[lit-ideas] Re: "Describe the aroma of coffee"
- From: "Julie Krueger" <juliereneb@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 03:29:03 -0500
I'm suddenly reminded of all the Why Did the Chicken Cross the Road philo
jokes ....
Bearing in mind that it is 3 a.m., and that the last passing nod I made in
the direction of any real phil of language was when the dinosaurs roamed the
earth, I will nonetheless essay a question here.
When children learn language, words (understanding first, then gradually
speaking), they do so to some extent by context and process of elimination.
"See the red bird?" "Let's put on your red sweater." "Can you catch the
red ball?" "You have a red ball and a blue ball!" "There's a pretty blue
bird on your red sweater!" As the kiddo's brain sorts through the
variations, the child learns to associate a given visual perception with the
words "blue" and "red", and physical objects with "sweater", "ball", and
"bird". I won't push things by questioning human perception across the
board, but at the very least it seems quite likely that there is no
objectively demonstrable proof that what you are experiencing when you
visually perceive the colour "red" is the same as what I am experiencing
when I visually perceive the same coloured object. We agree to call each
"red" because in our experience, the perception of that colour is what we
have learned by context and process of elimination to call "red". Asking if
one can describe the aroma of coffee seems to me tentamount to asking if one
can describe the colour of red. One can describe "red" relative to other
colours (purple would have been a better example but I'm not going to go
back and edit the birds and balls and sweaters, so sue me; one could say in
response to "can you describe 'purple'?", "'purple' is what it looks like if
you mix red and blue".) However, unless one had a conception of "red" and
"blue", "purple" could not be described in that manner. Likewise with
"chocolaty", etc.
Aren't sensory perceptions inherently inexplicable, but only referable (is
that a word?) by using other already established descriptors? For that
matter descriptions of ANY words are predicated on previously agreed upon
labels. If I am talking with someone who is learning English, and they say,
"que es 'red'?", I can think of no way to describe it (in either language).
I either point to a couple different things that are (what I call) red, or
consult my dictionary and produce "rojo". I have no clue whether McCreery
& Geary have the same olefactory experience I do when smelling the same cup
of coffee. I don't know wheather "red" (what we all point to and agree to
call "red") looks the same to either of them as it looks to me. Pushed to
the logical extreme, can ANY word be "described" (as opposed to "defined")?
Sometimes it seems to me that the notion of any real, objective
communication is tenuous at best. A tangential aside .... this always makes
me start wondering about synesthesia...
Julie Krueger
breaking from sorting stashes of papers (have you ever run across something
you wrote in your youth, which you felt truly passionate about, and thought,
"what the hell was WRONG with me? I couldn't possibly have perceived life
that way! Scary. Just scary.)
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 2:35 AM, Mike Geary <atlas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> JL:
> (snip) "So what's the moral?"
>
>
> The moral is that aromas are easy. I describe the aroma of coffee as the
> scent of coffee sent through the air and not just the veritable air, but ens
> realis itself (as distinct from the other Enns). The aroma of coffee is
> unique in and of itself, no description needed, thank you. Taste is the
> true test of the philosopher. Especially the taste of chicken, for
> everything tastes LIKE chicken. What do frog legs taste like? Chicken.
> What do snakes taste like? Chicken. What do fried dill pickles dipped in
> peanut butter taste like? Chicken. What does broccoli taste like? Moldy
> chicken. Etc., per omnia saecula saeculorum as we say in Memphis. Here
> some definition IS necessary since all tastes depend on the taste of chicken
> -- or "the bird" as we call it in Memphis -- as in: "Are you giving me the
> bird? Thank you!" What Witters really wanted to know was what does chicken
> taste like? Everything. And so we're back to old Plotinus. Chicken is the
> One!
>
> Mike Geary
> Head Minister
> Memphis Metaphysical Ministry
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
> *To:* lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Cc:* andreas@xxxxxxxxxx ; teemu17@xxxxxxxxx
> *Sent:* Sunday, April 20, 2008 11:04 PM
> *Subject:* [lit-ideas] Re: "Describe the aroma of coffee"
>
> MEMPHIS, TN. Philosopher discusses the aroma of coffee.
>
> "Describe the aroma of coffee"; that's the usual way Mike Geary starts his
> Monday morning classes. The practicum is by a foreigner, J. L. Speranza, who
> usually has a repartee, "What coffee?", "Kenya or Colombia Supremo?".
