Nearly two thousand years ago, Athenaeus of Naucratis, in his Deipnosophistae, explicitly equated solitary eaters with criminals (“solitary eater and housebreaker!”), and just this year, the historian Felipe Fernández-Armesto, in Near a Thousand Tables, echoed Athenaeus’ condemnation almost word for word: “that public enemy, the solitary eater.” The fact is, eating in groups — along with speech, writing and warfare — is among the most elemental and universal expressions of humanity.
We solitary folk are truly the most oppressed people in history. If it weren’t for the fact that all we really want is to be left the fuck alone and not be press-ganged into everyone else’s idea of a good time, we would make one hell of a victim-identity group. But that would mean having to band together and interact with other people. Eh, not worth it.
(Since it seems likely that Browner will eventually see this post and think too hard about it, let me lay it out for him: Hi, Jesse. I didn’t actually read your book; my inamorata did. I just glanced through the beginning of it and read the chapter about Hitler, which was interesting. This excerpt just happened to provide the raw material for a little joke based on a couple of my recurring themes here. Best wishes.)
July 8, 2015 @ 4:37 pm
LOL
Just got back from a vacation-basically tagging along with two friends up to friends' summer house in Oregon. 6 days in constant contact with people. Urk. I was antisocial enough not to allow them to browbeat me into wandering around a dusty sagebrush-and-juniper woodland for several hours in 90 degree heat throwing a frisbee at targets (I HATE ball sports and everything like them) but I had a lovely solo bicycling adventure down Oregon's immaculately-maintained rural roads!
July 8, 2015 @ 6:01 pm
I guess I can understand why loners and introverts are distrusted. People want to hear something that they can use to judge another's character. A quiet person could be shy or a simmering psychopath. That's why it's best to always announce that you are not the latter when first introduced.
I also just got back from a vacation – camping trip in CO. With people. Tried to get my 7 yr old niece to put down her device for a minute and enjoy the fire:
Me: This is what people did before TV and internet.
She: It's not doing very much; I'd rather watch a movie.
(Ouch. She finally admitted that it contained pretty colors.)
Speaking of internet, I had service at times, but couldn't comment here because reCAPTCHA doesn't get along with my iPad iOS. It was the new copy – paste feature: iPad wouldn't paste the link in the box.
July 8, 2015 @ 6:32 pm
noel: Let's speculate in this very comments section on our host's character!!!
Bwahahahahaha!
July 9, 2015 @ 3:24 am
Ah, but do people know what they want? Perhaps our idiosyncrasies result from our differing abilities to perceive universal and ultimate goods. I certainly don't expect a seven year old to make the subtle judgment that quiet appreciation of the beauty of nature is actually more rewarding than flashy and stimulating electronic entertainment (if it is.) Most adults make similar mistakes. We need not agree that there is a universal, objective right way to be to see that most people are easily mislead into baited traps that soon lose their charm.
@Brian: Right? I mean, he could be someone who leaves the top off the ice cream so it gets sticky and grows ice crystals. You never know with these antisocial types.
July 8, 2015 @ 11:37 pm
Class discussion! Noel's niece serves as a perfect illustration of some of the themes which have raised here in the last couple of months.
Most of us, I assume, would agree that there is something like a "good life" which entails doing things like sitting quietly around a campfire instead of playing nonstop with gadgets. How would we make that case without resorting to arguments from utility, i.e. "You should enjoy the campfire or go moseying through the woods because it will lower your blood pressure and make you more productive when you get back to work"?
And then how would we make that case without it falling apart on grounds of personal taste? "Okay, fine, you think staring at the fire is a good thing to do in and of itself. I happen to think that about playing games on my phone. By what right do you judge my taste inferior?"
So, in other words, we tend to call some things "good" because they're instrumental to achieving other good things, and around in a circle we go. And if we accept the existence of practically "useless" activities which we nonetheless consider good, we're left having to accept it as an individual idiosyncrasy, incapable of being meaningfully compared or contrasted to anyone else's. I'm personally okay with this state of affairs, but I'm kind of strange like that, so I have to wonder: do most find this dissatisfying, this inability to define a common good, and if so, what might they attempt to replace it with?
July 9, 2015 @ 2:38 pm
I am extremely skeptical of "universal and ultimate goods". There we tumble down into the black hole of "religion". Which builds lovely cathedrals and hospitals and all that but also demands blood sacrifice of living virgins to keep the sun rising each morning!
🙂
noel: I am imagining a "pee all over the seat" kind of antisocial behavior myself! Bwahahahahahaha!
July 9, 2015 @ 4:26 pm
"I am extremely skeptical of "universal and ultimate goods". There we tumble down into the black hole of "religion"."
Only if we think we can be certain of what they are! We're all stumbling in the dark, but that doesn't mean some directions aren't better than others.
July 10, 2015 @ 3:11 pm
No doubt, noel I don't want to come across as too nihilistic here. But, healthy skepticism is still good.