What do you think?
Rate this book
Lectures and Fragments
The lectures or discourses of Musonius Rufus: 1. That There is No Need of Giving Many Proofs for One Problem 2. That Man is Born with an Inclination Toward Virtue 3. That Women Too Should Study Philosophy 4. Should Daughters Receive the Same Education as Sons? 5. Which is more Effective, Theory or Practice? 6. On Training 7. That One Should Disdain Hardships 8. That Kings Also Should Study Philosophy 9. That Exile is not an Evil 10. Will the Philosopher Prosecute Anyone for Personal Injury? 11. What means of Livelihood is Appropriate for a Philosopher? 12. On Sexual Indulgence 13. What is the Chief End of Marriage 14. Is Marriage a Handicap for the Pursuit of Philosophy? 15. Should Every Child that is Born be Raised? 16. Must One Obey One's Parents under all Circumstances? 17. What is the Best Viaticum for Old Age? 18. On Food 19. On Clothing and Shelter 20. On Furnishings 21. On Cutting the Hair
58 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 80
336 people are currently reading
2182 people want to read
About the author
Musonius Rufus
14 books55 followersGaius Musonius Rufus, (c.20-30 - as late as 101), Roman Stoic philosopher. Born in Volsinii, Etruria (modern day Lazio, Italy).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 77 reviews
April 8, 2016
A recommendation to new Stoics:
First read Marcus for the foundation.
Then read Seneca for the gravity.
Then read Epictetus for a refresher.
Then read this book.
All of the Stoic authors say the same basic things, but with a variety of examples and personality that keeps them distinct. Their advice is practical, their words are quotable, and their philosophy of life and how to live it is tremendously freeing. Musonius in particular focuses on narrow, real-life areas where philosophy can be of benefit: work, marriage, study, home furnishings, and so on. His logical arguments aren't as strong as some other writers, but his counsel is still of great benefit. I especially liked this 2012 translation (by Ben White) for its breezy, contemporary style that still preserves the import of Musonius's intent.
5 stars out of 5.
First read Marcus for the foundation.
Then read Seneca for the gravity.
Then read Epictetus for a refresher.
Then read this book.
All of the Stoic authors say the same basic things, but with a variety of examples and personality that keeps them distinct. Their advice is practical, their words are quotable, and their philosophy of life and how to live it is tremendously freeing. Musonius in particular focuses on narrow, real-life areas where philosophy can be of benefit: work, marriage, study, home furnishings, and so on. His logical arguments aren't as strong as some other writers, but his counsel is still of great benefit. I especially liked this 2012 translation (by Ben White) for its breezy, contemporary style that still preserves the import of Musonius's intent.
5 stars out of 5.
July 21, 2019
Musonius Rufus was another notable later Stoic. He was said to have been the teacher of Epictetus. Like Epictetus, much of this material is of an ethical nature, and was taken mainly from extracts found in Stobaeus.
Musonius Rufus undoubtedly set the bar high for being a philosopher; so high in fact that I doubt many subsequent (and maybe even previous) philosophers would meet the requirements. While ethical practice was important to many previous philosophers, Rufus seems to be more ascetic than even most of those that came from the Stoical school. There probably isn't much that I would criticize outright in here, though the stringency seems overwrought. I'm not sure the way the Spartans treated their youth is at all laudable, but I would certainly agree that a life that is too comfortable is in no way conducive to good character building. My feeling is there should be some median between such philosophical extremes as hedonism and asceticism. It is of course possible that I simply recognize that I in no way practice the kind of life that Musonius Rufus considered philosophical and I am trying to lower the bar for myself. It seems as though Musonius Rufus saw himself as a doctor and all of his audience as patients. At least with Kierkegaard, he recognized that he did not measure up to his ideal of the Christian. One gets the feeling that for Musonius Rufus, he thought of himself as one of the few people who actually met the standard he set for a philosopher.
Certainly a good book. I don't know if the average person living in the 21st century would feel while reading this that Musonius Rufus is addressing them personally, but to read it any other way is probably to miss the original intent. Philosophy originally included practice as much as theory. Later philosophers certainly missed that dynamic and focused almost completely on theory. It's good to revisit a philosophy that was exhortative. I recommend this work as such.
Musonius Rufus undoubtedly set the bar high for being a philosopher; so high in fact that I doubt many subsequent (and maybe even previous) philosophers would meet the requirements. While ethical practice was important to many previous philosophers, Rufus seems to be more ascetic than even most of those that came from the Stoical school. There probably isn't much that I would criticize outright in here, though the stringency seems overwrought. I'm not sure the way the Spartans treated their youth is at all laudable, but I would certainly agree that a life that is too comfortable is in no way conducive to good character building. My feeling is there should be some median between such philosophical extremes as hedonism and asceticism. It is of course possible that I simply recognize that I in no way practice the kind of life that Musonius Rufus considered philosophical and I am trying to lower the bar for myself. It seems as though Musonius Rufus saw himself as a doctor and all of his audience as patients. At least with Kierkegaard, he recognized that he did not measure up to his ideal of the Christian. One gets the feeling that for Musonius Rufus, he thought of himself as one of the few people who actually met the standard he set for a philosopher.
Certainly a good book. I don't know if the average person living in the 21st century would feel while reading this that Musonius Rufus is addressing them personally, but to read it any other way is probably to miss the original intent. Philosophy originally included practice as much as theory. Later philosophers certainly missed that dynamic and focused almost completely on theory. It's good to revisit a philosophy that was exhortative. I recommend this work as such.
July 6, 2018
If Seneca manifests the Stoic as a (neurotic) aristocrat, Gaius Musonius Rufus embodies the Stoic as a man of more modest means. His philosophical judgments are appealing and down to earth, as in this comment from a lecture on furnishing a house: "On the whole, we can judge whether various household furnishings are good or bad by determining what it takes to acquire them, use them, and keep them safe. Things that are difficult to acquire, hard to use, or difficult to guard are inferior; things that are easy to acquire, are a pleasure to use, and are easily guarded are superior." That practicality is intermixed with reflexive bias against the well to do, as suggested by this blanket assessment from later in the same lecture: "No one can acquire many things without being unjust." Rufus offers some rational arguments, but much of what he offers is a way of looking at the world that's either going to feel right or empty.
One of the most appealing features of Rufus' thought is his certainty that Stoicism is for both men and women: "If men and women must be equally good in the virtue appropriate for a human - must, that is, be wise and self-controlled, and share in courage and justice - will we not educate both alike, and teach both in the same way the art by which a human would become good? We must do just that!" He acknowledges that, on average, men and women have different physical capacities, but suggests that this only applies to physical capacities, and even then with exceptions.
Ultimately, while Rufus doesn't say much about political justice, he occasionally sounds like a modern social justice-oriented progressive: "Surely to shun excess, to honor equality, to want to do good, and for a person, being human, to not want to harm human beings -- this is the most honorable lesson and it makes just people out of those who hear it." That's quite a tonal contrast from the stoicism of Marcus Aurelius, informed by great privilege, and therefore focused almost entirely on self-control and acceptance of Nature, even when it expresses a parallel benevolence towards others.
One of the most appealing features of Rufus' thought is his certainty that Stoicism is for both men and women: "If men and women must be equally good in the virtue appropriate for a human - must, that is, be wise and self-controlled, and share in courage and justice - will we not educate both alike, and teach both in the same way the art by which a human would become good? We must do just that!" He acknowledges that, on average, men and women have different physical capacities, but suggests that this only applies to physical capacities, and even then with exceptions.
