6 ms·

It's no accident that a roman emperor (tyrant, mass murderer, and courtier) is the premier famous stoic. Nor is it an accident that the next most famous case is

It's no accident that a roman emperor (tyrant, mass murderer, and courtier) is the premier famous stoic. Nor is it an accident that the next most famous case is that of British empire public schooling, british "stiff upper lip" stocisim. (EDIT: Marcus Aurelius) himself was no stoic philosopher, he merely wrote diaries to himself in his late days -- diaries he wanted burned, not published. And these were rehresals of what his stoic teachers had taught him while he was being raised into the roman aristocracy. Without this context, its very easy to misread his diaries in the manner of some religious text, cherry picking "whatever sounds nice". Its clear, under this view, how bitter and resentful many of these reflections were. He retreated to his diaries to "practice stoical thoughts" on those occasions where he was emotionally distributed. They are, mostly, rants. Rants against the court (eg., ignore the schemes of others, etc.); rants against the public (no matter if one is whipped, beaten, etc.); rants against how his prestige means little as a leader. Stocism here serves as a recipie to smooth one's injuries faced as a member of the elite, surrounded by vipers and with meaningless prestige. Stoicism, under this light, is training for a ruthless sort of leadership. From the pov of The Leader, all adoration is fake, all prestige, and status. Your job is to pretend it matters because it matters to your followers. It's a deeply hollow, dissociative, nihilistic philosophy which dresses up the status quo as "God's plan" -- a rationalization of interest to the elite above all others.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
lonestar 2y ago
I believe you mean Marcus Aurelius
- mjburgess 2y ago
  I have read his diaries, though carelessly writing Mark Antony over Marcus Aurelius does undermine the point. -- Thanks, edited. I guess one shouldnt write HN comments while listening to corporate policy announcements.
  - SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
    We all do what must to keep sane.
sentimentscan 2y ago
Interesting, can you provide more sources, about the dictators and stoicism, also Marcus Aurelius was he a tyrant, mass murderer, and courtier?
- shagie 2y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Aurelius https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Aurelius > He was a member of the Nerva–Antonine dynasty, the last of the rulers later known as the Five Good Emperors and the last emperor of the Pax Romana, an age of relative peace, calm, and stability for the Roman Empire lasting from 27 BC to 180 AD. He served as Roman consul in 140, 145, and 161. > ... > The historian Herodian wrote: > Alone of the emperors, he gave proof of his learning not by mere words or knowledge of philosophical doctrines but by his blameless character and temperate way of life. > ... > The number and severity of persecutions of Christians in various locations of the empire seemingly increased during the reign of Marcus Aurelius. The extent to which the emperor himself directed, encouraged, or was aware of these persecutions is unclear and much debated by historians. The early Christian apologist Justin Martyr includes within his First Apology (written between 140 and 150) a letter from Marcus Aurelius to the Roman Senate (prior to his reign) describing a battlefield incident in which Marcus believed Christian prayer had saved his army from thirst when "water poured from heaven" after which, "immediately we recognized the presence of God." Marcus goes on to request the Senate desist from earlier courses of Christian persecution by Rome. ---- He was considered to be a good emperor.
  - biomcgary 2y ago
    Marcus Aurelius was the last of the Five Good Emperors because he did not adopt a competent, non-biological son to take his place like the previous four. Instead, he set up Commodus as Caesar and his heir, despite his mental instability. That decision alone calls into question his Stoic resolve.
    - nindalf 2y ago
      True, the other Good Emperors - Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius didn't set up their children as their successors. They each adopted someone who would be good at the job. But there was one difference between them and Marcus Aurelius - none of them had biological sons. Their adopted son would be their only heir. Marcus Aurelius' decision can be criticised in hindsight because Commodus was terrible at his job. But I'm not sure I could have done differently in Marcus' shoes. Parents find it difficult to view their children objectively and feel the need to protect them. Even if he was aware of Commodus' faults he also knew this - if he adopted someone else and crowned him Emperor, then it would have led to civil war after his own death. Either Commodus and his other sons would kill the adopted son or vice versa. Having all of them alive and at large would be an unstable equilibrium that could only be solved with war. Come on man, this guy ran an Empire pretty well for a couple of decades despite challenges like war and plague. Maybe he knew what he was doing. Give him the benefit of the doubt.
skwee357 2y ago
My guess why Aurelius is considered as the face of stoicism is due to the fact he was an emperor/powerful man. I doubt that the twisted way in which stoicism is viewed today would benefit from selling it as a philosophy of Zeno, who was a foreigner. What I mean by that is that stoicism in its modern iteration seems a brosphere/manosphere thing that will help you to become rich/powerful/successful/buy a lambo, while in reality, the stoics rejected material possessions and the entire philosophy was created by Zeno who lived an ascetic life, despite being wealthy.
- billfruit 2y ago
  If you read Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy, he takes rather dim view of Marcus Aurelius, and specifically doubts the seriousness of his writings and ideas, considering them somewhat dubious.
  - lo_zamoyski 2y ago
    Russell himself makes false and dubious claims in that book (for example, claims about Aristotle/Aristotelianism, which he hated). I don't regard him to be an especially reliable or objective expositor of philosophy or philosophical history, generally speaking.
- codexb 2y ago
  I think it's just one of the few therapeutic skills that are generally offered to men and that genuinely considers the problems that men face. The problems and issues that men face are largely ignored or downplayed compared with women and there's little offered to men in dealing with it. The traditional outlets like men-only clubs and spaces have been torn down in the name of equality. In that environment, literally anything at all that attempts to address the problems men face will become popular among men.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
    I see nothing in Stoicism that has anything to do with gender (or sex) whatsoever. The fact that a particular demographic in the 21st century has declared some affinity for it doesn't change that in any way.
EGreg 2y ago
Let's just be clear. It's not just that a roman emperor is the premier famous stoic. It's also that the Romans were instrumental in setting up Christianity and Judaism as exportable religions, after they completely destroyed Jerusalem in the Judaic wars. https://www.mayimachronim.com/the-caesar-who-saved-judaism/ https://www.mayimachronim.com/the-caesar-who-saved-judaism/ Marcus Aurelius was very close with Judah ha Nasi (the Prince) and the Gamaliel family. Subsequent Roman emperors also helped boost the churches and make Christianity a religion that wasn't just for Jews. Judaism and Christianity were based in Jerusalem. Afterwards, Judaism was based in Babylon (really old schools that had been established during the first exile of Jews, survived and became primary). Meanwhile, Christianity moved to Rome (which became primary over the main church in Jerusalem). It grew there until Constantine made it the official state religion 300 years later. The Judaic wars is probably the reason why Jesus' own direct students and the Church he set up in Jerusalem (with his brother James and "Peter" as the "Rock on which the Church would be built" and also the "Apostle to the Gentiles") were marginalized (probably regarded as ebionites / judaizers). Then Paul became the main "Apostle to the Gentiles" instead, even though he himself admits he never learned from Jesus' students, but argued with them instead (including Peter). He has a chip on his shoulder about these "super-apostles". In Acts 15 and 21, Paul is admonished by them and seems to relent, being given an official letter to distribute to gentile churches. But in his Galatians letter he claims that they added nothing to his message, except to remember the poor, something he was going to do anyway. Thomas Jefferson called Paul the "great corruptor of Christianity". Most of the New Testament is based on writings of Paul and his student Luke. So in fact, Roman emperors picked and chose winners in the global religions that became Orthodox Judaism and Christianity.
