Three short texts (abour 250 words) needing correction

Dear,

I'm about to propose a paper for a conference (philosophy, food) in Florida. I wrote three short propositions. It would be great if you could look at them.

Thank you very much,
Christian

Propositions for the conference: “Mindful Body in the Arts of Eating”

1.)
Digestion and soul in ancient Greek philosophy.

In which ways the concept of soul in classic Greek philosophy is linked to digestion? The relation of digestion and soul in Greek Philosophy can be elaborated concerning the explication of the concept of the soul, the relation between physical and spiritual exercise and the function of physical and spiritual pleasure for a satisfying style of life.
In ancient dietetics, questions concerning nutrition are at least as prominent as questions concerning sexuality (Foucault, Hist. sex., IV.4). Here, the interest for food is less focused on taste, than on the need to satisfy the belly. A first hint on the relation between soul and digestion gives a common explanation for the Pythagorean contempt for beans: they introduce pneuma into the body that should not leave the philosopher via the anus (Diogenes Laertios, Lives, 8.24.).
This might seem to be a good joke, but it is nevertheless linked to a serious field of investigation: the impact of the belly on spiritual wellbeing. Often, the Hellenist thought evaluates the pleasures of the body negatively. Already Homer complaint about the “doggish” belly. (Ody. 7,216.) Plato agrees insofar that he prefers spiritual to corporal digestion. In spite of this, he builds up his concept of soul on a model of gastric activity (Politeia, IX, 585, IV, 438, Phaidros, 235d) and considers the intestines - a reservoir of food - as a condition for science and art (Timaeus, 72e-73a).
The relation between digestion and soul is of mayor importance for the Hippocratic canon aswell (Humeurs, c. 11), the medical approach on food concernes body and soul. According to Aristotle, the entire Greek ideal of a fulfilled life is build up to the pleasures of the stomach (Nikom. Eth., 1173b.13ff ). He reflects digestion as a constitutive aspect of vegetative, animal and human soul (Problems, XXVII,3ff). Epicurean materialism that roots the “good” right in the stomach (Epikur, fragm. U409) caused a storm of embarrassment, for example Pauls polemic remarks against those who declare take the belly for a god. This underlines the deep running fear, that the wild animal in the lower parts of our person might harm the life of our souls.
In conclusion, the Greek discussion on digestion and soul helps us to understand the basic impact of food on body and mind, which is not limited to the pleasures of gustatory perception.

2.)
Food, Will and Spirit: Hegel and Schopenhauer on gastric activity.

The analogy between intellectual and gastric digestion bridges the philosophical opposition between Hegel and Schopenhauer. In spite of their philosophical differences, both thinkers establish gastric activity as fundamental for the understanding of human conscience and both consider it as an important part of human interaction with the world. While Hegel underlines the importance of digestion for the development of the spirit, Schopenhauer understands it as an expression of the pure will.
Hegel takes digestion as a model for the development of higher spiritual capacities. In his early writings, he warns that undigested words should not replace action and plenitude of sensation. (Fragm. über Volksrel., S. 64.) Later, he he acknowledges the autonomy of the digestive organs from the brain (Naturphil., §354). Digestion becomes a step in the biological development of the spirit, lined to a dialectics of artistic “Gestalt”-production (Naturphil. S. 337, 437, 452). The origin of art and of the “drive to form” (“Bildungstrieb”) is established in excretion. (Naturphil., §365).
For Schopenhauer, digestion is an immediate expression of the will. He agrees, that neuronal stimulation of stomach and intestines works independent from the brain (WWV II, Ergänzungen, S. 1587). Again, instinctive behavior and artistic drive are explained on the background of digestive activities (WWV II, 27, S. 773). Different from Hegel, Schopenhauer, who does not hold the rational spirit in high estime, explains intellect as a “physiological function of the intestine” (WWV II, 1625f).
The conception of food as a basis for material wellbeing in the philosophy of Feuerbach draws on Hegels account of the impact of digestion on the conscience. Schopenhauer on his side prepares Nietzsches vision of digestion as a part of great intellect, opposed to the minor importance of rational insight.

3.)
How to eat after Nietzsche: the psychological and the existential belly.

Why is digestion a difficult issue for contemporary philosophy of mind? in the During the 20th century, philosophic reflection on digestion had to face two major difficulties.
First, there is the ambiguous omnipotence that digestion reached with Nietzsche: the intellect itself is reduced to a tool of the stomach. (NF-1885,38[10]). The said fact, that Nietzsche ended up in a hospital, playing with his own excrements (“I digest like a demi-god,” he wrote beforehand to H. Köselitz, BVN-1888,1022), appears as a warning sign against the loss of rational control over philosophic thought. The second difficulty is closely linked to the first. Facing the philosophic reluctance to reflect the link between mind and digestion, the lasting medical interest for digestion became an important issue in Psychology. Freuds reflections on oral and anal states give an impressive example (Freud, 1905d, S. 98f). The integration of psychological findings into the domain of rational philosophy is not always easy.
The contemporary philosophical disinterest concerning the impact of digestion on our minds concerns continental and the analytic approaches. Heidegger doesn’t address the stomach, it becomes a blank place in the Dasein (see G. Anders, Nihilismus und Existenz), Sartre despises it a symbol of philosophic incoherence (J.-P. Sartre, Situationen). Wittgensteins reflections on tooth ache underline the difficulty to fix the signification of “inner” feelings for philosophic activity (“Thinking is digesting”, Letter to N. Malcom, 26.06.45).
Foucaults explications on sexuality allow underline the philosophic importance on gastric activity, not only implicitly. Foucault concept of care for oneself draws on Greek ascetics, where reflection on sexuality and digestion are closely related to each other (Foucault, Hist. sex., IV.4). Propositions on succeeding life should acknowledge links between corporal and mental health, in order to understand how care for us and for others implies care for things. Food that we eat has a lasting and central significance in between the things that we incorporate, this should be reflected in philosophical regards.