I really don’t understand all of the preening and praise for this book?
While it’s a competent introduction to Epicurean ethics, Austin’s ideological assumptions bleed through many things Epicurus himself would never have endorsed. The philosophy of withdrawal from political noise and tribal herd mentality gets repurposed as a vehicle for contemporary progressive causes.
That's not a minor editorial quirk. It's a contamination of the core.
Epicurus said withdraw from politics. He didn't say withdraw from politics unless the right politics. The man who wrote that genuine tranquility requires stepping back from public life and ambition would not have recognized himself in some of the modern applications Austin reaches for.
The writing is kitschy and feels like someone who is trying too hard to connect with readers not in her academic bubble of beliefs. Readers coming to Epicurus for the first time deserve to know the difference between what Epicurus actually taught and what a 2024 academic thinks he should have taught.
Every review of this book should end with a disclaimer that says read DeWitt for a better grasp of Epicurean philosophy after this nonsense.
Thanks for the comment. I see where you're coming from, but I think this is quite uncharitable to the book. The main text is 265 pages; her chapter on politics is 12 pages, much of which I also imagine you would find unobjectionable.
While left-of-center views do pop up occasionally, Austin is definitely more even-handed and less enbubbled than the average academic. Flipping through the politics chapter: she notes that "politicians are power-hungry across all aisles" and lists causes that Epicureans would reject including "debates about statues" and "wrangling over language" (123). She criticizes political action based on virtue-signaling and social media performance (125). She concludes that Epicurean political action is likely to be small scale and local (127). I don't agree 100% with her characterization, but the book certainly isn't an endorsement of tribal progressivism. (I'd agree with you more if you leveled this critique at Catherine Wilson's How to Be an Epicurean, which does have the blind spots you describe.)
I like and mention Dewitt, but I think his book is significantly less approachable as an introduction to Epicurean ethics specifically. Their goals are different: Austin wants to show everyday readers how Epicureanism could be applied to modern life, which I think is a very praiseworthy project, even if I would execute some particular elements a little differently than she does. Dewitt doesn't try to do that. Instead, he covers the whole philosophy: ethics, yes, but also history, physics, epistemology, etc. For an approachable "first step into Epicureanism," I hesitate to recommend several-page debates over the proper understanding of "prolepsis" and so on. Used copies are also currently selling for $70+, which makes it a little practically unsuited to be the go-to recommendation.
Writing a mass-market, easy to read, "competent introduction to Epicurean ethics" is a good thing! I don't know any book that better fills that specific niche.
Jack, so, not a personal attack on you or Emily and not trying to be uncharitable or unkind, only honest. And it’s a real frustration for non academics and non ideologues who want to study classic Epicureanism and not partisanship masquerading as philosophy there’s enough of that with the Stoics and Aristotelians.
Also, I enjoy reading Untroubled and the articles you have there especially the ones on Epicurean egoism and hedonism among others. I also don’t read Greek and am not a scholar.
That said I'd push back on calling Living for Pleasure unrivaled even with the modern qualifier. The philosophical content is competent but Austin's ideological assumptions bleed through in ways Epicurus himself would not have recognized.
In Chapter 3 her detective example describes an unhappy man as someone who "denies climate science for reasons I don't fully understand" and "swears at the television." In Chapter 4 she's more direct: "Denying climate science will only unleash the long-prophesied fire next time. The inconvenience of wearing a mask or getting a vaccine during a pandemic can pay dividends in lives saved." I could go on but you get the point.
This isn't a left or right argument. It's a philosophical one. Epicurus said withdraw from politics. He didn't carve out exceptions for the right politics. Using the framework of prudential hedonism to advance specific contemporary causes is exactly the kind of contamination that has followed this philosophy around for decades.
Wilson is worse obviously. But the bar being set by Wilson doesn't make Austin unrivaled.
DeWitt published in 1954, and still remains the honest starting point for anyone who wants Epicurus on his own terms.
