What do you think?
Rate this book
The Virtues of the Table: How to Eat and Think
How we eat, farm and shop for food is not only a matter of taste. Our choices regarding what we eat involve every essential aspect of our human the animal, the sensuous, the social, the cultural, the creative, the emotional and the intellectual. Thinking seriously about food requires us to consider our relationship to nature, to our fellow animals, to each other and to ourselves. So can thinking about food teach us about being virtuous, and can what we eat help us to decide how to live?
From the author of The Ego Trick and The Pig that Wants to be Eaten comes a thought-provoking exploration of our values and vices. What can fasting teach us about autonomy? Should we, like Kant, 'dare to know' cheese? Should we take media advice on salt with a pinch of salt? And can food be more virtuous, more inherently good, than art?
From the author of The Ego Trick and The Pig that Wants to be Eaten comes a thought-provoking exploration of our values and vices. What can fasting teach us about autonomy? Should we, like Kant, 'dare to know' cheese? Should we take media advice on salt with a pinch of salt? And can food be more virtuous, more inherently good, than art?
301 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2014
33 people are currently reading
372 people want to read
About the author
Julian Baggini
78 books605 followersJulian Baggini is a British philosopher and the author of several books about philosophy written for a general audience. He is the author of The Pig that Wants to be Eaten and 99 other thought experiments (2005) and is co-founder and editor of The Philosophers' Magazine. He was awarded his Ph.D. in 1996 from University College London for a thesis on the philosophy of personal identity. In addition to his popular philosophy books, Baggini contributes to The Guardian, The Independent, The Observer, and the BBC. He has been a regular guest on BBC Radio 4's In Our Time.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews
November 23, 2021
This was quite chaotic. But Baggini did manage to explore a range of philosphical issues around food. Some of the eclectic topics covered include the ethics of non-vegetarianism, the codes of fine dining, the morality of spending money on expensive meals, dining alone, taking time for breakfast, the organic movement and much more.
October 17, 2025
用三周睡前短促的閱讀時間終於讀完，現在手邊苦無下一本科普床邊讀物，但那是明天要思考的事了：）
前半本的迷思破除很有意思，後半本轉而討論減重自制跟感恩略顯薄弱。
前半本的迷思破除很有意思，後半本轉而討論減重自制跟感恩略顯薄弱。
July 28, 2020
A very interesting read. The author use food to talk about philosophy. There are some key points I like about
