Record store asshole

“DE GUSTIBUS NON EST DISPUTANDUM”

“Now I really don’t care what your taste in music is but at the very least you could keep your snivelling little opinions to yourself when a customer has just spent $128 at your store.” Next Time I’ll Just Go To Amazon

Does the Latin saying, “There’s no disputing matters of taste” have application here and, if so, can it be seen to have a broader application to “Bitch” generally? There are reasons to support the affirmative in both cases.

The bitcher overheard the sales clerk make a “disparaging comment” about the band he, the bitcher, was going to see and how it wouldn’t be worth making the road trip to hear it. However, the bitcher gives no account of the reason(s) the clerk might have given for making what appears to have been a “knowledge claim”. I place the phrase “knowledge claim” in quotation marks (or inverted commas if you prefer) because, clearly, in spite of the fact that the “disparaging comment” appears to be a knowledge claim, without such reasons it can be no such thing. It is, in other words, only the opinion of the clerk. It is only a “matter of taste.”

However, and here we draw close to the disputatious nature of conflicts arising over matters of taste, “Next Time” refers to the clerk’s disparaging comment as little more than his “snivelling little opinions,” clearly a disparaging comment of his own. But – and this is important – “Next Time” gives no grounds for his disparaging comment either. We have a stand-off over matters of taste in music but is there a possible resolution?

Two possibilities emerge: (a) There IS disputing matters of taste since such matters contain within them the grounds of coherent dispute, or (b) Any such possible resolution must be itself just another matter of taste, a “second-order matter of taste” if you like, and so, by logical extension, there can be no meaningful disputes between them.

(a) One thinks of Montrealman who happens to like Bach. Does it make sense to say that his taste, in contrast to that of Next Time, might be considered superior and so coherently defensible in the event of any dispute between them? One is inclined to think so but the difficulty arises when Montrealman attempts to explain that superiority to Next Time who, because of his degraded taste in music, is unable to understand the reasons Montrealman brings forward. What can we conclude here? We can conclude that taste in music is closely related to intelligence but – and this is important – there is no bridging the intellectual gulf. So no, while there may be grounds for disputing matters of taste in this case, there can be no point in engaging in such a dispute.

(b) The attempt to resolve the question philosophically, by appealing to second-order matters of taste i.e., the principles by virtue of which one’s first-order principles governing matters of taste might be successfully adjudicated, must necessarily fail since either Next Time the shop clerk or even Montrealman himself for that matter – it doesn’t matter which – can invoke second-order principles of their own leading to each invoking third-order principles and so on into infinite regress. So the appeal to second-order principles governing matters of taste also fails.

So it seems that the saying holds true, that there is no disputing matters of taste. The “broader application to Bitch” mentioned above now becomes obvious. Since all bitches and, by extension all comments made on them, reside at the level of rank opinion, of matters of taste in the present context, there can be no successful adjudication of any conflicts which might arise between them.

Thank you for your patience and understanding (lol).

A pleasure as always,

Cheerio!