I will say I really like Austin's terms natural, extravagant, and corrosive desires. Granted, "extravagant" may not be exactly correct, but, as it gets at the "not necessary" aspect of this category, I endorse her choice.

I'm currently on chapter 15, and I have found Austin's work spot on and fully endorse the work as a great starting point.

As for Cassius 's Kennedy misgiving, I see Dr. Austin only using his book as an example of what is meant by courage with Kennedy's book Profiles of Courage. I don't see this as political at all, simply a literary allusion.

I have completely enjoyed the book so far, and wish I wrote it myself.

Do I wish she covered some topics in more depth? Yes. Am I satisfied with how she's covered the topics she does cover? Yes!

Just as an example where I'm at right now (emphasis added):

Quote

Many scholars have argued that while Epicurus recognizes that sex is pleasant, he is actually largely hostile to sex, even more so to love. If you find it difficult to make sense of how Epicurus could reject sex and love and still have said what Athenaeus claims, then you are in the good company of me, at least. I think Epicurus’ concerns about sex and love have been overstated. That Epicurus thinks sex and love should be selected prudently makes complete sense, especially given the many ways it can cause and sustain anxiety. Nevertheless, Epicurus thinks sexual pleasure and committed romantic relationships are natural, but unnecessary, desires (or so I argue). In the terms of this book, they are extravagant desires, and all extravagant desires can adorn the tranquil life if you do them right.

Her calling out academic assumptions and "common knowledge" that she sees as erroneous or misguided is both refreshing and well reasoned! Her analysis, to me, takes in the scope of Epicurus's philosophy instead of trying to impose a perspective on it like many academics seem to try and do. That is a breath of fresh air.

If we have positive things to say, we all should individually leave reviews on Amazon. No one seems to have reviewed it yet:

Living for Pleasure: An Epicurean Guide to Life (Guides to the Good Life Series)

Living for Pleasure: An Epicurean Guide to Life (Guides to the Good Life Series)

www.amazon.com

All of this brings up for me the importance of not creating an exact list of what brings pleasure and what brings happiness -- because it will depend on the environment and culture that one is living in.

Metrodorus, as quoted in the book:

Quote

I hear from you that the movement of your flesh is abundantly disposed toward sexual intercourse. As long as you do not break the laws or disturb noble and settled customs or vex any of your neighbors or wear out your body or use up the things necessary for life, indulge yourself in any way you prefer. However, it is impossible not be constrained by some one of these things. For sex never profits, and one must be content if it does not harm.5

The idea that "sex never profits" is no longer true, as studies have shown it is good for the health of the body -- And there is birth control, and the consent movement.

Labels shape how we think, and so I don't like the word extravagant one bit:

From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

extravagant

adjective

ex·trav·a·gant ik-ˈstra-vi-gənt 

1 a : exceeding the limits of reason or necessity extravagant claims 
b : lacking in moderation, balance, and restraint extravagant praise 
c : extremely or excessively elaborate an extravagant display 
  2 : extremely or unreasonably high in price an extravagant purchase 
  3 a : spending much more than necessary has always been extravagant with her money 
b : profuse, lavish

Quote from Cassius

And by the way, the ultimate aim and description of the goal is not "the tranquil life." The proper wording is "the PLEASANT life."

And she knows that. The title of the book is not "Living For Tranquility."

Good to point that out. And thinking further about "unnecessary" desires -- I don't like that word "unnecessary" either, lol.

We don't label a desire as unnecessary until for a particular individual they see for themselves that it is so -- when they see that it brings more pain than pleasure, causes way too much pain to aquire it, or is impossible to aquire -- and this can only be determined by that individual AND at a later time that person may be in a different situation and decide to pursue that desire.

So in some sense "unnecessary" is really an artificial label used as a "coping mechanism" -- there are no absolutely unnecessary desires.

Do you think this is correct?

Quote from Cassius

Don (or others) I wonder if there is a precedent for the "natural and necessary" classification in the writings of Plato or Aristotle such as you found for the bread and water discussion. If there is that might also place this in context.

Selected Fragments, by Epicurus

Quote

471] In the second chapter of the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle characterizes desires as groundless and trifling (κενὴν καὶ ματαίαν) if they are not related to or subsumed under an overarching goal of life; in this fragment and in Fragment 442, Epicurus applies the same terms to certain kinds of desires.

Just a quick response for now.

Several thoughts on topics brought up above:

If we struggle with words like natural, necessary, "not necessary," and "empty" to describe desires, we're struggling with Epicurus. Those are his words.

