"Let us take the case of Mr. A, who is a worthy man that I love, and Mr. B, who is a fool that I hate. The love and hate appropriately belong to me; the worthiness and ignorance appropriately belong to them. Can we say this is a 'love' person because I love him or a 'hate' person because I hate him? To speak from this perspective, inner and outer are different functions, and self and other have different names."
"Since music must naturally have [qualities], and emotions must naturally arise from feelings, then [music] has no connection to grief and joy; grief and joy have no relation to sound. When both name and reality are removed, then [the distinction] becomes completely clear."
Third-century Chinese philosopher Ji Kang rejected the theory that music carries emotions from composer to listener. Instead, he argued emotions belong to the listener and are released or triggered by music rather than transmitted through it. Ji Kang used analogies comparing emotional responses to music with how people love worthy individuals or hate foolish ones—the love and hate belong to the person feeling them, not to the objects themselves. Similarly, sadness evoked by music originates within the listener's emotional capacity, not within the sound itself. This framework suggests music and emotions operate as distinct domains that interact without one containing or transferring the other.
Read at Warpweftandway
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]