Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 July 2008
David Pugmire has argued that secularists can genuinely appreciate religious music because of our imaginative powers combined with the ‘Platonic’ nature of the emotions expressed in such music. I argue that Pugmire is wrong on both counts. Religious music is ‘Platonic’ not because it is subject to levels of imagination but because it has a definite object which makes imaginative readings inferior. Moreover, since religious music does have a clear object taken by the believer as real, a gap exists that cannot be bridged by the imagination of the secularist, even imagination of the emotional ‘last instance’.
1 Pugmire, D., ‘The Secular Reception of Religious Music’, Philosophy 81 (January, 2006), 76CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
2 Ibid., 75–76.
3 Ibid., 71.
4 Moravcsik, , ‘Understanding and the Emotions’, Dialectica 36, No. 2–3 (1982), 208–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Kivy, P., Music Alone (Ithaca: Cornell, 1990), 175–179Google Scholar. Pugmire, 75–76.
5 Republic V, 476–480. Symposium, 203–212. Moravcsik, 209–210.
6 Pugmire, 76. Emphasis mine.
7 This is why Moravcsik and Kivy call property-demanding emotions like respect ‘Platonic’ attitudes.
8 Pugmire, 79.
9 Ibid., 70.