Ultimately, while Rufus doesn't say much about political justice, he occasionally sounds like a modern social justice-oriented progressive: "Surely to shun excess, to honor equality, to want to do good, and for a person, being human, to not want to harm human beings -- this is the most honorable lesson and it makes just people out of those who hear it." That's quite a tonal contrast from the stoicism of Marcus Aurelius, informed by great privilege, and therefore focused almost entirely on self-control and acceptance of Nature, even when it expresses a parallel benevolence towards others.
April 10, 2011
Along with Epictetus, Seneca and Marcus Aurelius, Musionius Rufus was one of the four great Roman Stoics. This is a no-nonsense translation of his lectures. Translations of Rufus are apparently quite rare. This one can be had from lulu.com.
January 27, 2022
If I made a tier list for the Stoics, Musonius would be 3rd after Seneca and before Epictetus.
From my readings so far, Musonius is probably the only Stoic dude who explicitly lectured on the role of women in philosophy.
Women have received from the gods the same reasoning power as men… Why would it be appropriate for men but not women to seek to live honorably and consider how to do so, which is what studying philosophy is?
All human affairs have a common basis and are therefore common to both men and women, and nothing has been exclusively reserved for either.
But, being a product of his time, he also detailed what roles are appropriate for women in society: the importance of fidelity in marriage, to not engage in sexual improprietaries, to exercise self-control. To be fair, he held the same expectations for both men and women (unlike Seneca and Epictetus who held them to different standards).
Some more lectures I found interesting:
Lecture 4 On whether daughters should get the same education as sons
Lecture 16 On whether parents must be obeyed in all things
Lecture 18 On Food
I have high praises for this translation: easy to read + poetic prose + just enough wry humour signature of Stoics (which, also, fleshes out Musonius' personality - he def seemed a more approachable guy than Epictetus)
This book being the only non-academic publication on Musonius' stoicism, really excellent stuff. Highly recommend.
From my readings so far, Musonius is probably the only Stoic dude who explicitly lectured on the role of women in philosophy.
Women have received from the gods the same reasoning power as men… Why would it be appropriate for men but not women to seek to live honorably and consider how to do so, which is what studying philosophy is?
All human affairs have a common basis and are therefore common to both men and women, and nothing has been exclusively reserved for either.
But, being a product of his time, he also detailed what roles are appropriate for women in society: the importance of fidelity in marriage, to not engage in sexual improprietaries, to exercise self-control. To be fair, he held the same expectations for both men and women (unlike Seneca and Epictetus who held them to different standards).
Some more lectures I found interesting:
Lecture 4 On whether daughters should get the same education as sons
Lecture 16 On whether parents must be obeyed in all things
Lecture 18 On Food
I have high praises for this translation: easy to read + poetic prose + just enough wry humour signature of Stoics (which, also, fleshes out Musonius' personality - he def seemed a more approachable guy than Epictetus)
This book being the only non-academic publication on Musonius' stoicism, really excellent stuff. Highly recommend.
October 27, 2020
Musonius Rufus is out of place his ideas feel like they belong to the last 200 years not the time of Augustus:
* Women and men have the same intellectual ability
* Women should study philosophy, but only in ways that are compatible with their motherly duties
* Marriage is a partnership with the purpose to build a family. Husband and wife should be friends, otherwise they probably will divorce.
* Sex is very bad unless its purpose is to beget children
https://sites.google.com/site/thestoi...
* Women and men have the same intellectual ability
* Women should study philosophy, but only in ways that are compatible with their motherly duties
* Marriage is a partnership with the purpose to build a family. Husband and wife should be friends, otherwise they probably will divorce.
* Sex is very bad unless its purpose is to beget children
https://sites.google.com/site/thestoi...
June 8, 2019
“If you work hard to do what is right, do not be upset by roadblocks; think about how many of the things in your life haven’t turned out as you wanted them to, but as they should have.”
“Indeed, we will hold that one man and one man only is truly wealthy—he who learns to want nothing in every circumstance.”
“If you accomplish something good with hard work, the labor passes quickly, but the good endures; If you do something shameful in pursuit of pleasure, the pleasure passes quickly, but the shame endures.”
“Indeed, we will hold that one man and one man only is truly wealthy—he who learns to want nothing in every circumstance.”
“If you accomplish something good with hard work, the labor passes quickly, but the good endures; If you do something shameful in pursuit of pleasure, the pleasure passes quickly, but the shame endures.”
November 18, 2018
As a student of Stoicism, I found this short book very delightful. It consists of lecture notes from Musonius Rufus. Although it was written almost 2,000 years, it feels as relevant as ever. Some of the themes: gender equality, obedience to parents, marriage.
I truly recommend this, even if you are not yet interested in philosophy.
I truly recommend this, even if you are not yet interested in philosophy.
August 24, 2020
So much easier to read than the Epictetus Art of Living and yet coveying similar principles. I had never heard of this philosopher until I downloaded the Kindle version of this work. I am glad I did.
December 31, 2023
fuck musonius rufus. all my homies hate musonius rufus.
,,
stoicismus je zaobaleny individualismus, který vas nuti si myslet, ze nic nezmuzete, ze mate vytrvat, myslet na sebe. well well well, kdo by kdy rekl, ze to mohou jen ignorantsti lidé a bili muzi, co mají to priviliegium.
ne milane, to ze budeš dělat ze neprobíhá nějaká válka te fakt nedela odolným mužem. jsi jen kokot
už nikdy nechci psát esej na starověkého/stredovekeho filozofa.
jsem jen naštvaná.
borec byl stoik, pro monogamní život a gay sex se mu nelíbil. a hl myšlenka stoicismu je žít v souladu s přírodou, hm kdo mu to řekne
(jo musonio! mels teda mít queer sex)
AH! mám dost
,,
stoicismus je zaobaleny individualismus, který vas nuti si myslet, ze nic nezmuzete, ze mate vytrvat, myslet na sebe. well well well, kdo by kdy rekl, ze to mohou jen ignorantsti lidé a bili muzi, co mají to priviliegium.
ne milane, to ze budeš dělat ze neprobíhá nějaká válka te fakt nedela odolným mužem. jsi jen kokot
už nikdy nechci psát esej na starověkého/stredovekeho filozofa.
jsem jen naštvaná.
borec byl stoik, pro monogamní život a gay sex se mu nelíbil. a hl myšlenka stoicismu je žít v souladu s přírodou, hm kdo mu to řekne
(jo musonio! mels teda mít queer sex)
AH! mám dost
February 1, 2023
«لا يمكنك أن تعيش اليوم بشكل جيد ما لم تعامله على أنه يومك الأخير»
Musonius Rufus
Musonius Rufus
February 27, 2021
Clear, crisp and concise.
The writings of Musonius Rufus are profound and strike the reader at a personal level. His writings may not consist of elegant prose like Seneca the Younger (the most prominent Stoic), but are much more detailed and deal with day to day problems of men, commonplace problems which everyone encounters, from the king right down to the daily wage laborer. In this book, most of the lectures were recorded verbatim as he delivered them, so seem much more realistic. The lectures really get one thinking, as I remember a day, when I read just 1 page of the lectures and spent a long time thinking through the arguments and how they apply on my own personal life.
As a Hindu, I feel this book very helpful to gain valuable insights to the ancient Greek tradition as well, and its commonalities with Hindu culture. Though it has been appropriated into Christian/Western culture, any Hindu will be much more at home with the writings of the Stoics than say a Jew or Christian or Muslim. The concept of living in harmony with nature seems to be closely aligned to the use of dharma in Sri Krishna's Bhagavata Gita. Also, the gods are beings who are presented as being ideal and virtuous, and worthy of emulation, not some tyrannical bearded sky-god, commanding to carry genocide of people not belonging to 'his religion'. In some places, the gods are also said to be the upholder of the eternal law (probably again the Greek usage of Dharma).
