Classics and the Western Canon discussion

Here's the thread for Book 2 discussion. Get started without me; I'll catch up soon!

Did Shakespeare read our book?

Hamlet:
What have you, my good friends, deserv'd at the hands of
Fortune, that she sends you to prison hither?
Guildenstern:
Prison, my lord?
Hamlet:
Denmark's a prison.
Rosencrantz:
Then is the world one.
Hamlet:
A goodly one, in which there are many confines, wards, and
dungeons, Denmark being one o' th' worst.
Rosencrantz:
We think not so, my lord.
Hamlet:
Why then 'tis none to you; for there is nothing either good or
bad, but thinking makes it so. To me it is a prison.
Hamlet Act 2, scene 2, 239–251

Such was she when she loaded thee with caresses, when she deluded thee with the allurements of a false happiness. Thou hast found out how changeful is the face of the blind goddess. She who still veils herself from others hath fully discovered to thee her whole character. If thou likest her, take her as she is, and do not complain. If thou abhorrest her perfidy, turn from her in disdain, renounce her, for baneful are her delusions. The very thing which is now the cause of thy great grief ought to have brought thee tranquillity. Thou hast been forsaken by one of whom no one can be sure that she will not forsake him. Or dost thou indeed set value on a happiness that is certain to depart?

This portion seems to address in further detail the idea of happiness and just what true happiness means which was brought up in the first discussions. As within these words it seems to indeed by stating that circumstantial happiness, happiness that is based upon ones current situation, outside forces, or materialistic means is indeed a false happiness.

Philosophy proposes the idea that to obtain true happiness one needs to find it within themselves and their happiness should not be reliant upon the world outside of them, or what fate they meet with, but it needs to be dependent wholly upon themselves. That it is for man to determine his happiness for himself without regard for the world without. That one cannot allow their own happiness to be directly related to outer influences.

Later on Philosophy also goes on to remind Boethius that in spite of his sorrowful circumstances and his current moment of despair, all the things in which he still does have to be grateful for, and all the reasons why he should still be happy, and relates how there may yet be others even more unfortunate than him in the areas which truly matter.

Laurele wrote: "Did Shakespeare read our book?"

It would be very surprising if he hadn't. If he hadn't, he certainly knew of the concepts of Boethius. Viz, in King Lear, when the disguised Kent is stocked, he says

Fortune, good night, smile once more; turn thy wheel!

Everyman wrote: "Laurele wrote: "Did Shakespeare read our book?"

It would be very surprising if he hadn't. If he hadn't, he certainly knew of the concepts of Boethius. Viz, in King Lear, when the disguised Kent..."

I was thinking specifically of the "thinking makes it so" clause. It's from around chapter 4 of book 2.

Everyman wrote: "It would be very surprising if he hadn't. If he hadn't, he certainly knew of the concepts of Boethius. Viz, in King Lear, when the disguised Kent is stocked, he says

Fortune, good night, smile once more; turn thy wheel!
"

I wrote my sophomore essay on this very thing -- the wheel of fortune and love in King Lear. Plus ca change...

But now I wonder... did Shakespeare read Latin? I would expect he did, but there were also translations by Chaucer and Queen Elizabeth. He could have read French translations as well I suppose.

Is Boethius saying that suffering really doesn't matter, if you look at it philosophically? That would seem contrary to the Christian idea that suffering is real, and that Christ suffered for us.

Roger wrote: "Is Boethius saying that suffering really doesn't matter, if you look at it philosophically? That would seem contrary to the Christian idea that suffering is real, and that Christ suffered for us."

I do get that impression. It seems to me that Philosophy actually discounts the idea of physical "real" suffering, but sees suffering instead as being a construct of man's own mind, and weakness, which can than be overcome once he realizes that he is in control over his own suffering and happiness. According to Philosophy it seems that suffering is in fact an illness of the mind. She discounts the idea of outward physical forces as truly being responsible for ones emotional state.

Silver wrote: "Roger wrote: "Is Boethius saying that suffering really doesn't matter, if you look at it philosophically? That would seem contrary to the Christian idea that suffering is real, and that Christ suf..."

I think she is saying that if we look at suffering the right way, we can endure it because we can look beyond it. This idea is found throughout the New Testament. An example is Paul's words in Philippians 4:

 11 Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content.

