|
Friends, I come to you with a hypothesis: that this competition is not a mere feast of degustation, mastication or digestion. Rather it is an exercise of the mind, an exercise in cogitation and a deliberative exercise in testing our assumptions and stretching the boundaries of our knowledge. We must first start with a deceptively simple question: What is “chili”? To fully interrogate this, we must go back to the 5th century BC: as described in Plato’s Theaetetus, Protagoras said “Οὐκοῦν οὕτω πως λέγει, ὡς οἷα μὲν ἕκαστα ἐμοὶ φαίνεται τσίλι μὲν ἔστιν ἐμοί, οἷα δὲ σοί, τσίλι δὲ αὖ σοί: ἄνθρωπος δὲ σύ τε κἀγώ.” For those of you who have not kept up on your ancient Greek, we can roughly translate this to mean, in modern English, “as Chili appears to me, so it is for me, and as it appears to you, so it is for you: you and I each being a man.” Thus we might posit, as relativists, that there is no such thing as an absolute of chili, that the Platonic ideal of chili is in reality a construct of mankind, which we have created with our own arbitrary definition. However, this purely relativistic doctrine is inherently flawed, in that we fall into an ontological trap, wherein anything can be described in any terms. Thus inherent properties cease to exist and semantic anarchy reigns. Succinctly put in 1922 by Mussolini, “dall'equivalersi di tutte le chilis, tutte egualmente finzioni, il relativismo moderno deduce che, dunque, ciascuna ha il diritto di crearsi la sua e di imporla con tutta l'energia di cui è capace.” Mussolini’s claim that “from the fact that all chilies are of equal value, that all chilies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own chili, and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable” is evinced in the chaotic forum epistemology, wherein mushroom, onion soup mix, textured vegetable protein and even corn are posited as simultaneously required and forbidden ingredients in the logically naïve “one true chili”. This apparent cognitive dissonance is a consequence of de Beavouir’s contention: “la représentation du chili, comme le chili lui-même, est l'œuvre des hommes ; ils le décrivent de leur propre point de vue, qu'ils confondent avec la vérité absolue.” I think we can all agree that these pages testify in accordance that “representation of chili, like chili itself, is the work of men; they describe it from their own point of view, which they confuse with absolute truth.” This very competition is already replete with absolutist statements, all of which are the subject of argument, untempered as they are in the intellectual fire of relativism. At this point, we seem to have reached an impasse: if we agree that there is no such thing as chili, excepting as defined by our own contentions, then the word becomes meaningless and we devolve into philological chaos. So how do we ameliorate against the most difficult tenets of relativism, whilst maintaining its core elements that we agree to hold as self-evident? In short, what can be modelled a priori, and to what extent is the “thingness” of chili a mutable and adaptable state, decided upon in an a posteriori fashion? Kant advocated for a moderation of relativism and empiricism, arguing that “Erfahrung ohne Theorie ist blind, aber Theorie ohne Erfahrung ist bloßes intellektuelles Chili”. If we agree with his pragmatic approach, we must avoid Kant’s abstruse intellectual chili and filter our understanding of the theory with experience, gained through a lifetime of experimentation. From Kant’s underpinnings, so we reach the apogee of chili theorists, Ludwig Wittgenstein, who advocated the philosophy of those criteria for definition that are necessary and sufficient: just as standard logic makes use of the truth function p ⊃ q, so we must use this inference in our understanding of chili. In essence, we must avoid the conceptual chili of Wittgenstein’s “I” language game, instead relying on his breakthrough statement (found in handwritten notes after his death), “Fleisch + Bohnen + Chilischoten ⇒ Chili ≡ Chili ⇒ Fleisch + Bohnen + Chilischoten”. The controversy of Wittgenstein’s unequivocal statement that meat, beans and chillies constitutes chili, and the deductive leap that for something to have the characteristic “chili-ness”, it must contain meat, beans and chillies was not lost on him, for scrawled next to this, he wrote “Warum die bohnen? Weil fick dich, deswegen.” Translation, I feel, is not required for his sentiments to become apparent. So, from our humble beginnings in Ancient Greece, we are now in a position to understand the pseudoreality of chili. Instead of a mere semantic ontological construct, we can evolve Wittgenstein’s work, by extending his theoretical understanding to the experimental. To this end, I invited several chili theorists to the Experimental Chili Testing Ground in South London, where we pushed the boundaries of chili creation, construction and deconstruction in an interactive seminar. I present my protocols and our findings, as