Catching up on Classics (and lots more!) discussion

This is the discussion thread for Meditations by Marcus Aurelius, our Old School Classic Group Read for June 2020.

Spoilers allowed here.

Please feel free to discuss anything you wish, relating to the book and let us know what you thought :)

Thanks for setting up the thread Katy, I'll be starting tomorrow, time permitting :)

I've read three fourth of the book. It contains pretty interesting ideas on self-discipline, one's conduct towards society in general, how to live in harmony with nature, etc. But all the same, it is not too interesting. The too matter of fact way of expressing his views is a bit tedious to read.

I'll be reading this, but won't be able to start until the latter half of the month

So any tips on the approach to reading this?

Samantha wrote: "So any tips on the approach to reading this?"
This is his journal that he uses to write useful things. The whole book is a manual on living a good life through moderation, self-regulation and applying moral principles. He tells himself in the start of book 2 that he will meet with all manner bad, boorish behavior, and his response is essentially a version of the Golden Rule. It's a manual for Roman gentlemen, and one of the things I see in it is that people really haven't changed all that much in what they wish for or aspire to or struggle against, in the last two thousand years.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_Jud...

Thanks Al. This documentary gives an excellent perspective.

I´m about half-way through, including the long introduction to the audiobook. It seems to me that it all repeats endlessly, and I have to concentrate hard to cope with it, as English isn´t my first language either. The German translation I read nearby is quite old-fashioned, but it helps understand.

Thanks Samantha, will have a look at the documentary!

“The human soul degrades itself:
i. Above all, when it does its best to become an abscess, a kind of detached growth on the world. To be disgruntled at anything that happens is a kind of secession from Nature, which comprises the nature of all things.
ii. When it turns its back on another person or sets out to do it harm, as the souls of the angry do.
iii. When it is overpowered by pleasure or pain.
iv. When it puts on a mask and does or says something artificial or false.
v. When it allows its action and impulse to be without a purpose, to be random and disconnected: even the smallest things ought to be directed toward a goal. But the goal of rational beings is to follow the rule and law of the most ancient of communities and states.”

Excerpt From: Marcus Aurelius “Meditations.”

Finished it yesterday. There are some interesting points to discuss or think about. What I didn´t like that these points were coming again and again, so esp. as an audiobook it was sometimes sleep-inducing.

Michaela wrote: "Finished it yesterday. There are some interesting points to discuss or think about. What I didn´t like that these points were coming again and again, so esp. as an audiobook it was sometimes sleep-..."

I'm switching to the audiobook and trying to supplement it with other material about Aurelius' life so that each part has a little context. I'm new to philosophy but I am thinking that philosophy greatly comes through someone's life experiences, reading, deep thinking and self-exploration I figure....although maybe that's too much of an over-generalisation as many philosophers seemed to be largely academics who mostly read, did a lot of thinking but did not seem to have many "life experiences"......

I got a chance to start this today--read through the first chapter. I think this is going to be one of my new favorites.

Don wrote: "“The human soul degrades itself:
i. Above all, when it does its best to become an abscess, a kind of detached growth on the world. To be disgruntled at anything that happens is a kind of secession ..."

I posted this quote from Mediations to just see if anyone thought it relevant for what is happening in the United States today.

I'm not sure, Don...It seems to me this is an inward-judging set of maxims rather than an outward-judging one.

I find it interesting, and it was also mentioned in the introduction, that Marcus Aurelius demanded a perfect character, but on the other hand was responsible for several waves of persecution of the Christians.

Marcus Aurelius mentioned that he admired Epictetus's Discourses in his Meditations. The Discourses was introduced to Marcus by his tutor Junius Rusticus. Interestingly, Epictetus was born a slave but was taught by Musonius, a philosopher of the highest caliber. If you want to know more, I'll gladly go more into detail.

Samantha wrote: "So any tips on the approach to reading this?"

You just need to understand this is from a Roman emperor having to deal with court life, in addition to his failing health. He was however conscientious of his decisions, and was generally admired in his lifetime, albeit promoted his son who was a horrible emperor.

Michaela wrote: "I´m about half-way through, including the long introduction to the audiobook. It seems to me that it all repeats endlessly, and I have to concentrate hard to cope with it, as English isn´t my first..."

Marcus Aurelius repeats himself because he was probably troubled by the dealings of court life. Northern invasions were occurring at the time, threatening the Roman empire. Thus, the repetitions were constant reminders to himself to remain mentally strong -- although I suspect he was failing even that, further explaining him re-writing familiar Stoic concepts he had learned many years ago from his tutors.

Bryan "They call me the Doge" wrote: "I got a chance to start this today--read through the first chapter. I think this is going to be one of my new favorites."

It's one of my favorite books too!

Al wrote: "It's a manual for Roman gentlemen, and one of the things I see in it is that people really haven't changed all that much in what they wish for or aspire to or struggle against, in the last two thousand years.."

That has been my thought throughout these chapters, and I think Marcus was an enlightened man in many ways, given to a great deal of introspection - an art that hasn't been much in evidence these last few years of modern times even though we struggle with the same questions. I was also surprised by his references to the universe as a kind of divinity, and his occasional deeper moments of spirituality.

Super late getting started, but I've had this on my list forever.

Interesting to see what people who have already read think about it.

Sarah wrote: "Super late getting started, but I've had this on my list forever.

Interesting to see what people who have already read think about it."

What do you think of Musonius?

That's the Hammond & Wittstock translation, yes? It seems a decided improvement over the ASL Farquharson translation (1944), with its archaisms ("blain," "feignedly," "at a mark"). cp. Same passage, II.16, rendered by Farquharson:

The soul of a man does violence to itself, first and foremost when it becomes so far as in it lies, a separate growth, a blain as it were upon the Universe. For to turn against anything that comes to pass is a separation from Nature, by which the natures of each of the rest are severally comprehended. Secondly, when it turns away from any human being or is swept counter to him, meaning to injure him, as is the case with the natures of those who are enraged. It violates itself, thirdly, when it is the victim of pleasure or pain; fourthly, when it acts a part, and says or does anything both feignedly and falsely. Fifthly, when, failing to direct any act or impulse of its own upon a mark, it behaves in any matter without a plan or conscious purpose, whereas even the smallest act ought to have a reference to the end. Now the end of reasonable creatures is this: to obey the rule and ordinance of the most venerable of all cities and governments.

The George Long (1862) translation is very similar:

The soul of man does violence to itself, first of all, when it becomes an abscess, and, as it were, a tumor on the universe, so far as it can. For to be vexed at anything which happens is a separation of ourselves from nature, in some part of which the natures of all other things are contained. In the next place, the soul does violence to itself when it turns away from any man, or even moves towards him with the intention of injuring, such as are the souls of those who are angry. In the third place, the soul does violence to itself when it is overpowered by pleasure or by pain. Fourthly, when it plays a part, and does or says anything insincerely and untruly. Fifthly, when it allows any act of its own and any movement to be without an aim, and does anything thoughtlessly and without considering what it is, it being right that even the smallest things be done with reference to an end; and the end of rational animals is to follow the reason and the law of the most ancient city and polity.

You wouldn't think a really old translation would have much to recommend itself, but consider what the colorful language adds to the same passage, in the Casaubon translation (1634), which also includes the soul gendered as female ('she' not 'it'):

A man's soul doth wrong and disrespect itself first and especially, when as much as in itself lies it becomes an aposteme, and as it were an excrescency of the world, for to be grieved and displeased with anything that happens in the world, is direct apostacy from the nature of the universe; part of which, all particular natures of the world, are. Secondly, when she either is averse from any man, or led by contrary desires or affections, tending to his hurt and prejudice; such as are the souls of them that are angry. Thirdly, when she is overcome by any pleasure or pain. Fourthly, when she doth dissemble, and covertly and falsely either doth or saith anything. Fifthly, when she doth either affect or endeavour anything to no certain end, but rashly and without due ratiocination and consideration, how consequent or inconsequent it is to the common end. For even the least things ought not to be done, without relation unto the end; and the end of the reasonable creatures is, to follow and obey him, who is the reason as it were, and the law of this great city, and ancient commonwealth.

@Tony: What a lovely way to compare and contrast translations!

