >> certain that even they will be appreciated in several hundred or so years. > > Aren’t we making a category error here? > > Peirce’s regulatory notion of final opinion seems tied towards > representations and their truth values. This isn’t to deny we can talk about > final interpretants, but more that certain representation are finalized. So > the claim “this music is of high quality” meaning aesthetic value seems > something we can determinate and thus sensible for consideration as a final > interpretant. > > My sense though is that we need to unpack what we’re actually analyzing. > After all as Gary notes just because something is held as true today need not > imply it will in the future. This is both due to the nature of inquiry but > also I think because we’re conflating two issues. The first whether something > is appealing to some finite group. Obviously just because something appeals > to one group it need not appeal to an other group. The second issue is > whether something is universally aesthetical. These are two very different > questions. One can answer differently for each. > > ----------------------------- > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] > . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] > with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at > http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . > > > >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