transcribed from conversation, copied from my heavily stained lab book, below. Examining the ontology of chili, using Wittgensteinian logic, a thesis: Sufficiency delinearised, reductionism and relativism as a construct: Chilishot Necessity and sufficiency, conflicts with non-necessity and insufficiency: Chili blanco Empirical pragmatism, traditionalist ontology: Three meat, three bean, three day chili Semantic post-Schopenhauer paradigms: Manipulation of the “meat, beans and chillies” conceptual framework For a lot of these recipes, I have excluded what I consider elementary steps and concentrated on the key steps: this is an advanced philosophy class, I am assuming you’ve covered the basics in Aristotelean food prep 101. Sufficiency delinearised, reductionism and relativism as a construct: Chilishot Just as a biology lab requires buffers to be made, gels to be poured and cells to be grown, our philosophical enterprise begins with an exercise in mundane construction of a key ingredient, inherently attractive to the philosopher, in that it involves the deconstruction of an ingredient to capture its quintessence. Namely, we needed to make consommé. Spiced beef consommé:  Beef bones from the local butcher Carrots Leeks Celery Peppercorns Bay leaves Homemade chilli sauce Egg whites I began by chucking a rough mirepoix into a roasting dish and topping with the bones, which I roasted for 1h at 180°C. Once everything was sufficiently Maillarded, I transferred the bones, mirepoix and juices to the slow cooker and heated on low overnight.  Then I strained the lot into a large pan and reduced for a couple of hours on low heat. After a bit of reduction, I allowed it to cool, then refrigerated overnight. In the process, the stock became very jelly-like, and all the fat rose to the top of the pan, which I skimmed off (I simmered this further to get rid of any residual water and refrigerated for later use).  At this point, I had stock, but I needed to clarify it. There are many ways to do this, but I like the traditional approach: egg whites. I whisked three egg whites until a bit foamy, poured the cold stock over the top and heated on low to make an egg raft. At this point I also stirred in a couple of glugs of the extremely spicy hot sauce I made about a year ago. Unfortunately, my two tiny lab assistants interrupted me at this point and demanded I read them a story, so my raft broke, but it kind of worked, removing most of the impurities from the stock to leave a relatively clear liquid, and a gross looking pile of egg whites.  So now we had a spicy beef consommé (contemporaneous notes simply say “really loving hot”), we had the meat and the chili elements in one essential liquid. Time to prepare some beans… Pickled broad beans:  500g whole broad beans 40ml distilled malt vinegar 200ml water 15g table salt 1tsp sugar Some fresh dill 2 cloves of garlic, bashed Red chillies, finely chopped A few peppercorns First, I popped the beans from their pods, and blanched them in heavily salted water for 3m, then transferred to iced water. Then I popped them out of their little white shells, and was left with soft bright green beans, which I set aside. At this point, I made a brine with vinegar, water, sugar and salt, which I brought to the boil and allowed to cool. I filled a mason jar with some of the dill, the chillies and the garlic, and topped with beans.  Then I chucked in a bit more dill, poured in the brine and refrigerated for three days. Now, it was time to assemble our first foray into the philosophy of chili. The question “what is chili” can only be addressed by beginning with those basic elements and building from them. So we went to the very beginning of what we defined: meat, beans and chilli as elements of a simplistic ontological construct, and added only those ingredients required to make a coherent whole. Sufficiency delinearised, reductionism and relativism as a construct: Chilishot  8 parts spiced beef consommé 4 parts vodka 1 part lemon juice Lemon wedges Pickled broad beans Cornichons Black pepper Celery salt Worcestershire sauce In a cocktail shaker, I mixed the vodka and consommé with lots of ice, at which point it was crystal clear and beautiful, only to turn completely opaque on the addition of lemon juice, rendering all my hard work in clarifying the stock completely moot. I also added a dash of Worcestershire sauce, and after tasting testing, a bit of celery salt. Served in pepper-rimmed glasses with a garnish of lemon, pickled beans and a cornichon.  