This is complete and utter bullshit. Whatever your personal experience, I have ridden taxis hundreds of times over the course of 2 decades and not once has a cab demanded I pay cash. I exclusively used credit cards and have been since roughly 2009
Reminds me of the South Park episode where agreeing to Apple's Terms and Conditions gives Steve Jobs the right to perform experimental surgery on you (inspired by the B horror flick Human Centipede). Just found the episode title, "HumancentiPad" S15 E1 from 2011
There was a recent article in the NYT on technology being developed to better deliver organs:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/02/health/organ-transplants-...
"Perfusion, as its called, is changing every aspect of the organ transplant process, from the way surgeons operate, to the types of patients who can donate organs, to the outcomes for recipients."
I don't know if the red tape described involving UNOs and OPTN will get in the way of more progress. But this seems like an area that could use a lot more attention.
I think Ancient art - visual and otherwise - was steeped in formulaic motifs. It's hard to judge the "passion" of the artist's hand with such low quality images, not to mention the damage wrought over thousands of years.
I think it's worthwhile to be careful not to judge ancient art with a modern eye. They had different values. It's quite possible if not likely that frescoes were viewed as temporary, to be plaster-painted over every so often. We can see multiple layers of painted plaster in other parts of Pompeii, so it's not unlikely private homes would do the same. If then they viewed this art as fleeting, why should they pay for the best details when the overall effect is more important?
Anyone who walked into this hall would have been familiar with the Trojan cycle. So as long as the characters were recognizable - hence the name labels - that was sufficient.
I personally find these bright, full-bodied figures against a stark black background reminiscent of the chiaroscuro effect mastered by Caravaggio some 1500 years later using oil
I'm not an artist or art historian but my understanding is that fresco (the technique) has no upsides other than longevity. It's time consuming, if the artist makes a mistake they need to start over, and has to be meticulously planned. That's why even the great masters of the Renaissance painted so few, and they tended to be large endeavors. It took a lot of time and planning to do one, even at a small scale.
Like if a Roman home owner decided they didn't like the fresco on their wall, it would take at least a year to paint a new one.
> I think Ancient art - visual and otherwise - was steeped in formulaic motifs.
A good example is ancient Egyptian art, which remained remarkably consistent across multiple empires, kingdoms, and dynasties, stretching some 3 millennia and change, a time range and consistency that is simply hard for us to fathom.
For statuary in particular, it's important to note that Egyptians, and Greeks to a lesser extent, believed that statues of gods were _physically inhabited by those gods_ and could be used to communicate with them, so it was pretty important not to mess with depictions.
For other common tropes, like Medusa, they were used as wards against evil and were basically magical spells or talismans.
There is no hint of passion. It is just formulaic decoration. The only interest for viewers would be in the clothing styles, which would track trends in Rome, and so need to be painted over frequently.
Comparisons to Hummel are more appropriate than to Caravaggio.
When looking at frescoes I like to ask, why did the homeowner (r whomever made these decisions) choose these images/themes for this context? Not just the Trojan War generally, but these particular characters and relationship dynamics?
Apollo and Cassandra; Paris and Helen; I think of them as 2 pairs of failed lovers. Failures not only because their romance didn't work out, but also because the fallout from their attempted relationship caused so much destruction.
The Trojan Cycle is often thought of in terms of war, battles, death, destruction. But it really does involve a lot of romantic relationships (all of them doomed): Achilles and Patroclus, Achilles and Briseis, Helen and Paris, Apollo and Cassandra, Agamemnon and Clytemnestra, Menelaus and Helen...
The thought provoking nature of frescoes in a dining room was intentional, as it's the type of source material that could be used to inspire conversation at a dinner party. Can't wait to learn more about this room
That's a good point. Someone seeing a Star Wars poster on your war might wonder why you're obsessed with stories about violent insurrections, but actually it's just because...wait, why did we put Star Wars posters in our rooms?
For Sale: POMPEII LAURELS Residential/Commercial property, suitable for owner occupancy, with tenants in the heart of idyllic Pompeii. The property has been in the hands of a prominent local family and its spacious gardens and tastefully appointed dining area are perfect for entertaining. Price upon request.