The writings of Musonius Rufus are profound and strike the reader at a personal level. His writings may not consist of elegant prose like Seneca the Younger (the most prominent Stoic), but are much more detailed and deal with day to day problems of men, commonplace problems which everyone encounters, from the king right down to the daily wage laborer. In this book, most of the lectures were recorded verbatim as he delivered them, so seem much more realistic. The lectures really get one thinking, as I remember a day, when I read just 1 page of the lectures and spent a long time thinking through the arguments and how they apply on my own personal life.
As a Hindu, I feel this book very helpful to gain valuable insights to the ancient Greek tradition as well, and its commonalities with Hindu culture. Though it has been appropriated into Christian/Western culture, any Hindu will be much more at home with the writings of the Stoics than say a Jew or Christian or Muslim. The concept of living in harmony with nature seems to be closely aligned to the use of dharma in Sri Krishna's Bhagavata Gita. Also, the gods are beings who are presented as being ideal and virtuous, and worthy of emulation, not some tyrannical bearded sky-god, commanding to carry genocide of people not belonging to 'his religion'. In some places, the gods are also said to be the upholder of the eternal law (probably again the Greek usage of Dharma).
August 15, 2016
Apparently he's one of the four great Roman stoics who taught Epictetus and presumably taught in Latin, not Greek, since he makes a pun in Latin. Like Socrates and Epictetus, he didn't himself write anything. He's surprisingly egalitarian, even feminist but in toto his philosophy is a bit negative, inhibited; you wouldn't think there was anything positive about goodness: it's all curbed by 'reason'. It's probably appropriate to living under absolutism. It's curiously anticipant of Xian thinking, like 'turn the other cheek' and 'lilies of the field'. And, like Xianity, dead against sex. He's worse than the pope. He's in favour of beards as natural though not of topknots. He thinks if your soul inclines you to death you should cut out the dead part of it though he doesn't explain how you'd do that. He doesn't go so far as to equate what he calls fear of death to actually a self-protective commitment to life that having a soul would entail.
November 4, 2018
A wandering compilation of mostly esoteric lectures and sayings from Stoicism's fourth sage. Having read Seneca, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius, I was interested to learn about the lesser known Musonius Rufus, Epictetus' teacher.
The lecture on beards alone makes the book worth reading, and the historical context is interesting (with references to Rome's great fire, Nero, and Galba), but after finishing, I was left with more questions about Musonius than answers.
There was surprisingly little deep exploration of what I think of as Stoic virtue, and a great deal of what sounded to me like Cynicism's spartan austerity. My guess is Musonius and his contemporary Seneca might have had some interesting debates about whether a Stoic could experience wealth and comfort without it compromising his or her virtue.
All in all, I enjoyed my exposure to Musonius, but was left still wondering how he became so influential. What might he have said in the lectures that haven't survived?
The lecture on beards alone makes the book worth reading, and the historical context is interesting (with references to Rome's great fire, Nero, and Galba), but after finishing, I was left with more questions about Musonius than answers.
There was surprisingly little deep exploration of what I think of as Stoic virtue, and a great deal of what sounded to me like Cynicism's spartan austerity. My guess is Musonius and his contemporary Seneca might have had some interesting debates about whether a Stoic could experience wealth and comfort without it compromising his or her virtue.
All in all, I enjoyed my exposure to Musonius, but was left still wondering how he became so influential. What might he have said in the lectures that haven't survived?
October 2, 2020
Besides the numerous letters and essays from Seneca; besides Meditations by Marcus Aurelius; besides the Enchiridion and the Discourses by Epictetus, there aren't many writings or sayings from actual, practicing ancient Stoics that have survived the ages. Cicero writes extensively of the Stoics as does Diogenes Laertius. We have bits of pieces from Chrysippus, Zeno and others, but not to the extent of the ones listed above.
We don't have bits and pieces of writings for Musonius Rufus, nor do we have a lot. This book is around 100 pages and doesn't take long to read. But in those few pages are bits of profound and sometimes controversial bits of wisdom.
For the practicing Stoic, this book should be on your shelf and read somewhat often. I plan to re-read this book a few more times and add my commentary to.
We don't have bits and pieces of writings for Musonius Rufus, nor do we have a lot. This book is around 100 pages and doesn't take long to read. But in those few pages are bits of profound and sometimes controversial bits of wisdom.
For the practicing Stoic, this book should be on your shelf and read somewhat often. I plan to re-read this book a few more times and add my commentary to.
October 14, 2021
This was my first experience reading any of the Stoics and I read it very slowly. The short passages make this easy to pick up and read occasionally. Anyway, many of Rufus' philosophies resonated with me, and many don't hold up to time. But this read did give me a great foundation for exploring the work of other philosophers. Also, Irvine's preface was excellent. Certainly one of my favorite parts of this version of the book.
December 25, 2017
A good read. Probably not the first book I'd recommend to someone who wants to learn about Stoicism, but a necessity for anyone who wants to go deeper. Especially interesting were Musonius Rufus views about women, which are lacking from other Stoic writings. Musonius believed that women should study philosophy and that it was wrong for men to have sex with their female slaves.
June 28, 2021
Sadly a lot of the lectures and sayings of Musonius Rufus were lost over the centuries. This book contains those that remain today. The book is in a similar format as Epictetus Enchiridion and contains a lot of the same topics as it does, which is no surprise given that Epictetus was a student of Rufus.
December 31, 2017
Simple and brilliant
What a wonderful book full of simple yet readily accessible wisdom, highlighted recommended for all people wishing to get the best out of life. Stoicism is joyous and for everyone.
What a wonderful book full of simple yet readily accessible wisdom, highlighted recommended for all people wishing to get the best out of life. Stoicism is joyous and for everyone.
July 8, 2021
The FORGOTTEN Stoic Philosopher
Misonius isnt preachy, but never dry. He was the most forward thinking (Socially) compared to the big three in Stoicism. If you have read any of Marcus, Seneca, or Epictetus, Musonius Rufus is an ABS must!
Misonius isnt preachy, but never dry. He was the most forward thinking (Socially) compared to the big three in Stoicism. If you have read any of Marcus, Seneca, or Epictetus, Musonius Rufus is an ABS must!
July 2, 2014
A good practical introduction to the thought of Musonius Rufus, "The Roman Socrates" . . .
May 8, 2015
Excellent book if you are looking for inspiration, or to refine your thinking about your goals and troubles.
September 18, 2015
Spare and clearly stated. If Seneca's epistles are a Stoic smorgasbord, Musonius Rufus' writings are Stoic field rations.
June 16, 2022
Rufus is one of the many great practitioners of stoicism. The translation being reviewed (by Cynthia King), is great, but should be read alongside the translation by Cora Lutz. Both are decent translations.
There is so much to learn from Rufus. He was a man beyond his time, given his emphasis on women education, vegetarianism, and discipline. There are lot of learnings in this book. For instance:
(a) His repeated affirmation of philosophy as a way of life. That to truly be a philosopher, one could not merely study, and determine what would be the right conduct, but in fact undertake. He repeatedly emphasizes the action and implemetation of our philosophical principles. Philosophical principles without practical application are useless. It is necessary to change, and conduct oneself according to our philosophical principles. The achievement of philosophy lies in its alteration of actual conduct.
(b) His emphasis on the principle, that pain, and discomfort is necessary for growth.
(c) About the importance of a healthy body, physical exercise, and the presence of some degree of manual labour in our lives.