@Don: It is an interesting quote to meditate on at the moment. I suppose there is a lot in his work that could be read in many ways (especially given that I suspect we're all reading it in translation).

I'm about half way through and Aurelius has some very clever observations at times. Yet the 21st-century me can't help but feel a bit dismissive of his constant refrain to "accept ones lot in life." I mean, how convenient when you're the freeking emperor? Yes, I know, he's probably telling himself that rather than directing it at others. And it's how we get through tough stuff; we repeat various religious and/or philosophic mantras as if our lives depend of them (and sometimes do).

This is definitely not something to be read (or listened to) only once.

I have one more 'book' to go. Interesting that there are 12 sections--one could read one a month and use it almost like a daily meditation.

Reading them this quickly, I think I lose a lot--some are similar enough that it's hard for me to focus on one after the other. Even still, some snag in my mind and make me think of my own life and my views on it. I think it is a good thing to be stoical in life, though perhaps not a full-fledged Stoic.

No matter whether one believes in acting in the same manner or not, it's still an excellent way for one to take a moment to examine the things that are affecting them at the moment from a different viewpoint, which may either give someone another angle to approach the problem, or put it into it's proper context (which generally minimizes the amount of mental effort devoted to said problem).

I keep dog-earing pages where I find treasured comments... and now there are more dog-eared pages than not. I agree, I think it would make a fine daily meditation guide. I'm not going to categorize his thoughts as only Stoic. I think he has learned the art of self-reflection to such a degree that he has stumbled on some universal (and human) truths. Just the act of self-reflection is something worth nurturing.

Thomas wrote: "Sarah wrote: "Super late getting started, but I've had this on my list forever.

Interesting to see what people who have already read think about it."

What do you think of Musonius?"

I've never really read much of the individual stoics. That's something I do want to remedy as I find their school of thought very interesting.

Janice (JG) wrote: "I keep dog-earing pages where I find treasured comments... and now there are more dog-eared pages than not. I agree, I think it would make a fine daily meditation guide. I'm not going to categorize..."

I am still plugging away on Meditations. I actually enjoy it. I will play the audiobook while making breakfast in the morning. I often will then sit down and review the part I heard, on my pdf form, while eating. I find that about 15 to 20 minutes of listening is enough. So it takes multiple days to finish one of the sections (books).

I really like recognizing things in this book. The old phrase, the more things change the more they stay the same, comes to mind. There are some sections where if the word Nature were to be replaced by God, then it feels as if I am reading the Bible. The philosophies of the Old World of the Mediterranean were not that far apart: for instance the talk of souls, the idea of a human being composed of three parts: the body, mind, and soul. These are not the exact words use, but essentially the ideas are the same.

I enjoy running into a little bit of history here or there that I know about: for instance, in a section about the fleeting nature of life there is discussion of not only the death of the body but also the death of cities such as Herculaneum and Pompeii.

I've finished reading it yesterday. Overall liked it, but I found myself at odds with one aspect of Stoicism. I will copy-paste here a part of the review I've left for the book where I think a contradiction lies in the Stoic doctrine (as I've seen it from Marcus):

What striked me as strange was how for Stoics pleasure and pain are "indifferents" - meaning things that are not important - but in the same time, Stoics claim that this doesn't mean that some indifferents are not preferred over others (e.g health over illness, pleasure over pain - or well at least the absence of pain). Additionally, Stoics don't pursue pleasure and in the same time should not seek to avoid pain (since these are things which affect only the body, but not the "directing mind" - meaning the reason). Thus, it seems contradictory to me that you should not seek pleasure for example, but that you would prefer it over it's opposite, since having a preference for something is a weak form of "willing" or "wanting" which shouldn't happen since pleasure and pain are indifferents and humans should not pursue (in any degree) these things.

This can lead to extreme views:

A) Where a parent in the situation of a child which suffers from an illness, should not care about the child's state of health, but instead turn inwards and search for a way to cope with the loss of the child to obtain the absence of care, shall I say. This is something totally incompatible with the human's biological design since humans are wired to form a bond with their children.

