Two questions.

Im gonna take a very short reprieve from the long wind, and just put out two questions:

How is it possible to know of history without it having been taught from historic records? Or more specifically: How is it possible to know the significant points of philosophy as have been recorded by authors in books, before having read them?

How is it possible for what is not real to be true?

…we will return to our broadcast shortly.


  1. Oh, this is a good one! Of course these problems can be traced back to the battle between Plato (Socrates) and the Sophists in some respects. Or even between two conceptions of ‘doxa’ (‘justified belief’) found in both Plato and Aristotle. Plato obviously the purist saw doxa or common seeming or public knowledge as illusion and error, while for Aristotle doxa was the first step in the path to knowledge: a working out through argument between commonly held beliefs the justifications for those beliefs. What people like Brandom in our time might term the ‘making explicit’ of our reasons for holding our reasons, etc.

    1. Thank you. Yes. So what is your take on how his situation is possible? And What does it mean or what is the difference between, say, one who had played piano and had lessons and studied music all her life and all who now then knows and writes great music, and one who never studied who is just as capable? What is occurring ? Do they reveal beyond general apparency a difference as to what is true music?

      1. I think the distinction in music is one based on a difference in kind. For the one who is studied, a scholar or musicologist music is a learned practice, while for the other the ability is naïve, unlearned. Both have the same ability to enact music: the one is just educated in all the nuances enscripted within the history, while the other has learned empirically through listening and practicing the notes they hear. Obviously the naïve musician will never understand the depths of the musical language. Just like a grammarian will know the mapping of the linguistic nuances, and the naïve child writing will only know the words in her memory.

        As for true music. No there is no difference in the music itself, only in the person playing it. That is the difference that makes a difference: the one who grasps the full gamut of the historical muscological heritage will probably appreciate it in a different way than the naïve musician. The naïve musician will appreciated only the grasp of his five senses, but will not even touch the deeper treasures of the historical antecedents.

      2. Interesting . Do you think there is an effective difference between the two musicians in their presentations that can be discerned? Given that the notes are played correctly and the composition is well developed in both? Is there a type of ‘well’ that can distinguish each as to types from the mere listening to each? Regardless of genre.

      3. Obviously this brings into the equation not just the two musicians, but the one asking the question: the third person who interprets the music being played by both persons. And, as always, this comes down to a separation of classical notions of receiveability. One’s opinion is always doxa in regards to interpreting another’s work. Opinion is always ‘subjective’. So there is no objective criteria to measure such things. Never will be since we are fallible and limited creatures.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s