Criteria: Met Meat: Beef, in the consommé Beans: Broad, pickled as the garnish Chillies: Habanero, in the consommé This was universally greeted with horror at its description, and with enormous pleasure and approbation at its consumption, convincing me in an instant that this practical approach was the way to go. I had introduced my fellow experimenters to the topics to be covered, and they were fully on board with the purpose of the night’s investigation. Comments about depth of flavour, one not being enough etc were not what I wanted, however. I wanted to know one thing. My colleagues pronounced, “yes, by the criteria laid out at the outset, this is chili”. Some might say, more importantly, it was a delicious drink and a successful apéritif. So, we were on our way. Where next in our quest? Necessity and sufficiency, conflicts with non-necessity and insufficiency: Chili blanco As with all of the courses described herein, this required an element of prep in advance. In this case, it started with chillies and tortilla chips. Green chili paste:  From left to right; Santa Fe grande Jalapeño Hungarian hot wax I built a fire in the fine South London drizzle and roasted the chillies until blackened.  These I peeled, pulverised in a blender and set aside for later. Tortilla chips:  120g masa harina 125-175ml water 1 tsp salt Olive oil Mix the masa and salt and add water until a firm dough forms, and rest for an hour. Divide into eight balls and press into flat round tortillas using your extremely expensive tortilla press.  I put these into a very hot dry pan for 1m a side, allowed them to cool and cut them into triangles. These triangles I brushed with olive oil and sprinkled with salt, then baked at 200°C for 10m, turning halfway through, then allowed to cool on paper towel to soak up any excess oil.  Prep done, it was time to actually start the second exercise. At this stage we had established the basics, now we had to challenge the limits of what we had proposed, but introducing a non-conventional chili (by modern British standards). Necessity and sufficiency, conflicts with non-necessity and insufficiency: Chili blanco  1 whole chicken Green chili paste 1 onion, diced 1 bulb garlic, minced 500g dried haricot beans Cumin Smoked paprika Green chillies, finely diced Sour cream Cheese Coriander, roughly chopped I broke the chicken down and poached it for 20m, then pulled the meat from the bones and set it aside, and made some stock with the bones and bits. Then I fried the onions and garlic in butter, chucked in the beans, added about 1700ml of stock and simmered with the lid on for 1h. Then I added the chicken, green chilli paste, cumin and smoked paprika and simmered with the lid off for an additional hour.  Once sufficiently reduced, I chucked in several handfuls of finely grated cheese and took the whole pan to the table.  I served it with a dollop of sour cream, a sprinkle of coriander and finely chopped fresh chillies.  Criteria: Met Meat: Chicken Beans: Haricot Chillies: Santa Fe grande, jalapeño, Hungarian hot wax Again, we began this section of the seminar with disapproval at the description: universally, the concept of chicken in chili was described as a stew, not chilli. However, the deliciousness and warm spicy flavour of the chicken, beans and roasted green chillies overwhelmed objections, ”this is definitely chili” and it was amazingly good. It was at this point that I realised we had no baseline. We needed to taste something that all could agree was definitely chili, to hold as what we might laughably term as a Platonic ideal. Whilst it has become clear in the last two sessions that such a thing does not, in reality, exist, it is a useful model on which to base our discussions, and so, on that footing, we moved on. Empirical pragmatism, traditionalist ontology: Three meat, three bean, three day chili As I’m sure has become abundantly clear by now, nothing is as simple as it seems, and all things are based on previous work. In this case, we needed another chilli paste. Red chilli paste:  From left to right; Chipotle Chipotle morita Guajillo Habanero These I rehydrated in a bit of water, blended, pushed through a sieve and set aside for later. Meats:  From left to right; 800g pork ribs 400g lamb neck fillet 500g beef shin I browned these on the barbecue and set them aside for the main event. Three meat, three bean, three day chili:  Meat 1 tin of kidney beans 1 tin of pinto beans 1 tin of black eyed beans 3 tins of tomatoes 2 red peppers, diced Cumin Smoked paprika Red chili paste A bulb of garlic, minced 3 onions, diced Beef dripping Red wine Chicken stock Molasses Fry the onions, garlic and peppers in a large pan in the beef dripping and transfer to the slow cooker. Add all the other ingredients and cook on low with the lid on until it looks like a rich liquidy stew. Allow to cool to room remperature, then put in the fridge.  After overnighting in the fridge, you can cook a bit more, with the lid off to reduce, until it’s just about thick enough to hold a spoon up on its own.  At this point I did something that those of your from the Russell school will view as a crime, and those of a more Benthamite persuasion will say is a necessity, in agreement, as established, with Wittgenstein. I added the beans.  