Objectively taste can be the sensations of a food, like salty, sweet, sour etc. I've seen people make the case that food abominations like ranch dressing and nacho cheese on pizza are objectively "good" because they contain large amounts of fat, salt and sugar, and that's what makes something taste good.
This ignores the other definition of taste, popularized by Voltaire during the Enlightenment which involves discriminating between the good and the bad. It is a value judgment. Something is bad because it's made from bad ingredients, regardless of whether the balance of fat, salt and sugar could be pleasing. Which is why Taco Bell can never be good.
I side with Voltaire, because even though garbage can be made palatable I'd rather not eat it if I can help it.
What do you think?
>>7149989
>Something is bad because it's made from bad ingredients, regardless of whether the balance of fat, salt and sugar could be pleasing
Sure. But you're discussing two totally separate things: A value judgement of the food, and how it tastes. Why collude them? They are not mutually exclusive.
>>7149989
read the sticky, newfag
>>7149989
>that diagram
wew lad
the tongue can taste anything anywhere, I figured that out when I was 4
>>7149997
because words having multiple different meanings is too messy and "illogical" to the autistic mind. If his peas touch his mashed potatoes it's too much for him to handle; the amount of ambiguity in language is so overwhelming that he is incapable of communicating outside of korean bathroom graffitii forums.
>>7149997
>Why collude them?
They have been colluded in Western culture for a few hundred years. In 20th Century America rebelling against that double meaning became commonplace. Hence the old Star-Kist tuna commercial saying the don't want tuna with good taste, they want tuna that taste good.
I see it here all the time: one man's delicious is another man's disgusting (or pretentious) because of the value judgments associated with taste.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pJw3N4KmMQ
>>7149989
I'll tell you hwat, son. Sit down, and listen.
Alright, let's start with by saying taste is subjective - it is based on someones upbringing and habit of eating certain food products, E.G someone from Mexico might love super spicy super hot chili and corn and a Swedish person likes some nice salmon with pepper and lemons.
I want you to understand this before we go in. Alright, you ready to get enlightened?
Turns out our brains like things which are heavy in energy - it's sort of a thing that during evolution developed in our brain to help us survive. "Shit this food makes me feel good. I need me more of this"
Turns out, now that it's easy to get your hands on not only energy rich food, it's also really fast, easy and helluva lot cheaper than something from Meme Foods Co.
Now that doesn't mean everyone likes a Big Mac. Some people prefer to eat veggies with cheese.
And that's alright.
You know hwy, sonny boy?
Because taste is subjective.
You can't say something tastes bad because it was made from cheap ingredients - some of the greatest curry I have ever eaten came from a fast food indian joint.
>_> ...... <_< ....
UMAMI!!!!!!!!!
^0^
>>7150075
>You can't say something tastes bad because it was made from cheap ingredients
Sure you can, but you're just using the value judgment aspect of taste.
But I'll agree with your point. Some good things are inherently cheap, like veggies and beans, which is why your vegetable curry was delicious. The reason I'd judge the Big Mac unfavorably is because beef and cheese are not inherently cheap ingredients. Good beef and cheese are both expensive. So a sandwich made from the cheapest possible examples of ingredients that are not inherently cheap is going to be garbage, even if it manages to mash the fat and salt receptors our brains like having mashed.
My point is many would disagree because they don't like the judgment definition of taste.
>>7150105
>because they don't like the judgment definition of taste.
There isn't one.
There is a perception of taste. Full stop. Then, some people may choose to override that judgement based on a totally seperate value judgement (quality, price, etc.)
There are two separate issues here, not a "judgement definition of taste".
>>7150119
>There are two separate issues here, not a "judgement definition of taste".
Bullshit. Voltaire defined taste in Diderot and d'Alembert's Encyclopédie as the "capacity for discriminating" in the 18th Century. The idea has been part of our culture for a while.
>>7150149
That doesn't mean he was right, anon.
Eat big mac.
Fat, sugar, salt, triggers receptors in the brain. Taste=good.
Full Stop.
Then your judgement kicks in: I'm going to say I don't like this burger because (take your pick: it's cheap, fast food stigma, health concerns, McDonald's corporate image concerns, etc).
Two separate issues at hand here.
