Vincent Scordo writes all about Italian food and recipes. We share our pasta, pesto, tomato sauce soup, risotto, chicken, lasagna, cookbook and easy food recipes. Live the Italian Way.
There's a certain comfort in all things deemed old: Old homes, old devices, old parts, old countries, old texts, old people, old trees, old clothes, old friends, etc. The old can be defined as something not made or experienced recently and having a history (or story) or emotive quality. An old friend can bring you back to your old childhood street and memories of running free while absorbed in a simple game of hide and seek. And an old, weathered, home can bring joy and gratification knowing it's history, how it was made, and a sense of it's parts as a joyous collective.
(photo: by Piero Morello. getting confirmation on the body of water, but I believe it's the Stretto di Messina)
One of the most satisfying moments associated with the warm weather months is the immense existential euphoria or perception of sun (temperature and sight), wind (hearing and touch), and scent (smell). Take today, for example, it's 83°F and sunny in the northeastern part of the United States and I feel extraordinarily happy. I can't make a connection between my happy state and a particular item, but I think it has something to do with the weather, my wife and child, and the many neurotransmitters (i.e., amino acids, peptides, and monoamines) floating around in my brain. In a reductionist and philosophical kind of way, I feel happy because the things around me are helping me be happy (that is to say, they are creating the behavior and I'm <viz., my brain> experiencing the aforementioned representation).
I remember the first time I visited my then girlfriend at her college campus in the state of Indiana and the thought of my lovely sweetheart in all of her collegiate glory is still vivid in my mind's eye. However, I also remember the vast flatness of northern Indiana (specifically, South Bend). In fact, as soon as I stepped off the plane I needed to re-orient myself because my right hemisphere wasn't processing why I could see for miles and without interruption - a truly mind blowing experience at the time.
(photo: powerful image from the film Gomorrah which follows the mafia of Naples. Photo courtesy of Slant Magazine)
One of the most frustrating (yet liberating) aspects of studying philosophy as an undergraduate was the idea that one could construct a logical argument for pretty much anything. So, I spent my University days racking my brain at getting at "ultimate truths" like whether God exists and if our minds are separate from the physical world (the "Mind/Body" problem or Cartesian dualism) only to get frustrated when I realized that arguments could be made to support any position!
When it comes to getting at the best Italian films of all time one can, like my point above, make plenty of arguments for why one film should be included or not. Hence, my dilemma when I started thinking about the top Italian films I've watched. In order to help me narrow down my top 25 I used the following selection criteria:
Did the film cause me to think about some big issue (I think any good film needs to do this in a serious way)?
How beautiful was the film or was the cinematography top notch? Let's face it, film is, of course, a visual art and if one doesn't get a sense of beauty when staring at the screen then the film hasn't done much.
Did the film elicit an emotional feeling (i.e., anger, joy, sadness, disbelief, etc.)? Just as a film can cause one to think deeply about certain topics, a good film should make one "feel" something in a profound way.
In turn, here are my top 25 Italian films of all time (including a fair amount of contemporary titles). Note: the list is alphabetical and not according to rank or preference. Also, I'd like for you to tell me which films I've missed or whether I'm crazy with my selections below (please leave a comment!).
Recently, a heated food debate has surfaced between the dyed in the wool "food expert" Michael Ruhlman (he's written some fine books on food, appeared on TV, and speaks at conferences) and the food philosophies espoused by celluloid FoodTV starts such as Rachel Ray and Jamie Oliver. In a Huffington Post article, Ruhlman argues that people should make the time to cook a whole chicken (w/ potatoes) in the oven for an hour and that if you, as an adult in America, choose to heat up a Lean Cuisine meal instead of cooking that chicken it's not because you don't have the time, but rather you choose not to make the time to cook, from scratch, food at home.
Personally, I'm torn with Ruhlman's assertion. On the one hand, my nose turns ever so northward when I hear the phrase cooking is too complicated and takes time (and as Michael asserts, I say, bullshit!), yet I can clearly see the want and need to cook a quick meal in under 30 minutes after a long day at the office and a constantly screaming baby. However, there is one thing that I do know, and assert boldly; that is, the American public should stop listening to the so called "food experts." And, moreover, it's ok to read Ruhlman's books, watch Pepin on PBS, and maybe even spend a few minutes with Mario Batali and Rachel Ray on FoodTV, but for God's sake don't take what these people say as "food truth."