 12 I know both how to be abased, and I know how to abound: every where and in all things I am instructed both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need.

 13 I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.

Roger wrote: "Is Boethius saying that suffering really doesn't matter, if you look at it philosophically? That would seem contrary to the Christian idea that suffering is real, and that Christ suffered for us."

Philosophy argues that if happiness is a permanent state (which it must be to truly "be" in the Platonic sense) then fate cannot touch it. The same argument would equally apply to suffering -- if it is something that comes and goes as fate decides, it neither is nor isn't but is in a constant state of becoming or fading away. But Philosophy tells Boethius "You are suffering because of your misguided belief, and you can't blame events for that."

A suffering based on belief, and not chance, might be called real. A crisis of doubt, such as what Boethius is suffering from, or what Christ was when he cried "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" -- Philosophy might argue that these are examples of "real" suffering.

Have any of you here read Bart Ehrman's God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important QuestionWhy We Suffer ? I have it, but have not read it (still in my TBR). If you have, I am curious how relevant/useful to reading Consolations you consider it? (The book supposedly addresses Ehrman's crisis of faith.)

Thomas wrote: "Philosophy argues that if happiness is a permanent state (which it must be to truly "be" in the Platonic sense) then fate cannot touch it...."

A sidebar on "choosing" happiness as one's state of being:

http://sanfrancisco.ibtimes.com/artic...

The definition of suffering from Dictionary.com:

"the pain, misery, or loss experienced by a person who suffers".

There are two factors: the first is the physical state, i.e., injury or loss, and the second is the mental experience of the person, i.e., awareness, perception or belief. On the one hand, a loss or injury can occur to us without our awareness or knowledge, as when we go through a surgery under anesthesia; on the other hand, we may perceive a loss or injury that is unreal or insignificant, such as what sometimes happens in a dream.

There are three kinds of losses, corresponding to three kinds of goods: goods for the soul, such as virtue, wisdom and justice; goods for the body, such as health, beauty and strength; and external goods, such as wealth, etc. Philosophy was suggesting to Boethius, I think, that external or even bodily goods are insignificant compared to the goods of the soul he possessed or could possess.

I'm having real trouble internalizing Book 2 Chapter 1. (Like Patrice, I spent a lot more time on Book 1 before moving on, but I'll catch up eventually!)

Anyhow, I can see it intellectually, but I'm having a great deal of trouble believing that anybody could actually live by these precepts.

For example, "surely you do not believe that purely ephemeral happiness is of value?" asks Philosophy. Well, in fact I do. I think that the happiness I get when I hug read to my grandchildren is of great value. I think that the happiness I get in watching something I have planted in the garden grow into food that I then eat and enjoy is of value. These are, in a sense, gifts of fortune since if I were, like Boethius, imprisoned I would lose both of these sources of happiness. But it seems that Philosophy is saying, yes, Fortune may temporarily have granted you the apparent happiness of having and loving grandchildren, but that happiness is worthless because Fortune can (and probably will) snatch it away from you.

I have trouble making this work for me.

This book strongly reminded me of the passage from Kipling's poem "If":

If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same:.

But the rest of the poem doesn't fit Boethius. For example:

If you can dream---and not make dreams your master;
If you can think---and not make thoughts your aim,

It seems that Philosophy would say don't ever dream, because those dreams that Fortune allows you won't lead to true happiness, but do make thoughts your aim, because pure thought is what you need to achieve pure happiness.

Everyman wrote: "I'm having real trouble internalizing Book 2 Chapter 1. (Like Patrice, I spent a lot more time on Book 1 before moving on, but I'll catch up eventually!)

Anyhow, I can see it intellectually, bu..."

Though I do think it would be close to impossible for any human being to truly live by this principle, as I think it would go against human nature to do so, I cannot help but to find some appeal in the idea which Philosophy offers.

While it is true I would not want to completely discount what momentary blessings fortune however fickle my bestow, and it is a bit harsh to say that such happiness is completely without value, at the same time I am drawn to the idea that we cannot define the whole of our happiness purely upon temporary moments, or be dependent fully upon circumstances outside of ourselves.

So when Fortune does come to rob these moments away from us, we should still have it within us to stand upon our own and not allow ourselves to be a Fortune's mercy altogether. Though I also agree that it would go against our instincts to truly be able to define our own happiness when we are robbed of all of the things which we have perceived to be the sources of our former happiness.

