Posts by Cassius

I was about to make another slam at Cicero to accuse him of "emending" it out, but there's no reason not to think that a conclusion based on this was in the version that Cicero had available to him, and that it wasn't cut out by some "helpful" church fathers long after Cicero's death.

In fact that's probably more likely, because Cicero likely couldn't trust that he had the only copy of the poem and that his version would become the official one.

So it's entirely possible that something like this was there and just added to Cicero's frustration.

And if so then that would leave the book, if not the whole poem, ending on much the same note that Frances Wright chose for "A Few Days In Athens"

Thanks Don so there we can see exactly what she is referring to in context. It's not as extensive as I had hoped to form a basis for reconstruction, but it surely does, as she indicates, form a basis from which a rousing conclusion to the chapter could have been constructed. No way he's going to follow the preceding sections so closely and leave THIS out!

Quote

⁵³Nor was this the only form of lawless extravagance which owed its origin to the plague. Men now coolly ventured on what they had formerly done in a corner, and not just as they pleased, seeing the rapid transitions produced by persons in prosperity suddenly dying and those who before had nothing succeeding to their property. So they resolved to spend quickly and enjoy themselves, regarding their lives and riches as alike things of a day. Perseverance in what men called honour was popular with none, it was so uncertain whether they would be spared to attain the object; but it was settled that present enjoyment, and all that contributed to it, was both honourable and useful. Fear of gods or law of man there was none to restrain them. As for the first, they judged it to be just the same whether they worshipped them or not, as they saw all alike perishing; and for the last, no one expected to live to be brought to trial for his offences, but each felt that a far severer sentence had been already passed upon them all and hung ever over their heads, and before this fell it was only reasonable to enjoy life a little.

Quote from Charles

Finally, someone said it.

And refreshingly, in this case, someone with very good scholarly credentials and the ability to marshal for mainstream use many references and cites to support her position.

Hello and welcome!

This is the "review" I posted to the Epicurean Philosophy Facebook page:

Yesterday I came across Emily Austin's book "Living for Pleasure" for the first time, and I mentioned I would check it out. Today I want to report back that I have now finished reading it, and that I can strongly recommend it as a "popular" introduction to the philosophy of Epicurus. Ms. Austin is both an engaging writer and an experienced teacher-scholar, and she combines many great references with what I believe to be an excellent eye for interpreting Epicurus in almost every major area of controversy you might wish to examine.

The book is aimed at intelligent but non-specialist readers, and so it's suitable for almost everyone. It is one of the most thorough and well documented current popular books on Epicurus that you will find anywhere, but it is so good it left me wishing it were even longer. I would like to have seen it spend more time on subjects such as Epicurus' canonics / epistemology, but what we might wish for as perfect is not the enemy of the good, and this book is very very good. It includes insights that I have not seen anywhere else, such as her suggestion for how Lucretius might really have intended to close his poem, all very well documented with cites to the ancient texts.

I do want to include a caution that the book (like Catherine Wilson's work) contains a number of opinions on current political issues with which not everyone will agree. Those might not eventually prove to be as "evergreen" as the great majority of the rest of the book, and I personally would have been happier if the book had contained more on canonics / epistemology and less on difficult topical issues in which it might be better to "wait" or consider Epicurus' view of multiple possibilities. Readers should not think that they should measure their personal fidelity to Epicurus based on their current evaluations of John McCain or John F. Kennedy, or on where they stand on the many similar "cultural" issues that she mentions as her own application of Epicurean views.

But I am sure that Ms. Austin would say that her book was intended to be just a starting point for someone interested in Epicurus, and from that perspective it's easy to see why a writer would want to supply personal potential applications. She is surely right that Epicurus did not shy away from political engagement when warranted, and it's up to us to evaluate the facts and take the positions that suit our own circumstances, just as Epicurus did on issues such as the size of the sun and various other difficult questions where evidence is limited. Epicurean philosophy doesn't guarantee that we will be "right" in every decision we make in life, but it does give us the best path toward the best quality decisions we can make with the evidence available to us.

This book is a great addition to the arsenal of books for those who want to "strike a blow for Epicurus," and I highly recommend it to all readers of the Epicurean Philosophy Group.

