Pyrrho's Pig



5th c. BCE Greek Figurine of a Pig

Here is another extract from Montaigne's Essais. This is from Book 1, ch. 14, The taste of good & evil things depends upon our opinion . Before this quote he has been discussing constancy in the face of death:


"One case only: the philosopher Pyrrho* happened to be aboard ship during a mighty storm; to those about him whom he saw most terrified he pointed out an exemplary pig, quite unconcerned with the storm; he encouraged them to imitate it. Dare we conclude that the benefit of reason (which we praise so highly & on account of which we esteem ourselves to be lords & masters of all creation) was placed in us for our torment ? What use is knowledge if, for its sake, we lose the calm & repose which we would enjoy without it  & if it makes our condition worse than that of Pyrrho's pig ? Intelligence was given us for our greater good: shall we use it to bring about our downfall by fighting against the design of Nature & the order of the Universe, which require each creature to use its faculties & resources for its advantage ?

Fair enough, you may say: your rule applies to death, but what about want ? And what have you to say about pain which . . . the majority of sages judge to be the ultimate evil ? Even those who denied this in words accepted it in practice: Possidonius was tormented in the extreme by an acutely painful illness; Pompey came to see him & apologised for having picked on so inappropriate a time for hearing him discourse on philosophy: 'God forbid,' said Possidonius, 'that pain should gain such a hold over me as to hinder me from expounding philosophy or talking about it.' & he threw himself into the theme of contempt for pain. Meanwhile pain played her part & pressed hard upon him. At which he cried, 'Pain, do your worst ! I will never say you are an evil !' A great fuss is made about this story, but what does it imply about his contempt for pain ? He is arguing about words: if those stabbing pangs do not trouble him, why does he break off what he was saying ? Why does he think it so important not to call pain an evil ?

All is not in the mind in his case. We can hold opinions about other things: here the role is played by definite knowledge. Our very senses are judges of that  . . . Are we to make our flesh believe that lashes from leather thongs merely tickle it, or to make our palate believe that bitter aloes is vin de Graves ? In this matter, Pyrrho's pig is one of us: it may not fear death, but beat it & it squeals & cries."

Coin from Eleusis, Circa 340-335 BCE., depicting Triptolemos, holding grain ear, seated right in winged chariot being drawn by two serpents / Pig standing right on mystic staff; bucranium below. Pigs were sacrificed during the Eleusinian Mysteries.

Sacrifice of a young boar in ancient Greece, Attic red-figure cup, 510–500 BCE

 

 



*Pyrrho of Elis (c.360-c.270 BCE) was a Greek philosopher who is credited as being the founder of Skepticism. For a view on Pyrrho by Byron, see Byron, West, Macaulay & 'Correctness', 22.9.12. Click on the label 'Byron' below.

Translation by M. A. Screech from his Michel de Montaigne: the Complete Essays (ISBN 0140446044), p.57-8.

The Count of Monte Cristo

Alexandre Dumas (1802-70). This image was taken by Nadar in 1855.

I've just recently finished The Count of Monte Cristo by Dumas. I thought it was absolutely brilliant & thoroughly recommend it, especially the Penguin Classics edition (ISBN 9780140449266), which is what I read. This is translated by Robin Buss & has the great advantages of being unabridged & unexpurgated. I want to quote a bit of dialogue from near the end of the novel. It doesn't give any of the plot away. It is a conversation between the Count & his friend Morrel. The latter speaks first:


" 'Count, you are an encyclopedia of all human knowledge, & you strike me as someone who has come down from a more advanced & wiser world than our own.'
'There is some truth in that, Morrel,' the Count said with a melancholy smile that transfigured his face. 'I have come from a planet called sorrow.'"


- Ch.117 'October the Fifth', p.1235

Atheism/Character

"La perception d'un ange ou d'un dieu n'a pas de sens pour moi. Ce lieu géométrique où la raison divine ratifie la mienne m'est pour toujours incompréhensible."

- Camus, Le mythe de Sisyphe , p.68 (ISBN 9782070322886)


"The perception of an angel or a god has no meaning for me. That geometrical spot where divine reason ratifies mine will always be incomprehensible to me."

- The Myth of Sisyphus , p.47, trans. Justin O'Brien (ISBN 9780141182001)

Voltaire (1694-1778)

"Caractère

Du mot grec impression, gravure . C'est que la nature a gravé dans nous. Pouvons-nous l'effacer ? grande question. Si j'ai un nez de travers et deux yeux de chat, je peux les cacher avec un masque. Puis-je davantage sur le caractère que m'a donné la nature ?"

- Voltaire, Dictionnaire philosophique  (Garnier Frères 1967)


"Character

From the Greek word impression, engraving. It is what nature has engraved in us. Can we efface it ? Vast question. If I have a hooked nose & two cat's eyes I can hide them with a mask. Can I do better with the character nature has given me ?"

