Food and Its Relation to Literature and Arts

Food and Its Relation to Literature and Arts
​The essentiality of food to all living things is irrefutable. Living creatures cannot live without food. On the other hand, they cannot live a long life without selecting the right food that shall nourish their bodies and souls. The most essential part of food selection is striving for perfection based on an individual’s status and principles. This paper shall discuss the differences in the principles of “food perfection” among the perspectives of Pythagoras Teachings on Vegetarianism, Itami’s Tampopo, and the Grimm Brothers’ Little Red-Cap.
Pythagoras believes in the sanctity of the human body. As such, it was implied that the body depends on the purity of the soul. This is why he stressed becoming a vegetarian and that eating another flesh means swimming through their blood, which is unacceptable. Thus, people must choose vegetables over something that requires killing and shedding blood (Kline). On a personal note, this view is related to various religions where purity is equated with the lack of violence. Anything gathered through violence, such as killing a boar, shall not be tolerated because it is against the Superior Being’s will. Pythagoras’ argument is quite ironic, for vegetables are also living things as explained by science. The only difference is the lack of shedding of blood when eating vegetables versus when eating flesh.
​Additionally, Pythagoras states that the “flesh satisfies the wild beast’s hunger.” Pythagoras’ statement is metaphorical. We humans are likened to a wild beast because we mostly prefer fleshy meats from various animals (Kline). Yet if we look at it oppositely, some animals too might like the idea of eating human flesh, especially the wild ones, because they also enjoy food wet with blood. The idea of this is being condemned by Pythagoras, for he despises the thought of eating another body. He thought about it as self-destruction. While some beasts are to be killed, he also said that they should not be eaten.
Killing and offering an animal was well-known for the traditional ways of people during the early times. It was believed that gods were pleased by these acts, but to Pythagoras, they are not. They simply join in committing a crime. He also reiterated that when humans put animals’ flesh in their mouths, they also practice cannibalism by consuming their fellow-being (Kline). This statement shows how Pythagoras values the selection of food based on the sanctity of life. However, as previously stated, he only gave importance to animals’ lives, including humans, and disregarded the lives of the plants.
The connection between Pythagoras to Little Red Cap’s story was clearly depicted in the story where the wolf, a wild and savage creature, devoured the little girl and her grandmother. In the end, however, he also died, and both the grandmother and her grandchild had been saved. He clearly deceived the little girl at first because he saw her as a “tender young creature” and “a nice plump mouthful” (Grimm Brothers). Both statements showed what a wild creature can do because of hunger. It gives them an uncontrollable urge to become hostile t...