- michaelsbradley 2y ago
  Constantine gave Christians reprieve from persecution in 313 with the Edict of Milan. In 380 it was Theodosius who made Christianity the state religion with the Edict of Thessalonica. Negative assessment of Paul's influence on the development of Christianity predates Jefferson by many centuries, e.g. in the writings of ߵAbd al-Jabbār and Ibn Ḥazm. Muhammad himself believed that Christians had diverged from the truth about Jesus' identity and teachings, though he didn't criticize Paul specifically as far as I'm aware. It's something of a theme, really, that shows up, seemingly independently, in the writings of those who "want" the core teachings of Jesus but are determined to identify an irreformable corruption that invalidates orthodox Christianity as such. Some identify that corruption with the influence of Paul, others find their smoking guns within the pre Nicene church, or post Nicene, and so on.
andrewmutz 2y ago
Your perceptions of stoicism are so detatched from mine, I have to ask, what does stoicism mean to you? The wikipedia entry describes it like this: "The Stoics believed that the practice of virtue is enough to achieve eudaimonia: a well-lived life. The Stoics identified the path to achieving it with a life spent practicing the four cardinal virtues in everyday life — prudence, fortitude, temperance, and justice — as well as living in accordance with nature" Which seems pretty close to how I understand it, and it seems a pretty reasonably approach to life. But this wikipeida version seems very far from your description of "a deeply hollow, dissociative, nihilistic philosophy which dresses up the status quo as 'God's plan' -- a rationalization of interest to the elite above all others."
- mjburgess 2y ago
  > prudence, fortitude, temperance, and justice I adopt rather the opposite virutes. Imprudence, risk, throwing-your-self-at-a-wall-until-you-cant, intemperance (conflict, debate, disagreement, competition) and pragmatism (address what is rather than what should be). Behind each of the stoic virutues is a psychological position to dettach, dissociate and live in a more abstracted conceptual space. This can be theraputic if you are in grief, etc. Outside of that, personally I think: attach too much, risk more than you ought, and participate in the world ("dirty your hands") by making the best of it, rather than anything more abstract. Professors of stocism like to make a virute of dying quiety -- this i think absurd. If the plane is falling from the sky, i envy the people screaming -- they have the right levels of attachemnt to their own lives.
  - dmichulke 2y ago
    > If the plane is falling from the sky, i envy the people screaming -- they have the right levels of attachemnt to their own lives. Are you saying that happier people scream more (shortly before dying)?
    - mjburgess 2y ago
      Happiness is only one meta-value, and at the level of "what the right meta" is, I'm somewhere between a nihilist and an aristotleian-sort-of-biologist: I only think that the people who are screaming when they are about to die are living like a healthy animal. And in the absence of any objective meta-values, it kinda seems like we might well just be what we are. Denying's one's instincts is an interesting exercise, and no doubt improves self-control -- but it isnt "above being an animal" -- its, at best, a different way of being an animal. One I think, taken to a stocial extreme, seems an injury. People who readily accept death (as, no doubt, I do) seem injured, and trying to get to this state seems like a kind of self-injury to me -- a means of poking out the eye because the brain doesnt like what it sees. People screaming when a plane is crashing seem to have their eyes open.
shagie 2y ago
The next most famous stoic would then be Epictetus who influenced Marcus Aurelius and is cited in the Meditations. > Epictetus (/ˌɛpɪkˈtiːtəs/, EH-pick-TEE-təss; Ancient Greek: Ἐπίκτητος, Epíktētos; c. 50 – c. 135 AD) was a Greek Stoic philosopher. He was born into slavery at Hierapolis, Phrygia (present-day Pamukkale, in western Turkey) and lived in Rome until his banishment, when he went to Nicopolis in northwestern Greece, where he spent the rest of his life. > Epictetus studied Stoic philosophy under Musonius Rufus and after manumission, his formal emancipation from slavery, he began to teach philosophy. Subject to the banishment of all philosophers from Rome by Emperor Domitian toward the end of the first century, Epictetus founded a school of philosophy in Nicopolis. Epictetus taught that philosophy is a way of life and not simply a theoretical discipline. To Epictetus, all external events are beyond our control; he argues that we should accept whatever happens calmly and dispassionately. However, he held that individuals are responsible for their own actions, which they can examine and control through rigorous self-discipline. Stoicism was a philosophy that spanned slave to emperor in Rome.
- timeon 2y ago
  > Stoicism was a philosophy that spanned slave to emperor in Rome. As is addressed in the article.
broof 2y ago
I have no idea how you can read his meditations and come away with this conclusion. Where are you getting that “Your job is to pretend it matters because it matters to your followers”
- scantis 2y ago
  After it is written out it appears to be an inherent truth. Seems to be a practitioner of stoism, to shift ones inner outlook, non obvious takes are strong.
photonthug 2y ago
Your take on this is wild to me, and while TFA as whole is somewhat more balanced, I'm pretty surprised at this whole train of thought. An emperor was a stoic, and so was a slave. Epictetus is only mentioned twice in passing in the article, but it does say that > Some stoic authors were slaves themselves, like Epictetus author of the beautiful stoic handbook Enchiridion, and many stoic writings focus on providing therapies for armoring one’s inner self against such evils as physical pain, illness, losing friends, disgrace, and exile. Seems like people from all walks of life thought maybe it was a useful point of view, and that it's universal because people from all walks of life have their own suffering to deal with. I get that in an inevitably political world that's increasingly polarized, philosophy always becomes a sort of fashion show where it's not about what's being worn but who is wearing it lately. But this is really pretty silly. Stoicism predates silicon valley and will still be around after it's gone, and there is substance that goes far beyond "deeply hollow, dissociative, nihilistic". If it sounds that way to you, I assume maybe you are just in a situation where you have someone that you kind of hate preaching it at you.. in which case adding some distance makes sense no matter what they are evangelizing. Quoting TFA again > [stoicism] reminds me of the profession of wealth therapists who help the uber-wealthy stop feeling guilty about spending $2,000 on bed sheets or millions on a megayacht. So there it is, that's what's really bothering the guy.
- nindalf 2y ago
  I'm glad they wrote several more comments. The first comment was intriguing, but the more the wrote the more wild it got. Especially the part about being connected to life like a person in a fall airplane. I think they've mixed up Stoicism with some other philosophy entirely. They think Stoicism means feeling nothing, doing nothing. Almost like the Hindu concept of sanyasi.
overgard 2y ago
I don't see how the fact that his most famous work is his diary makes Marcus Aurelius not a philosopher. Is there some magic credential you need to be a philosopher? As far as I can tell, philosophers come from all over the place; slaves, clergy, clerks, etc. Since there wasn't an institution to get his philosophy degree in, I think we can give him a pass? With regard to the other criticism that there are rough bits in his not-intended-to-be-published diary and not all of it holds up.. so what? You've never said something bitter and resentful in private that you wouldn't want broadcast to the world? If you have a diary, do you think it'd stand intense scrutiny 2000 years later? Being a stoic means embracing your imperfections, so, the fact that Marcus Aurelius was an imperfect man tells us nothing about stoicism. FWIW Marcus Aurelius is considered one of the greatest (maybe the greatest?) Roman Emperors ever, and he was plucked from relative obscurity, so, while you can certainly criticize the institution you're picking on someone that navigated that level of power better than his peers.
