Support NeoGAF

[Cyan]

Yes, the Roman Emperor.


Meditations by Marcus Aurelius

Written in Greek by the only Roman emperor who was also a philosopher, without any intention of publication, the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius (AD 121-180) offer a remarkable series of challenging spiritual reflections and exercises developed as the emperor struggled to understand himself and make sense of the universe. Ranging from doubt and despair to conviction and exaltation, they cover such diverse topics as the nature of moral virtue, human rationality, divine providence and Marcus' own emotions. But while the Meditations were composed to provide personal consolation and encouragement, in developing his beliefs Marcus Aurelius also created one of the greatest of all works of philosophy: a timeless collection of extended meditations and short aphorisms that has been consulted and admired by statesmen, thinkers and readers through the centuries.


There are quite a few translations of Meditations, and some of them are public domain. Hays's translation is often described as both exceptionally clear and closest to capturing the original intent of Aurelius's writing as essentially notes to himself. I recommend this version, and will be reading it myself.

Find it here:
Kindle edition
Paperback edition

The Project Gutenberg version looks pretty dense and clumsy, but here's a more readable free edition.

Guidelines:
-Discussion of anything and everything is encouraged. It's a book club, let's chat!
-Please use spoiler tags sensibly. Seriously we don't need spoiler tags here.
-The milestones are there to help keep you on the path. If you get ahead or behind, don't worry--it will have no impact on your final grade.


Reading Milestones:
Sept 1-7 || Books 1-4
Sept 8-14 || Books 5-8
Sept 15-21 || Books 9-12


Previous Book Club Threads:
The Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes (Apr-May 2014)
Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut (Mar 2014)
Blindness by José Saramago (Feb 2014)
The Quiet American by Graham Greene (Jan 2014)
If on a winter's night a traveler by Italo Calvino (Sept 2013)
Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov (July 2013)
Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand (Feb-Mar 2013)
The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoyevsky (Sept 2012)
Catch-22, by Joseph Heller (Jan 2012)
The Shadow of the Wind, by Carlos Ruiz Zafón (Dec 2011)
Blood Meridian: Or the Evening Redness in the West, by Cormac McCarthy (Oct 2011)
The Master and Margarita, by Mikhail Bulgakov (Sep 2011)
The Count of Monte Cristo, by Alexandre Dumas (Aug 2011)
Master and Commander, by Patrick O'Brian (July 2011)
The Happiness Project, by Gretchen Rubin (June 2011)
A Visit from the Goon Squad, by Jennifer Egan (May 2011)
The Afghan Campaign, by Steven Pressfield (Apr 2011)
Stranger in a Strange Land, by Robert A. Heinlein (Mar 2011)
Flashman, by George MacDonald Fraser (Feb 2011)

 

[Cyan]

I have set reading milestones as is normal for these threads, but I may not stick to them. This is not a standard book on philosophy, more of a loose collection of notes, so I'm not sure it makes a lot of sense to read it or discuss it in the same way you would a more typical book. We'll see what happens.

 

[Yen]

I've had this sitting on my shelf for a while now, guess now is a good time to pick it up!
Edit: I've spent the first half of September reading economics books in prep for class, I haven't forgotten about this!

 

[Haly]

No spoilers please, I want to go in with a fresh outlook.

Spoiler

This post is not serious.

 

[survivor]

Looks interesting, picked up the Gregory Hays ebook version.

 

[Pollux]

May I suggest Once An Eagle by Anton Myrer for next month?

 

[Nezumi]

I'm in the mood for some philosophizing, so count me in on this one.

 

[TTG]

I've had this sitting on my shelf for a while now, guess now is a good time to pick it up!

Same, although I may get a Kindle edition anyway.


Also, this kind of book is a lot more fun when you can bounce ideas/arguments around while reading, so consider this some preemptive attempt to solicit discussion.

 

[pa22word]

Ooh, I've been meaning to read this for a couple of months now anyways. Hopefully this this thread is enough to kick my ass into gear

 

[Necrovex]

Extremely solid philosophical book. Read it earlier this year so I won't be taking part of the actual reading but I'll join in for the actual discussions.

