The argument made by the author, Zangwill, makes in the original text is much longer and more in depth than this argument, but this is the version that is most condensed while still entailing all of the necessary descriptions.
P1: Emotion requires a reason.
P2: Feelings do not require reason.
P3: That which is inanimate (i.e., music), cannot posses, arouse or represent an emotion.
P4: We often relate emotions to feelings that we cannot describe to be able to express them in language.
P5: Music generally evokes feelings in the listener.
C: Music cannot possess emotions, but we often use emotional terminology to express the feelings that music can evoke.
Given that the definitions of emotions and feelings are separate (the author persistentantly claims that they are different, but they are often confused nonetheless), this argument is valid, as it describes a necessary difference in definition to establish a further point (that theorists must speak purely metaphorically when relating emotions to music).
No comments:
Post a Comment