One of my favourite philosophers wrote a paper in a philosophical journal, the paper was called ‘Relativism is absolutely false’. Not only is this hilarious, it is also right. I get occasional nagging doubts that on here I am too dichotomous; wine is either sub-interest or lovely. I am of the opinion that nice things are nicer than nasty things, and so nice things are worth a bit of time discussing. I hope that my notes indicate that when I like something I don’t think it is as good as everything else that I’ve liked, but there is some qualification about its degree of loveliness. I suppose one wine has to be ranked relative to others, but in no way do I think a linear scoring method can assist with this. If I were to give scores I can see that much as there can be five-star Grand Cru Burgundy, there can also be five-star Savennières, and five-star Sancerre (made by l’homme Vacheron, of course). To suggest that these wines exist on a comparable scale seems downright weird to me. The world of wine is a rich, varied thing with plenty of unique facets and interesting styles and within that melange I think it best to compare like with as like as possible. Words seem more useful than numbers when describing this scheme of over-lapping qualities. So, much as giving a number after each wine would seem to confirm my disclaimer that when it comes to wine there is an objective reality out there, I’d much rather write a bit and describe exactly why a wine is objectively scrummy and how it displays that charm.
To comment without logging in, enter your name below and then check "I'd rather post as guest".