Food and Philosophy

No Snacks, no sweets, no seconds. Except on Days that start with S. Too simple for you? Simple is why it works. Look here for questions, introductions, support, success stories.

Moderators: Soprano, automatedeating

Post Reply
theburgher
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 6:35 pm
Location: boston

Food and Philosophy

Post by theburgher » Mon Sep 03, 2007 4:51 pm

One of my interests is the role of food in our lives, beyond nutrition. Of course we have to eat to live. But maybe eating is worthy of ethics on a number of levels--from healthy souls to issues of local farming, as has been discussed here.

Socrates was said to have said that while "others live to eat," he "eats to live." He seems to suggest an ascetic practice of eating minimally. But Socrates also entertained his friend's complaint that we want relishes, and tables on which to eat. Is it possible, or even fitting to live by an ascetic ideal?

This dilemma between nutrition and ethics is interesting because I'm looking for that middle-way between the biological need to eat and the (or my admittedly corrupt or over-stimulated) desire for delicious food, or cheesecake. There must be a reasonable ethic that puts eating in its place, and helps train you to be self-reliant rather than dependent on pre-packaged food, or pills or videos. (Reinhard's work here is an excellent example of seeking that proper balance from the ground up.)

But my trouble is the physical training involved in reforming my appetite. I'm like the glutton referred to in this passage from Aristotle's Ethics:

For taste discriminates flavors--the of the thing that wine-tasters and cooks savouring food do; but people, intemperate people at any rate, do not much enjoy this. Rather they enjoy the gratification that comes entirely through touch, in eating and drinking... That is why a glutton actually prayed for his throat to become longer than a crane's..." (Bk 3)

So I'm going to start the NoS now, in preparation for a new year and for the general improvement of my moral virtues. I would love to discuss food with attention to philosophical issues, if anyone is interested.

QUESTION: should we pursue a minimalist asceticism, eating primarily to live, "reducing our mayonnaise footprint" (as the Onion recently suggested), or should we celebrate food, in all its diverse forms, rising from the feeding trough to the properly set table?

User avatar
reinhard
Site Admin
Posts: 5918
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 7:38 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA
Contact:

Post by reinhard » Tue Sep 04, 2007 12:41 pm

Welcome, theburgher!

I'm very interested in this subject myself, though not very knowledgeable. I look forward to learning more from you!

But I don't think it has to be choice between indiscriminate gluttony and spare asceticism. My experience has been that I enjoy food and eating much more with these few, reasonable restrictions in place.

And I think Socrates might have agreed. From Xenophon's memorabilia:
He ate just sufficient food to make eating a pleasure, and he was so ready for his food that he found appetite the best sauce.
http://everydaysystems.com/bb/viewtopic.php?p=17988

Reinhard

theburgher
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 6:35 pm
Location: boston

Post by theburgher » Tue Sep 04, 2007 5:42 pm

Thanks for the reply, Reinhard. We've actually discussed this before in another context, so maybe it would be fun to carry on our friendly debate here. (And, yes, it is me, J-).

I'll drop the ascetic v. glutton issue for now, and revise the question: is it proper for us to live simply and eat minimally, or is our human nature so constituted that we necessarily devise arts of eating?

If good or perfected human nature involves minimal eating, then we should return to, or advance to, a way of life consistent with that nature. To return might require asceticism, or maybe moderation would be more effective...the means don't matter at this point. The problem is to know if we have strayed too far from true human nature in the first place.

The Socrates of Xenophon's works is surely less ascetic. But the Socrates who argues for "the true city" in Plato's Republic, is quite content eating to live--fruits, nuts, bread. The simple city has farmers and bakers who exchange goods with weavers and shoemakers. It's an appealing vision of justice: a natural, self-sufficient city--implying a self-sufficient soul, with simple desires. The question is, is this a proper response to our human nature?

Or, are we one the right track today with magazines about eating, expensive dining experiences, advanced knowledge of calories? Is it possible that our satisfaction and happiness depend on celebrating food itself, as the ancients use to celebrate gods?

User avatar
reinhard
Site Admin
Posts: 5918
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 7:38 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA
Contact:

Post by reinhard » Wed Sep 05, 2007 3:06 pm

Ah, I thought it was you (but didn't know if you wanted your cover blown). :-)

The advanced knowledge about nutrition and calories seems to me mostly dispensable and even dangerous -- it distracts us from the far more pressing problem of obvious excess. It also distracts us from enjoyment. Michael Pollan wrote an interesting article in the NY Times a few weeks ago on "Nutritionism" that's worth reading in the context:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/magaz ... wanted=all

The luxurious aspects of eating -- well, I'm afraid I'm not in a position yet for this to be much of an issue. I look forward to having to worry about it -- we'll see how the book sells. :-)

Most of us here are very far from asceticism... so even if it were preferable to moderation (which I don't think it is, with allowances for the odd saint), I don't think it would be realistically attainable. It might even provide cover for very unphilosophical, self-destructive behaviors (anorexia, binge and purge).

Reinhard

theburgher
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 6:35 pm
Location: boston

Post by theburgher » Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:28 pm

The nutritionism article was interesting. I share your concern that a pseudo-scientific analysis of diet is misguided and dangerous to health.

I'm divided between my intellectual commitment to moderation and my natural inclination toward epicurism. I entertain the possibility that complex longings are best satisfied by complex meals. Hunger seems simple and simply satisfied -- by spinach, rice and black beans.

Either way, my dilemma has to do with what is appropriate for human beings. Aren't we designed to live fast and loose, to die young, but to have experienced the fullest luxury of delicacies and civilized dining -- or even hearty pub meals with our jolly Falstaffian friends?

The popular wisdom is with Prince Hal that "[if] all the year were playing holidays, To sport would be as tedious as to work." The argument, then, is that we enjoy food more when we eat it in moderation; but, that argument seems to favor the priority of pleasure. Can pleasure be a good guide for diet? If it's only a factor in choosing a diet, what weight should it have, in view of social concerns, cultural meaning, physical health, etc?

Reason tells me that moderation is best, but my desires tell me that there is a world of fine dining to be had, and that eating with gusto is the better way.

Brandon
Posts: 29
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 8:13 pm

Post by Brandon » Thu Sep 06, 2007 11:39 pm

theburgher wrote:Reason tells me that moderation is best, but my desires tell me that there is a world of fine dining to be had, and that eating with gusto is the better way.
The regular mention of that the French and their way of eating get around here leads me to believe that your desires are correct. After all, the society of the Puitans with their humble desire for simplicity was the beginning of the twisty road that leads to the Golden Arches and the palace of the Burger King.

theburgher
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 6:35 pm
Location: boston

Post by theburgher » Fri Sep 07, 2007 1:00 am

I wonder if haute cuisine is a remnant of the French aristocracy? I have to agree that Puritanism in America was a kind of preparation for mass society (George Parkin Grant writes about that in Technology and Empire), and that fast food is emblematic of democratic tastes.

Of course, those who disapprove of the decadence of aristocracy, might be inclined toward vegetarianism, or $1 meals at Burger King.

User avatar
reinhard
Site Admin
Posts: 5918
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 7:38 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA
Contact:

Post by reinhard » Fri Sep 07, 2007 4:01 am

Reason tells me that moderation is best, but my desires tell me that there is a world of fine dining to be had, and that eating with gusto is the better way.
I don't actually think pleasure and moderation are opposites -- if you are moderate at the right level of granularity. If you always ate moderately every second you were eating, sure, that might cut into your pleasure. But No-s gives you a solid big picture framework of moderation with little picture wiggle room for pleasure. There is plenty of room for gusto on s-days, or even on a single plate.

In fact, as prince Hal points out, gusto doesn't do well if it has too much room. It is agoraphobic. It needs restraint in order to really register as pleasure. Routine excess, gluttony, isn't just bad for you in terms of its effects (making you fat), it's bad in itself (you feel out of control, always in a panic to top the last excess). It's far less pleasurable than even routine moderation, not to mention the occasional excess which a big picture system of moderation like No-S allows.

Even on a purely gastronomic level, I eat far better now than I did when I overate.

Reinhard

theburgher
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 6:35 pm
Location: boston

Post by theburgher » Sun Sep 09, 2007 8:32 pm

I agree that moderation and pleasure are not exclusive, and that's what Prince Hal, Xenophon, and Aristotle, all seem to be saying. And I like the point that gluttony becomes unquenchable, a pleasureless quest for pleasure.

I just wonder if classical moderation has become something different in the modern world. For example, do we act moderately out of a concern for the disadvantages, out of worry about getting fat, out of not wanting to offend others, or out of worry for our safety. In other words, is moderation really just a kind of mildness or mediocrity? Are moderate people boring? I like people who have big appetites for life, who are not worried about those things. (Of course, I also like people who have that classical moderation, which is not as socially conscious or concerned with playing it safe.)

I'm not being disingenuous: I really do have this dilemma in terms of leaning toward moderation or toward maximizing pleasure? I don't think I'm alone in entertaining this idea--don't people really want to lose weight because it will help them maximize pleasure, primarily the pleasure that comes from being attractive?

User avatar
reinhard
Site Admin
Posts: 5918
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 7:38 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA
Contact:

Post by reinhard » Mon Sep 10, 2007 2:12 pm

In other words, is moderation really just a kind of mildness or mediocrity? Are moderate people boring? I like people who have big appetites for life, who are not worried about those things.
In some cases, you might be right. But I think they are the exception.

A good analogy is poetry.

Appetite is like raw passion or "genius." Moderation is like meter or form. A great poet isn't someone who simply has great passions, but someone who can impose order on those great passions.

Great passion without form is chaos. It is profoundly boring. Think drug addicts and crazy people, not poets. Even a humble passion, well regulated, is more interesting and attractive than that.

It is possible that some very great geniuses may have such an inherently appealing quality of passion that form isn't necessary -- but if so, they are very rare, and even then I'm convinced that a little discipline would render them far greater. Most people who dispense with form or moderation are dull as earth.

Reinhard

theburgher
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 6:35 pm
Location: boston

Post by theburgher » Mon Sep 10, 2007 5:36 pm

Good answer. I'm persuaded.

stevecooper
Posts: 124
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 2:56 pm

Post by stevecooper » Tue Sep 11, 2007 4:09 pm

I like Reinhart's analogy here, but I think I have a more direct example than poets, and that would be chefs.

I'm quite a keen cook, and I happily watch cookery programs. What interests me is that chefs often seem to have a great passion for food, but are not gluttons. Thier passion manifests in relatively constructive behaviour, like sourcing the best ingredients or finding perfect recipes. These are people who have a passion for food, channelled in a way that does not lead to overeating but actually produces something valuable to the wider community.

So there's something interesting here, to me; the chef is neither indifferent to food nor overwhelmed by it, but is actually a creator; aesthetic rather than ascetic.

So, if you aren't indifferent to food, there are really three paths. First, you can give in and become a glutton. Not so good. Second, you can try to become indifferent. Third, you can sublimate the desire into a more productive channel.

There's an extra benefit to learning to cook well, which is that you should be able to find more and more ways to make things taste good without resorting to adding more sugar and fat.

theburgher
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 6:35 pm
Location: boston

Post by theburgher » Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:03 am

The chef analogy addresses the role of food in life. I appreciate the idea of using food as the medium for one's artwork; a way to sublimate unhealthy appetites. Artfully prepared food benefits a people--by raising us out of the slop troughs, it changes our relationship to eating. From feeding to eating... as Leon Kass says in The Hungry Soul (a spectacular book about these issues). Anyway, I had previously asked the innocent question...
theburgher wrote:: is it proper for us to live simply and eat minimally, or is our human
nature so constituted that we necessarily devise arts of eating?
I wonder if learning to cook would moderate my desire to consume raw foods. Is sublimation an alternative to moderation, or compatible with it? Do we need to find such an outlet to be happy, or do we need to subdue desire...by not giving it an outlet? Humm.

stevecooper
Posts: 124
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 2:56 pm

Post by stevecooper » Tue Sep 18, 2007 11:19 am

Aristotle said;
He who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god.
I think we necessarily devise arts of eating, but a great part of that is social. Eating and drinking forms the basis for all manner of social interaction; buying a round of drinks, giving a lover chocolates, celebrating a birthday with cake, taking communion, or eating donuts for Hannukah*. There's a huge list of similar relationships where food can be used as a message, a gift, or a symbol.

So your question is made complex by it's social context. Should families gather together and eat healthy mashed turnips like black-hatted puritans? It's simple and minimal, but grey and soulless, too. The puritans are the reason that mince pies (joyful little fruit tarts eaten at Chistmas) were illegal in Britain for hundreds of years. Miserable bastards, the lot of them, and I wouldn't follow their lead.

I think, rather, that food is a necessary part of a full life. When it comes down to it, I think you've got two questions to answer;

1) when you are on your own or 'ticking over', how moderately should you eat?

2) How do you deal with social eating and drinking, including dinner with any family, nights out with friends, and celebrations?

One of the nice things about No-S is the way it integrates into a normal social life, because you get your exempt days at the weekends (which are usually when people arrange celebrations) and you can still engage in almost every social eating ritual during the week.

For me, cooking is all about that second question. I'm a keen host, and often invite people round for food. The quality of that food is important, as it is a kind of sign of friendship. Without the ability to cook, you lose the ability to play host. Without the freedom to eat, you lose the ability to be a good guest.

Turning back to Socrates; "He ate just sufficient food to make eating a pleasure", but he was also the character who went out to a drinking party to discuss philosophy in Plato's Symposium.


Steve

* How great is it to have a special holiday devoted to deep fried foods?

theburgher
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 6:35 pm
Location: boston

Post by theburgher » Tue Sep 18, 2007 12:36 pm

I like the two questions that you raised, Steve. The first relates to my question about human nature (which I take somewhat on its own, but not as beast or god); and the second question about the social meaning of eating might be necessary to answer the first question. I'm not sure if an ideal of healthy human nature should guide social customs, or whether healthy social customs should guide individual conduct and the shaping of human nature. I'm more inclined to look for the healthy soul first, then judge society by that measure; however, if an actual society or an ideal of society appears to be healthy, then I'd be open to drawing on its customs as a guide.

This may not be possible, but maybe we can observe our own appetites or desires, and understand how they make (rational or irrational) demands, how they impinge on our conduct, how they become habitual if teased, stoked or regularly fed. When I eat a slice of chocolate cake, I often crave a second piece. When I refrain from eating chocolate cake for a month, I do not crave it.

In the dialog above, it sounds like Reinhard is saying that moderation involves setting limits on appetite, training or retraining our desires to quiet down--for the purpose of greater enjoyment/pleasure in life. I would call this moderation a moderate suppression of free-range appetites. And I think it works because it is not ascetic or overly suppressive. (I suspect Reinhard will correct my impression if it is wrong.)

On the other hand, it sounds like you are suggesting another perfectly reasonable theory: that of channeling or sublimating desires. Rather than suppressing or trying to limit the effect of desire, the arts of eating, as we call them, are a way to redirect, while keeping the longing for food (and its place in life) alive and well. This approach would avoid the pitfalls of asceticism. Is this a fair account?

Socrates is a great example because he is said to have lived between the extremes, somehow.

stevecooper
Posts: 124
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 2:56 pm

Post by stevecooper » Tue Sep 18, 2007 2:22 pm

You wrote "I'm not sure if an ideal of healthy human nature should guide social customs, or whether healthy social customs should guide individual conduct and the shaping of human nature."

If you could describe this healthy human nature, what could you do to turn it into social custom? Or is this something that becomes part of a personal ethic?

I find it interesting to try looking at the habits and customs of societies and see what can be gained there. Recent books like "French women don't get fat" take this approach, of trying to make explicit some of the implicit rules of food in particular cultures. What are the customs in societies regarding eating between meals, or the importance of ingredients, or the rituals of the table? I remember someone on these forums saying something like "my French friend viewed snacking between meals to be equivalent to picking your nose in public" -- a social rule affecting eating.

You wrote: "When I eat a slice of chocolate cake, I often crave a second piece. When I refrain from eating chocolate cake for a month, I do not crave it. "

That's a great example of a rule which helps you build up a 'playbook' for approaching food, I think.

I suppose there are a couple of ways to talk about observations like this. The first is a kind of 'virtue' approach, where you talk about gluttony and temperance and moderation. The second is a physiological approach, where you talk about insulin response and glycemic indices and so on. Any idea how to tie these approaches together? Is one more valuable than the other?

You wrote: "it sounds like Reinhard is saying that moderation involves setting limits on appetite" and "you are suggesting [...] channeling or sublimating desires"

I think that's right, yes. I also think there's a synthesis of the ideas that can be reached. Something like "eat appropriate amounts of satisfying food, according to proven social norms." Reinhart's three plates rule is a great way to talk about moderating portions, and it also integrates very well with US and UK norms of breakfast, lunch, and dinner; it works with restaurants and al desko work lunches and snatched breakfasts and family dinners. I'm trying to emphasise the aspect of preparing good food and trying to re-emphasise the social aspects.

I've noticed several warning signs in my own eating;

* eating standing up
* eating without a plate
* eating away from other people
* eating directly out of bags or packets

Each of these is both a warning sign that I am going to eat too much, and a deviation away from the idea of a prepared, sit-down meal shared with other people. For me, there is a social pressure that comes from sitting down with others with more food than everyone else. In his third podcast, Reinhart says "You can fit a lot onto a plate, but you can't do it without seeing that it's a lot. That gentle pressure on your eyeballs is surprisingly effective." That's especially true when you sit down with others, and their portions are smaller than yours.

Also, for me there's some ill-defined connection between quality and quantity. There are restaurant menus reading "two chicken breasts smothered in BBQ sauce, bacon, and cheese and served with fries" and menus reading "Roast quail with grilled aubergine, red pepper, and potato gratin", but rarely menus with both. The first satisfies with quantity, the second quality. My theory is that often, pushing up quality pushes down quantity. Compare a satisfying amount of espresso with a satisfying amount of weak coffee, or an expensive dark chocolate with cheap milk chocolate.

theburgher
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 6:35 pm
Location: boston

Post by theburgher » Wed Sep 19, 2007 12:30 am

Thank you for the enjoyable discussion here.

I think of social customs as conduct that proves to have some value (not even utilitarian value). Some customs are better than others. How could one judge them? By a standard or authority that is above custom. We might find such guidance in our understanding of a healthy person. So I think it's possible to know (or at least, have an educated guess about) what is a fitting for our human nature. It is possible to give a reasonable account of our make up, our physical needs, psychological longings, spiritual aspirations, and then to give an account of how we should cultivate such elements of human nature (let's call it virtue). That would be a standard by which we could measure the benefit or harm of social customs.

For example, if our natures improve by 10 hours a day of hard physical labor, then the Protestant ethic might prove to be a good social custom. Or if we are improved by quiet study, then customs that support leisurely reading might prove best. Maybe we are most human when we demand the finest foods. Or maybe we are at our best when we forget food, except for minimal sustenance. I suppose many are quick to suggest a balance among the various options, but that seems to surrender one's growth to potentially unhealthy customs. --My grandparents would not let me leave the table without suffering a second helping and dessert.

The social customs that govern eating are largely good customs: welcoming guests to the table --feeding them, rather than eating them as cannibals would have it-- dinnertime conversation, refined dining, and so on.

Although I'm concerned that good customs are disappearing, there is hope on the horizon as many of us turn away from fast food, frozen dinners and feeding frenzies. We are seeking to make this basic activity a bit more humane. And by attending to it, we will, I think, greatly improve ourselves and our families. I don't have much hope for eating our way to social progress--but maybe a revival of local farms will restore ancient virtue in our hearts. Isn't the Shovel Glove is an exercise for the farming revolution?

stevecooper
Posts: 124
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 2:56 pm

Post by stevecooper » Wed Sep 19, 2007 1:05 pm

The idea of human nature is a tricky one. I suppose we have fixed elements and flexible elements. In a rough split, the fixed elements are physical and the flexible elements are cultural.

For example, in a calorie-scarce past, there is an evolutionary pressure which favours eaters who like high-fat, high-sugar foods. We may never be able to change the fact that we are going to want to eat lardy, sugary foods, because that's hard-wired on some level. Physiological things like that, and our responses to sleep and exercise, are going to be important when dealing with ideas like moderation and sustenance. I don't think we can talk meaningfully about moderation without discussing calories, at least indirectly.

I'm pulling out of your last post the idea that there is some kind of 'natural human nature,' existing before culture, that is basically good. You'd like to discover and nurture that. Is that a fair reading?

I think, if that's true, that we may have quite a different view of the world. I think of humanity as being very, very moldable; after physical constraints like the need for food, drink, sleep, and air, societies can mold people to almost any behaviour; compare the lives of Roman soldiers, computer programmers, Mongolian shamans, and New Guinea cannibals; very, very different ways of living.

theburgher
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 6:35 pm
Location: boston

Post by theburgher » Thu Sep 20, 2007 2:35 am

Ah, culture. I do think human nature precedes culture, but I have to agree that it is molded by culture. I also agree that what we can call human nature is mostly biological; it can be healthy or unhealthy.

But I go a few steps further and say that, all around the world, human beings can pursue a natural good, a good for themselves, that is not measured by social conventions or cultural values. I'm not talking about an absolute truth, but a theoretical idea of human good--for example, a being who cares for wisdom, who cares for friends and family, who is free from slavishness and ignorance, and... who eats properly. Such persons can be found in every culture. I also suppose there are gluttons who eat too many giant beetles or monkey brains.

Human nature can be cultivated, and it ought to be cultivated according to a view of good human nature, not just a view of biological health. So I'm trying to look beyond health, and to the role of healthful eating in life.

The ethics of eating is so central to our own good, that it was treated as part of the Bible's holiness code, along with sexuality. The writers (or Writer) knew that a people becomes a people, a culture a culture, partly by its way of eating. The laws of kashrut (Jewish dietary laws) were interpreted by a medieval rabbi and doctor, Maimonides, as aiming toward moderation. As a Platonist and a doctor, he was aware of the biological basis of moderation, and defended health on the grounds that it was a necessarily condition for moral virtue. I agree. I don't think the glutton is a good candidate for virtue. But I also like gluttons/epicures because they can be big-hearted (maybe literally) and big-spirited individualists who could care less about social customs.

So, yes, maybe there is really something good in our complex and unusual desires, our human nature. Maybe inchoate longings help us escape from the monotony of social customs, mediocrity and democratic tastes. Maybe human nature is essentially good because it helps free us in a way that an ideal of moderation cannot. Yet for all its power and danger, maybe it really does need to be cultivated.

stevecooper
Posts: 124
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 2:56 pm

Post by stevecooper » Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:49 am

Sounds like we're on the same page, largely. That's a relief.

I think, for the purposes of discussing eating, there are two primary goods. The first is biological health, and moderation is one important way to that. Especially in our culture, where there's absolutely no external limit to the amount of crap you could shovel into your body if you wanted. The second good is social; or rather, many social goods are facilitated by food. So it's important to accomodate that.

--

Here's a theory of moderation I'd like to introduce. For anything you might indulge in, be it sex, food, drink, drugs, or bandwidth, you can take one of several stands.

The first stance is complete abstenance, the stance of the celibate and the teetotaller. That can have it's virtues, I think, mainly when the indulgence isn't really necessary to happiness or health. I applaud complete abstenance from crystal meth, for example. Sexual celibacy bothers me more than abstenance from hard drugs, though, because I think sexuality is a necessary part of our nature. Re food, well, abstenance isn't a possibility, which means you need to go for another stance...

The second stance is total indulgence; the stance of the wanton, the binge drinker, the junkie, the glutton. Rarely a good thing. Re food, it's unhealthy in lots of ways.

In the middle, I think there are two interesting moderate positions. One looks towards abstenance, the other towards indulgence. I need to go into those positions to make my larger point.

Moderation looking towards abstenance: Essentially, you indulge but feel bad about it. In sexuality, you might find someone from a repressive culture who has been taught that sex is dirty and disgusting but a duty of marriage. With booze, it might be someone who feels guilty about that sweet sherry at Christmas or is embarrassed to have been 'caught' tipsy. With food, this is the position of believing that eating anything for more than sustenance is an indulgence. I think a lot of diet-talk falls into this category, and is a joyless approach to eating. Someone on a diet who eats any chocolate may feel themselves to be morally weak. It can be a pretty joyless approach, because it often relies on the idea that enjoying your appetites must be sinful -- that sex is just for creating babies and not for fun, that food is just for sustenance.

Moderation looking towards indulgence: In sexuality, someone in a stable partnership who enjoys sex with their partner but stays faithful to that one partner. With drink, someone who can share a drink with friends without losing control, With food, someone who enjoys what they eat but stays within healthy limits. This for me a more healthy, joyful approach. It's characterised by the idea that appetites have both function and pleasure, and that you benefit by maximising pleasure as you fulfil the function. The exemplars here are the quality-focussed chef, the convivial guest, the generous host, and the affectionate couple.

As should be really clear by now, I'm all for moderation looking towards indulgence. Get maximum pleasure and minimum guilt out of your daily 2500 calories. I also think there's a very practical reason for this approach; too much constraint can lead people to snap and revert to unconstrained indulgence; I understand yo-yo dieting to be a cycle of too-heavy restriction creating hunger and depression, an inevitable snapping, gluttony, regret, and back to abstenance. It's a nasty roller-coaster to be on.