But as someone who believes in the power of the will I like to think that maybe Philosophy is on to something and that at least to some extent this idea she proposes can be realized.

Everyman wrote: "If you can dream---and not make dreams your master;If you can think---and not make thoughts your aim, ..."

Happiness that is permanent is better than the transitory type. But dreams and thoughts are both transitory. So I think Philosophy would agree with Kipling there.

Silver wrote: "While it is true I would not want to completely discount what momentary blessings fortune however fickle my bestow, and it is a bit harsh to say that such happiness is completely without value, at the same time I am drawn to the idea that we cannot define the whole of our happiness purely upon temporary moments, or be dependent fully upon circumstances outside of ourselves....

But as someone who believes in the power of the will I like to think that maybe Philosophy is on to something and that at least to some extent this idea she proposes can be realized. "

I can agree with this, but I am also mindful of Aristotle's precept "nothing in excess." Is too much living in the mind and not in the surrounding world a failure of moderation, just as too much living in the surrounding world and not at all in the mind would be? Lady Philosophy seems to be urging us to live entirely in the mind and not find any value in such transient happiness as Fortune may allow us. I find this very non-Aristotelian.

Everyman wrote: "Silver wrote: I can agree with this, but I am also mindful of Aristotle's precept "nothing in excess." Is too much living in the mind and not in the surrounding world a failure of moderation, just as too much living in the surrounding world and not at all in the mind would be?"

I myself to have a tendency to be one of those people who does live within my own head more than the real world. and I have always been a bit detached from the physcial reality around me, and I do not know if in truth this is always for the better.

I think one of the reasons why I have enjoyed Book 2 so much and why the idea Philosophy proposes has so much appeal to me is because I have been reading it at a very apt time in my life. As well I have of recently been having my own experiences with the fickleness of fortune, so indeed it has been a consolation drawing from prospect of a self-defined and self-determined happiness not reliant upon that which is happening in the outside world.

But at the same time, I do question, even if one were in fact able to truly secure that inner happiness, that "true" happiness and if one were than was able to deny all those little misleading pleasures of life which fortune offers, what would in fact the point of living truly be? Even if you do have this serene happiness inside of you what would be the purpose of life, if you do not in fact no longer take your enjoyment from life itself?

Patrice wrote: "But Christ was reciting a psalm that ends with a declaration of faith that the suffering would end in triumph."

I've always taken it as an expression of Christ's humanity, but maybe that is a wrong interpretation. I never knew it was an affirmation of faith -- it sounds like just the opposite. In that case it's a bad example for me to use. Unless we can draw a comparison between the Psalm and the Consolation -- maybe both start out as cries of suffering but end in affirmations of faith? (In Boethius' case, faith in Philosophy.)

Patrice wrote: "Thomas wrote: "Roger wrote: "Is Boethius saying that suffering really doesn't matter, if you look at it philosophically? That would seem contrary to the Christian idea that suffering is real, and ..."

The Gospels don't say that Christ recited Psalm 22. Matthew (27:46) and Mark (15:34) report that he said the first verse of that Psalm ("My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?"), no more. John, on the other hand, reports that Christ died after saying "It is finished" (19:30), which some say could be translated "he has wrought it," the last line of Psalm 22. They then put these two lines together from separate gospels and speculate that Christ actually recited the whole psalm under his breath, saying the first and last lines out loud, without the witnesses being aware of it. Could be.

Silver wrote: "I think one of the reasons why I have enjoyed Book 2 so much and why the idea Philosophy proposes has so much appeal to me is because I have been reading it at a very apt time in my life. As well I have of recently been having my own experiences with the fickleness of fortune, so indeed it has been a consolation drawing from prospect of a self-defined and self-determined happiness not reliant upon that which is happening in the outside world. "

I can get my head around the idea that when disaster comes, it's inner strength and a commitment to the happiness within that can sustain you and carry you through. We see this in people who have lost everything in a natural disaster -- tornado, hurricane, flood, earthquake -- but find the inner strength to start fresh and go on.

But where I have a problem is the idea that when fortune is favoring us, even if only transitorily, the happiness we are feeling isn't real happiness and we shouldn't be enjoying it because we should know that it won't last. That's the part that I can't wrap my mind around.

