No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Music and Cognitive Science
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 October 2014
Extract
It has always been controversial to make a sharp distinction between the philosophical and the psychological approaches to aesthetics; and the revolution brought about by cognitive science has led many to believe that the philosophy of art no longer controls a sovereign territory of its own. To take one case in point: recent aesthetics has addressed the problem of fiction, asking how it is that real emotions can be felt towards merely imagined events. Several philosophers have tried to solve this problem by leaning on observations in psychology – Jenefer Robinson, for example, exploring the domain of pre-conscious and non-rational responses, and Greg Currie, invoking simulation theory from the realm of cognitive science. I am not yet persuaded that either has succeeded in solving the philosophical question: but the fact that such sophisticated and well-informed philosophers should begin from studies in empirical psychology says much about how the subject of aesthetics has changed since the early days of linguistic analysis.
- Type
- Papers
- Information
- Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplements , Volume 75: Philosophical Aesthetics and the Sciences of Art , October 2014 , pp. 231 - 247
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Royal Institute of Philosophy and the contributors 2014
References
1 In Peretz, Isabelle and Zatorre, Robert J., eds., The Cognitive Neuroscience of Music, Oxford, OUP, 2003CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
2 Fodor, Jerry A., Representations: Philosophical Essays on the Foundations of Cognitive Science, Cambridge Mass., MIT Press, 1981Google Scholar.
3 Pinker, Steven, How the Mind Works, New York, Norton, 1997Google Scholar, p. 534. Miller, Geoffrey, ‘Evolution of Human Music through Sexual Selection’, in Wallin, Nils L., Merker, Björn and Brown, Steven, eds., The Origins of Music, Cambridge Mass., MIT Press, 2000Google Scholar.
4 The Analysis and Cognition of Basic Melodic Structures, Chicago 1990.
5 Music and Probability, MIT Press, 2007.
6 See Temperley, David, The Cognition of Basic Musical Structures, Cambridge Mass., MIT Press, 2001Google Scholar, and also Temperley's web-site, which offers access to the Melisma Music Analyzer, a program developed by Temperley and Daviel Sleator.
7 Patel, Aniruddh D., Music, Language and the Brain, Oxford, OUP 2008Google Scholar, p. 297.
8 ‘The Rhythmic Interpretation of Monophonic Music’, in Longuet-Higgins, Mental Processes: Studies in Cognitive Science, Cambridge MA, MIT Press 1987.Google Scholar
9 For example Deutsch, D. and Feroe, J., ‘The Internal Representation of Pitch Sequences in Tonal Music’, Psychological Review 1981, 88, 503–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
10 Oxford, OUP, 1997, p. 33.
11 The Rhythmic Structure of Music, Chicago 1960.
12 Note, however, that there are musical traditions which measure musical elements by addition and not division, notably the Indian traditions studied by Messiaen. See my ‘Thoughts on Rhythm’, in Understanding Music, London, Continuum, 2009Google Scholar.
13 Likewise, the theory of musical cognition advanced by David Temperley in his earlier work, The Cognition of Basic Musical Structures, op. cit., is formulated in terms of ‘preference rules’.
14 Arts and Minds, Oxford, Clarendon Press 2004Google Scholar, chapters 9 and 10.
15 Budd, Malcolm, ‘Musical Movement and Aesthetic Metaphors’, British Journal of Aesthetics, 2003CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
16 Understanding Music, London, Continuum, 2009Google Scholar, ch. 4 ‘Movement’.
17 Music, Language and the Brain, p. 325.