- Philosophical Dictionary, p.75, trans. Theodore Besterman, (ISBN 014044257X)



For some time Man has not been satisfied by what is in front of him, by what is really there, by the sky, the earth, the sun, the moon, the stars, the sea. He has so often felt he has to create something or someone behind or above it all. This something or someone he makes in his own image, & then genuinely feels that the thing he made, made him. What evidence is there that Man made God or the gods & not the other way round ? One indication is the startling resemblance between a given God or gods & those that worship Him or them. As Xenophanes (c.570-c.478 BCE) wrote at the very dawn of philosophy:


"Ethiopians say their gods are snub-nosed & black;
Thracians that theirs are blue-eyed & red-haired."

- Fragment 16

"But if horses or oxen or lions had hands
or could draw with their hands & accomplish such works as men,
horses would draw the figures of the gods as similar to horses, & the oxen as similar to oxen,
& they would make the bodies
of the sort which each of them had."

- Fragment 15

-  Xenophanes, Fragments , trans. J.H.Lesher (ISBN 0802085083)


In worshipping a god, people are worshipping their own projection. This remains true whether the god in question is conceived in the most concrete or the most abstract terms, & everywhere in between.

The Universe is nothing but an unfolding process. It has no intention as far as Man is concerned. Therefore there is no Providence, no Destiny, no Doom & no Fate, except in so far as fate is character & vice versa. There is no heaven, no hell, no Last Judgement, no afterlife whatsoever, no reincarnation, no transmigration of souls. There is no soul except to the extent that soul  is a synonym for individual consciousness . However, I must admit here that as far as I know at this time none of the sciences are able to explain either the origin or the precise nature of consciousness.

That leaves the form of life after death called Fame or Reputation, which was an absolutely crucial part of the Heroic Ideal. The Warrior took satisfaction & inspiration from the expectation that his great deeds would be remembered & celebrated by generations to come, whether it be Achilles or Beowulf or their counterparts in real life. As you can see, I disagree with the Stoics in general about the existence of Providence & with Marcus Aurelius in particular about the real existence of the gods, on which point he is most insistent, e.g. Mediations, Book 12, 28. However, I agree wholeheartedly with another of Marcus' themes, which is the complete meaninglessness of posthumous fame. For instance, the following:


"30. Look down from above on the numberless herds of mankind, with their mysterious ceremonies, their divers voyagings in storm & calm, & all the chequered pattern of their comings & gatherings & goings. Go on to consider the life of bygone generations; & then the life of all those who are yet to come; & even at the present day, the life of the hordes of far-off savages. In short, reflect what multitudes there are who are ignorant of your very name; how many more will have speedily forgotten it; how many, perhaps praising you now, who will soon enough be abusing you; & that therefore remembrance, glory, & all else together are things of no worth."

- Meditations , Book 9


I think that was true when Marcus wrote it, & it's even more true today, when there are so many more people. More succinctly:


"35. All of us are creatures of a day; the rememberer & the remembered alike."

- Meditations , Book 4


Picking up the point about fate being character, by fate is character  I mean that one's fate is the outcome of one's character or personality, & is alterable to the extent they are. But as to the Fates of classical mythology, or the Norns, or some suprapersonal force separate from Man himself deciding how things will go for you, what happens to you - no. The fate of a nation or culture is determined in exactly the same way, it is an outcome in time of the character or personality of that nation or culture.




I want to finish with a long quote from Voltaire, on the subject of character & the extent to which it is possible to change it.  It is the last 2 paragraphs from his entry in his Dictionnaire philosophique  on Character, the start of which is quoted beneath his portrait above: you can find the French text in the edition referred to there. I am often wary of Voltaire's views in his writing, because he is the Devil himself for mixing fact & opinion so they cannot be separated. This quote ends with two illustrative anecdotes; I'm not sure how far I agree with Voltaire's point here, but I think they are very funny:


"Age weakens the character; it is a tree that produces nothing but a few degenerate fruits, but they are still of the same kind; it gets to be covered with knots & moss, it becomes worm-eaten, but it is still an oak or a pear tree. If we could change our character we would give ourselves one, we would be masters of nature. Can we give ourselves something ? Do we not receive everything ? Try to arouse continuous activity in an indolent mass, to freeze with apathy the boiling soul of the impetuous, to inspire a taste for music & poetry into one who lacks taste & an ear: you will no more succeed than if you undertook to give sight to one born blind. We perfect, we mitigate, we hide what nature has placed in us; but we place nothing in ourselves.

A farmer was told: 'You have too many fish in this pond, they will not thrive; there are too many animals in your fields, there is not enough grass, they will lose weight.' After this exhortation it so happened that pike ate half my man's carp, & wolves half of his sheep; the rest fattened. Will he congratulate himself on his management ? This countryman is you yourself; one of your passions devours the others & you think you have triumphed over yourself. Do we not really all resemble the old general of ninety who, coming across some young officers who were causing a disturbance with some women of the town, said in a temper: 'Gentlemen, is this the example I give you ?'

'Sisyphus' by Titian