What do you think?
Rate this book
Philosophers at Table: On Food and Being Human
How are we to eat? This seemingly simple question is actually dense with possible interpretations, reflecting the myriad, complex roles food plays in our lives. Philosophers at Table shows that this question can serve as an invitation to re-examine the conceptual scaffolding supporting our everyday lives. How might we reframe our ethical, epistemological and aesthetic understandings if we acknowledge that we humans are not just creatures with minds, but creatures with stomachs – if we recognize that Homo sapiens translates not only as ‘wise man’, but as ‘tasting man’?Philosophers at Table draws on literature, myth, history and film, as well as philosophy, to make the case for a ‘stomach-endowed’ philosophy. The short story and film ‘Babette’s Feast’ serves as the starting point for a discussion of hospitality as the central ethical virtue. A comparison between a fast-food meal in Accra, Ghana, and a fine dining experience at a Spanish restaurant dedicated to ‘molecular gastronomy’ launches a discussion on the nature of food as art. An unpleasant encounter with a slug introduces a reflection on tasting as a model for knowing.In asking ‘How are we to eat?’, Philosophers at Table invites readers to use their relationship with food to investigate the philosophical underpinnings of their own lives.
- GenresPhilosophy
256 pages, Kindle Edition
First published March 15, 2016
7 people are currently reading
66 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
August 12, 2016
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.
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.
Displaying 1 of 1 review