1. We lack of "practical wisdom", too dependent on standard
2. We cannot assume chain stores, big corporations are bad, what we need to do is to understand more.
3. "The only thing I know is that I know nothing"
1. We lack of "practical wisdom", too dependent on standard
2. We cannot assume chain stores, big corporations are bad, what we need to do is to understand more.
3. "The only thing I know is that I know nothing"
February 2, 2017
my kindle read notes:
我是无法认同仲尼先生的——“食不言”。 我是半个意大利人，在我们的文化里，吃往往体现了宴饮之欢的美德。围着一张桌子吃饭，是谈话的最佳时刻。吃是一种深刻的人文主义体验，它把所有人都带到了同一层面上：不管是国王还是农夫，所有人都必须吃东西。从中庸之道出发，显然可以推导出，在餐桌边保持沉默，跟边吃边扯着嗓子大呼小叫，同样不够得体。吃带来了对话的可能性，而《吃的美德》，就是邀你加入对话的请柬。
所以，总体而言，自留地是一个绝妙的例子，它示范了人类如何依靠社会、历史链条织就的复杂网络，让相隔很远的彼此发生联系。这提醒我们：人类之所以能够饮食丰足，完全是因为相互依存；人类这一物种成功繁衍和生产力创造的根源，正来自社会交往和交换能力。我们应该欣慰，这些链条促进了人类发展，而不是自欺欺人地想着所有的事情都该自己做。
全球化存在的真正问题，跟贸易双方隔得远近毫无关系。我们时代的痼疾，是贸易的去人性化，以及将所有产品和生产者全都简化成“商品”的倾向。
时令性的第一条价值观是环境。
第二条价值观是审美。有些食物在自然上市的季节里口感更好。
不少水果和蔬菜经过长途运输后会丧失新鲜感，一部分原因在于，为了能够承受长时间的运输，必须在成熟之前采摘下来。
还有一重美学考量是，倘若知道吃某样东西的期限很短，体验的愉悦感会变得更强。
最后一个讲究时令的审美理由是，现代生活的体验日趋同质化。
这关系到时令性的第三条价值，它不仅仅是审美的对象，更让我们意识到时间的流淌。
疼痛固然不好，受苦却糟糕得多。
它确实表明，如果仅仅是引起疼痛，而并未导致明显的受苦，那就没有多大的错。应用到动物身上，它的道德寓意是很清楚的：在养殖或狩猎过程中，动物感受到了瞬间的疼痛，不见得有多大的错。只有当人让动物真正持续受苦，或带给它们反复的剧烈疼痛，才有必要给予严肃的关注。
富有同情心的食肉动物福利主义体现了这样一种道德：坚决不以抽象、超然的价值观（如生命神圣等）看待世界，也不从单纯的物质主义角度去看待它。它并不否认动物的生命有价值，但也不过度夸张。愿意屠宰、愿意吃肉，其实也就是愿意接受以下看法：死是生的一部分，重要的是活着的时候怎样活，而不是要永永远远地活下去。这样说来，吃肉也就是对生命的肯定，它高举凡俗生活的真正价值，而不为之附加任何额外的超然想象。
我认为，尽量做到最好就足够了。我宁可自己是个有点混乱、前后不一、奉行不完善甚至过分简单化原则的有道德良心的人，也不愿意自己是个道德冷漠的人。过有道德的生活，就是既非确信，也不冷漠，始终充满迷惑地去探寻。最重要的是首先在道德上认真，并对道德立场的确定性保持怀疑。
但“只要出于自愿就没问题”的想法自有缺陷，原因如下。
○ 首先，人们有时被迫选择可怕的事情，是因为实际上别无选择。
○ 其次，某人的最佳选择就是去做一件不愉快的事，并不意味着这事挺好——尤其是我们本能够以很少的费用（甚至根本无须费用）为之提供更好的工作的时候。
问题的关键很简单。恶劣的工作条件或许比什么都没有要强，但并不足以成为支持恶劣工作条件的正当理由。替代途径不是什么都不做，而是让事情变得更好。
如果我们相信追求正义是一种美德，那么，就不应该对光靠选择就能抵抗的错误方式视而不见。
食物本身对人无害，有害的是饮食习惯，任何只提供有限营养成分（包括脂肪）的饮食习惯，都不大好。
还有一点需要记住：传统不见得总是好东西
这里要理解的一个关键是，传统是活生生的、不断变化的东西。凡是不再鲜活、变成了文化博物馆里固定展品的东西，就不再是传统，而是历史遗产的一部分了
从过去演进而来的实践里往往蕴含着智慧，因为破坏比创造更容易，我们应当小心保存从祖先那里继承来的好东西。这并不是说，传统的东西一定就好，也不是说，传统存在必定是因为有个现在仍然站得住脚的理由。之所以要谨慎对待传统，更多是因为，哪怕我们不明白一件事为什么如此，也应当假设它有存在的价值，除非我们证明它并没有。
回避当前在生产或培养中的绝大多数转基因生物，有三个非常充分的理由，但这并不足以排除转基因生物在未来的应用前景。
第一个理由。“如果我们信任对农民的赋权和农民的自我组织，那么转基因生物的问题就在于，农民们没办法按照传统做法存下部分收成留待来年了。他们失去了对作物的控制权。
企业控制贯穿了转基因作物的整个历史。
第二，大多数商业转基因作物的可持续性很值得怀疑。
第三，由于自然选择的存在，转基因作物与自然展开了一场长期恶斗
不管怎么说，合理的反对意见有一个共同点：它们反对的并不是转基因本身。问题出在当下的所有权制度以及大范围种植的转基因作物上。
平衡的立场是对转基因生物保持合理谨慎，甚至反对当前商业品种的大规模扩散，但不反对有可能带来巨大帮助的新植物的研究（尤其是非营利性质的研究）。
这粉碎了一种错觉：匠人手工制作的产品，总是比机器大规模量产的产品更优秀。这也提醒人们，哪怕有理由抵制具体的某种创新，也不应该下意识地排斥一切技术。
既然我们的生活中都有一定量的惯例成规在，那么确保自己选择了正确的成规就很重要了
惯例不见得会导致无聊，可不断追求新奇却会，这真是有些讽刺。为了创新而创新的烹饪最令人生厌。