- philwelch 2y ago
  I don’t know anyone who would say Marcus Aurelius was the greatest emperor. He was the last of the “Five Good Emperors”, which correctly implies that he was the one who dropped the ball on succession planning. He was a good emperor aside from that, but even out of the Five Good Emperors you could make a case for any of the other four ahead of him. And none of those guys come close to Augustus, Domitian, or Constantine. That having been said, Marcus Aurelius was definitely one of the better emperors. Leagues ahead of guys like Nero or Caligula or Elagabalus or uh, Commodus (who was his son). It’s been said that the reign of Marcus Aurelius was the high point of the Roman Empire as a whole, but that’s a double edged statement about the emperor himself.
lupusreal 2y ago
In my personal life, work and home, I am surrounded by people who are constantly in a state of distress, ranging from frustration to simmering rage, about things which are completely beyond their ability to change. I never see it do them any good, nor cause any constructive change for society. My personal understanding of stoicism is focus on changing the things I can change, and not spend my time being miserable about things I'm powerless to change. This gives me peace. My younger brothers spend all day ranting about the state of society, one from the right and the other from the left, and it has never done either of them any good. They have twice as much gray hair than me despite being years younger. Then I go on the internet and read commentary like yours, making stoicism out to be some sort of rich conspiracy against the eternal revolution or something. I find this baffling. Of all the things to get yourself worked up about, people choosing a stoic mindset is definitely up there in fruitlessness. Nothing you can tell me would ever convince me to adopt the methods of my brothers, so what is the point of what you're doing? (I confess I've never read any Marcus Aurelius, it seems like it would be very dry. Maybe I'm wrong, but my reading list is already very long and philosophy all gets bumped far down the list.)
- brushfoot 2y ago
  I've read the Meditations -- in the Emperor's Handbook translation -- and they're nothing like GP is making them out to be. In their original, unedited comment, they didn't even get Marcus Aurelius's name right, attributing the Meditations to Mark Antony. Their take is such a wild and inaccurate mischaracterization of Stoicism that it's frankly not worth engaging with -- written absentmindedly while "listening to corporate policy announcements." Take it with a grain of salt.
- freedomben 2y ago
  > My personal understanding of stoicism is focus on changing the things I can change, and not spend my time being miserable about things I'm powerless to change. This is the overriding principle I've come away with as well, and it has felt to me like one of the most simple and wise things I've heard.
btilly 2y ago
I have read Meditations by Marcus Aurelius. Your description of how bitter and resentful they are is utterly bizarre, and bears no relation to the book that I read.
- mjburgess 2y ago
  It would depend on the translation, and what you understood him to be doing. One of the ones I read recently was incredibly bastardized to seem more stoical, completely removing in cases his own asides. These are diaries he wanted burned -- they were just exercises in writing for himself to clam himself down. He is writing to himself. Go back and read a few sections and ask: "what happened to Marcus on this evening for him to go to his study and rebuke himself with this lesson?" There's clearly a lot of bitterness there, and depression. Opening a translation at random, to a random book: https://vreeman.com/meditations/#book10 https://vreeman.com/meditations/#book10 > # 10.1 To my soul: Are you ever going to achieve goodness? Ever going to be simple, whole, and naked—as plain to see as the body that contains you? Know what an affectionate and loving disposition would feel like? Ever be fulfilled, ever stop desiring—lusting and longing for people and things to enjoy? Or for more time to enjoy them? Or for some other place or country—“a more temperate clime”? Or for people easier to get along with? And instead be satisfied with what you have, and accept the present—all of it. And convince yourself that everything is the gift of the gods, .... I mean this is a deeply mournful person with an excess of self-admonishment. Why is he, somewhere alone in his room, writing these thoughts to himself? Why does he go on and on to admonish his failure to "Know what an affectionate and loving disposition would feel like" ? Whatever the cause that evening, he's in great pain with it. He sees his life as a failure. Its harder to tell the inciding incident in this particular passage -- but for some, its clearly been some betrayl or insult or similar which makes him rail against people. ---- Consider, just a little ways down: > # 10.13 When you wake up, ask yourself: Does it make any difference to you if other people blame you for doing what’s right? It makes no difference. Have you forgotten what the people who are so vociferous in praise or blame of others are like as they sleep and eat? Forgotten their behavior, their fears, their desires, their thefts and depredations—not physical ones, but those committed by what should be highest in them? What creates, when it chooses, loyalty, humility, truth, order, well-being. ------ Reading this I say to myself, "OK. Marcus, dear me. What cross are you matrying yourself on this time? What gossip has upset you this evening. Why now, each morning, do you have to remember that you're above the gossiping crowds " All this suppression of the particular by talking about the abstract is all very telling. No one rants like this in their diaries without a provocation, he's too self-righteously high-minded to do anything other than rail against all humanity. A normal person would air their particular grievances -- and be much better for it. I'm rewatching House MD. at the moment, it's very housian in its own way. Its not that he has been lied to, its that Lying is the Metaphyiscal Necessity of Life, and o woe is me, what suffering! Etc. All just a cheap misdirection for being hurt by someone.
kilroy123 2y ago
This is a fair take at all. Have you actually read about stoicism from the true philosophers? Epictetus, Zeno of Citium, and Seneca? Not to mention the many modern philosophers.
exe34 2y ago
it's like you can see the shadows, but you can't see the solids. nothing you have said is wrong, it's just so.... misguided.
antisthenes 2y ago
Real question, did you have GPT write this for you with some kind of anti-intellectual prompt, or did you actually type this out by hand? Otherwise, it's a nice fan-fiction about the worst possible interpretation of stoicism, but has really not much to do with what the philosophy is about or what it can be positively applied for. I'm surprised to see this at the top of the thread, because it's mostly utter nonsense, but it does sound emotionally appealing to a certain social group that believes it's trendy to invent new negative definitions for things they don't like or understand.
stared 2y ago
> Marcus Aurelius himself was no stoic philosopher, he merely wrote diaries to himself in his late days - diaries he wanted burned, not published. This is how I read "Meditations" - not as writings of a sage (as far as I know, he didn't consider himself one), but as "shower thoughts". Ironically, since these were private notes, they were likely more genuine than if they had been intended for publication. And more approachable, precisely because he was not a philosopher. Roman emperors were, without exception, autocrats. Yet, he is considered one of the better ones. Even if he didn't always live up to stoic ideals, he strived for them. This doesn't excuse his wrongdoings, but it suggests his writings can have value despite his flawed actions. One thing that struck me, though, is how a philosophy promoting ideas like "things are good as they are" or "ignore spiteful people" works well when you're at the top. If you're a slave or poor, things might look quite different. Especially when spiteful people cannot be ignored - be it your master, your centurion, or an unfair competitor trying to frame you.
zx10rse 2y ago
You completely misunderstood everything about Stoicism. It has nothing to do with God his plan or elites. Stoicism in its essence is about living with accordance with nature by seeking virtue. It is funny that you call Marcus Aurelius a tyrant while he is considered one of the five great emperors. During the Pax Romana golden age the empire lived in relative peace prosperity and progress. After the death of Aurelius the empire descended into chaos. His reflections are profound not bitter or resentful. Majority of them are relatable today some 2000 years after...
FredPret 2y ago
> a roman emperor (tyrant, mass murderer, and courtier) It's interesting to read up on the lives of famous ancients like Julius Caesar and Alexander. I know it was a different time, but the regular and casual war crimes and mass murders sticks in one's craw.
- rexpop 2y ago
  > the regular and casual war crimes and mass murders It's phenomenal to read about these revered historical figures! They turn out be privileged thugs. We should be extremely reluctant to extol their virtues.
  - FredPret 2y ago
    The best thing about the arc of history so far is that by and large it decentralized power (with some horrific exceptions) God-kings / pharaohs / caesars -> a handful of feudalists -> millions of millionaires vs voters vs large governments all competing in a much less violent and more stable balance of power
- Gud 2y ago
  Say what you will about Julius Caesar, at least he fought in the trenches. Many times were the battle was the toughest. My reptile brain can appreciate that, at least!
  - FredPret 2y ago
    He also ordered a decimation on his own troops. Utterly barbaric.
    - lupusreal 2y ago
      Not saying you're wrong, Julius Caesar committed more than his fair share of atrocities, but do you have a source? Wikipedia says that Julius Caesar threatened his troops with decimation but didn't carry it out. I asked chatgpt about it and it said that Julius Caesar did order one, but then said no contemporary sources for this exist. It then claimed that Plutarch wrote that Julius Caesar made his troops draw lots, which certainly suggests he ordered a decimation, but I checked two English translations of Parallel Lives and neither of them contain any mention of this. I also asked the not to translate the original Greek, and that also doesn't mention it. The chatbot thinking it happened suggests that somebody has written that it did, but I can't figure out who and where.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
johnisgood 2y ago
Your view of stoicism is off. Nihilism (existential, moral, etc.) are not compatible with stoicism. Read https://www.amazon.com/Guide-Good-Life-Ancient-Stoic/dp/0195374614 https://www.amazon.com/Guide-Good-Life-Ancient-Stoic/dp/0195.... Marcus Aurelius is a stoic, just look at some of his quotes, that is stoicism. "The happiness of your life depends upon the quality of your thoughts." "Waste no more time arguing about what a good man should be. Be one." "If you are distressed by anything external, the pain is not due to the thing itself, but to your estimate of it; and this you have the power to revoke at any moment." "When you arise in the morning think of what a privilege it is to be alive, to think, to enjoy, to love ..."
philwelch 2y ago
It’s always funny to read people’s hot takes about stoicism because they seem to polarize into two mutually exclusive camps. In one camp, stoicism is a “hollow, dissociative, nihilist philosophy” for sociopathic emperors and in the other, it’s just cope for people without the power or agency to change anything in the world around them. If anything the bipolar nature of this criticism itself validates the broad applicability of Stoicism. And actually it is an accident that Marcus Aurelius is the “premier famous stoic”, largely because, as you point out, his personal journal wasn’t actually burned as he requested. If you actually engage at even a marginally deeper level than social media slop—e.g. by taking an undergraduate survey course in ancient philosophy—you’ll learn that the premier Stoic was Epictetus, who was born into slavery. It’s also a glib misreading of Marcus Aurelius to characterize his writings as “bitter rants”. Much of “Meditations” takes the form of an internal dialogue between the emperor’s base feelings (which are sometimes bitter and sometimes as simple as not being a morning person) and his intellect as it works to apply Stoic philosophy to his own life. If you’re not an emperor you might not relate to having to deal with surly and ungrateful supplicants or the need to remind yourself that you aren’t actually a living god, and if you’re also a morning person, Marcus Aurelius is probably completely wasted on you. But that’s not what Marcus Aurelius is for. If you want a practical Stoic handbook, read the Enchiridion.
wakawaka28 2y ago
>It's no accident that a roman emperor (tyrant, mass murderer, and courtier) is the premier famous stoic Marcus Aurelius wasn't just any Roman Emperor. He was considered one of the better ones, even called "The Last Good Emperor." >Stoicism, under this light, is training for a ruthless sort of leadership. From the pov of The Leader, all adoration is fake, all prestige, and status. Your job is to pretend it matters because it matters to your followers. It's a deeply hollow, dissociative, nihilistic philosophy which dresses up the status quo as "God's plan" -- a rationalization of interest to the elite above all others. This is so off-base I don't know where to start. Stoicism is not nihilistic. One of the major tenets of stoicism is to free your mind from trouble that is outside your control, or rather to correctly identify which things are and are not within your control. It's not supposed to turn you into an ascetic psychopath, it's supposed to foster healthy reflection on the true nature of life and your own situation. It is easier said than done, of course, but some people never even consider the possibility that their many anxious thoughts are entirely pointless and counterproductive.
1659447091 2y ago
I also find it odd how you came to this conclusion from his writings. However, I first studied Epictetus[0] (I prefer Discourses to the handbook), who inspired Aurelius--thus read Aurelius through the lens of Epictetus. Which is a very different take on Stoicism that has nothing to do with the adjective, stoic as some new aged takes seem to associate. There was also a link on here awhile back to some professors lecture on YouTube, but I can't remember it, that I thought had a really great take on Stoicism and Aurelius. (maybe someone will know it and post) My short take on Stoicism is about being responsible for your actions, really owning them, plus the understanding needed to be able to do so. Which includes not giving your power of will to others; especially due to social constructs. Worshiping "leaders/authority" tends to make a person believe they are no longer responsible for themselves, the leader is now in ownership of that. There is a gained inner peace (thus joy and lightness) in owning your will. (Here is one of my favorite passages[1]) It's not about having no feeling or joy (being deeply hollow, dissociative, etc)--very much the opposite--or at least the Epictetus teaching. It's also not about giving up and not doing anything or caring, even though that is a lot of people's (wrong, imo) take. It's the opposite, enjoy what you can but don't be so distraught over the things you can not control that you cause self-harm or make it worse. You can not control a region wide wild fire burning your house down, but you can control your response--you can freak out and cause more distress to your family or you can comfort them and find ways to bring people together and rebuild. Your choice, just take responsibility for whatever you choose. That is Stoicism, not having a "stiff upper lip" and pushing through by being a tyrant by default. If you want to chose that okay, then that was what you thought was right for you, but own the consequences of those actions, that part is the Stoicism. [0] https://classics.mit.edu/Epictetus/discourses.html https://classics.mit.edu/Epictetus/discourses.html [1] https://classics.mit.edu/Epictetus/discourses.1.one.html#103 https://classics.mit.edu/Epictetus/discourses.1.one.html#103
k0tran 2y ago
Seeing how you reply to others trying to explain what stoics actually tried to convey saddens me a little. But the only thing that is left to say is: "It is impossible to begin to learn that which one thinks one already knows." - Epictetus I wish you all the great and hope that someday you will change you attitude and perspective on stoicism.
BoingBoomTschak 2y ago
Looks like classical stoicism is competing with Nietzsche in "how much modern people can distort and/or misinterpret it". Not saying it's winning, but it's up there.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

