Natty Knights discussion

Feel free to discuss the book,share your opinions with others. Or don't; it's what Marcus Aurelius would've wanted.

Well, I thought - while stoicism itself is iffy at best - that the book still has some great insight and life advice in it. What about sharing and discussing our favorite quotes? Some will surely make for great motivational wallpapers, haha.
One of the more impressive parts for me was the following (I read it in German, so the translation may not be 100% accurate):
Your soul will become like the thoughts you dwell on; inasmuch as the soul gets its hue from the thoughts.

Let's hear yours!

I liked many of the themes that Marcus Aurelius writes, but I didn't manage to remember a number of them,mostly because the translation hurts my head(first time reading a book written with "thee"/"thou" etc.).
Some of the themes I liked:
Do not fear death, accept it as a natural occurrence. It doesn't matter whether you die today or 100 years from now - in the end, you were given your time and do not fear passing away.
And remember this,that unto reasonable creatures only it is granted that they may willingly and freely submit unto Providence: but absolutely to submit, is a necessity imposed upon all creatures equally.

Another idea that I liked:
Remember that all is but opinion,and all opinion depends of the mind. Take thine opinion away,and then as a ship that hath stricken in within the arms and mouth of the harbour,a present calm;

A clear stoic idea that you should remain calm no matter what may happen. Because a man is a reasonable creature, he can easily disperse any feelings regarding a subject by simply "willing" them away. Simple, yet near-impossible to accomplish.

There was also a quote regarding the opinions of others,but I didn't manage to find it(forgot to make a note of it). Basically, if you hear another person was talking behind your back, it doesn't matter whether it happened or not - what matters is your opinion regarding the act. If you choose not to be hurt by it, it doesn't matter.

Ah, I like your choices. The focus on the individual is one of the greatest merits of stoicism. Other aspects, however, are less agreeable. I remember one passage where he talks about the futility of striving for the impossible or something along these lines.
Also I dislike the all-too-frequent use of the word soul and other similar metaphysical concepts (again, maybe it's because of my translation; does the English one use a better word?)

It was the first time I have ever read Roman philosophy, so I had no expectations of it.

It was a good read with some very interesting quotes as Gainides said.


Here are my favourite ones:

"From Maximus I learned self-government, and not to be led aside by anything; and cheerfulness in all circumstances, as well as in illness; and a just admixture in the moral character of sweetness and dignity, and to do what was set before me without complaining. I observed that everybody believed that he thought as he spoke, and that in all that he did he never had any bad intention; and he never showed amazement and surprise, and was never in a hurry, and never put off doing a thing, nor was perplexed nor dejected, nor did he ever laugh to disguise his vexation, nor, on the other hand, was he ever passionate or suspicious. He was accustomed to do acts of beneficence, and was ready to forgive, and was free from all falsehood; and he presented the appearance of a man who could not be diverted from right rather than of a man who had been improved. I observed, too, that no man could ever think that he was despised by Maximus, or ever venture to think himself a better man. He had also the art of being humorous in an agreeable way. "(book1)

I think this quote pretty much summarizes the spirit of stoicism.


"Begin the morning by saying to thyself, I shall meet with the busy-body, the ungrateful, arrogant, deceitful, envious, unsocial. All these things happen to them by reason of their ignorance of what is good and evil. But I who have seen the nature of the good that it is beautiful, and of the bad that it is ugly, and the nature of him who does wrong, that it is akin to me, not only of the same blood or seed, but that it participates in the same intelligence and the same portion of the divinity, I can neither be injured by any of them, for no one can fix on me what is ugly, nor can I be angry with my kinsman, nor hate him, For we are made for co-operation, like feet, like hands, like eyelids, like the rows of the upper and lower teeth. To act against one another then is contrary to nature; and it is acting against one another to be vexed and to turn away. " (book 2)
I picked this one mainly because it brought a interesting way to deal with all those annoying people you have to interact day in and day out.

"Be cheerful also, and seek not external help nor the tranquility which others give. A man then must stand erect, not be kept erect by others. " (Book 3)

I think this is an essential life lesson, even though it is hard to get to this stage.