Good to have you! If you tell us more about your background and interests maybe we can fine-tune recommendations. You will also see we are discussing the new book by Emily Austin and either that Or the Dewitt book would be good places to start depending on your interests

OK I have now finished reading the book. My basic opinion is unchanged: it is excellent. It's now probably first on my list of recommendations for a newer / younger reader who isn't really into philosophy at all and who might have an open mind about Epicurus. It's really targeted at a different audience than DeWitt's book, so I really don't see them in competition with each other. After you read "Living for Pleasure" you'll know the type person who will do best to start with one book versus the other. The type person who I might normally have suggested read one of Catherine Wilson's books I would definitely now refer the Austin book, to some extent because it gives a lot more "philosophy" and a lot less "political justification" than does Wilson's books. Wilson's work is good too, but if I recall correctly Austin's citations and examples from the text are much more detailed. (Now that I think about it I bet Austin read Wilson's book, and future writers can build on both of these as they extend the work in the same direction.)

Does it have shortcomings? In my humble view I would say yes, but they pale in comparison to the good work that the book achieves. Two things I would point out:

(1) The book is entirely devoid, if I read it correctly, of any discussion of canonics / epistemology. I think that's a significant omission, and I would love to have seen her intellect applied to that issue in the same way she attacked many others. Unfortunately I think the absence of that discussion plays into my point two:

(2) If she had taken to heart more of Epicurus' advise as to "waiting" and consideration of "multiple causes," she might not have been so quick to cite some of her contemporary examples on what she takes to be matters of "fact" that not everyone will agree with. The constant temptation of current writers seems to be to want to justify their interest in the subject by wrapping in contemporary political positions, and given the nature of these as controversial, I think the tactic detracts from the overall persuasiveness of the philosophy as a whole. I do agree with most of her example applications, but I wouldn't myself want to suggest that Epicurus would have had a specific position on the World Economic Forum, John McCain, John F. Kennedy, or many of the other contemporary hot-button examples she uses. I understand the desire to make books relevant, but sometimes getting too far into contemporary details can be off-putting, especially given Epicurus' own apparent disposition to keep his advice general rather than personally specific. No doubt there are Epicurean aspects to the World Economic forum and non-Epicurean aspects of the forum, but the political controversy that surrounds it tugs on the emotions and risks distortions in ways that less political examples would not involve. If I recall correctly she does a lot less of this than does Catherine Wilson, but it's still a shame to risk diluting the attractiveness of Epicurus according to one's current political persuasion. Gosh knows my own views have changed over time but I've always tried to keep an open mind on the deepest philosophical ideas. At this point I no longer feel it's a good idea to label contemporary figures as "Epicurean" or "non-Epicurean" given how many factors are involved and how complicated situations can be. She's at her best when she cites "evergreen" examples like children or nature or other situations that really do speak for themselves.

And as per the comments already in this thread, I think Emily Austin is more "in tune" with Epicurus than most anyone else I have read in a very long time. Of course that comes across as implying that she's "in tune with Cassius" but I really don't mean to describe it that way. As I see it she takes a very DeWittian approach of looking at each of the major controversies about Epicurus (from marriage, children, gods, etc) and she finding a very reasonable and persuasive sympathetic position. Of course she fails my standard test of "if they don't cite DeWitt in the notes then they're probably no good!" but at this point in Academia that's par for the course, and if she cited him for anything she would probably get herself banned from polite academic company

Anyway I look forward to the comments of others. This is a REALLY good book to use from here on out in reaching out to new people. And in terms of things like her suggestion as to what Lucretius intended for the end of book six, she's pointing in new directions that will be fascinating to explore.

When the day started I had no idea this book existed and found it by accident. It's been a great day reading it!

Addenda: In relation to the epistemology comment above, it occurs to me that might have been a good idea to include in the physics discussion the observations of her fellow North Carolina professor Gellar-Goad that we mentioned recently as to Epicurus' position on the size of the sun. That would have at least introduced the topic of Epicurus's hesitance to embrace theories that contradict appearances even when those theories end up being found to have merit when the technology to analyze appearances improves later. For reference that is discussed here.

Thank you Kalosyni!!

Don you're not finished when you finish the chapters - then you have to read the notes or you will miss this GEM - she even cites Gosling &Taylor on the k-k issue!

