Philosophy Now Forum

ReliStuPhD wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:Something which is non physical cannot exist either logically or empirically.

So Beethoven's Fifth Symphony does not exist? The same going for the meaning of the words "Something which is non physical cannot exist either logically or empirically?" (We're getting dangerously close to self-refutation.)

I don't think your example of a symphony works very well as an example of something that has no physical existence. The sheet music is physical and exists, I have a lot of it myself. Also the instruments of the orchestra, the musicians and conductor. The sound is a result of the instruments causing the air to vibrate, that vibration is transmitted to the ears and there is translated into signals in the brain. Even the light by which the audience sees the orchestra might have some physical existence, I believe there is some debate on this point, but the light still effects physical objects and is reflected from physical objects in the process. The only aspect of the performance that can be said to be non-physical is the feeling of pleasure that the audience members get, or displeasure for a bad performance. I certainly felt some pleasure listening to Peter Schickele's analysis of the symphony. Of course the laughter, a result of that pleasure, was a physical expression of that pleasure.

A final thought, if you are going to suggest that the concept of the symphony in Beethoven's mind was not physical, there is some debate that even thoughts have some physical aspect or component, in fact some will argue that thoughts are just physical activity in the brain.

thedoc:
You may be falling into the gap between "sound" an "music" in your argument. Instruments can make "sound." But "sound" is not "music" until it is heard and interpreted by a mind. One can easily have all kinds of physical sounds that are not music.

Why are some sounds non-music, and some music? Because "music" is actually an event of interpretation, an activity of the mind reinterpreting sound, contextualizing it, expecting it, waiting for it, noting the absence of it, measuring the loudness and length of it, and understanding all this as a coherent creative act, one worthy of understanding by the mind and capable of conferring pleasure.

We say, "Music hath charms to sooth the savage beast [sic: breast]." But beasts have no music. Sounds, yes...communication noises, yes. But not music. It's a uniquely human experience, an activity of mind; and the physical world does not produce or comprehend it, however physical may be the sheets of writing, the instrumentation, and the noises.

Immanuel Can wrote:thedoc:
You may be falling into the gap between "sound" an "music" in your argument. Instruments can make "sound." But "sound" is not "music" until it is heard and interpreted by a mind. One can easily have all kinds of physical sounds that are not music.

Why are some sounds non-music, and some music? Because "music" is actually an event of interpretation, an activity of the mind reinterpreting sound, contextualizing it, expecting it, waiting for it, noting the absence of it, measuring the loudness and length of it, and understanding all this as a coherent creative act, one worthy of understanding by the mind and capable of conferring pleasure.

We say, "Music hath charms to sooth the savage beast [sic: breast]." But beasts have no music. Sounds, yes...communication noises, yes. But not music. It's a uniquely human experience, an activity of mind; and the physical world does not produce or comprehend it, however physical may be the sheets of writing, the instrumentation, and the noises.

I have heard that definition of music before but I don't necessarily accept it as all there is. If sounds are produced there is the idea that if no-one is there to hear it, then it's just vibrations in the air. I'm not sure I completely agree with that definition and I would suggest that it is the pattern of sound that determines whether it is music on noise, with or without a person to hear it. Simply put I don't accept that a person, (a mind capable of hearing) is necessary for music to exist. However these are just my thoughts on the issue and I don't expect too many others to share them. I also understand that better minds than mine have thought this through and made that determination, I am ready to allow them to believe what they want, as long as they are willing to allow me to believe as I want, even if they think I am wrong. It all comes down to how you define music, sounds interpreted by a mind, or sounds of a certain pattern in the air.

I am ready to allow them to believe what they want, as long as they are willing to allow me to believe as I want, even if they think I am wrong.

Yeah, fair enough. That's how it should always be.

I was just trying to point out that ReliStuPhD might still have a point about the symphony "not existing." It would "exist" as sheet music, or as a series of noises...but as a musical event, it would not be "musical" without a hearer. That's the thought there.

thedoc wrote:

ReliStuPhD wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:Something which is non physical cannot exist either logically or empirically.

So Beethoven's Fifth Symphony does not exist? The same going for the meaning of the words "Something which is non physical cannot exist either logically or empirically?" (We're getting dangerously close to self-refutation.)

I don't think your example of a symphony works very well as an example of something that has no physical existence.

What happens if we destroy all recordings of the Fifth, all sheet music, etc. Does the Fifth then cease to exist?

More basically, does the Fifth not exist? Does it have no "objective reality?"

They are all interesting questions so while I can not give definite answers
one way or the other what I can say is that if it was demonstrated that it
could no longer exist in the present it would still exist in the past though

As an aside, I'm fascinated at how few atheists responded to the poll. I was expecting the atheist-theist ratio to be opposite what we have here.

I agree because there are no valid proofs for the existence of God.

-Cosmological arguments by their own logic demand a creator for God and therefore cannot prove him
-Teleological arguments ignore the science of us evolving to our universe rather than the other way around. Voltaire parodies this argument well by saying the nose evolved to fit spectacles.
-Ontological arguments make the mistake of thinking "existence" is a property
-Moral arguments assume that either morality is some universal property in which cases God is subject to morality and is not all powerful, or assume God functions according to morality in which case God's moral judgement is just a function of himself like breathing is to us, and so in either case they do not prove the existence of an all-loving God

The only argument which I see as non-fallacious is the argument from religious experience but even this is reliant on cases of divine appearances occuring in ancient times or in areas where you can't be certain the people experiencing divine appearances were not deluded.