4 ms·

I'm a little confused. She follows describing people with good/bad taste immediately with the statement that there is no system for taste. If it is all relative

I'm a little confused. She follows describing people with good/bad taste immediately with the statement that there is no system for taste. If it is all relative, then how is she determining that someone has good or bad taste? Is there anything between moral relativism and mathematical proof? Just your own ineffable belief that you are right?

customguy 2mo ago
well yes, you can't help but have your own taste, and like the taste of others according to your taste of taste(s?). And I think taste is subjective by definition, it doesn't compete with "objective taste" because that makes no sense.
jmbwell 2mo ago
Someone with questions about this excerpt of Sontag on taste would do well to read the rest of the work, which does a fuller job of drawing distinctions between sensibilities like taste, and systematic ideas like good/bad, morality, relativism, mathematics, proofs, and wrong/right.
- MichaelZuo 2mo ago
  This seems to be circular. Wouldn’t anyone need some reading “taste” in the first place to decide to read more. And if they already have it, why would they need to read it? If it’s all relative there can be no globally valid, or fixed, reference points by definition.
- ghtbircshotbe 2mo ago
  It looks like it's only 15 pages and I do like camp, so I think I may have a go at it
jhbadger 2mo ago
Even if something is relative, you can compare it to what other people believe. If most people who know person X think X has "good taste" (that is, that their tastes more or less agree, or at least that they aspire to having similar taste like how more people admire those who like classical music than listen to it themselves) then it is reasonable to say that person X has "good taste".
ToucanLoucan 2mo ago
> If it is all relative, then how is she determining that someone has good or bad taste? Is there anything between moral relativism and mathematical proof? Social proof. Everyone has taste and everyone's taste in a given space is influenced and informed by the taste of others. It's mostly a consensus model. Newer members of a given community arise into said community and learn from it what "good" means, which can sound authoritarian but is really just... voluntary. If you like, for example, mens formal wear you will follow publications and noted figures in the mens formal wear space, you will learn what "good" means to them, and will emulate it out of a desire to fit in with them. As you get more knowledgeable in that space, you will develop your taste, enhanced by them, and ideally eventually contribute your own ideas to that mix. Some will be accepted, some will be rejected, again by group consensus. It's a lot like language. If you want to speak a language you have to learn it first. If you go to France and simply blurt out French words at people, even with perfect annunciation, you will be incomprehensible to them. You learn structure, sentences, how to communicate ideas, how to inflect tone. How to tell the difference between telling someone to fuck off when they cut you off in traffic versus telling them to fuck off when they make a horrific pun. And, as people speak that language and use it daily, it will reliably change. The meanings of so many words in every language today are wildly different than they were even a hundred years ago.

customguy 2mo ago

well yes, you can't help but have your own taste, and like the taste of others according to your taste of taste(s?). And I think taste is subjective by definition, it doesn't compete with "objective taste" because that makes no sense.

jmbwell 2mo ago

Someone with questions about this excerpt of Sontag on taste would do well to read the rest of the work, which does a fuller job of drawing distinctions between sensibilities like taste, and systematic ideas like good/bad, morality, relativism, mathematics, proofs, and wrong/right.

MichaelZuo 2mo ago
This seems to be circular. Wouldn’t anyone need some reading “taste” in the first place to decide to read more. And if they already have it, why would they need to read it? If it’s all relative there can be no globally valid, or fixed, reference points by definition.
ghtbircshotbe 2mo ago
It looks like it's only 15 pages and I do like camp, so I think I may have a go at it

jhbadger 2mo ago

Even if something is relative, you can compare it to what other people believe. If most people who know person X think X has "good taste" (that is, that their tastes more or less agree, or at least that they aspire to having similar taste like how more people admire those who like classical music than listen to it themselves) then it is reasonable to say that person X has "good taste".

ToucanLoucan 2mo ago

> If it is all relative, then how is she determining that someone has good or bad taste? Is there anything between moral relativism and mathematical proof? Social proof. Everyone has taste and everyone's taste in a given space is influenced and informed by the taste of others. It's mostly a consensus model. Newer members of a given community arise into said community and learn from it what "good" means, which can sound authoritarian but is really just... voluntary. If you like, for example, mens formal wear you will follow publications and noted figures in the mens formal wear space, you will learn what "good" means to them, and will emulate it out of a desire to fit in with them. As you get more knowledgeable in that space, you will develop your taste, enhanced by them, and ideally eventually contribute your own ideas to that mix. Some will be accepted, some will be rejected, again by group consensus. It's a lot like language. If you want to speak a language you have to learn it first. If you go to France and simply blurt out French words at people, even with perfect annunciation, you will be incomprehensible to them. You learn structure, sentences, how to communicate ideas, how to inflect tone. How to tell the difference between telling someone to fuck off when they cut you off in traffic versus telling them to fuck off when they make a horrific pun. And, as people speak that language and use it daily, it will reliably change. The meanings of so many words in every language today are wildly different than they were even a hundred years ago.