In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Philosophy of Music Education Review 13.1 (2005) 5-19 [Access article in PDF] Didactology as a Field of Theory and Research in Music Education Frede V. Nielsen Danish University of Education, Copenhagen Two problem areas which both concern the question of music pedagogy as a field of theory and research are addressed in this paper. The first one concerns the question of the normative and prescriptive versus the (...) descriptive and analytical aspects of music pedagogy. The second is about the theory of and the criteria for the selection of content in music education. In order to address these problems it is necessary to formulate certain preconditions, each of which comprises important distinctions. Preconditions and Problem Areas German pedagogical tradition features the term Didaktik, and when the area in question is placed in relation to an educational subject, such as music, the word and the concept of Fachdidaktik (subject-oriented Didaktik) arises. In Scandinavian countries corresponding concepts can be found.1Two features of the German concept of Didaktik should be emphasized. First, it denotes both the theory and science and the planning and decision-making of teaching and learning. Thus it refers to the theoretically oriented as well [End Page 5] as the practically directed concerns in pedagogy. Second, from the point of view of disciplines, Didaktik is part of the discipline of pedagogy, but there are diverging conceptions and theories of how it is to be delimited in relation to other subsections of pedagogy (such as teaching methodology). Roughly speaking, there exists a narrow or specific conception of Didaktik, which is first and foremost concerned with the question of the content, aim, and rationale of teaching and learning, together with the criteria for the selection of content, and a wide conception, according to which practically all problems regarding teaching and learning are viewed as didaktisch (including questions of teaching methods, forms of organization, and the choice of media).Significant arguments can be put forward in favor of the specific concept of Didaktik because it provides the opportunity (and actually the compulsion) to focus distinctly and separately on the fundamental issue of educational content and its selection. From this specific point of view, Didaktik can be defined as dealing with the theory and science, together with planning and decision-making, about the rationale, aim, and content of teaching and learning. The most central didactic question may then be formulated in this way: What is essential to learn, and therefore to teach, and why? In the present context it is important to note that this definition comprises both a descriptive/analytical and a prescriptive/normative determination of Didaktik. Hence arises the first of the problem areas I intend to address in greater detail, that is, the question of the normative and prescriptive character of pedagogy versus its descriptive, analytical, and scientific standing (in the present case that part of pedagogy which I have termed Didaktik).Several types of high-level rationale for the selection of teaching/learning content can be established. For general education in a subject like music (yet with application to other subjects as well) I have formulated four such types, which I also refer to as paradigms.2 Here I use the word "didactics" in the sense of the German Didaktik. The first type I call "basic subject didactics" in which the point of departure is the subject itself and its structure, in our case the subject of music. There is more on this point below. The second type is "ethno-didactics" in which the point of departure is pupil culture and the everyday experience of the pupils or criteria arising out of current local culture. It represents a micro-cultural position in post-modern style. The third type is "challenge didactics" in which the point of departure is the great social problems, such as environmental issues, global North-South relations, conditions of democracy, or for that matter terrorism. This position may be said to have a macro-cultural, problem-oriented, and inter-disciplinary bias. A theory of social criticism is a frequent theoretical anchoring point... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:A View on the Future of an International Philosophy of Music Education:A Plea for a Comparative StrategyFrede V. NielsenIn the preface to the revised edition of my book, Almen musikdidaktik (The General Didaktik of Music) published in 1998, I wrote that the bibliography had been supplemented with a great deal of music education literature that had been published since the first edition of the book came out in 1994. (...) I drew attention in particular to, among other things, the journal Philosophy of Music Education Review, which began in 1993. I found that publication of this journal was significant and interesting not least because it continuously supplemented the approach to a theoretical and philosophic music pedagogical reflection with new English language literature. At the same time, it provided an opportunity to ask what sort of concepts and phenomena 'the philosophy of music education' and 'the philosophy of music teaching and learning' really are and what sort of functions they can have in relation to practice-oriented music education, including the education of music teachers. Therefore, the publication of PMER was a great step forward. But, like all such steps, it also revealed interesting issues and raised new questions. [End Page 7]In the Scandinavian countries too the research-based and theory-oriented music education literature has grown considerably since the early 1990s. This is the result of local initiatives in individual countries as well as Nordic cooperation in the form of the Nordic Network for Research in Music Education, which was formalized and institutionalized in 1992. The publication of the network's yearbooks, Nordic Research in Music Education–Yearbook, since 1995 is noteworthy in this context. In our part of the world this was another step forward, but one that also raised some challenging questions. In particular it gave rise to the question: What is the structure of the object of study for music education as a science and how can this object of study be delimited appropriately in relation to other disciplines? I think we have moved further toward giving reflected and well-founded answers to these questions, even though the answers are not unambiguous and may create problems in relation to the institutional affiliations of music pedagogy as a theoretical and scientific discipline.My first encounter with the initiators of the PME symposia took place in 2003 when I attended PME-5 in Lake Forest near Chicago. Even though there were participants from a number of different countries, including the Scandinavian countries (but none, for example, from Germany), it was clear that the event was dominated by North Americans. I contributed with a paper that was based on German and Nordic didactic (didactological) theory, which apparently was quite unfamiliar to most of the conference participants. To me this was a reminder of how important it is that a society that calls itself "international" should strive to embrace and include various traditions from several different points of view if it is to live up to the designation "international."The International Society for the Philosophy of Music Education (ISPME) was formally founded at the symposium in Lake Forest. For the past two years I have enjoyed the honor of being the society's co-chair together with Estelle Jorgensen. As those of you who attended the symposium in 2003 know, I accepted this task only after some hesitation and with some reservations. Since then I have had the opportunity to consider and experience what the task entails.I mentioned that my impression of PME-5 in Lake Forest was that it was dominated by North Americans. This was no wonder, since PME-5 took place in that part of the world. Moreover, the initiative behind the PME symposia originally came from the USA and Canada. Nonetheless, it gave impetus to a broader international orientation when the ISPME was founded two years ago.I come from a Scandinavian country. Scandinavia is a small language area situated in the northernmost region of Europe and has historically been very dependent on external cultural impulses. For centuries these have not least come from continental Europe and this is also true of the fields of education, philosophy, and music culture. The French and... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Philosophy of Music Education Review 13.1 (2005) 5-19 [Access article in PDF] Didactology as a Field of Theory and Research in Music Education Frede V. Nielsen Danish University of Education, Copenhagen Two problem areas which both concern the question of music pedagogy as a field of theory and research are addressed in this paper. The first one concerns the question of the normative and prescriptive versus the (...) descriptive and analytical aspects of music pedagogy. The second is about the theory of and the criteria for the selection of content in music education. In order to address these problems it is necessary to formulate certain preconditions, each of which comprises important distinctions. Preconditions and Problem Areas German pedagogical tradition features the term Didaktik, and when the area in question is placed in relation to an educational subject, such as music, the word and the concept of Fachdidaktik (subject-oriented Didaktik) arises. In Scandinavian countries corresponding concepts can be found.1Two features of the German concept of Didaktik should be emphasized. First, it denotes both the theory and science and the planning and decision-making of teaching and learning. Thus it refers to the theoretically oriented as well [End Page 5] as the practically directed concerns in pedagogy. Second, from the point of view of disciplines, Didaktik is part of the discipline of pedagogy, but there are diverging conceptions and theories of how it is to be delimited in relation to other subsections of pedagogy (such as teaching methodology). Roughly speaking, there exists a narrow or specific conception of Didaktik, which is first and foremost concerned with the question of the content, aim, and rationale of teaching and learning, together with the criteria for the selection of content, and a wide conception, according to which practically all problems regarding teaching and learning are viewed as didaktisch (including questions of teaching methods, forms of organization, and the choice of media).Significant arguments can be put forward in favor of the specific concept of Didaktik because it provides the opportunity (and actually the compulsion) to focus distinctly and separately on the fundamental issue of educational content and its selection. From this specific point of view, Didaktik can be defined as dealing with the theory and science, together with planning and decision-making, about the rationale, aim, and content of teaching and learning. The most central didactic question may then be formulated in this way: What is essential to learn, and therefore to teach, and why? In the present context it is important to note that this definition comprises both a descriptive/analytical and a prescriptive/normative determination of Didaktik. Hence arises the first of the problem areas I intend to address in greater detail, that is, the question of the normative and prescriptive character of pedagogy versus its descriptive, analytical, and scientific standing (in the present case that part of pedagogy which I have termed Didaktik).Several types of high-level rationale for the selection of teaching/learning content can be established. For general education in a subject like music (yet with application to other subjects as well) I have formulated four such types, which I also refer to as paradigms.2 Here I use the word "didactics" in the sense of the German Didaktik. The first type I call "basic subject didactics" in which the point of departure is the subject itself and its structure, in our case the subject of music. There is more on this point below. The second type is "ethno-didactics" in which the point of departure is pupil culture and the everyday experience of the pupils or criteria arising out of current local culture. It represents a micro-cultural position in post-modern style. The third type is "challenge didactics" in which the point of departure is the great social problems, such as environmental issues, global North-South relations, conditions of democracy, or for that matter terrorism. This position may be said to have a macro-cultural, problem-oriented, and inter-disciplinary bias. A theory of social criticism is a frequent theoretical anchoring point... (shrink)