(d) The importance, of not letting theory consume your life. He says, much like Max Planck, and Epiectetus, that once you have 'reasonably' concluded what your principles are, and if you have arrived at the conclusion that your reasoning is sound, then jump to taking action, and don't let theory, and learning more theories and reasons be the central face of your life.
(e) That participation in practical affairs, marriage, physical labour, and so on are compatible with philosophy, in fact he states that these aspects are necessary for a philosopher. This point is an extension of Rufus's general principle that you cannot be a philosopher without acting on your principles (otherwise you are not a philosopher/just a sophist). In fact, he says that the wisdom, and principles of philosophy are needed, and need to be practised to benefit the public/society. His arguments, are similar to the Mahayana Criticsm of Theravada Buddhism - Buddha could not have been so selfish and individualistic that he could have only practised ascetism, and not cared about participating, and improving the lives of the general society. Rufus, like the Mahayana school of buddhism believed that to live a solitary life, is a selfish life.
- I agree, this is the most important, unkown, unexplored part of stoicism - it doesn't matter what you feel, or whether you want to hide in a cave, what you do need to do is undertake virtuous conduct, and contribute to soceity.
(f) Rufus on Relationships - you cannot be in a healthy relationship without possessing the practised traits of self-control, and discipline. Relationships necessarily requires a focus on the needs and desires of an individual other than you. How can you focus on their need, and well-being if you are so caught up in your own pleasures, gratification and desires?
(g) Rufus on parents - obey them if their commands/advice is reasonable and virtuous. If it is stupid, and wicked, the ignore it. You cannot blindly follow them, irrespective of what they say.
(h) Very important clarification of the phrase "according to nature".
- As practitioners of stocisim might recall, Marcus and stoic philosophers apart from Rufus, keep chiding themselves, and their students to act "according to nature". or in words to act virtuously Nietzsche criticises the stoics on this aspect. He says that stoic tell themselves to act virtuously by acting according to nature, but this represents a very distorted understanding of nature, since nature is cruel and arbitrary. Nietzsche essentially criticises the stoics for being arrogant enough to paint nature in accordance of their own values. In other words, the stoics don't see nature for what it is, but rather paint the picture of nature in accordance with their own values. Nietzsche is incorrect. As one researches more into stoicism, and reads the works of stoics other than the big 3 philosophers, such as the author, one realizes that the stoic sexplained what they meant by "according to nature", which they intended to convey was according to their "own"/human nature.
Rufus believed that humans have an inborn capacity, and tendency towards virtue, and therefore to act virtuously was to act in accordance with (their own) nature. He brings in a point of design, and purpose here. just as the purpose of dogs, and horses is not to drown themselves in pleasure/cocacine, and so on, similarly since humans are endowned towards virtue, and reason, therefore for them to act in accordance with nature, is to act in accordance with 'own'/'human' nature - which is virtue.
(i) Rufus devotes not one, but two lectures on appetite, and food. His point is simple that the ability of individuals to exercise self control in all aspects of their life is a reflection of their ability to control the most basic and fundamental aspect of self control - controlling one's appetite. Until one does not control their appetite, they cannot control exercise satisfactory levels of self-control in other aspects of their life. He makes several prescriptions with respect to food:
i. Don't eat meat.
ii. Don't fuss. Eat what is convenient, and more importantly what is nourishing. Give priority to healthy, and not tasty food.
iii. Remember, that slipping up once, merely reinforces slipping up again. Each bad act increases probability of another. Rs Comment: I agree, when one says "only one more" - it is not that he is extinguishing his desire, rather he is only extinguishing his most immediate desire, and in fact creating a need for repetition.
iv. Eat proportionately, and frugally, leave food for others.
j. Develop the ability to tolerate seasonal extremes - similar point as David Sinclair, and Ray Cronise.
J. Be Frugal - save, and spend the money saved on others (similar to Singer's effective Altruism).
K. Never feel good about other people's mistakes - his reasoning is simple, it is quite possible that you have the same mistaken impulses and faulty reasoning, it is merely that you didn't have the opportunity to conduct the same mistakes. Good example in the present context - maybe if you were in Modi's place, you would have also committed the mistake of Demonetisation, maybe the only reason you haven't committed that mistake is that you haven't got the opportunity to make the mistake - you haven't become the prime minister.
Rs comment: I agree, the question one should ask themselves is not whether they have done the same as some famous historical figure, who made a mistake, rather each individual should ask themselves, that out of all the opportunities to make mistakes/decisions, they have had to make, how many of them/proportion of them have they committed mistakes in. If your mistakes are small, it is irrelevant, the question is out of your opportunities, what percentage have you fucked up.
Maybe, the only reason you haven't crashed an expensive Ferrari is because you didn't own one. Maybe you wouldn't gloat over the mistake of the individual who did crash a Ferrari, if you had the same opportunity, where you also fucked up.
There are several other points of advice. I will merely end with some quotes of his
"If you accomplish something good with hard work, the labor passes quickly, but the good endures; if you do something shameful in pursuit of pleasure, the pleasure passes quickly, but the shame endures."
" You won't need to don an old cloak, go around without a chiton, have long hair, or behave eccentrically. This is what we expect from people who want to be taken for philosophers, but studying philosophy does not require such things. Real philosophers need only contemplate what it is to do the right thing
" To Musonius, practice seemed to be more effective, and speaking in support of his opinion, he asked one of those present the following question: " Suppose that there are two physicians, one able to discourse very brilliantly about the art of medicine but having no experience in taking care of the sick, and the other quite incapable of speaking but experienced in treating his patients according to correct medical theory. Which one," he asked, "would you choose to attend you if you were ill? " He replied that he would choose the doctor who had experience in healing. Musonius then continued," Well, then, let us take another example of two men. One has sailed a great deal and served as pilot on many boats, the other one has sailed very little and has never acted as pilot. If the one who had never piloted a ship should speak most ably on the methods of navigation, and the other very poorly and ineffectively, which one would you employ as pilot if you were going on a voyage? " The man
said he would take the experienced pilot. Again Musonius said, " Take the last of two musicians. One knows the theory of music and discourses on it most convincingly but is unable to sing or play the harp or the lyre; the other is inferior in theory but is proficient in playing the harp and the lyre and in singing as well. To which one would you give a position as musician, or which one would you like to have as teacher for a child who does not know music? " The man answered that he would choose the one who was skilled in practice. "Well, then," said Musonius, "that being the case, in the matter of temperance and self-control, is it not much better to be self-controlled and temperate in all one's actions than to be able to say what one ought to do?" Here too the young man agreed that it is of less significance and importance to speak well about self-control than to practice self-control "
" How, indeed, could a person immediately become temperate if he only knew that one must not be overcome by pleasures, but was quite unpracticed in withstanding pleasures? How could one become just when he had learned that one must love fairness but had never exercised himself in avoidance of selfishness and greed? How could we acquire courage if we had merely learned that the things which seem dreadful to the average person are not to be feared, but had no experience in showing courage in the face of such things? How could we become prudent if we had come to recognize what things are truly good and what evil, but had never had practice in despising things which only seem good? Therefore upon the learning of the lessons appropriate to each and every excellence, practical training must follow invariably, if indeed from the lessons we have learned we hope to derive any benefit "
Additionally, Rufus' comment on the phrase "in accordance with nature" whcih Nietzsche should have read:
" Another time, when an old man asked what would be the best thing to have on hand during old age, Musonius said, the very same thing that is best to have during one's youth: living the right way and in accordance with nature. To best understand what this involves, it helps to understand the nature of human beings. We did not come into existence for pleasure. Nor did horses, dogs, or cows, all of which are inferior to human beings, come into existence for pleasure. We would not consider that a horse reaches its potential by merely eating, drinking, mating without restraint, and doing none of the things which are suitable for a horse. Nor would a dog reach its potential if it indulged in all sorts of pleasure like the horse and did none of the things for which dogs are thought to be good. Nor would any other creature that, though glutted with pleasures, fails to function in a manner appropriate to it. Thus, nothing could be said to be living according to nature except the thing that demonstrates its virtue through the actions which it performs in accordance with its own nature. The nature of each creature determines, after all, the virtue characteristic of it "
There is so much to learn from Rufus. He was a man beyond his time, given his emphasis on women education, vegetarianism, and discipline. There are lot of learnings in this book. For instance:
(a) His repeated affirmation of philosophy as a way of life. That to truly be a philosopher, one could not merely study, and determine what would be the right conduct, but in fact undertake. He repeatedly emphasizes the action and implemetation of our philosophical principles. Philosophical principles without practical application are useless. It is necessary to change, and conduct oneself according to our philosophical principles. The achievement of philosophy lies in its alteration of actual conduct.