B) When an external circumstance leads to one's body to suffer pain (be in an illness, an accident or a physical attack), the Stoic view tells us that we should not pay the pain any mind because pain (and pleasure) are part of nature and if it's according to Nature (i.e original Cause from which all creation springs) and that the only way pain can affect us is if we judge it to be bad. If you don't create value-judgements (this is good / this is bad), then the pain and the pleasure in itself are not bad since they're in accordance with Nature.

Taking these two cases which are acceptable for Stoics, I think that there's a contradiction between the Principle of "indifferents" and the Body/ Mind dualism supported by Stoicism (so these 2 principles taken in conjunction) and the more fundamental principle that the universe is a Whole (is "One") and thus everything else is the result of some long causal chain of events which starts at the beginning of existence.

The contradiction, from my point of view, stands in that if humans are the result of this long causal chain which springs from the "Whole" (so, from Nature), then this means that humans' biological design (the inclination towards pleasure and the avoidance of pain) is also the result of Nature. So if pleasure and pain are the result of Nature, then why is seeking pleasure and avoiding pain condemnable by itself ?

For pleasure it does make sense to believe that someone who becomes overly concerned with obtaining pleasure (thus according value to an indifferent - pleasure) can be led astray from the right path, which according to the stoics it is living your life according to the Nature, by using and nurturing your reason. But it doesn't make sense to condemn humans as sinners for avoiding pain cause even if pain is part of Nature, so is human inclination to avoid pain (so the result of Nature). Thus Nature created two apparently contradictory forces (the capability of things to create pain along with the ability of creatures to feel pain + the psychological inclination to avoid pain as a mechanism of survival - essential for the preservation of one's life).

Taking an anthropological view, humans probably wouldn't have reached this stage of civilization without the aversion to pain. When humans lived in the wilderness and had to actively secure their own survival, I doubt a stoic's view to pain and pleasure helped much. If a human encountered a tiger I doubt that he would find comfort in the thought that Nature wills for this tiger to kill me, so I shall accept it without any value-judgement about what is happening to me. In this sense, humans would have to adopt a pretty "defeatist" view or an apathetic state of being. Imagine having a band of hunter-gatherers being in this apathetic state. They wouldn't care much about their survival, but instead they would just accept whatever comes to them, labeling it as Fate. Humanity would probably have ceased to exist.

-------------

If I'm mistaking something, I would like some input on this.

Nitu wrote: "I've finished reading it yesterday. Overall liked it, but I found myself at odds with one aspect of Stoicism. I will copy-paste here a part of the review I've left for the book where I think a cont..."

I think they were less talking about seeking pleasure and pain in the small daily things of life (which might fall under the heading of "Nature") than in trying to oppose the ritualistic Dionysian orgiastic pleasure seeking of ancient Rome, in particular the horrible treatment of slaves and young boys. Marcus Aurelius was a politician, so Stoicism as a movement at the time placed itself in opposition to Nero and his rumored behavior. Perhaps I just read my opinion into what I have been hearing. Your analysis is much deeper than mine. Yes, taken to the extreme a complete detachment of emotions would lead to things like neglect of one's own children. Perhaps some Romans did take it to that extreme.

Thanks for the reply Lynn !

I didn't know the exact political context of the time (though I did have some surface-level knowledge about the many pleasures Romans indulge in - thus it made sense for Stoicism to come as an opposing force).

I'm assuming that the extreme view of Stoicism I've mentioned in the previous comment is the ideal Stoic (the sage - as Socrates was regarded to be), which everyone should strive to become.

Stoicism taken in moderation can be a good philosophy to live by. The examples I've given in the previous comment were things Marcus himself sustained - complete emotional detachment. I was just wondering if Marcus just missed the fact that the tendency to seek or avoid pleasure is also a product of Nature, thus creating the paradox.

If I recall correctly I think at some point in the book Marcus does an analysis about Nature and explains that the Nature created the means to "destroy" itself in order to replace its parts thus leading to perpetual regeneration ("eternal youth" of the universe). Thus to me it seems logical that all biological mechanisms (as well as psychological ones) are the result of Nature to protect itself from itself.

Now I know there's the body / mind dualism and that the body is not on the same level as the mind. That mind comes from a common mind of the Nature (thus all directing minds come from the primordial Directing Mind, shall I say) and all differentiated forms of matter come from "One" (the primordial unity of Nature ? - also seen in Taoism).

But then you'd have a unitary Directing Mind from which all directing minds come (all Reasons). Or, if this is not the case, then you have one Directing Mind above the other directing minds (the one of Nature - which is unconscious or a better word would be passive). In this case I don't understand why would existence through matter be necessary for this inherent Reason of the universe (I think this Reason should be interpreted as natural laws, or laws of existence).

Ultimately the answer seems to lie to how the universe originated actually and we have no answer for this even in the present. Stoicism comes as an answer to how reality is and came to be (to this exact form - the result of an infinite causal chain - without explaining the first cause which is the birth of Nature, existence), but this explanation works only to explain the development of the universe instead of how it came to be, to exist (and this point is necessary, I think, to solve the contradiction).

Finally, this means that there are 2 possible outcomes:

A) The universe appeared passively and everything else along with it (including self-consciousness and the capacity for reason of certain beings) - in which case, Stoicism doesn't hold, because everything including reason is part of Nature and the body/mind dichotomy cannot be employed against seeking pleasure or avoiding pain.

B) Something apart from the Universe (Nature), influenced the birth of the Universe. Here Stoicism can arguably hold (though here you'd have to find out if this First Cause of everything was conscious or unconscious). If conscious then you'd be able to find out why Reason was created along with Matter and why would something in apparent opposition would exist (Affects against Reason).

Maybe the answer would be something that can be found in Taoism. Chaos and Order are necessary forces to create balance, to not reach the extremes (too much Order or too much Chaos).

Anyway, if that's the reason Affects exist against Reason, then it's natural for Affects to win over Reason in some individuals as a way of "Natural selection" for the Universe to perpetually renew itself (as Stoics say it).

But then the whole thing would be just a matter about who survives this "Natural selection", who gives in to Affects and who doesn't (though giving in to affects doesn't necessarily lead to death). Then Stoicism comes as a way to be on this "winning side" of existence ? To triumph over emotions ? If so, then it doesn't flow from this that you should strive for the total restriction of affects, but only moderate them, which means that you should seek a healthy amount of pleasure and avoid pain (which is against what Stoics say - avoid pleasure and don't avoid pain).

I don't know. Seems like a difficult thing to discuss and it probably has no answer :D

Nitu wrote: "Thanks for the reply Lynn !

I didn't know the exact political context of the time (though I did have some surface-level knowledge about the many pleasures Romans indulge in - thus it made sense f..."

You mention Taoism. I did see parallels to Taoism when reading Meditations. Another book that came to mind was Siddhartha by Hesse. There were parts when Marcus was discussing Nature and I kept thinking about the river section of Siddhartha.

Lynn wrote: "Nitu wrote: "Thanks for the reply Lynn !

I didn't know the exact political context of the time (though I did have some surface-level knowledge about the many pleasures Romans indulge in - thus it..."

I've started reading Siddharta today and I finished it (especially since you also mentioned it here and I was planning to read it soon anyway).

I don't know very much about Taoism, but I know a bit about its principles. Having read both Siddharta and Marcus' Meditations, I think Taoism has a parallel in both to a certain extent.

Both Stoicisms (the main theme of Meditations) and Taoism teach living modestly or a balanced life (in Taoism this is called The Way - the middle path between Yin and Yang).

Additionally, Taoism is also based on the same view of the universe as an initial unity which divides into masculinity and feminity, which in turn divide into the 5 elements which become all the known things in the universe.

In that sense (that everything springs from a Unity), I think it also fits with Stoicism and Marcus' view about Nature.

Compared to Siddharta, I can also see a parallel in the story between the river section you mentioned and Taoism. While reading it I had a small revelation about the exact application of Taoism to Siddharta's whole journey.

As you probably know, in Siddharta the protagonist tries at the beginning Ascetism to understand Nature. Ascetism is the extreme of abstinence. This doesn't bear any fruit for Siddharta so after talking with Buddha, he has a revelation and journeys (and here is the important part) across the river, which symbolizes the middle path between Yin and Yang in Taoism to reach the other side, where he begins a life of searching for the material, pleasure, ephemeral things which leads Siddharta astray.

