Philosophers

[stefanyb]

I began to think about this while reading the "Is cooking art" thread and then, believe it or not, again while reading the "Ruby, taking a break" thread.

There has been a fair amount of "philosophy" on these boards.  We even have our own resident philosopher(it wouldn't be the same around here without him, so, you-know-who-you-are, you better not take any breaks!).  But I've gotten to wondering, food-wise, art-wise and otherwise does philosophy require written or spoken language?  Can it exist on another level?  I know this sounds odd but what do you all think?  Can a chef have a philosophy that he expounds just through his culinary creations without words?

(This did say topics without borders)

[Lord Michael Lewis]

As a non-linguistic method of communication this would come under the umbrella of semiotics. Were a interpretation of what was on the plate possible it is unlikely that it would address the issues that customarily occupy philosophers.

[yvonne johnson]

My immediate answer is no. Philosophy of food, or of anything couldn't exist without words. Concepts have to be used by the person to convey to others the ideas and principles they are using. When you ask "Can a chef have a philosophy that he expounds just through his culinary creations without words", my take would be that if the chef couldn't articulate through words what the philosophy was, then he/she didn't have one. That's not to say they weren't a good, skilled cook. An unrelated point is: Can you be a good cook and not use words? I'd say yes, of course, as others could learn from the cook just by imitation.

If a chef had a philosophy what might it be? Simplicity is good? I guess Colicchio has a philosophy. I wouldn't call it deep in the philosophical sense (no offence meant), but it's hardly Kant (then again, some might say he didn't offer a deep one either).

But to go back to the wordless philosophy in your post, if Plato's pure forms exist, would the philosopher king be rendered speachless if they grasped one? If jminyo, for example, came across the ideal pie what would she say . Could it be conveyed?

(Above are crazy thoughts of feverish person in 100 degree heat, and who read undergrad phil over 20 years ago.)

[John Whiting]

We are here involved in communicating about food through a medium which does not directly exercise either our sense of taste or of smell. As a clever New Yorker piece observed a couple of years ago, the internet has returned us to the 18th century short discursive essay. In the words of T.S. Eliot's Sweeney, "I gotta use words when I talk to you."

So we skirt the edges of philosophy without excercising the discipline necessary to formulate a full-fledged system. To use a homely old American phrase, we are, in both a real and a metaphorical sense, cracker-barrel philosophers.

[Jinmyo]

If jminyo, for example, came across the ideal pie what would she say . Could it be conveyed?

Oooooooh!

[cabrales]

Can a chef have a philosophy that he expounds just through his culinary creations without words?

In very rare circumstances, a chef could have a "philosophy" (used in a less stringent sense of the term) that could be articulated without words. As an example, the philosophy could be that vegetables are to be respected as a primary, if not the primary, ingredient in a meal.  

[Liza]

Hmm. Plenty to ponder, Stephany B. I'm going to jump in a assert that plenty of philosophy can be conveyed without words. We use body language to convey quite a lot about how we interpret the world. (resisting the urge to quote famous Australian philosopher B. Gibb's "You can tell by the way I use my walk I'm a woman's man, no time to talk..." D'OH!)

[tony h]

If you listen very carefully you can hear Ruby scream in the distance.

[Liza]

Thank you, thank you for that one, BLH.

[Jinmyo]

Eating and Nothingness by Jean-Paul Sauté.

[Gavin Jones]

Eating & Time - Martin Heidegger, a notoriously slow eater.

I believe Simon can convey his whole philosophy in pork products (though not exclusively black pudding).

For me, tripe.

[Jinmyo]

Oh yes, in which dasein is thrown on the barbie.

[Gavin Jones]

Klaus, not the doll presumably

[Wilfrid]

Let's do some sorting out.  The word "philosophy" can be used to mean a variety of things, and I think two uses may be at play in this thread:

1.  Philosophy = world view.  In other words, an attitude or feeling or general take on life, the universe and everything, which anyone might hold.  That's a common, everyday use of the term, and you will hear people preface remarks on some subjects with a phrase like, "Well, my philosophy is..."

2.  Philosophy = the academic discipline, as practiced (inside and outside academies) by people who would describe themselves as philosophers, and these days that usually means professional, academic philosophers.

Also, two different questions to be distinguished:

1.  Can philosophy, in either of the two senses above, be expressed without using words?

2.  Can philosophy, in either of the two senses above, be discussed without using words?

And the results are:  The answer to question 2 above is clearly No.  Whatever we mean by philosophy, there's only one way to discuss it, and that is by using words (and I suppose I should say that I do not mean to dismiss sign language, morse code or other substitutes for written and spoken words).

The answer to 1. is, I think, Yes, so long as we are only concerned with philosophy in the first sense.  Philosophy as an attitude, or world view, or even sense of style, can be expressed by what a chef serves and how they serve it.  I entirely concur with his Lordship here, that the discussion of such forms of expression is properly the field of semiotics (the science of signs).  You will find that such writers as Roland Barthes and Umberto Eco have written widely on the semiotics of fashion, sport and goodness knows what (have they written about food, I now wonder?).  I am currently reading a book by Rebecca Sprang which could fairly be described as a historical semiotic analysis of restaurants.

Can philosophy in the second sense, that of the academic discipline, be expressed without using words?  I think not.  It is, after all, chiefly about advancing, discussing and refuting arguments, and I would hate to be served an argument on a plate in a restaurant.

[John Whiting]

You will find that such writers as Roland Barthes and Umberto Eco have written widely on the semiotics of fashion, sport and goodness knows what (have they written about food, I now wonder?).