(b) His emphasis on the principle, that pain, and discomfort is necessary for growth.
(c) About the importance of a healthy body, physical exercise, and the presence of some degree of manual labour in our lives.
(d) The importance, of not letting theory consume your life. He says, much like Max Planck, and Epiectetus, that once you have 'reasonably' concluded what your principles are, and if you have arrived at the conclusion that your reasoning is sound, then jump to taking action, and don't let theory, and learning more theories and reasons be the central face of your life.
(e) That participation in practical affairs, marriage, physical labour, and so on are compatible with philosophy, in fact he states that these aspects are necessary for a philosopher. This point is an extension of Rufus's general principle that you cannot be a philosopher without acting on your principles (otherwise you are not a philosopher/just a sophist). In fact, he says that the wisdom, and principles of philosophy are needed, and need to be practised to benefit the public/society. His arguments, are similar to the Mahayana Criticsm of Theravada Buddhism - Buddha could not have been so selfish and individualistic that he could have only practised ascetism, and not cared about participating, and improving the lives of the general society. Rufus, like the Mahayana school of buddhism believed that to live a solitary life, is a selfish life.
- I agree, this is the most important, unkown, unexplored part of stoicism - it doesn't matter what you feel, or whether you want to hide in a cave, what you do need to do is undertake virtuous conduct, and contribute to soceity.
(f) Rufus on Relationships - you cannot be in a healthy relationship without possessing the practised traits of self-control, and discipline. Relationships necessarily requires a focus on the needs and desires of an individual other than you. How can you focus on their need, and well-being if you are so caught up in your own pleasures, gratification and desires?
(g) Rufus on parents - obey them if their commands/advice is reasonable and virtuous. If it is stupid, and wicked, the ignore it. You cannot blindly follow them, irrespective of what they say.
(h) Very important clarification of the phrase "according to nature".
- As practitioners of stocisim might recall, Marcus and stoic philosophers apart from Rufus, keep chiding themselves, and their students to act "according to nature". or in words to act virtuously Nietzsche criticises the stoics on this aspect. He says that stoic tell themselves to act virtuously by acting according to nature, but this represents a very distorted understanding of nature, since nature is cruel and arbitrary. Nietzsche essentially criticises the stoics for being arrogant enough to paint nature in accordance of their own values. In other words, the stoics don't see nature for what it is, but rather paint the picture of nature in accordance with their own values. Nietzsche is incorrect. As one researches more into stoicism, and reads the works of stoics other than the big 3 philosophers, such as the author, one realizes that the stoic sexplained what they meant by "according to nature", which they intended to convey was according to their "own"/human nature.
Rufus believed that humans have an inborn capacity, and tendency towards virtue, and therefore to act virtuously was to act in accordance with (their own) nature. He brings in a point of design, and purpose here. just as the purpose of dogs, and horses is not to drown themselves in pleasure/cocacine, and so on, similarly since humans are endowned towards virtue, and reason, therefore for them to act in accordance with nature, is to act in accordance with 'own'/'human' nature - which is virtue.
(i) Rufus devotes not one, but two lectures on appetite, and food. His point is simple that the ability of individuals to exercise self control in all aspects of their life is a reflection of their ability to control the most basic and fundamental aspect of self control - controlling one's appetite. Until one does not control their appetite, they cannot control exercise satisfactory levels of self-control in other aspects of their life. He makes several prescriptions with respect to food:
i. Don't eat meat.
ii. Don't fuss. Eat what is convenient, and more importantly what is nourishing. Give priority to healthy, and not tasty food.
iii. Remember, that slipping up once, merely reinforces slipping up again. Each bad act increases probability of another. Rs Comment: I agree, when one says "only one more" - it is not that he is extinguishing his desire, rather he is only extinguishing his most immediate desire, and in fact creating a need for repetition.
iv. Eat proportionately, and frugally, leave food for others.
j. Develop the ability to tolerate seasonal extremes - similar point as David Sinclair, and Ray Cronise.
J. Be Frugal - save, and spend the money saved on others (similar to Singer's effective Altruism).
K. Never feel good about other people's mistakes - his reasoning is simple, it is quite possible that you have the same mistaken impulses and faulty reasoning, it is merely that you didn't have the opportunity to conduct the same mistakes. Good example in the present context - maybe if you were in Modi's place, you would have also committed the mistake of Demonetisation, maybe the only reason you haven't committed that mistake is that you haven't got the opportunity to make the mistake - you haven't become the prime minister.
Rs comment: I agree, the question one should ask themselves is not whether they have done the same as some famous historical figure, who made a mistake, rather each individual should ask themselves, that out of all the opportunities to make mistakes/decisions, they have had to make, how many of them/proportion of them have they committed mistakes in. If your mistakes are small, it is irrelevant, the question is out of your opportunities, what percentage have you fucked up.
Maybe, the only reason you haven't crashed an expensive Ferrari is because you didn't own one. Maybe you wouldn't gloat over the mistake of the individual who did crash a Ferrari, if you had the same opportunity, where you also fucked up.
There are several other points of advice. I will merely end with some quotes of his
"If you accomplish something good with hard work, the labor passes quickly, but the good endures; if you do something shameful in pursuit of pleasure, the pleasure passes quickly, but the shame endures."
