7 ms·

This quote has been floating around for a while (I first came across it in the early 90s if memory serves). According to [1] Marcus Aurelius never wrote it, bu

This quote has been floating around for a while (I first came across it in the early 90s if memory serves). According to [1] Marcus Aurelius never wrote it, but I still think it's a great little quote: “Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.” [1] http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/6999/did-marcus-aurelius-say-live-a-good-life http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/6999/did-marcus-...

dustingetz 14y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascals_Wager https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascals_Wager
- gnaritas 14y ago
  A well known and obvious false dilemma, how is that relevant?
  - pjscott 14y ago
    The problems with Pascal's wager are good to keep in mind when trying to reason about hypothetical deities. Mostly, the lesson here is that when you're considering what types of gods may exist, there are a lot of possibilities. Any time you try to break the set of all possible gods down into simple categories, be careful and double-check your assumptions, because you could easily have forgotten something major. For example, Pascal's Wager doesn't really consider the set of hypothetical gods who are violently offended by blind faith, but these gods are no less possible than the ones it does consider.
    - gnaritas 14y ago
      One doesn't generally quote something they disagree with as support for something because something they agree with can be found in the criticisms of that which they quoted. As you aren't the OP, you can't answer the intended relevance. I do not think his reasons would match your rationalization of it. I agree with you, but doubt the OP does.
      - pjscott 14y ago
        Of course; I didn't mean to imply that I spoke for the OP.
- confluence 14y ago
  Pascal's wager assumes one can only hold a belief in 1 god. However as it is trying not to make assumptions about the existence of gods then it really should take into account the possibility of infinite gods. Wager value now divided by infinity or negative as believing in infinite gods is tough on your wallet.
  - jonnathanson 14y ago
    Indeed, one of the critical flaws with Pascal's Wager, from a decision-science standpoint, is that it's Judeo-Christian-centric. AFAIK, only the gods of monotheistic religions seem to demand singular worship. Gods of other religions and belief systems don't seem to give a crap how many of them you worship, or whether you blend them into admixtures of faith. Given that there is no evidence that the Christian God is more likely to exist than, say, Zeus, we must provide equal statistical weight to Zeus as to J.C. And so on for all the other possibilities, ad infinitum. But it doesn't stop there. Some religions' tenets conflict directly with the tenets of others. So it can be said that there are multiple sets of compatible religions that can be held at a given time. Most of these religions are polytheistic. By contrast, adopting a monotheistic religion limits you to just one chip on the cosmic roulette table. Ergo, from a statistical standpoint, choosing a monotheistic religion (such as Christianity) for the Wager is taking the worst possible odds.
    - stock_toaster 14y ago
      It would be interesting to see a matrix of popular religions and their compatibilities with/against belief in other religions.
      - confluence 14y ago
        Reminds me of the Game of Thrones character matrices I've seen around. People who are religious, funnily enough, exhibit the exact same tendencies as Game of Thrones and Dr. Who fans (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNtnN_DiP3o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNtnN_DiP3o).
wolfhumble 14y ago
Interesting way to hedge your bets, but to me it seems absurd that the clay should dictate the rules of the potter.
- rapala 14y ago
  Why should one worship a god that can't tolerate a pagan man that nevertheless lived a good life? If a god wants the man to be virtuous, why can't the man expect the same from the god?
  - sigzero 14y ago
    Probably because that god has rules.
  - wolfhumble 14y ago
    A god implies that something is created(c). That god could be good or bad based on c's standards, but the god would still be the definer of the rules if it wished to do so. How would c even know if it is accepted or rejected based on goodness? And if it is so, how would c know that it lives a good life? By whose standards? [Update spelling]
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - dinkumthinkum 14y ago
      This issue is much more complicated than you imply and has been written about for thousands of years.
    - chc 14y ago
      > That god could be good or bad based on c's standards, but the god would still be the definer of the rules if it wished to do so. A god could define rules. So can men (in fact, men can be observed to create rules all the time). Anybody can define rules if they wish to do so. I'm not quite sure of the point here. > And if it is so, how would c know that it lives a good life? By whose standards? As a Stoic philosopher, obviously Marcus Aurelius' answer would be along the lines of the standards embraced by Stoicism. In addition to a heavy emphasis on virtue, the Stoics were also avid logicians, and this informed their ethics.
scrrr 14y ago
Here's a similar quote from Jay-Z: “This is why we shouldn't be afraid. There are two possibilities: One is that there's more to life than the physical life, that our souls "will find an even higher place to dwell" when this life is over. If that's true, there's no reason to fear failure or death. The other possibility is that this life is all there is. And if that's true, then we have to really live it - we have to take it for everything it has and "die enormous" instead of "living dormant," as I said way back on "Can I Live." Either way, fear is a waste of time.”
- run4yourlives 14y ago
  I had no idea Jay-Z was so introspective.
  - retroafroman 14y ago
    His book Decoded is a very interesting read. He tells a lot of stories about how the songs came about, and then also takes a lot of songs and goes line by line and explains the meaning behind the lyrics.
- kahawe 14y ago
  You know, all these allegedly deep and smart "worldly wisdoms" that people who "made it" like to share in hind-sight do not show you the countless other people who said something similar and did not make it or lived by totally different priorities and still made it. Taking the initiative and not being crippled in your actions by fear is generally not a bad suggestion but there is so much more that goes into becoming so successful and a lot of that really is out of your hands at the end of the day, whether you like that or not. Attributing it to one mindset or quote is really oversimplifying things, no matter how good it can feel to read something like that.
ernestipark 14y ago
This implies that we can say/understand/dictate as humans what is just and not just.
segmondy 14y ago
This is the exact quote according to his translation, which can be found at http://archive.org/stream/meditationsofmar00marc/meditationsofmar00marc_djvu.txt http://archive.org/stream/meditationsofmar00marc/meditations... Manage all your actions, words, and thoughts accordingly, since you may at any moment quit life. And what great matter is the business of dying ? If the gods are in being, you can suffer nothing, for they will do you no harm. And if they are not, or take no care of us mortals — why, then, a world without either gods or Providence is not worth a man's while to live in. But, in truth, the being of the gods, and their concern in human affairs, is beyond dispute. And they have put it entirely in a man's power not to fall into any calamity properly so-called. And if other misfortunes had been really evils, they would have provided against them too, and furnished man with capacity to avoid them. But how can that which cannot make the man worse make his life so ?