>
> GEARY: The idea that you can describe the aroma of coffee is
> Wittgensteinian.
>
> What do you mean?
> G: Well, let me be biographical: I started drinking coffee when I was 14
> -- drinking it black [silence].
>
> So?
>
> G: Well, that was my first paradox. Russell said, 'black' can be written
> in black ink. It's heterological.
>
> But 'black' hardly describes the _aroma_ of coffee?
>
> G: Not sure about that. A black cigarrette describes the kind of tobacco
> it is made of. Not your Virginia Slim types McCreery prefers.
>
> Tell us more about your addiction to the aroma.
>
> G: Well, I used to drink coffee like a reformed alcoholic, always a cup of
> coffee in my right hand, sometimes my left. Until the last decade or so I
> would drink at least a dozen cups a day. If you multiply by seven, that a
> lotta cups a week. Always black.
>
> So you are an expert in _that_ aroma?
>
> G: Well, hard to describe. I'd drink late into the night and it never kept
> me awake -- which is odd for a coffee of that strong aroma. Could have been
> all the beer I drank alongside the coffee that counteracted the caffeine.
>
> JL interrupts, HA HA HA.
>
> G (continues): I still have 2 or 3 mugs of French Roast (espresso grind)
> in the morning
>
> JL: Describe that.
>
> G: Describe the odor of your bollocks. But none after that, don't even
> think about coffee after the morning libations of coffee.
>
> So you are not an addict?
>
> G: Actually, I think I could get addicted to B&B rather in the morning and
> give up the coffee for good, but who can afford that? Could Wittgenstein
> afford that and succeed, I mean survive?
>
> You still haven't addressed the topic of the pictorial picture of reality.
>
> G: Well, our language is not well fit for _odours_. I smell a rat, they
> say. A dead rat, they mean, but won't say. It's part of what here in the
> ministry call an hypostasis or implicature, _suppositio_. When Wittgenstein
> said, "Unschreibe das Aroma der Koffee" he was trying to be witty. His aunt
> was a princess you know. It would hardly be "just coffee" for them. But _a
> variety_ of coffee.
>
> So he was refuting Frege?
>
> G: In a way yes. The sense of an expression is hardly the reference of the
> description. Smell-of-coffee is not a Fregean concept. It's like the
> 'concept' of a 'horse'. There are many aromas and many coffees. And many
> palates too. What's chocolaty for McCreery (white palate) is not chocolaty
> for other palates, etcetera.
>
> So Wittgenstein wins?
>
> G: Well, it was just what he dictated to G. E. M. Anscombe, and her German
> was not so good. We never will know what Wittgenstein had in his nutty head
> of his.
>
> Nutty?
> G: Yes, trying to be fun all the time. Describe the aroma of coffee.
> That's a rude remark. In German it's natural to issue imperatives like that.
> Then he proceeds with rhetorical questions that only confuse the issue
> further. Perhaps if he had used another example, "Describe the farts of
> Peter Strawson", we could have _advanced_ philosophically. Odor is the realm
> of eschatological metaphysics really. "It smells like ..." is a miracle of
> grammar. People say "It smells like ..." when the thing actually _smells_
> not _like_ .... The grammar of 'smell' does not allow for the construction
> directive, and has to be mediated with 'like'.
>
> Is that Chomskyan?
>
> G: In part. The people who can describe smells are those working in the
> sewages. Like eskimos have 50 words for snow. Sewage people have 60 or more
> (I've been told) words for shit.
>
> Does this compare to sperm and orgasm?
>
> G: Yes. You cannot _describe_ an orgasm in Japanese unless you know
> Japanese. And the same for the different languages. The _smell_ of sperm
> however, is universal, and, to echo R. Paul, while you may not describe it
> (unschreibe) you can Point To It, Refer to It.
>
> With words?
>
> G: Well, Paul prefers ostensively.
>
> But does that count as a 'description'?
>
> G: You see. That was my criticism to McCreery. He describes Kenya coffee
> as chocolaty, but when you ask him to describe the aroma of chocolate, he
> describes it as Kenya coffee. Very circular, in conception. And he thinks
> Words Works.
>
> So what's the moral?
>
> G: Epicurus, and before him, Aristippos, said, "Go by the smells". "Smell
> of lemons". Smell of _rotten_ lemons? Dogs are good at smell (as Helm knows)
> and God. Dog and God Smell Good.
>
> -----------
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car listings at AOL
> Autos <http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851>.
>
>
Other related posts:
