Epicureanism is personal

Posted by on

Even as we find personal comfort in knowing that there is nothing to fear in death, that the gods do not choose our fate, and that real happiness is possible living life here on earth, many of us face fear and anxiety worrying about the future of our relatives and friends, children and grandchildren in a world spinning out of control and ever more authoritarian.

The philosophy of Epicurus can show the way forward to both personal and community happiness. Epicurean philosophy was not defeated because it was wrong, but because having the right ideas is never sufficient for living successfully. Living successfully requires action, and as the years went by in the ancient world, those who fought for Epicurean ways of life did not develop the actions required to stem the tide of mysticism and skepticism.

I personally cannot claim that I live a perfect, Epicurean life. For one thing epicureanism means reducing stress as much as possible, which I find very difficult. Anything to do with technologogy, for a start, is very stressful, not to mention never-ending. Life seems to be all about profit, not about the customer, and maybe it always was. But I do enjoy living a pleasant, creative life with someone I love, trying to be patient, kind and thoughtful to everyone, keeping a sense of humour, and, by being polite and considerate, hopefully setting a certain standard of behaviour. Actually, it is an old standard of behaviour – as society has coarsened so has this behaviour seems increasingly old-fashioned. Good! Let it be so regarded, as long as it is adopted, one convert at a time. I give myself about 6 out of 10 for epicureanisn. This isn’t very good for someone publically espousing it. Maybe, following this post, I might hear from someone who can claim to do better, and they will tell us all how and why?

Other people may devise a way to action of a more vigorous, less personal nature, reaching a wider audience. I hope so.

(* Given the unpleasantness and wasted time visited on us all by big, faceless companies and their half-trained employees)

The Good Husband’s Guide

Posted by on

There is a 14th Century Parisian book of household management called The Good Wife’s Guide: A Medieval Household Book. This is a compendium of medieval lore which aimed to instruct young wives how to be good, efficient, and obedient. The following is an excerpt from a section entitled “Care of the Husband’s Person”:

“Therefore love your husband’s person carefully. I entreat you to see that he has clean linen, for that is your domain, while the concerns and troubles of men are those outside affairs that they must handle, amidst coming and going, running here and there, in rain, wind, snow and hail, sometimes drenched, sometimes dry, now sweating, now shivering, ill-fed, ill-lodged, ill-shod and poorly rested. Yet nothing represents a hardship for him, because the thought of his wife’s good care for him on his return comforts him immensely. The ease, joys and pleasures he knows she will provide for him herself, or have done for him in his presence, cheer him: removing his shoes in front of a good fire, washing his feet, offering clean shoes, and socks, serving plenteous food and drink …. she puts him to sleep in white sheets and his nightcap, covered with good furs, and satisfies him with other joys and amusements, intimacies, loves and secrets about which I remain silent.

With the above in mind let us now fast forward seven hundred years, noting the changed roles of husband and wife. This is the modern version:

Care of the Wife’s Person

Therefore love your wife’s person carefully. I entreat you, before you sit down to watch sport on television all day with a can of beer in hand, to see that she has clean underclothes, for the washing machine is your domain, as is the washing up and the making of the bed in the morning. The concerns and troubles of women are those outside affairs that they must handle, amidst taking the children to school, getting the car serviced, running here and there in rain, wind, snow and hail, sometimes drenched, sometimes dry, now sweating, now shivering, dealing with the bank, the mortgage and an unsympathetic boss, buying new shoes for the children and taking them to football practice, violin lessons and ballet; getting her facial, haircut and manicure and answering all the emails during her half hour lunch break.

Despite eating on the run, arranging all the social commitments and the visits of plumbers and electricians, nothing represents a hardship for her, because the thought of her husband’s good care for her on her return home comforts her immensely. The ease, joys and pleasures she knows he will cheer her: removing her shoes in front of a good fire, washing her feet, offering clean shoes, and socks, cooking plenteous food and pouring copious drink …. he puts her to sleep in white sheets, and, after he brings her a nice hot drink of cocoa and she has taken her anti-depressants, he tries to satisfies her with other joys and amusements, intimacies, loves and secrets, before she falls asleep exhausted. As to his feelings about this I will remain silent.
——————————————-
The Good Wife’s Guide: A Medieval Household Book is translated by Gina Greco and Christine Rose and published by Cornell, £16.95, ISBN 978-0-8014-7474-3.

