高階音樂存有學中的作品類型辯論是否只對哲學本身有益？

Whether the Work Type Debates in Higher-Level Musical Ontology Are Useful Just for Philosophy Itself ?

最近，音樂存有學家關心：什麼事物是一個特定音樂形式中的藝術品。安德魯‧卡尼亞（Andrew Kania）相信那些作品類型辯論為他的音樂經驗帶來哥白尼革命，但李·布朗（Lee B. Brown）和詹姆斯·揚（James O. Young）都認為卡尼亞搞錯了，那些辯論對欣賞實踐毫無幫助，最多對哲學本身有益。我在這篇文章中回應他們的批評，替作品類型辯論的實用價值辯護。我主張這種辯論會激勵我們在不同種類的藝術事物間轉換注意力，帶來截然不同的欣賞經驗。 Recently, musical ontologists cared about what types of objects are artworks in a specific music form. Andrew Kania believed that these work type debates initiated a sort of Copernican revolution in his experience of music, but Lee B. Brown and James O. Young both claimed that Kania was wrong; these are useless for our appreciative practice, and at best are useful just for philosophy itself. In this article, I respond to their criticism and defend the practical value of the debates. I argue that the debates may have us shift our attention between different types of art objects, and result in an entirely different experience of appreciation.