I really don’t understand all of the preening and praise for this book?
While it’s a competent introduction to Epicurean ethics, Austin’s ideological assumptions bleed through many things Epicurus himself would never have endorsed. The philosophy of withdrawal from political noise and tribal herd mentality gets repurposed as a vehicle for contemporary progressive causes.
That's not a minor editorial quirk. It's a contamination of the core.
Epicurus said withdraw from politics. He didn't say withdraw from politics unless the right politics. The man who wrote that genuine tranquility requires stepping back from public life and ambition would not have recognized himself in some of the modern applications Austin reaches for.
The writing is kitschy and feels like someone who is trying too hard to connect with readers not in her academic bubble of beliefs. Readers coming to Epicurus for the first time deserve to know the difference between what Epicurus actually taught and what a 2024 academic thinks he should have taught.
Every review of this book should end with a disclaimer that says read DeWitt for a better grasp of Epicurean philosophy after this nonsense.
Thanks for the comment. I see where you're coming from, but I think this is quite uncharitable to the book. The main text is 265 pages; her chapter on politics is 12 pages, much of which I also imagine you would find unobjectionable.
While left-of-center views do pop up occasionally, Austin is definitely more even-handed and less enbubbled than the average academic. Flipping through the politics chapter: she notes that "politicians are power-hungry across all aisles" and lists causes that Epicureans would reject including "debates about statues" and "wrangling over language" (123). She criticizes political action based on virtue-signaling and social media performance (125). She concludes that Epicurean political action is likely to be small scale and local (127). I don't agree 100% with her characterization, but the book certainly isn't an endorsement of tribal progressivism. (I'd agree with you more if you leveled this critique at Catherine Wilson's How to Be an Epicurean, which does have the blind spots you describe.)
I like and mention Dewitt, but I think his book is significantly less approachable as an introduction to Epicurean ethics specifically. Their goals are different: Austin wants to show everyday readers how Epicureanism could be applied to modern life, which I think is a very praiseworthy project, even if I would execute some particular elements a little differently than she does. Dewitt doesn't try to do that. Instead, he covers the whole philosophy: ethics, yes, but also history, physics, epistemology, etc. For an approachable "first step into Epicureanism," I hesitate to recommend several-page debates over the proper understanding of "prolepsis" and so on. Used copies are also currently selling for $70+, which makes it a little practically unsuited to be the go-to recommendation.
Writing a mass-market, easy to read, "competent introduction to Epicurean ethics" is a good thing! I don't know any book that better fills that specific niche.
Jack, so, not a personal attack on you or Emily and not trying to be uncharitable or unkind, only honest. And it’s a real frustration for non academics and non ideologues who want to study classic Epicureanism and not partisanship masquerading as philosophy there’s enough of that with the Stoics and Aristotelians.
Also, I enjoy reading Untroubled and the articles you have there especially the ones on Epicurean egoism and hedonism among others. I also don’t read Greek and am not a scholar.
That said I'd push back on calling Living for Pleasure unrivaled even with the modern qualifier. The philosophical content is competent but Austin's ideological assumptions bleed through in ways Epicurus himself would not have recognized.
In Chapter 3 her detective example describes an unhappy man as someone who "denies climate science for reasons I don't fully understand" and "swears at the television." In Chapter 4 she's more direct: "Denying climate science will only unleash the long-prophesied fire next time. The inconvenience of wearing a mask or getting a vaccine during a pandemic can pay dividends in lives saved." I could go on but you get the point.
This isn't a left or right argument. It's a philosophical one. Epicurus said withdraw from politics. He didn't carve out exceptions for the right politics. Using the framework of prudential hedonism to advance specific contemporary causes is exactly the kind of contamination that has followed this philosophy around for decades.
Wilson is worse obviously. But the bar being set by Wilson doesn't make Austin unrivaled.
DeWitt published in 1954, and still remains the honest starting point for anyone who wants Epicurus on his own terms.