I'm reading A History of the World in 6 Glasses by Tom Standage. It's a view of the role that 6 beverages - beer, wine, spirits, coffee, tea and cola - have played in world history. I'm currently in the 'spirits' section, but I thought it worthwhile to comment on the role of wine (per Standage) in the development of the Greek culture and hence the Greek philosophy to which we all, by virtue of engaging in partial examination, are partial.
To begin with, beer was the first fermented beverage and is essentially a mechanism for consuming grain. Beer is grain in liquid form, bread is grain in solid form. With the advent of agriculture, grain became both the staple substance and a form of currency. Raw, unprocessed grain was unwieldy and not useful to laborers and the like. So it was converted into bread and beer, which were both more durable, compact and measurable. The state paid officials, priests and laborers in beer and it never lost its character as sustenance; nourishment for the body - not the soul.
Wine, while it too was a form of currency, did not have the nourishing, proletarian character of beer. To begin with, wine had a sense of danger about it that beer didn't - getting drunk on beer meant passing out, but getting drunk on wine could induce madness (hence the evolution of the myths and cults of Dionysus/Bacchus). Already this distinction brings out wine's critical impact on the human mind - the ability to destroy the capacity to reason. And this was important to the Greeks who adopted and developed wine culture in the Mediterranean because their concept of reason, which underpinned their philosophy and political system, was based on dialectic. Dialectic was enhanced, of course, by wine. Hence symposia.
So wine was essential to facilitating dialogue in social settings and bringing several people or a group to reasoned conclusions, whether about philosophy, love, aesthetics, politics or any other topic. There was a danger, however, that too much wine could bring the participants to madness. Thus it was a crucial function of the host of any symposium to control both the strength and rationing of wine during a party to ensure speech flowed freely, reason prevailed, and madness was kept at bay. No easy task.
The Greeks also began the habit of distinguishing between types (regions) and age of wine as a measure of quality, which was carried on by the Romans. This nuanced view of the fruit of the vine can be seen both as an example of the Greek focus on distinguish sense characteristics which still informs Western philosophical discourse today and as the earliest form of an Aesthetics of Taste which sadly has been neglected for the most part by the philosophical tradition. One man who is trying to rectify that is Barry Smith, author of Questions of Taste: The Philosophy of Wine. I haven't read the book, but I have heard him on Philosophy Bites and, I think, Little Atoms. He's interested in exploring both the extent to which the experience of drinking wine is subjective and yet taste can be called objective as well as the aesthetic vocabulary of wine tasting and how it can and cannot convey meaning depending on the audience.
So pour a glass and keep posting here to keep the dialogue going. You honor Socrates with every sip. If you've made it this far in the article, you may also enjoy this short video on how to drink red wine...
--seth
Excellent post Seth!
I’ll definitely have to check this book out. Could you elaborate anymore on what the percieved differences between wine and beer were/are in terms of inducing madness?
Is there empirical data to show that they induce different kinds of drunkeness?
Ethan–
In general, beer was pretty weak and wine at the time was very strong. The Greeks used to drink it watered down – another key role of the symposium’s host. ‘Barbaroi’, who the Greeks considered mad (think northern Germanic tribes) drank it without dilution and so the perception was that wine could make you mad (like a barbarian).
Additionally, since beer = grain, it was considered and used a foodstuff. Wine does not have that same nourishing characteristic – you have to eat food with it, so to speak.
Side note, it seems to me that Guiness must be the most like what beer was originally intended to be: I can drink pint after pint, don’t need to eat, and never get a hangover.
–seth
Another good one on this topic- “I Drink Therefore I Am: A Philosopher’s Guide to Wine” by Roger Scruton (a neo-Kantian and a British conservative, a much better sort of conservative than the type we tend to get in the States):
I Drink Therefore I am
http://www.amazon.com/Drink-Therefore-Am-Philosophers-Guide/dp/1441170677/
Scruton
http://www.roger-scruton.com/articles.html
Cheers,
Tom
Seth, if you ever find yourself in San Francisco, we’re definitely road-tripping to Napa, and we can put this to the test.
Absolutely!
Well, this seems to place me firmly in the category of the great unwashed. I do drink wine, but prefer beer. And I also tend to prefer beer discussions to wine discussions – I think it might be a part of the Australian culural outlook. Beer is the the everyman drink and Australians generally like to see themselves as egalitarian – no matter what the reality might actually be.
Former Labor Prime minister Bob Hawke famoulsy entered the Guiness Book of records during his time at Oxford for drinking a Yard glass – 1.4 litres of beer – in 11 seconds at Turf Tavern. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BobHawkeYardofale.jpg
“I downed the contents of the pot in eleven seconds, left the Sconcemaster floundering, and entered the Guniness Book of Records with the fastest time ever recorded. This feat was to endear me to some of my fellow Australians more than anything else I ever achieved.” Bob Hawke – http://www.australianbeers.com/culture/politics.htm
(the preceeding has some quite revealing quotes relating to Australia’s relationship to the drink, as indicated by the behaviour of her public officials)
Our cricketers – generally held as perfroming a much more important job than our politicians, are also notorious. Test cricketer Rod Marsh is said to have once downed 45 cans of full strength beer on a flight between London and Sydney. Assuming a 375ml can that is almost 16 litres. This was eclipsed by David Boon who consumed 52.
Anyway…
The rise of artisan brewing has certainly been a boon to the Australian beer drinker. The options were generally limited to a few rather uninspiring domestic brands. Now the choice is expanding rapidly with local microbrewers producing outstanding stuff.