The relation between music pedagogy as a field of research and the practice of music education is characterized as a continuum ranging from remoteness through cooperation to full integration. A typology is drawn up (the where the relation is separate, co-operative, integrated,or parallel). All these types of relationship are considered necessary. The distinctive task of music pedagogical research is to question, explore, and develop issues, conditions, and potentialities within the practice of music education by rendering them accessible to consciousness and (...) conceptual thought in verbal terms. Consequently, it has to do its utmost not to degenerate into ideology. The role of teacher education is discussed. Examples show how research may matter to practical music teaching and learning. An overall conclusion is that the relationship in question should be marked by closeness and distance at the same time in order to ensure relevance as well as quality and integrity. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:In MemoriamFrede V. NielsenFrederik PioOne of the major figures in Scandinavian music education research is no longer among us. We lost Professor Frede V. Nielsen earlier this year. On March 21, he passed at the age of 70 after a long period of time with weakened health.Nielsen presented his retirement lecture on June 8, 2012. It was attended by a huge crowd of former and current (...) students, colleagues, friends, and collaborators. In spite of his declining health, Frede had many plans for the future as professor emeritus, a status that unfortunately turned out to be much too short.For more than forty years Nielsen was a leading thinker in music education research in Denmark. During this period he developed several master programs in music teacher education as well as research programs for music education. But his efforts extend beyond Scandinavia since he is well known in ISPME (International Symposium for Philosophy of Music Education) as well as in RAIME (Research Alliance for Institutes of Music Education) to which he contributed over many years.Nielsen was employed at Danmarks Lærerhøjskole in 1971, where he completed his doctoral degree in 1983. His dissertation was an empirical study entitled “Experience of musical tension.” This work was later elaborated in a US context by Clifford K. Madsen among others. For two decades Nielsen’s book, General Music Didactics, originally published in 1994, has been considered a [End Page 213] standard reference work. Today it is being widely used in multiple printings in teacher education institutions all over Scandinavia.Nielsen’s intellectual heritage was especially strong in relation to the German tradition of Musik Didaktik. He had strong connections to the German research tradition, and in this area of expertise he was always among the most well informed. When most people in Scandinavia were looking primarily towards the Anglo-Saxon research tradition, Nielsen looked to Germany. Thus his ability to explore off the beaten track (at a time when he felt that it was needed in Scandinavia) was a part of his originality.For Nielsen the educational concept of Didaktik never became a technical category but was firmly anchored to a philosophical foundation by means of phenomenology. His didactical theory of “music as a multispectral universe of meaning” was shaped in close alliance with existential phenomenological insights. He insisted on the necessity for all educational thinking to be grounded in ongoing philosophical reflection. Very predictably this focus would eventually lead him into a role as co-chair together with Estelle Jorgenson when ISPME was founded at Lake Forest, Illinois, in June, 2003.Nielsen was cofounder of the Nordic Network of Research in Music Education in 1992, which has since gone on to become a significant resource and an important platform both for established researchers in music education as well as upcoming talent from all over Scandinavia. In 1995, Nielsen was also co-founder of the yearbook Nordic Research in Music Education that is still among the best publications of its type. He served as chief editor for this important series for many years. Right up to the very end he was doing research, supervising doctoral projects, editing forthcoming issues of the “MPS series” which he also founded.Frede V. Nielsen was an outstanding scholar in his field. His career and life were dedicated to serve and study music in teaching and education. He leaves behind a great spiritual vacuum in Copenhagen where he taught and researched for more than forty years. [End Page 214]Frederik [email protected] © 2013 Philosophy of Music Education Review... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Response to Frede V. Nielsen, “Didactology as A Field of Theory and Research in Music Education”Marja HeimonenFrede Nielsen describes the two main aspects of music pedagogy as the normative (and prescriptive) and the descriptive (and analytical) aspects. As a precondition for his discussion, he explores some important concepts and terms such as Didaktik. He argues that it is impossible to translate and transfer certain concepts into (...) English. The German tradition, however, has influenced Scandinavian pedagogical discussion and the content of pedagogical terms and concepts in Denmark and Finland is usually congruent with German terminology. Therefore, Nielsen analyzes the German concepts carefully.An example from my own experience as a teacher of both pedagogy and didactics at the Helsinki Conservatory/Polytechnic may throw some light on this [End Page 98] matter from the Finnish perspective. The traditional title of the subject "piano pedagogy" (offered to students who aim to become instrumental teachers) was changed to "piano didactics" some years ago. The content of this course also changed in that alongside practical work (teaching) theoretical courses were also included. The reason for this change was expressed in the same terms that Nielsen presents in his paper: Didaktik (in Finnish didaktiikka) signifies both a theoretical and a practice-oriented approach to teaching.According to Nielsen, the principal question concerning Didaktik is What is the essential content in music education? This is a philosophical (as well as a legal) issue concerning the aims of education and the matter of who has the right to decide the content. These kinds of matters can also be drawn on a larger canvas: the education of human beings generally. Music education (especially in the context of general education) is not only concerned with the skills that will enable pupils to become competent musicians. On the contrary and more profoundly, it aims to broaden the mind and expand the possibilities of thought and feeling. According to several researchers (such as Estelle Jorgensen, Anthony E. Kemp, David Best, Matti Huttunen, and Heidi Westerlund) music teachers should cultivate a wide understanding of the meaning of education so that music education can relate to human experience and social practices.Nielsen has created four paradigms that might be used when the content of music teaching is formulated. The point of departure may be (a)the subject itself, music, (b)the pupil's culture (or the local culture); in other words, the micro-cultural