The Problem with Turning Beer into Dessert

I am a philosophy professor, and I think relativism is not only wrong, but incoherent. This is also not an esoteric position, but a fairly standardly accepted one.

I do think there are objective metrics to determine better or worse works in the arts, just as in morals and science. The fact-value dichotomy has been successfully criticized by Putnam and others. And yes, there are arrogant people who take pride in liking certain things. But that doesn't mean there are no objective grounds to determine that Beethoven or Miles Davis are better composers than Justin Bieber. What one enjoys is one thing; the qualities of a work are another.

Certainly, the fact that I like something doesn't make it better, or the fact that I dislike something doesn't make it worse.

 

It's the other way around, the standard I employ is based on impersonal factors.

Some of my favorite things in life are garbage, some of the things I hate are extraordinary. Most people can't pull these two things apart. I love a lot of things from popular culture and pop. I like Fritos and boxed Max and Cheese. I don't pretend it's gastronomically of the same quality as the French Laundry. Same with other art forms. I don't like Hitchcock or Renoir. But they are incredible filmmakers, objectively: their technique, cinematography, casting, scripts... not my thing, though.

I can enjoy or hate or be indifferent to something knowing it is a matter of preference, without equating quality with preference. I can enjoy a slushy sour, and understand why people enjoy it, just like I can enjoy a movie like Taken. I'm not going to pretend that these are great because of I happen to enjoy them. What is arrogant is to think one's preferences are the only metric of quality.

 

I think there's levels of analysis at different levels of generality and dimension.

For example, going from general to specific:

1) At the most abstract level, we can argue about the quality of the idea: here I think there are certain factors: non-redundancy being one, e.g. for example, not simply trying to do something that has been done ad nauseam, simply replicating it without anything new. We can play within an idea (lambic) but to simply imitate lessens one's objective value: if you invent the phone, it carries value over merely producing phones.

But there's many other factors here: an idea can be bad because it is a cliche, incoherent (a clear hazy!), or new but plain uninteresting.

2) We can evaluate accomplishment of the idea, regardless of whether it is a good one : if you are doing a pilsner, how successfully do you realize the paradigm of the style. If you are doing a slushy sour, how well do you pull it off? If you want diarrhea in a glass, how runny is your poo?

3) We can evaluate coherence factors between components: for example, we can look in an IPA at the specific balance between hops, malt, adjuncts, yeast... etc. These balance metrics are highly contingent on the style and idea at hand, but they also hold internal processes that.

4) We can evaluate coherence factors between subcomponents: for example, to stick with the IPA, how the distinctness of the hop profile was pulled off, relative to the aromatics, flavors, bittering profile. Or the quality of the hop crop used. Or the uniqueness and depth of the yeast. Or the way barrel adds or subtracts. We can measure this in relative factors, some qualitative (IBU) and some quantitative (bitterness feel).

5) We can evaluate internal qualitative factors: relative to ingredients and elements, we can say the malts are too meek, that the aromatics of the hop are too dull because the IPA is old... etc.

And so on. Relative to all of these, we have concrete chemical and even physical metrics: we can measure all sorts of variables in the brewing process and end results, including psychological and phenomenological metrics, using different measurement apparatuses, and we have a long and beautiful history of brewing and craft beer to assess the innovativeness and quality of ideas.

There is no universal formula for all beers. It has to taken on a case by case basis, style by style, and idea by idea basis, guided by the factors I mentioned among many others. I'm not proposing a science of beer quality!

 

I know, I'm insufferable online. Super chill in person tho.

 

I don't think we have a global formula to weigh in all these factors holistically, but I don't think that leads to relativism. We set the standards of objectivity, but once set it is not up to us. Its like a game: we create the rules of the game of chess, but once created these are objective. It is not up to me or you how a pawn moves. Same with beer: we establish what the ideal qualities of an IPA are, and then measure on the basis of that yardstick whether we have accomplished what we set out to do. We can also evaluate an idea, at the most abstract level, as I mentioned, and while there is no quantitative metric there are factors that make it more than mere whim.

It's like other art forms: there is no formula that tells us that Casablanca is better than Waterworld. But we can point to things like acting, script-writing, pacing, etc...

 

Yeah that's actually much more helpful and rigorous. I was just improvising on the fly responding.

 

Great album. The 80s elevator music stuff though is the slushy sour phase of his career. Scofield kills it though.