>>7149989
Well, fat and sugar have been shown time and time again to be addictive, independent of taste. IE. If you don't like the taste of something, you will like it once it's been associated with high amounts of fat and sugar.
That is, up until a certain point. As a nutritionist the most success I've had with overweight people is telling them about the 'feel good' point. Basically I inform my clients that they're going to feel like shit for a few weeks, because they're withdrawing from a high sugar/fat diet, but once they're getting all their nutrients, and the right amount/kind of exercise after about two weeks of consistency they'll hit a 'feel good' point, where they'll feel the best they've ever felt in their life. This gives them a clear, realistic, easy to achieve time frame. Forget about getting a body ready for summer, that kind of a body can take years to achieve. I let them know: Two weeks, that's all the suffering you'll have to go through. You still have to stay aware, because for up to three months you'll be at risk for relapse, but after two weeks you'll have something you can actually feel within yourself. So, yeah, nutrition tastes good to people who understand the contrast between being a food junkie and having a balanced diet/lifestyle. But you need to understand the contrast.
This is also why, in my view, self-awareness takes priority over nutrition, because having it makes nutrition natural.
TL;DR: It's about 90% association.
>>7150173
I don't care about whether or not "taste" having the association of judgment is "right" or not. The fact is that it's had that association in Western culture for a couple hundred years. You can't just pretend it doesn't.
We all have that friend who thinks fast food is fucking delicious. If you were choosing a restaurant to go out to with a group of friends you wouldn't let him be part of the decision making process because he has shit taste.
I'm not going to pretend I think the Big Mac tastes good because of fat, salt and sugar. The first bite, maybe. But after that it's cloying overkill of bad flavors and texture. And that is me making a value judgment, because I've had really great hamburgers, and the Big Mac isn't that. I know the Big Mac is terrible because I have a standard to judge it against - I know what a great burger tastes like. No amount of fat and salt will transform those grey meat patties into a good burger.
That's the judgment aspect of taste.
>>7150241
>And that is me making a value judgment
No, it's not. IT's just a taste judgement. You said so yourself:
>> it's cloying overkill of bad flavors and texture
A "value judgement" would be if you refused to eat the burger because you disagreed with McDonald's treatment of workers. Or if you have personal rule "no fast food", or something like that. What you described in that example was straight-up taste.
So I have congenital anosmia (I was born with no sense of smell), and while I can still taste food I'm fairly certain that I don't to the same extent as everyone else.
When I choose a meal I generally do it primarily based on texture rather than taste...
It's difficult to know though since I still struggle to grasp the concept of smell.
>>7150254
That's fucked up but I bet you aren't in danger of ever getting fat.
>>7150246
>No, it's not. IT's just a taste judgement.
It's both. I know the Big Mac a shit only because I know what a great burger tastes like, and I can taste just how far from a great burger it is. If my only reference point for burgers was fast food I might think the Big Mac was delicious. My judgment is based on my experience.
Taste is not objective, it's also a matter of the standards you set for food based on your experience.
>>7150254
My brother in law has the same thing. His favorite food in the world is meatloaf.
>>7150262
>It's both
You say that yet you keep saying "taste" but nothing that constitutes a value judgement.
>>My judgment is based on my experience.
Again: you tasted it, it doesn't taste very good in your opinion, so you don't eat it. Where's the value judgement?
>>Taste is not objective
I never said it was. Just that taste is separate from values.
>>7150277
>it doesn't taste very good in your opinion, so you don't eat it. Where's the value judgement?
It doesn't taste good to me only because it doesn't compare well to the great burgers I've had. I fails to live up to my expectations of what a burger ought to taste like. Back when I was a kid and had not yet tasted really great burgers I thought it tasted fine. But my experiences in life have changed my opinion. The Big Mac hasn't changed; I have. Now that I've tasted so much better what used to taste fine now tastes disgusting. That's pure judgment.
>>7149989
That map shows which taste can be best detected (out of all of them) in a specifc region of the tounge, among the test group.
The tounge can taste everything everywhere.
Also:
* Bitter [Plant poisons]
* Sweet [Carbohydrates]
* Sour [Spoilt food]
* Salty [Salt]
+ Hearty (Umami) [Protein]
+ Fatty [Fat]
The last two are quite new.