level, (c)the social problems or conditions of democracy (the macro-cultural level), and/or (d)the fundamental existential condition of human beings. These paradigms do not exclude one another. I consider their function to resemble that of legal principles: they have to be weighed and balanced in a particular situation and context. One or several may, for some time, take priority and push the others into the background just as Nielsen argues. Legal principles are not used as legal rules, but they are "strong" as rules.Legal rules have been compared with rails: rules and regulations (just as rails) are either followed or not. This comparison to a train running on rails also clarifies the relationship between legal regulations and human behaviour: most of these rules are obeyed by habit without profound thinking about aims and principles (c.f. Nielsen's paradigms) behind the legal texts.The most important question Nielsen attempts to raise is the relationship between music and pedagogy (Didaktik). He points out that his aim is not to give normative regulations about what should or should not be taught. Raising questions is an important aim of philosophical research. However, this kind of research may also have normative implications. For instance, philosophical [End Page 99] questions regarding the aims and the content of a subject (such as music) are included in the planning of a National Curriculum (or the National Framework Curriculum formulated by the National Board of Education, as we used to have in Finland). This curriculum is normative: the regulations have to be obeyed when syllabi are formulated in schools at the local level. The Framework Curriculum includes several educational aims; for instance, "a good relationship to music" should be created between the pupil and music. The normative character of this kind of... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Philosophy of Music Education Review 13.1 (2005) 95-98 [Access article in PDF] Response to Frede V. Nielsen's "Didactology as a Field of Theory and Research in Music Education" Sophie Haroutunian-Gordon Northwestern University Let me begin by acknowledging what is about to become obvious: I am not a musicologist, music educator, or a philosopher of music education. I am, however, a philosopher of education and a devoted student (...) of music, so I found Frede Nielsen's paper both intriguing and rewarding. It is intriguing because it positions the theoretical study of music education—what he calls "didactology"—in relation to the practice of teaching music and exemplifies, if you will, the practice of didactology. As a philosopher, and one who has worked at philosophy of science as well as philosophy of education, I became intrigued by the conceptual ground-clearing and ground-construction that Nielsen undertakes in his paper.I found the paper rewarding for two reasons. First, it is about music—at least I think it is about music, and music is about my favorite topic. Like many good works on aesthetic subjects, it seems to offer another way into a beloved yet ultimately mystifying domain and, thus, another glimpse into the unfathomable. Second, the paper offers a complex and rigorous analysis. I had fun wading through its parts and beginning to view them in relation to one another. I think that I have begun to understand not only the difference between didactics and didactology but also something about the contribution the latter might make.So to begin these remarks, let me offer a brief overview of some key points in the paper. I will then go on to raise a question or two with the hope that these will prompt Nielsen to further elaborate his ideas.To begin, Nielsen separates the topic of music pedagogy into two parts—the [End Page 95] normative and the descriptive. He defends both the study of theory and the study of practice as useful for understanding the subject of music pedagogy. He then defines the term "didactology" as "the theory of didactics, especially the theory of the content, aim, and rationale of education," and he defines "didactics" as planning and decision-making related to the practice of teaching. He tells us that didactology, though theoretical, is related to practice, that while it is descriptive rather than prescriptive it assumes values, that it "implies a view of science and the subject—the subject of music and the music itself." A didactological statement is a scientific statement and its truth is judged according to criteria for scientific truth. In summary, according to Nielsen: It is the task of and the object area of didactology in relation to the subject of music to describe, analyze, problematize, and develop intended, actual, or possible issues concerning music education as well as its conditions with special regard to the content, aims, and rationale of the education. Can the didactology of music be an independent science? The answer seems to be yes. As an illustration of the claim, Neilsen presents us with four levels of didactological reflection. The four levels, from top to bottom, are, fourth, reality (natura)—the "inner" and "outer" aspects—which refers to the experiences of hearing/understanding and performing the music; third, the musical phenomena (ars)—the music itself (the musical phenomena include, it seems, the social and existential contexts in which the music occurs); second, the theory that offers a disciplined or systematic explanation of the musical phenomena (scientia), that is, musicology (the theory envisions the musicology—the explanation of the musical phenomena—in relation to, for example, the theory and practice of teaching the music itself); and first, the didactic practices and didactological principles (didactica) that serve as the basis for determining "the content, aim, and rationale of teaching and learning music."Now despite the elegance of the typology here, I find myself wondering about two things. First, what is the subject of Nielsen's analysis? He tells us that... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Response to Frede V. Nielsen, “Didactology as A Field of Theory and Research in Music Education”Marja HeimonenFrede Nielsen describes the two main aspects of music pedagogy as the normative (and prescriptive) and the descriptive (and analytical) aspects. As a precondition for his discussion, he explores some important concepts and terms such as Didaktik. He argues that it is impossible to translate and transfer certain concepts into (...) English. The German tradition, however, has influenced Scandinavian pedagogical discussion and the content of pedagogical terms and concepts in Denmark and Finland is usually congruent with German terminology. Therefore, Nielsen analyzes the German concepts carefully.An example from my own experience as a teacher of both pedagogy and didactics at the Helsinki Conservatory/Polytechnic may throw some light on this [End Page 98] matter from the Finnish perspective. The traditional title of the subject "piano pedagogy" (offered to students who aim to become instrumental teachers) was changed to "piano didactics" some years ago. The content of this course also changed in that alongside practical work (teaching) theoretical courses were also included. The reason for this change was expressed in the same terms that