奥妙在于：不是随便地落入套路，为之所限，而是妥善选择，知道自己为什么遵循惯例，从而获得由此带来的丰富和解放。
从经验来看：除非处在特别情况下，或是属于确定的高危人群，确实没有必要按照特定食物跟特定情况存在的一般性联系大幅改变饮食。
现在的普遍共识是，除非你严重超标或不足，是否匀称比体重多少重要得多。良好的饮食吃得多而体重略微超标，说不定比错误的东西吃对量而维持理想体重更好。吃得好，爱运动，BMI为27的人，一般而言比BMI稳定维持在22，但久坐不动、只吃少许加工过的低热量食品的人更健康。
你始终要记得，凡是只观察一个变量而得出的建议，最好都小心些，再看一看研究是否还控制了其他变量。
“吃，可别吃太多。多吃植物。”
先吃热食、吃完之后再决定是否补充点什么的习惯。
我们不应该看到别人做了一两件我们眼中的错误小事，就对他们妄下道德败坏的结论。毕竟，对他人的负面性格特征过度解读，也不是什么该日常培养的小习惯。
这也道出了成瘾研究领域中的“明线规则”的重要性。所谓明线，也就是绝对不能越过的限制，哪怕脚趾头也不能跨过去。明线的重要性在于消除自由裁量。一旦你纵容自己进行选择，薄弱的意志跟自欺欺人就可能结成联盟。
当然，这也有问题。首先，如果你不是真心相信明线非常关键，碰到瘾头来了，你或许乐意越界。
首先，要记住，明线其实往往划得挺随意。
个别的选择小得微不足道，但为了避免微不足道的小选择积累起来败坏大局，你需要说：“这些是规矩，我坚决遵守。”单独来看，每一个选择都是随便定下来的，可你不能让自己在每件事上都使用自由裁量权，因为只有这样，计划才能成功。
不过，要是你违规了，不妨回想这些禁令的性质：它们是随意定下的。你大可以告诉自己，“没关系，只要我不再犯就行。”这么做完全没问题。遗憾的是，人们往往觉得规矩必须遵守，违规一次就算破戒，所以他们很可能自暴自弃
在我看来，自我控制并不是要避免享乐的邪恶诱惑，相反，它是让自己得到更深刻享受的途径，但也要记住，人活着不只是为了享乐。
因此，节食者的核心原则很简单：不改变饮食本身，但要在饮食中做出改变。一开始先调整你通常所吃的东西。最简单的做法是减少额外的热量，如酒精、蛋糕和甜点。
食物的世界充斥着虚张声势、自负做作和完全的废话
此外势利态度也扮演了戏份很重的角色。“势利就是看重某种不值得看重的东西。"
所有伟大的艺术家都以自己的方式，丰富了我们的想象力和审美视野，每一种新作品也都以新鲜的方式打开了我们的眼界。
花些时间坐下来，吃一顿悠闲的早餐（无须特别丰盛，但要坐在桌子边上，跟人聊着天，听着广播，翻阅着报纸，甚或默默静想）就很不一样。舒缓地开始一天，承认舒缓的价值，好让我们保持专注和判断力，而不是简单地被每一天的责任推着往前走。它可以用来提醒我们，值得做的事情就值得花时间恰如其分地做，生命不是一份待办事项清单，要尽快把上头列出来的事情一一划掉。
诚然，幸福和愉悦有所不同。愉悦多与特定的经历和时间段相联系，一般相当短暂。幸福更多的是一种背景感觉，或许不如愉悦的强度那么大，但持续时间更长。
懂得愉悦最有价值的形式是跟生活最有价值的方面捆绑在一起的，而不要把愉悦视为做任何事情的唯一理由。
我们不需要立刻满足自己的每一种渴望，变成冲动的奴隶，但我们也不应该太过克制，非得让愉悦与自己擦肩而过。这种平衡的心态，一如食物在我们动物性生活里发挥着重要的作用，却又并不将我们贬低到返祖的欲望之奴的档次。
我是无法认同仲尼先生的——“食不言”。 我是半个意大利人，在我们的文化里，吃往往体现了宴饮之欢的美德。围着一张桌子吃饭，是谈话的最佳时刻。吃是一种深刻的人文主义体验，它把所有人都带到了同一层面上：不管是国王还是农夫，所有人都必须吃东西。从中庸之道出发，显然可以推导出，在餐桌边保持沉默，跟边吃边扯着嗓子大呼小叫，同样不够得体。吃带来了对话的可能性，而《吃的美德》，就是邀你加入对话的请柬。
所以，总体而言，自留地是一个绝妙的例子，它示范了人类如何依靠社会、历史链条织就的复杂网络，让相隔很远的彼此发生联系。这提醒我们：人类之所以能够饮食丰足，完全是因为相互依存；人类这一物种成功繁衍和生产力创造的根源，正来自社会交往和交换能力。我们应该欣慰，这些链条促进了人类发展，而不是自欺欺人地想着所有的事情都该自己做。
全球化存在的真正问题，跟贸易双方隔得远近毫无关系。我们时代的痼疾，是贸易的去人性化，以及将所有产品和生产者全都简化成“商品”的倾向。
时令性的第一条价值观是环境。
第二条价值观是审美。有些食物在自然上市的季节里口感更好。
不少水果和蔬菜经过长途运输后会丧失新鲜感，一部分原因在于，为了能够承受长时间的运输，必须在成熟之前采摘下来。
还有一重美学考量是，倘若知道吃某样东西的期限很短，体验的愉悦感会变得更强。
最后一个讲究时令的审美理由是，现代生活的体验日趋同质化。
这关系到时令性的第三条价值，它不仅仅是审美的对象，更让我们意识到时间的流淌。
疼痛固然不好，受苦却糟糕得多。
它确实表明，如果仅仅是引起疼痛，而并未导致明显的受苦，那就没有多大的错。应用到动物身上，它的道德寓意是很清楚的：在养殖或狩猎过程中，动物感受到了瞬间的疼痛，不见得有多大的错。只有当人让动物真正持续受苦，或带给它们反复的剧烈疼痛，才有必要给予严肃的关注。
富有同情心的食肉动物福利主义体现了这样一种道德：坚决不以抽象、超然的价值观（如生命神圣等）看待世界，也不从单纯的物质主义角度去看待它。它并不否认动物的生命有价值，但也不过度夸张。愿意屠宰、愿意吃肉，其实也就是愿意接受以下看法：死是生的一部分，重要的是活着的时候怎样活，而不是要永永远远地活下去。这样说来，吃肉也就是对生命的肯定，它高举凡俗生活的真正价值，而不为之附加任何额外的超然想象。
我认为，尽量做到最好就足够了。我宁可自己是个有点混乱、前后不一、奉行不完善甚至过分简单化原则的有道德良心的人，也不愿意自己是个道德冷漠的人。过有道德的生活，就是既非确信，也不冷漠，始终充满迷惑地去探寻。最重要的是首先在道德上认真，并对道德立场的确定性保持怀疑。
但“只要出于自愿就没问题”的想法自有缺陷，原因如下。
○ 首先，人们有时被迫选择可怕的事情，是因为实际上别无选择。
○ 其次，某人的最佳选择就是去做一件不愉快的事，并不意味着这事挺好——尤其是我们本能够以很少的费用（甚至根本无须费用）为之提供更好的工作的时候。
