Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Arts and Humanities Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Philosophy

Series

Philosophy Faculty Research

Criticism

Publication Year

Articles 1 - 3 of 3

Full-Text Articles in Arts and Humanities

The Methodology Of Musical Ontology: Descriptivism And Its Implications, Andrew Kania Oct 2008

The Methodology Of Musical Ontology: Descriptivism And Its Implications, Andrew Kania

Philosophy Faculty Research

I investigate the widely held view that fundamental musical ontology should be descriptivist rather than revisionary, that is, that it should describe how we think about musical works, rather than how they are independently of our thought about them. I argue that if we take descriptivism seriously then, first, we should be sceptical of art-ontological arguments that appeal to independent metaphysical respectability; and, second, we should give ‘fictionalism’ about musical works—the theory that they do not exist—more serious consideration than it is usually accorded.


Piece For The End Of Time: In Defence Of Musical Ontology, Andrew Kania Jan 2008

Piece For The End Of Time: In Defence Of Musical Ontology, Andrew Kania

Philosophy Faculty Research

Aaron Ridley has recently attacked the study of musical ontology—an apparently fertile area in the philosophy of music. I argue here that Ridley’s arguments are unsound. There are genuinely puzzling ontological questions about music, many of which are closely related to questions of musical value. While it is true that musical ontology must be descriptive of pre-existing musical practices and that some debates, such as that over the creatability of musical works, have little consequence for questions of musical value, none of this implies that these debates themselves are without value.


Against Them, Too: A Reply To Alward, Andrew Kania Oct 2007

Against Them, Too: A Reply To Alward, Andrew Kania

Philosophy Faculty Research

In his defense of a version of what I have called “the ubiquity thesis”—the idea that every narrative fiction contains an overarching fictional narrator—Peter Alward gives a helpful reconstruction of some of my arguments against that thesis and clearly lays out a part of the theoretical terrain on which this debate takes place. However, by the end of the piece he is offering solace to both me and those I was arguing against, which is about as close as philosophers come to fightin’ words.