Alex Hertelendy

I will argue that humans have the ability understand pure music and I will use various
theories from several philosophers to prove my argument. Humans understand and react to
pure music, but how and why are we able to do so? We know music when we hear it; music is
organized and structured in a way that is aesthetically pleasing. Music is universal, the rhythm
and beat are understood by people without the need for translation. This understanding of
human reaction to music is important because it may possibly provide answers to how the mind
works in abstract ways. When people are listening to pure music they are reacting to the music
itself of are they reacting to their own interpretation of the music? Is the music in itself
beautiful or is the person listening to it making the decision that it is aesthetically pleasing
based on how they feel when they are listening to the piece.
Pure music evokes a reaction in people, it moves them one way or another. People
understand music when they perceptually grasp sounds as musically meaningful for instance
hearing melody instead of merely registering bursts of noise. (Understanding Music, Erkki
Huovinen p 124) There are other sounds that are universally understood. Some examples are a
baby crying, people laughing or arguing; these sounds do not need words for people to respond
to them. A mother will pick up the crying baby to soothe it, a person may join in the laugher or
at least respond with a smile. While the people arguing may alarm the person even if they do
not understand the basis for the argument. On a basic level people respond to sounds and
music is included in this idea that the sound causes a person to react either positively or
negatively based on how the sounds makes them feel.
Music plays an important role in many peoples lives because it is a way to express
oneself. At this basic level people still understand the meaning of what music is and how it
affects them. During the early years of human existence not only did humans have the innate
ability to create music, but they were interested in the sounds that were created by rocks and
sticks. Some may argue that music created just by rocks and sticks would not be beautiful in
comparison to music that was created later by Bach, Mozart, or Beethoven.
The sounds of music are a part of a persons soul and they respond to it. According to
Stephen Davies, we experience music not merely as a succession of notes and chords but as
developing, recasting, and otherwise exploring its materials in a connected way. (Is Music a
Language of Emotion, p. 121) The soul is thought to be responsible for human beings mental
function like desire or thought perception. The soul is alive and interprets emotion from
movement.
The rhythm and speed of the music triggers emotions in the listener and by listening to
certain music it may cause a feeling of joy, while other music may cause the person to feel sad.
People may also interpret music and relate to it because of past experiences. Even though
people across the world have very different lifestyles, language and traditions, all people at a
primal level have very basic needs. The arousal theory states that people are reactive to stimuli.
This activation affects the brain, nervous system and endocrine system and causes a sense of
sensory alertness, mobility and readiness to respond. Daniel Berlyne was a psychologist and

philosopher who worked in the field of exploratory psychology and objects and experiences are
influenced and have an influence on arousal. He coined the phrase collative, which was how
he described hedonic levels of arousal fluctuation through stimuli.
The first objection Kivy presents is that one can enjoy pure music by understanding it,
this understanding is followed by the ability to describe it, but since some people can only
describe it and not understand it than your argument is contradictory. Another objection, he
presents is the reliance on verbal description of music to prove musical understanding. The
notion that it takes a verbal skill to understand a piece of music that is nonverbal is also
contradictory.
The answer presented by Kivy for the first objection is that he acknowledges what
Descartes says that people have innate ideas such as equilateral triangles and the idea of a
higher being, even though everyone may have these concepts in their mind not everyone has
them available to consciousness. In order for us to become aware of the ideas, the ideas must
be taught and nurtured in us. With this in mind, we must believe that there is an ability to
describe music, which is fostered by our own musical experience. There are two things to keep
in mind when it comes to understanding music. First, in order to understand music, it involves
our conscious state. Kivy uses the example of how it can be difficult to describe walking
because it is something that comes natural to us. We see others walking and thats what
shapes our understanding and allows us to understand the act of walking. Since it can be
difficult to describe what walking is, we have think about it for a minute, this does not mean we
do not know anything about walking. It means that we have to create an awareness of what
walking is and then apply that awareness to our description of walking. Second is we may hear
the music, but in order to understand it we have to create awareness about the music as we are
listening to it. That way the next time we hear either the same piece or a different one, we can
call upon that experience to help describe what we are feeling.
Kivy answers his fourth objection by simply stating that it is important to focus on the
musical listener, to understand the musical listener. Listening is important for various musical
activities not only for the listener but the composer and performer as well. A performer must
be able to listen to a piece so that they may improve, but also in order to perform. An example
of this is when Kivy discusses how when Beethoven lost his ability to hear, he lost the ability to
perform but not the ability to compose. He understood music because he had knowledge of
music and was still able to hear it in his head, he used his imagination. The musical listener,
composer and performer do not need to verbally express they understand what the music
means they can they can just understand what they hear, perform or compose is good.

