In this paper I will analyze John McDowell’s broad account of practical rationality and moral reasons, which he mainly puts forward in his articles “Are moral requirements hypothetical imperatives?” (1978) and “Might there be external reasons?” (1995). My main aim is to argue that from a philosophical perspective, no less than from an empirical one, McDowell’s account of practical rationality is not a realistic one. From a philosophical point of view, I will argue that his intellectualist account is not convincing; and if we consider his virtue-ethical ideal of practical rationality in light of the model of human cognition, we also realize that moral behavior is not immune to cognitive biases and does not always flow from robust traits of character like virtues. At the same time, this puts at stake his strong thesis of moral autonomy – the idea that with the ‘onset of reason’ moral beings are no longer determined by ‘first nature’ features.

The majority of legal systems in Western democracies accord special treatment to religions, e.g. exemptions from generally applicable laws if they conflict with religious convictions. Other beliefs do not usually enjoy such far‑reaching tolerance on the part of the state. The article raises the question of how granting such privilege to religious views can be justified. Arguments of some philosophers (e.g. Thomas Hobbes’) which suggest that an intolerant attitude might sometimes be disadvantageous are in fact only instrumental, and do not prove that tolerance is a moral virtue. This last claim only follows from the arguments of John Stuart Mill and John Rawls, who exemplify two basic approaches in ethics, i.e. utilitarianism and deontology. None of the analyzed arguments for freedom of conscience and religion distinguishes between religious and other beliefs, which suggests that the existing differences in their moral and legal treatment cannot be justified. Therefore, the question arises of whether legal regulations regarding religious and other beliefs should not be equated, so that religious views are not privileged.

The general aim of the essay is to pose the question of the relationship between the elements of a socially shared, general image of the world (using Aron Gurevich’s terminology) and the possibility of constructing the idea of autonomous music. Musical autonomy is understood here as the thesis that the order of music is independent from any other order, e.g. social, cultural etc. Hence the focus of these considerations is on cultural images of music that situate music beyond external social conditions. Several possibilities of this type are considered, such as the Pythagorean connection between music and the cosmic order, the Iranian concept of Aša, and the ancient Chinese connection between music and the cosmo-political order. Shamanism is considered as a possible archaic source for this kind of mental operation. These considerations do not aim at any kind of archaistic reduction, but rather at describing the cultural-historical conditions that made the very idea of autonomous music possible.

Music occupies a special place in George Steiner’s thinking: “Three areas: the essence and name of God, higher mathematics and music (what is the connection between them?) are located at the limits of language” (Steiner, Errata). The seemingly rhetorical question in parentheses turns out to be a source of deep controversy, the essence of which is revealed in historical-genealogical reflection. Steiner attempts to incorporate Romantic metaphysics within the traditional scholastic symbiosis of Biblical creationism and Pythagoreanism, which reveals his philosophy of music to be entangled in a range of contradictions. On the one hand, a critical reading of Steiner's works uncovers the difficulties posed by the attempt to reconcile pre- and post-Enlightenment culture; on the other hand, the still unused opportunities offered by Romanticism and its modernist continuations are clearly visible. Musical aesthetics, rooted in the idea of infinity, plays a crucial role in these divagations.

The arche–arte dualism (concrete–abstract) is fundamental and basic, due to its universality and comprehensive generative function. This duality characterizes our actions in every dimension, and is thus necessarily involved in cognitive and creative acts. The “arteic” includes the categories of consciousness, consideration, calculation, ordering, knowledge, intellect, and artificiality. On the other hand, the “archeic” refers to that which is, in us, subconscious, eternal, primordial, innate, instinctive, and natural. When this basic duality is posited at the outset, it furnishes an analytical‑interpretative‑synthesizing tool that can be applied to diverse facts. The omnipresence and explanatory potential of the arche‑arte dualism are illustrated through musical examples. The dual nature of sound is thereby revealed to be a structural model for the subconscious sensations that music evokes in us.