The reason I like "extravagant" is that it's slightly over the top but, for me, evokes Epicurus's own sometimes-playful use of language. The "extravagant" = "not necessary" also evokes the idea of "It's possible to find pleasure in the barest circumstances such as while eating the simplest of meals: barley bread and water, and in the midst of the most dire of straits like at the point of dying in great pain. But it IS nice to have those other pleasures, and we include them all in our definition of the good." That is why I harp on Epicurus, Metrodorus, and Philodemus stating that the internal pleasure of tranquility (ataraxia) is a more secure source of pleasure than pleasure arising from external sources. We always have the pleasure of tranquility readily available in our minds - if we work at achieving it, nurturing it, maintaining it. That's why they place a high value on tranquility.

Stepping back a minute: There are several places where the necessary desires are discussed:

Letter to Menoikeus:

on the one hand, there are the natural desires; on the other, the 'empty, fruitless, or vain ones.' And of the natural ones, on the one hand, are the necessary ones; on the other, the ones which are only natural; then, of the necessary ones: on the one hand, those necessary for eudaimonia; then, those necessary for the freedom from disturbance for the body; then those necessary for life itself. [128] The steady contemplation of these things equips one to know how to decide all choice and rejection for the health of the body and for the tranquility of the mind, that is for our physical and our mental existence, since this is the goal of a blessed life. (My translation)

PD26

26The desires that do not bring pain when they go unfulfilled are not necessary; indeed they are easy to reject when they are hard to achieve or when they seem to produce harm. (Saint-Andre)

PD29

29Of our desires, some are natural and necessary; others are natural, but not necessary; others, again, are neither natural nor necessary, but are due to groundless opinion.

[Epicurus regards as natural and necessary desires which bring relief from pain, as e.g. drink when we are thirsty ; while by natural and not necessary he means those which merely diversify the pleasure without removing the pain, as e.g. costly viands ; by the neither natural nor necessary he means desires for crowns and the erection of statues in one's honour.--Scholia](Saint-Andre)

Cicero

But how says our philosopher? 'The desires are of three kinds, natural and necessary, natural but not necessary, neither natural nor necessary.' To begin with, this is a clumsy division; it makes three classes when there are really only two. This is not dividing but hacking in pieces. Thinkers trained in the science which Epicurus despised usually put it thus: 'The desires are of two kinds, natural and imaginary;11 natural desires again fall into two subdivisions, necessary and not necessary.' That would have rounded it off properly. It is a fault in division to reckon a species as a genus. 27 Still, do not let us stickle about form. Epicurus despises the niceties of dialectic; his style neglects distinctions; we must humour him in this, provided that his meaning is correct. But for my own part I cannot cordially approve, I merely tolerate, a philosopher who talks of setting bounds to the desires. Is it possible for desire to be kept within bounds? It ought to be destroyed, uprooted altogether. On your principle there is no form of desire whose possessor could not be morally approved. He will be a miser — within limits; an adulterer — in moderation; and a sensualist to correspond. What sort of a philosophy is this, that instead of dealing wickedness its death-blow, is satisfied with moderating our vices?

https://philarchive.org/archive/BREEOS

"Epicurus on Sex, Marriage, and Children" PDF

Opens with an explanation of the proposed mistranslation of pertinent passage.

I'm not done reading it yet, but here are the things I want to say so far.

BTW, I think the book is outstanding, so my criticisms should be considered in that context

1) My biggest complaint: while I believe the author is making an honest effort to be non-political, I don't think she does a great job of it. Granted, it is a tall order nowadays to say meaningful things without offending someone. But it makes the book less useful as a tool for introducing people to Epicurus.

2) My next biggest complaint is that she seems to be putting words in Epicurus mouth at times. She'll say, "Epicurus believed X," and I'll think to myself, "Well, maybe, but that's new to me." Footnotes, or explanations would have been appreciated.

3) My favorite quote so far: "If you are always satisfied, then you do not die dissatisfied." This quote, and her chapter on desiring endless life made a lot of sense of to me, regarding why you shouldn't fear death. The previous arguments I'd heard always fell kind of flat.

4) Another thing that caught my attention...I'm paraphrasing here, and probably reading a bit more into it than what she actually said, but, "Unhappiness manifests in behavior, and thereby makes it possible to analyze objectively." This seems like an interesting way of getting from formal ethical principles to concrete advice for how to live. It was new to me, anyway.

5) I noticed some previous comments about her use of "extravagant desires". I also think that has too much of a negative connotation. I will note in her defense, that she says in a footnote that she had misgivings too. FWIW, inspired by her use of extravagant, I am using "luxurious desires" in my notes. You're welcome.

Everybody's comments have been great, but I want to make one more point: Although the book is put out by an academic press, the publisher made it affordable (I bought a Kindle for about $11). This is a contrast to the common university press practice of "Oh, you think this book sounds interesting? Screw you, it's $100."