Showing a limited preview of this publication:
Abstract
There are two ways of dealing with Kant's derogatory position on music. Either it is claimed that Kant's opinion is a result of biographical factors, or Kant is regarded as a mere predecessor of a more successful music aesthetics. While the first way mistakes Kant's personal preferences for a philosophical argument about the nature of sound, the second approach underestimates the close connection between his music aesthetics and his whole philosophical system. Against these approaches the article defends the proposition that Kant's (like any other) music aesthetics can only be understood with reference to the concepts of „time“ and „movement“ in order to elucidate the ontology of sound objects.
Keywords:: affection; form; movement; music aesthetics; rhythm; sound; time; Augustinus; Carl Dahlhaus; G.W.F. Hegel; G.W. Leibniz; Hugo Riemann
Online erschienen: 2010-01-28
Erschienen im Druck: 2009-December
© Walter de Gruyter 2009