lonestar 2y ago

I believe you mean Marcus Aurelius

mjburgess 2y ago
I have read his diaries, though carelessly writing Mark Antony over Marcus Aurelius does undermine the point. -- Thanks, edited. I guess one shouldnt write HN comments while listening to corporate policy announcements.
- SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
  We all do what must to keep sane.

sentimentscan 2y ago

Interesting, can you provide more sources, about the dictators and stoicism, also Marcus Aurelius was he a tyrant, mass murderer, and courtier?

shagie 2y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Aurelius https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Aurelius > He was a member of the Nerva–Antonine dynasty, the last of the rulers later known as the Five Good Emperors and the last emperor of the Pax Romana, an age of relative peace, calm, and stability for the Roman Empire lasting from 27 BC to 180 AD. He served as Roman consul in 140, 145, and 161. > ... > The historian Herodian wrote: > Alone of the emperors, he gave proof of his learning not by mere words or knowledge of philosophical doctrines but by his blameless character and temperate way of life. > ... > The number and severity of persecutions of Christians in various locations of the empire seemingly increased during the reign of Marcus Aurelius. The extent to which the emperor himself directed, encouraged, or was aware of these persecutions is unclear and much debated by historians. The early Christian apologist Justin Martyr includes within his First Apology (written between 140 and 150) a letter from Marcus Aurelius to the Roman Senate (prior to his reign) describing a battlefield incident in which Marcus believed Christian prayer had saved his army from thirst when "water poured from heaven" after which, "immediately we recognized the presence of God." Marcus goes on to request the Senate desist from earlier courses of Christian persecution by Rome. ---- He was considered to be a good emperor.
- biomcgary 2y ago
  Marcus Aurelius was the last of the Five Good Emperors because he did not adopt a competent, non-biological son to take his place like the previous four. Instead, he set up Commodus as Caesar and his heir, despite his mental instability. That decision alone calls into question his Stoic resolve.
  - nindalf 2y ago
    True, the other Good Emperors - Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius didn't set up their children as their successors. They each adopted someone who would be good at the job. But there was one difference between them and Marcus Aurelius - none of them had biological sons. Their adopted son would be their only heir. Marcus Aurelius' decision can be criticised in hindsight because Commodus was terrible at his job. But I'm not sure I could have done differently in Marcus' shoes. Parents find it difficult to view their children objectively and feel the need to protect them. Even if he was aware of Commodus' faults he also knew this - if he adopted someone else and crowned him Emperor, then it would have led to civil war after his own death. Either Commodus and his other sons would kill the adopted son or vice versa. Having all of them alive and at large would be an unstable equilibrium that could only be solved with war. Come on man, this guy ran an Empire pretty well for a couple of decades despite challenges like war and plague. Maybe he knew what he was doing. Give him the benefit of the doubt.

skwee357 2y ago

My guess why Aurelius is considered as the face of stoicism is due to the fact he was an emperor/powerful man. I doubt that the twisted way in which stoicism is viewed today would benefit from selling it as a philosophy of Zeno, who was a foreigner. What I mean by that is that stoicism in its modern iteration seems a brosphere/manosphere thing that will help you to become rich/powerful/successful/buy a lambo, while in reality, the stoics rejected material possessions and the entire philosophy was created by Zeno who lived an ascetic life, despite being wealthy.

billfruit 2y ago
If you read Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy, he takes rather dim view of Marcus Aurelius, and specifically doubts the seriousness of his writings and ideas, considering them somewhat dubious.
- lo_zamoyski 2y ago
  Russell himself makes false and dubious claims in that book (for example, claims about Aristotle/Aristotelianism, which he hated). I don't regard him to be an especially reliable or objective expositor of philosophy or philosophical history, generally speaking.
codexb 2y ago
I think it's just one of the few therapeutic skills that are generally offered to men and that genuinely considers the problems that men face. The problems and issues that men face are largely ignored or downplayed compared with women and there's little offered to men in dealing with it. The traditional outlets like men-only clubs and spaces have been torn down in the name of equality. In that environment, literally anything at all that attempts to address the problems men face will become popular among men.
- PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
  I see nothing in Stoicism that has anything to do with gender (or sex) whatsoever. The fact that a particular demographic in the 21st century has declared some affinity for it doesn't change that in any way.

EGreg 2y ago

Let's just be clear. It's not just that a roman emperor is the premier famous stoic. It's also that the Romans were instrumental in setting up Christianity and Judaism as exportable religions, after they completely destroyed Jerusalem in the Judaic wars. https://www.mayimachronim.com/the-caesar-who-saved-judaism/ https://www.mayimachronim.com/the-caesar-who-saved-judaism/ Marcus Aurelius was very close with Judah ha Nasi (the Prince) and the Gamaliel family. Subsequent Roman emperors also helped boost the churches and make Christianity a religion that wasn't just for Jews. Judaism and Christianity were based in Jerusalem. Afterwards, Judaism was based in Babylon (really old schools that had been established during the first exile of Jews, survived and became primary). Meanwhile, Christianity moved to Rome (which became primary over the main church in Jerusalem). It grew there until Constantine made it the official state religion 300 years later. The Judaic wars is probably the reason why Jesus' own direct students and the Church he set up in Jerusalem (with his brother James and "Peter" as the "Rock on which the Church would be built" and also the "Apostle to the Gentiles") were marginalized (probably regarded as ebionites / judaizers). Then Paul became the main "Apostle to the Gentiles" instead, even though he himself admits he never learned from Jesus' students, but argued with them instead (including Peter). He has a chip on his shoulder about these "super-apostles". In Acts 15 and 21, Paul is admonished by them and seems to relent, being given an official letter to distribute to gentile churches. But in his Galatians letter he claims that they added nothing to his message, except to remember the poor, something he was going to do anyway. Thomas Jefferson called Paul the "great corruptor of Christianity". Most of the New Testament is based on writings of Paul and his student Luke. So in fact, Roman emperors picked and chose winners in the global religions that became Orthodox Judaism and Christianity.