These I stirred in and set the whole thing aside to cool and then refrigerated overnight. The next day, I reheated the whole lot and prepared the cornbread. Cornbread:  400g cornmeal 240ml milk 1 tbsp white wine vinegar 2 tbsp beef dripping 2 tsp sugar Pinch of slat 1 tsp baking powder ¼ tsp baking soda 2 large eggs I mixed the milk and vinegar and stand for 5m and toasted the cornmeal in a dry pan until fragrant. Setting half aside, the other half went into the buttermilk substitute to soak. While this was soaking, I heated up the fat in the pan. I chucked all the ingredients into a mixer and started the stirring, and threw in the hot fat. Then I returned the batter to the hot pan and put it into the oven at 220°C for 20m. When ready, I popped it onto a board and served.  With the ingredients assembled, I served the chili with cornbread on the side, grated cheese, chopped coriander and chopped red chillies over the top. Empirical pragmatism, traditionalist ontology: Three meat, three bean, three day chili  Criteria: Met Meat: Beef, lamb, pork Beans: Pinto, kidney, black eyed Chillies: Chipotle, chipotle morita, guajillo, habanero I’ve made this chili before, so I knew what the reaction would be: people swearing that they would never make chili again, because it had reached its peak, that every chili they had had until this moment had been a sham, that any chili they ever had would always be compared negatively to this one. We all agreed this was unquestionably chili and I think it would take a stern bean-phobe to disagree. Now, however, we moved to our trickiest stage, the most challenging part of the lesson, wherein we pushed the boundaries of philology and really tested whether the students had learned from the day’s culinary experimentation. Semantic post-Schopenhauer paradigms: Manipulation of the “meat, beans and chillies” conceptual framework All had been leading to this. Until now, even the drink had conformed to societal norms. Some constructions were slightly unusual perhaps, even challenging, but this was to be the great denouement in which the boundaries of chili relativism were to be pushed back, or pulled away from, cringing at the coalface of practical philosophy. As with all work so far, this required a great deal of preparation, beginning with our chillies. Candied chillies:  Red chillies 200g sugar 250ml water I mixed the sugar and water in a pan and simmered until dissolved. While this was heating, I sliced the chillies as finely as I could, and painstakingly knocked out all the seeds. The rings were then poached in the syrup for 20m, and baked on greaseproof paper for 1h at 90°C.  I kept the syrup and reduced it for a bit, and poured it onto a large plate to cool in a sheet, which I then ground up very finely to make some extremely delicious spicy sugar granules. The candied chillies and sugar were set aside in an airtight container until needed. Anko:  100g dry azuki beans 100g sugar I soaked the beans overnight and threw away the soaking water. Then I put the beans in a pan with just enough water to cover them, brought it to the boil, left for 5m and threw away the water again. Then I covered with water again and simmered for about an hour, keeping the water topped up as required. After about an hour, the beans were soft enough to squeeze between my fingers, so I added the sugar and simmered until I could draw a line in the pan that held for 2s. I added a pinch of salt and pushed the whole lot through a sieve, discarding the leftover bits of bean shell.  The next step was to use this to make ice cream. Anko ice cream:  (The amounts here are a bit weird, because everything was dependant on the amount of anko I managed to make) 500ml whole milk 170ml double cream 95g sugar 1 tsp vanilla paste 2 egg yolks 1.5 tbsp corn flour 230g anko I put 465ml of milk, the cream and the vanilla into a pan and brought it to a scald. Meanwhile, I beat the sugar and egg yolks together. I took the remaining 35ml of milk and mixed it with the cornflour to make a smooth paste. Then I whisked this suspension into the hot milk, which I then very slowly added to the eggs, beating constantly. I returned the custard to the pan and whisked while heating gently. Then I whisked in the anko, took off the heat and allowed to cool to room temperature. The whole lot was transferred to the fridge overnight, churned in the ice cream maker for 40m and put in the freezer overnight. Those of you with a sensitive disposition may now wish to stop reading, to turn back before we go too far. For now, as I’m sure even the most dull-witted neophyte will have come to realise was inevitable, we come to the meat. Mincemeat:  125g minced beef 250g apple, peeled and grated 20g suet 45ml apple juice ¼ tsp ground mace ¼ tsp ground cinnamon ¼ tsp ground nutmeg A healthy glug of brandy 40g raisins 1 tbsp candied peel I browned the mince in a little butter, allowed it to cool, then mixed with all the other ingredients and put in the fridge overnight until I was ready to assemble the cake. Mincemeat apple sponge:  250g mincemeat 175g sifted self-raising flour 1 tsp baking powder 50g caster sugar 100g butter 1 egg Zest of 1 lemon 100ml milk 450g apples, peeled and sliced, tossed in lemon juice 175g demerara sugar Before I started, I greased a 20cm baking tray. Then I made a sponge mix with 50g of butter, the flour, baking powder, egg, caster sugar and lemon zest, gradually adding the milk to make a batter. This was spread over the base of the dish.  