问题的关键很简单。恶劣的工作条件或许比什么都没有要强，但并不足以成为支持恶劣工作条件的正当理由。替代途径不是什么都不做，而是让事情变得更好。
如果我们相信追求正义是一种美德，那么，就不应该对光靠选择就能抵抗的错误方式视而不见。
食物本身对人无害，有害的是饮食习惯，任何只提供有限营养成分（包括脂肪）的饮食习惯，都不大好。
还有一点需要记住：传统不见得总是好东西
这里要理解的一个关键是，传统是活生生的、不断变化的东西。凡是不再鲜活、变成了文化博物馆里固定展品的东西，就不再是传统，而是历史遗产的一部分了
从过去演进而来的实践里往往蕴含着智慧，因为破坏比创造更容易，我们应当小心保存从祖先那里继承来的好东西。这并不是说，传统的东西一定就好，也不是说，传统存在必定是因为有个现在仍然站得住脚的理由。之所以要谨慎对待传统，更多是因为，哪怕我们不明白一件事为什么如此，也应当假设它有存在的价值，除非我们证明它并没有。
回避当前在生产或培养中的绝大多数转基因生物，有三个非常充分的理由，但这并不足以排除转基因生物在未来的应用前景。
第一个理由。“如果我们信任对农民的赋权和农民的自我组织，那么转基因生物的问题就在于，农民们没办法按照传统做法存下部分收成留待来年了。他们失去了对作物的控制权。
企业控制贯穿了转基因作物的整个历史。
第二，大多数商业转基因作物的可持续性很值得怀疑。
第三，由于自然选择的存在，转基因作物与自然展开了一场长期恶斗
不管怎么说，合理的反对意见有一个共同点：它们反对的并不是转基因本身。问题出在当下的所有权制度以及大范围种植的转基因作物上。
平衡的立场是对转基因生物保持合理谨慎，甚至反对当前商业品种的大规模扩散，但不反对有可能带来巨大帮助的新植物的研究（尤其是非营利性质的研究）。
这粉碎了一种错觉：匠人手工制作的产品，总是比机器大规模量产的产品更优秀。这也提醒人们，哪怕有理由抵制具体的某种创新，也不应该下意识地排斥一切技术。
既然我们的生活中都有一定量的惯例成规在，那么确保自己选择了正确的成规就很重要了
惯例不见得会导致无聊，可不断追求新奇却会，这真是有些讽刺。为了创新而创新的烹饪最令人生厌。
奥妙在于：不是随便地落入套路，为之所限，而是妥善选择，知道自己为什么遵循惯例，从而获得由此带来的丰富和解放。
从经验来看：除非处在特别情况下，或是属于确定的高危人群，确实没有必要按照特定食物跟特定情况存在的一般性联系大幅改变饮食。
现在的普遍共识是，除非你严重超标或不足，是否匀称比体重多少重要得多。良好的饮食吃得多而体重略微超标，说不定比错误的东西吃对量而维持理想体重更好。吃得好，爱运动，BMI为27的人，一般而言比BMI稳定维持在22，但久坐不动、只吃少许加工过的低热量食品的人更健康。
你始终要记得，凡是只观察一个变量而得出的建议，最好都小心些，再看一看研究是否还控制了其他变量。
“吃，可别吃太多。多吃植物。”
先吃热食、吃完之后再决定是否补充点什么的习惯。
我们不应该看到别人做了一两件我们眼中的错误小事，就对他们妄下道德败坏的结论。毕竟，对他人的负面性格特征过度解读，也不是什么该日常培养的小习惯。
这也道出了成瘾研究领域中的“明线规则”的重要性。所谓明线，也就是绝对不能越过的限制，哪怕脚趾头也不能跨过去。明线的重要性在于消除自由裁量。一旦你纵容自己进行选择，薄弱的意志跟自欺欺人就可能结成联盟。
当然，这也有问题。首先，如果你不是真心相信明线非常关键，碰到瘾头来了，你或许乐意越界。
首先，要记住，明线其实往往划得挺随意。
个别的选择小得微不足道，但为了避免微不足道的小选择积累起来败坏大局，你需要说：“这些是规矩，我坚决遵守。”单独来看，每一个选择都是随便定下来的，可你不能让自己在每件事上都使用自由裁量权，因为只有这样，计划才能成功。
不过，要是你违规了，不妨回想这些禁令的性质：它们是随意定下的。你大可以告诉自己，“没关系，只要我不再犯就行。”这么做完全没问题。遗憾的是，人们往往觉得规矩必须遵守，违规一次就算破戒，所以他们很可能自暴自弃
在我看来，自我控制并不是要避免享乐的邪恶诱惑，相反，它是让自己得到更深刻享受的途径，但也要记住，人活着不只是为了享乐。
因此，节食者的核心原则很简单：不改变饮食本身，但要在饮食中做出改变。一开始先调整你通常所吃的东西。最简单的做法是减少额外的热量，如酒精、蛋糕和甜点。
食物的世界充斥着虚张声势、自负做作和完全的废话
此外势利态度也扮演了戏份很重的角色。“势利就是看重某种不值得看重的东西。"
所有伟大的艺术家都以自己的方式，丰富了我们的想象力和审美视野，每一种新作品也都以新鲜的方式打开了我们的眼界。
花些时间坐下来，吃一顿悠闲的早餐（无须特别丰盛，但要坐在桌子边上，跟人聊着天，听着广播，翻阅着报纸，甚或默默静想）就很不一样。舒缓地开始一天，承认舒缓的价值，好让我们保持专注和判断力，而不是简单地被每一天的责任推着往前走。它可以用来提醒我们，值得做的事情就值得花时间恰如其分地做，生命不是一份待办事项清单，要尽快把上头列出来的事情一一划掉。
诚然，幸福和愉悦有所不同。愉悦多与特定的经历和时间段相联系，一般相当短暂。幸福更多的是一种背景感觉，或许不如愉悦的强度那么大，但持续时间更长。
懂得愉悦最有价值的形式是跟生活最有价值的方面捆绑在一起的，而不要把愉悦视为做任何事情的唯一理由。
我们不需要立刻满足自己的每一种渴望，变成冲动的奴隶，但我们也不应该太过克制，非得让愉悦与自己擦肩而过。这种平衡的心态，一如食物在我们动物性生活里发挥着重要的作用，却又并不将我们贬低到返祖的欲望之奴的档次。
Read
July 17, 2015My experience with 'books about food' is nothing kore than a reading of Foer's 'Eating Animals' 3 and a half years ago, an experience that then prompted of a sort of, but not really change in my eating habits. It's a book I now want to revisit, but it's not the one I'm reviewing here.