" You won't need to don an old cloak, go around without a chiton, have long hair, or behave eccentrically. This is what we expect from people who want to be taken for philosophers, but studying philosophy does not require such things. Real philosophers need only contemplate what it is to do the right thing
" To Musonius, practice seemed to be more effective, and speaking in support of his opinion, he asked one of those present the following question: " Suppose that there are two physicians, one able to discourse very brilliantly about the art of medicine but having no experience in taking care of the sick, and the other quite incapable of speaking but experienced in treating his patients according to correct medical theory. Which one," he asked, "would you choose to attend you if you were ill? " He replied that he would choose the doctor who had experience in healing. Musonius then continued," Well, then, let us take another example of two men. One has sailed a great deal and served as pilot on many boats, the other one has sailed very little and has never acted as pilot. If the one who had never piloted a ship should speak most ably on the methods of navigation, and the other very poorly and ineffectively, which one would you employ as pilot if you were going on a voyage? " The man
said he would take the experienced pilot. Again Musonius said, " Take the last of two musicians. One knows the theory of music and discourses on it most convincingly but is unable to sing or play the harp or the lyre; the other is inferior in theory but is proficient in playing the harp and the lyre and in singing as well. To which one would you give a position as musician, or which one would you like to have as teacher for a child who does not know music? " The man answered that he would choose the one who was skilled in practice. "Well, then," said Musonius, "that being the case, in the matter of temperance and self-control, is it not much better to be self-controlled and temperate in all one's actions than to be able to say what one ought to do?" Here too the young man agreed that it is of less significance and importance to speak well about self-control than to practice self-control "
" How, indeed, could a person immediately become temperate if he only knew that one must not be overcome by pleasures, but was quite unpracticed in withstanding pleasures? How could one become just when he had learned that one must love fairness but had never exercised himself in avoidance of selfishness and greed? How could we acquire courage if we had merely learned that the things which seem dreadful to the average person are not to be feared, but had no experience in showing courage in the face of such things? How could we become prudent if we had come to recognize what things are truly good and what evil, but had never had practice in despising things which only seem good? Therefore upon the learning of the lessons appropriate to each and every excellence, practical training must follow invariably, if indeed from the lessons we have learned we hope to derive any benefit "
Additionally, Rufus' comment on the phrase "in accordance with nature" whcih Nietzsche should have read:
" Another time, when an old man asked what would be the best thing to have on hand during old age, Musonius said, the very same thing that is best to have during one's youth: living the right way and in accordance with nature. To best understand what this involves, it helps to understand the nature of human beings. We did not come into existence for pleasure. Nor did horses, dogs, or cows, all of which are inferior to human beings, come into existence for pleasure. We would not consider that a horse reaches its potential by merely eating, drinking, mating without restraint, and doing none of the things which are suitable for a horse. Nor would a dog reach its potential if it indulged in all sorts of pleasure like the horse and did none of the things for which dogs are thought to be good. Nor would any other creature that, though glutted with pleasures, fails to function in a manner appropriate to it. Thus, nothing could be said to be living according to nature except the thing that demonstrates its virtue through the actions which it performs in accordance with its own nature. The nature of each creature determines, after all, the virtue characteristic of it "
November 4, 2023
Very interesting book from a stoic you do not hear referenced often, but was central to the Roman school of Stoicism.
What I liked about this book was that Musonius’ lectures are spoken as advice, how to live as a stoic, act as a stoic, reason as one. It is less theory and more practice.
Some interesting topics he touches on include:
- Debating with few, full-proof arguments as opposed to several unreasonable ones.
- Women’s rights, and why as humans they reason no differently to men.
- How to react to assault, understanding that it is shameful to be the assaulter, not the assaulted.
- On pain, and how nothing comes easy
- On obedience, and how being disobedient is not determined by whether you follow orders, but rather, whether you follow the just ones and ignore the unjust.
- On food, and how mastering one’s appetite is to master self control.
I have given this 4 stars as although insightful, some points are for it’s time (the role of a king, of a woman, of a household), but is nonetheless interesting to see how stoics of the time thought.
My favourite quote: If you work hard to do what is right, do not be upset by the roadblocks; think about how many things in your life turned out not as you wanted, but as they should.
What I liked about this book was that Musonius’ lectures are spoken as advice, how to live as a stoic, act as a stoic, reason as one. It is less theory and more practice.
Some interesting topics he touches on include:
- Debating with few, full-proof arguments as opposed to several unreasonable ones.
- Women’s rights, and why as humans they reason no differently to men.
- How to react to assault, understanding that it is shameful to be the assaulter, not the assaulted.
- On pain, and how nothing comes easy
- On obedience, and how being disobedient is not determined by whether you follow orders, but rather, whether you follow the just ones and ignore the unjust.
- On food, and how mastering one’s appetite is to master self control.
I have given this 4 stars as although insightful, some points are for it’s time (the role of a king, of a woman, of a household), but is nonetheless interesting to see how stoics of the time thought.
My favourite quote: If you work hard to do what is right, do not be upset by the roadblocks; think about how many things in your life turned out not as you wanted, but as they should.
November 22, 2025
This is a short book of lectures and sayings of Gaius Musonius Rufus, a Stoic philosopher of the first century A.D. (Born 25 AD; Died 95 AD). He was a teacher to Epictetus and was one of the four most notable Stoic philosophers of the Roman Empire, along with Seneca, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius. The lectures in this volume are consistent with Stoic philosophy as commonly understood, emphasizing a life seeking virtue and guided by rationality to live consistently with the demands of the state of the world as it is. This included a downplaying of the pursuit of material goods and pleasures and the avoidance of pain, as well as a moral focus on controlling what an individual is able to control and not being distracted by what cannot be controlled. Most of the materials in this work are individually oriented and have to do with the teaching of students, especially those attempting to learn how to be philosophers. Most of the lectures are short (1-3 pages) and seem to have been recorded from the notes of students. These do not read like fully articulated philosophical arguments.
May 9, 2023
Cba reviewing properly but it had lots of wisdom in it. -1.5 for the shirk, +.5 for the anti-qawmu Lut.
August 24, 2024
Lectures and fragments from the teacher of Epictetus
Some of the most beloved modern Stoic concepts are discussed here: the dichotomy of control, living in accordance with nature, and Amor Fati, among others.
Some of the most beloved modern Stoic concepts are discussed here: the dichotomy of control, living in accordance with nature, and Amor Fati, among others.
November 29, 2025
At times feels like a very modern ethics, e.g.: Surely to shun excess, to honor equality, to want to do good, and for a person, being
human, to not want to harm human beings-this is the most honorable lesson and it makes just people out of those who learn it.
Which I suppose are based on Christian-Judeo ethics, which of course have a stoic origin…
A collection of other parallels with Christianity:
It’s insane seeing the stoic origins of Christian ideas about sex. These ideas are clearly built on top of stoic principles
- the idea that sex outside of marriage / not procreative is “wrong and unlawful”. because it’s only for pleasure = stoic idea that virtue is the goal of life, not pleasure
- that homosexual sex is contrary to nature = stoic idea that virtue is living in accordance with nature
- Adultery is bad = stoic idea that you should value self-control > pleasure
Love for neighbour also stoic: “a virtuous person displays love for his fellow human beings, as well as goodness, justice, kindness, and concern for his neighbour”
Should procreate to support the city, therefore forbid inducing miscarriage or preventing conception
Even when considering the gods, we are unable to think of characteristics better than intelligence and justice, or than courage and self-control. Therefore, a god, because he possesses these virtues, is not overcome by pleasure or greed; he is stronger than desire, envy, and jealousy; he is magnanimous and both a benefactor to and a lover of humanity. We believe that a god has these attributes; therefore, a human being, inasmuch as he is a copy of a god, must be considered to be like a god
when he acts in accordance with nature. It is then that a human being should be envied. And because he is envied, he should be blessed as well, for none but the blessed do we envy.
Disinterest in wealth: “No one can acquire many things without being unjust.”
Divine law: “ Philosophy tells us that when we mingle the human and the divine in law and justice, we are destined by nature to. gain perfection and be regulated and blessed by the same law and justice as the divine. Because our behavior will be formed by correct doctrine, we will live
happily.”
Notes:
Editor’s preface:
As practiced by the Greeks, Stoicism had three components: logic, physics, and ethics. The Stoics' interest in logic was a consequence of their belief that man is by nature a rational animal: by studying logic
the Stoics sought to make the best use of their reasoning ability. The Stoics also had another, more pragmatic reason to study logic: students attended their schools in part so they could develop their persuasive
abilities. Stoic physics was concerned not only with explaining the nature of the world around them but with explaining their relationship to the gods. And finally, Stoic ethics was not ethics in the modern sense
of the word-it was not, that is, concerned with questions of moral right and wrong. It was instead concerned with what one must do to have a good life.