I've arrived at my food philosophy via my Italian heritage. I grew up with "from scratch" food and, on the occasion, was allowed to dabble in the processed food world (my mother allowed me to eat potato chips and the occasional "Steak'um sandwich." So, I cringe whenever I hear someone in the food industry utter the words local, organic, Sous vide (French for under vacuum), micro-gastronomy, etc. as a reference to some sort of Über-cuisine. To anyone looking to appreciate food, I say to them go out and buy nice ingredients (the best you can afford - see my article on the myth of equating good food with spending power) and experiment at home. Go and buy some good dry pasta, a nice bottle of extra virgin olive, and a hunk of Grana Padano. Thereafter, go home and boil some pasta and combine it with the olive oil and grated cheese (that will take you 15 minutes; hence a "15 minute meal"). Is this a bad thing? No, rather it's a pragmatic truth that modern life does have drastically different time constraints (regardless of how a family or individual made their way, or "choose their way", into this situation) and that most individuals want to eat tasty meals that do not require excessive amounts of time to consume. Given a long day at the office, I'd rather, for example, purchase a rotisserie chicken from my local market than spend an hour watching it roast in my oven. If I had a light day and I'd like to stand in my kitchen come dinner time for about an hour and half, I'll roast a chicken, make risotto, finely chop some fennel and parsley for a salad, and even make a small appetizer of toasted bread with homemade ricotta.
The point is that it's too easy to say that folks should both turn away from 30 minutes meals and healthy and high quality foods prepared by someone else. Yes, on most occasions, folks should find time to cook from scratch meals at home, however there are pragmatic times when "making time to cook" is truly not a possibility (this is a hard truth, even epistemic if I can get fancy!).
(photo: the beach in Bagnara Calabra - pure happiness!)
At times, I think the political and cultural columnist David Brooks has a little bit of Mediterranean blood flowing through his body (regardless of his Anglo-Saxon appearance). Time and time again Brooks puts together elegant arguments on the paradox of American living, why gun control is necessary, or, say, how most people struggle to find happiness. While I don't agree with every opinion Brooks' holds, I did enjoy a recent New York Time Op-Ed where he argues that we, as a society, should spend more time chasing what truly makes us happy versus material wealth . The article got me thinking about how many of Italians I know have high levels of happiness (especially the ones living in Italy) and why they so easily grasp how to lead a good life.
It's no secret that Europeans, generally speaking, have a higher quality of life than most Americans. The "European way of life" is known throughout the world as emphasizing family, food, and overall well being, while here in the United States the perception is that the more money one makes the better off he or she will live. Are the Europeans just freaks of nature high on multiple cups of espresso; afterall, isn't a flashy career more important than an afternoon siesta and a pre dinner aperitif?
The above questions beg the ultimate question; namely, why wouldn't everyone want to live like an Italian (or their Europeans neighbors)? Are we too focused on capitalist models here in the United States training our best and brightest to become investment bankers versus well rounded individuals who have a passion for leading a happy life?
Prescribing how to lead a happy life is akin to telling someone how to dress or which religion to follow; that is to say, most folks don't want to be told that they would be happier only if they did X, rather they want to discover their own path to smiling each and every day.
My advice is to listen to the latest psychological research on what makes people happy throughout the world and follow a little bit of Brooks' advice. In turn, here's a quick summary of how Brooks interprets the latest empirical findings from the new field of "happiness studies" and why living the "Italian way" may be more beneficial than chasing the almighty dollar (or living like an American):
1. "Marital happiness is far more important than anything else in determining personal well-being. If you have a successful marriage, it doesn't matter how many professional setbacks you endure, you will be reasonably happy."
2. "Poor nations become happier as they become middle-class nations, but once the basic necessities have been achieved, future income is lightly connected to well-being."
3. "The US is much richer than it was 50 years ago, but this has produced no measurable increase in overall happiness. On the other hand, it has become a much more unequal country, but this inequality doesn't seem to have reduced national happiness."
4. "Winning the lottery doesn't seem to produce lasting gains in well-being. People aren't happiest during the years when they are winning the most promotions. Instead, people are happy in their 20's, dip in middle age and then, on average, hit peak happiness just after retirement at age 65."
5. "People get slightly happier as they climb the income scale, but this depends on how they experience growth. Does wealth inflame unrealistic expectations? Does it destabilize settled relationships? Or does it flow from a virtuous cycle in which an interesting job produces hard work that in turn leads to more interesting opportunities?"
