Comment

The Swerve

How the World Became Modern
Nov 06, 2018EvanSchoenfeld rated this title 4 out of 5 stars
‘Swerve’ does not propose one single origin of modernity, but is a suite of stories about the career of the poem that illuminated Buddhism’s smarter cousin--Epicureanism. ‘De Rerum Natura’ is cast in the role of the beautiful maiden in a drama, rescued by a hero Just In Time. Poggio discovers the only known copy in a monastery and makes it available to the world again, where it begins to inspire forward thinking ideas among Renaissance humanists. But the infernal villains, implacable adversaries of Light and Reason, burn ‘Natura’ when they can, and sometimes the humanists too. The controversy lies in Epicureanism’s atomic materialism, denial of life after death, proposing that there is no divine order etc. Greenblatt’s bad guys are fanatical Christians, but it seems to me that the actual dichotomy is between two philosophic styles: One says that the brain’s proper function is to give pleasure by believing in whatever is pretty and feels good (ie. not just supernatural stuff, but the oversimplifications of most kinds of certainty). The other says that the brain’s proper function is to take disinterested account of the world as it is, no matter how pleasant or unpleasant. Epicureanism says we’re all dust, that our souls don’t survive death, and that we are motivated by pleasure. So it’s confusing that the self-indulgent thinkers are scandalized by this talk about the pleasure principle, whereas disciplined thinkers consider it obviously true. But that’s my own take on Epicurus, not Greenblatt’s. When they say we only use 10 percent of our brains, is this what they mean? Using the brain for self-delusion is like using a porpoise for a doorstop. I understand that Epicurus also suggested that people can shape their appetites according to reason. Clearly this is not the direction that humanity went in, but if we had been able to save ourselves, it would have been so.