On an Attempt to Write on the Edibility of Cat Food as Such

On an Attempt to Write on the Edibility of Cat Food as Such

That an essay on whether cat food is edible to human beings was merely an attempt and was never written is obvious from the title of this essay. This is because in my attempt to do so, I faced three major problems that prevented me, as well as discouraged me, from writing on this subject. However, it has occurred to me that the fruit of my labour in my attempt to write on this subject was not in actually writing it, but rather, it was in my actually attempting to write it, for I have made several interesting discoveries in my attempt. These discoveries inlcude concerining the edibility of cat food as such, concerning the faculty of smell, and concerning the point in writing such a paper. Because these discoveries are worth being mentioned about, so as to give a precedental advice to those who, in near future, decide to write a paper on the edibility of cat food, I felt compelled to discuss about my findings to make a contribution, as best as I can, to the developent of human knowledge.

The first discovery I made in my experimental approach to solve this issue is the meaningfulness of the question ‘Is Cat Food Edible?’ As this was my primary goal, i.e., that to prove or disprove, or at least come to some conclusion that answers this question either affirmatively or negatively, the first step to test this hypothesis was simply to try eating it. But what is ‘Cat Food’ per se? Is anything cats can and will eat be considered cat food? What are cats capable of eating? Obviously, these questions produce so many answers that one cannot give a general account as to how many things cats are capable of eating, both in the sense that a thing is chewable and in the sense that it is digestible in cat’s stomach without unwelcome consequences. Not to mention the answers to these questions seem to depend upon each particular cat and its likings, as when we say an apple is edible to human beings, not on the basis that it is edible by all human beings (as is the case with those who are allergic to it), but on the basis that it is conceptually edible by all human beings as such. So, then, our task here is to show if cat food as such is conceptually edible to all human beings, whether or not the subject likes it. Cat food as such, then, is food that which all cats are able to eat conceptually. But does that not include just about everything that is digestible that cats are inclined to eat? Moreover, is that not the same as to the concept of food as such, not merely cat food? Just when I began this investigation by tasting three kinds of cat food, two solid, one pate, I immediately realized the incomprehensibility of the question itself. For the question asks, ‘Is cat food edible?’ As I finished tasting each of them, I was naturally led to have this incontestable belief that ‘Of course it is! Anything is edible!’ if by ‘edible’ we mean that which is capable of being chewed on and being digested. After all, human food and cat food are both edible in so far as it is food, i.e., in so far as it is that which is chewable and digestible without causing any disturbing consequences. What, then, makes food ‘cat food’ and food ‘human food’? At this point, having elucidated that both cat food and human food are edible – an apple or a mago is edible by both parties – it is made evident that the difference lies in the qualifier before the noun, food. We now thus safely state that cat food is food that is suitable for consumption for cats, and subsequently, human food is that which is sutable for consumption for humans.

Now, the question is, then, this: Is cat food suitable for consumption for human being? What is suitable for something is made suitable because it is in accordance with the said concept, i.e., the quality of being free is in accordance with the concept of freedom. Similarly, for cat food to be suitable for human beings, it must be in accordance with the concept of human beings, that is, the question must be rephrased thus: Is cat food in accordance with human beings? However, as soon as it is put this way, it becomes apparent that it is not. For cat food is that which is suitable for cats’ diet, and that which is in accordance with, or comprehensible by, the concept of cats, and consequently cat food is not that which is suitable for or is in accordance with the concept of human beings, for if it were the case, i.e., if cat food was suitable for human beings, cat food would not be called cat food, since we have defined ‘cat food’ as that which is suitable for cats, and humans are not cats. In fact, if cat food as such were suitable for human beings also, it is no longer cat food, but merely food, for by food, we understand that which is suitable for sustainance of life. It seems, then, that cat food is not edible in this sense.

That this discovery could not have been made unless I had gone through some of these experiments is obvious, for although it could be easily seen as a self-evident claim, what has eventually led me to this foundation of my firm belief that cat food is not in fact edible in the sense proper is this very act of eating various kinds of cat food, and of having being able to discern and distinguish each flavour from one another. Without this experience my conception of inedibility of cat food would have been entirely different. This is because without it, my conception would have lacked the necessary apperceptive condition that is required for me to properly have an understanding of that concept. For even though I may have a concept of a quagga, I do not have an empirical consciousness of what this concept denotes, and thus I cannot be said to have a proper recognition of such a concept.

Let us, then, move on to discuss about my second discovery that is a result of this transcendetal apperception, for this is the second stage of discovery, a middle-ground, which is necessary for the completion of uncovering the grand mystery that lies hidden concerning the nature of eating cat food as such.

As has been noted, my second discovery is concerned with the faculty of smell. What do I mean by this, and what can possibly be said of it in the manner our discussion necessitates? First, I mean the ideas that are had by us by the means of smell. When I smell an apple, I am immediately overcome by the idea of sweetness and pleasure, which I gain from eating the apple. This idea of sweetness that is being produced in the mind is entirely passive, i.e., it has no active force in it to produce whatever ideas there may consequently be had. In other words, my idea of sweetness produced from my perceiving (smelling) of the apple may trigger about other related ideas, such as juiciness that normally accompanies the apple or redness that is associated with apples, but it cannot produce at its will an idea of a dinosaur or of a certain mathematical formulae, unless there is a close association with one another. Therefore, this idea I have of an apple, i.e., of sweetness, is itself an unchanging idea that is, although capable of being changed by some active force, i.e., by mind, it is by itself incapable of producing a new idea that is distinct from its own.