Everyman wrote: But where I have a problem is the idea that when fortune is favoring us, even if only transitorily, the happiness we are feeling isn't real happiness and we shouldn't be enjoying it because we should know that it won't last."

I think would be a difficult thing for any human being to truly adhere to or comprehend and put into actual practice. While intellectually it does make logical sense that if a person discounts the disasters in their life because they are sustained instead by their own inner happiness and will not allow outside circumstances to determine how they feel, than equally so a person would have to also see the falsity of the momentary happiness that may be granted.

Essentially it would be hypocritical for a person to decide that while the misfortunes in their life do not matter because they are the acts of unreliable fortune, and yet will still allow themselves to fall into the illusions of happiness which fortune may grant.

But no human being I do not think can be this rigidly rational, because human emotion is not rational and I do not know if we can ever reach this total control over our emotions.

Essentially though that is what Philosophy is calling for, that in order to obtain a true, lasting and complete happiness than one must embrace the completely rational mind. Touching back to the earlier dispute with the muse who only fed Boethius' suffering, and I think the muse does represent ones irrational emotion.

Actually when I think about it, the idea which Philosophy proposes reminds me a lot of Buddhism.

Silver wrote: "Essentially it would be hypocritical for a person to decide that while the misfortunes in their life do not matter because they are the acts of unreliable fortune, and yet will still allow themselves to fall into the illusions of happiness which fortune may grant.
"

I do understand what you're saying, but I wouldn't say hypocritical. The difference is that with happiness, we make an effort to achieve it, so if it comes we feel that we have some right to claim that we had a role in it rather than just crediting fortune alone. But when bad things happen they aren't things we sought and worked toward, so it's more logical to blame bad luck or the vicissitudes of Fortune.

Silver wrote: "Actually when I think about it, the idea which Philosophy proposes reminds me a lot of Buddhism. "

I agree. There seems to me to be at least as much Buddhism ad Christianity, if not more.

Everyman wrote: I do understand what you're saying, but I wouldn't say hypocritical. The difference is that with happiness, we make an effort to achieve it, so if it comes we feel that we have some right to claim that we had a role in it rather than just crediting fortune alone. But when bad things happen they aren't things we sought and worked toward, so it's more logical to blame bad luck or the vicissitudes of Fortune. "

Though I think Philosophy would disagree with you that those events of happiness in our life are the result of our own making, I see where you are coming from with this.

And I agree it is true that in most cases the things in our life which bring us happiness are the result of our own efforts, and that we did work for them. Rarely is happiness just handed out on a silver platter.

Yet while it may be true in some chases that our misfortunes can be the result of our own choices and own actions, in many cases bad things do happen which our out of our control.

Yet it does also bring up the question, that is it simply easier for people to find a escape goat for the bad things that happen to them by blaming fortune, or luck, or some other source, while wanting to take all credit for the good things which come to them.

Silver wrote: "Actually when I think about it, the idea which Philosophy proposes reminds me a lot of Buddhism."

If what Philosophy is arguing against is attachment to happiness, I would agree. But Buddhism also argues against attachment to ideas. In Moby Dick we witnessed a fine example of how this kind of attachment leads to suffering. I would hesitate to draw a comparison between Ahab and Boethius, but so far it seems that Philosophy is suggesting that there is solace in the unchanging world of ideas. And maybe there is, but as long as attachment or desire for an idea remains I don't think it would qualify as Buddhist in spirit.

Everyman wrote: "But where I have a problem is the idea that when fortune is favoring us, even if only transitorily, the happiness we are feeling isn't real happiness and we shouldn't be enjoying it because we should know that it won't last. That's the part that I can't wrap my mind around...."

Can you enjoy it AND know it won't last?

I'm reminded of a story I read many years ago. There was a man who devoted his life to building sand castles on the beach, like a sculptor would work on his masterpiece. But his masterpieces would get washed away by high tides periodically. People asked him why he didn't try to build something more enduring. He replied that all the things we built in our lifetime were transitory compared to eternity.

Silver wrote: "Essentially though that is what Philosophy is calling for, that in order to obtain a true, lasting and complete happiness than one must embrace the completely rational mind. Touching back to the earlier dispute with the muse who only fed Boethius' suffering, and I think the muse does represent ones irrational emotion.

Actually when I think about it, the idea which Philosophy proposes reminds me a lot of Buddhism."

What it reminds me of is Mr. Spock.