User avatar
reinhard
Site Admin
Posts: 5918
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 7:38 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA
Contact:

Post by reinhard » Thu Sep 20, 2007 2:56 pm

A lot to respond to here!

I'll have to cherry pick for now:

theburger:

Regarding "custom," I see this as analogous to habit, except on a social rather than an individual scale. Customs or traditions are the habits of societies. Just like individual habits, they can be good or bad, and they are not in themselves rational. Custom has gotten a bad wrap over the last few centuries. And as you point out, some customs deserve a bad wrap. But the idea that we can live completely without custom, that we could live in a completely rational society seems to me misguided and dangerous. It's no more possible for a society to live without custom than for an individual to live without habit. Reason is great, but expensive. It would take you a lifetime, on a purely rational basis, to come up with just one individual meal that perfectly balances the competing concerns of health, taste, money, etc. There's a famous philosophical conundrum about a perfectly rational camel between two equidistant wells -- since there is no rational basis for preferring one over the other, he dies of thirst. It's a bit cartoonish, but I think it illustrates an important truth about the cost and limitations of pure rationality.

So the question isn't custom or not, but which customs? With a healthy, irrational preference for existing ones, of course (or they wouldn't be customs).

Steve, I like your taxonomy of appetite-regulation.

Abstainers
Moderates (2 kinds)
Indulgers

Your picking apart of the moderate position is interesting and I think you're on to something, but I'd do it a little differently. People who wish they abstained but don't aren't really moderates, they're just failed abstainers. And I'd suggest that there is a corresponding category of failed indulgers on the other side -- people indulge for the sake of pleasure but find that big picture it ain't so pleasurable, whether for reasons of health, social stigma, the Wrath of God, or the dawning consiousness that they have become slaves to their appetite. These aren't moderate positions, they're unsuccessful extreme positions -- which the vast majority of us fall into. There are very few "successful" extremists, extremists of either abstinence or indulgence who can actually go through with what they set out to accomplish and aren't then profoundly disappointed with the results. There may be some, saints on the one hand, and Falstaffs on the other, but they are sufficiently rare that the rest of us shouldn't bother imitating them.

I know Freud isn't very popular nowadays, and I'm not too crazy about him in general either, but he had this lovely theory of "sublimation" (which I think, like most of his good ideas, he borrowed from Nietzsche):

It goes something like this: the idea is you can repress a problematic desire or indulge it -- both have big cons. But the best, most productive and even beautiful thing to do is to "sublimate" it: to resist but not completely smother it, to channel and transform it into something higher. Want to bash every attractive woman you see over the head with a club and drag her back to your cave? Write Carmen instead. Lust for food isn't quite as dramatic a desire, but I think it too can be "sublimated" into something positive, pleasurable and even aesthetically appealing.

Reinhard

theburgher
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 6:35 pm
Location: boston

Post by theburgher » Mon Sep 24, 2007 12:40 am

I know we haven't settled the question of whether human nature is improved by suppressing appetite or sublimating it -- but the majority seem to favor channeling, which is closely tied to our presumed right to pleasure. We are persuaded that suppressing our desire backfires, twisting the instincts (to borrow a phrase from Nietzsche). But I think that theory has become a rationalization (another Freudian concept) to permit an increase of desire beyond a healthy level, while saying to ourselves, "oh but it's much worse to suppress them." Consider an argument from Hamlet--

Assume a virtue if you have it not.
That monster, custom, who all sense doth eat
Of habits evil, is angel yet in this,
That to the use of actions fair and good
He likewise gives a frock or livery,
That aptly is put on. Refrain tonight,
And that shall lend a kind of easiness
To the next abstinence; the next more easy;
For use almost can change the stamp of nature... (Hamlet III, ÃŒv,181-9)

--which I think favors suppression and reduction of desire, rather than embracing it with the intent to channel it. We are so used to living in a fever pitch that we cannot believe less pleasure would be satisfying. Hamlet's admonition acknowledges that we dislike the restraints of custom, and that it covers over bad conduct. But to good / moderate conduct, custom or habit is a dressing, an apt formality. Abstinence reduces the pangs of appetite and brings them to a manageable level. At a certain level, far below what we're used to, desire would still be alive and well. At some point, it may be dangerous to suppress it further. But I don't know many individuals who live at that level, which I would call classical moderation, as opposed to moderation by creative exhaustion...

"And, I'm spent." --Austin Powers (to counter-balance Hamlet.)

User avatar
reinhard
Site Admin
Posts: 5918
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 7:38 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA
Contact:

Post by reinhard » Mon Sep 24, 2007 2:20 pm

I guess my response is, as a general rule:

If you aim for virtue, you'll get pleasure.

If you aim for pleasure, you'll get neither.

And if you aim AGAINST pleasure (a lot of people confuse this for virtue) you'll REALLY get neither.

Are there exceptions to this? Sure, at least seemingly. If you are sleeping with the man who murdered your previous husband and stole his kingdom, sure, you might have to let virtue trump pleasure for a bit (though I'd suggest that in a bigger picture metaphysical sense, you'll probably wind up ahead on both counts by refraining).