I think Kivy gets to the heart of the matter that a person does not have to be an expert
in music to understand it. Music can be enjoyed by the listener, they can appreciate it, feel
connected to it. We are aware of the music and we use our imagination to enjoy it.
As I attempt to solve the problem of why humans understand pure music, I will employ
two theories that will help form my argument and prove my solution. The first theory I will use
is the resemblance theory. In addition to this theory, I will use Platonism, which states that
abstract objects exist. Both the Resemblance and Platonism theories will answer the question,
why people react emotionally when they hear pure music.
The resemblance theory states that pure music is expressive, it is an expression of
emotion. It is argued expressive properties can be recognized in music just as we recognize
objective qualities for example we recognize sadness in a St. Bernard dogs face.
(Resemblance Theories Saam Trivedi p. 224). Also, listeners may hear and translate their
personal experiences to a piece of music; people may recognize a vocal structure that mimics
sadness they would recognize in a human voice. Finally the resemblance theory, as noted by
Kivy, claims that people will unconsciously animate all kinds of sights and sounds. He believes
that people are hard-wired to animate things, which we have this ability to aid in our survival
and over the years it has evolved to the point that we are able to animate sounds subliminally.
Kivy and Davies found that humans use music to mirror the ways in which humans give
expression to their emotions. So the similarities between the sounds produced by music may
share some of the traits that humans use when expressing emotions. These similarities
according to the resemblance theory may provide an explanation of why humans understand
the significance of pure music. In Daviess view music capture the essence of being human, for
example he uses the theory that sad music is slow and quiet and seems to mimic an emotional
state of someone who is sad, they walk slow, hang their head low the listener can feel that
emotion.
The platonic theory recognizes the existence of abstract objects, these are ideas that
exist as a type of thing. Knowledge may consist of truths of geometry, what makes a rectangle,
and it also can contain emotions such as happiness. Music is created as a result of human
action and is done as a reaction to something. One can find the use of different aesthetic and
artistic properties in musical works. According to Plato aesthetics is defined as beauty, imitation
and inspiration. This knowledge of beauty is what helps humans experience an emotional
reaction to the music. Although music is abstract, we are still able to experience an emotion
within us the music we hear is an imitation of reality, a copy of our ordinary experiences.
An objection to the platonic theory would be a nominalist argument that the only things
that exist in the world are physical and everything is concrete. Since emotions are abstract
objects they do not exist in the physical world.
Music and emotion go hand in hand. Hanslick disagrees with this notion, the idea that
music gets a reaction from the listener, that it elicits emotion. He argues that music is an object
in itself, the piece of music would exist even if it didnt get a response from the listener, and

music is independent of the listener. He further states that art produces something beautiful
that affects, not our feelings, but our imagination. The composer imagines the piece and is the
piece is intended for the listeners imagination which is pleasing to the listener.
The second objection Hanslick presents, is the idea that the content of music is emotion.
One argument Hanslick raised was the idea that music could not represent human emotions,
that feelings and emotions cannot be embodied in the piece of music since a piece of music
might be interpreted differently by a listener. Music might be capable of making listeners feel a
certain way for one generation and 20 or 30 years later might have a very different effect on
the listener. According to Hanslick each person experiences changes in taste so personal
responses may vary.
I do agree with Hanslick on the idea that music is the art of sensation and that music is
directing the listener to use their imagination to create an understanding of the piece of music.
I think the idea that the imagination allows the listener to create their experience is an accurate
explanation of how people have different reactions to the same piece of music. Although I
disagree that music does not elicit emotion, the listener does react to the music with more just
imagination they also can react to a piece of music by drawing on their past experiences or
perception and feel an emotion whether it would be happy or sad.
Pure music is organized sound and the listener reacts to the expressive nature of what is
being performed. The listener is reacting to the way music mimics experiences that they are
familiar with, the resemblance theory explains that pure music is expressive, it is an expression
of emotion. Composers create music and their compositions are a reaction to an experience.
Even though emotion in music is an abstract idea the listener is still able to hear it because it
mirrors our everyday experiences. The platonic theory recognizes the existence of abstract
objects; these are ideas that exist as a type of thing such as music. The listener decides if the
piece is aesthetically pleasing based on their own experiences.
An objection to my stance is that music can elicit emotion you feel. Since music does
elicit emotion, that the listener is able to use their past experiences, emotions are used to
understand the music and actually translate the emotion they are feeling. This is a perfectly
good argument, but it is flawed. First, the objection does not take into account that humans
are born with this innate understanding of music. As Kivy presented earlier, Descartes argued
that humans are born with innate understanding of things, which Kivy places great emphasis on
the fact that in order for that innate ability to understand music to be acknowledged we have
to bring awareness to it. Awareness is brought about it by humans listening to music
constantly, which will than allow them to tap into their innate ability to understand pure music.
This rebuttal to the objection shows that humans do not rely on previous experiences to elicit
an emotional response to the piece of music, which could than lead to the understanding of the
pure piece of music.
Thank you for introducing a new way of thinking and approach to answering the
philosophical question are humans able to understand pure music. My initial reaction to this

question was yes but by taking this class I discovered that there have been many attempts at
answering this question throughout the years. It is interesting that such a basic question has
been written about extensively.