This book has a pretty poor start, at least, that was my experience. I almost gave up on it after thirty pages as I didn't want to read a recipe book with some cod-philosophy unceremoniously stuffed between the cooking suggestions.
Thankfully, I persevered. This book does occasionally vere into the preachy territory of the man standing in the street with a megaphone telling you 'meat is murder' but Baggini makes a far more subtle argument than that. This book does what is says on the cover, in that it encourages you to look at how you eat, as well as what you eat.
Refreshingly it doesn't work too hard to convince you of one particular point of view, but at the same time it's not a complete white wash of the subject matter. Food is a tricky issue, we have to eat to survive but this doesn't mean we shouldn't enjoy the experience. Perhaps the most fascinating and original chapter is when the author draws a comparison between the appreciation of art and that of food.
It's not straightforward. Humans don't just feed, we eat. Similarly we don't just reproduce, but we have sex. We take pleasure in those things that other creatures do to survive and to further the existence of their species.
The advantages of this book are it's length (it's relatively short) and it's prose (easy to read, but without using pathetic metaphors). Unlike some cases, Baggini makes justified use of references to Kant, Derrida and Heidegger amongst others.
A good starting point if you want to take a closer look at something that is so ingrained in our daily routine, that we rarely take the time to think about abstractly.
Oh, and you can skip over the recipe ideas. I did and I still really enjoyed it.
This book has a pretty poor start, at least, that was my experience. I almost gave up on it after thirty pages as I didn't want to read a recipe book with some cod-philosophy unceremoniously stuffed between the cooking suggestions.
Thankfully, I persevered. This book does occasionally vere into the preachy territory of the man standing in the street with a megaphone telling you 'meat is murder' but Baggini makes a far more subtle argument than that. This book does what is says on the cover, in that it encourages you to look at how you eat, as well as what you eat.
Refreshingly it doesn't work too hard to convince you of one particular point of view, but at the same time it's not a complete white wash of the subject matter. Food is a tricky issue, we have to eat to survive but this doesn't mean we shouldn't enjoy the experience. Perhaps the most fascinating and original chapter is when the author draws a comparison between the appreciation of art and that of food.
It's not straightforward. Humans don't just feed, we eat. Similarly we don't just reproduce, but we have sex. We take pleasure in those things that other creatures do to survive and to further the existence of their species.
The advantages of this book are it's length (it's relatively short) and it's prose (easy to read, but without using pathetic metaphors). Unlike some cases, Baggini makes justified use of references to Kant, Derrida and Heidegger amongst others.
A good starting point if you want to take a closer look at something that is so ingrained in our daily routine, that we rarely take the time to think about abstractly.
Oh, and you can skip over the recipe ideas. I did and I still really enjoyed it.
December 17, 2022
Sapere Aude" Dare to Know.
A common sense approach to food, and life in general, based on a simple philosophy. "Dare to Know". In essence, be informed about what you eat.
He demonstrates that extremism in regards to food and agriculture, as in anything in life, doesn't lead to optimal outcomes. Animal and land welfare are better served by a more varied approach. A little weedkiller, a little meat, and antibiotics occasionally are preferable to the purity approach. Government intervention can do more damage than good and big companies (McDonald's) can be much more ethical than the small independent operators beloved by the hipster class.
Veganism and organics and purity seekers get quite a bit of criticism. The road to hell is paved with good intentions as they say.
His approach to eating is interesting. Being a little fat is preferable to being ideal weight paradoxically for life expectancy he informs us so enjoy your food. He's no pretentious foodie either. He was relatively old the first time he ate in a Michelin starred restaurant and recommends only visiting one occasionally even if you can afford it.
He describes humans as psuche somatic beings(blood and soul?) which, while I found it an odd expression, makes perfect sense.
Lots of surprising and interesting facts. 70% of our food comes from farms of less than 5 acres. Up to 50% of our food is uneaten. The waste of bread is especially sinful.
A very enjoyable book from a very likable writer.
9/10 or 5 stars.
A common sense approach to food, and life in general, based on a simple philosophy. "Dare to Know". In essence, be informed about what you eat.
He demonstrates that extremism in regards to food and agriculture, as in anything in life, doesn't lead to optimal outcomes. Animal and land welfare are better served by a more varied approach. A little weedkiller, a little meat, and antibiotics occasionally are preferable to the purity approach. Government intervention can do more damage than good and big companies (McDonald's) can be much more ethical than the small independent operators beloved by the hipster class.
Veganism and organics and purity seekers get quite a bit of criticism. The road to hell is paved with good intentions as they say.
His approach to eating is interesting. Being a little fat is preferable to being ideal weight paradoxically for life expectancy he informs us so enjoy your food. He's no pretentious foodie either. He was relatively old the first time he ate in a Michelin starred restaurant and recommends only visiting one occasionally even if you can afford it.
He describes humans as psuche somatic beings(blood and soul?) which, while I found it an odd expression, makes perfect sense.
Lots of surprising and interesting facts. 70% of our food comes from farms of less than 5 acres. Up to 50% of our food is uneaten. The waste of bread is especially sinful.
