Why does coffee look so pretentious?

Coffee in Europe at first only royal and aristocratic members in alcohol and beauty outside of an exotic, playful nature of the drink, and Chinese porcelain, Persian blankets no essential difference. Their taste is not adapted to such bitterness, nor is there any demand for functionality in the drink. Coffee as a drink was an empty signifier for the royal family, and what really interested them were the delicate china dishes, the fine clothes, and the mannerisms, as if meeting together to drink coffee attached some elegant meaning to the daily act of drinking, separating it from physiological needs (drinking water) and intoxicating revelry (drinking wine), and these characteristics of coffee included many ladies who had previously been at odds with the rough, masculine world of wine. In the royal and aristocratic community, drinking coffee seemed to become a small ceremony, its high cost became an entry ticket, and people were able to reaffirm their noble status and get satisfaction in this ceremony. Later, this sense of ritual changed its connotation and appeared on the table of ordinary families. The family sips coffee in the morning and has the first meeting of the day within the family. The order and role of the family are strengthened day after day during this time.

The mystique of "royalty only" also infected the emerging civic class and became the cause of many people's exposure to coffee. But coffee's replacement of beer and spirits as the new everyday drink has not been smooth sailing. This is a profound change in lifestyle habits, and coffee at the center of this change needs to be carefully studied and questioned under a magnifying glass on both a health and ethical level. Carl von Linnaeus (1707 - 1778), the Swedish scientist who established modern biological taxonomy, is typical of his view that coffee's stimulating effect on the spirit sacrifices the internal balance of the body and sacrifices health for development. At the time, this view echoed Rousseau's (1712 - 78) idea of "returning to nature," and even today this attitude of opposing a new thing to nature is familiar. This is ostensibly a rejection of strange things within the structure of existing knowledge, but behind it lies another question: does man have the right to manipulate his body for some purpose?