Just like Plato makes it clear especially in his apology of Socrates saying that he was among the devoted young followers, he must have told Aristotle about how he loved pizza but Aristotle must have argued out that he knew the pizza guy but he knew not about the extra large mutton and olive pie regardless of how hungry they were. This is just like they knew little about the hockey but knew about Athens. The fact that both their relationship is not problematic does not mean that their argument or comments about the pizza could cause them not to eat the pizza brought by the pizza guy.
Pizza is a mixture of everything because it is not made in a definite way so like in their philosophisphical way it is not made in a specific way because there are many types of pizza as one can make even a cereal pizza. The different way of thinking for the two philosophers of them is that some can think metaphysically and others in a platonic philosophical school of thought. About the pizza they must have discussed about the ingredients and not the pizza itself.
Using this model requires that no step be left out or skipped. Several intellectual background applications and counseling settings of the model will be considered. This will help in determining the application of this model in the groups and areas. It will involve using studies on the model that evaluate programs in health education, analysis descriptions and provisions of the effectiveness of these programs when dealing with mental disordeds and the general population on eating pizza.
Specialist in mental health would have the option to work in confidential settings as philosophical thinkers. These settings described mean a small place and an extra work mate, this small business would provide various counseling treatments where both would require treatments on the issue of eating habits. References Chomsky, Noam, Edward S. Herman (1979). The philosophy. Black Rose Books Ltd.