Nielsen presents in his paper: Didaktik (in Finnish didaktiikka) signifies both a theoretical and a practice-oriented approach to teaching.According to Nielsen, the principal question concerning Didaktik is What is the essential content in music education? This is a philosophical (as well as a legal) issue concerning the aims of education and the matter of who has the right to decide the content. These kinds of matters can also be drawn on a larger canvas: the education of human beings generally. Music education (especially in the context of general education) is not only concerned with the skills that will enable pupils to become competent musicians. On the contrary and more profoundly, it aims to broaden the mind and expand the possibilities of thought and feeling. According to several researchers (such as Estelle Jorgensen, Anthony E. Kemp, David Best, Matti Huttunen, and Heidi Westerlund) music teachers should cultivate a wide understanding of the meaning of education so that music education can relate to human experience and social practices.Nielsen has created four paradigms that might be used when the content of music teaching is formulated. The point of departure may be (a)the subject itself, music, (b)the pupil's culture (or the local culture); in other words, the micro-cultural level, (c)the social problems or conditions of democracy (the macro-cultural level), and/or (d)the fundamental existential condition of human beings. These paradigms do not exclude one another. I consider their function to resemble that of legal principles: they have to be weighed and balanced in a particular situation and context. One or several may, for some time, take priority and push the others into the background just as Nielsen argues. Legal principles are not used as legal rules, but they are "strong" as rules.Legal rules have been compared with rails: rules and regulations (just as rails) are either followed or not. This comparison to a train running on rails also clarifies the relationship between legal regulations and human behaviour: most of these rules are obeyed by habit without profound thinking about aims and principles (c.f. Nielsen's paradigms) behind the legal texts.The most important question Nielsen attempts to raise is the relationship between music and pedagogy (Didaktik). He points out that his aim is not to give normative regulations about what should or should not be taught. Raising questions is an important aim of philosophical research. However, this kind of research may also have normative implications. For instance, philosophical [End Page 99] questions regarding the aims and the content of a subject (such as music) are included in the planning of a National Curriculum (or the National Framework Curriculum formulated by the National Board of Education, as we used to have in Finland). This curriculum is normative: the regulations have to be obeyed when syllabi are formulated in schools at the local level. The Framework Curriculum includes several educational aims; for instance, "a good relationship to music" should be created between the pupil and music. The normative character of this kind of... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Philosophy of Music Education Review 13.1 (2005) 95-98 [Access article in PDF] Response to Frede V. Nielsen's "Didactology as a Field of Theory and Research in Music Education" Sophie Haroutunian-Gordon Northwestern University Let me begin by acknowledging what is about to become obvious: I am not a musicologist, music educator, or a philosopher of music education. I am, however, a philosopher of education and a devoted student (...) of music, so I found Frede Nielsen's paper both intriguing and rewarding. It is intriguing because it positions the theoretical study of music education—what he calls "didactology"—in relation to the practice of teaching music and exemplifies, if you will, the practice of didactology. As a philosopher, and one who has worked at philosophy of science as well as philosophy of education, I became intrigued by the conceptual ground-clearing and ground-construction that Nielsen undertakes in his paper.I found the paper rewarding for two reasons. First, it is about music—at least I think it is about music, and music is about my favorite topic. Like many good works on aesthetic subjects, it seems to offer another way into a beloved yet ultimately mystifying domain and, thus, another glimpse into the unfathomable. Second, the paper offers a complex and rigorous analysis. I had fun wading through its parts and beginning to view them in relation to one another. I think that I have begun to understand not only the difference between didactics and didactology but also something about the contribution the latter might make.So to begin these remarks, let me offer a brief overview of some key points in the paper. I will then go on to raise a question or two with the hope that these will prompt Nielsen to further elaborate his ideas.To begin, Nielsen separates the topic of music pedagogy into two parts—the [End Page 95] normative and the descriptive. He defends both the study of theory and the study of practice as useful for understanding the subject of music pedagogy. He then defines the term "didactology" as "the theory of didactics, especially the theory of the content, aim, and rationale of education," and he defines "didactics" as planning and decision-making related to the practice of teaching. He tells us that didactology, though theoretical, is related to practice, that while it is descriptive rather than prescriptive it assumes values, that it "implies a view of science and the subject—the subject of music and the music itself." A didactological statement is a scientific statement and its truth is judged according to criteria for scientific truth. In summary, according to Nielsen: It is the task of and the object area of didactology in relation to the subject of music to describe, analyze, problematize, and develop intended, actual, or possible issues concerning music education as well as its conditions with special regard to the content, aims, and rationale of the education. Can the didactology of music be an independent science? The answer seems to be yes. As an illustration of the claim, Neilsen presents us with four levels of didactological reflection. The four levels, from top to bottom, are, fourth, reality (natura)—the "inner" and "outer" aspects—which refers to the experiences of hearing/understanding and performing the music; third, the musical phenomena (ars)—the music itself (the musical phenomena include, it seems, the social and existential contexts in which the music occurs); second, the theory that offers a disciplined or systematic explanation of the musical phenomena (scientia), that is, musicology (the theory envisions the musicology—the explanation of the musical phenomena—in relation to, for example, the theory and practice of teaching the music itself); and first, the didactic practices and didactological principles (didactica) that serve as the basis for determining "the content, aim, and rationale of teaching and learning music."Now despite the elegance of the typology here, I find myself wondering about two things. First, what is the subject of Nielsen's analysis? He tells us that... (shrink)