Which was then topped with the mincemeat.  Which was then topped with sliced apple.  Which was all finally covered in demerara sugar.  The whole lot was then baked at 180°C for 35m, until the apples were delicious and golden, and the sugar has seeped down and made the whole thing really syrupy and delicious.  Once it had cooled, I took it out of the baking pan and it was indeed a sticky delight.  While all this was going on, I also made a basic caramel sauce, but I don’t have any pictures of that besides the full bottle. So, we were ready to serve. Semantic post-Schopenhauer paradigms: Manipulation of the “meat, beans and chillies” conceptual framework  Criteria: Met Meat: Beef, in the mincemeat Beans: Azuki, in the ice cream Chillies: Red chillies, candied and in the granulated sugar This prompted the most intellectually stimulating debate of the evening. By this point, well lubricated with various types of booze, the conversation was free-flowing, opinions were unabashedly proffered and arguments built and destroyed with barbed logical discussion. The room was divided: half enjoyed the dessert and didn’t think the meat out of place, the other half did not really like it much. However, we did agree on one thing. Despite the theoretical basis on which we had begun our evening, and the general agreement that chili had necessary and sufficient criteria, the paradigm of “meat, beans and chilli” had been met here, while the ontological construct bearing the characteristic of “chili-ness” had not. In short, this was not chili. To recap our lecture: Sufficiency delinearised, reductionism and relativism as a construct: Chilishot Necessity and sufficiency, conflicts with non-necessity and insufficiency: Chili blanco Empirical pragmatism, traditionalist ontology: Three meat, three bean, three day chili Semantic post-Schopenhauer paradigms: Manipulation of the “meat, beans and chillies” conceptual framework Unfortunately, this means we have some way to go to redefining those Wittgensteinian criteria. Suggestions were made, none of which passed the critical logical tests put in place. We’ve all had cold chili, we’ve had non-spicy chili, we’ve had chili with sugar in it (in the form of molasses, anyway). We could think of nothing that meant our final session failed the test of chili-ness, where other sessions had succeeded, and yet for some indefinable reason, it had failed. Perhaps this may be an area where relativism itself has failed, perhaps there is an in-built archetype of chili? Maybe Jung was right when he warned us that “Das Chili ist immer da, es ist jenes zentrale, archetypische Strukturelement der Psyche”, the stark contrast between our willingness to accept chili as a drink, but not as a cake, suggest he was right, that chili is an archetype essential to the human psyche, developed in the collective unconscious. As is so often the case, further investigation is required. Scientastic fucked around with this message at 21:11 on Oct 16, 2017 |
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 06:43 |
|
|
Everything in this looks awesome, some of it is chili, other parts are (probably) not chili. For instance, the drink and chili(s) are both chili, but the dessert is definitely not chili. I don't care enough to argue about it though, so you can let my comment ride like a fart in the wind.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
Those are interesting chilis. Also I read your entire entry in the voice of Zizek, and it was very good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 21:26
|
|
|
Holy poo poo. I'm not sure what is chili; but I know chili must be and, a fortiori, therefore chili is. And so are you, this day. Vaya con chile.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 21:55
|
|
|
Put the ice cream and the candied chilies in the cake, and it becomes chili. The essential gap was that plating things near each other does not make them part of a whole. Alternatively: ingredients no more create the thing, than a pile of bones, flesh, and hair makes a person, or a pile of wood and nails is a house. A chili is more than the sum of its parts. Alternatively: the two or three essential ingredients of a chili must also be the plurality of ingredients. A tiny fragment of chilies, a single bean, a fleck of meat, tossed in a swimming pool full of water, is just a slightly dirty pool. All of that aside, thank you, I am impressed, and would eat and drink all of your preparations with gusto.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
You sweet son of a bitch.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
They could have sent a poet, but clearly this was a job for a philosopher. Well argued!
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 01:26
|
|
|
bloody ghost titty posted:You sweet son of a bitch. Not an emptyquote.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 05:01
|
|
|
Well whatever you want to call that it all looks awesome and delicious. Nice stuff.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 13:13
|
|
|
This is the type of entry I've been waiting for. Stellar work.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 18:10
|
|
|
I am in awe at this post. That is some serious dedication to having fun with this. You're amazing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2017 23:46
|
|
|
I just finished clapping after reading your post, so now I can type. Bravo! Bravo! Bravo!
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 15:06
|
|
|
It's really not fair to put all us plebs in the same division as this heavyweight of food posting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
This was truly an academic work of Herculean proportion. The systematic breakdown of the Platonic ideal of Chili and subsequent experiments in pushing the philosophical understanding of what constitutes a chili in the popular mind was masterfully executed. Sir Isaac Newton's paraphrasing of Bernard of Chartres' saying is quite applicable here: "If I have chilied further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants". Peer review raises some interesting points such as how a chili must be greater than the simple sum of its parts, or, to put it more eloquently, "A tiny fragment of chilies, a single bean, a fleck of meat, tossed in a swimming pool full of water, is just a slightly dirty pool." (LEPERFLESH, on the subject of advanced chilification - 2017). Thankfully, the thesis is well-substantiated with soundly argued hypotheses and enlightening experiments, reaching its zenith with the presentation of what is tantamount to a chili possessing quintessential chilitude; an Ur-Chili, if you will. In short chili means beans, bitches. QED. 
cigaw fucked around with this message at 01:07 on Oct 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2017 00:12
|
|
|
well done, both in prose and photo
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 06:50
|
|
|
Fantastic post. Your mouth and finger parts make pretty, big words
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 09:44
|
|
|
i don't really have the words to express my awe of this post
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2017 11:43
|
|
|
An excellent post friend. One question: why do you make extensive use of a slow cooker when a pressure cooker would be much quicker and extract better? Not really a critique, just wondering why you prefer the slow cooker in this situation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
Just as Aristotle argued that "When everyone has a distinct interest, men will not complain of one another, and they will make more progress, because every one will be attending to his own chili", I would suggest that the reason I use a slow cooker is because I own a slow cooker, and I don't use a pressure cooker because I don't own one. Of course, ultra posse nemo obligatur applies here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
Scientastic posted:Just as Aristotle argued that "When everyone has a distinct interest, men will not complain of one another, and they will make more progress, because every one will be attending to his own chili", I would suggest that the reason I use a slow cooker is because I own a slow cooker, and I don't use a pressure cooker because I don't own one. Of course, ultra posse nemo obligatur applies here. hahaha
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
Scientastic posted:Just as Aristotle argued that "When everyone has a distinct interest, men will not complain of one another, and they will make more progress, because every one will be attending to his own chili", I would suggest that the reason I use a slow cooker is because I own a slow cooker, and I don't use a pressure cooker because I don't own one. Of course, ultra posse nemo obligatur applies here. Ethically, you are of course not obliged to pressure cook your chili when you can slow cook it, as there is no specific ethical attachment to either method, which is to say, no harm is done either way. However, legalistically, ultra posse nemo obligatur does not apply, unless you are physically or financially incapable of obtaining a pressure cooker; moreover, given that there is no ethical hazard, it would not apply even if you were incapable of obtaining a pressure cooker. Perhaps another approach to the question "ought one to pressure cook" may be provided by Kant, who warned of the laziness of convenience: Immanuel Kant posted:„Faulheit und Feigheit sind die Ursachen, warum ein so großer Teil der Menschen. . . es anderen so leicht macht, sich zu deren Vormündern aufzuwerfen. Es ist so bequem, unmündig zu sein.