Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Musical works are best understood as types, and types are abstract objects that can be both created and discovered, as Wolterstorff and Levinson argue.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
The 'creation' and 'discovery' distinction collapses: either types are mind-independent (only discovered) or mind-dependent (only created).
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Musical works seem to be concrete historical artifacts (scores, recordings) with specific origins, not abstract atemporal objects.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Type-token theory struggles to explain why performances can diverge radically yet still instantiate the same work.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Musical works persist through multiple performances; only types (not tokens) can have this identity across instances.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Composers create works by stipulating properties; these stipulations constitute abstract objects with determinate features.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
We can discover notational systems and harmonic relationships that existed independently; creation and discovery coexist.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.