Many policies hinge on determining whether someone’s situation is due to luck or choice. In political philosophy, this prevalence is mirrored by luck egalitarian theories. But overemphasizing the distinction between luck and choice will lead to tensions with the value of moral agency, on which the distinction is grounded. Here, we argue that the two most common contemporary critiques of luck egalitarianism, holding it to be harsh and disrespectful are best understood as illustrating exactly this tension. Elaborating on this conflict, (...) we argue that it should lead us to modify how luck and choice are used in theories of justice. (shrink)

Many policies hinge on determining whether someone’s situation is due to luck or choice. In political philosophy, this prevalence is mirrored by luck egalitarian theories. But overemphasizing the distinction between luck and choice will lead to tensions with the value of moral agency, on which the distinction is grounded. Here, we argue that the two most common contemporary critiques of luck egalitarianism, holding it to be harsh and disrespectful are best understood as illustrating exactly this tension. Elaborating on this conflict, (...) we argue that it should lead us to modify how luck and choice are used in theories of justice. (shrink)

This paper is an evaluation of a selection of writings by Frede V. Nielsen and their significance for the philosophy of music education. The terms Didaktik and Bildung, which played a central role in Nielsen’s writings, will be introduced, situated within the historical context of classic theories of Bildung (Schleiermacher, von Humboldt, and others.), expounded upon from the perspective of the philosophy of music education and related to Nielsen’s central question of criteria-driven selection of content. I (...) shall also make reference to Nielsen’s position on a number of questions of musical Didaktik. (shrink)

The embedding and promotion of social change is faced with aparadoxical challenge. In order to mainstream an approach to socialchange such as responsible research and innovation and makeit into a practical reality rather than an abstract ideal, we need tohave conceptual clarity and empirical evidence. But, in order to beable to gather empirical evidence, we have to presuppose that theapproach already exists in practice. This paper proposes a social labmethodology that is suited to deal with this circularity. Themethodology combines the (...) defining features of social labs emergingfrom the literature such as agility and real-world focus withestablished theories and approaches such as action research andexperiential learning. Thereby it enables the parallel investigationand propagation of RRI. The framework thus constructed provides atheoretical embedding of sociallabs and overcomes some of theknown limitations of the constitutive approaches. (shrink)

This paper discusses limitarianism in light of three popular objections to the redistribution of extreme wealth: (i) that such redistribution legitimizes envy, which is a morally objectionable attitude; (ii) that it disincentivizes the wealthy to invest and work, leading to a diminished social product, and, thereby, making everyone worse-off; and (iii) that it undercuts the pursuit and achievement of human excellence by depriving successful people of resources through which they may otherwise excel. We argue that these objections fail to undermine (...) limitarianism. An elaborated defence against them, rather, reveals how the Standard Defence of limitarianism may be expanded and strengthened by relying explicitly on the importance of preventing a society of envy, avoiding harm to non-rich citizens, and ensuring that humans are given the opportunities to excel in ways that go beyond those that allow for the amassment of wealth. (shrink)

