I'm not prepared to agree just yet that there are the differences between taste and judgment that you describe, even if such differences ought to be recognized. I am still of the opinion, or judgment, or impulsively it's my taste (based on some sensorial experience as ALL experiences must be --that in actual practice we mix up the words and are always unsure of the mix of them. Do I need to back to one of my books somewhere to quote jurist Oliver W. Holmes who argued a long time ago that feeling-opinion really decided cases, masquerading as reasoned judgment and clothed in all its fine robes? You look it up.
So I want very much to agree with you but even when we use our words as we'd prefer them to be used, we run the certain risk of not telling the truth about our thoujghts. This is where Cheerskep is right, to our everlasting frustration. WC --- Michael Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Apr 12, 2008, at 11:03 AM, William Conger wrote: > > > Your standard (I'd say outdated) definitions do > not > > account for the mixture of feeling in any > judgment, > > even to the point of directing it against > "reason". > > This is the big news in Damasio and other > > neurologists' findings. Now it seems we can't be > > rational without a heavy dose of irrational > feeling. > > Come on, William, I didn't counter "reason" and > "irrational feeling." > And I do not have a dispute or quarrel with > Damasio's thesis, which I > find persuasive. > > I said that using the term "taste" reflects (evokes, > conjures up the > notion of) a basis in a sensorial experience. > > Why have three synonyms, unless there's a difference > among them? > "Opinion," for example, connotes a personal judgment > that may or may > not be well-founded and tends to be expressed in the > midst of a > controversy. (Few would say that I have an opinion > about banana > pudding, unless that culinary delight was being > debated--as is the > case with Renee, a Noo Yawker, who doesn't > understand it.) "Judgment" > connotes a conclusion reached after a duration of > reflection and > evaluation. So what does "taste" connote: a choice, > a preference, even > a judgment that is based in--and even expressed in > terms of--a sensory > experience. Tastes, as the term is typically used, > embraces such > things as fashion, decor, the various arts, fine > food and wine, and > the like. When "taste" is used outside these fields, > it usually > connotes or suggests an appetitive reaction: He has > a taste for blood > sports [a double entendre, no less]. Her taste in > men is exotic [and, > implicitly, erotic]. > > > Note, moreover, that we don't use "taste" in this > analogical way when > we speak of animals. We don't say, Fido has a taste > for retrieving the > newspaper. Or, Kitty has a taste for yarn. Nor do we > use "taste" with > inanimate objects: an up-quark doesn't reveal a > taste for or against a > down-quark, nor an electron for a proton, nor rock > for scissors or > paper. > > > | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | > Michael Brady > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
