Philosophers at Table: On Food and Being Human by Raymond D. Boisvert

by Raymond D. Boisvert

When you boil it down, one of the most important things we do each day is eat. The question of eating—what, and how—may seem simple at first, but it is dense with complex meanings, reflecting myriad roles that food plays and has played over the centuries. In fact, as Raymond D. Boisvert and Lisa Heldke show in this book, it’s difficult to imagine a more philosophically charged act than eating. Philosophers at Table explores the philosophical scaffolding that supports this crucial aspect of everyday life, showing that we are not just creatures with minds, but also with stomachs. Examining a cornucopia of literary works, myths, histories, and film—not to mention philosophical ideas—the authors make the case for a bona fide philosophy of food. They look at Babette’s Feast as an argument for hospitality as a central ethical virtue. They compare fast food in Accra to the molecular gastronomy of Spain as a way of considering the nature of food as art. And they bite into a slug—which is, unsurprisingly, completely gross—to explore tasting as a learning tool, a way of knowing. A surprising, original take on something we have not philosophically savored enough, Philosophers at Table invites readers to think in fresh ways about the simple and important act of eating.

Genres: Philosophy

Paperback

First published March 15, 2016

Reviews

[Andrea James · Rating 2 out of 5]

I didn't really finish this book. Usually I don't review a book till I've finished it (there are the rare occasions when I think a book I've bought is just not worth my time).

This book is an odd one - in many ways. I like its premise of exploring the philosophy of our relationship with food. But holy geez it is hard-going! The language is often incredible terse and the sentences require re-reading to understand what was ultimately a fairly simple point. Here's a random example of a dense line:

"Undergirding this now solidly sedimented way of thinking is the generative idea of mind-body dualism."

The authors perhaps need to read Steven Pinker's Sense of Style because there are so many pseudo-intellectual words in that sentence above. It's such a shame because I think underlying the unnecessarily dense words are some decent points.

The start seemed promising:
"The question "how are we to eat?" asks, among other things, how (practically) shall we gather our food? How (nutritionally) should we compose a meal? How ought we honour our deepest (ethical) commitments with our dietary choices? How can we cultivate (aesthetic) taste by cultivating our palate? How (ecologically) do we exercise our responsibility to the rest of the living world through those choices? How (educationally) do we instruct the next generation about the important of food? How (culturally) do we interact with others whose beliefs are different to our own? How, in the end, can we know (epistemological) that our decisions about what (ontological) to eat make good, human sense?"

I think about those things a lot. I was therefore really curious to learn what the authors had to say from their professional study of the subject. I persevered through the heavy language and made it just over halfway through the book. But now I'm defeated. I have at least twenty books in my "currently reading" pile and I just can no longer bear to wade through the thick swamp of their words. So I'm now pausing indefinitely - perhaps I'll wait for the dumbed-down film version instead.