This paper explores the role individual responsibility plays in contemporary political theory. It argues that the standard luck egalitarian view—the view according to which distributive justice is ensured by holding people accountable for their exercise of responsibility in the distribution of benefits and burdens—obscures the more fundamental value of being responsible. The paper, then, introduces an account of ‘self-creative responsibility’ as an alternative to the standard view and shows how central elements on which this account is founded has been prominently (...) defended in the history of Western political thought but are comparatively neglected in contemporary political theory. Relying on this account, the paper argues that society should hold persons responsible when, and only when, doing so enables them to lead responsible lives, and only on the condition that doing so does not infringe other persons’ equivalently valuable ability to lead responsible lives. The account of self-creative responsibility, the paper concludes, plausibly captures the intuitive attraction of holding responsible while respecting the value of being responsible. (shrink)

This commentary proceeds as follows. First, it is argued from both ethical and legal perspectives through an analysis of Court precedents that Etzioni’s has improperly developed a too narrow First Amendment interpretation and conclusion that Apple should comply with the FBI’s demand to provide the FBI with a key to open iPhones. That is, broad First Amendment considerations and not solely narrow First Amendment “compelled speech” or only Fourth Amendment privacy issues are offered and analyzed from both ethical and legal (...) perspectives. A key point here is that broad First Amendment considerations protect, with exceptions, political and ethical discretion space for “Press” organizations to exercise, or not, ethical responsibilities, including rights to publish or not publish information and opinions, rather than compliance with government orders to publish or not publish. Further, Court cases are discussed from both legal and ethical perspectives where the Courts have established that social media organizations such as Facebook and Twitter do and should have broad First Amendment protection of free expression and peaceful assembly as traditional media such as newspapers have. It is suggested that Apple can and should be considered a social media organization. In addition, special First Amendment protection and limitations concerning national security are analyzed. Second, it is suggested that Etzioni’s point that Apple protected its clients soley for “business profitability” reasons is also a too narrow interpretation since there are more complex, mixed, and combined ethical and political-economic reasons for protecting clients and First Amendment protections. Third, the philosopher Paul Ricoeur’s ethics process responsibility framework concerning relationships between ethics and law and the need for an ethics responsibility rather than a compliance approach, which is similar to Brandeis’ legal ethics approach, is compared with and offered as an alternative to Etzioni’s compliance based “Liberal communitarian” approach. It is suggested that the difference between the Rocoeur and Etzioni approaches is similar to the difference between compliance and ethics responsibility process programs in organizations. (shrink)

Read at the Sixty-sixth Annual Meeting of the Western Division of the American Philosophical Association at St. Louis, Missouri, May 3, 1968. Some of the crucial thinking in this paper has been much influenced by J. C. Thornton’s brilliant “Religious Belief and ‘Reductionism’,”Sophia, vol. V, No. 3 , and by his “Reductionism—A Reply to Dr. Mascall”,Sophia, vol. VI, No. 2.

Lo studio prende in esame sei questioni di Thomas Wylton sulla visione beatifica e una questione dal Quodlibet di Siberto di Beka, carmelitano, contemporaneo di Wylton. Il saggio confronta in modo analitico le posizioni dei due autori sul ruolo e la necessità del lumen gloriae nella visione beatifica nelle singole questioni di cui si dà a seguito l'edizione. I codici sono V’ = Vat. Borgh. 36; T' = Tortosa 88; S' = Vat. Borgh. 39. L'edizione, posta in appendice allo studio, (...) riguarda le seguenti porzioni testuali: Thomas Wylton, q. 2 [V', ff. 55va-56va]; q. 3 [V', ff. 56va-58ra]; q. 4 [V', ff. 58ra-va] T16 [T', ff. 46ra-48rb]; T19 [T', ff. 50ra-61vb]; T20 [T', ff. 61vb-62vb]; Siberto di Beka, Quodlibet, q. 16 [S', ff. 270va-272vb]. (shrink)

The target articles on sleep and dreaming are discussed in terms of the concept of search activity integrating different types of behavior, body resistance, REM sleep/dream functions, and the brain catecholamine system. REM sleep may be functionally sufficient or insufficient, depending on the dream scenario, the latter being more important than the physiological manifestation of REM sleep. REM sleep contributes to memory consolidation in the indirect way. [Nielsen; Revonsuo; Solms; Vertes & Eastman].

This volume is a Festschrift dedicated to Charles Kahn comprised of more than 20 papers presented at the conference "Presocratics and Plato: Festschrift Symposium in Honor of Charles Kahn", 3-7 June 2009. The conference was held at the European Cultural Center of Delphi, Greece, and was organized and sponsored by the HYELE Institute for Comparative Studies and Parmenides Publishing, with endorsement from the International Plato Society, and the Dean of the School of Arts and Sciences, University of Pennsylvania. Contributors: Julia (...) Annas - University of Arizona; Sarah Broadie - University of St. Andrews; Lesley Brown - University of Oxford; Tomás Calvo-Martínez - Universidad Complutense de Madrid; Diskin Clay - Duke University; John M. Dillon - Trinity College, Dublin; Dorothea Frede - Humbolt University, Berlin; Arnold Hermann - HYELE Institute for Comparative Studies; Carl A. Huffman - DePauw University; Enrique Hülsz Piccone - Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico; D.M. Hutchinson - St. Olaf College; Paul Kalligas - National and Kapodistrian University, Athens; Vassilis Karasmanis - National Technical University, Athens; Aryeh Kosman - Haverford College; Anthony A. Long - University of California, Berkeley; Richard McKirahan - Pomona College; Susan Sauvé Meyer - University of Pennsylvania; Alexander P.D. Mourelatos - University of Texas at Austin; Satoshi Ogihara - Tohoku University, Japan; Richard Patterson - Emory University; Christopher J. Rowe - Durham University; David Sedley - University of Cambridge; Richard Sorabji - University of Oxford. (shrink)