Here's another Shakespearean example. Macbeth thinks he will become king (something pleasurable) by killing the reigning king (something, in Shakespeare's day, about as immoral as possible). Does Macbeth get what he aimed for? Yes, in a sense. In a hollow, meaningless, soul-killing sense. Would he have gotten something much better if he'd ignored the witches' temptations, as Banquo did? If he'd stayed a loyal subject and let Duncan make him "full of growing?" It's the story of the expulsion from Eden, set in medieval Scotland, replete with an Eve (Lady Macbeth) and a nature gone wild ("two horses ate each other").

Reinhard

theburgher
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 6:35 pm
Location: boston

Post by theburgher » Tue Sep 25, 2007 2:08 am

Well, I know Hamlet's interpretation of his mother's conduct and her view of her own conduct are different. (Projection?) But his general advice seems to be useful: the formalities of custom can help to keep the desires in check. The habits of custom "almost change the stamp of nature." I read that as, "customs" reduce the intensity of natural appetite.

I see Hamlet's advice as an argument for continence, not exactly the kind of moderation "towards abstinence," to which Steve refers (but does not prefer.) But it is also not "towards indulgence." Reinhard seems inclined to agree with Hamlet's advice, with the qualification that there is an even better goal--virtue. He also distinguishes this kind of moderation from a more ascetic pleasure-denying moderation.

We seem to be hammering out an understanding of moderation. Moderation can be obtained by: (1) controlling appetite, suppressing intense cravings (asceticism, moderation toward abstinence, pleasure-denying moderation). (2) channeling or sublimating appetite, finding a creative outlet that releases the energy in a socially valued way (moderation toward indulgence, moderation by creative exhaustion). (3) slowly reducing appetite so that it is hardly noticed, and one eats moderately without effort or the need for creative release (continence, classical moderation, moderation via limitation).

We seem to agree that option (1) is not healthy or effective. We diverge on the question of the benefit of channeling appetite. My concern is that both asceticism and sublimation do not reduce the intensity of appetite--but keep it inflamed--which may be a good thing, I admit. However, I think that a reduced appetite is the most solid foundation for virtue (or a healthy soul), and is the most likely type of moderation to endure.

stevecooper
Posts: 124
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 2:56 pm

Post by stevecooper » Tue Sep 25, 2007 8:44 am

it could be easier to discuss methods; I see (1) and (3) in your list as probably pursuing much the same methods, with the difference in how you feel about it. It seems that the methods on the table so far are;

A. Mountains to molehills. Slowly reduce the amount of food you take in, acclimatising on the way down.
B. Three Square Meals Don't eat indiscriminately, but adapt to a regular schedule in accordance with social norms.
C. soufflé to porridge. Change the type of food from luxurious foods to simple foods
D. Macaroni cheese to maccheroni con ricotta romana. Study culinary arts to make sure what you are eating brings you pleasure.

It seems that we're all probably agreed on (A) and (B) -- reducing the quantities and dividing the world so that you eat only at mealtimes.

The crux of the discussion is around the tension between eating more simply, and eating more discriminately. Seems that the issue to be settled is one of mindfulness; should we be paying attention to the pleasure available from food? If we shouldn't, then food becomes a simple source of nutrition and can 'drop from view' somewhat. If we should, then food becomes a valid source of pleasure if not over-indulged.

kccc
Posts: 3957
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:12 am

Post by kccc » Tue Sep 25, 2007 4:32 pm

(Coming in late)

Steve, I like your summary list. But I'd combine C and D under your question about "food as a source of pleasure." I've found that simple food can also be a source of eating pleasure - I much prefer simple recipes for vegetables that let the natural flavors shine over recipes that "have vegetables IN them" (but are mostly sauces).

And if you can't tell, I absolutely think that food is a legitimate form of pleasure... and, ironically, one in which I take MORE pleasure in when I eat moderately. A little bit of very-good chocolate is MUCH more satisfying than mass quantities of not-very-good stuff. It's a quality-over-quantity approach.

In fact, one of the big pluses of the No-S diet to me is that I eat less and enjoy it more. Without a side order of guilt, food tastes SO much better! ;)

stevecooper
Posts: 124
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 2:56 pm

Post by stevecooper » Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:34 pm

Hi, KCCC.

The big difference between C and D is about how much attention you're paying to the taste. What I wanted to distinguish between was the idea that you could (C) knock back some kind of bland, nutritious mush which kept your body going, but which had no real taste pleasure, and (D) use tastier, fresher ingredients and combine them in nicer ways.

One approach says 'pay attention to food the way you pay attention to the fuel in your car -- pragmatically and without savour. Then spend your attention on something more worthwhile.' The other says 'since you're going to be eating for the rest of your life, pay attention and get it right.'

I still hold the (D) position -- a celebratory approach to good food -- but have also been very prone to over-indulgence with food. Which is why I'm here. I'm interesting in picking apart the subject for a while yet, to think about whether there's a relationship. Perhaps interestingly, my attempts to become a good cook coincided with my attempts at weight loss. Previously, I used bland bulk to satisfy my appetites (huge piles of bread and pasta, mainly) so I'm interested in the question of whether quality can somehow 'push out' quantity.

kccc
Posts: 3957
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:12 am

Post by kccc » Thu Sep 27, 2007 5:22 pm

The way you've stated C and D, the issue of taste doesn't seem the central idea. Maybe it can be rephrased, though?

