RELATIVISM, YOLO, FOOD

Swans, YUM!  Squirrels YUM! Dolphins YUM!  Well “yum” is kind of an imaginative stretch, at least for some of us today. At other times and other places  “yum” made/makes sense.

Can we generalize from this?   Should we, to adopt a philosophical label, embrace “relativism?”  After all, food practices seem to indicate the “yum” reaction has no foothold apart from contingent, changeable cultural conventions.

What might give pause is the radical relativism embraced by the early 21st century “You Only Live Once,” fad. YOLO was (1) encouraged by philosophical

relativism (better and worse are just social constructions) and (2) accompanied by a particular ethic: experience all you can.  The ramifications were problematic: YOLO, so get drunk and drive wildly; YOLO, so, go ahead, urinate and defecate wherever and whenever. Soon came the realization “YOLO is dumb.”

When it comes to food, YOLO can find both defenders and opponents. On the support side: “YOLO, so eat some dolphin ( squirrel, swan).” On the negative side: YOLO, so I’ll just chow down on some fugu, even though the chef is not properly trained.”

A stalemate? Not quite.  A more fine-grained analysis suggests the need for a paradigm shift.  First, eating is interactive. Second, food ingestion exists along a continuum: inedible, somewhat inedible, somewhat edible, culturally approved edible, edible in desperate situations, commonly eaten.   

The relativist position need not adopt the simplistic YOLO pattern.  A better defense is entitled “Morality is a Culturally Conditioned Response.” Despite the nuanced, and thus adequate, title, the article goes on to defend a rather strong relativism.  Here is where interaction and continuum make a difference. One thing even refined relativism assumes: a bi-level backdrop. Humans here; world there. Values here; neutrality there. Reason is neutral/Evaluations are non-rational.

These bifurcations are challenged by stressing interaction and continua. In terms of the food continuum, there is, at one end, the biologically inedible (e.g. soap); then, “inedible” in the “it can kill you sense” (emperor Claudius).

“Inedible” could also mean, it’s ok physiologically, but hard to stomach (see disgust museum).   Then, there is the “inedible now in this form” (cashews which are toxic before being heat treated). We could add   “inedible because of allergies;” and the well known “inedible for cultural/religious reasons.” At any point on the continuum a judgment has been made.  The judgment does not result from bi-level (culture here/nature there) opposition. It results from interaction. Intelligent agents try to to figure out clues and indications.

A medieval phrase is helpful here. It’s  cum fundamento

in re, “with a basis  in reality.” Plants and animals do not come with placards that say “tasty but deadly,”  “healthy and nutritious,” “disgusting in odor, but good in taste.” Nor does the absence of such placards mean that all valuations are subjective constructions.  Humans, as hungry creatures, seek to establish which entities are edible and which not. The resulting judgments emerge from a collaboration between inquiring intelligence and properties operative in the world ( cum fundamento in re).

Living in a post-Medieval era, we could add a partner phrase, one sensitive to  cultural pluralism: judgments cum fundamento in tribu.  Interaction would still rule, but in these cases it would signal the the interplay  of intelligence and the practices of a community (or “tribe,” tribus).  

Even here, though, we move too hastily if we apply the relativist label.  Differences are culturally conditioned. This is not the same as being merely subjective. The fundamento dimension (there are clues) remains. Judgments are recognized and welcomed. They just depend on more than clues from nature. Religious judgments build their warrant by including intangible factors. Food regulations, for example, can encourage solidarity via shared behaviors, equality, since the practices impact everyone, and self-improvement, fostered by discipline.  

The paradigm shift that highlights interaction and continua helps draw attention to concrete practices. The totalizing labels “absolutism” or “relativism” offer a bifurcation that is neat. Lived experience is intricate and complex.  Humans are active participants, involved, willy nilly, in interactions. Judgments neither simply read off what is there, nor impose structures. They pay attention to operative factors, aim at properly reading indications, and hope the resulting assessments are accurate.

This (a) leaves plenty of leeway for variation. Variation is not the same as relativist subjectivism. It also (b) allows for intelligent discussion. But, such discussion, technically, for the relativist (recall the non disputandum, in de gustibus non disputandum est) should represent nothing more than an empty exercise. E.g. Gratitude and greed, why bother discussing their relative merits/defects? Non disputandum rules.

Thinking about food can serve as a good source of examples for an epistemology of cum fundamento. How? First by replacing bifurcation with a continuum. Second, by emphasizing how eating is inherently interactive.  Both of those factors help overcome the great human temptation toward the hasty generalization: it’s all objective or it’s all subjective.