dustingetz 14y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascals_Wager https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascals_Wager

gnaritas 14y ago
A well known and obvious false dilemma, how is that relevant?
- pjscott 14y ago
  The problems with Pascal's wager are good to keep in mind when trying to reason about hypothetical deities. Mostly, the lesson here is that when you're considering what types of gods may exist, there are a lot of possibilities. Any time you try to break the set of all possible gods down into simple categories, be careful and double-check your assumptions, because you could easily have forgotten something major. For example, Pascal's Wager doesn't really consider the set of hypothetical gods who are violently offended by blind faith, but these gods are no less possible than the ones it does consider.
  - gnaritas 14y ago
    One doesn't generally quote something they disagree with as support for something because something they agree with can be found in the criticisms of that which they quoted. As you aren't the OP, you can't answer the intended relevance. I do not think his reasons would match your rationalization of it. I agree with you, but doubt the OP does.
    - pjscott 14y ago
      Of course; I didn't mean to imply that I spoke for the OP.
confluence 14y ago
Pascal's wager assumes one can only hold a belief in 1 god. However as it is trying not to make assumptions about the existence of gods then it really should take into account the possibility of infinite gods. Wager value now divided by infinity or negative as believing in infinite gods is tough on your wallet.
- jonnathanson 14y ago
  Indeed, one of the critical flaws with Pascal's Wager, from a decision-science standpoint, is that it's Judeo-Christian-centric. AFAIK, only the gods of monotheistic religions seem to demand singular worship. Gods of other religions and belief systems don't seem to give a crap how many of them you worship, or whether you blend them into admixtures of faith. Given that there is no evidence that the Christian God is more likely to exist than, say, Zeus, we must provide equal statistical weight to Zeus as to J.C. And so on for all the other possibilities, ad infinitum. But it doesn't stop there. Some religions' tenets conflict directly with the tenets of others. So it can be said that there are multiple sets of compatible religions that can be held at a given time. Most of these religions are polytheistic. By contrast, adopting a monotheistic religion limits you to just one chip on the cosmic roulette table. Ergo, from a statistical standpoint, choosing a monotheistic religion (such as Christianity) for the Wager is taking the worst possible odds.
  - stock_toaster 14y ago
    It would be interesting to see a matrix of popular religions and their compatibilities with/against belief in other religions.
    - confluence 14y ago
      Reminds me of the Game of Thrones character matrices I've seen around. People who are religious, funnily enough, exhibit the exact same tendencies as Game of Thrones and Dr. Who fans (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNtnN_DiP3o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNtnN_DiP3o).