A very enjoyable book from a very likable writer.
9/10 or 5 stars.
April 20, 2015
There are some very encouraging chapters where I read everything with great interest, but after a while it started to really get on my nerves. Disclaimer: i'm not a philosophy lover but I don't completely reject every heavyweight principle ever said by well known academics. That said, Julian's opinion on some pieces like eating meat with compassion did not go well with mine. The later the chapters, the more meta they got and the less about food. I would not recommend buying this even if you're into this kind of stuff but I've read some interesting points so I wouldn't completely condemn it.
May 30, 2025
it gets better as it progresses. so many precise and inspiring ideas, the chapters from "eating" are my absolute favourite. i love how practical and genuine the suggestions are.
the chapter "kill with care" doesn't sit well with me. i would suggest to bear in mind some ideas when reading it. for example, cognitive dissonance, hypocrisy, artificial insemination (thus not natural birth, but forcibly bred), the industrialised animal agriculture (meaning animals are bred to merely be killed eventually, which will not happen if we didn't force them to be birthed into the world in the first place), the difference between circular food chain (the sustainable and fair one that occurred in nature, between animals that don't included human) and the food chain pyramid created by human, stemmed from anthropocentrism and thus political economy which sees the nature as resources to be exploited. findings and facts like the majority of crops are fed to farm animals (when the crops can feed more people than animal meat can), the deforestation caused by the industry for its land use, and also the health issues caused by red meat etc.
most importantly, the reason why there's no care in killing is that from the perspective of the victims being killed, no matter how you claim to provide them a quality life, breeding them just to kill them is evil, when you really don't need to (if your concerns are health and survival, anyway). we can get everything from the plants--the foods used to feed animals, without the brutal nature and mechanism of animal agriculture.
with that being said, although i enjoyed the subsequent chapters, the sense of anthropodenial and human superiority that permeate the entire book make me really uncomfortable. as Dawin said, the human and animal minds differ in degree but not in kind. therefore, the rights and respect we deserve shouldn't really be different. there's no reason to not believe all sentient beings want to live without pain and suffering, and if it is achievable, they have every right to live this way.
therefore, i also hate this book with my entire heart, as the good points it made may help to make the other contents appear convincing, when they are in fact extremely inaccurate and condemnable. there will never be a "humane" way of murder and there's no excuse for us, people who are privileged enough to choose what to consume to support the uncountable, barbaric murder of other animals every second. we have to the power to make changes, and every opportunity we turn our back to, is a step toward degradation and regression.
the chapter "kill with care" doesn't sit well with me. i would suggest to bear in mind some ideas when reading it. for example, cognitive dissonance, hypocrisy, artificial insemination (thus not natural birth, but forcibly bred), the industrialised animal agriculture (meaning animals are bred to merely be killed eventually, which will not happen if we didn't force them to be birthed into the world in the first place), the difference between circular food chain (the sustainable and fair one that occurred in nature, between animals that don't included human) and the food chain pyramid created by human, stemmed from anthropocentrism and thus political economy which sees the nature as resources to be exploited. findings and facts like the majority of crops are fed to farm animals (when the crops can feed more people than animal meat can), the deforestation caused by the industry for its land use, and also the health issues caused by red meat etc.
most importantly, the reason why there's no care in killing is that from the perspective of the victims being killed, no matter how you claim to provide them a quality life, breeding them just to kill them is evil, when you really don't need to (if your concerns are health and survival, anyway). we can get everything from the plants--the foods used to feed animals, without the brutal nature and mechanism of animal agriculture.
with that being said, although i enjoyed the subsequent chapters, the sense of anthropodenial and human superiority that permeate the entire book make me really uncomfortable. as Dawin said, the human and animal minds differ in degree but not in kind. therefore, the rights and respect we deserve shouldn't really be different. there's no reason to not believe all sentient beings want to live without pain and suffering, and if it is achievable, they have every right to live this way.
therefore, i also hate this book with my entire heart, as the good points it made may help to make the other contents appear convincing, when they are in fact extremely inaccurate and condemnable. there will never be a "humane" way of murder and there's no excuse for us, people who are privileged enough to choose what to consume to support the uncountable, barbaric murder of other animals every second. we have to the power to make changes, and every opportunity we turn our back to, is a step toward degradation and regression.
August 2, 2025
It's a good book, but for me it's not a great book. The premise of this book is very interesting: food and philosophy. I initial thought this would be a discussion about philosophical ideas through the medium of food and cuisine, but I'm pleasantly surprised that it turns out to be way more than that. It's a useful guide for us to think about how to treat "eating" in our everyday life, and touches on many interesting topic regarding food like fair trade and the case for seasonal and organic food. Ultimately, Baggini challenges us to live in the way of "mindful appreciation" through the act of eating and learning about what we eat.
The ideas in this book are definitely interesting, but I just think that the book as a whole is too bland and feels like a whole lot of nothing in some sections. I wish it can offer more when talking about the ethics and economics of the food industry, and maybe give more insight into the mindset of "eating healthy" as this topic isn't really explored in the book. Overall it's a good pop-philosophy book that offers some interesting angles, but probably not more than that.
The ideas in this book are definitely interesting, but I just think that the book as a whole is too bland and feels like a whole lot of nothing in some sections. I wish it can offer more when talking about the ethics and economics of the food industry, and maybe give more insight into the mindset of "eating healthy" as this topic isn't really explored in the book. Overall it's a good pop-philosophy book that offers some interesting angles, but probably not more than that.