Despite today's proclaimed open-mindedness, a certain uniformity of thought, followed by a flattening of practices, can be observed in the processes of quality improvement in higher education. This narrowing of thought, which I call "relevance rationality," is an offshoot of instrumental reason and represents a debased, utilitarian-influenced mode of thinking in terms of relevance. Through an analysis of the situation in Norwegian music teacher education as a case in point, this essay aims to show how relevance rationality spreads and actually (...) undermines good intentions and efforts to secure quality in music teacher education globally. A counterpoint to relevance rationality is offered with the concept of "multi-stratified authenticity," which is a synergy of Charles Taylor's moral frameworks, including his notion of authenticity, and Frede V. Nielsen's concept of "music as a multi-stratified universe of meaning.". (shrink)

Inspired by Estelle Jorgensen’s book Values and Music Education (Indiana University Press, 2021), the author of this Book Review Essay, from a Scandinavian perspective, discusses the concept of value, the struggles of values, and the tension between universal values and relativism, as well as the fact that there is no such thing as a neutral position to speak from. Among thinkers and philosophers who have inspired these reflections are Charles Taylor, Chantal Mouffe, Simon Frith and Frede V. Nielsen.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Pictures of Music Education by Estelle R. JorgensenPaul WoodfordEstelle R. Jorgensen, Pictures of Music Education. Indiana University Press, 2011Estelle Jorgensen has long been a mainstay of the philosophy of the music education community, having served as founding chair of the Philosophy of Music Education Special Research Interest Group of the National Association of Music Educators (formerly the Music Educators National Conference) and founding co-chair of the International Society (...) for the Philosophy of Music Education along with Frede V. Nielsen whose work is the focus of this special issue. She remains editor of the Philosophy of Music Education Review, one of the premiere professional journals in the field of music education, and general editor of the Indiana University Press book series Counterpoints: Music and Education, which has published several of her books, including the current one, Pictures of Music Education (2011), that is the subject of this review. Over the course of her career, she has also contributed many chapters to other leading professional books and to the success of international symposia as host and frequent keynote speaker. One could easily continue to enumerate Jorgensen’s many contributions to the profession, but owing to lack of space it will suffice to simply observe that the field of music education would not be what it is today had it not been for her leadership, mentorship, and commitment to building a community of scholars. It is thus a pleasure to have been invited to review the aforementioned book, which [End Page 209] ventures into “the ground between metaphor and model,” the tension between the figurative and literal, to define music education as fundamentally imaginative and open-ended.1Among the advantages of conceiving of the nature of music education as involving a dialectical tension between various metaphors and derived models, Jorgensen recounts, is that the former, because figurative, evocative, and overlapping, allow for the kinds and degrees of ambiguity and slippage that are necessary for the exercise of imagination leading to more open and productive conversation about ideas. Models, on the other hand, are by definition more literal and thus more subject to direct criticism because intended to represent reality in ways that can be empirically tested through application to practice. Indeed, models make systematic assessment and critique of ideas possible. As Jorgensen continues, models serve to simplify “difficult ideas in terms that can be readily grasped, studied, and tested,” which is particularly important to the credibility of the music teaching profession in the eyes of today’s politicians and the public.2 Nevertheless, and for the obvious reason that what Jorgensen refers to as metaphoric models are derived from metaphors and thus bear some similarity, their boundaries can be “fuzzy.”3 As already suggested, it is here, in the fertile ground between metaphor and model, that Jorgensen thinks the most creative and productive thinking about music education philosophy and practice can occur as scholars and teachers recognize and grapple with, and perhaps celebrate, the various tensions and paradoxes found therein. This approach is intended by her as an alternative to the either/or grand narratives that have in the past stifled conversation by reducing philosophy, research, and pedagogy to a search for “the ‘one’ … true or best way, or ‘high road’ to music education.”4 Jorgensen’s own purpose is more modest, and potentially more liberating, which is to open “other fruitful avenues for understanding the ways in which people come to know music.”5The book consists of fourteen chapters in all, each one, with the exception of the introductory and concluding ones, dedicated to a specific metaphor and its chosen derived model that has been “systematically teased out” before being analyzed for its potential strengths and weaknesses when applied to music education.6 Owing to limited space, it is not practical here to address all of the metaphors and models that Jorgensen presents for the reader’s consideration, but it behooves me to provide a short list in order to facilitate discussion of the overall aims of the book. They are: boutique and consumption; village and community; artist and apprenticeship; revolutionary and transgression; factory and production; garden and growth; therapist and healing; court and... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:The Origins and Foundations of Music Education: International Perspectivesed. by Gordon Cox and Robin Sydney StevensEva Verena SchmidGordon Cox and Robin Sydney Stevens, eds., 2ndedn., The Origins and Foundations of Music Education: International Perspectives(London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2017)The Origins and Foundations of Music Educationis a selection of papers, including an introduction and a conclusion, that provides historical information about the origin and foundation of music education in compulsory schooling (...) in eighteen countries from around the world as well as historical narrations up to the present based on this history. This approach follows the prevalent tendency within historical research to explain the present state of the art as a product of the past. The authors were asked to reflect on the implementation of music education in compulsory schooling in various contexts: political, economic, religious, and social. The chapters have been revised and complemented with the latest information. An additional noteworthy contribution is that the editors managed to include new writers so that the book can provide a wide range of viewpoints from countries in Europe, America, Asia, and Africa. Religious diversity, for instance as seen in Jewish and Muslim cultures, has been taken into account. Papers from Israel, Kosovo, Lithuania, and Turkey are the new additions as well as one chapter which is dedicated to Brazil. [End Page 220]This concept is based on the observation of the editors that the roots of music education have been seen predominantly in a national context, as is usually the case when dealing with educational topics. However, recently one can observe a gradual change that is due to globalization.The purpose of the volume is not only to deliver historical information but also to make a contribution to international and comparative music education. The editors express the hope that the book can encourage readers to deepen their international understanding and awareness of the origins and foundations of music education. The goal is also to look for a "successful music education practice in various countries." 1Unfortunately, the editors do not describe what "successful" means for them. Moreover, it is largely impossible to define in general what successful is because it depends on the particular goals one sets.If you undertake an international and comparative approach, you have to clarify potentially confusing terms. The editors define "international education" and "comparative education" according to the Danish scholar Frede V. Nielsen: international education "is concerned with issues of practice and implementation," 2whereas comparative education "aims to provide historical, philosophical or otherwise interpretative explanations of how two or more educational systems have developed, responded to and/or influenced societal change." 3At this point, it would have been more profound to argue the complexity of this approach. Sigrid Abel-Struth, for instance, deems information about other music education systems is not comparative music education. 4She states that the reports are rather "informative-political" than "methodical-scientific." 5Moreover, she refers to Edmund A. Cykler who says that comparative music education should not only collect information in terms of practical and methodical aspects but also compare [!] them systematically in historical, educational, psychological, and aesthetic contexts. 6According to Bernd Clausen comparative music education requires that the researcher has to be conscious of being ethnocentric, that is Eurocentric. 7For him, comparative music education helps to reflect on the use of terms and practices and at the same time to widen the horizon for various solutions to problems. 8He also sees the necessity to reflect on one's own capacity during the process of analysis and description 9because researchers adopt an attitude or a point of view which is influenced by their cultural socialization. 10Unfortunately, these kinds of methodical reflection are missing throughout the collection. As the editors mentioned, the authors were asked not to include their opinions about the facts in the texts. However, a reflection on their own subjectivity and the research circumstances would have greatly helped readers to understand how the facts have to be seen and evaluated. One does not gain [End Page 221]objectivity when one leaves out the genesis of the facts as well as the intention of the researcher in... (shrink)

