Reverence to Wine

Peter Creasey

Peter Creasey

Peter Creasey
Wine deserves its place at the heart of civilisation

Philosopher Roger Scruton on what he owes to wine

Wine was revered in ancient times as the work of a god. Its subsequent place at the heart of our civilisation justifies that attitude. Wine has been, for us, a glowing threshold through which we pass from work to play, from business to friendship, and from means to ends.
.
.
.
As a writer and philosopher I owe much to wine. Those long days before a blank page, attempting to capture the thoughts that hover just out of reach like captious flies, have almost always been crowned by some small success when, at 7.30, I pour myself a glass of white Burgundy. However badly the day has gone, the words will then begin to gather into sentences.
Click to expand...

Thanks Be To Wine

. . . . . Pete
 
When I was practicing, I would do all my trial prep well in advance and then take a day off.
After the day off, I would read through the entire trial notebook while stoned and write down anything I wanted to revisit prior to trial
Once sober, I would read all my “influenced” notes and adjust accordingly.
Some of the best cross exam and final argument topics came from those notes.

Sounds like this writer and I have something in common.
Best, Jim
 
Academic philosophers are famously drunks. And Socrate,of course, was notorious for being able to drink everyone under the table while still philosophizing. But there are some teetotaler philosophers as well. They're all human beings and have all the various foibles of human beings.

I'm intrigued that working while stoned worked for Florida Jim. There's an anecdote that used to make the rounds when I was an undergraduate: someone, while stoned, suddenly had what he thought was a world shaking epiphany. He managed to write it down. Next morning, he found in his pocket a scrap of paper on which was written "there's a funny smell in here."

I can only write or read seriously when I'm sober, so that may bias my response to Scruton. Also, I don't share his views.
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Academic philosophers are famously drunks. And Socrate,of course, was notorious for being able to drink everyone under the table while still philosophizing. But there are some teetotaler philosophers as well. They're all human beings and have all the various foibles of human beings.
Click to expand...

Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed

Couldn't resist,
Mark Lipton
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Academic philosophers are famously drunks. And Socrate,of course, was notorious for being able to drink everyone under the table while still philosophizing. But there are some teetotaler philosophers as well. They're all human beings and have all the various foibles of human beings.

I'm intrigued that working while stoned worked for Florida Jim. There's an anecdote that used to make the rounds when I was an undergraduate: someone, while stoned, suddenly had what he thought was a world shaking epiphany. He managed to write it down. Next morning, he found in his pocket a scrap of paper on which was written "there's a funny smell in here."

I can only write or read seriously when I'm sober, so that may bias my response to Scruton. Also, I don't share his views.
Click to expand...

Jonathan,
I didn’t really work stoned (all the prep being already done); rather I reviewed stoned, wrote notes and then waited until I was sober again to decide if my notes were useful in fact.
Inspiration comes in many ways . . .
Best, Jim
 
My most productive and successful grant writing ever happened on a transatlantic flight, when LH miraculously double bumped me up to First and I emptied more than a bottle of a quite fine vintage champagne. Never got that much done in 8 hours, and never got a better score.

Attempts to recreate the scenario at home inevitably result in me snoring on the couch.
 
Roger Scruton's "I Drink, Therefore I Am" is essential wine literature. Jonathan may dislike his politics, but the book came out around the same time as (Marxist) Jonathan Nossiter's Liquid Memory and the two books had much common ground - more than the two men could have found if they were talking about anything other than wine. A civilizing force indeed.
 
There was a recent article on, I think, Paleolithic use of hallucinogenics (e.g., hemp). I conjecture that the overdeveloped human brain is a delicate instrument and has benefited all through its recent development from periodic shaking up of its accustomed paths by byways.

Though the effect isn't uniformly beneficial. From Eubulus, 4th century BC Greek poet:

“For sensible men I prepare only three kraters: one for health, the second for love and pleasure, and the third for sleep. After the third one is drained, wise men go home. The fourth krater is not mine any more—it belongs to bad behavior; the fifth is for shouting; the sixth is for rudeness and insults; the seventh is for fights.”
 
Scruton is a seriously stupid man whose intentions are thoroughly dishonourable. I wouldn't dream of reading about his thoughts on wine.
 
originally posted by Tom Blach:
Scruton is a seriously stupid man whose intentions are thoroughly dishonourable. I wouldn't dream of reading about his thoughts on wine.
Click to expand...

This is a bit strong. By his intentions being dishonorable, do you mean that what he writes is disingenuous? How do you know? Or, like me, do you just disagree with what he says? You may even morally disapprove of what he says without thinking his intentions are dishonorable, except in the trivial sense that if someone intends to say something you find immoral, it would follow that you find the intention immoral (I won't go further with the impossible problem of what constitutes honor.

And, finally, why would any of that make one unable to write interestingly about wine?
 
originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
There was a recent article on, I think, Paleolithic use of hallucinogenics (e.g., hemp). I conjecture that the overdeveloped human brain is a delicate instrument and has benefited all through its recent development from periodic shaking up of its accustomed paths by byways.

Though the effect isn't uniformly beneficial. From Eubulus, 4th century BC Greek poet:

“For sensible men I prepare only three kraters: one for health, the second for love and pleasure, and the third for sleep. After the third one is drained, wise men go home. The fourth krater is not mine any more—it belongs to bad behavior; the fifth is for shouting; the sixth is for rudeness and insults; the seventh is for fights.”
Click to expand...

I always wondered about that quotation. The sentiment, assuming I understand it properly, seems exactly right to me, but the volumes always puzzled me. How many men was he preparing the kraters for? A krater is pretty big and was used for mixing (assumed to be strong) wine & water. If for an intimate gathering, 3 kraters might go beyond the prescription (was it Dressner or Theise?) that "a magnum is the perfect sized format: for 2 people."
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
originally posted by Tom Blach:
Scruton is a seriously stupid man whose intentions are thoroughly dishonourable. I wouldn't dream of reading about his thoughts on wine.
Click to expand...

This is a bit strong. By his intentions being dishonorable, do you mean that what he writes is disingenuous? How do you know? Or, like me, do you just disagree with what he says? You may even morally disapprove of what he says without thinking his intentions are dishonorable, except in the trivial sense that if someone intends to say something you find immoral, it would follow that you find the intention immoral (I won't go further with the impossible problem of what constitutes honor.

And, finally, why would any of that make one unable to write interestingly about wine?
Click to expand...

I both disapprove of what he says and his persistent intention to influence outcomes in a malevolent way. It is certainly possible he has something to say about wine, but wine isn't that important.
 
A persistent intention ot influence outcomes is hardly dishonorable. I'd say it's one of the major reasons for writing philosophy. Whether the ways are malevolent or not probably depends on political beliefs, unless he argues that murder and theft ought to be encouraged or he personally should get away with murder and theft (in those terms). Honor doesn't come into the case.

And, of course, what he has to say about wine will be of primary interest to this bored, most of the members of which probably have no interest in the views of philosophers on politics--or indeed your or my views on politics.
 
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:

And, of course, what he has to say about wine will be of primary interest to this bored, most of the members of which probably have no interest in the views of philosophers on politics--or indeed your or my views on politics.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure of that. I don't think a number of people can get past Scruton's politics (just as if Céline or Pound wrote about wine; most of us would hardly be inclined to overlook their positions and pronouncements and give their wine writing a fair hearing.) And as far as your views or Tom's on politics, well, if they were not right of center, all would be cool 'round these parts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top