 

[Empty]

this is a book i admire* but i've only ever dipped in and out of it, so i'll try and read it all the way through this time

*a lot of the philosophy in here represents the person i wish i could be but never seem to be able to meet myself

 

[Necrovex]

this is a book i admire* but i've only ever dipped in and out of it, so i'll try and read it all the way through this time

*a lot of the philosophy in here represents the person i wish i could be but never seem to be able to meet myself

I wish I could follow the work philosophy, but I honestly can't stand my current job. I'm hoping when my new job starts in four months that I'll be a far better stoic.

 

[Cyan]

May I suggest Once An Eagle by Anton Myrer for next month?

I probably won't be doing one next month (or for a while), but I'll put it on my list to look into as a future possibility.

Also, this kind of book is a lot more fun when you can bounce ideas/arguments around while reading, so consider this some preemptive attempt to solicit discussion.

Oh for sure. The milestones are pretty unimportant here, everyone should feel free to jump in and discuss any bits that catch their fancy.

 

[Kraftwerk]

I read this recently and made a thread about it. Great, great book. Really calmed me down internally.

 

[Necrovex]

I read this recently and made a thread about it. Great, great book. Really calmed me down internally.

That's why I orginally read this book!

 

[Sovereign]

How is the Gregory Hays translation? I read the penguin translation a few years ago and it was alright.

 

[Cyan]

And here we are in September! I'm going to start reading shortly.

 

[Nezumi]

Downloaded it a few hours ago, will start reading a bit before I'll go to bed.

 

[Charade]

Just got my hands on a copy. Looking forward to reading with you all.

 

[Horseticuffs]

I've listened to this about 3 times in the last month! The Librivox version is excellent! https://librivox.org/the-meditations-of-marcus-aurelius/ for my audiobook peeps.

You first timers are in for a treat and a half. One of the most important books I've ever read!

 

[Freeza Under The Shower]

I scanned through it a bit (so short..), but I'll read it on full later.

 

[lastflowers]

In case anyone likes to hear about how this survived: http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistoria...editations_by_marcus_aurelius_survive/ck7vu4o

 

[Cyan]

Well, I've finally gotten properly started. Funny enough, the introduction by the translator took significantly longer to read than the bit that's actually part of our reading for this week. Just finished Book I. I will say, though, that the introduction does an excellent job setting the stage and giving historical background. Very useful. Fifty pages, though.

Book I is an oddity. Apparently the last piece actually written, but put first in translations by convention. It's essentially Aurelius recapping to himself what he's thankful to a number of different people for, from people he didn't know at all and lists one or two things about, to his adoptive father and the gods, who get multiple paragraphs. Reminds me of nothing so much as a gratefulness journal. A lot of self-help people (as well as actual studies I believe) suggest that a useful thing to do for your own happiness is to keep a gratefulness journal: at some interval, some say every day, some say once or twice a week, you sit down and think about the things you are grateful for in life, and then you write them down. I wonder if Aurelius's list of those he was grateful to was intended to serve the same function?

A few standouts: Rusticus: "Not to write treatises on abstract questions, or deliver moralizing little sermons, or compose imaginary descriptions of The Simple Life or The Man Who Lives Only For Others." So much philosophical detritus swept away in a single clear sentence!

Alexander: "Not to be constantly correcting people... but just answer their question or add another example." Proof that not much has changed in human nature in 2000 years. It's still far more tempting to ignore a person's actual arguments in favor of correcting minor errors so that you can feel superior to them and get a cheap "win." You see this a lot on GAF. Hell, I do it myself!

On to the next books a bit later.

 

[Norua]

In case anyone likes to hear about how this survived: http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistoria...editations_by_marcus_aurelius_survive/ck7vu4o

That was really interesting. Thanks for sharing.

I already read it twice in the past but good reading to everyone discovering this amazing book. Even if you don't stick with stoicism as your main philosophical mindset, everyone can benefit from reading it.

 

[Cyan]

Book II:
Now we begin the meat of the book, the philosophical vignettes, I suppose you might call them, which are what people praise Aurelius for.

An interesting juxtaposition in the first two pieces, in that the first is a pleasant reminder that though others may be awful, they are like us ("possessing a share of the divine"), and that they cannot drag us down. And then a stark reminder that our bodies are ultimately just blood, bone, and nerve. I don't like the "despise your flesh" call, but I understand what he's getting at.