michaelsbradley 2y ago
Constantine gave Christians reprieve from persecution in 313 with the Edict of Milan. In 380 it was Theodosius who made Christianity the state religion with the Edict of Thessalonica. Negative assessment of Paul's influence on the development of Christianity predates Jefferson by many centuries, e.g. in the writings of ߵAbd al-Jabbār and Ibn Ḥazm. Muhammad himself believed that Christians had diverged from the truth about Jesus' identity and teachings, though he didn't criticize Paul specifically as far as I'm aware. It's something of a theme, really, that shows up, seemingly independently, in the writings of those who "want" the core teachings of Jesus but are determined to identify an irreformable corruption that invalidates orthodox Christianity as such. Some identify that corruption with the influence of Paul, others find their smoking guns within the pre Nicene church, or post Nicene, and so on.

andrewmutz 2y ago

Your perceptions of stoicism are so detatched from mine, I have to ask, what does stoicism mean to you? The wikipedia entry describes it like this: "The Stoics believed that the practice of virtue is enough to achieve eudaimonia: a well-lived life. The Stoics identified the path to achieving it with a life spent practicing the four cardinal virtues in everyday life — prudence, fortitude, temperance, and justice — as well as living in accordance with nature" Which seems pretty close to how I understand it, and it seems a pretty reasonably approach to life. But this wikipeida version seems very far from your description of "a deeply hollow, dissociative, nihilistic philosophy which dresses up the status quo as 'God's plan' -- a rationalization of interest to the elite above all others."

mjburgess 2y ago
> prudence, fortitude, temperance, and justice I adopt rather the opposite virutes. Imprudence, risk, throwing-your-self-at-a-wall-until-you-cant, intemperance (conflict, debate, disagreement, competition) and pragmatism (address what is rather than what should be). Behind each of the stoic virutues is a psychological position to dettach, dissociate and live in a more abstracted conceptual space. This can be theraputic if you are in grief, etc. Outside of that, personally I think: attach too much, risk more than you ought, and participate in the world ("dirty your hands") by making the best of it, rather than anything more abstract. Professors of stocism like to make a virute of dying quiety -- this i think absurd. If the plane is falling from the sky, i envy the people screaming -- they have the right levels of attachemnt to their own lives.
- dmichulke 2y ago
  > If the plane is falling from the sky, i envy the people screaming -- they have the right levels of attachemnt to their own lives. Are you saying that happier people scream more (shortly before dying)?
  - mjburgess 2y ago
    Happiness is only one meta-value, and at the level of "what the right meta" is, I'm somewhere between a nihilist and an aristotleian-sort-of-biologist: I only think that the people who are screaming when they are about to die are living like a healthy animal. And in the absence of any objective meta-values, it kinda seems like we might well just be what we are. Denying's one's instincts is an interesting exercise, and no doubt improves self-control -- but it isnt "above being an animal" -- its, at best, a different way of being an animal. One I think, taken to a stocial extreme, seems an injury. People who readily accept death (as, no doubt, I do) seem injured, and trying to get to this state seems like a kind of self-injury to me -- a means of poking out the eye because the brain doesnt like what it sees. People screaming when a plane is crashing seem to have their eyes open.

shagie 2y ago

The next most famous stoic would then be Epictetus who influenced Marcus Aurelius and is cited in the Meditations. > Epictetus (/ˌɛpɪkˈtiːtəs/, EH-pick-TEE-təss; Ancient Greek: Ἐπίκτητος, Epíktētos; c. 50 – c. 135 AD) was a Greek Stoic philosopher. He was born into slavery at Hierapolis, Phrygia (present-day Pamukkale, in western Turkey) and lived in Rome until his banishment, when he went to Nicopolis in northwestern Greece, where he spent the rest of his life. > Epictetus studied Stoic philosophy under Musonius Rufus and after manumission, his formal emancipation from slavery, he began to teach philosophy. Subject to the banishment of all philosophers from Rome by Emperor Domitian toward the end of the first century, Epictetus founded a school of philosophy in Nicopolis. Epictetus taught that philosophy is a way of life and not simply a theoretical discipline. To Epictetus, all external events are beyond our control; he argues that we should accept whatever happens calmly and dispassionately. However, he held that individuals are responsible for their own actions, which they can examine and control through rigorous self-discipline. Stoicism was a philosophy that spanned slave to emperor in Rome.

timeon 2y ago
> Stoicism was a philosophy that spanned slave to emperor in Rome. As is addressed in the article.

broof 2y ago

I have no idea how you can read his meditations and come away with this conclusion. Where are you getting that “Your job is to pretend it matters because it matters to your followers”

scantis 2y ago
After it is written out it appears to be an inherent truth. Seems to be a practitioner of stoism, to shift ones inner outlook, non obvious takes are strong.

photonthug 2y ago

Your take on this is wild to me, and while TFA as whole is somewhat more balanced, I'm pretty surprised at this whole train of thought. An emperor was a stoic, and so was a slave. Epictetus is only mentioned twice in passing in the article, but it does say that > Some stoic authors were slaves themselves, like Epictetus author of the beautiful stoic handbook Enchiridion, and many stoic writings focus on providing therapies for armoring one’s inner self against such evils as physical pain, illness, losing friends, disgrace, and exile. Seems like people from all walks of life thought maybe it was a useful point of view, and that it's universal because people from all walks of life have their own suffering to deal with. I get that in an inevitably political world that's increasingly polarized, philosophy always becomes a sort of fashion show where it's not about what's being worn but who is wearing it lately. But this is really pretty silly. Stoicism predates silicon valley and will still be around after it's gone, and there is substance that goes far beyond "deeply hollow, dissociative, nihilistic". If it sounds that way to you, I assume maybe you are just in a situation where you have someone that you kind of hate preaching it at you.. in which case adding some distance makes sense no matter what they are evangelizing. Quoting TFA again > [stoicism] reminds me of the profession of wealth therapists who help the uber-wealthy stop feeling guilty about spending $2,000 on bed sheets or millions on a megayacht. So there it is, that's what's really bothering the guy.

nindalf 2y ago
I'm glad they wrote several more comments. The first comment was intriguing, but the more the wrote the more wild it got. Especially the part about being connected to life like a person in a fall airplane. I think they've mixed up Stoicism with some other philosophy entirely. They think Stoicism means feeling nothing, doing nothing. Almost like the Hindu concept of sanyasi.

overgard 2y ago

I don't see how the fact that his most famous work is his diary makes Marcus Aurelius not a philosopher. Is there some magic credential you need to be a philosopher? As far as I can tell, philosophers come from all over the place; slaves, clergy, clerks, etc. Since there wasn't an institution to get his philosophy degree in, I think we can give him a pass? With regard to the other criticism that there are rough bits in his not-intended-to-be-published diary and not all of it holds up.. so what? You've never said something bitter and resentful in private that you wouldn't want broadcast to the world? If you have a diary, do you think it'd stand intense scrutiny 2000 years later? Being a stoic means embracing your imperfections, so, the fact that Marcus Aurelius was an imperfect man tells us nothing about stoicism. FWIW Marcus Aurelius is considered one of the greatest (maybe the greatest?) Roman Emperors ever, and he was plucked from relative obscurity, so, while you can certainly criticize the institution you're picking on someone that navigated that level of power better than his peers.