Barthes' _Mythologies_ includes essays written between 1954 and 1956 on "Operation Margarine", "Wine and Milk", "Steak and Chips", and "Ornamental Cookery". Most of the essays in this collection appeared in _les Lettres Nouvelles_; they deconstruct icons of popular culture in much the same way that Marshall McLuhan had done in 1951 in his first book, _The Mechanical Bride_

[Gavin Jones]

A friend of mine cooked a meal which centred around 'duck-rabbit', in sympathy with a flatmate's wittgenstinian problems.

[tony h]

A friend of mine cooked a meal which centred around 'duck-rabbit', in sympathy with a flatmate's wittgenstinian problems.

Please explain more.

[Wilfrid]

The duck-rabbit.  I wish I could draw picture here.  Anyway, it's Gavin's mythical creature, so I'll defer to him!

I was thinking that my explanatory post above was a bit dry and pompous, so I wanted to ask Stefany (and everyone): I think artists can express a philosophy (in the broad, world-view sense) in their work, so perhaps chefs can express themselves in an analogous way - right?  The art example I have in mind (and there are many) is Francis Bacon, who I believe expresses in his paintings a pretty clear, forceful, and indeed somewhat distressing, view of what it is to be a human being.  Certainly, the interviews he has given add a linguistic underpinning to his ideas, but I think the canvases speak for themselves.  

I'm not sure I'd like to find a Baconian world view expressed on a plate, but I think we could find examples of chefs who are "saying something", and not just feeding us - to be fair, they may just be saying something about food, rather than life in general!  Tom Colicchio has been proposed.  I would add Fergus Henderson in London.  Who else?

(Or am I talking out of my fundament?)

[Jinmyo]

(Or am I talking out of my fundament?)

Ha ha. I haven't heard that in years.

[yvonne johnson]

Adria, Liebrandt: The much-overused term “paradigm shift” (hate the term) comes to mind. Aren’t they trying to turn the traditional views on food (temp, combinations etc) on their head? It must leap off the plate. Is this philosophy on a plate?

Nigella Lawson and Nigel Slater: Their philosophy is to make food that is “made and eaten by people in real life” to quote Lawson. Marcella Hazan, I’d add here.

In early 1980s in London, remember the stir Anton Mosimann made? I was just looking at a paperback book of his ”A new style of cooking: The art of Mosimann”. On paper, his approach is very similar to Colicchio’s: use local produce, go light on the sauces, and avoid complication. He quotes Escoffier: La bonne cuisine est celle ou les choses ont le goût de ce qu’elles sont” (“Good cooking is cooking where things taste of what they are”). I’m all for that. (Colicchio's cooking, in reality, is much lighter than Mosimann's)

In the above examples “approach" and  “philosophy” could be used interchangably. Philosophy in the sense of “world view” sense doesn’t seem to add much for me, but it seems most applicable in Adria's case (not that I ever eaten his dishes).

For consort’s last birthday, I gave him Gray Kunz & Peter Kaminsky’s “The elements of taste”. At first sight they appear to want to bridge the two types definitions of philosophy that you give. But I think this is a mistaken (on reader’s part) impression. Interestingly, consort has looked at the book a couple of times and made zilch from it. I don’t think he buys their “theories”. Being a scientist, he can spot twaddle in a minute. It is a very pretty book though.

I’ve only dipped into it, but they seem to offer a conceptual framework and a classification system rather than a philosophy. They identify 14 elements of taste in 4 categories: Tastes that push (e.g., salty, sweet), Tastes that pull (e.g., tangy, funky (truffles is example), Tastes that punctuate (sharp/bitter), and Taste platforms which, if I follow correctly, are the main ingredient of the dish, e.g., meat, fish….)

On looking more at Kunz’s book, I could even suggest that they are trying to deepen our knowledge on taste in a quasi-scientific sense, while waxing somewhat philosophically about it. And to continue with science, couldn't Adria's work be understood better using science rather than philosophy as the lens?

Getting away from stefany’s question (can a chef non-verbally express a philosophy through a dish)….still, it’s quite enjoyable being a long-winded, would-be philosopher.

[Gavin Jones]

I'm not really the person to pursue as never been

a) a philosopher

b) did not cook meal.

But in one of Ludwig's lighter moments (i.e. not tractatus) he illustrates a problem (presumably in cognition) by a well known picture. It is the out line of

either: the head of a duck with a prominent bill

or: rotated, the head of a rabbit with prominent ears

- you're getting the picture.

Do you see a duck, or a rabbit,

or.... a 'duck-rabbit'.

I know, it's a bloody picture, and I too never found a sympathetic philosopher after Hume.

Still you can see there's something there, and as my social circle then included various philosophers a friend gastronomically incarnated it on a plate.

Duck, rabbit or duck rabbit.

I will seek further details from the cook, Markman.

[Gavin Jones]

+ I've always thought someone who offers Pig's Trooter selon l'humeur du chef is offering a worldview.

[=Mark]

I'm not sure I'd like to find a Baconian world view expressed on a plate

Why not?  As long as it was crisp and served with a couple eggs and buttered toast...  

[Wilfrid]

Mark:  Chortle!

Gavin:  Embarrassingly, I now can't remember what point Witters was making with his duck-rabbit.  Doutbless something to do with cognition, but I ought to be able to be more specific.  And old Witters rarely had "light" moments - but indeed, it's in either the Invesigations or the Blue and Brown Books, and my copies are at my country retreat in the South Bronx.  I'll look it up in due course, although I had planned to stay "in town" this weekend.

(Oh, remembering Macrosan's advice, I should alert new readers that there is irony in the last paragraph!)

[yvonne johnson]

Mark, That was funny

Here's a picture of duck/rabbit

http://home.earthlink.net/~bwcarver/ludwig/drabbit.gif

Wilfrid: I was hoping for some debate. Oh, well, ho, hum.