Rich with historical and cultural value, these works are published unaltered from the original University of Minnesota Press editions.

Nielsen [Nielsen, T. . Felt presence: Paranoid delusion or hallucinatory social imagery? Consciousness and Cognition, 16, 975–983.] raises a number of issues and presents several provocative arguments worthy of discussion regarding the experience of the felt presence during sleep paralysis . We consider these issues beginning with the nature of FP and its relation to affective-motivational systems and provide an alternative to Nielsen’s reduction of FP to a purely spatial hallucination. We then consider implications of the “normal (...) social imagery” model. We can find only one specific empirical hypothesis articulated within this framework and it turns out to be one that we explicitly addressed in our original paper. We also review our position regarding the possible relation of FP during SP to a number of related anomalous experiences and contrast FP to anomalous vestibular-motor phenomena. We review our position that the neuromatrix concept, in the light of available evidence, is more appropriately applied to V-M experiences than FP. Finally, we pursue speculations, raised in Nielsen’s commentary, on the wider implications of FP. (shrink)

Can ethical character be stimulated and enabled? Cognitive understanding of organizational ethics issues is important and necessary, but not sufficient. Ethical behavior does not emerge automatically. Effective political method is necessary. While it may be difficult to teach ethical character, nonetheless, skill development with respect to joined ethics understanding and action-learning methods can help us develop the skills and confidence we need to actualize our ethical characters and social concerns. An action-learning approach to organizational ethics can help stimulate and enable (...) ethical character. (shrink)

The following article presents preliminary reflections on a processual theory of health and disease. It does this by steering the discussion more toward an ontology of organisms rather than conceptual analysis of the semantic content of the terms “health” and “disease.” In the first section, four meta-theoretical assumptions of the traditional debate are identified and alternative approaches to the problems are presented. Afterwards, the view that health and disease are constituted by a dynamic relation between demands imposed on an organism (...) and individual presuppositions for adequate response is developed. In the last section, the paper takes stock of three possible objections to and clarifies some implications of this approach to the notions of health and disease. (shrink)

Argues that morality can exist without religion, suggests that values and principles of conduct emerge from life, and examines the consequences of moral absolutism.

Epistemic decision theory produces arguments with both normative and mathematical premises. I begin by arguing that philosophers should care about whether the mathematical premises (1) are true, (2) are strong, and (3) admit simple proofs. I then discuss a theorem that Briggs and Pettigrew (2020) use as a premise in a novel accuracy-dominance argument for conditionalization. I argue that the theorem and its proof can be improved in a number of ways. First, I present a counterexample that shows that one (...) of the theorem’s claims is false. As a result of this, Briggs and Pettigrew’s argument for conditionalization is unsound. I go on to explore how a sound accuracy-dominance argument for conditionalization might be recovered. In the course of doing this, I prove two new theorems that correct and strengthen the result reported by Briggs and Pettigrew. I show how my results can be combined with various normative premises to produce sound arguments for conditionalization. I also show that my results can be used to support normative conclusions that are stronger than the one that Briggs and Pettigrew’s argument supports. Finally, I show that Briggs and Pettigrew’s proofs can be simplified considerably. (shrink)