Talyor stipulates that those who are gluttons are looking for affection, and to be loved individuals (sad, really). However, they seek to satisfy this desire in terms of gourmet meals, a misdirected action. The seeking of affection, instead of looking to something more substantial, is instead directed toward "sensations," temporary experiences linked to the senses, the most "superficial way there is" to experience pleasure.
Though Taylor states that "gluttony...[is] concerned with the pleasures of the flesh," I have a hard time understanding Taylor's argument for why exactly gluttony is a vice, given that gluttons are not really looking for "pleasures of the flesh," (though this is apparently what they achieve, albeit temporarily), but feelings of affection. The way Taylor argues (though I'm likely just not following the argument correctly), it seems that gluttons are ignorant, not vicious.
What I found most striking about Taylor's piece on gluttony, however, was how the agents she mentioned, as well as any agent who is guilty of gluttony according to her description of the vice, seemed to have some form of psychological dependence on food. It made me wonder about what Taylor would have to say about those who actually do have a psychological dependence: is this is the case with all gluttons, or can a distinction be made between those who have a dependence (or even an addiction) to food, and those who are gluttonous.
Taylor seems to imply that all gluttons have some form of dependence on food, in that they always use it as a means (however ineffectively) to pursue a sensation of feeling like a loved and nourished individual. However, presuming that all gluttons have some sort of dependence (maybe even as severe as addiction) on food, can they be condemned as vicious? If not all gluttons are psychologically dependent on food, how does one make the distinction?
It's probably a superfluous topic to digress on, but it's one I couldn't help but wonder about, and I would have enjoyed reading Taylor's remarks on the subject.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
It seems to me that what makes gluttony vicious, according Taylor, is not just that the gluttonous seek “pleasures of the flesh” as you said (pleasures she considers superficial, fleeting, and unsubstantial), but that they seek only pleasures of the flesh. I don’t see where Taylor states that the gluttonous are looking for affection; on the contrary, it seems their flaw is that “Gluttony….does not essentially involve others,” (p 94.) Sensations from eating are intrinsically passive and concerned with the self, which means that if you only pursue these palatal sensations, your whole existence will be based around passive experience and “self-feeling.” These habits will naturally lead to disregard for the external world—other people and other experiences. Such a life, Taylor says, “will lack all substance.”
For those reasons, I do agree that gluttony, i.e. pursuing nothing but the pleasures of the palate, will lead to a worse life even in the case of subjective good. But I’m not convinced Taylor is correct in ascribing such an absolute definition to gluttony. I know many people who eat too much. Way too much. And I would consider some of them viciously gluttonous—their trait hurts their well being. But I don’t know of anyone who is concerned only with eating or the enjoyment they get from the act of eating. All of these people have other activities, for instance jobs or social engagements. Isn’t it possible to engage the world actively, to seek pleasure from things other than food, but still eat too much? I would like Taylor to make an argument for why gluttony is bad in and of itself rather than bad because of what it prevents you from doing.
I am trying to figure out why you wouldn't see gluttony as a vice even as you described it. You worry about the fact that it may be a psychological dependence, and thus I suppose, wonder if we can really fault the gluttonous for this. I wonder though, aren't psychological dependences vices? In a sense, aren't all the vices some psychological flaw? Why is a psychological dependence to be allowed, but not psychological issues with needing to feel secure or feeling like one is above everyone else? It seems that especially if one considers the issue of self-deception, the vices tend to be psychological issues. All the vicious are ignorant in some way and misguided about their actions. Perhaps the slothful diverge from this notion, but the rest of Taylor's arguments for vices have exemplified ignorance. The gluttonous eat to try to satisfy a want for affection, while the miserly hoard wealth to feel secure, and the arrogant place themselves above the world assuming they are better. All the viscious are psychologically troubled and misguided. Gluttony is no different in this respect.
Post a Comment