Several of you might have heard of this excellent philosophical time waster before, but it's new to me (apparently it was first devised by Wilfrid Sellars):
Identify three foods A, B, and C such that any two of these are complementary (taste good in combination) but the trio does not. So A and B must be complementary, B and C must be complementary, and A and C must be complementary, but A, B, and C must be foul when combined together. (It's harder than I thought!)
Tomatoes & cream: tomato soup.
Lemons & cream: custard.
Tomatoes & lemons: salad.
Tomatoes, lemons, and cream: yuck.
Posted by: Jamie Dreier | January 22, 2007 at 01:52 PM
Jamie-
According to the protocol I've seen, your solution cheats a little: Lemons and cream give you curdled cream. Custard requires more ingredients and some chemistry.
Posted by: Michael Cholbi | January 22, 2007 at 02:44 PM
Hm, that's true. I didn't know that rule.
Any other rules, before I return to the drawing board?
Posted by: Jamie | January 22, 2007 at 03:52 PM
Jamie-
No, I don't think there are any other rules. Here's my own 'solution', as it were:
Chocolate/mint/apples
Chocolate + mint = Andes mints
Chocolate + apples = A treat you see at the county fair
Apples + mint = a common baked apple combo
Chocolate + mint + apples = foul (think chocolate mint ice cream inserted into a cored apple)
Posted by: Michael Cholbi | January 22, 2007 at 04:44 PM
Mike,
Is this supposed to be a philosophical (time waster) or a (philosophical time) waster? If it's the former, I'm not quite clear on what's philosophical about it.
Posted by: Doug Portmore | January 22, 2007 at 05:34 PM
For particularists like Jonathan Dancy, this so-called time waster can have important implications, so it's at least arguably philosophical.
Posted by: David Slakter | January 23, 2007 at 06:03 AM
sharp cheddar cheese + quince jelly = common cheese plate
quince jelly + peanut butter = not your mother's PBJ but yummy
peanut butter and sharp cheddar cheese = delicious grilled sandwich
sharp cheddar cheese + quince jelly + peanut butter = I wouldn't eat it. (Whereas I could do wonders with chocolate, apples and mint.) QED.
Now what's my prize?
Posted by: Michelle Mason | January 23, 2007 at 02:34 PM
I think the prize goes to Michelle. An old non-philosopher friend of mine used to insist, contra Dancy, that if A is delicious and B is delicious, then A and B are delicious together. He may have had a limited palate, come to think of it.
Posted by: Mark Schroeder | January 23, 2007 at 03:16 PM
I think I'd enjoy a grilled cheddar cheese PBJ... What conception of foul are we working from here...? (Doug, this is where the philosophy comes into play…)
Coke + Merlot = Kalimotxo, a common-ish drink in Mexico
Chicken + Merlot = a tasty marinated chicken dish (I'm not sure if a merlot reduction counts, but that would also work.. better)
Coke + Chicken = Coke marinated Chicken (Served in Dubai, parts of China, etc.)
Coke + Merlot + Chicken = something foul, I can only imagine... Chicken marinated in both would probably taste like a sweet shoe.
(On a horrible side note, the resulting dish would be at the very least, fowl...)
Posted by: Chris Vogel | January 23, 2007 at 04:06 PM
David,
What are the important implications that this has for particularists like Dancy? I thought that particularists just used these sorts of examples as a metaphor for how reasons might relate to each other? But I don't see what the important implications are beyond providing a useful metaphor. Are these examples supposed to support particularism, and, if so, how? Admittedly, I don't know as much about particularlism as I should, so I would like to know how these examples are supposed to have philosophical implications for particularists.
Posted by: Doug Portmore | January 23, 2007 at 04:37 PM
I hate to reject my colleague Michelle's suggestion, but I am fairly certain that I would be just as likely to enjoy a grilled sharp cheddar cheese and PB sandwich as I would be to enjoy the same with quince jelly.
You know, if we could figure out what was philosophical about this time-waster, we'd have an excellent case for doing a philosophical experiment!
Posted by: Valerie | January 24, 2007 at 12:15 AM
Hi Doug,
In Ethics Without Principles, the fact that someone might like meat and sugar seperately but not together is supposed to show that two good things can make something worse when paired, among other things.
Posted by: David Slakter | January 24, 2007 at 03:40 AM
A friend of mine tells me that he's solved it:
White wine, shallots, and bay leaves.
Posted by: Clayton | January 26, 2007 at 05:00 PM
White wine + bay leaves = ?
Whereas I guess it doesn't taste bad to have shallots cooked with both white wine and bay leaves (ground, not whole).
Posted by: Francesco | January 26, 2007 at 06:19 PM
Prosciutto, Melon & Red Wine.
Prosciutto & Melon: typical appetizer
Prosciutto & glass of red wine: mmmm...tasty
Melon & Wine: Sangria! (well, almost)
Prosciutto & Melon & Wine: Bad excuse for a nouveau-trendy cocktail.
Posted by: Christopher | March 16, 2007 at 12:22 PM
I've enjoyed reading these things which I only came across today 22 June.
How about
Tea & sugar OK
sugar and mustard OK in vinaigrette
tea and mustard dubious
Jonathan Dancy
Posted by: Jonathan Dancy | June 22, 2007 at 12:01 PM