I am a big fan of the Old Testament (bible). Mind you I am at best a "reformed catholic" and at worst an atheist and hedonist.
But the Old Testament is great, for the very reason you're using here. It was the summer block buster of its time. Special effects: parting seas (a Hollywood classic), people turning to salt, city walls crumbling under the might of trumpets. So. Much. Sex. (The Old Testament is getting an nc-17 before we get out of the garden.) The power of god as "magic"....
To your point, I would assume that being raised on "Troy" would give it a certain reverence. Out side religious texts do we still raise kids this way? I think of the reverent childhood stories and "thing one and thing two" spring to mind... Im not sure if I want that sort of wall art.
It is possible to say "would you like to come up and see my Theodor Geisel prints" with ulterior motives.
Huckle Cat and Lowly Worm and the goat farmer (whatever his name was) were my reverent childhood stories, but I don't need them as wall art: when I found someplace that resembled Busytown, I moved here, so instead of putting them on my walls, all I need to do is go into town...
Probably bc Romans believed they descended from people who were at the battle of Troy. In particular it was Aeneas whom they believed escaped the sacking of Troy and made it to Latina. Later his progeny founded Rome. Being connected with great myths, whether historically true or not was a big deal, so everyone wanted to be able to claim some connection to that big event.
Brutus of Troy is the medieval British equivalent, and has other examples in the Renovatio imperii Romanorum phenomenon. Connecting oneself to history and myth have long been ways that various monarchies and dynasties across the Eurasian continent sought legitimacy and "publicized" their power.
Also Snorri Sturluson recontextualized the Norse gods as descendants of Troy in the Prose Edda, because he was writing in the context of a post-Christianized society in which acknowledging pagan gods would have been heresy.
Unironically, you should write scripts for the museum tour guy. While it has been a long time since I've come across one, I recall not being able to pay attention either because they're observations were apparent at surface-level or because they assume we're all pHD students.
Best place to start is to just personalize it. With certainty that someone chose to portray what appears on the frescoes in front of you over numerous possible alternatives. Now ask yourselves why. Notice the lack of romantic portrayals of Hector or Achilles charging into battle like you'd find on posters of anime or modern subject matter.
It just seems like such a perfect way to get through to teenagers like I once was that really couldn't imagine the people that owned the frescoes as anything more than abstractions I'd associate with middle school Social Studies.
I watch a fair number of action flicks with my wife; spotting the ὅπλισις ("arming scene") is one of the ways I pretend to do so from a high culture vantage point.
They were topics considered more appropriate for a social setting. That they were really about rape and kidnapping was probably not seen as notable; they are just familiar furnishings of a culture founded and maintained on armed compulsion. Nobody but the gods have any freedom, and the gods are bored children.
All civilizations are fundamentally based on armed compulsion. That's not a great way of understanding the difference between our modern culture and the Roman world.
A more useful way to delineate would be to say that Romans lived in a world where "might makes right" was the unquestioned order of the universe. The weak were trod underfoot and that was the way of the world. In modernity, we have a shared assumption that is very different, which is that even the weakest among us have a basic right to dignity and freedom. That was not an assumption that existed until after Christianity and its philosophies had fully taken root.
>A more useful way to delineate would be to say that Romans lived in a world where "might makes right" was the unquestioned order of the universe.
It was the common belief and enshrined in many Roman practices, but it was far from the unquestioned order of the day. Multiple Roman emperors, from Augustus onward created laws that went directly contrary to the idea of might always making right. One notable example of this is an emperor that everyone knows, Marcus Aurelius, but an even better case in point would be his impressive mentor, Titus Antoninus Pius, quite possibly the best and most humane emperor that Rome ever had.
He ruled longer than any emperor except for Augustus, up until his own death, but is little known of by the public in modern times, partly, I suspect, due to the sheer calmness of his rule, lacking as it was in major bloody events or notable acts of repression. He also made many sincere efforts to humanize and liberalize legal procedure in favor of ordinary people and even slaves, instead of the opposite. The devil is indeed in the details, or in this case, maybe a few minor angels were found there instead.