Just to be clear, I drink everything (including spirits). For me it’s about weather, attitude, disposition, food and availability. Last night, sushi and sake. Regular day after work, gin negroni. With dinner: beer or wine as appropriate.
Keep in mind the book is a ‘history’ showing the role of the drinks in the development of civilization (I didn’t tell you about how rum fueled the slave trade in the Americas), not a judgement on the class or sophistication of drinkers.
In France, farmers drink wine and Parisiennes drink beer. The point is that the Greeks and Romans made wine a central part of their rituals and culture, and those (particularly the former) set the legacy for Western philosophy and religion.
–seth
to elaborate more on Australian beer habits….
mmmm….. Little Creatures Pale Ale.
I was positively shocked last week when I ordered up a pint of Boags Tasmanian and the waitress told me 10$. I assumed she was taking the piss in thinking I was a stupid American. But with further research in the field, I did corroborate the terrible price of beers down under.
It really does depend on where you drink. Some bars will nail you for every penny you have. (we no longer have pennies – we moved to decimal currency and have dollars and cents)
I also noted a massive price discrepancy when I moved to Victoria from NSW. NSW has gaming machines everywhere which subsidise the prices.
$10 for a pint, I would feel ripped of too.
Along the same lines – sort of – is D.C.A. Hillman’s 2008 book, “The Chemical Muse: Drug Use and the Roots of Western Civilization”. It’s one of those books that still sits on my shelf unread but I can tell you that Hillman makes a case that drug use played a major role in the philosophical and religious life of the ancients, a role that has generally been airbrushed out of history. The ancients would sometimes water down their wine but sometimes they went in the opposite direction, adding some pretty powerful psychoactive ingredients. This would explain Plato’s theory of Forms. It’s pretty easy to imagine that Zeno was tripping too. Probably had a fake arrow through his head and was laughing hysterically as he was denying the possibility of motion. Maybe a fuller appreciation could be gained by looking at philosophy through bloodshot eyes. I’m not entirely serious but…
From Herodotus’ Histories, Book 1:
“It is also their [the Persians] general practice to deliberate upon affairs of weight when they are drunk; and then on the morrow, when they are sober, the decision to which they came the night before is put before them by the master of the house in which it was made; and if it is then approved of, they act on it; if not, they set it aside. Sometimes, however, they are sober at their first deliberation, but in this case they always reconsider the matter under the influence of wine.”
I have long been a proponent of this approach for both philosophy and other major life decisions…
–seth
I’ve kept a journal at times. The entries after boozing always had something to do with urging my future, sober self to completely change life course.
I’d then wake up sober and think what the hell was I thinking the night before.
It really makes you wonder about that whole “continuity of conciousness thing.”
Excellent. I was going through my RSS feed and catching up on what I’ve missed these past few days. Coincidentally, I just downloaded this book today and started it on the Kindle. My roommate read it his freshman year for a history class.
If I remember correctly, Standage has another book where he examines the role of food in history. Have you read that one?
I haven’t, but I know of it. I remember hearing him interviewed about it on Little Atoms, I think. After I finish this I’m going to continue to plow through the Hayek I’m reading as I think it will come to bear on the Scientism stuff that’s been floating around.
What Hayek reading? I picked up The Fatal Conceit a while back because I wanted to pick up on some basic ideas in economics (also picked up some Keynes) but I haven’t gotten around to reading either.
@waltonky – The Counter Revolution in Science. Not the most famous or highly regarded (most people tell you to read The Road to Serfdom or The Fatal Conceit) but this is his argument against Scientism and positive proposal for method in non-science areas of study – like economics, but also psychology, etc.
Thought it might be more philosophical and more accessible to what we are doing right now.
–seth
There’s a hugely entertaining collection of essays called The Psychic Soviet by Ian Svenonius, who was the front man for various hardcore bands like The Make Up and Nation of Ulysses. One of the pieces in there is called The Bloody Latte. As well as being about the pacification of inner city areas in the 90s by bourgeois Seinfeld fans, it’s also about how western cultures ceremoniously drink the blood of their conquered foes via their favourite beverages. Like the English starting to drink tea after colonising India. So the Bloody Latte in the title is your typical Starbucks drink, being the sacrificed bodily fluids of exploited 3rd world producers. The Man from Del Monte, he says Yes!
I can’t recommend The Psychic Soviet highly enough.
Thanks rinky! I found it on Amazon.
My reading is now dominated by PEL recommendations. Just bought A History of the World in 6 Glasses and I Drink Therefore I am. Before that was Kojeve and Solomon on Hegel. Many others too numerous to list based on the New Atheists, etc. Keep it coming guys!
Russ–
Glad you are getting good recommendations – fortunately we have an active and intelligent community to augment my meager selections.
–seth
Seth, you are much too humble. Believe me when I say this: I and those of the “intelligent community”, would likely consider it an honor to carry your briefcase. Then again, it could just be the wine talking. Ah, the divine madness!
You flatter me, but thanks. In vino veritas!
I believe mead predates beer.
Hillman’s book was published by a commercial publisher (i.e. not vetted) and is essentially two chapters of his disstertation on Roman pharmacology stretched out to book length. If you are looking for a work by a scholarly press (i.e. vetted) that is specifically on the Greeks please take a look at my own book Pharmakon: Plato, Drug Culture, and Identity in Ancient Athens (Lexington Books, 2010).
Thanks Michael. Curious readers can find his book here on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Pharmakon-Culture-Identity-Ancient-Athens/dp/0739146866/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1305032141&sr=8-1
–seth