I stand corrected; Beethoven got soul, and Beethoven definitely "boogies".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MFbn8EbB4k&feature=fvst
- ...
- 305 posts total
- 305 posts total
I stand corrected; Beethoven got soul, and Beethoven definitely "boogies". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MFbn8EbB4k&feature=fvst |
I need to put this in Fregean way: any sentence with the word 'soul' as a part is not truth-functional. This word may have some sense but it lacks reference. There is no bearer for this 'name' which is the same as a not existing entity. To attribute whatever quality to a non existing entity has nothing to do with science. This word is invented as the opposite of the word physical so to use this word means to assume 'extra physical' reality. There is no music kind without physical instruments , the human voice included. The lack of musical vocabulary can't be compensated by use of metaphors like 'soul'. Regards, |
Every segment of society has it's own unique dictionary. You will not find the word "soul" in an electronics dictionary; but you would find it in a "stereo" dictionary, or a jazz and blues encyclopedia. While I am not an expert in classical music "jargon", I have never heard that word used in reference to classical music. Since the subject here is "music", as opposed to "metaphysics", I do believe someone's trolly has jumped the track. |
Dear Orpheus, What 'metaphysics' means is an inscrutable phylosophical issue. To reduce the complexity Quine wrote an article about 'On what there is'. Aka the ontological question about what kinds of beings there are. Stated in quantification terminology: 'there is some x such that...' Well we need to put same name in place of the variable x to make sense of such a statement. As I already mentioned the problem is not the 'sense' but the reference. To be truth functional an expression needs both: the sense as well as the reference. The 'soul' obviously lacks the reference. Regards, |