wolfhumble 14y ago

Interesting way to hedge your bets, but to me it seems absurd that the clay should dictate the rules of the potter.

rapala 14y ago
Why should one worship a god that can't tolerate a pagan man that nevertheless lived a good life? If a god wants the man to be virtuous, why can't the man expect the same from the god?
- sigzero 14y ago
  Probably because that god has rules.
- wolfhumble 14y ago
  A god implies that something is created(c). That god could be good or bad based on c's standards, but the god would still be the definer of the rules if it wished to do so. How would c even know if it is accepted or rejected based on goodness? And if it is so, how would c know that it lives a good life? By whose standards? [Update spelling]
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - dinkumthinkum 14y ago
    This issue is much more complicated than you imply and has been written about for thousands of years.
  - chc 14y ago
    > That god could be good or bad based on c's standards, but the god would still be the definer of the rules if it wished to do so. A god could define rules. So can men (in fact, men can be observed to create rules all the time). Anybody can define rules if they wish to do so. I'm not quite sure of the point here. > And if it is so, how would c know that it lives a good life? By whose standards? As a Stoic philosopher, obviously Marcus Aurelius' answer would be along the lines of the standards embraced by Stoicism. In addition to a heavy emphasis on virtue, the Stoics were also avid logicians, and this informed their ethics.

scrrr 14y ago

Here's a similar quote from Jay-Z: “This is why we shouldn't be afraid. There are two possibilities: One is that there's more to life than the physical life, that our souls "will find an even higher place to dwell" when this life is over. If that's true, there's no reason to fear failure or death. The other possibility is that this life is all there is. And if that's true, then we have to really live it - we have to take it for everything it has and "die enormous" instead of "living dormant," as I said way back on "Can I Live." Either way, fear is a waste of time.”

run4yourlives 14y ago
I had no idea Jay-Z was so introspective.
- retroafroman 14y ago
  His book Decoded is a very interesting read. He tells a lot of stories about how the songs came about, and then also takes a lot of songs and goes line by line and explains the meaning behind the lyrics.
kahawe 14y ago
You know, all these allegedly deep and smart "worldly wisdoms" that people who "made it" like to share in hind-sight do not show you the countless other people who said something similar and did not make it or lived by totally different priorities and still made it. Taking the initiative and not being crippled in your actions by fear is generally not a bad suggestion but there is so much more that goes into becoming so successful and a lot of that really is out of your hands at the end of the day, whether you like that or not. Attributing it to one mindset or quote is really oversimplifying things, no matter how good it can feel to read something like that.

ernestipark 14y ago

This implies that we can say/understand/dictate as humans what is just and not just.

segmondy 14y ago

This is the exact quote according to his translation, which can be found at http://archive.org/stream/meditationsofmar00marc/meditationsofmar00marc_djvu.txt http://archive.org/stream/meditationsofmar00marc/meditations... Manage all your actions, words, and thoughts accordingly, since you may at any moment quit life. And what great matter is the business of dying ? If the gods are in being, you can suffer nothing, for they will do you no harm. And if they are not, or take no care of us mortals — why, then, a world without either gods or Providence is not worth a man's while to live in. But, in truth, the being of the gods, and their concern in human affairs, is beyond dispute. And they have put it entirely in a man's power not to fall into any calamity properly so-called. And if other misfortunes had been really evils, they would have provided against them too, and furnished man with capacity to avoid them. But how can that which cannot make the man worse make his life so ?