Definitions make bad philosophy.
Also, in general, we don't keep the first definitions forever. The meaning of words evolve. Hopefully.
Well, from my point of view, defining terms should be part of the philosophical process. In the socratic methode the meaning is constructed step by step. It doesn't exist beforehand.Before starting any philosophical or argument, one must not only define terms but agree on their meaning.
This is how I've come to define it for myself:
Ha - so here's where we get in to original definitions, which is that (much to my surprise when I learned it a couple years ago), a WFPB diet does not include any animal products. I used to think what you think, but I learned otherwise. Now, FOK has, what I would call *diluted* their recipes in their books and on their website which now include some animal products, but they most definitely didn't used to. Honestly, that pisses me off, to a degree, so I don't really turn to them for advise anymore. I think they are trying to cater to the masses by doing that. I am in a WFPB FB group that noticed when they started doing that, and the moderator expressed her disappointment and we don't refer to them anymore. I am pretty disappointed myself. But I have been "schooled" in the past to learn that PB means no animal products, not a diet with mostly plants and whatever else in small quantities. That, to me, is "flexitarian" (or better put, "just a typical omnivore who is maybe trying to cut back the amt of meat they eat").the other quibble is that I'm pretty sure that PB and WFPB are not necessarily vegan.
@Emma JC - I think it's the website that has a few non-vegan recipes, that the FB group mod was referring to. Or possibly that they somewhere suggested that it's OK to substitute chicken broth or something. I didn't follow up on it. Or maybe it was the use of oil?fyi - FOK cookbook
Forks Over Knives – The Cookbook
$18.95$15.99
300+ brand new recipes. Globally and seasonally inspired dishes from Chef Del. All recipes are vegan, oil-free and virtually all are low-fat. Contributions from Julieanna Hever, Judy Micklewright, Isa Chandra Moskowitz, and Darshana Thacker.
Emma JC
ps re: Furman.... to my knowledge he is a Nutritarian
What worries me is the dilution of the term vegan, and the animosity towards those who avoid animal products, testing or use, based on ethics that doesn't meet their whole food, health food definition. I've found it worse than any thing I come across from omnis
Some plant based eaters, born from the docs like Game Changers and What the Health, have far more hate of the release of vegan fast food and prefer people eat "the real thing".
Honestly, in real life this has been fleeting - the ones that had a Eureka! moment had it pass, but while it lasted, I'd been critiqued and taunted. The vegan diet condemned as only caring about animals-from those who shunned meat for produce, at least temporarily
As I understand it, veganism- by definition- excludes other things which are not eaten, such as articles of clothing or cosmetics (but not limited to those). For example, I don't think a vegan who took medicine tested on animals would be considered as no longer being vegan; almost all (maybe all) medicine is tested on animals, and I don't think a vegan would be expected to refuse medicine, even if they would prefer something not tested on animals but no such medicine was available.In this case, the issue is how we define "veganism."
is there anyone reading this thread who thinks it is purely a matter of diet and nothing else?
IOW, is it just a matter of not eating anything sourced from the body of an animal ( whether the body of a dead animal or produced by a living animal)?