Lust: The Seven Deadly Sins (The Seven Deadly Sins)

Rating:
Summary: Best of the series
Review: Blackburne's book is the best of the series, yet they all tend to be of a high calibre. It is highly readable yet carefully researched. As with all the books in the series, it is quite short and can be read in a sitting or two. The book has a wonderful dustjacket and nice tight binding, although for such a slender little book it does fetch a bit of a high price--worth it though!

Rating:
Summary: Quick, Dirty, Good.
Review: Fantastic stuff. Blackburn is both pithy and deep, spends perhaps a bit too long on the history of the greeks, and a bit too little time getting in his digs at feminists and Catholics, but the book is fun, quick, quotable, and convincing.

Excerpts and the like are available on my blog (Crescat Sententia), but out of respect for the ToS, I won't include the URL.

Rating:
Summary: Come on, give in, the book won't bite unless you ask...
Review: Lust is a topic about which it is very easy to accuse someone of having had too much to think. Being an inherently and inevitably illogical and rationally evasive subject, it provides mounds of frustration for intellectuals and psychologsts, who, more often than not, seem to be helplessly pounding on the head of a gargantuan behemoth. Lust's reputation, both historic and current, does not help. There is a long tradition in the West of rigid control, of not giving in and becoming a slobbering porn shop denizen. In this sense, lust has become another bad habit, like smoking or gambling, and the term "sexual addiction", with its implied hopes of convalescence, has entered the public discourse. Lust thus has been put on the naughty shelf with the nudie mags and skin flicks. To some extent, because of the inevitable correlations, sex has been put there as well, and, along with religion and politics, it has become the third most important thing that one should not discuss with others in public. Of course we do talk about it nonetheless, because lust has a power to overcome both morality and propriety. Two thousand years of Christian shame have not subverted its powers. Legal restrictions and sodomy laws seem like squealing moralzing rodents next to its lumbering bulk. The West seems incapable of acceptance on an intellectual and moral basis that lust, and what it leads to, is inexplicable from human nature. The only peace seems to come from acceptance, which of course suggests anything but peace (those who have been entangled by lust likely know this). Various reviews of this book promised a saving of lust from intolerant traditions, or what implies an intellectual acceptance of the West's most maligned pleasure. Given that, how could one not pick up and read this tiny book?

This book focuses on lust from a Western perspective. The space limitations (about 130 pages) most likely precluded a detailed discussion of lust from other cultural traditions, which is too bad, because there is a lot to chew on when comparing different cultures' views on the subject. Still, there is a brief mention of eastern thoughts on lust, which only provides a teaser for what could be learned from a more detailed comparison, but that must be left to other books.

Starting off, the author says he is taking a "philosophical stroll in the park" of the subject. That is an accurate assessment. The fifteen chapters each take on a different aspect of the topic. There is a flow of information from one to the other, but it is a casual flow, not an Aristotelian logical analysis based on predicate logic or Venn diagrams. This is a good thing.

Each chapter provides a glimpse into the multifarious worlds that open up when the rusty door of lust is forced from its hinges. For example, how do we know exactly what we desire when we desire something or someone? Is it simply a person's sensual body or is it something less direct, such as revenge, the fulfillment of a past sexual shafting or emotional issue? It's not always clear; there is a discussion on the nature of excess, or "what is too much?" with the inevitable mention of President Clinton (the Monica Lewinsky scandal had a decidedely medieval tone to it). The book deals with technical issues such as this.

Lust from a historical perspective juices many of the book's chapters. Lust has a long history as a deadly sin, and many famous philosophers and Saints have had much to say about it (the author relaxes some of the blame too often put on Saint Augustine alone). The Greeks accepted lust as something endowed in human nature, but something to keep in check. "Nothing in excess" more or less sums up the Greek moral view of lust. Then something happened when Christianity became the dominant Western morality. The "cult of the virgin" took hold, and lust was not something merely to control, but to obliterate altogether; it was tantamount to Satanic influence. The book's at a glance view of this transition is fascinating, but sadly all too brief.