6. "The daily activities most associated with happiness are sex, socializing after work and having dinner with others. The daily activity most injurious to happiness is commuting. According to one study, joining a group that meets even just once a month produces the same happiness gain as doubling your income. According to another, being married produces a psychic gain equivalent to more than $100,000 a year."
7. "If you want to find a good place to live, just ask people if they trust their neighbors. Levels of social trust vary enormously, but countries with high social trust have happier people, better health, more efficient government, more economic growth, and less fear of crime (regardless of whether actual crime rates are increasing or decreasing)."
8. "Most of us pay attention to the wrong things. Most people vastly overestimate the extent to which more money would improve our lives. Most schools and colleges spend too much time preparing students for careers and not enough preparing them to make social decisions."
9. "Interpersonal bonds are critical to being happy day in and day out...overall, economic and professional success exists on the surface of life, and that they emerge out of interpersonal relationships, which are much deeper and more important."
I spent my
undergraduate days studying philosophy, linguistics, and psychology and, as I've
told many close friends (and anyone else who wants to listen), Philosophy
provides an excellent academic and pragmatic (yes I mean practical) foundation
for countless careers and professions.One profession that is closely associated with studying philosophy as an
undergrad is Law.Philosophy provides
excellent training for prospective attorneys given rigorous course work in
logic, notoriously difficult text, and training in constructing and presenting
cohesive arguments.However, the
necessary training in order to practice law (viz., law school) is not for
everyone.
Paid Ad - Law school (at the top tier
academic intuitions) is intense and not for every student (certainly not for the student who can't decide between learning how to be a social worker, for example, and questioning how to continue making a decent living, and thus figures becoming a lawyer sounds like a good idea). There are of course many factors in such a decision, and evaluating the effort and costs involved is a weighty process - End Paid Ad. Earning a law degree is certainly not for
the student who can't think of anything else to do with his or her life and
figures becoming a lawyer sounds like a good idea.
What follows below is
the best advice I've read on whether one should go to law school.Specifically, the advice comes from Professor
Nick Smith at the University
of New Hampshire.Nick holds a J.D. and before becoming a full
time Philosophy Professor he worked as an attorney at a prestigious Manhattan law firm.Nick's advice is brutally honest and a must
read for any Junior or Senior undergrad considering law school.
I'm a student that needs to decide on a Major. Besides my credits being in a complicated mumbo jumbo from transfers and other what-have-you's I'm a normal student. I was doing some searching about philosophy majors and found your article on "Why I Should Major In Philosophy". So you have good things to say about the Majors. I'm split between a decision to major in phil or to major in phil/pol-sci/econ (a major that puts an equal, but diminished, emphasis on all three). After getting my bachelors I'm considering joining the military for the funding to get a masters degree, in something....I checked what you had to say about yourself and your career and despite being from opposite coasts, your interests are not dissimilar to my own (especially a love for garlic). You have a philanthropic blog and perhaps you could just help shed some light on my situation. How has a phil major helped you, has it been a burden ever, yada yada yada.
Thanks,
Andrew
Andrew asks some good questions and I thought I would address some specifics below.
1. Major in one subject or do a combination of double majors or multiple minors? The first thing to realize about an undergraduate education is that it's opportunity for students to study a subject that they are actually interested in and that the first couple of years of an undergraduate education are going to be fairly broad (from a course selection perspective). That is to say, most colleges and universities require that a student take a minimum amount of general education credits. If it were up to me, I'd make it a requirement for all undergraduate students to obtain a dual major and, specifically, one major would be in the humanities and the other would need to be in some applied field such as Engineering, Agriculture, Economics, etc. Universities should be producing thinkers and doers (not just one or the other).
- You will need plenty of self discipline to distil the real gold nuggets from a philosophy major; viz, critical thinking skills and ability to clearly write and communicate. - No one is going to hand you a job after you graduate with your degree and you will need to work extra hard to turn the skills you learned as a Philosophy major into practical, applicable, knowledge that translates well within the marketplace (sorry, this is just a reality).
- You may need a professional degree if you can't apply skills learned as an undergraduate into a job category that is in demand. That is to say, you may need to quickly aquire an MBA, JD, or other professional degree to get a job. I graduated from University in the late 1990's and the .com boom was underway and many jobs were available (this is currently not the case in the US) and I had a practical skill set thanks to work-study position I held for a number of years.
3. Has Your Philosophy degree ever been a burden? I think the only time I've felt negative about studying Philosophy as an undergraduate was during my first two years at University. Studying Philosophy comes with lots of criticism from peers, parents, professors, etc. and it's especially tough to ignore the negative comments when you're still new to campus and college life, in general. A typical scenario is your Engineering major roommate constantly bombarding you with questions on why you're wasting your time studying something so obtuse and unimportant (be ready with thick skin and a couple of good arguments).
4. I recommend doing a full Philosophy major because only then will you get to take some intense seminar level classes on specific philosophers and topics. You may even become interested in some specific aspect of Philosophy (such as Philosophy of Mind) and may want to write a senior thesis (this is great practice for the real world in terms of thinking through an idea, justifying the idea, and thereafter defending the premise of your argument). In addition to my Philosophy major I have two minors in Linguistics and Psychology. Looking back, I may have opted for a dual major in Philosophy and Economics.
David Brooks has a thought provoking ed-op in the NY Times today called, The End of Philosophy. Brooks argues that moral judgments are intuitive and not really informed by reason and rationality (as the Western tradition has taught us). Brooks points to modern research in cognitive science and psychology to argue that, "Moral judgments are...rapid intuitive decisions and involve the emotion-processing parts of the brain." These so called moral emotions are most likely shaped by evolution and the need to get along in large groups (after all, figuring out what is right and wrong is not an academic exercise related to sitting at a nice wood desk reading obscure text, rather morality is about one's relation to his or her community and important influencers (i.e., mom, dad, Pastor Jones, etc.).
Brook's op-ed got me thinking about the sorts of things in life that don't need a deep analysis and the things that do require reflection and a little bit of rationality:
1. Reading people = Go with your gut (you can usually tell right away what sort of person is standing in front of you; look at his facial gestures, observe his smile or grimace, listen to the tone of his voice, pay attention to how he's standing in relation to you, etc.).
2. Buying things = Use reason (you don't want to go with your gut when you're involved in the buying process; this is especially true with big ticket items such as a home, car, flat screen TV, home renovation, etc.).
3. Falling in Love = Go with your gut (this one is pretty obvious, but you first need to define what love means to you. Does love mean a long term relationship filled with kindness and great experience or does it mean something entirely more practical?).
Do you have other examples? When do you go with your gut versus a bit more thought?
On an entirely different bent (and to move away from the heavy thinking), I've been listening to the singer Adele and I've been completely mesmerized by her song, "Hometown Glory:"
* The image above is the Sacrifice of Isaac by Caravaggio (it depicts the moment when Abraham, about to sacrifice his son Isaac in obedience to God's command, is approached by an angel).
They say that money can't buy happiness and I certainly agree. However, did you ever stop to think about what money can, indeed, buy?
Here is a list of ten things that money can help you buy:
1. Money can buy peace of mind. Do you have trouble sleeping at night because you are worried about bills or your current job status? Well having enough money in the bank to not worry about your job for a year or two will let you sleep like a baby.
2. Money can buy you comfort. Do you live in a small cramped apartment with two kids and neighbors above you constantly screaming? Money can allow you to put a 20 percent down payment on a comfortable, quiet, home in a safe neighborhood.
3. Money can buy you a reliable and safe car. Do you drive a late model vehicle that is constantly breaking down or in need of monthly maintenance? Is your vehicle equipped with anti-lock brakes, stability control, and at the least 4-6 airbags? Money can allow you to buy a quality used (or new) vehicle from a reliable manufacturer. 4. Money can buy you a future. Would you like to not work and live well at some future point? If the answer is yes, then money will let you prepare for a future without a boss and making income without working. In short, you can use money to buy stock, mutual funds, index funds, CDs, etc.
5. Money can buy you confidence. Do you swallow your pride and work for an organization or boss that you do not respect or just plain hate? Well, if you have money in a bank account money can give you the courage to walk away from a bad situation and start fresh. 6. Money can buy you the ability to give. Do you wish you could help a not so well off sister or brother or contribute to your local Red Cross? Well, money can help you be more charitable and giving.
7. Money can buy you time. Do you often find yourself wishing you could spend more time exercising, reading, learning to cook, traveling, spending time with family, et. al. ? Retiring early by way of making the right financial moves in life can give you the time to do the above.
8. Money can buy you nice food. Do you clip coupons to the point that you will not buy something you are craving? Do you buy sub par ingredients and generic store brands even when you know quality is poor? Money can help enjoy great meals (including wine).
9. Money can buy you experiences. Do you not travel because you're worried about airline fares and hotel prices? Do you decide often against a trip into the city to enjoy the opera and a glass of champagne? Money can help you expand your mind and bring you places beyond the town you were born in. 10. Money can buy you opportunity. Do you wish you could buy a home in today's economic environment because interest rates are low and home prices have been dramatically reduced? Do you wish you could buy GE stock because it's under $20 and inevitably will rebound to record highs in the near future? Money can help you leverage opportunities that would normally not be able available in ordinary times
I came across some old philosophy books in my study this morning and it got me thinking about the value of an undergraduate degree in philosophy. And I can already hear the jokes, so please keep them to yourself! ; - ) At first glance, a Bachelor of Arts degree in philosophy provides no real practical application in the real world. After all, you will not receive any specific training that can lead to a job, are required to read esoteric texts, and will never arrive at a "right answer" during a final exam or short quiz. So, why on earth are US colleges and universities struggling to keep up with the demand from students wanting to both take courses and major in philosophy?
As an ex-Philosophy major, I can tell you that my degree is invaluable and I would certainly study the same subject if I had to start all over again (I would maybe throw in a degree in Economics as well). If we cut to the chase, a degree in philosophy provides the following benefits
1. How to read critically (i.e., a book, magazine article, newspaper, P&L statement, web traffic report, etc.).
2. How to write well. (this could be an email, letter, report, blog, or living will).
3. How to debate and speak in front of large audiences.
4. How to create impromptu arguments and analysis (this may be the number one business skill of all time and I'd hire someone with this skill set versus a Harvard graduate any day).
5. How to figure out what is right and wrong (ethics) and identify with different sorts of people and cultures (this is critical in the modern workforce, think how different your job is from what you see on Mad Men each week).
6. How to apply logic to any problem.
7. How to think strategically or see the "big picture."
8. How to think about a problem by deconstructing the big picture and looking at the details.
I could go on and on, but I think you get the picture. A degree in philosophy is not a degree in electrical engineering; that is to say, the degree will not train you specifically to go out into the world and be an electrical engineer but it will equip you to do really well in the workforce by adapting to any work situation.
Philosophy also provides excellent training for a professional degree. Considering the benefits I stated above, philosophy majors score in the very top percentiles on the GRE, LSAT, and GMAT exams. "For example, in a recent GRE study, philosophy majors were ranked among the very top majors in their mean scores on the verbal, analytic, and quantitative components of the exam; in a recent LSAT study, philosophy majors had a higher mean score than even pre-law majors; and for recent GMAT tests, the mean score for philosophy majors exceeded that of any type of business major. Virtually no other major does this well on such a wide cross-section of standardized exams.(quote from the University of New Hampshire Philosophy Department web site http://www.unh.edu/philosophy/index.cfm?id=39F7EBE2-C029-7E5B-F1371DFC37778362)."
Did you study philosophy, let everyone know about your experience by commenting above.
If you're fully engaged in the modern world then you've probably used statistics to make arguments and push a particular interest (like predicting orders or market conditions, if you work at a consumer product company, for example).
Statistical and applied probabilistic knowledge is the core of knowledge; statistics is what tells you if something is true, false, or merely anecdotal; it is the "logic of science"; it is the instrument of risk-taking; it is the applied tools of epistemology; you can't be a modern intellectual and not think probabilistically--but... let's not be suckers. The problem is much more complicated than it seems to the casual, mechanistic user who picked it up in graduate school. Statistics can fool you. In fact it is fooling your government right now. It can even bankrupt the system (let's face it: use of probabilistic methods for the estimation of risks did just blow up the banking system).
Who says that today's college student is only interested in making money? According to the New York Times, college students are still opting for the "examined life" and pursuing philosophy as a major - learning critical thinking, presentation, and writing skills along the way.
Looks like those bearded guys reading Kant and Rorty weren't wasting their time after all.
How to Make Authentic Tomato Sauce
This is the authentic Scordo family recipe - straight from Calabria. You'll be amazed at how simple the recipe is to make [+]
Guide to Italian Extra Virgin Olive Oil
My grandfather produced his own extra virgin olive oil in Italy and I've put together an olive oil buying guide just for you [+]
Guide to Making Espresso at Home
Making good espresso at home isn't easy but once you master a few easy tips you'll never settle for the junk served at most cafes in the US, including Starbucks [+]
Feeling generous and want to help keep Scordo.com producing fresh and original content?
QUESTIONS, IDEAS, TIPS:
Note: The views expressed herein are solely my own and should not be attributed to my employer in any way. This site is not maintained utilizing my employer's resources or on company time.
![IMG_5852[1]](http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4056/4499300145_0e39494c54.jpg)
Italian
