Talk:Otium/Archive 2

Andre

I appreciate your persistence with such a conceptually difficult topic. Many editors would've given up by now. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for compliment. I have Jean-Marie Andre's extensive study L'otium dans la vie morale et intellectuelle romaine des origines a l'epoque Augusteenne now in my hands (this is the otium Bible). The important pages I've scanned in, so if you have any questions on an Andre reference I can send you the page via e-mail. Just send me a note, so I can send back an attachment.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 16:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that did seem to be the source when I reviewed what I had on hand at the start of this. My university library seems strangely to lack it, even though one of the classics profs here writes on this and related subjects. I recognized some time ago, however, that this was not a topic I wanted to pursue via Wikipedia. (That's why I left the comment on your talk page rather than here.) In all honesty, I haven't done anything more than glance at the article in its current state; I just wanted to take note of your diligence. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I got my copy from the University of Michigan through I.L.L.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree and having just seen some of the older discussion, I'm struck by how unhelpful some of the comments were. You are doing well to consider the criticisms and encourage collaboration. For future discussions editors should make their points constructively and specifically, remembering that the only objective is to improve the content of the article. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 07:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course it's the standard source; but we don't need a paragraph to say so.

As far as I can tell, none of the changes in the last four or five days have been in any respect helpful to the article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Flaws

Text as it now stands:

• Epicurus promised enjoyment in retirement as a concept of otium. Sourced to Haasse, behind the link.
  • This is not talking about Epicurus; it is talking about Vergil. Only one of them spoke Latin.
  • Our sentence is subliterate; enjoyment is not a concept of otium. What Haase actually says is that otium (in Vergil) means that enjoyment; the other way around.
  • Whether the Eclogue is an Epicurean poem and whether the sense of otium is positive are both debated in the literature.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• The portraits of the Garden of Epicurus near Athens represented political and cultural heroes of the time. Twenty-first–century historians Gregory Warden and David Romano have argued that the layout of the sculptures in "The Garden" were designed to give the viewer contrasting viewpoints of the Epicurean otium and the Hellenistic Stoic viewpoint of otium (i.e. private or public; contemplation or "employment"; [ otium or negotium.
  • Not of course what the source says: it offers a series of parallel binary choices; private or public, otium or negotium, inner or outer, order or chaos. No mention of DC's figment, "the contrasting Hellenistic Stoic concept of otium" at all.
  • Since Epicurus established his garden before there were any Stoics, and died while both schools were still small institutions, the Original Research seems implausible. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Why do you say: "Epicurus established his garden before there were any Stoics"? Epicurus was contemporary with Zeno, who was bringing notability to Stoicism at the same time as Epicurus was engaging in meetings in his garden. The two were very aware of each other's philosophies. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 09:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Not, admittedly, much before; but he did establish it before Zeno began teaching. Were they aware of each other? Almost certainly; but the source does not say, and it is not obvious, that Epicurus would have regarded Zeno, rather than the Academy or the Peripatetics, as his chief opposition. A short paragraph on schole in each of four schools in Greek seems on point here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• The Epicurean view is that wisdom has as much to contribute to the benefit of the public as does that of contributions of politicians and laborers (i.e. sailors). The rustic otium concept incorporates country living into Epicureanism. The active city public life of otium and a reserved country life of reflection have been much written about by Cicero and Seneca the Younger.
  • This, if it meant anything, would imply that Cicero and Seneca were Epicureans; placed where it is, it also implies they were Greek. All four are wrong. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
  • So is the claim that otium is " active city public life", which is the fundamental error that vitiates this article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Is this article possible?

I don't want to get involved in the particulars of the article, and am wary of making a comment that may sound like "I told you so." I commend Doug for recognizing that this is not a topic you can dispense with easily, and for making such an effort to obtain a standard source that isn't readily available. At the same time, I've been and remain skeptical that otium lends itself to encyclopedic treatment, or at least to the collaborative writing of an article that conforms to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Something like ataraxia is more restricted in usage, and has a technical character. Stroup, for instance, points out that one can't arrive at a single meaning of otium even for only Cicero, since it acquires its meaning from the context of a given work. Otium is more like having an article on amor or pax—almost impossible to disentangle a concept particular to a school of thought from general literary usage or lexicography. Or compare our article on love, which places "Christian love" and agape in the third sentence (not terribly global, eh?), with romantic love not making an appearance till the second paragraph, even though the article is illustrated with a lead image of Romeo and Juliet. Could "Love" ever be a GA? Hard to see how. The obstacles to an article on otium are dwarfed by comparison, but probably insurmountable. And yet as far as I can see there are no grounds for deleting either love or otium. I find this an interesting problem of article composition. Apologies for taking such a hands-off, unhelpful view. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Since it is not clear that GA lays any requirements on the substance of an article, it may be feasible; the question is whether we can write a good article on love. I don't know; writing it summary style, with lots of cross-links, on the overall framework of the OED definition might work. I'd also look at C.S. Lewis.

I will make these remarks a section, since I want to go back to leisure and the schools. If you don't like the title, please change it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Schools and schole

Obviously, the words are connected. A aentence about schole and kalokagathia seems warranted.

Platonists

Neither Hippias (in the Hippias Major, if it be authentic), nor Socrates (in the Apology) have leisure. In Hippias, this is presumably a bad thing; but Socrates is busy benefiting his country. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Stoics

Not, for this section, Seneca, please. What did Zeno think? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Epicureans

Epicurus and Philodemus, not Vergil or Horace (was Vergil an Epicurean at all?) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)