Philosophersof the modern era, typified by Immanuel Kant, defined objects interms of human perception. Arguing that we could never have arelationship with the thing-in-itself, these thinkers felt it moreproductive to focus on our cognition of the objects. This ontology ofobjects, woven through human thought for centuries, has led to manyresults both good and bad, including scientific, medical, andtechnological advances. However, this ontology comes with a cost; ittends to abstract us from the world of objects, fragmenting ourexistence. The disconnect is apparent in our uncertainty-plagued foodsystem. Contemporary continental philosophers have rejected Kant'sontology begun to propose new theories of objects, theories thatilluminate the nature of objects and how they structure ourexistence. The concepts outlined by these philosophers of technologyand objects are refocusing our ontological gaze back to the thingsthemselves. New perspective arms us with tools to understand thecrucial part food plays in our life, an understanding that can be used to develop coping methods and solutions to the current foodcrises.
A place for friends to share their thoughts about philosophy, art, literature, science, theology, and culture.
A very heady abstract! It seems difficult to see how it immediately ties to food and the crisis from just the abstract, but I am sure you will flesh that out.
ReplyDeleteSince food is an object, I imagine that you are going to show how modern continental philosophers ideas about objects affects the notion of food. I am curious to see what you think a Kantian theory of perception that admits a possible distinction of the natures between the "stuff" perceived and the "stuff" behind the perception (if not behind, then the remainder when no perception of the stuff occurs). Is Kant's admission of a potential distinction harmful about how we think about food? Guess I'll have to read the paper! Thanks for the recent posts. I watched Food, Inc. with Lindsay and found it very educational. I too struggled to think of what could be done. I liked your exploration of the ambiguity of "purchasing power" or how we persuade/vote supposedly with our money spent.