The Ethics of Diet: A Catena of Authorities Deprecatory of the Practice of Flesh EatingWilliams, Howard
Philosophy
The Ethics of Diet: A Catena of Authorities Deprecatory of the Practice of Flesh Eating
Williams, Howard
Diet; Vegetarianism
Although of extraordinary erudition his learning did not, as too often
happens, obscure the powers of original thought and reason. Bayle,
writing at the end of the seventeenth century, has characterised him as
“the greatest philosopher amongst scholars, and the greatest scholar
amongst philosophers;” and Newton conceived the same high esteem for
the great vindicator of Epikurus.[120]
It is in his celebrated letter to his friend Van Helmont, that Gassendi
deals with the irrational assertions of certain physiologists,
apparently more devoted to the defence of the orthodox diet than to the
discovery of unwelcome truth, as to the character of the human teeth:--
“I was contending,” he writes to his medical friend, “that from
the conformation of our teeth we do not appear to be adapted by
Nature to the use of a flesh diet, since all animals (I spoke of
terrestrials) which Nature has formed to feed on flesh have their
teeth long, conical, sharp, uneven, and with intervals between
them--of which kind are lions, tigers, wolves, dogs, cats, and
others. But those who are made to subsist only on herbs and fruits
have their teeth short, broad, blunt, close to one another, and
distributed in even rows. Of this sort are horses, cows, deer,
sheep, goats, and some others. And further--that men have received
from Nature teeth which are unlike those of the first class, and
resemble those of the second. It is therefore probable, since men
are land animals, that Nature intended them to follow, in the
selection of their food, not the carnivorous tribes, but those
races of animals which are contented with the simple productions
of the earth.... Wherefore, I here repeat that from the primæval
institution of our nature, the teeth were destined to the
mastication, not of flesh, but of fruits.
As for flesh, true, indeed, it is that man is sustained on flesh.
But _how many things_, let me ask, _does man do every day which are
contrary to, or beside, his nature_? So great, and so general, is
the perversion of his mode of life, which has, as it were, eaten
into his flesh by a sort of deadly contagion (_contagione veluti
quâdam jam inusta est_), that he appears to have put on another
disposition. Hence, the whole care and concern of philosophy and
moral instruction ought to consist in leading men back to the paths
of Nature.”
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account