We had an interesting discussion about wine on Friday. Some of you seem to indicate that one has all the right in the world not to like Clos de los Siete (above), a wine you can buy for about $15. I agree.
Now, while our preference for wine is somewhat subjective, there must be something in the Clos de los Siete, 2007, that is beyond a -mere- subjective opinion on my part. Namely, the quality of the juice itself. This is –ultimately- what decides the difference between a good and a mediocre wine.
What makes "good wine" good? A good combination of terroir, viticulture and vinification.
1- Terroir addresses the the influence of the place where the grapes are grown. Variations in factors, such as micro-climate (topography), soil properties (drainage and water availability, but possibly also chemical differences). The right viticulture: Yield is very important, this is how many grapes are grown per hectare of land; it is quoted in hectoliters per hectare e.g. 50 hl/ha. For example, fewer grape bunches per vine the more intense their flavor will be. At the very best vineyards yields can be as low as 30hl/ha, e.g. top quality Burgundy, as opposed to around 100hl/ha for non-quality wines, e.g. Liebfraumilch. The right vinification: Grapes must be made into wine as soon after they have been picked as possible, because contact with air causes oxidization, which spoils their flavor. Understanding the effects of air, as well as temperature control during fermentation have been breakthroughs in modern wine-making techniques. It can work in art as well.
So whereas one is entitled to say "Triff, I hate Clos de los Siete", saying "Clos de los Siete is a bad wine" is simply not true.
4 comments:
Well we did discuss wine on the 11 o'clock class but it was Malbec, not Clos de los Siete. What makes a certain label of wine good? We agreed that the opinion of the experts was: the quality of the juice, taste, etc. And when it came to the question of whether Malbec was good or not, the pragmatic truth would be yes. But philosophically who sets up the standards of what makes a certain wine good wine? Doesn't it ultimately end up being a matter of opinion, even if it's an expert's opinion, and the opinion of the masses? Hmmm...
Good point Cinthia. I did't say that there is not a bit of subjectivity in all this. Of course there is. Suppose you're trying two different good wines. How can you tell which one is better? It's there that we can better discuss the expert's opinion and the consensus of the masses. Let me give you an example. Why do we like McDonald's? Is it because they advertise so well? Maybe, but I think the main reason is that their burgers are tasty (I mean for the price). There are better burgers than those at MD, but we can say that for the price, they're pretty good. Right? There you are.
Well i believe that Plato said once: Phylosopy starts doubting..is not this true?
So if this is true i agree with Cinthia that we all have the chance of doubting everything like the quality of wine. But as the time passes and "we" as community develop our skills in all the areas, we also learn that certain things when they have certain characteristics are bad or good, and sometimes we go for the majorities of opinions to get to a point, but we NEED to believe that our single opinion even beeing right can be wrong in front of the opinion of thousand's, because what rules us is the majority. I want to close with an example: What about if people would start questioning the colours? Is not a colour a convey of opinions?
Well, to a point, anything labeled good or bad is an opinion. Without the general consensus of the majority, nothing is good or bad, everything just is. Guns can be deemed good or bad depending on the context of which said guns is used. As well depending on a society. In an islamist extremist society suicide bombing may be seen as good or holy, while in a western society just as ours it is seen as unholy and bad. As a philosopher you should take into account the oppinions of the masses or society before your own, so as to better judge what is 'good' or 'bad" whether in taste or morality.
But as well there is a difference between an action, or idea, and something that is formed through labor, such as wine. For instance since their is a market for wine, and said wine has to be grown, packaged, and whatever other labor is put into the wine, it is safe to say that something made through labor can be justified good or bad officially. It would depend on how said wine is making in sales compared to other wines in the market, how much labor is put into it versus other wines, and many other variables that make a wine good or bad based on its rank, or amount of labor put into it, within the wine market. Which is why it is safe to say an 1811 Chateau d’Yquem is good or better than a Woolworths House Red Wine which could be deemed a bad wine. To add another example if a toy manufacturer spent 3 minutes assembling a shoddy toy and very little labor into said toy, while another more prestigious toy company produced a toy that took much labor and many hours to make just one copy than it is safe to say one is bad and the other is good, respectively. As well you could look at sales or how the toy is ranked among other toys and etc etc, because it is a product of labor.
Now as to whether velcrow to some feels good against the skin or not, would really be an opinion. But it IS safe to make a generalization and say that velcrow feels bad to the touch against the skin based on the masses in agreement with said opinion.
~Julian Cano~ 9am, MWF
Post a Comment