Erkenntnis 87 (2):435-458 (2022)

Authors
Anton Killin
Australian National University
Abstract
Theorists have recently defended rival analyses of sound. The leading analyses reduce sound to sensations or mental representations, longitudinal compression waves, or sounding objects or events. Participants in the debate presuppose that because the features of the world targeted by these reductive strategies are distinct, at most one of the analyses is correct. In this article I argue that this presupposition is mistaken, endorsing a polysemy analysis of ‘sound’. Thus the ‘What is sound?’ debate is largely merely verbal, or so I argue. All participants in this debate agree that there are the various reductions, they simply differ over which of them ‘is sound’. Yet there is no reason to think that, say, psychologists studying auditory sensations/representations, audio physicists studying sound waves, and anthropologists/ethnomusicologists studying sounding objects/events aren’t just studying different reductions of ‘sound’ despite the different explananda of their research. According to the polysemy theory of sound, we do not need to uniquely identify sound with one of these various explananda, outside of some context.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s10670-019-00201-7
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Translate to english
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 69,257
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Verbal Disputes.David J. Chalmers - 2011 - Philosophical Review 120 (4):515-566.
Individuals.P. F. Strawson - 1959 - Les Etudes Philosophiques 14 (2):246-246.
Speaker's Reference and Semantic Reference.Saul A. Kripke - 1977 - In Peter A. French, Theodore E. Uehling Jr & Howard K. Wettstein (eds.), Studies in the Philosophy of Language. University of Minnesota Press. pp. 255-296.
Speaker’s Reference and Semantic Reference.Saul Kripke - 1977 - Midwest Studies in Philosophy 2 (1):255-276.
Philosophy of Biology.Peter Godfrey-Smith - 2013 - Princeton University Press.

View all 40 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Some Considerations on Pitch.E. Di Bona - 2013 - Phenomenology and Mind 4:244-54.
Response to Groarke : Figuring Sound.Justin Eckstein - 2018 - Informal Logic 38 (3):341-345.
Suárez on Sound and Hearing.Daniel Heider - 2017 - Anuario Filosófico 50 (2):323-344.
Sound Art Practices in City Spaces.Tautvydas Bajarkevičius - 2014 - Santalka: Filosofija, Komunikacija 22 (1):69-76.
Prospects for Timbre Physicalism.Alistair M. C. Isaac - 2018 - Philosophical Studies 175 (2):503-529.
The Dimension of Sound in Flusser.Annie Goh - 2013 - Flusser Studies 17 (1).
The Emergence of Sound Art: Opening the Cages of Sound.Carmen Pardo - 2017 - Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 75 (1):35-48.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2020-01-02

Total views
24 ( #471,195 of 2,499,776 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
4 ( #169,732 of 2,499,776 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes