Lecterfan
Yeast, unleashed in the East...
- Joined
- 15/8/10
- Messages
- 2,062
- Reaction score
- 333
Greetings to anyone bored enough to be reading this thread.
I have been on and off this site for about 5 years now (never really posted and always forget my login and password so have to make a new profile every 18 months haha). It has consistently been a robust and reliable source of information. It has also, as with all open internet forums, been a highly entertaining, if somewhat voyeuristic, exercise in observing the interactions of people with vastly different views etc.
And because I finish Uni early on a Friday afternoon, I have had a couple of ales and thought I'd offer an observation.
There seem to (very roughly) be 3 Enlightenment-era categories of brewer that predominate.
The first is the Kant-ian brewer. The Kant-ian brewer is a deontologist. For them it is the act of brewing that is important. If things are done correctly (and in many cases this is what many non-Kant-ians would consider a reasonably complex procedure), then no major forethought need be devoted to the consequence of the brewing (other than to avoid making poor choices e.g. temperature, recipe formulation etc...but even these are considerations to be made in the actions of brewing, and mostly to avoid negative consequences). The deontological brewer decrees "if things are done correctly then by necessity a delightful and technically superior beer will follow". And I am sure that they are absolutely validated in their motto.
Then we have the Mills and Bentham brewer (MBB). The MBB is a Utilitarian...whatever results in the best beer with the least pain is the path followed by the MBB. The MBB is entirely concerned with the consequences of their actions...taking cues from the Empiricists, the MBB cries "it is with mine own senses that I doth drinketh of this beer, no other. To me the final product is of utmost importance; if the quality of the final product outweighs the initial effort and expense which the product demands then all is good". And I am sure also that they are validated in their thinking.
Finally we have the Hegel-ian Brewer. The Hegel-ian brewer sees the Thesis (the most technically superior brew can only come from intensive and rigorous scientific method using a number of traditional and progressive techniques with a certain quantity of traditional and progressive equipment), then sees the Antithesis (the end result is the most important, I cannot afford/understand and/or am unwilling/unable to worship at the feet of the Thesis and as long as my product tastes great I don't care if I was out by a few degrees or dont sparge the same way as others), and naturally moves finally to a Synthesis (while my end product is very important, there is much to be learned from the traditional AND the progressive and a certain amount of rigorous technique will improve both my beers and my knowledge). They also are validated in their thinking.
So, as we seenone are objectively better, but all are different. It is in this variation that we should rejoice. And finally, lets not forget that it is often the attempt to objectively judge things that leads to homogenous, unsound and unsustainable outcomes (just look at what international standards have done to some show dogs). Consistency within one brewer's practices is great, consistency between all brewers leads to megaswill. At the end of the day (to borrow from more Enlightenment thinkers, Berkeley and Hume) one persons Duvel is another persons cat piss flavour may well be objective (two people can identify the same hop), but whether it is nice or not is subjective (person A loves Amarillo, person B cant stand it).
Hope this didnt annoy anyone (hopefully it made someone chuckle), and if you think the Enlightenment era is too recent, I have an excellent analogy about homebrewing and ancient Greek philosophy also. Socratic brewing...hmmmm
Great site, great bunch of brewers.
Have a great weekend everyone.
Edit: Apologies if this should have been posted elsewhere on the forum.
I have been on and off this site for about 5 years now (never really posted and always forget my login and password so have to make a new profile every 18 months haha). It has consistently been a robust and reliable source of information. It has also, as with all open internet forums, been a highly entertaining, if somewhat voyeuristic, exercise in observing the interactions of people with vastly different views etc.
And because I finish Uni early on a Friday afternoon, I have had a couple of ales and thought I'd offer an observation.
There seem to (very roughly) be 3 Enlightenment-era categories of brewer that predominate.
The first is the Kant-ian brewer. The Kant-ian brewer is a deontologist. For them it is the act of brewing that is important. If things are done correctly (and in many cases this is what many non-Kant-ians would consider a reasonably complex procedure), then no major forethought need be devoted to the consequence of the brewing (other than to avoid making poor choices e.g. temperature, recipe formulation etc...but even these are considerations to be made in the actions of brewing, and mostly to avoid negative consequences). The deontological brewer decrees "if things are done correctly then by necessity a delightful and technically superior beer will follow". And I am sure that they are absolutely validated in their motto.
Then we have the Mills and Bentham brewer (MBB). The MBB is a Utilitarian...whatever results in the best beer with the least pain is the path followed by the MBB. The MBB is entirely concerned with the consequences of their actions...taking cues from the Empiricists, the MBB cries "it is with mine own senses that I doth drinketh of this beer, no other. To me the final product is of utmost importance; if the quality of the final product outweighs the initial effort and expense which the product demands then all is good". And I am sure also that they are validated in their thinking.
Finally we have the Hegel-ian Brewer. The Hegel-ian brewer sees the Thesis (the most technically superior brew can only come from intensive and rigorous scientific method using a number of traditional and progressive techniques with a certain quantity of traditional and progressive equipment), then sees the Antithesis (the end result is the most important, I cannot afford/understand and/or am unwilling/unable to worship at the feet of the Thesis and as long as my product tastes great I don't care if I was out by a few degrees or dont sparge the same way as others), and naturally moves finally to a Synthesis (while my end product is very important, there is much to be learned from the traditional AND the progressive and a certain amount of rigorous technique will improve both my beers and my knowledge). They also are validated in their thinking.
So, as we seenone are objectively better, but all are different. It is in this variation that we should rejoice. And finally, lets not forget that it is often the attempt to objectively judge things that leads to homogenous, unsound and unsustainable outcomes (just look at what international standards have done to some show dogs). Consistency within one brewer's practices is great, consistency between all brewers leads to megaswill. At the end of the day (to borrow from more Enlightenment thinkers, Berkeley and Hume) one persons Duvel is another persons cat piss flavour may well be objective (two people can identify the same hop), but whether it is nice or not is subjective (person A loves Amarillo, person B cant stand it).
Hope this didnt annoy anyone (hopefully it made someone chuckle), and if you think the Enlightenment era is too recent, I have an excellent analogy about homebrewing and ancient Greek philosophy also. Socratic brewing...hmmmm
Great site, great bunch of brewers.
Have a great weekend everyone.
Edit: Apologies if this should have been posted elsewhere on the forum.
The minimalist can just stick some grain into hot water, stir, decant and ferment.