philwelch 2y ago
I don’t know anyone who would say Marcus Aurelius was the greatest emperor. He was the last of the “Five Good Emperors”, which correctly implies that he was the one who dropped the ball on succession planning. He was a good emperor aside from that, but even out of the Five Good Emperors you could make a case for any of the other four ahead of him. And none of those guys come close to Augustus, Domitian, or Constantine. That having been said, Marcus Aurelius was definitely one of the better emperors. Leagues ahead of guys like Nero or Caligula or Elagabalus or uh, Commodus (who was his son). It’s been said that the reign of Marcus Aurelius was the high point of the Roman Empire as a whole, but that’s a double edged statement about the emperor himself.

lupusreal 2y ago

In my personal life, work and home, I am surrounded by people who are constantly in a state of distress, ranging from frustration to simmering rage, about things which are completely beyond their ability to change. I never see it do them any good, nor cause any constructive change for society. My personal understanding of stoicism is focus on changing the things I can change, and not spend my time being miserable about things I'm powerless to change. This gives me peace. My younger brothers spend all day ranting about the state of society, one from the right and the other from the left, and it has never done either of them any good. They have twice as much gray hair than me despite being years younger. Then I go on the internet and read commentary like yours, making stoicism out to be some sort of rich conspiracy against the eternal revolution or something. I find this baffling. Of all the things to get yourself worked up about, people choosing a stoic mindset is definitely up there in fruitlessness. Nothing you can tell me would ever convince me to adopt the methods of my brothers, so what is the point of what you're doing? (I confess I've never read any Marcus Aurelius, it seems like it would be very dry. Maybe I'm wrong, but my reading list is already very long and philosophy all gets bumped far down the list.)

brushfoot 2y ago
I've read the Meditations -- in the Emperor's Handbook translation -- and they're nothing like GP is making them out to be. In their original, unedited comment, they didn't even get Marcus Aurelius's name right, attributing the Meditations to Mark Antony. Their take is such a wild and inaccurate mischaracterization of Stoicism that it's frankly not worth engaging with -- written absentmindedly while "listening to corporate policy announcements." Take it with a grain of salt.
freedomben 2y ago
> My personal understanding of stoicism is focus on changing the things I can change, and not spend my time being miserable about things I'm powerless to change. This is the overriding principle I've come away with as well, and it has felt to me like one of the most simple and wise things I've heard.

btilly 2y ago

I have read Meditations by Marcus Aurelius. Your description of how bitter and resentful they are is utterly bizarre, and bears no relation to the book that I read.

mjburgess 2y ago
It would depend on the translation, and what you understood him to be doing. One of the ones I read recently was incredibly bastardized to seem more stoical, completely removing in cases his own asides. These are diaries he wanted burned -- they were just exercises in writing for himself to clam himself down. He is writing to himself. Go back and read a few sections and ask: "what happened to Marcus on this evening for him to go to his study and rebuke himself with this lesson?" There's clearly a lot of bitterness there, and depression. Opening a translation at random, to a random book: https://vreeman.com/meditations/#book10 https://vreeman.com/meditations/#book10 > # 10.1 To my soul: Are you ever going to achieve goodness? Ever going to be simple, whole, and naked—as plain to see as the body that contains you? Know what an affectionate and loving disposition would feel like? Ever be fulfilled, ever stop desiring—lusting and longing for people and things to enjoy? Or for more time to enjoy them? Or for some other place or country—“a more temperate clime”? Or for people easier to get along with? And instead be satisfied with what you have, and accept the present—all of it. And convince yourself that everything is the gift of the gods, .... I mean this is a deeply mournful person with an excess of self-admonishment. Why is he, somewhere alone in his room, writing these thoughts to himself? Why does he go on and on to admonish his failure to "Know what an affectionate and loving disposition would feel like" ? Whatever the cause that evening, he's in great pain with it. He sees his life as a failure. Its harder to tell the inciding incident in this particular passage -- but for some, its clearly been some betrayl or insult or similar which makes him rail against people. ---- Consider, just a little ways down: > # 10.13 When you wake up, ask yourself: Does it make any difference to you if other people blame you for doing what’s right? It makes no difference. Have you forgotten what the people who are so vociferous in praise or blame of others are like as they sleep and eat? Forgotten their behavior, their fears, their desires, their thefts and depredations—not physical ones, but those committed by what should be highest in them? What creates, when it chooses, loyalty, humility, truth, order, well-being. ------ Reading this I say to myself, "OK. Marcus, dear me. What cross are you matrying yourself on this time? What gossip has upset you this evening. Why now, each morning, do you have to remember that you're above the gossiping crowds " All this suppression of the particular by talking about the abstract is all very telling. No one rants like this in their diaries without a provocation, he's too self-righteously high-minded to do anything other than rail against all humanity. A normal person would air their particular grievances -- and be much better for it. I'm rewatching House MD. at the moment, it's very housian in its own way. Its not that he has been lied to, its that Lying is the Metaphyiscal Necessity of Life, and o woe is me, what suffering! Etc. All just a cheap misdirection for being hurt by someone.

kilroy123 2y ago

This is a fair take at all. Have you actually read about stoicism from the true philosophers? Epictetus, Zeno of Citium, and Seneca? Not to mention the many modern philosophers.

exe34 2y ago

it's like you can see the shadows, but you can't see the solids. nothing you have said is wrong, it's just so.... misguided.

antisthenes 2y ago

Real question, did you have GPT write this for you with some kind of anti-intellectual prompt, or did you actually type this out by hand? Otherwise, it's a nice fan-fiction about the worst possible interpretation of stoicism, but has really not much to do with what the philosophy is about or what it can be positively applied for. I'm surprised to see this at the top of the thread, because it's mostly utter nonsense, but it does sound emotionally appealing to a certain social group that believes it's trendy to invent new negative definitions for things they don't like or understand.

stared 2y ago

> Marcus Aurelius himself was no stoic philosopher, he merely wrote diaries to himself in his late days - diaries he wanted burned, not published. This is how I read "Meditations" - not as writings of a sage (as far as I know, he didn't consider himself one), but as "shower thoughts". Ironically, since these were private notes, they were likely more genuine than if they had been intended for publication. And more approachable, precisely because he was not a philosopher. Roman emperors were, without exception, autocrats. Yet, he is considered one of the better ones. Even if he didn't always live up to stoic ideals, he strived for them. This doesn't excuse his wrongdoings, but it suggests his writings can have value despite his flawed actions. One thing that struck me, though, is how a philosophy promoting ideas like "things are good as they are" or "ignore spiteful people" works well when you're at the top. If you're a slave or poor, things might look quite different. Especially when spiteful people cannot be ignored - be it your master, your centurion, or an unfair competitor trying to frame you.

zx10rse 2y ago

You completely misunderstood everything about Stoicism. It has nothing to do with God his plan or elites. Stoicism in its essence is about living with accordance with nature by seeking virtue. It is funny that you call Marcus Aurelius a tyrant while he is considered one of the five great emperors. During the Pax Romana golden age the empire lived in relative peace prosperity and progress. After the death of Aurelius the empire descended into chaos. His reflections are profound not bitter or resentful. Majority of them are relatable today some 2000 years after...