."This is a non-specialist text, so I have chosen not to wade into the dispute about katastematic and kinetic pleasures in the body of the text. A specialist will recognize that I am adopting a view roughly in line with Gosling and Taylor (1982) and Arenson (2019). On my reading, katastematic pleasures are sensory pleasures that issue from confidence in one’s ability to satisfy one’s necessary desires and an awareness of one’s healthy psychological functioning; choice-worthy kinetic pleasures are the various pleasures consistent with maintaining healthy functioning, and those pleasures vary, but do not increase healthy psychological functioning"

With apologies to Don, I have to also note that it opens up the possibility that someone creative with Latin and in tune with the Eoicurean viewpoint might actually be able to reconstruct the thrust of what might have been included at the end of Book Six.

Maybe at some point Austin herself could take a stab at it, or even someone like David Sedley or Martin Ferguson Smith

I will defer further praise for that last point only because now that I am convinced that she is right, the inquiry does not stop but only gets going. As she hints this is not in print in English anywhere (that I too have seen), but in two thousand years it cannot fail to have been previously noticed. No doubt others have indeed noticed it and probably commented - in German or Latin or French. We very likely to find out that this point - which really puts an exclamation point on the argument of the poem - has been withheld from us, and not just (if at all) by Cicero, but in the form of later writers who have seen it but whose work has not come down to us. Detective work is needed!

I don't recall this even in Dewitt, which is saying something, given his classical background and otherwise creativity in interpreting Epicurean texts. I don't recall his direct comment on the issue of the end of the pem so it's possible that he hinted at it in an article somewhere, but surely Emily Austin deserves credit for bringing it front and center.

OMG wait til you get to chapter 22 and see what she suggests Lucretius might have intended to do to close the poem! She states that she doesn't claim the point is original to her but I agree I have not read it either and it is ingenious!!!

If she is correct then it is indeed easy to imagine that Cicero (or someone else) might indeed have "emended" the text to delete it!!!

This section is worth the price of the book and may be near genius (at least in my initial enthusiasm for it)!

For what it is worth I am now on chapter 12. I continue to be impressed that this is a very useful book. The one germinating idea that I am maybe carrying over from Catherine Wilson is that I personally think that it is a bad idea to tie ones own credibility for the philosophic system to high-profile contemporary examples. I strongly agree with many and maybe most of her formulations, but I wince at the implication that one's assessment of John Kennedy or John McCain is a good way to make a point. I see the merit of talking to people at their own level, but just to muse on the subject I doubt that it's the best general way to proceed. A central part of the philosophy is the absence of a universally correct viewpoint, so assuming that we share specific viewpoints about specific people is fraught with danger. Even the references to Cicero are sometimes hard to evaluate - even though I strongly dislike his distaste for Epicurus he was still a complex character.

But in sum after 11 chapters it's still by far the best introductory book I have read in a while.

I have been meaning to make sure that this video was referenced somewhere in the forum. It's been years since I watched it but I recall it being very good on getting to the heart of the "something from nothing question" - with Richard Dawkins defending the traditional point of view identified with Epicurus:

I don't want any hint of negativity to come out at least at this point. I keep coming across passages like this which make me incline to think this is the best book I've read in a long time - she goes right to the heart of many issues:

Quote

Epicurus thinks the key to unlocking our tranquility is a sober evaluation of our desires. Now, you might be thinking that a tidy solution to anxiety would be to adopt a scorched earth approach to desire. If desires produce anxiety, then just stop all that anxiety in its tracks by wanting as little as possible! Some philosophers encourage that kind of austerity, but Epicurus does not. He thinks extreme parsimony is as worrisome as excessive indulgence.¹

Quote from Pacatus

I already like her style,

Yes she does write very well!

Quote from Charles

t's pretty good so far, very simple and glossing over some finer points, such as putting far too much trust in the Vatican Sayings. Though that is to be expected for a casual introductory book. My biggest issue though, is her chapters concerning politics.

Charles it sounds like you have read further than I have, but I picking up hints of a similar vibe. It doesn't strike me as pronounced an issue as with Catherine Wilson, but if I had one wish I would recommend to everyone that they stay as far away from modern political allusions as they possibly can. It works great to cite examples that are rooted deeply in human psychology, as in referring to children, but taking sides on contemporary hot-button political issues probably scores very few points, and at the cost of rubbing some people the wrong way for reasons that have nothing to do with the philosophical reason for her writing the book in the first place. That being said I haven't gotten to "chapters concerning politics" so I will weigh in on that later.