According to the Stoics, the best way to have a good life is to pursue virtue, and the best way to pursue virtue's to fulfill the function for which the gods created us: what we should seek to do, the Stoics said, is "live in accordance with nature." Since the gods gave us reasoning ability-and in dong so set us apart from other animals the Stoics concluded that if we want to have a good life, we need to behave in a rational manner, and this in turn means that we need to learn how to control our emotions. Indeed, according to the Stoics, a person whose emotions are out of control-who is given to fits of anger, fear, envy, lust, or despair--is little better than a beast. Such a person is unlikely to have a good life.
The Greek Stoics, as we have seen, studied logic, physics, and ethics; the Roman Stoics, though, were almost exclusively interested in ethics. They concerned themselves with what we should do if we wish to have a good life and consequently thought long and hard about the negative emotions that disrupt our tranquility in everyday living. As a result, their writings are full of advice on how to prevent ourselves from experiencing negative emotions and on how, when our attempts at prevention fail, we can extinguish these emotions. Some of the advice is philosophical: by choosing the right values, they argue, we can dramatically improve our chances of attaining tranquility. Most of the advice, though, is psychological in nature. Thus, we find Seneca explaining at length how to avoid getting upset when someone insults us and how to overcome the grief we might experience on the death of a relative.
The Stoics themselves differed, though, in the extent to which they thought we should enjoy life. Musonius appears to have
been relatively austere. He counsels against sex outside of marriage (Lecture 12); he is, however, an advocate of marriage (Lectures 13 and 14). He counsels us to eat and live simply (Lectures 18-20). He also thinks that, besides not allowing ourselves to become slaves to comfort, we should go out of our way to cause ourselves needless discom-
fort (Lectures 6 and 19). We should, for example, make a point of underdressing for cold weather, going shoeless, or sleeping on a hard bed. The goal in doing this is not to inflict pain on ourselves but, paradoxically, to increase our enjoyment of life.
The silence in question would be the result of the lecture revealing to the members of the audience their shortcomings as human beings. And this, according to Musonius, should be one of the primary objectives
of philosophy: to reveal to us our shortcomings so we can overcome them and thereby live a good life.
Translators notes:
Tim Whitmarsh, in his introduction to a general study of the period, gives rea-
sons for this interest:
The Greek literary culture of the first three centuries of this era is no longer viewed as an embarrassing epilogue. It is not just that this is the period of Greek history from which we have the most material .... Aesthetic values have changed: the Romantic obsession with "originality" and "inspiration" has been challenged by newer emphases on "creative imitation," and indeed (under the influence of postmodernism) the reception, replication, and intertextual refashioning of earlier literary works. Political priorities have also
shifted: that Greeks of that period were under Roman occupation is now more likely to inspire sympathetic analyses of colonial politics than dismissive sniffs at a weak and decadent culture. Finally, with all its abundant and frequently exuberant prose literature, the Greek world of the early empire is a wonderful source for those inspired by newer intellectual methodologies, predominantly social and cultural anthropology, gender studies, cultural studies, and the history of sexuality.
The text:
And the more intelligent the listener is, the fewer proofs that listener will need and the more quickly he will agree to the discussion's main point, at least if it is sound. The person who requires a detailed argument even where the evidence is clear or who wants things which could be proved by few arguments to be demonstrated to him in many is completely absurd and dull.
But by Zeus, he must seek to hear not many proofs of true things, but rather plain ones, and in his life he must follow whatever
lessons he is persuaded are true. Only by exhibiting actions in harmony with the sound words which he has received will anyone be helped by philosophy.
It stands her in good stead to have learned to think nobly and to consider death not an evil and life not a good, and at the same time it stands her in good stead not to turn pain aside and not to pursue lack of pain above all.
All human affairs have a common basis and are therefore common to both men and women, and nothing has been exclusively reserved for either. Some things are more suited to one nature and some to the other; for this reason some things are called men's, others women's.
Surely to shun excess, to honor equality, to want to do good, and for a person, being
human, to not want to harm human beings-this is the most honorable lesson and it makes just people out of those who learn it.
He believes that the shame comes not in being insulted but in behaving in an insulting manner. What wrong does the person who experiences wrong do? The person who does wrong, however, is thereby shamed.
Indeed, plotting how to bite back some-
one who bites and to return evil against the one who ftrst did evil is characteristic of a beast, not a man. A beast is not able to comprehend that many of the wrongs done to people are done out of ignorance and a lack of understanding.
Those who want to do philosophy properly do not need many words. Nor do young people need to absorb the multitude of theories that we see sophists inflating themselves with theories that truly are enough to consume a man's life. Those who do farm work can learn the most essential and useful things, especially if they will not be working all the time but can take some breaks.
thoughtless people pursue things that only seem to be good, just as insane people confuse black things with white. Thoughdessness is very close to insanity.
It is not possible to live well today unless you treat it as your last day.
Why do we criticize tyrants, when in fact we are much worse than they are? We have the same inclinations as they do; we just lack opportunities to act on them.
Choose to die well while you can; wait too long, and it might become impossible to do so.
Kings soon perish who make a habit of justifying their actions to their subjects by saying "I have the power" rather than "It is my duty."
Believing that we will be scorned by others unless we destroy every enemy we meet is characteristic of extremely ignoble and mindless men. We say that a contemptible person is marked by his inability to harm others, but such a person is much more marked by his inability to help them.
Are we not making mistakes if we use impressions at random, in vain, and by chance; if we do not pay attention to reason, proof, or even a quibble; in a word, if we do not carefully analyze what is to our advantage and what is not?
Someone once tried to encourage me by quoting a saying of Musonius: "Musonius," he said, "when he wanted to encourage someone who was tired and who had given up, upbraided him and said: 'Why do you stand there? What are you looking for? Do you expect the god himself to come and speak to you? Cut out the dead part of your soul, and you will recognize the god.' "
human, to not want to harm human beings-this is the most honorable lesson and it makes just people out of those who learn it.
Which I suppose are based on Christian-Judeo ethics, which of course have a stoic origin…
A collection of other parallels with Christianity:
It’s insane seeing the stoic origins of Christian ideas about sex. These ideas are clearly built on top of stoic principles
- the idea that sex outside of marriage / not procreative is “wrong and unlawful”. because it’s only for pleasure = stoic idea that virtue is the goal of life, not pleasure
- that homosexual sex is contrary to nature = stoic idea that virtue is living in accordance with nature
- Adultery is bad = stoic idea that you should value self-control > pleasure
Love for neighbour also stoic: “a virtuous person displays love for his fellow human beings, as well as goodness, justice, kindness, and concern for his neighbour”
Should procreate to support the city, therefore forbid inducing miscarriage or preventing conception
Even when considering the gods, we are unable to think of characteristics better than intelligence and justice, or than courage and self-control. Therefore, a god, because he possesses these virtues, is not overcome by pleasure or greed; he is stronger than desire, envy, and jealousy; he is magnanimous and both a benefactor to and a lover of humanity. We believe that a god has these attributes; therefore, a human being, inasmuch as he is a copy of a god, must be considered to be like a god
when he acts in accordance with nature. It is then that a human being should be envied. And because he is envied, he should be blessed as well, for none but the blessed do we envy.
Disinterest in wealth: “No one can acquire many things without being unjust.”
Divine law: “ Philosophy tells us that when we mingle the human and the divine in law and justice, we are destined by nature to. gain perfection and be regulated and blessed by the same law and justice as the divine. Because our behavior will be formed by correct doctrine, we will live
happily.”
Notes:
Editor’s preface:
As practiced by the Greeks, Stoicism had three components: logic, physics, and ethics. The Stoics' interest in logic was a consequence of their belief that man is by nature a rational animal: by studying logic
the Stoics sought to make the best use of their reasoning ability. The Stoics also had another, more pragmatic reason to study logic: students attended their schools in part so they could develop their persuasive
abilities. Stoic physics was concerned not only with explaining the nature of the world around them but with explaining their relationship to the gods. And finally, Stoic ethics was not ethics in the modern sense
of the word-it was not, that is, concerned with questions of moral right and wrong. It was instead concerned with what one must do to have a good life.
