Philosopher's Food

Philosophers are great eater. They have strong appetite for food. Do not get me wrong. What I am trying to say that not philosophers has a very strong desire to eat Chicken, Noodles, Pasta and so on (could be, People Like Nietzsche was said to love pasta). Food here refers to what I call, "food for thought." This is the kind of food that nourish mind and satisfied soul. Perhaps, we can say it as philosophical food since it distinguished itself from the notion of spiritual food, which is offered by religion and physical food offered by chef. The activity of eating can be either thinking or reading by their own or sharing with others. 

I think philosopher will agree with this statement, "tell me what you eat, and I should tell you what you are." If philosopher fond to "eat" books on  justice and Ethics, maybe that philosopher concern about what constitutes right and wrong. If philosophers like to eat books on metaphysics, maybe that philosopher concern about God and the existence of supranatural being. In this sense, to what Philosopher eat is to expose what they are interested to, their existential struggle and most importantly, their philosophical appetite. However, there are two kind of philosophers we can generally classify. First, those who eat the same things more often. Second, those who like to explore the others things more often. Just like those who are eating physical food. Some people could eat the same menu for a month. Other can grumble and start to complain as they start to eat the same food on the next day. 

The first philosopher tend to be a deep philosopher. The second philosopher tend to be a wide philosopher. Which one is better? We cannot tell. Yet, Mortimer Adler in his book How to Read a book tell that people with wide reading does not mean necessarily they well-read. He is right, but still at the end, Adler say we need to be both. Both have their own strength and positive aspects.  However, if a person is a truly a philosopher, from my own experience, they are people who cannot be boxed in either two categories. They "eat" wide range of food yet at the same time, they eat what they like most, compare to the rest. That is why, it is not odd we could heard Brillat-Savarin says, "tell me then, what are you, if Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit is your only source of nutrition?"

Philosopher is essentially a wonderer. Wonder about the nature of things and meaning of things (look my previous article on Human in Wonderland: January 04, 2021). The questions in their heard are the fuel that always make their mind hungry easily, to seek the food that could satisfy are never-ending quests for them. Being human is to crave for food, and of course food of thought is vital. Aristotle in Book I Metaphysics utter, "all man by nature desire to know." Furthermore, Socrates himself in Euthyphro 15 C says something like this in dialogue.

Socrates: That our definition has come round to the point from which it started? For you remember, I suppose, that a while ago we found that holiness and what is dear to gods were not the same, but different from each other, or do you not remember? 

Euthyphro: Yes, I remember.

Socrates: Then do not you see that now you say that what is precious to the gods is holy? And is not this what is dear to the gods?

Euthyphro: Certainly. 

Socrates: Then either our agreement a while ago was wrong, or if that was right, we are wrong now.

Euthyphro: So it seems. 

Socrates: The we must begin again at the beginning and ask what holiness is. Since I shall not willingly give up until I learn.

From this conversations between Socrates and Euthyphro we can see how philosopher never come to and end, never stop on metabolizing food of thought or wisdom for a greater nourishment of mind despite some philosopher will be satisfied more into a kind of food that building the case for objectivity and the other philosopher who are more into food that deconstruct the objectivity, to be more subjective in their thinking approach. Nonetheless, a good philosopher never criticizes others food preferences unfairly before they are tasting the other side of the food. Philosopher Roman Krzanic emphasis a lot on the idea of empathy, to understand others, walking in other people shoes to widen understanding and to change society. Here, we can twist a bit and conclude with a same manner that philosopher, eating in other people plate which consequently widen their mind by tasting the food they never try before.