Comments on: Book review: Beer & Philosophy

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 02:27:40 +0000

I picked up the book after seeing the post. I’m 64 pages into it and am enjoying it thoroughly. It has a decidedly craft/homebrew approach to the subject. I don’t know whether all of the essays qualify as philosophy, but I’ve rarely seen people like Garrett Oliver given so much space to expand on his ideas. Some of the essays really do qualify as philosophical in nature though. Where else will you find a book taking on the aesthetics of beer?

By: Jeff

Jeff — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 22:47:40 +0000

Well, I just enjoy the book for its playfulness. It has a very bloggy quality about it–expanding floridly on a theme just for the sake of it. Beer provokes expansiveness, so why not a book that celebrates it?

By: mallace

mallace — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 14:42:47 +0000

On the subject of the denisty of pleasure, the menu at Eulogy here in Philly presents essentially the same idea. Above the beer lsit, it points out that you can buy a bottle of Yuengling for $3, get a given amount of alcohol and a certain amount of hedonistic pleasure. Or, you can spend $8 for a Chimay Blue, which is stronger and, most people I’ll admit to knowing and spending time with would say, more pleasurable. Essentially, for your hedonistic ends, the Chimay is the better deal (and here I’m using Chimay as the example because that’s what the menu uses). I buy that argument.

By: Stonch

Stonch — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 11:17:17 +0000

Indeed!

By: Stan Hieronymus

Stan Hieronymus — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 17:47:57 +0000

. . . or read books without it being homework for a book club?

By: Stonch

Stonch — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 17:03:54 +0000

I’d never even heard of book club until my mate (for whom I was recently best man) let slip that his new wife was to host one in their flat, so he needed to meet me in the pub pronto.

It seems a very odd concept. Can’t people just meet without a *reason* these days?

By: Adam

Adam — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 21:19:16 +0000

Appreciate the post. Sounds interesting. Thanks.

“And now for something completely different.” I couldn’t resist Beer + Philosophy = Monty Python Bruces Skit

From Monty Python’s Final Ripp-Off: Excerpt from Bruces skit

Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
Who was very rarely stable,
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy begger
Who could think you under the table,
David Hume could out-consume,
Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel.
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel.
There’s nothing Nietzche couldn’t teach ya
‘Bout the raising of the wrist.
Socrates himself was permanently pissed.

John Stuart Mill, of his own free will
On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.
Plato, they say could stick it away,
Half a crate of whiskey everyday.
Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle,
Hobbes was fond of his dram,
And René DesCartes was a drunken fart
“I drink, therefore I am.”
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed,
A lovely little thinker but a bugger when he’s pissed.

Source: http://www.ibras.dk/montypython/finalripoff.htm

By: SteveH

SteveH — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 18:16:40 +0000

Quality is the density of pleasure

That’s outstanding.