The 800 US military bases

Posted by on

“As an imperial power, there’s never been anything like the United States when it comes to garrisoning this planet. By comparison, the Romans and imperial Chinese were pikers; the Soviet Union in its prime was the poorest of runners-up; even the British, at the moment when the sun theoretically never set on their empire, didn’t compare. The U.S. has some 800 military bases ranging in size from small American towns to tiny outposts across the planet, and yet you could spend weeks, months, years paying careful attention to the media here and still have no idea that this was so. There is no discussion, nor does Congress hold hearings on global basing policy; reporters aren’t sent out to cover the subject; and presidents never mention it in speeches to the nation.

“There is an occasional mention of bases in South Korea or Bahrain, home of the Navy’s Fifth Fleet, but that is about all. Don’t even think to ask just why the U.S. garrisons the planet in this fashion or what it might mean. It would be un-American of you to do so.

“Now, without notice, discussion, or debate, a network of bases is appearing in Africa,ensuring that the U.S is involved with wars on that continent for decades to come.
The huge presence of the Chinese in almost every African country is the reason. (adapted and edited from an article in Tomgram)

The Chinese are there to exploit the mineral wealth and, no doubt, other things as well. And all building done by (imported) Chinese-only workers is done to the enrich of the elites and the well-connected, with with little gain to the general African populations. But what are the American military supposed to do in the sweltering heat? At what point can we expect them to say “Enough of your plunder, thank you, clear out!” – and then start a war? Heaven preserve us.

Epicurus and Pro-Europeanism

Posted by on

This is the second of my Epicurus and Modern Philosophy series. I will continue this series for many months to come, though I’m not sure if it’ll run as frequently as every fortnight. Whenever a post of mine is titled, ‘Epicurus and…’, then you know it’s part of the Modern Philosophy series. I’ll also be frequently posting about the forthcoming General Election in the UK, starting with a post about this Thursday’s local election results and what they could mean for the General next week. 

Prior to Britain’s referendum on its EU membership, both Robert and I were passionate supporters of the Remain campaign, though admittedly I was late to the party. In addition to writing pro-EU comments on this blog, I gave out leaflets and knocked on doors in South West England on behalf of the Remain campaign. Needless to say, our efforts were unsuccessful. I have tried to avoid being totally despondent regarding Britain’s future outside of the EU, but I cannot pretend to be more optimistic than reason allows me to be. Only today, in a meeting with the President of the European Commission, Theresa May seemed to be clueless about the EU’s negotiating position, despite the EU having made it plain what it was. For instance, she didn’t appreciate how important to EU member states a divorce bill would be; EU budgets work in a seven year cycle, so were Britain to abdicate from paying its obligations, other states would have to foot the bill. Such ignorant utopianism seems increasingly characteristic of the governing Conservative Party, in which many of its members are blasé about the economic damage inflicted by leaving the Single Market and Customs Union. For these so-called ‘Hard Brexiteers’,  any costs of quitting the EU are worth it because of the opportunity to reduce immigration and regulations concerning the environment and employees’ rights. Going forward, it’s hard to see a scenario in which Britain ends up better off as a result of Brexit. For the most part, this is a question of damage limitation, as the EU27 are suggesting.

Although I’m writing this when its far too late, I wanted to take the chance to explain why Robert and I, as Epicureans, are pro-European. As I’ve just mentioned, economics was a crucial factor. The EU costs a relatively small sum of European GDP, about 1%. (http://ec.europa.eu/budget/explained/myths/myths_en.cfm) In exchange, it achieves an awful lot for its member states: free trade, regulation harmonisation to make it easier to do business across borders, funds for struggling regions, a common currency for the Eurozone, assistance in managing refugees and migrants from outside the EU, agriculture subsidies to prevent farmers from going out of business and individual member states from excessive subsidies of their own, funding for science, free trade deals with non-EU states (about 55 so far), protections against excessive pollution and over-fishing, fair competition laws- amongst other things. Even if Britain is a net contributor, the EU is hardly a massive drain on the economy. The economic benefits of Single Market membership outweigh our net contribution considerably.