Also worth noting is that compared to most of the contemporary civilizations that surrounded them, the Romans' society was positively enlightened by the standards of the time. This may not seem like much, but when you compare Roman pretensions to moderate, ordered rule with the brutality of places like northern Europe, it was more than nothing for that time. It wasn't just by violence that Romans were so successful at Romanizing other people, these people themselves often willfully accepted Roman practices. In some ways, it reminds one of charismatic future societies like those of the British Empire and the United States today.
Conceded. Anyway the Romans were unpleasant neighbors and worse hosts. But I do not credit Christianity for recognition of rights to dignity and freedom. The Church has much more commonly been a supporter of oppression, starting as the official religious organ of the Roman Empire itsel. Only in recent centuries have breakaway sects adopted enlightenment values from secular culture.
I understand from this that you consider coercive interactions and slavery to be such a normal part of your world as to be unworthy of comment.
Pretending that people of the time bearing under the crushing burden of slavery did not suffer for it is the culture-washing. They were fully aware of their status, and would have spit on your complaint.
Seneca wrote about slavery (not totally on board) as did Aristotle (gung ho).
I'm pretty sure your average literate roman would have been against his own slavery (being enslaved probably doesn't do wonders for one's auctoritas); the difference was that asymmetric relationships, "laws for thee, not for me", were a little more acceptable then than now.
There is a doctrine in law called the fruit of the poison tree.
That evidence that was obtained illegally (even with a fair degree of removal) is not valid.
I want that as a defendant.
Pernkopf Atlas is a thing, its origins are tainted, we all know it. Yet it's still used. It is very much the fruit of a poison tree. Even if the externalities are awful there is still lots of intrinsic value there. Nothing in the world is free of that taint, and if it is all that one seeks then were going to have to burn everything.
It may be relevant that 'fruit of the poisonous tree' is not a general law principle but rather a doctrine specific to modern U.S. law, established only in early 20th century as a specific interpretation of the 4th amendment to the U.S. constitution - the evidence policy is entirely opposite in most (possibly even all? It's hard to tell) other places worldwide as well as in classic (e.g. Roman) law, prioritizing the role of evidence in demonstrating truth and facts, and if some person or organization performed an offense in obtaining it, they should be prosecuted separately for that offense, but it doesn't by itself disqualify the evidence.
OK, now I'm utterly confused: I had meant to refute the claim that discussion of slavery was a purely modern thing by providing counterexamples of ancients who had found that economic system worthy of reflection and discussion, so I fail to see how introducing yet another modern (parochial, yet!) thing may be relevant?
(enthymemes can be effective, but they are utterly reliant on people knowing what the hell your middle term may be)
>>> When looking at frescoes I like to ask, why did the homeowner (r whomever made these decisions) choose these images/themes for this context?
>> They were topics considered more appropriate for a social setting.
IS their answer:
Then adds:
>>> That they were really about rape and kidnapping was probably not seen as notable;
It's an interesting aspect of the story to pick out. Of all the parts this is what the poster chose. It's surfacing only the worst parts of the narrative.
>>> they are just familiar furnishings of a culture founded and maintained on armed compulsion.
Are they? Is the the sum total of the output of the Roman Empire. Or is just this a very modern politics take on the worst parts of history?
> Nobody but the gods have any freedom, and the gods are bored children.
Wow, nobody had freedom? The gods in Rome and Greece didn't have narrative, parable and moral tales too?
Were having a conversation about history, having an opinion is one thing. This reads like it's a modern culture war tweet... "looking for offense and negativity" seems fairly accurate. Really it's a modern, narrow, reductionist point of view that only takes on the most negative of perspectives to get attention and send some social signals.
You are the only one here enforcing a personal agenda. I have as much right to call attention to the coercivity manifest in all the images as you would to call attention to their color scheme. But instead of calling attention to the color scheme or whatever interests you, you try to shame me for saying what I notice about them.
I'm not really sure what you're getting at. A lot of figures in mythology have multiple names. Paris/Alexander was one -- but today he's far better known as Paris.
