A matter of taste

 The little journal Salmagundi had a symposium on taste and published a transcript that, to my taste, captures the fun of philosophical discussions.

I like the topic. Philosophers tend to get in over their heads, and I like those who take on humbler topics. Instead of reading about the concept of justice, I like J.L. Austin’s paper on what we are doing when we make excuses. I thought Philippa Foot’s examination of rudeness was brilliant. Ethics involves human behavior, and to understand human behavior, including rude behavior, you have to account for personality and culture. 

Accounting for taste is difficult because of “the radical disparities of human response” to just about anything, including works of art, as moderator Robert Boyers put it. Images of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center inspired celebrations as well as mourning. The arrival of the Beatles in the United States was greeted with joy and with predictions of the end of civilization. Often, we’re inclined so say that these responses are not just a matter of taste but some kind of moral failure.

I also like the topic because I so often find myself arguing against majority opinion. The poets I need are not the great poets. You’ll find more Charles Reznikoff than Shakespeare in this collection of notes. I’d like to explain that. Is it just a matter of taste?

• Source: “Good taste, bad taste, no taste, why taste?” Salmagundi, Fall-Winter, 2024-2025.

https://salmagundi.skidmore.edu/articles/780-good-taste-bad-taste-no-taste-why-taste