I DO think quality pushes out quantity, for me at least. When I cook interesting meals, I eat less food and enjoy it more. When I'm struggling with S-days, my best approach is to plan a truly wonderful treat - then I don't keep mindlessly grazing.

When I don't get "good stuff," I just keep eating, as if on a search mission led by my mouth. :(

And "good stuff" need not be complex or sweet or even high-calorie... it can be fresh strawberries, feta cheese on a salad, homegrown tomatoes in season, that kind of thing. Just something with real flavor, that I enjoy eating.

theburgher
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 6:35 pm
Location: boston

Post by theburgher » Thu Sep 27, 2007 10:18 pm

Methods are easier to discuss because they avoid the problem of articulating ends or purposes. Early modern science, and its politics, avoided questions about human ends or purposes (partly to overcome Aristotle's authority) because it could not really comprehend what a good life would be--it left such questions to individual choice. (Sorry for the pedantic comment, but I thought it a necessary preface.)

I was kind of interested in the purpose of moderation--why we pursue it, besides health. But I'll leave it alone for now, since what keeps coming up is the inalienable right to pleasure...meaning, pleasure seems to be the guiding principle for our conduct in eating.

Of course, I agree that pleasure is good; that food is a source of pleasure; that a small amount of quality chocolate produces more pleasure than a large amount of chocolate flavored paraffin; that eating is a facet of life that needs to be governed by thoughtful decision. But are we really so hard-wired that there's no greater purpose to our eating than health and pleasure? If it's true, it's true.

Is our question,"what is the most effective way to satisfy ourselves, in view of health and pleasure?"

Steve gives a good analysis of a method for satisfying appetite: to celebrate food and learn culinary arts. I like this answer because it includes a psychology of pleasure.

kccc
Posts: 3957
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:12 am

Post by kccc » Fri Sep 28, 2007 12:42 am

Mm... pleasure is a principle, but not the only one. So is health. When I eat decently, I have more energy for other aspects of my life.

Moderation is a path to both. It sounds contradictory, but moderation can lead to greater pleasure than total indulgence. And it's better for you as well.

Moderation sounds hard, but balancing between over-indulgence and asceticism is really quite normal. Especially when one is in tune with one's actual needs - and moderation is a means to reaching a feeling of being "in tune."

larisa0001
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 5:53 am

Post by larisa0001 » Mon Oct 29, 2007 1:37 am

KCCC wrote:Mm... pleasure is a principle, but not the only one. So is health. When I eat decently, I have more energy for other aspects of my life.

Moderation is a path to both. It sounds contradictory, but moderation can lead to greater pleasure than total indulgence. And it's better for you as well.

Moderation sounds hard, but balancing between over-indulgence and asceticism is really quite normal. Especially when one is in tune with one's actual needs - and moderation is a means to reaching a feeling of being "in tune."
Exactly. That's my philosophy when it comes to food. I think that both overindulgence and asceticism are quite unhealthy, really. The body was made to function in a certain way; responding to its needs is a way to ensure optimum function, just like with any machine. I've always noticed that my body was very good at telling me what it needed at any given moment. If I'm low on iron, I start dreaming about meat. If I'm low on vitamins, I dream about juicy, perfect oranges. I hadn't had any fish lately, so I had a strong craving for sushi - and the sushi I had yesterday tasted especially yummy.

I think that the only reason I gained weight was because I suddenly became sedentary - and I know my body is craving movement. I just can't exercise at the moment. (I did try shovelgloving yesterday, but I couldn't manage the 14 minutes - I was scared of reinjuring my wrist. But today, it feels good to have sore muscles from exercising, and the wrist seems to be OK...)

User avatar
BrightAngel
Posts: 2093
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:22 pm
Location: Central California
Contact:

Post by BrightAngel » Tue Apr 22, 2008 11:40 pm

I enjoyed reading this discussion,
but it seemed a bit deep...even for a lawyer.

I'm not really into right or wrong or black and white,
I tend to be pragmatic about things....including food.
To make it simple.
I like what works, if it also feels good.
I just want to eat tasty food in a way that doesn't make me fat.
I'm hoping No S will help me do that.
BrightAngel - (Dr. Collins)
See: DietHobby. com

DianeA2Z
Posts: 134
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 6:39 pm
Location: San Diego
Contact:

Post by DianeA2Z » Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:30 am

theburgher wrote:Reason tells me that moderation is best, but my desires tell me that there is a world of fine dining to be had, and that eating with gusto is the better way.
My what an interesting thread this is. I think you can have it all; that is, eat in moderation, but eat with gusto what you choose in moderation. Why deprive your senses of the sight, sound, smell and tastes of food? Why not savor each and every bite as though it is your first and last? I have spent much of my adult life eating food I love and yet not tasting more than the first bite. That's a sad thing. With the variety of items humans have to ingest, I say make the most of whatever you have!

Diane
Visit www.MaximizeYourWellness.com
(Ok, a shameless plug). I'm just here to learn how to say No to the S!

Post Reply