Taste And Aesthetic Judgment: Hume And Brillat-Savarin

Is Describing A Sensation The Same As Making A Judgment?

To describe a fruit as sour, to enjoy its appearance and to admire its place within a painting are different kinds of statement. One describes a sensory quality; another expresses a personal encounter; the third evaluates a composition. In ordinary language, taste moves easily between these fields.

That proximity also opens a philosophical enquiry: what resemblance is there between distinguishing sensory details and evaluating a work of art? David Hume’s Of the Standard of Taste, first published in 1757, approaches the question through literature and the arts. This reading follows the paragraph-numbered edition at Hume Texts Online.

Why Does Hume Discuss A Cask Of Wine?

Hume retells a story attributed to Sancho. Two of Sancho’s relations assess the same wine: one notices a trace of leather, the other of iron. When the cask is emptied, an old key attached to a leather thong is discovered at the bottom. Hume uses this literary example to reflect on discrimination. (ST 15–16.)

What matters for our reading is that the named qualities can be related to the object. Leather and iron identify separate details rather than functioning as elaborate words of praise. Hume draws an analogy with delicacy in aesthetic discrimination. The story does not establish that every judgment about art can be verified by finding a single object as one finds the key in the cask.

What Do Practice And Comparison Change?

As the essay develops, practice, comparison, good sense and freedom from prejudice appear among the conditions of a good critic. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy stresses the normative nature of Hume’s standard. The question is why some aesthetic assessments deserve greater weight, rather than whether every liking should be declared true or false in the manner of a factual proposition.

Hume’s language also carries historical hierarchies. We need not turn his distinctions between superior and inferior taste into present-day rankings of people or cuisines. Indeed, the essay’s later paragraphs allow differences arising from temperament, period and circumstances that make neither side defective. (ST 28–30.) A philosophical enquiry can make a judgment’s grounds visible while leaving room for personal difference.

How Does Brillat-Savarin Divide The Experience Of Taste?

In the second meditation of Physiologie du goût, Brillat-Savarin names direct, complete and reflected sensation. A first impression expands through the food’s fragrance and is followed by a judgment about what has been experienced. His peach example gives the encounter a sequence rather than treating it as a single instant. (§11; the French edition followed here dates from 1867.)

The historical account distinguishes different things happening within an experience. An impression and the statement made about it can be considered separately. Its physiological propositions are not adopted here as a complete account of current sensory science. Taste and smell are now investigated through other methods; our subject is this nineteenth-century way of articulating an experience.

• Explore smell and aroma through current research

Why Does Gastronomy Extend Beyond The Plate?

The third meditation defines gastronomy as reasoned knowledge concerning human beings insofar as they nourish themselves. Brillat-Savarin places natural history, physics, chemistry, cookery, commerce and political economy within its scope. Classifying an ingredient, preparing it and tracing its circulation belong to that broader field. (§18.)

Placed beside one another here, the two accounts illuminate different questions: Hume asks under what conditions a judgment can carry weight, while Brillat-Savarin enlarges the knowledge surrounding the experience of food. One opens the problem of evaluation; the other makes the scope of gastronomy a subject for reflection.

• The Philosophy Of The Table: A Private Mouthful, A Shared Meal

What Can A Sentence About Food Bring Into View?

Describing a pepper-based hot sauce through a herbal aroma, a glossy surface or a particulate texture directs attention towards particular features. Saying we like that sauce expresses a judgment about our encounter with it. Explaining how those features work together can give reasons for the judgment. Description, experience and evaluation thus do different jobs within the same text.

The distinction allows reflection on gastronomy without turning the table into an examination of anyone’s preferences. We can attend to a particular relationship among ingredient, object and language. Hume’s key opens one question and Brillat-Savarin’s peach another. Between them, the words surrounding food reveal different forms of attention.

• Read about conversation and sharing within table aesthetics
• See how an ingredient participates in a painted composition