"Time is like a river made up of the events which happen, and a violent stream; for as soon as a thing has been seen, it is carried away, and another comes in its place, and this will be carried away too." (book 4)

Actions, feelings (and pretty much everything in life), are not static and immutable. It is how you react to them that matters.

Honestly, I was a bit bored by the read. The translation I had was a bit tedious, and the main problem I had was the same one I had with The Myth of Sisyphus: I had already arrived at Stoicism independently, just as I had pondered existentialism, so the reading did not portray any novel ideas. I will not entirely fault the book for that, but rather chalk it up mostly to incongruity between reader and book, because I was just not the right audience for this book.

If someone was new to the concept of Stoicism, I can see how they might have gleaned some valuable tidbits from the reading, but (and this may be tainted by my mindset while reading this) this reading flirted with insightfulness periodically, but lacked profundity. I was left hoping for a reflection to tell me something I didn't already know, and left disappointed.

Part of the problem with the lack of novelty probably stems from the fact that this book is one of the original pieces on Stoic ideals, and isn't lacking in quotables, so subsequent works along the same theme have built upon it. You can see many aspects of Marcus Aurelius' philosophy echoed, even outright quoted, in various self-help books and blogs today, and I have read a fair few. If I had read this book before being exposed to Stoicism, it may have been more novel and profound. Again, the book is not entirely to blame for this.

Rating: 2/5; credit must be given for its historical significance and insight into the mind of one of history's great rulers. However, I'm sure the material isn't anything that we haven't heard before ad nauseum.

Hi, I had stuff happen IRL, and I still havent finished, here are my impressions so far:

First of all, it makes me think a lot about buddhism (granted I'm not especially familiar with it), I find that stoicism is a lot about making the best of what you've got. It does seem to focus on rigidity more than on happiness, but I guess that stoicism is about simplicity and rigor.

I did come to some of the conclusions of stoicism by myself/reading, such as the concept of life being just the "right" length for everyone, and that after you die, you become nothing more than dirt and a name, both of which disappear after a while (he! his name is still remembered!); but M.A. does seem to see this as a reason for accomplishing stuff... Which is what I'm lacking. Why invest on anything, since everything is so ephemeral and ultimately disappears? (hum, need to find myself a hobby or something)

I think reading about epicurianism would be a great complement to stoicism as they both reach towards the same goals, but puts a lot more importance on pleasure rather than rigidity.

Gynomite wrote:I had already arrived at Stoicism independently"

Me too actually but I had that realization when I read Mindfulness in Plain English: A Guide to the Good Life, but I was so interested and happy others had come to the same conclusion I have that I really enjoyed reading it and Meditations. You are correct in saying this is the basic tenants of stoicism. The harder stuff you'll find by the founder of stoicism Zeno of Citium and other teachers of stoicism, Epictetus and Seneca. You have to remember when reading this that this is not a book on stoic philosophy it is just the journal of Marcus Aurelius the emperor of Rome who happened to be a practicing stoic. Marcus himself has never taught stoicism or claimed mastery of it. It's just him writing down his thoughts.


Edit: Hahahahaha I just posted on /fit/ and my captcha had Epictetus in it

@ Post:

Fair point, it is true that this was more of a journal than a work he intended to have published. However, I do recall reading that he gave philosophical lectures, and I'm assuming he drew from the thoughts expressed in this reading. He did fancy himself something of a philosopher, though he did mention he doesn't consider himself among the same company as Zeno, Epicurus, or Socrates. All told, this was indeed a personal journal, and was not intended to be published, so you're reading thoughts through a mind not colored to be a master of the subject or a teacher to the lay people. Point taken.

I should probably clarify that my rating is a rating of my reading experience rather than a rating of the book itself. The book was okay, and someone who wished to gain insight into Stoicism could learn some novel things from this. My reading experience was colored by my previous understanding of Stoicism, so I just didn't get much out of this book. I wouldn't fault the book for that, but that it's simply a matter of circumstance, circumstance being that I'm not the book's target audience.

Gynomite wrote: "@ Post:

Fair point, it is true that this was more of a journal than a work he intended to have published. However, I do recall reading that he gave philosophical lectures, and I'm assuming he dre..."

ohh I should have checked that I had a small feeling he did some form of lecturing. I understand what you're saying.