I’m reblogging this defense of “pure” pleasure out of understanding but also disagreement. The full value of aesthetics is how it works with ethics to create a deep, pleasureful experience of the world. I choose shellfish from the Gulf Coast not only because of taste, but also out of an ethical concern for sustainable fishing. I eat local for the taste of where I am, and also to avoid “eating” excessive amounts petroleum. Really, hedonists and puritans can live together in the same body.
I agree with NY Times’ food columnist Mark Bittman that the word “foodie” should be retired.
At a dinner party the other night where people were asked to say a word about themselves, one woman said, “My name is” — whatever it was — “and I’m a foodie.” I cringed.
I’m not proud of that visceral reaction; in fact, I think it’s wrong. But I do wish there were a stronger, less demeaning-sounding word than “foodie” for someone who cares about good food, but as seems so often the case, there is not. Witness the near-meaningless-ness of “natural” and “vegetarian” and the inadequacy of “organic” and “vegan.” But proposing new words is a fool’s game; rather, let’s try to make the word “foodie” a tad more meaningful.
The problem is with his explanation for why “foodies” are held in such low esteem.
As it stands, many self-described foodies are new-style…
View original post 270 more words