10 is interesting. Sins of desire being worse than sins of anger is something you don't hear much in this modern capitalistic world. But it's a point well-made. Desire is a pull, anger is a push.

I also like 14, which presents an idea we don't often consider: as we live in the present, and not the past or future, when you die the present is what you really lose. And so in that sense, dying young is not that different from dying old.


Book III:
We do get a few bits of repetition already. As is to be expected in a series of notes to oneself.

12: "keep the spirit inside you undamaged, as if you might have to give it back at any moment"--now there's a fascinating way of looking at life. I like this metaphor, it unpacks in really interesting ways the more you think about it.

16: "To welcome with affection what is sent by fate." There in a single sentence is stoicism in a nutshell, as I understand it. Whatever comes, whatever happens, the only thing that you can absolutely control no matter what is your reaction to it. A tragedy or a miracle; the way you react is determined within yourself and thus is of your choosing. Choose not to be moved about by events, swept back and forth and willynilly, and your course will be straight and solid.


Book IV:
6 is interesting. We have no idea who Aurelius is talking about, but it's clear he had some kind of unfortunate run-in with someone he doesn't like. Worth remembering this viewpoint for future reference.

7: Another brief summation like 16 above. "Don't feel harmed, and you haven't been."

20: I have to disagree with Aurelius here. An emerald may not be any different just because no one is there to appreciate it, but beauty requires a viewpoint. Beauty requires an audience.

24: wellp, time to quit GAF forever.

33: the famous dead. Funny to read this passage in this context. Odd to think of all Aurelius's contemporaries, very few of whom we know, and all of which would sounds, as he says, utterly archaic.

49: and another excellent metaphor that sums up his stoicism. I particularly like this one. It feels like he tries to come at his ideas from different angles, to really hone in on a way to get it right in his own mind. It's neat to read.


Good reading so far. Some of the pieces require a brief pause and a little bit of thoughtfulness. This is definitely not a book to blaze through, but one to step through bit by bit. Just as well it's fairly short then, hey?

 

[AoM]

Cool, my advisor's translation. I need to make time to read this.

 

[Horseticuffs]

Book II:

16: "To welcome with affection what is sent by fate." There in a single sentence is stoicism in a nutshell, as I understand it. Whatever comes, whatever happens, the only thing that you can absolutely control no matter what is your reaction to it. A tragedy or a miracle; the way you react is determined within yourself and thus is of your choosing. Choose not to be moved about by events, swept back and forth and willynilly, and your course will be straight and solid.

As you say this is the heart and soul of Stoicism as I understand it as well; that all we can control is our reactions to things. It's the most important and difficult point.

You've made an excellent summary, thank you.

I've enjoyed this book twice this summer already and I feel another jaunt coming on. It connects with me in a way very few have. I've read a few other of the classics of Stoicism at this point, just Seneca and Epictetus so far, and while I liked them as well nothing has had the impact that this book has.

 

[TTG]

I'm writing this out as I go, much easier than trying to annotate using the Kindle and more convenient than a stack of handwritten notes. Is it worth posting, or should I summarize? Ok, let's see how it goes.

Book 1:
-This reads like some sort of hall of fame induction/acceptance ceremony speech, very deliberately constructed for public praise, to rejoice in their shining character etc. It's not only a lack of, "and from such and such deficiencies I learned... "(excepting a certain Fronto, said to be a tyrant who is only worth a single sentence's attention), it's the platitudes rolling in with a certain casualness. This isn't to say that the intent wasn't heartfelt, but the cumulative effect for me was, "let's get to it already."

-There's a deluge of characteristics he finds laudable listed, so here are some recurring themes: absolute enmity towards the ostentatious, careful deliberation and subsequent resolve after a decision has been made, moderation bordering on indifference, rejection of rhetoric in all forms(oh, those sophists!) and, of course, gratefulness for people and fortune both.

Book 2:
"Begin the morning by saying to thyself, I shall meet with the busybody, the ungrateful, arrogant, deceitful, envious, unsocial. All these things happen to them by reason of their ignorance of what is good and evil."

-First off, I like the phrasing, ignorance of what is good and evil, not being evil. An elegant way to convey a popular idea at the time, to attain happiness(for what do those qualities convey if not unhappiness) by learning the nature of good and evil, by being a philosopher! Dig up your copy of The Republic, re-read the cave analogy... ok maybe not so directly connected, but I'm biased.

-There's a call here to embrace those ignorant dopes because "To act against one another, then, is contrary to nature; and it is acting against one another to be vexed and to turn away." I'm not sure I'm on board with this indiscriminate not turning away because we share blood, seed and divinity. That's a bit too generous and I think Marcus knows it, wasn't ordering crucifixion and whatnot a daily activity for a Roman emperor?

- 2 through 6. A lot of seize the moment and devote yourself totally to your activities. Easier said than done, but nicely said. Also, an interesting juxtaposition of embracing a finite lifetime and throwing away of books. What books in particular? The ones that so emphasize the after life perhaps.

"Every man's life is sufficient. But thine is nearly finished, though thy soul reverences not itself, but places thy felicity in the souls of others."

8. "... those who do not observe the movements of their own minds must of necessity be unhappy."

17. A much, much better introduction than book 1. This should be page one somehow. I assume these will be the central themes running through the rest of the work.

So, book two is some powerful stuff and there's an aesthetic quality I really like. I already feel like I've made a good decision in participating, thanks Cyan!

 

[Gotchaye]

What's always striking to me about ethics in ancient philosophy is the way that thinkers just sort of naturally connect being a good person with being a well-off person. They've got arguments for why this is so, of course, but there's really very little consideration given to the possibility that what one ought to do is inconsistent with what's best for oneself. So there's not really such a thing as conscious evil - that'd just be stupid.

I think this sort of aphoristic philosophy is valuable, but it's valuable in a very different way than modern analytic philosophy is. It's distinctly unpersuasive. If you reject something Marcus is saying, all he's got for you is a shrug. And this is a big problem for ancient physics, but it ends up working out pretty well for ethics, especially when combined with what I was talking about in the first paragraph. A lot of this is Marcus saying "here's what seems to work pretty well". It's a... scientific ethics. It's hands-on and practical. The warrant for the philosophy is the lives of the people who have lived it. And readers derive value from it insofar as an aphorism strikes them as a novel and useful way to think.

The focus on how we ought to think is very interesting. Partly this is about self-improvement being the point of philosophy. But there's also a recognition here that you can't just apply a philosophy on a whim. The whole point of the book seems to be to be a way for Marcus to practice thinking the right way. And this is the most important thing - everything else is easy when you get your thinking in order.

 

[Charade]

Finished the introduction! Phew.

Spoiler

Don't tell anyone, but intros were the kind of thing I usually skipped over during my academic career

But seriously, I thought it was fascinating and I certainly feel ready to dive into the real thing now.

One idea that particularly stuck out to me was Hays' remark that "Men's lives are not always consistent with their ideals..." (this was when he was discussing Seneca the Younger and the discrepancy between his philosophical views and his personal life). The thought occurred to me that maybe this applied to Marcus himself since, as Hays mentioned, his rule wasn't much different than his predecessors. Of course, Hays quickly emphasizes that the actual power of the emperor was, in fact, more limited than you'd think.

Anyways, I can't really comment on this myself. And it seems like it may never be clear, as Hays mentions somewhat passingly that others have tried to link Marcus' philosophy with his political actions, unsuccessfully I assume, based on what Hays writes (lack of evidence, the structure of the empire... he later says it's "fruitless" to try to read autobiographical elements into the entries). Anyways, I guess it doesn't really matter much in the end. But I just thought it was an interesting food for thought.

Now on to Book 1!

 

[TTG]

Book 3:
-Did not hold my interest the same way Book 2 did, the unifying theme seems to be the didactic way in which Marcus Aurelius is telling the reader to live his life. With a veritable wagging finger he's gonna tell you to think no impure or idle thought, to enjoy your work totally, without expectation and stop it with the distractions. Don't get caught doing or thinking anything Marcus wouldn't approve of now, and why?(I don't even feel I'm being hyperbolic here) Well because time is short and if that won't convince you then...
-Then what appears to be a very Aristotelian division and classification of man follows. The sensually driven man-animal makes an appearance, the slave to desire(this is the part where women are mentioned explicitly usually) etc. Well, needless to say you wouldn't want to be pigeonholed with any of those guys.

It sounds sanctimonious but tone isn't the root of the issue. The reasoning behind the latter argument I find unconvincing. The former is more of an issue of scope, we could all tell a petulant child to knock it off because they're not being productive, but to use that principle across the board for problems more complex, it becomes a generality. Although he distinctly encourages simplicity, so maybe the problem is I'm unable to see the true nature of such things, thus rendering them simple, at which point all you ever need to be rid of "ill" feeling and thought is to remind yourself that nothing is to be gained from feeling or thinking so, that it's a waste of limited time.

Book 4:
-3, 4, 7 and 12 are all exemplary.
-Different topics covered in this one, I would say 4 stands out to me especially.

 

[Mumei]

I should reread this.

 

[Cyan]

Book 3:
-Did not hold my interest the same way Book 2 did, the unifying theme seems to be the didactic way in which Marcus Aurelius is telling the reader to live his life. With a veritable wagging finger he's gonna tell you to think no impure or idle thought, to enjoy your work totally, without expectation and stop it with the distractions. Don't get caught doing or thinking anything Marcus wouldn't approve of now, and why?(I don't even feel I'm being hyperbolic here) Well because time is short and if that won't convince you then...

I think it's important to remember the context here. It does feel a bit like that, but remember that Marcus Aurelius isn't telling all of this to a hypothetical future reader, he's telling it to himself. Of course he's not going to want Marcus to do or think anything Marcus wouldn't approve of.

What's always striking to me about ethics in ancient philosophy is the way that thinkers just sort of naturally connect being a good person with being a well-off person. They've got arguments for why this is so, of course, but there's really very little consideration given to the possibility that what one ought to do is inconsistent with what's best for oneself. So there's not really such a thing as conscious evil - that'd just be stupid.

Yes, this does seem to naturally fall out from certain ways of thinking. It's... odd.

 

[Charade]

Finished Book I. Pretty interesting. I think if I didn’t read the intro (or something else that told me what this was exactly), I’d be fairly confused, haha. But anyways, I will say that I wasn’t too familiar with the gratefulness journal technique Cyan mentioned. But they seem like a very simple, yet powerful tool.

Here’s just some select things that stuck out to me:

…her inability not only to do wrong but even to conceive of doing it.

This was about his mother. I think maybe it’s relevant to the “conscious evil” concept you guys were discussing earlier.

Not to waste time on nonsense… Not to be obsessed with quail-fighting or other crazes like that.

Man, this made me think about all the time/money I’ve spent on hobbies before going on to the next big thing. No quail-fighting though, fortunately.

To be free of passion and yet full of love.

I love this. Don’t think I can wrap my head around it fully (I guess looking at this through a modern bias/lens), but I definitely see what he’s getting at.

In general, I was struck by how down to earth/universal a lot of these lessons/snippets sounded, considering his status and all. Which I guess lends credence to how meaningful the book has been for such a long period of time.

 

[TTG]

Book 5:

I think it's important to remember the context here. It does feel a bit like that, but remember that Marcus Aurelius isn't telling all of this to a hypothetical future reader, he's telling it to himself. Of course he's not going to want Marcus to do or think anything Marcus wouldn't approve of.

We can't assume that it's introspective. Passing judgement is no small part of the way we think, whether there's an audience or not. I actually don't mind that his biases show, after all, we're all here at least in part because he was an emperor.

You could take 22 in a sort of vacuum: "That which does no harm to the state, does no harm to the citizen. In the case of every appearance of harm apply this rule: if the state is not harmed by this, neither am I harmed. But if the state is harmed, thou must not be angry with him who does harm to the state. Show him where his error is." Or, you could say that a populace that thinks this way is more easily ruled than one that doesn't.

Yes, this does seem to naturally fall out from certain ways of thinking. It's... odd.

This is all over Plato as well. The connection between being "good" and happy(which is just about the epitome of what to reach for) is all over the place. Of course, common good sense based on belief or guidance without understanding/reasoning is a number of rungs below the real thing(oh yes, there's a scale). And what good entails is harder to grasp than what the guidance of Marcus Aurelius would sometimes lead you to believe. Impure and frivolous thoughts aside(ok that's the last time I'm taking a shot at that), I don't know when the "conscious evil" act would be considered a reasonable course of action, certainly it wouldn't be called evil past that point.

Getting back to the original relationship between goodness and happiness, there is an inherent naivete that's hard, if not impossible, to reconcile. Any way, there's an example of this school of thought in 34:

"Thou canst pass thy life in an equable flow of happiness, if thou canst go by the right way, and think and act in the right way. These two things are common both to the soul of God and to the soul of man, and to the soul of every rational being, not to be hindered by another; and to hold good to consist in the disposition to justice and the practice of it, and in this to let thy desire find its termination."

 

[Cyan]

Hmm, I thought it was generally accepted that Meditations is Marcus Aurelius essentially writing down his thoughts in a way that clarifies them for himself. Notes to himself, without any intent of future publication or outside readers. Thus the title usually given. Is this not accurate?

 

[Charade]

Hmm, I thought it was generally accepted that Meditations is Marcus Aurelius essentially writing down his thoughts in a way that clarifies them for himself. Notes to himself, without any intent of future publication or outside readers. Thus the title usually given. Is this not accurate?

That's what I gathered from the introduction (pg. xxxvi).

Edit: But I think maybe what TTG is saying is that while he wrote it for himself, he was still passing judgement on others and not just himself (?)

Edit v2: Book 2 Finished! Fascinating stuff. Speaking of passing judgement on others, I thought 13 was relevant perhaps: "Nothing is more pathetic than people who run around in circles, 'delving into the things that lie beneath' and conducting investigations into the souls of the people around them, never realizing that all you have to do is to be attentive to the power inside you and worship it sincerely." Maybe something to keep in mind as I continue reading, to see if he becomes hypocritical in this matter?

I also noticed that twice he decried books as distractions and inciting "bitterness." I wonder if there's some historical context around this to make him feel this way.

I would say 14 was the highlight of the entire chapter. Such an interesting concept that really breathed some life into what he touched upon several times in the section (our time is limited, momentary, etc.). The more I think about it the more it makes sense... and then it doesn't. And then it does again. Just a captivating idea.

 

[Cyan]

Done through Book 8. It's interesting to see how obsessed Marcus Aurelius seems to be with his own mortality. I wonder what age he was during the writing of these, because he has to tell himself over and over that everyone dies, all things pass, it's just something that happens and it's not something you can fight. Everyone dies at their appointed time, and death is just a transformation of matter into something else. It comes up repeatedly.

Some other notable bits:
V.37: "Good fortune is what you make for yourself. Good fortune: good character, good intentions, and good actions." I generally like this sentiment when one applies it to themselves (I'm less fond of it as broad policy choice). Shouldn't be surprising that it was around as long ago as this.

VI.6: "The best revenge is not to be like that." Hilarious and pithy. Of course, I enjoy a good revenge tale as much as the next person, but I agree. Much better to not be like that. Granted, it's slightly ambiguous, but I think I'm not wrong interpreting it as saying not to be the type of person who gets revenge.

VI.18. Comparing being known by posterity to trying to be a hero to your own grandfather. A sentiment that's repeated again later, though I can't remember where exactly it was. This is one that interests me particularly, since it's something I think about probably more than it deserves: what impact will I have on the world? Will anyone in the future even remember I existed? Aurelius gives this concern the short shrift it deserves... and then goes on to be known for millennia afterwards, the bastard.

VII.27. Touches on the idea I talked about earlier of gratitude for what you have. Here Aurelius makes it into an actionable strategy: think about the things you value the most, imagine you didn't have them, and think about how much you would crave them. This dude could post on lifehacker.

VIII.51. Really great imagery here. The mind as a spring of clear water bubbling up, such that even when others try to shovel mud or manure in there, the water keeps moving, carrying it all away. "Not a cistern but a perpetual spring." Love it.

Going to try to read more tomorrow, we'll see how it works out.

 

[Cyan]

And I've finished. Full thoughts in a little bit. For now, a few last quick hits:

IX.40: a particularly interesting one. "Not some way to sleep with her--but a way to stop wanting to." etc. Don't pray for things to happen, pray to stop desiring those things. Very Buddhist.

X.35: I like the idea of a healthy mind being prepared for whatever is thrown at it. Healthy eyes can withstand bright light, healthy ears are prepared for any sound, etc. Of course, the metaphor breaks down a bit when you move to light so bright it damages your retina, or sounds so loud they break your eardrums. I wonder what the equivalent is for a mind.

XI.2: Noticeable because this was a jarring note of dissonance, after so many things I'd found agreeable and reasonable. Acquire indifference to pretty singing or dancing? Or, I suppose, to reading a good book, visiting with friends, enjoying a run? The thought just makes me kind of sad. That's not something I want to aspire to.

XII.36: "make your exit with grace." A fitting end to the book. And of course it's another one about mortality. I wonder how long after writing this he actually died? There's a sobering thought. (Edit: I've looked it up and apparently these writings were happening between 170 and 180 AD. He died in March of 180. So it can't have been very long before.)

 

[Cyan]

Goodness. Having finished the Meditations, I almost want some sort of epilogue, a mirror to the introduction, to help me put it all in perspective. I suppose, in keeping with Marcus's advice, I'll have to do it myself rather than curse the lack of it.

The Meditations are a fascinating read for a number of reasons. First, that we're reading across an abyss of history, and yet so much remains the same. We're reading a man's personal writings, his notes to himself, that he never anticipated publishing. We're reading the thoughts of a man whose ideas have crossed a two thousand year gap to reach us, all unlooked for.

This is especially fascinating in light of the fact that he worried about these things. He tells himself not to worry about posterity, not to worry about what future generations will think of him, that those future generations will be composed of people much like the ones now, and it's not worth considering. And yet here we are, many generations later. Posterity has been kind to him.

Similarly, mortality. Death was clearly something he thought about a great deal; indeed, it's the most common recurring theme in this work. Whether talked about metaphorically, as bits of incense burning out on an altar, or explicitly, reminding himself that all men die, it comes up over and over again. And yet, again, here he is, his work having survived him over all these ages.

And his ideas are often powerful. I grew a bit tired of the constant mortality references--I'm still young enough that it's not something I think about very often--but in between them were quite a few gems. The reminder that your mind can be more like an upwelling spring than a cistern, that if someone tries to shovel mud in there, it will simply wash away. The Buddhist-feeling idea of doing harm to others being harm to yourself, of injustice to others being an injustice to yourself. The conceptualizing of neighbors and fellow travelers as parts in a body, branches on the same tree, such that anything that harms them really does hurt you as well. The deist sort of idea of the logos.

Then there's the almost self-helpish stuff, that you could see someone saying at the front of a seminar room, dressed in a sharp navy suit and a slick haircut, oozing sincerity out of every pore. "Everything you're trying to reach you could have right now, this moment. If you'd only stop thwarting your own attempts." He shakes his head, looks somber. Then brightens, and announces that he has just the book for you, only $19.95 for a limited time!

Luckily, we have only to remind ourselves that the things written here, whether aphorism or tangent or discourse, are Marcus's notes to himself. It makes for an unusual sort of reading. At times I feel he's talking down to me or belaboring the obvious--and then I remember he's talking to himself. At times I feel like he's trying to sell me something--and then I remember he's talking to himself. At times I feel like he's being insincere, trying to make himself look good to the reader--and then I remember he's talking to himself, and if he's trying to put his best foot forward, it's only in service of making himself act more in accord with his ideal self.

There are the occasional clashes between things he says and things I think, the odd record-scratch moment that makes me go "huh?" The parts where he talks about the disgustingness of the human body, that we're just mounds of mucus or what have you. The bit where he talks about rejecting the pleasure of music. Music! Come on Marcus, we don't have to go that far.

But on the whole, the book fascinated me. I was looking backwards through a window in time, backwards through history and into the mind of an ancient Roman emperor. And I saw that on the whole, people haven't changed. On the whole, we're much as we ever were. And if we want to make the effort, even today we can glean wisdom from Marcus Aurelius's notes to himself.