There is optimism here as well. What the author calls a "Hobbesian Unity" (after, of course, Thomas Hobbes) may be one of the aims of lust. Could this salicious thing be pointing us towards unity and romantic love of another human being? Obviously not always, but it's a possibility. What successful relationships don't have even a trace of lust in them? It seems hard to imagine a successful union between people "in love" in which sexual desire plays absolutely no role. There are of course dangers, and the book touches on these as well: objectivity, obsession, dominance, etc. There is a brief glimpse at evolutionary psychology's point of view. In the end, the author has an optimistic tone about lust, but is as unavoidably clueless as the rest of us are on the subject. Not that he claims any special knowledge, but the book will manifest no solutions to lust's power, though it will provide new perspectives and avenues down which further research can be taken. Overall a good read that will leave one deep in thought about one's own issues with the very complicated issue of lust. After all, if you're human, you've likely succumbed to some degree.

Rating:
Summary: One of the best in the 7 book series
Review: Out of all the seven deadly sin books in the series this is the most complete as well as the longest with close to 160 pages.

I was happy to see the broadest meaning of the word dissected. Chapter Five titled The Christian Panic was to focused on Saint Augustine and seemed to forget or chose to be ignorant of the Puritans and people like Calvin, Knox and how they viewed Lust. Protestants often see (which I agree) non-sexual lust as almost akin to being successful.

Lusting for success in business doesn't need to mean something negative. I also find it interesting that St. Augustine would denounce lust yet be a part of an institution that lusted after power like it and he did.

What I would have liked to have read was more about the positives of sexual lust in the proper context. Like when a spouse is so aroused and wanting of their partner and in a lustful mode. Sexual lust can be sexy, sensual and not at all negative.

Rating:
Summary: One of the best in the 7 book series
Review: Out of all the seven deadly sin books in the series this is the most complete as well as the longest with close to 160 pages.

I was happy to see the broadest meaning of the word dissected. Chapter Five titled The Christian Panic was to focused on Saint Augustine and seemed to forget or chose to be ignorant of the Puritans and people like Calvin, Knox and how they viewed Lust. Protestants often see (which I agree) non-sexual lust as almost akin to being successful.

Lusting for success in business doesn't need to mean something negative. I also find it interesting that St. Augustine would denounce lust yet be a part of an institution that lusted after power like it and he did.

What I would have liked to have read was more about the positives of sexual lust in the proper context. Like when a spouse is so aroused and wanting of their partner and in a lustful mode. Sexual lust can be sexy, sensual and not at all negative.

Rating:
Summary: A Sin Turned Into a Virtue
Review: There are seven classic deadly sins, and most of them are deadly dull. I couldn't read a book about gluttony, for instance, and pride, envy, anger, sloth, and greed are all either humdrum or so obviously bad for you that there would seem no point in studying on them. Oxford University Press, however, in conjunction with the New York Public Library, has brought out a volume on each of them, none of which I will read. But lust, well, that's another subject altogether. There's a deadly sin that I really like, and refuse to see as sinful. Lust is worth participating in and thinking about, and the Oxford volume _Lust_ by philosopher Simon Blackburn provides an encouraging set of essays that will not please those who insist that lust is just as bad as gluttony or greed. "It might seem, then," writes Blackburn, "quixotic or paradoxical, or even indecent, to try to speak up for lust. But that is what I shall try to do." Try, nay - he succeeds.