Patrice wrote: "Did this line bother anyone?

Prose 2

"What else is tragedy but the sad story of happy men who are overthrown by the blows of fortune?"

While sometimes tragedy is just a matter of luck, isn't ..."

That depends upon how own views tragedy. Perhaps I am just not a very sympathetic person, but from my view, if ill fortune should befall a person as a direct result of their own actions or choices. I do not consider it "tragic" because they brought it upon themselves and could easily have avoided the situation so it is more like getting their just desserts.

To me a true tragedy is an event which befalls a person that is completely out of their control and of which they did nothing consciously to bring upon themselves.

Silver wrote: "To me a true tragedy is an event which befalls a person that is completely out of their control and of which they did nothing consciously to bring upon themselves. "

Would you consider being born a tragedy then? :)

Nemo wrote: Would you consider being born a tragedy then? :)
..."

LOL I suppose I should have specified that not any event which happens outside of ones control is a tragedy only those that do bring some ill fortune with them.

A natural disaster for example would be tragedy for those affected.

But I suppose some people would view thier very existence as being tragic, and I suppose depending upon the circumstances one is born into it could be a tragedy.

An ancient Chinese fable might interest some of you.

There was an old man who was regarded as most wise by all who knew him. One day one of his horses ran away from his stable. When people condoled him for his loss, he said, "Could this not be a blessing?" After a wile, his horse returned with many other horses from neighboring countries. When people congratulated him, he answered, "Could this not be a disaster?" His son became fond of the new horses and started riding, broke his hip after falling from the horse and was crippled for life. Again, people condoled him, and again, he said, "Could this not be good fortune?" Soon after, a war broke out. Most other young men were conscripted into the army and died in the war. But his son was spared because of his cripple.

Emotions are not necessarily irrational.

But if one's self does not "control" them, who in the world does?

Patrice wrote: ... Wouldn't that make sense? Why would he doubt?" (concerning Christ's last words on the Cross)

No reason that I can think of. But I want to be clear what is attested in the Gospels and what is speculation.

Lily wrote: "Emotions are not necessarily irrational.

But if one's self does not "control" them, who in the world does?"

Not all emotions are irrational in the sense that often the way in which we react to something is perfectly reasonable to the situation and understandable as to why such circumstances may produce certain feelings within us.

But they are irrational in the way in which they are not based upon logic or reasoning. They are instinctual responses and impulses. Generally speaking most people do not take the time to contemplate how they are going to react to a situation. They don't evaluate if their reaction would be appropriate or not appropriate, or the pros and cons to. Usually ones emotional responses come instantaneously .

And though to a certain degree we can manage our emotions after the initial reaction, I do not think we can always consciously control what we feel about certain things or what are first initial emotional response to them are.

Thomas wrote: "Can you enjoy it AND know it won't last? "

Hmmmm. That's a hard one. We always believe that it WILL last, don't we? Because, since we worked for it, we deserve it.

But if we were sure it wouldn't last, would we still be able to enjoy it? Well, we know that life won't last, but we can enjoy that, can't we? But as for good fortune, that's a harder one.

Patrice wrote: "SThere are some things we can control and some we can't.."

Can we really control anything?

Roger wrote: "What it reminds me of is Mr. Spock. "

In a way, yes.

What do people think of Philosophy's argument that bad fortune is actually better than good fortune because it frees us from the bondage to transitory happiness?

Is she really saying that those who lose everything in a hurricane, flood, fire, earthquake, or whatever, should really be grateful because they are now free to understand that those things really don't matter? Should Boethius be grateful to be in prison?

Patrice wrote: "If love of wisdom is a life goal, then yes, bad fortune can be a gift.

Personally, I'd rather stay in the dark! lol "

I think you're not alone in that. The path that Philosophy is laying out may in fact be the best path, but it's impossible to know until you get onto it, and one has to give up so much to get onto that path that it's very hard to persuade oneself that the risk that maybe the path of Philosophy isn't that great after all is too huge a risk to give up everything that is currently making us happy.

Very much the camel in the eye of the needle, isn't it? Maybe the camel doesn't WANT to go through the needle's eye!

Is he saying that one "should" give up happiness? I thought he was trying to make lemonade out of lemons"

Well Philosophy is saying we should give up the happiness that life offers to us. That those things outside of ourselves within the physcial world which may bring us happiness we should recognize as being only temporary, because they are granted by fortune and thus cannot be trusted, are not true happiness becasue fortune can take those things away.