Having established this fact, we may now move on to tackle the second question, which is this: what can possibly be said of it in relation to what we have set out to prove? In order that I be fair on this experiment on eating cat food, I decided to try both dry and wet food, and see if either of them produces a different effect. Upon opening the can of dry food, I was struck by the exceptionally stinky smell, which produced in my mind an idea of presentiment or an apocalyse. However, on seeing the food, I was consequently delighted by how colourful each of them looked. At this point, I was primarily overcome by two senses that told me two different things. Smell told me not to eat it, but the sight told me otherwise. On the other hand, when I opened the wet food, I was delighted by the smell of it since it smelt exactly like that of tuna, but I was shocked by the sight, which reminded me of a food in process of being digested. I really did not want to eat it. Then, something peculiar occurred to my mind, a proposition that was purely positive, which was being antithetical to my then conception, which was realized by the transcendental unity of apperception, of cat food before my eyes. My conception of cat food as a whole then was that of total negativity; a conception that was raised onto my consciousness by the synthesis between the external reality of the objects, i.e., bad smell and gross looking food before my eyes, and my inner resolution that I would be eating it ere long. A new, somewhat antithetical, proposition was brought into my attention, which was specifically the fact that cat food had smelt and looked completely opposite to what I was then finding it smell and look like. The more I became aware of this fact, the more I was convinced that the same thing, the same idea, could smell differently depending on a given condition.

This can be more closely analyzed in the following manner. The fact is that, as has been stated above, upon seeing the dry cat food it smelled terribly. Although it did look delicious, or to say the least, appetizing, because the smell of it was so acutely bad, it produced a negative idea of it. When, on the other hand, I opened the wet food, I was struck by a good smell, and even though it did look bad, I was quite willing to entertain the thought of eating it – which is not to say that I wanted to eat it. Thereby, in the case of the wet food, I had rather a positive idea on it. However, what was counter-intuitive, or antithetical, about it was that my previous conception of cat food was entirely of different character. It had been the case, previously, that whenever I was at a friend’s house who owned a cat, I had found dry cat food rather enticing. It is here important to note that when I found dry cat food enticing, I was not in the mindset of eating the food myself. In fact, I had not such a conception in my mind as I found it look delectable. Indeed, I found it look delectable then for the cat to eat it, and not for me to eat it. Consequently, my smell concerning the dry cat food then was rather a delightful one. I, in fact, imagined how lucky the cat was to be able to eat such colourful, good smelling food. On the other hand, when I saw the wet cat food in a similar situation, I was almost disgusted by the smell of it, though I found it look okay – that is to say, it did not look terribly different from tuna cans we normally eat. To sum up, in the case of dry cat food, when I perceived it without any intention of my eating it, my idea of it was rather a positive one, whereas in the cae of wet cat food in the same situation, my idea of it was negative.

My State                     :  Dry Cat Food        :  Wet Cat Food

Eating Cat Food         :   NEGATIVE         :   POSITIVE

Not Eating Cat Food  :    POSITIVE           : NEGATIVE

The above chart shows that when my mindset is such as to eating cat food, the perception of the same food changes. And as we have previously establsihed that an idea, being by itself passive, is incapable of changing without the help of a mind, or an active force, we can safely assume that the mindset of an agent can affect judgments as to a specific smell being good or bad.

Quagga, 1890

The third discovery that concludes this entire investigation concerning writing on the edibility of cat food as such comes down to this: whether there is a point in writing such an essay, and if there is, what it can be, and if not, whether I am simply wasting my time on even writing on ‘writing an essay on the edibility of cat food as such.’

Many people have asked, ‘why do you even want to try to eat cat food in the first place?’ To this, I must answer that this is not because of a mere curiosity, but it is a necessary result of the conflicting antitheses, that is, on one hand, smell that tells me not to eat, and on the other hand, sight that tells me it is okay to eat. The conception that cat food is inedible already thus contains the contradiction within it, and the only way to resolve this issue is by countering with a yet another antithesis to conception, that is to say, with experience. Only then can I said to possess the true knowledge as to the edibility of cat food as such, and it is by this reason that I tried devouring various types of cat food.

Let it be, then, asked once more if there is any point in spending one’s time in comprising such an essay, for it is on proving this that the fruit of our quest for truth depends. For also on this question lies the true meaning of the title of this essay, that is, why it is on an attempt to write on the edibility of cat food as such and not smply on the edibility of cat food.

As has been declared earlier in the essay, this piece of work is a result of, and still remains so, my attempt to write an essay on whether cat food as such is edibile to human beings or not, and of the last of three discoveries that I have made in my attempt is simply that there is absolutely no point in writing on such a topic, although there is a point in writing on the differences within the same concept depending on the situation. That this is a fact became apparent as I recalled in my attempt to write an essay on the edibility of cat food, for as my discoveries also assure us, in so far as it is cat food, it must be in accordance with the concept of cats, and that it must be suitable for consumption for cats, and not human beings. This rather obvious discovery may be said not a discovery but a realization. Further, it may be asked, But is there not a point in asserting the differnce in conception of cat food depending on the circumstances? To which, it may be answered, yes, rightly so. From which, then, one can conclude that, although there is a point in discovering that our conceptions of the same thing differ depending on each circumstance, there is not really a point in writing an essay on the edibility of cat food as such, in the sense that there is no necessity in limiting the situation to edibility of cat food as such, and such an attempt may simply result in a grave discomfort caused by dispepsia due to the inedibility of cat food and wasting one’s own time, which can be spent more effectively for a nobler deed.

Completed: April 19, 2009

An extinct zebra-like animal in South Africa. A horse with stripes on the front part of the body, last seen in public in around 1870.

Kant, Immanuel, Critique of Pure Reason.

Berkeley, George, Three Dialogues Between Hylas and Philonous. Locke, John, Essay.