Lust has gotten plenty of bad press, a short history of which Blackburn enjoys giving. Plato put a shamefulness upon lust that it has never subsequently shaken. It was an axiom, however, that shame was inherently connected to lust, and that although there was no shame in enjoying a good meal, there was in enjoying a good coition. Saint Augustine has the reputation of demonizing lust for all Christians thereafter, but Blackburn points out that by the time he came along, "the cult of virginity was in full swing." Augustine insisted that it was regrettable to feel pleasure when one impregnated one's wife, but coitus just for the sake of pleasure was incomparably naughty. Though Christianity mostly abandoned such extreme views, and though Augustine might be seen as a moderate compared to other writers on the subject, lust has never recovered from the calumny Augustine had thrown on it. Lust, however, is essential; we are all products of it, and even religious moralists today generally allow that it has a place, even though they might define that place as only within sanctified marriage. Blackburn's main philosophical defense of lust is, surprisingly, the seventeenth-century philosopher Thomas Hobbes, who is not usually noted for liberal views. Hobbes wrote of the "delight of the mind" in reciprocal pleasure-giving, a play of imagination as well as of genitals. There was nothing intrinsically immoral about it.

_Lust_ is a little, concentrated book, with color illustrations of various masterpieces depicting humans and gods at sexual play. Blackburn has reinforced his view by quotations of poetry, mostly Shakespeare but also Dorothy Parker and Edna St. Vincent Millay (who in a sonnet admits a lover's proximity made her "feel a certain zest/ To bear your body's weight upon my breast", but adds, "let me make it plain:/ I find this frenzy insufficient reason/ For conversation when we meet again.") Blackburn's optimistic volume places lust quite properly as a central delight in life. Those other deadly sins may still be deadly sins, but even so, let us count only six from now on.

Rating:
Summary: A Sin Turned Into a Virtue
Review: There are seven classic deadly sins, and most of them are deadly dull. I couldn't read a book about gluttony, for instance, and pride, envy, anger, sloth, and greed are all either humdrum or so obviously bad for you that there would seem no point in studying on them. Oxford University Press, however, in conjunction with the New York Public Library, has brought out a volume on each of them, none of which I will read. But lust, well, that's another subject altogether. There's a deadly sin that I really like, and refuse to see as sinful. Lust is worth participating in and thinking about, and the Oxford volume _Lust_ by philosopher Simon Blackburn provides an encouraging set of essays that will not please those who insist that lust is just as bad as gluttony or greed. "It might seem, then," writes Blackburn, "quixotic or paradoxical, or even indecent, to try to speak up for lust. But that is what I shall try to do." Try, nay - he succeeds.

Lust has gotten plenty of bad press, a short history of which Blackburn enjoys giving. Plato put a shamefulness upon lust that it has never subsequently shaken. It was an axiom, however, that shame was inherently connected to lust, and that although there was no shame in enjoying a good meal, there was in enjoying a good coition. Saint Augustine has the reputation of demonizing lust for all Christians thereafter, but Blackburn points out that by the time he came along, "the cult of virginity was in full swing." Augustine insisted that it was regrettable to feel pleasure when one impregnated one's wife, but coitus just for the sake of pleasure was incomparably naughty. Though Christianity mostly abandoned such extreme views, and though Augustine might be seen as a moderate compared to other writers on the subject, lust has never recovered from the calumny Augustine had thrown on it. Lust, however, is essential; we are all products of it, and even religious moralists today generally allow that it has a place, even though they might define that place as only within sanctified marriage. Blackburn's main philosophical defense of lust is, surprisingly, the seventeenth-century philosopher Thomas Hobbes, who is not usually noted for liberal views. Hobbes wrote of the "delight of the mind" in reciprocal pleasure-giving, a play of imagination as well as of genitals. There was nothing intrinsically immoral about it.

_Lust_ is a little, concentrated book, with color illustrations of various masterpieces depicting humans and gods at sexual play. Blackburn has reinforced his view by quotations of poetry, mostly Shakespeare but also Dorothy Parker and Edna St. Vincent Millay (who in a sonnet admits a lover's proximity made her "feel a certain zest/ To bear your body's weight upon my breast", but adds, "let me make it plain:/ I find this frenzy insufficient reason/ For conversation when we meet again.") Blackburn's optimistic volume places lust quite properly as a central delight in life. Those other deadly sins may still be deadly sins, but even so, let us count only six from now on.