I spent the morning looking for and skimming the book without finishing the article that prompted this thread. I have now finished the article. It's outstanding! She drives right to the heart of the difference between Stoicism and Epicureanism (the theism embedded in Stoicism) and she embraces the Epicurean side!

Quote

I have good friends, students, and close relatives who fall on opposing sides of the providential creation divide, and I understand that people have their own reasons for choosing one commitment over the other. Modern Stoics, though, cannot simply set aside the fact that the Stoics fell squarely on the side of providence without risk of undermining some of Stoicism’s core tenets. Stoicism’s emblematic acceptance of suffering follows from their ability to reconceive it as divine providence, as God working in “mysterious ways.” Marcus writes that someone who suffers something “unpalatable” should “nevertheless always receive it gladly” because Zeus designed individual suffering “for the benefit of the whole.” Even Stoicism’s deep, admirable commitment to caring for all humankind, the notion that we are all “citizens of the cosmos,” is fundamentally grounded in the view that all human beings are manifestations of God.

Epicureans, by contrast, build their practical philosophy on a natural science that denies a cosmic significance to suffering, and they see their endorsement of hedonism as an outgrowth of treating humans as sophisticated animals rather than as expressions of a divine rational nature. Epicurus was not an atheist, but he denied a providential God who created the universe or intervenes in its events. Perhaps, then, many Modern Stoics should consider reading more about Epicureanism, since Marcus admired Epicurus’ resilience, temperance, and approach to death, which all grew out of a science many Modern Stoics already accept (and that the Stoics vehemently opposed).

I think I want to memorialize this exchange over at facebook that occurred when I posted a link to the Austin article, to which Holly and then Elli replied, and to which I commented:

Cassius Amicus

Ha - look at the comments so far. The article / book author is Emily, the first comment by Holly, the next by Elli. I think also of Catherine Wilson, and it seems to me that in recent years female writers are putting the male proponents of Epicurus to shame. Leontium and Plotina have their modern counterparts it seems and we need to find the modern Lucretians and Diogenes of Oinonandeans to keep the score balanced! 😉

Elli Pensa

Admin

Cassius Amicus Women will change this world and the future that comes will be more pleasant. That's for sure. It is not by chance that there are many countries in theocracy that men are keeping women subordinated and in silence.

Women have to be the great rebels. And their rebellion has to be like the sea water that hits slowly on the rock. Women must born and nurture the new little epicureans. If this will not happen there is no future for mankind.

Cassius Amicus

I know Edward Gibbon blames the spread of Christianity in the Roman world to a significant extent on women, and there may or may not be some justification in observing that. But it's at least as fair to say that when women finally wake up from being manipulated by religion there will be Hell to pay! 😉

Elli Pensa

Cassius Amicus Please tell to mr. Gibbon that it's another thing to spread ideas with passion and specifically that passion that brings pleasure to you and the next people to you, and another thing is to spread ideas under the fear to NOT have kicks and punches from your master that was that partriarch figure of father, brother and husband inside your home. Those figures that were following the instructions by the greatest double spy of all the spies with the name Apostle Saul-Paul. For this reason, I said to my comment for a rebellion that comes by women. Yes, women have to prepare their Hell to pay all the lies and so much PAIN which they have spread around for many centuries! And of course, to not forget that the material that they found was inside Plato. Plato is the father of illusions, myths, allegories, imagination and the fog that is eaten by the spiritually hungry. Plato still borns theocracy, authοrities and tyrants everywhere... and the stoics that were following Plato, and still are following him in our days, are the slaves that support Plato and all the tyrants around. 😛

I am not going to trivialize this thread so rather than include this comment here, I will post it elsewhere so anyone so inclined can pursue the thought somewhere else ---- but the title of the book does remind me of a song..... RE: Epicurean substitute for prayer

I suppose I am the only one for whom the tune in the video below came to mind when I saw the title of the new Emily Austin book "Living For Pleasure." (maybe not the best example of the song but it has the words)

If we could convince Nate or someone else musically talented (Kalosyni? Others?) to come up with some better words then we might have something to accompany the thoughts in this thread about a "prayer"