October 6, 2025
This book examines the nexus of food and philosophy, from the ethics of butchery to the virtue of authenticity to whether hedonism is a necessary component of eating philosophically. Much of the book challenges or debates conventional wisdoms such as whether local foods are inherently better, whether dining is always and everywhere a social activity (or should be,) and whether organic is always preferable. The book covers a wide variety of topics including: mindfulness, gratitude, skepticism, fasting, willpower, spontaneity, technology, etc.
The book offers many ideas for reflection though sometimes it felt like it rambled on for more than the issue in question necessitated.
Each chapter ends with a discussion of a particular food and its preparation as thought relevant by the author. This is a nice grounding mechanism for discussion that tends otherwise to be cerebral and philosophic.
I'd recommend this book for anyone interested in thinking more about food and its intersection with philosophy of life.
The book offers many ideas for reflection though sometimes it felt like it rambled on for more than the issue in question necessitated.
Each chapter ends with a discussion of a particular food and its preparation as thought relevant by the author. This is a nice grounding mechanism for discussion that tends otherwise to be cerebral and philosophic.
I'd recommend this book for anyone interested in thinking more about food and its intersection with philosophy of life.
December 31, 2017
I have to admit that it was a brilliant idea to use food as a means to explore many philosophical issues. Can cooking be considered an art lends itself to broader questions of aesthetics and what exactly is art being just one example. Eating and pleasure nicely dovetails into utilitarianism and whether food is indeed a “lower” pleasure by Mill’s definition
Baggini writes with clarity and manages the difficult task of simplifying complex ideas without distorting them admirably for the most part. There is some repetition and it’s clear that he has a very particular point of view which he isn’t shy in repeating (about what it means to be virtuous and the importance of leading a considered life), but while the prose is hardly elegant it is well tailored to the lay audience.
Overall a good broad look at a whole range of ideas not just food related but general philosophical concepts as well but very much for the lay person.
Baggini writes with clarity and manages the difficult task of simplifying complex ideas without distorting them admirably for the most part. There is some repetition and it’s clear that he has a very particular point of view which he isn’t shy in repeating (about what it means to be virtuous and the importance of leading a considered life), but while the prose is hardly elegant it is well tailored to the lay audience.
Overall a good broad look at a whole range of ideas not just food related but general philosophical concepts as well but very much for the lay person.
July 25, 2018
It’s a 3.5 for me
There are some pretty good lessons in here and good points to consider like his chapters on vegetarianism/veganism but hmm I don’t know, I feel like most of the points are not too difficult to forget? Maybe because food is not my favorite reading subject or I’m just not too concerned about it?
Anyway, at the end of every part he shares simple recipes that I think are quite friendly; no strict measurements and ingredients which is attractive (I imagine especially to people not too adept in the kitchen). He had been enthusiastic about sharing the principles of a recipe rather than the rigidity of a step-by-step. Very cool of him I think.
There are some pretty good lessons in here and good points to consider like his chapters on vegetarianism/veganism but hmm I don’t know, I feel like most of the points are not too difficult to forget? Maybe because food is not my favorite reading subject or I’m just not too concerned about it?
Anyway, at the end of every part he shares simple recipes that I think are quite friendly; no strict measurements and ingredients which is attractive (I imagine especially to people not too adept in the kitchen). He had been enthusiastic about sharing the principles of a recipe rather than the rigidity of a step-by-step. Very cool of him I think.
August 12, 2019
An interesting perspective that challenges our perspective and relationship with the food we consume. I found myself agreeing and disagreeing with the author in equal measure, and while I did find some arguments rather long winded, the author does lay down his thought processes in a clear and easy to follow format. One of the better food philosophy books I've read in a while. Though it falls into the cliche of including a recipe to bookend each chapter, it doesn't feel too cloying as only the general steps are outlined, allowing the reader to experiment and come to their own conclusions, much like the points presented in this book.
December 28, 2020
sehr unterhaltsam
March 27, 2025
Lesmateriaal voor een vak op de uni. Leuke filosofische benadering op onze relatie met eten
October 13, 2016
Do we 'Eat to Live, or Live to Eat'? - a quote attributed variously, it seems, to Benjamin Franklin, Cicero, Socrates or Moliere. Considering the centuries that have elapsed since Socrates was philosophising around 300-400BC, it is intriguing that we still spend a lot of thought and energy on analysing the human experience with food. You see, for us humans, eating is not simply about feeding - life giving, sustenance, nutrition, energy and survival. Sure this is part of the package, but what sets us apart from the animal world is that we enjoy our food, we take pleasure in what we choose to eat, we savour taste, texture, smell. Unlike any other creature, we cook food, we transform it from a base state into something else, combining it in various ways with other base ingredients to produce an almost infinite variety of eating experiences. You would have to live under a rock to not have some awareness of many modern food related issues that blight our newspapers, magazines, television and saturate our social media networks. It can be intensely overwhelming, especially when you are being made to question daily the food choices that you make - organic food sources, GM, Fair Trade, the ethics or morality behind eating animals, obesity, fasting, food as a social lubricant, food as art.
