首页> 外文期刊>Physics of life reviews >Music listeners, philosophers, and researchers
【24h】

Music listeners, philosophers, and researchers

机译:音乐听众,哲学家和研究人员

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Relationships between philosophy and science have ranged from Wittgenstein’s view that cognitive science has nothing to offer the understanding of art to the view that science is in the process of eliminating the need for philosophy [1]. Taking a middle approach, I wish to base my brief comments on Juslin’s excellent article with an expansion of a seemingly innocuous statement, “And, it is the listener’s criteria that count, if our goal is to explain actual responses to music” [2]. Fig. 1 provides a graphical way of illustrating how we might arrive at a more coordinated and coherent view of musical and aesthetic emotions by combining insights gleaned from music listeners, philosophers, and researchers, using the BRECVEMA model. Imagine a highly trained musician who agrees with Stravinsky when he said, “Do we not, in truth, ask the impossible of music when we expect it to express feelings?” [3]. Philosophers might label our highly trained musician a Formalist, and using the BRECVEMA model, researchers might find support for this position in the mechanism of Musical Expectancy which is supported by specific brain regions [2, Table 2].
机译:哲学与科学之间的关系范围广泛,从维特根斯坦(Wittgenstein)的观点,即认知科学无法提供对艺术的理解,到科学正在消除对哲学的需求这一观点[1]。我采取中间立场,我希望以Juslin的出色文章作为我的简短评论的基础,其中增加了看似无害的陈述:“而且,如果我们的目标是解释对音乐的实际反应,那么听众的标准很重要” [2] 。图1提供了一种图形化的方式来说明我们如何通过使用BRECVEMA模型结合从听众,哲学家和研究人员那里收集的见解来获得关于音乐和审美情感的更协调一致的观点。想象一下一位训练有素的音乐家,他同意斯特拉文斯基的话说:“实际上,当我们期望音乐表达情感时,我们真的不问音乐的不可能吗?” [3]。哲学家可能会将我们训练有素的音乐家称为“形式主义者”,而使用BRECVEMA模型,研究人员可能会在音乐期望机制中找到这一立场的支持,而这一期望得到特定大脑区域的支持[2,表2]。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号