codifying the theory
Upon reviewing my last entry, I realized that I did a poor, if not terrible job, of explaining my theorietical justification for not ever planning on learning how to cook. So here, being that I now work at a law firm, I will attempt to clarify and codify the theory. I'm pretty sure that codify is the wrong word here, but I am enjoying using it.
We will now refer to the theory as "The NON-COOKING JUSTIFICATION THEORY", and it will be stated as follows: "A male is justified in not cooking, nor ever attempting to cook, if he meets the following two qualifications:
1) He must be able to afford to buy food from a professional chef or store.
2) He must not be a better or more skilled cook than said professional chef or store.
First, notice that this theory only applies to male humans. If you are female, this theory will not exempt you from attempting to learn the art that is cooking.
I arrived at this theory based on the rational presented in the previous entry. Once again, that rational stated that we should not cook our own food, just like we are not expected to make our own clothing. Implicit in this logic is the 2 conditions mentioned above - that we can afford to buy our own clothes (and food), and that we cannot do a better job making our own. If we cannot afford it, then we should do it in a cheaper way...i.e-make the food. And similarly, if we can make it better ourselves, we should do that. Otherwise, however, there is simply no excuse.
So for me- i fit into both conditions. 1) I can (thankfully) afford to buy my food, rather than spend time laboring in the kitchen. I hate laboring, but I love labor day, and that is somewhat of a paradox. In any event, I'm not trying to brag here and say that I can afford lavish meals at prime grill every day, but I can afford the empire packages of turkey bologna, chicken bologna, and just plain bologna (pronounced Bah-low-knee). Again, the clothing comparison comes into play here...we buy our clothes, even if not everything we buy is the most expensive of things. We will buy some banana republic, some gap, and some old navy. Sure, I'll have the occasional steak dinner, but I'll also mix in plenty of gross empire deli. And that is no excuse to attempt the art of cooking, unless of course, my cooking would be superior to the gross deli.
All this talk about bologna reminds me of one good Rav Hirsch("Rav H") story from my days in the University of Yeshiva. One time Rav H made us a party in shiur because we had finished something. I can't remember exactly what, but I know it was talmudic. Anyway, there was a plate of pastrami, a plate of corned beef, and a plate of bologna. Obviously, everyone went straight for the first 2 superior meats, and everyone just ignored the plate of bologna. The entire pile was just sitting there, and it was getting Rav H upset. Finally, he couldn't take it anymore, and he gave it to us. "It's a Bizzayon to the bologna!!!" he shouted.
It was indeed.
We will now refer to the theory as "The NON-COOKING JUSTIFICATION THEORY", and it will be stated as follows: "A male is justified in not cooking, nor ever attempting to cook, if he meets the following two qualifications:
1) He must be able to afford to buy food from a professional chef or store.
2) He must not be a better or more skilled cook than said professional chef or store.
First, notice that this theory only applies to male humans. If you are female, this theory will not exempt you from attempting to learn the art that is cooking.
I arrived at this theory based on the rational presented in the previous entry. Once again, that rational stated that we should not cook our own food, just like we are not expected to make our own clothing. Implicit in this logic is the 2 conditions mentioned above - that we can afford to buy our own clothes (and food), and that we cannot do a better job making our own. If we cannot afford it, then we should do it in a cheaper way...i.e-make the food. And similarly, if we can make it better ourselves, we should do that. Otherwise, however, there is simply no excuse.
So for me- i fit into both conditions. 1) I can (thankfully) afford to buy my food, rather than spend time laboring in the kitchen. I hate laboring, but I love labor day, and that is somewhat of a paradox. In any event, I'm not trying to brag here and say that I can afford lavish meals at prime grill every day, but I can afford the empire packages of turkey bologna, chicken bologna, and just plain bologna (pronounced Bah-low-knee). Again, the clothing comparison comes into play here...we buy our clothes, even if not everything we buy is the most expensive of things. We will buy some banana republic, some gap, and some old navy. Sure, I'll have the occasional steak dinner, but I'll also mix in plenty of gross empire deli. And that is no excuse to attempt the art of cooking, unless of course, my cooking would be superior to the gross deli.
All this talk about bologna reminds me of one good Rav Hirsch("Rav H") story from my days in the University of Yeshiva. One time Rav H made us a party in shiur because we had finished something. I can't remember exactly what, but I know it was talmudic. Anyway, there was a plate of pastrami, a plate of corned beef, and a plate of bologna. Obviously, everyone went straight for the first 2 superior meats, and everyone just ignored the plate of bologna. The entire pile was just sitting there, and it was getting Rav H upset. Finally, he couldn't take it anymore, and he gave it to us. "It's a Bizzayon to the bologna!!!" he shouted.
It was indeed.