Is there a philosophical explanation for why humans enjoy music?

>>951392
>philosophical explanation
Is there a philosophical explanation for anything?

Just ask /sci/ 2bh, you might get an actual answer, or at least a few theories. Here you'll just get asspulling and conjecture followed by tired arguments.

File: music-notes.png (28KB, 632x924px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 632x924px

Esoteric tradition describes Creation as a series of ascending and descending musical scales

>>951432
Musical scales, finally without the meme, are literally a social structure.

>>951450
you mean, like gender?

>>951432
this looks like something Hunter Hunt-Hendrix would write up

Music affects deep emotional centers in the brain, jerking off dopamine all over. Brain process sound through memory circuits searching for recognizable patterns.

>>951432
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfvs4e4SZUQ

>>951535
was supposed to reply to
>>951450

>>951511
Yeah that doesn't explain shit. Dopamine IS the enjoyment you fucking pillock. God when will this meme end

>>951482
lmao you're right

File: 351495.jpg (80KB, 627x640px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 627x640px

>>951392
Music theory
>philosophical
Same as asking why we value beauty

>>951432
This is by far the stupidest thing I've ever seen posted on /his/ and I've seen a lot of stupid shit on this board

>>953497
Not really

>>953497
What makes music beautiful?

>>953540
Structure

>>953544
That depends. Most people here wouldn't be able to hear the progression and development of a musical theme at all.

>>954615
Most people do not notice the structure of their native language.

>>954633
That's true, but for entirely opposite reasons. Perception of musical themes is absolutely a learned ability and won't be something that someone who hasn't spent time actively attending the form of melodies will be capable of at all. It is essentially a foreign language, or more accurately, a set of foreign grammatical structures which have to be learned on a piece by piece basis, but only after the ability to perceive the key a piece is in intuitively has been developed in a given person. Before that, every aspect of music will be perceived thought immediate experience without regard to any higher structure beyond things like the beat pattern established through the time signature.

>>951426
this

>>954687
I agree that a different level of appreciation for music can be unlocked after active study of its elements.

But as to the question "What makes music beautiful?" I would rephrase it as "Why do we think some music as beautiful and other music as not?" Different cultures have different expectations in rhythm, instruments, tonality, lyrical content, and other things. The structure of Indian music is probably not heard to be as "beautiful" as Beethoven's Pathetique to a Western European's ear (provided that this hypothetical person is a casual listener that is not studied in music) .

File: 1447739694064.jpg (22KB, 480x311px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 480x311px

>>951392
Schopenhauer had some stuff to say on music, if Im not mistaken. He thought that Hegel was a hack for thinking poetry is the ultimate form of art, because even if the poem is beautiful, it wont be understood by people speaking different languages. Music on the other hand ius universal to all humans and apprently even some animals.
All in all Hegel was BTFO again.

But as usual read that shit yourself, /his/ is horrible at explaining things.