So Siddharta leaves Yang (symbolized by ascetism, masculinity through sexual abstinence and order), across "The Way" to Yin (symbolized by the ephemeral world, the world of indulgences, where Siddharta's initiation is helped by a woman - which represents chaos and the start of Siddharta's decline into the material and the ephemeral).

Siddharta has enough and finally finds peace by retreating at the fisherman's hut near the river (The Way), where he obtains the Truth about existence by learning from the river and the old fisherman.

Additionally, the whole journey of Siddharta from one extreme to another is another characteristic of Taoism. Yin has a point of Yang in it and vice versa. This means that good (or order) always has the capacity to become evil (or disorder) and vice versa, which is exactly what happened with Siddharta.

Siddharta's view of Nature is indeed close to Marcus' stoic view of Nature since both assume a unity. I think the only difference is that in Marcus' view, all matter is seen as metamorphosing into something else after its death, while in the view about Nature in Siddharta, we're encouraged to see Nature more than the particular forms it can take at certain points in time (what today is a flower can become with its death a part of what tomorrow is a tree for example - so when I look at the flower I can see it as the potential tree in the future).

Instead, Siddharta's view encourages us to see each thing as an infinity of configurations of possible particular manifestations that Nature can take. That's why, as is explained in Siddharta, everything can be Buddha (or anything else) - which is one of the bases of the Mahayana (I think ?) Buddhism, which promises universal salvation since everyone has the inherent potential to be Buddha.

So in other words, every thing holds in it the infinite potentiality of everything else, but which currently holds only a certain manifestation from that infinite amount of configurations.

Nitu wrote: "Lynn wrote: "Nitu wrote: "Thanks for the reply Lynn !

I didn't know the exact political context of the time (though I did have some surface-level knowledge about the many pleasures Romans indulge..."

Very good analysis of Siddartha. I had not thought so deeply about the Yin and Yang aspects. I particularly liked your paragraph about Siddartha's view of Nature. The Taoist philosophy of a bending reed being the best picture of strength and life being a flow like a river is what made me think of Siddartha. Also, Stoicism talks about the idea that change is the one "constant" in life. We are caught in the river of time so to speak. Marcus Aurelius's sections about people being made up of elements that eventually break down and return to the larger universe made me think of the image of a river wearing everything away.

A quick Google search found the phrase "bending reed" in the Tao Te Ching, the proverbs of Confucious, as well as the Roman tales Aesop's Fables. Perhaps this was an ancient piece of wisdom that permeated many cultures. Although Marcus probably would not have very thought of himself as a bending reed. He might want to stand steadfast to fulfill his duty.

One more thought.... Siddartha was written by Hermann Hesse a German in the early 20th Century, so we get the European outsider's view of Eastern Religions when we read Siddartha. I love the book, but perhaps the similarities I see between Siddartha and Meditations can both be attributed to them both coming out of the same European Civilization.

What an unusual book. It is never a dialogue with the reader, only Aurelius with himself. There are part that are “private”: It does not tell what it is about, we are just allow to hang there and guess. It produces an interesting effect: It feels like we are reading a personal diary, we have no business reading. We are really inside Marcus Aurelius’ head when he debates with himself.

He is working on understanding the world, the will of god/gods, nature and his purpose. Returning to the same themes many times: How he will be remembered and trying to convince himself that it doesn’t matter. Over and over again about other peoples opinions. He must have had occasional pains. Handling pain without being affected with it is also a common theme.

He is consistent in his philosophy. “The way nature intended it” is always the right answer.

"say this: “Nature prescribed illness for him.” Or blindness. Or the loss of a limb. Or whatever. There “prescribed” means something like “ordered, so as to further his recovery.” And so too here. What happens to each of us is ordered. It furthers our destiny."

Some favorites:
"do less, better. Because most of what we say and do is not essential. If you can eliminate it, you’ll have more time, and more tranquillity. Ask yourself at every moment, “Is this necessary?” But we need to eliminate unnecessary assumptions as well.”

“Your soul takes on the color of your thoughts. “

“Treat what you don’t have as nonexistent. Look at what you have, the things you value most, and think of how much you’d crave them if you didn’t have them.”