The characters used to write Αλεξανδρος (no accents back then!) are interesting to me. I associated that style of script with much later times. Shows what I know.
Have you ever seen A Clockwork Orange? That, imho, is overflowing with pathos. If you do not feel moved by Alex's actions - sympathy, empathy, revulsion, and more - then I'd be curious to know what films do elicit an emotional response from you?
If you're trying to make a point about sacred writings being the first texts, you may want to consider Linear B and cuneiform, some of the oldest texts of the Mediterranean and which are almost exclusively inventory lists. While we have things like the epic of Gilgamesh preserved in baked tablets, this is the exception to the rule. For the vast majority of these most ancient texts, tabulation was the main use of writing: how many animals were sacrificed, how many sheaves of wheat were in storage, how much fruit a plot of land could produce, etc.
As for sacred writings: Many religions were hesitant to commit their wisdom to writing - one reason why so much of Greco-Roman religion is unknown to us. The Oral Torah was supposedly passed on for centuries until the destruction of the temple and fragmentation of the Jews necessitated the writing down of this knowledge. Heck, Homeric poetry (the hymns as well as the epics) was not written down until centuries of oral development had gone on; not because writing had not been invented, but because it was not used for literary material.
Something important to remember is that the transient documents in the Ancient Mediterranean and Mesopotamian days were scratched into clay (a medium which allows it to be easily erased and adjusted if necessary, and is plentifully available in quantity). One consequence is that if you have these things in a storage building that catches on fire, the clay is baked into pottery and essentially permanently preserved for archaeologists to uncover. Texts written on organic parchment or papyrus are far less durable, as they tend to decompose unless properly stored.
This means we probably have an exaggerated abundance of economic documents due to survivorship bias of the things they wrote economic data on.
Adding to other resources shared here, archaeologist Denise Schmandt-Besserat has written about the evolution of writing (not strictly the alphabet), and much is available online:
https://sites.utexas.edu/dsb/tokens/the-evolution-of-writing...
The roots of writing seems to be in counting/tallying marks, i.e. accounting. Another great book, "Against the Grain" by James Scott, describes how both tallying and writing developed hand-in-hand with the state.
I've thought about this and read/listened to some insightful philosophers and classicists consider this very question. The most convincing rationale I've heard comes from the most eloquent, the most learned, most excellent Nathan Dufour Oglesby (https://www.youtube.com/c/NATHANOLOGY)
He summarizes classical Stoicism in his catchy tune "Be a Stoic": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWuLvsB7UmE
He also spoke recently about classical Stoicism's cosmic paradigm of a living universe: https://www.facebook.com/reel/335961102098589
It's this last point that provides the basis, I think, for Stoicism's sort of renaissance. I say sort of because, as with the Bible, today's constituents often focus on only certain pieces of Stoicism. But it is rooted in this idea that just as various cells all function towards the same purpose of supporting our bodies, so all creatures are part of an interconnected, living universe. This conception leads to the idea that everyone, every station of living being just as with every cell in our body, is in service to a grander scheme. And once more this grander scheme can be used to excuse all sorts of unhelpful acts - so long as they are in pursuit of a greater good.
I myself prefer Epicureanism (there's a catchy tune for that, too https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hrit65ZSeM).
Unlike Epicureanism - true atheists - Stoicism had its own theological system, a cosmology bound up in the belief in a cosmic force, a fire they called numa/Dios/physos. Modern Stoicism focuses on 2 of 3 categories within Stoicism - ethics and logic. The third field is Physics, under which is included a theological and teleological system that provides a universal context entirely foreign to the teachings espoused by so many today. Here's a podcast I just stumbled upon that does a good job of detailing the critical role the divine force plays in the universe: https://traditionalstoicism.com/the-religious-nature-of-stoi...
Lastly, the interviews in this podcast with Donald Robertson (Stoic) and John Vervaeke (Neo-Platonist) are really, really illuminating and Vervaeke's in particular addresses your precise question: why is stoicism going viral?
https://www.greecepodcast.com/when-a-philosopher-ruled-the-w...https://www.greecepodcast.com/why-platonism-stoicism-are-goi...
reply