“ Or "Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why such a great part of mankind … made it so comfortable for others to set themselves up as their guardians. It is so easy to be immature." To slow cook is braver: to pressure cook is to volunteer power to the makers of pressure cookers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Ethically, you are of course not obliged to pressure cook your chili when you can slow cook it, as there is no specific ethical attachment to either method, which is to say, no harm is done either way. However, legalistically, ultra posse nemo obligatur does not apply, unless you are physically or financially incapable of obtaining a pressure cooker; moreover, given that there is no ethical hazard, it would not apply even if you were incapable of obtaining a pressure cooker. Well I guess we need to define "harm" then, because a pressure cooker, due to its near-miraculous flavor extraction ability, will produce a superior product in this instance. In that sense, you are inducing harm by failing to coax the maximum flavor out of the dish, and distressingly, it may cause impressionable minds to spend money on an inferior slow cooker. Also the laziness of convenience doesn't really apply here because the pressure cooker is objectively better at the job of making good food; the greatly shortened processing time is just a secondary, albeit welcome, benefit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
I see you're taking a Benthamite approach to cooking, wherein the act of cooking is a means, not an end in itself. A pressure cooker may well provide the same (or better) end result, but I enjoy taking the time. Just as the Verenable Bede stated "Ita haec chili hominum ad modicum apparet; quid autem sequatur, quidue praecesserit, prorsus ignoramus" so I hold that our lives are finite and short, hence we must cook chili in the way we enjoy to eat it, but, critically, also as we enjoy to cook it. Thus, while the pragmatism of ownership currently means slow takes preference over pressure, the enjoyment of the slow cooking also plays its immutable part.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 06:43 |
|
|
Taima posted:Well I guess we need to define "harm" then, because a pressure cooker, due to its near-miraculous flavor extraction ability, will produce a superior product in this instance. Your definition of "harm" is flawed, at least with regards to the flavor of the dish. We of course cannot inflict harm on an inanimate, senseless object, for it is absurd to consider an ethical responsibility to every pebble we tread upon; but since we are discussing food, we may instead presume that the harm inflicted is against those to whom the chili is presented. And as Scientastic adds, the preparer of the chili also has a stake in matters, and is not (I presume) ethically obligated to self-harm in pursuit of avoiding harming others. But regardless of that issue, consider: you seem to presuppose that an obligation exists to always provide the maximum flavor to the recipient of a meal; or by extension, a gift given that is not the best gift possible for one to give, is harm to the recipient of the gift. By this premise, one is always obliged to give the utmost: one must provide everything one has to the recipient of any gift (or perhaps equally to everyone), retaining nothing for oneself, or else inflict a kind of harm. That is an absolutist approach that, irrespective of ethical defensibility, is plainly impractical. Having given away everything, and keeping nothing for oneself, one cannot pressure cook one's chili, for there is no pressure cooker. The obligation you imply, to always provide the best possible chili, is self-defeating, for it implies a general obligation that results in no chili at all. It is also unworkable once one admits that there are too many potential recipients of one's gifts to ever evenly give to all: necessarily, someone (or probably almost everyone) will be "harmed" by receiving nothing from you, while you chose others to distribute all you were able. Thus to gift everything to everyone always is impossible, and we cannot be ethically obliged to perform the impossible. It occurs to me that there is another premise worth testing, along similar lines, which is the presumption that there is such a thing as "best chili" and therefore all other chilis not the "best chili." (As you would have it, "best chili" must be pressure cooked rather than slow-cooked, for example.) It is inherent in the concept of the ICSA that there is potentially a best, and then runners-up that fail to be the best. But is there always a best? The greeks conceived of "arete," meaning moral virtue, or more broadly, excellence of any kind; the term evolved, but as Homer used it, a person of arete used every resource and ability available to them to achieve results. So, arete implies a moral value or even obligation to extract the maximum possible by whatever means, and by extension, that failing to do so is a form of moral failure. Aristotle's Doctrine of the Mean explores this concept in detail. But before him, as Miller describes Plato asserting: Miller posted:Nor is there even an agreement about what constitutes arete, something that leads logically to a disagreement about the appropriate training for arete. It is at the hart of axiology; there is a separation between the arete of ethics (what is right and good) and the arete of aesthetics (what is beutiful and harmonious). You have attempted to conflate them; a beautiful and harmonious chili is ethically demanded, an ugly or disharmonious chili is ethically proscribed. Good luck with that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2017 20:52
|
|