FredPret 2y ago

> a roman emperor (tyrant, mass murderer, and courtier) It's interesting to read up on the lives of famous ancients like Julius Caesar and Alexander. I know it was a different time, but the regular and casual war crimes and mass murders sticks in one's craw.

rexpop 2y ago
> the regular and casual war crimes and mass murders It's phenomenal to read about these revered historical figures! They turn out be privileged thugs. We should be extremely reluctant to extol their virtues.
- FredPret 2y ago
  The best thing about the arc of history so far is that by and large it decentralized power (with some horrific exceptions) God-kings / pharaohs / caesars -> a handful of feudalists -> millions of millionaires vs voters vs large governments all competing in a much less violent and more stable balance of power
Gud 2y ago
Say what you will about Julius Caesar, at least he fought in the trenches. Many times were the battle was the toughest. My reptile brain can appreciate that, at least!
- FredPret 2y ago
  He also ordered a decimation on his own troops. Utterly barbaric.
  - lupusreal 2y ago
    Not saying you're wrong, Julius Caesar committed more than his fair share of atrocities, but do you have a source? Wikipedia says that Julius Caesar threatened his troops with decimation but didn't carry it out. I asked chatgpt about it and it said that Julius Caesar did order one, but then said no contemporary sources for this exist. It then claimed that Plutarch wrote that Julius Caesar made his troops draw lots, which certainly suggests he ordered a decimation, but I checked two English translations of Parallel Lives and neither of them contain any mention of this. I also asked the not to translate the original Greek, and that also doesn't mention it. The chatbot thinking it happened suggests that somebody has written that it did, but I can't figure out who and where.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

johnisgood 2y ago

Your view of stoicism is off. Nihilism (existential, moral, etc.) are not compatible with stoicism. Read https://www.amazon.com/Guide-Good-Life-Ancient-Stoic/dp/0195374614 https://www.amazon.com/Guide-Good-Life-Ancient-Stoic/dp/0195.... Marcus Aurelius is a stoic, just look at some of his quotes, that is stoicism. "The happiness of your life depends upon the quality of your thoughts." "Waste no more time arguing about what a good man should be. Be one." "If you are distressed by anything external, the pain is not due to the thing itself, but to your estimate of it; and this you have the power to revoke at any moment." "When you arise in the morning think of what a privilege it is to be alive, to think, to enjoy, to love ..."

philwelch 2y ago

It’s always funny to read people’s hot takes about stoicism because they seem to polarize into two mutually exclusive camps. In one camp, stoicism is a “hollow, dissociative, nihilist philosophy” for sociopathic emperors and in the other, it’s just cope for people without the power or agency to change anything in the world around them. If anything the bipolar nature of this criticism itself validates the broad applicability of Stoicism. And actually it is an accident that Marcus Aurelius is the “premier famous stoic”, largely because, as you point out, his personal journal wasn’t actually burned as he requested. If you actually engage at even a marginally deeper level than social media slop—e.g. by taking an undergraduate survey course in ancient philosophy—you’ll learn that the premier Stoic was Epictetus, who was born into slavery. It’s also a glib misreading of Marcus Aurelius to characterize his writings as “bitter rants”. Much of “Meditations” takes the form of an internal dialogue between the emperor’s base feelings (which are sometimes bitter and sometimes as simple as not being a morning person) and his intellect as it works to apply Stoic philosophy to his own life. If you’re not an emperor you might not relate to having to deal with surly and ungrateful supplicants or the need to remind yourself that you aren’t actually a living god, and if you’re also a morning person, Marcus Aurelius is probably completely wasted on you. But that’s not what Marcus Aurelius is for. If you want a practical Stoic handbook, read the Enchiridion.

wakawaka28 2y ago

>It's no accident that a roman emperor (tyrant, mass murderer, and courtier) is the premier famous stoic Marcus Aurelius wasn't just any Roman Emperor. He was considered one of the better ones, even called "The Last Good Emperor." >Stoicism, under this light, is training for a ruthless sort of leadership. From the pov of The Leader, all adoration is fake, all prestige, and status. Your job is to pretend it matters because it matters to your followers. It's a deeply hollow, dissociative, nihilistic philosophy which dresses up the status quo as "God's plan" -- a rationalization of interest to the elite above all others. This is so off-base I don't know where to start. Stoicism is not nihilistic. One of the major tenets of stoicism is to free your mind from trouble that is outside your control, or rather to correctly identify which things are and are not within your control. It's not supposed to turn you into an ascetic psychopath, it's supposed to foster healthy reflection on the true nature of life and your own situation. It is easier said than done, of course, but some people never even consider the possibility that their many anxious thoughts are entirely pointless and counterproductive.

1659447091 2y ago

I also find it odd how you came to this conclusion from his writings. However, I first studied Epictetus[0] (I prefer Discourses to the handbook), who inspired Aurelius--thus read Aurelius through the lens of Epictetus. Which is a very different take on Stoicism that has nothing to do with the adjective, stoic as some new aged takes seem to associate. There was also a link on here awhile back to some professors lecture on YouTube, but I can't remember it, that I thought had a really great take on Stoicism and Aurelius. (maybe someone will know it and post) My short take on Stoicism is about being responsible for your actions, really owning them, plus the understanding needed to be able to do so. Which includes not giving your power of will to others; especially due to social constructs. Worshiping "leaders/authority" tends to make a person believe they are no longer responsible for themselves, the leader is now in ownership of that. There is a gained inner peace (thus joy and lightness) in owning your will. (Here is one of my favorite passages[1]) It's not about having no feeling or joy (being deeply hollow, dissociative, etc)--very much the opposite--or at least the Epictetus teaching. It's also not about giving up and not doing anything or caring, even though that is a lot of people's (wrong, imo) take. It's the opposite, enjoy what you can but don't be so distraught over the things you can not control that you cause self-harm or make it worse. You can not control a region wide wild fire burning your house down, but you can control your response--you can freak out and cause more distress to your family or you can comfort them and find ways to bring people together and rebuild. Your choice, just take responsibility for whatever you choose. That is Stoicism, not having a "stiff upper lip" and pushing through by being a tyrant by default. If you want to chose that okay, then that was what you thought was right for you, but own the consequences of those actions, that part is the Stoicism. [0] https://classics.mit.edu/Epictetus/discourses.html https://classics.mit.edu/Epictetus/discourses.html [1] https://classics.mit.edu/Epictetus/discourses.1.one.html#103 https://classics.mit.edu/Epictetus/discourses.1.one.html#103

k0tran 2y ago

Seeing how you reply to others trying to explain what stoics actually tried to convey saddens me a little. But the only thing that is left to say is: "It is impossible to begin to learn that which one thinks one already knows." - Epictetus I wish you all the great and hope that someday you will change you attitude and perspective on stoicism.

BoingBoomTschak 2y ago

Looks like classical stoicism is competing with Nietzsche in "how much modern people can distort and/or misinterpret it". Not saying it's winning, but it's up there.