I know I am suppose to use this blog entry to respond to a blog, but I didn't found one that really tickled my brain. Not only that, but I also have so many thoughts on today's class, so forgive me Professor Johnson, but I shall take this blog to further expiate my curiosities.
Honorary persons is what Davies compare musical instruments to, but why? Like I pointed out in class, I don't think this phrase is suppose to be taken literally. This phrase of "honorary persons," is suppose to be an exaggeration of some kind, a metaphor. Think of the word honor. Honor means to respect; honor your mother and your father, we honor our bodies, when we honor, we show respect to; no wonder Davies talks about this pertaining to instruments. There are many people who honor and respect their instrument, especially when there is a story behind it. Musicians honor their songs, artists honor their work, and in the case of Christians, we honor God. However, things get a bit misleading when he pairs the word honorary with persons in describing an instrument. When taken literally, how can we explain this? How can an inanimate object, that doesn't breathe, contain cognitive function, or have a heart beat or organs be a person.
I am almost certain that Davies meant to use the word persons as to show how much we respect instruments or whatever we love. Whatever we have an interest in, we usually hold it dear to us and treat it like we would treat another human being, or even better. We treat our valuables how we would treat someone, a person, worthy of respect. We develop this connection for something and a deep protection of it, whether it be because of monetary value, or because memories or attached to it, or even because it is just something we can call ours. There should not be a literal translation to what Davies says, because the worth of something and value f something depends on the connection a person places on it and how deep that connection is, could come close to it being called an honorary connection. I feel that sometimes, and I feel like I have said this before, we take things too literal and make them more difficult than they really are. I guess for this blog entry, that can be my question: Why try and make everything literal, isn't philosophy difficult enough?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
In this case, I think we need to take Davies literally -- he's defending a controversial, not commonplace, thesis: viz., that musical instruments are honorary persons. The milder thesis -- that instruments are merely valuable tools -- is too obvious to merit any kind of sustained philosophical attention. (And we can learn from his efforts; in particular, as I suggested in class, I think he confuses intrinsic value with personhood.)
Post a Comment