3 ms·
Epicurus might disagree with your assertion that the pleasure of eating is only a recent thing or the fare only of the rich. Although he's much misunderstood u
by buro9 13y ago
Epicurus might disagree with your assertion that the pleasure of eating is only a recent thing or the fare only of the rich.
Although he's much misunderstood upon the layman as meaning luxurious foods and pleasures, it's understood he really meant to enjoy basic foods (usually grown in the communal garden) amongst friends.
Soylent would be great for many reasons; third world, developing world, a trip to Mars. But I also share the thought that food is a pleasure and I won't want to give that up.
- KC8ZKF 13y agoFor Epicurus, pleasure was the absence of discomfort. The pleasure of eating, for example, came from the fact that he was no longer hungry. His feasts were famously simple. Vegetables and cheese. Epicurus, if he were alive today, might be an early adopter of Soylent.
- buro9 13y agoI think that is a stretch, but he's not here for us to ask.
- arkitaip 13y agoOh, no doubt eating for pleasure has a very long history in the West (and East, and other regions) but Epicurus was something as rare as a man who didn't do manual work in antiquity where 99% were farmers, soldiers or slaves who either didn't have their own plots of land, or did so and still ate poorly or even starved because that was the reality of life. I think it's safe to say that Epicurus lived a very privileged life - how many Greeks could study philosophy let alone start his own school? - and that his dietary ruminations never reached nor could be implemented by the waste majority.