According to the Stoics, the best way to have a good life is to pursue virtue, and the best way to pursue virtue's to fulfill the function for which the gods created us: what we should seek to do, the Stoics said, is "live in accordance with nature." Since the gods gave us reasoning ability-and in dong so set us apart from other animals the Stoics concluded that if we want to have a good life, we need to behave in a rational manner, and this in turn means that we need to learn how to control our emotions. Indeed, according to the Stoics, a person whose emotions are out of control-who is given to fits of anger, fear, envy, lust, or despair--is little better than a beast. Such a person is unlikely to have a good life.
The Greek Stoics, as we have seen, studied logic, physics, and ethics; the Roman Stoics, though, were almost exclusively interested in ethics. They concerned themselves with what we should do if we wish to have a good life and consequently thought long and hard about the negative emotions that disrupt our tranquility in everyday living. As a result, their writings are full of advice on how to prevent ourselves from experiencing negative emotions and on how, when our attempts at prevention fail, we can extinguish these emotions. Some of the advice is philosophical: by choosing the right values, they argue, we can dramatically improve our chances of attaining tranquility. Most of the advice, though, is psychological in nature. Thus, we find Seneca explaining at length how to avoid getting upset when someone insults us and how to overcome the grief we might experience on the death of a relative.
The Stoics themselves differed, though, in the extent to which they thought we should enjoy life. Musonius appears to have
been relatively austere. He counsels against sex outside of marriage (Lecture 12); he is, however, an advocate of marriage (Lectures 13 and 14). He counsels us to eat and live simply (Lectures 18-20). He also thinks that, besides not allowing ourselves to become slaves to comfort, we should go out of our way to cause ourselves needless discom-
fort (Lectures 6 and 19). We should, for example, make a point of underdressing for cold weather, going shoeless, or sleeping on a hard bed. The goal in doing this is not to inflict pain on ourselves but, paradoxically, to increase our enjoyment of life.
The silence in question would be the result of the lecture revealing to the members of the audience their shortcomings as human beings. And this, according to Musonius, should be one of the primary objectives
of philosophy: to reveal to us our shortcomings so we can overcome them and thereby live a good life.
Translators notes:
Tim Whitmarsh, in his introduction to a general study of the period, gives rea-
sons for this interest:
The Greek literary culture of the first three centuries of this era is no longer viewed as an embarrassing epilogue. It is not just that this is the period of Greek history from which we have the most material .... Aesthetic values have changed: the Romantic obsession with "originality" and "inspiration" has been challenged by newer emphases on "creative imitation," and indeed (under the influence of postmodernism) the reception, replication, and intertextual refashioning of earlier literary works. Political priorities have also
shifted: that Greeks of that period were under Roman occupation is now more likely to inspire sympathetic analyses of colonial politics than dismissive sniffs at a weak and decadent culture. Finally, with all its abundant and frequently exuberant prose literature, the Greek world of the early empire is a wonderful source for those inspired by newer intellectual methodologies, predominantly social and cultural anthropology, gender studies, cultural studies, and the history of sexuality.
The text:
And the more intelligent the listener is, the fewer proofs that listener will need and the more quickly he will agree to the discussion's main point, at least if it is sound. The person who requires a detailed argument even where the evidence is clear or who wants things which could be proved by few arguments to be demonstrated to him in many is completely absurd and dull.
But by Zeus, he must seek to hear not many proofs of true things, but rather plain ones, and in his life he must follow whatever
lessons he is persuaded are true. Only by exhibiting actions in harmony with the sound words which he has received will anyone be helped by philosophy.
It stands her in good stead to have learned to think nobly and to consider death not an evil and life not a good, and at the same time it stands her in good stead not to turn pain aside and not to pursue lack of pain above all.
All human affairs have a common basis and are therefore common to both men and women, and nothing has been exclusively reserved for either. Some things are more suited to one nature and some to the other; for this reason some things are called men's, others women's.
Surely to shun excess, to honor equality, to want to do good, and for a person, being
human, to not want to harm human beings-this is the most honorable lesson and it makes just people out of those who learn it.
He believes that the shame comes not in being insulted but in behaving in an insulting manner. What wrong does the person who experiences wrong do? The person who does wrong, however, is thereby shamed.
Indeed, plotting how to bite back some-
one who bites and to return evil against the one who ftrst did evil is characteristic of a beast, not a man. A beast is not able to comprehend that many of the wrongs done to people are done out of ignorance and a lack of understanding.
Those who want to do philosophy properly do not need many words. Nor do young people need to absorb the multitude of theories that we see sophists inflating themselves with theories that truly are enough to consume a man's life. Those who do farm work can learn the most essential and useful things, especially if they will not be working all the time but can take some breaks.
thoughtless people pursue things that only seem to be good, just as insane people confuse black things with white. Thoughdessness is very close to insanity.
It is not possible to live well today unless you treat it as your last day.
Why do we criticize tyrants, when in fact we are much worse than they are? We have the same inclinations as they do; we just lack opportunities to act on them.
Choose to die well while you can; wait too long, and it might become impossible to do so.
Kings soon perish who make a habit of justifying their actions to their subjects by saying "I have the power" rather than "It is my duty."
Believing that we will be scorned by others unless we destroy every enemy we meet is characteristic of extremely ignoble and mindless men. We say that a contemptible person is marked by his inability to harm others, but such a person is much more marked by his inability to help them.
Are we not making mistakes if we use impressions at random, in vain, and by chance; if we do not pay attention to reason, proof, or even a quibble; in a word, if we do not carefully analyze what is to our advantage and what is not?
Someone once tried to encourage me by quoting a saying of Musonius: "Musonius," he said, "when he wanted to encourage someone who was tired and who had given up, upbraided him and said: 'Why do you stand there? What are you looking for? Do you expect the god himself to come and speak to you? Cut out the dead part of your soul, and you will recognize the god.' "
September 5, 2018
О чем книга в целом. Книга состоит из кусков лекций и цитат, которые собрали ученики философа Мусония Руфа. Этот древнеримский философ-стоик жил в I веке н.э. и не писал книг, поэтому сохранились только фрагменты его лекций на различные темы. Мусоний Руф не рассуждает об абстрактных вещах и о том, как устроен мир, а говорит в своих лекциях как должен жить человек и вести себя в конкретных ситуациях. Вообще, стоицизм можно назвать "религией без бога". Эта философия сильно влияла на самую прогрессивную часть человечества того времени в течении примерно 500 лет до принятия христианства в Риме и запретом всех философов. Большинство принципов стоицизма универсальны и совсем не устарели.
Главные выводы из книги.
- Для убеждения других в своей правоте нужно всего лишь одно доказательство. Даже если у меня есть больше, то не надо их все вываливать.
- Мы знаем, что такое быть здоровым и быть больным, поэтому каждый хочет все время оставаться здоровым. Философ знает, что такое жить хорошо и что такое жить плохо и поэтому все время стремится к первому.
- Человек, который уважает самого себя, легко завоюет уважение других.
Главные выводы из книги.
- Для убеждения других в своей правоте нужно всего лишь одно доказательство. Даже если у меня есть больше, то не надо их все вываливать.
- Мы знаем, что такое быть здоровым и быть больным, поэтому каждый хочет все время оставаться здоровым. Философ знает, что такое жить хорошо и что такое жить плохо и поэтому все время стремится к первому.
- Человек, который уважает самого себя, легко завоюет уважение других.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 77 reviews