However,  one of the mistakes the Remain campaign made was that it focused too heavily on the monetary costs of leaving. Given that no country has left the EU before, Leave campaigners understandably pointed out that no one could be certain on the precise costs of Brexit. The Remain campaign overplayed its hand, forecasting calamitous economic damage the moment Britain voted to leave. This came across as fear mongering. Pro-EU supporters should’ve emphasised how precisely the EU benefits the UK, rather than scare people into voting for the status quo. Having said that, just because some Remain supporters overestimated the immediate costs of voting Leave, doesn’t mean that leaving the EU will be economically positive. The economy is beginning to slow down along with wage growth, and inflation has risen considerably. The Pound, which fell considerably following the referendum result, has failed to recover since. As mentioned before, many Leave supporters are filled with over-confidence, believing that because the economy hasn’t crashed thus far, Britain will be fine regardless of the outcome of the Article 50 process. As well as being a naïve fantasy, such a disposition is profoundly un-conservative. Leave voters ought to be cautious and tepid, not brazen and smug.

Being pro-European is about much more than economics. Another mistake of the Remain campaign is that it ought to have defended the free movement of labour that accompanies EU membership more boldly. EU migrants are net contributors to the Treasury, as opposed to native-born Brits, most of whom are net recipients. EU migrants do not increase unemployment or lower wages. The former is because the economy naturally expands to cover the increased population, like when women entered the labour market. The latter is because EU migrants increase the amount of economic activity, offsetting any short-term downward pressure on wages as a result of competition for jobs. Contrary to popular belief, immigration to the UK is not out of control- non-student net migration is only 164 000 per annum. Although there are legitimate issues around immigration, such as the pressure on housing or the ability of migrants to speak English, those problems are not as severe as the skills shortages and more rapidly ageing population the UK would face in the absence of EU migrants. Just as importantly, free movement means the unconditional right of British people to live, study and work anywhere in the EU. No amount of reduced migration is worth sacrificing that freedom.

Overall, the EU is a more civilised way of governing society than the pre-WW2 notion of absolute nation-state sovereignty. The benefits to the economy and the free movement of people would not be possible were it not for a degree of supranational governance. If nothing else, WW2 demonstrated the horrors that can result from national governments being able to do as they please, with only the military might of other governments to keep them in check. I accept that we still live in a world of international anarchy, where brute force remains the ultimate means of protection. But I also believe that intergovernmental co-operation can mitigate some of the effects of that harsh reality. Given that the world is increasingly globalised, with national governments powerless against the forces of international capital, we can only make meaningful policies by working on a supranational basis. Issues like climate change, terrorism, mass migration, the increasing power of rogue states like China and Iran- all really ought to be dealt with on a global level. But since most of the world does not share Europe’s (relatively) liberal values and level of economic development, the EU is the next best thing. It increases freedom and prosperity in an unfree and poor planet. And it disperses power between itself and its constituent nations, preventing aggressive protectionism, jingoism and any possible intra-European warmongering.

 

The other population crisis: livestock require 75% of farmland

Posted by on

I have in the past pointed to the projected growth of the global population – from seven billion to 11 billion by 2100 – as a major environmental problem. But a bigger population crisis, from the ecological point of view, concerns not humans but farm animals, whose numbers are growing twice as fast. Raising livestock requires a vast amount of resources, and 75% of the world’s farmland; a third of all cereal crops are used to feed them. Livestock farming creates 14% of all greenhouse emissions – more than cars, trains, planes and ships combined. And the “tide of slurry” they produce is overwhelming the world’s capacity to absorb it. Factory farms in the US generate 13 times more waste than the US human population.

The moral is clear: if we were to eat less meat and dairy, our environmental impact would be slashed overnight. George Monbiot writes, “But while plenty in the rich world are happy to discuss the dangers of brown people reproducing, the other population crisis scarcely crosses the threshold of perception.” (Based on an article by Monbiot in The Guardian)