So the things that bring us daily pleasures in life we should no longer be disillusioned by and not trust our happiness in those things, but seek instead to embrace a deeper happiness that comes purely from within ourselves.

Patrice wrote: "Philosophy, at least at this stage, does allow that the goods of fortune do bring some felicity. She is careful to use the word 'felicity' here, rather than that which she will use for true, complete happiness (beatitudo). ..."

If Boethius were a Aristotelian, he would have provided a definition of "happiness" by now. Calling a thing by different names still doesn't help the readers understand the nature of the thing itself.

Silver wrote: "So the things that bring us daily pleasures in life we should no longer be disillusioned by and not trust our happiness in those things, but seek instead to embrace a deeper happiness that comes purely from within ourselves. ..."

But what is the happiness from within ourselves that life doesn't provide? Is it really deeper and more enduring?

Nemo wrote: But what is the happiness from within ourselves that life doesn't provide? Is it really deeper and more enduring? "

Based on what I have read thus far, it seems according to Philosophy, this happiness stems from a faith in God, as in the first book she makes a reference to part of the reason why Boethius is suffering is becasue he has forgotten that everything that happens is ordered by God, and that Boethius falls into the belief that his misfortune was an act of chance, and he must remember that it is all according to plan, thus God is still watching out over him and his present suffering is not without reason.

As well it seems that Philosophy also seems to suggest that one can seek thier own happiness by reflecting on the fact that no matter how much they may think they are suffering they should still count what blessings they have and know there are others who may have even greater cause to suffer than they do.

In Book too Philosophy begins to remind him of fortunate things he has in his life, that he should be thankful for the fact that he has a good children when there are others who may never have children or have ungrateful children, and he should be thankful that he has such a loving and devoted wife, becasue there are others who can never know such love as he had.

Silver wrote: "Nemo wrote: But what is the happiness from within ourselves that life doesn't provide? Is it really deeper and more enduring? "

Based on what I have read thus far, it seems according to Philosop..."

I understand what you're saying, but my question is specifically about "happiness from within ourselves". In times of suffering, we can count our blessings, but those blessings, good children, loving wife, etc., are still provided by life.

Does faith in God stem from within ourselves?

Nemo wrote: I understand what you're saying, but my question is specifically about "happiness from within ourselves". In times of suffering, we can count our blessings, but those blessings, good children, loving wife, etc., are still provided by life. "

I do not think that Philosophy intends that we should not take any enjoyment from life at all. But that we should not have our happiness too much dependant upon our good fortune, at which I think is meant a decent job position, items we own, wealth, things that are materialistic, but when Philosophy began to speak of Boethius' family, I have the impression that familial love is not seen in the same eye as materialistic pleasure.

In addition I think that the love of ones family and the knowledge of the goodness of ones life is something that can be internalized. Even if you are not physically with them you can still draw upon the love you feel for them, and your faith in the love they have for you.

Even though Boethius is imprisoned, that does not mean he still cannot take comfort in the knowledge of the love of his wife.

As to the question of the Happiness within, I think that it is a question of the will, that one does not need outside things to decide for themselves that they are going to be happy.

Boethius can either choose to continue to wallow in his misery, or he can say to himself that in spite of the unfortunate position he has been placed in, he is not going to allow that to torment him, and he can choose to embrace a feeling of happiness regardless of what his outer physical circumstances are.

Even if the situation he is in is a miserable one, he can determine for himself that he no longer wishes to feel despair, as such will not altar his circumstances.

Patrice wrote: "I think the other part of it is that what he is saying, at least so far, runs so counter to our culture.."

I think that's true. It essentially rejects the basic belief system of modern Western thought. But we can discuss this at the end!

Silver wrote: "NI do not think that Philosophy intends that we should not take any enjoyment from life at all. But that we should not have our happiness too much dependant upon our good fortune, at which I think is meant a decent job position, items we own, wealth, things that are materialistic, ..."

I'm not so sure. Lady Philosophy does go through and explain why each of those things in fact does not lead to real happiness. I think she may well be saying that we should not take enjoyment from these things, just as we really should not take enjoyment from smoking cigarettes, which (I am told, I don't smoke) although they seem to give a current pleasure, are in fact killing one .