So, someone like Julian Baggini, who is a philosopher and writes about issues in such a way as to appeal to a very general audience, is well placed to dissect the thinking behind how we eat, why we eat, and our own peculiar relationship that each of us has with food. He wants us to look critically at how we eat, where our food comes from, to question, but to not necessarily feel guilty or judged for coming to a decision that may not be the mainstream or the mantra of the moment. If we consider carefully and thoughtfully what we are eating, how it gets to our table, and how we taste and enjoy what we eat, then we are actually doing ok. At times the author is a bit of a pointy head, wearing his academic philosophy hat a little to tightly, but he quickly brings his theories back to the reality of our daily dining experiences. I particularly enjoyed his chapter on food as art, or food vs art as you will. He writes about restaurants such as Noma and El Bulli which take dining to a whole new level, fast food chains such as MacDonalds winning awards for its of sourcing of non battery farmed eggs, the significance of saying a grace before starting to eat, sharing food with strangers, foods that are protected by the 'protected designation of origin' established by the EU, is there such a thing as locally sourced fruit and vegetables - for example tomatoes in winter. And so on.
Despite at times his logic and rationales making me a little cross eyed, this book really has made me think about how we eat, appreciate the food around us and what we do with it. And if you want more of Julian Baggini, he has written at least 17 other books, pontificating important subjects, and has also given a TED talk about is there really a real you. Watching this TED talk will give you an idea of how he writes, because reading him is exactly like listening to him - entertaining, wide ranging, moving backwards and forwards within the topic, and quite compelling.
https://www.ted.com/talks/julian_bagg...
So, someone like Julian Baggini, who is a philosopher and writes about issues in such a way as to appeal to a very general audience, is well placed to dissect the thinking behind how we eat, why we eat, and our own peculiar relationship that each of us has with food. He wants us to look critically at how we eat, where our food comes from, to question, but to not necessarily feel guilty or judged for coming to a decision that may not be the mainstream or the mantra of the moment. If we consider carefully and thoughtfully what we are eating, how it gets to our table, and how we taste and enjoy what we eat, then we are actually doing ok. At times the author is a bit of a pointy head, wearing his academic philosophy hat a little to tightly, but he quickly brings his theories back to the reality of our daily dining experiences. I particularly enjoyed his chapter on food as art, or food vs art as you will. He writes about restaurants such as Noma and El Bulli which take dining to a whole new level, fast food chains such as MacDonalds winning awards for its of sourcing of non battery farmed eggs, the significance of saying a grace before starting to eat, sharing food with strangers, foods that are protected by the 'protected designation of origin' established by the EU, is there such a thing as locally sourced fruit and vegetables - for example tomatoes in winter. And so on.
Despite at times his logic and rationales making me a little cross eyed, this book really has made me think about how we eat, appreciate the food around us and what we do with it. And if you want more of Julian Baggini, he has written at least 17 other books, pontificating important subjects, and has also given a TED talk about is there really a real you. Watching this TED talk will give you an idea of how he writes, because reading him is exactly like listening to him - entertaining, wide ranging, moving backwards and forwards within the topic, and quite compelling.
https://www.ted.com/talks/julian_bagg...
July 14, 2016
I disliked this book at first and found its didactic tone ironic since its earliest injunction is to question labels and think for yourself about food. I yearned for the intelligent, questioning tone Hattie Ellis manages in 'What to Eat?' . However, the book grew on me and by the time he describes his short-tempered two-fingered salute spurred by dieting, I was won over. It is a very intelligent and thought-provoking book and, like Ellis's, has encouraged me to question more and to continue to think about food and eating.
April 4, 2015
What is the meaning behind our everyday meal?
If you are an avid foodie & a thinker, this book is for you.
There is no exact answer on how to eat and this is certainly not the objective of the book.
Instead, this is the kind of book that puts a stone in your shoes.
Some aspects discussed are selection of food (terms like organic, GMO, local, etc.), preparation of food, the eating process itself, fasting, and so on.
Each chapter is complemented with the author's recipe.
If you are an avid foodie & a thinker, this book is for you.
There is no exact answer on how to eat and this is certainly not the objective of the book.
Instead, this is the kind of book that puts a stone in your shoes.
Some aspects discussed are selection of food (terms like organic, GMO, local, etc.), preparation of food, the eating process itself, fasting, and so on.
Each chapter is complemented with the author's recipe.
March 21, 2016
I've pretty much always worked in the food industry in different roles and food has always been a hobby and obsession for me as well as my career. It is rare for me to find a book about food which challenges my ideas and experiences and whilst I don't always find myself agreeing completely with Baggini, his different essays on varying gastronomic topics set me thinking and questioning long held beliefs. A beguiling book for anyone with a life in food, or a household philosopher.
October 21, 2015
Leuk/aardig boek over eten en moraal. beschouwend boek met interessante ideeen en vragen. Waarom biologisch niet altijd goed is, waarom dieeten niet werkt enz. Evenwichtig maar niet schokkend, bevat ook niet heel veel opzienbarende inzichten. Recepten die tussen de betogen door staan zijn niet altijd even boeiend, maar voor het boek ook niet echt nodig.
February 14, 2015
After an indifferent start as I found a little preachy this book really grew achieving four stars for me. I suspect this is influenced by my own bias so that as I went further it became more aligned to what interests me.
Thoughtful engaging read ... recommended
Thoughtful engaging read ... recommended
June 15, 2014
Really interesting and clearly argued. Challenged me to question many of my long held attitudes and beliefs around food in all kinds of ways.
January 17, 2019
It made me think
July 14, 2015
A fresh and thoughtful take on the nuances revolving around "food" and the perennial act of "eating", which, at times, elaborated beyond to other areas of living and human condition. A great read!
November 14, 2022
Quite literally and metaphorically, food of thought.
October 25, 2021
Good discussion. Mediocre translation.
April 2, 2017
The idea is to encourage people to be more conscious about their food choice, and to disclose some details of popular trends which we might overlook. To me it's more informative than inspiring / groundbreaking regarding our perspective towards food / food industry.
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews