Marcus Aurelius was a Roman emperor. He apparently jotted down some philosophical thoughts in a diary as he was marching around on various military campaigns, and these fragmentary thoughts form part of the corpus of texts associated with stoicism, an ancient school of thought that encourages people to take life as it comes, good or bad.
The book is not coherent, and there’s a lot of repetition. It wasn’t written as a thoughtfully organized presentation designed to be consumed by others. And my understanding is that it’s not even complete. Bits of text are lost because the source is old and “corrupt”.
If you want to understand stoicism, I think it’s probably better to read some modern synthesis before or after reading old source texts. Still, I think it’s worth reading source texts like this one, because whoever writes the synthesis is going to put their own spin on whatever was “meant” by the original authors; but the same thing can be said for any English translation! I think it must be impossible to translate philosophy without making some biased assumptions about the author’s intended meaning. Maybe all we can really wrap our heads around is what people today construe stoicism to be. We just have to guess at what it used to be originally; and there may never have been a consensus among thinkers even then.
So anyway, what are some of the ideas to be found in the text?
Ideas in Meditations
Two ideas I noticed kept cropping up. One was to resist the temptation to care about fame, and the other was not to fear death. The former seems relevant to well-known people, especially people with political power, who may succumb to flattery and other pressures to perform or behave in certain ways, which would be a problem for an emperor. The latter seems relevant to older people and soldiers. It seems Marcus Aurelius died at age 58 of an illness contracted during a military campaign, so he had plenty of reasons to be trying to combat fear of death, even apart from political assassination, which must have been a concern too.
The way he seeks to combat fear of death and desire for fame is to remind himself how utterly short any one human life is in comparison to the age of the universe; we will all die and be forgotten. I don’t know about you, but that seems like the sort of contemplation that would cause not peace of mind but despair. Why should we be encouraged to believe that nothing we do matters because we are small in time and space? If we are so small, and our deaths and our narcissistic efforts to be remembered don’t matter, then why would our efforts to be virtuous matter either? There’s a similar paradox in the way he talks about nature or fate. He seems to say that we should accept what happens, because everyone around us is acting according to their nature, and we can’t blame them. But then how is it that we’re responsible for our own choices and thus must try to act with integrity for the social good?
Meditations contains various reminders not to waste time pursuing frivolous things, and not to be emotionally ruffled by things out of one’s control. I think this can be good advice, but I think Marcus Aurelius goes too far. I don’t think it’s necessary to entirely avoid luxuries that give pleasure, as if we are monks, and I don’t think one’s reason can always dictate one’s emotional reactions, as if we are robots. His idea seems to be that if you don’t form a positive or negative opinion about something, then the thing is neither positive nor negative, and you can go on about your life with admirable indifference. That’s a good attitude to recommend to someone anxiously doomscrolling the news, but I don’t think abdicating judgment about literally everything makes any sense.
Virtuous action is defined as action for the good of society, as man is naturally a social animal, and the individual is a part of the social body the way an arm or a leg is part of the individual’s body. Although it’s stated as a general principle, I also feel like this is a principle of particular relevance to a leader. As emperor, Marcus Aurelius has to be thinking of how to manage everyone, all the time. I honestly don’t know how a leader can manage to lead a state or large organization of any kind, because leaders have the same 24 hours per day as any of the rest of us, but they have a lot more responsibility. One hopes that they are thinking of the good of the people they’re responsible for, and not just thinking of enriching or empowering themselves, but maybe they need to be reminded. That’s what Marcus Aurelius is doing. Reminding himself of his duty.
There are some abstract ideas about nature, the universe, the divine, and the soul, but these are harder to pin down than the repeated injunctions relating to daily matters. For example, here’s a sentence that’s in a paragraph by itself and doesn’t seem to connect to the paragraphs before and after it:
The spherical form of the soul maintains its figure, when it is neither extended towards any object, nor contracted inwards, nor dispersed nor sinks down, but is illuminated by light, by which it sees the truth, the truth of all things and the truth that is in itself.
The heck is this supposed to mean? Like, A whole chapter, or a whole book, could be written to explain this (actually, it sounds like Leibnitz’s monads…), but Marcus Aurelius only gives us one sentence. Or, at best, a few scattered sentences that aren’t explicitly connected or collected anywhere. I guess it must have meant something to him when he wrote it down. He never thought we’d be scratching our heads over it 2,000 years later.
About the George Long translation
This is a popular public domain translation. I read it because it’s the one offered by Standard Ebooks. There are numerous translations though; I’m in the process of learning about all of them.
Long uses the word God to refer to… I’m not sure what exactly, because there isn’t an introduction or notes that explains this choice. My understanding is that Marcus Aurelius was a Roman polytheist and disapproved of Christianity, so he’s certainly not referring to the Christian God. It must be the universe or nature or fate or I dunno the universal unifying divinity within each person or something, but George Long doesn’t make this clear—and maybe Marcus Aurelius didn’t either, to be fair. Still, I found the use of “God” distracting, especially since the text also refers to gods.
Another thing that I think other translations or (even other editions of the Long translation) may make clearer is which paragraphs go together. Sometimes an idea is explored across multiple paragraphs, and sometimes a new paragraph is a complete non-sequitur. There’s nothing to indicate where a new idea starts. Maybe that’s true to how the thoughts were written down, but I’d prefer for a scholar to go in there and add some line breaks.
What stood out in Meditations
Below are some of the bits that I highlighted in my ebook and my thoughts related to what I highlighted.
If thou workest at that which is before thee, following right reason seriously, vigorously, calmly, without allowing anything else to distract thee, but keeping thy divine part pure, as if thou shouldst be bound to give it back immediately; if thou holdest to this, expecting nothing, fearing nothing, but satisfied with thy present activity according to nature, and with heroic truth in every word and sound which thou utterest, thou wilt live happy. And there is no man who is able to prevent this. […]
Do not disturb thyself by thinking of the whole of thy life. Let not thy thoughts at once embrace all the various troubles which thou mayest expect to befall thee: but on every occasion ask thyself, What is there in this which is intolerable and past bearing? For thou wilt be ashamed to confess. In the next place remember that neither the future nor the past pains thee, but only the present. But this is reduced to a very little, if thou only circumscribest it, and chidest thy mind, if it is unable to hold out against even this.
^^^ Don’t laugh, but this makes me think of the difference between a “plan” and a “way”, in the 2005 movie Serenity. The hero Malcolm Reynolds doesn’t usually think many steps ahead (he has no plan for the future), but relies on his principles to do the right thing in whatever situation he’s in (he has a virtuous way of facing life’s current challenge).
Such as are thy habitual thoughts, such also will be the character of thy mind; for the soul is dyed by the thoughts.
^^^ This is a version of “you are what you think,” an idea that’s been expressed by a lot of people in a lot of ways. I think it’s true, but I also think it’s easy to get it wrong. The self-affirmations crowd tries to hijack this principle. Their idea is that if you tell yourself you are brave or kind or whatever, out loud, repeatedly, then you’ll think that and be that. But our brains aren’t dumb. If you tell yourself something that you currently feel isn’t actually true, then you’re just teaching yourself that you’re a liar. It’s the same with kids: if you tell a kid her picture of a horse is accurate when it only has three legs, or otherwise inflate its quality in your praise, at some point or at some level she’s going to know your statements about her art are bogus. Praise and affirmation only work if they’re based in reality.
Reverence that which is best in the universe; and this is that which makes use of all things and directs all things. And in like manner also reverence that which is best in thyself; and this is of the same kind as that. For in thyself also, that which makes use of everything else, is this, and thy life is directed by this.
^^^ Marcus Aurelius is a big fan of reason.
If any man is able to convince me and show me that I do not think or act right, I will gladly change; for I seek the truth by which no man was ever injured. But he is injured who abides in his error and ignorance. […]
Remember that to change thy opinion and to follow him who corrects thy error is as consistent with freedom as it is to persist in thy error.
^^^ Growth mindset. It’s okay to be wrong. Being right is a process and not a destination.
How cruel it is not to allow men to strive after the things which appear to them to be suitable to their nature and profitable! And yet in a manner thou dost not allow them to do this, when thou art vexed because they do wrong. For they are certainly moved towards things because they suppose them to be suitable to their nature and profitable to them.— But it is not so.— Teach them then, and show them without being angry. […]
And what harm is done or what is there strange, if the man who has not been instructed does the acts of an uninstructed man? Consider whether thou shouldst not rather blame thyself, because thou didst not expect such a man to err in such a way. For thou hadst means given thee by thy reason to suppose that it was likely that he would commit this error, and yet thou hast forgotten and art amazed that he has erred.
^^^ Hanlon’s Razor says, Never ascribe to malice what can be accounted for by ignorance. And the mission of a teacher is to reduce ignorance.
[A]s the heaps of sand piled on one another hide the former sands, so in life the events which go before are soon covered by those which come after.
^^^ Oh, arrow, of entropic time.
It is a ridiculous thing for a man not to fly from his own badness, which is indeed possible, but to fly from other men’s badness, which is impossible.
^^^ Matthew 7:3-5 (KJV): “And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.” I can’t possibly be the first person to spot this parallel, but I tell you I spotted it independently.
When thou hast done a good act and another has received it, why dost thou look for a third thing besides these, as fools do, either to have the reputation of having done a good act or to obtain a return? […]
[T]he pride which is proud of its want of pride is the most intolerable of all.
^^^ Marcus Aurelius would have hated those influencers that film themselves giving food to homeless people, along with any and all performative virtue-signalling.
Remember that as it is a shame to be surprised if the fig-tree produces figs, so it is to be surprised if the world produces such and such things of which it is productive; and for the physician and the helmsman it is a shame to be surprised, if a man has a fever, or if the wind is unfavourable.
^^^ I think some people don’t appreciate the unsolvable nature of some problems; they have a tendency to think, Oh, there’s something bad, let’s make it stop. Often you can mitigate or address a problem, but there are many systems that are in a constant state of tug-of-war, and that’s inherent in the system somehow, because people are people. For example, if you’re the principal of a school, can you prevent students from cheating? Realistically, no. You can only encourage them to be honest, and punish them if they’re caught—or stop catching them and declare that no one cheated. But you can’t be surprised that some students cheat.
Short-lived are both the praiser and the praised, and the rememberer and the remembered: and all this in a nook of this part of the world; and not even here do all agree, no, not anyone with himself: and the whole earth too is a point.
^^^ I think he’s trying to say you can’t please everyone, and even if you think you have, your notion of “everyone” is a tiny fraction of the universe, so your achievement means nothing, so you don’t even have to worry about pleasing the local version of everyone.
It is thy duty to order thy life well in every single act; and if every act does its duty, as far as is possible, be content; and no one is able to hinder thee so that each act shall not do its duty.— But something external will stand in the way.— Nothing will stand in the way of thy acting justly and soberly and considerately.— But perhaps some other active power will be hindered.— Well, but by acquiescing in the hindrance and by being content to transfer thy efforts to that which is allowed, another opportunity of action is immediately put before thee in place of that which was hindered, and one which will adapt itself to this ordering of which we are speaking.
^^^ Acquiesce in hindrance. If at first you don’t succeed, try try again?
In the constitution of the rational animal I see no virtue which is opposed to justice; but I see a virtue which is opposed to love of pleasure, and that is temperance.
^^^ This makes me think of pursuit of happiness vs. pursuit of contentment. Happiness is understood to mean some sort of excitement or pleasure, which might be very temporary and hard to sustain; contentment is understood to mean some kind of long-term satisfaction or fulfillment. The latter may not be easier to achieve, but it does seem less impossible and less dangerous to pursue.
Say nothing more to thyself than what the first appearances report. Suppose that it has been reported to thee that a certain person speaks ill of thee. This has been reported; but that thou hast been injured, that has not been reported. I see that my child is sick. I do see; but that he is in danger, I do not see. Thus then always abide by the first appearances, and add nothing thyself from within, and then nothing happens to thee.
^^^ So there’s a joke I love about not jumping to conclusions: Three friends are on a train visiting Scotland. The engineer looks out the window, sees one black sheep, and says, “They have black sheep here!” His friend the physicist says, “Well, all we know is that they have one black sheep.” Their friend the mathematician says, “All we know is that one side of one sheep is black.” I really try to keep to “one side of one sheep” when making observations and statements about them… I think we have a natural tendency to overgeneralize.
A cucumber is bitter.— Throw it away.— There are briars in the road.— Turn aside from them.— This is enough. Do not add, And why were such things made in the world? For thou wilt be ridiculed by a man who is acquainted with nature, as thou wouldst be ridiculed by a carpenter and shoemaker if thou didst find fault because thou seest in their workshop shavings and cuttings from the things which they make. And yet they have places into which they can throw these shavings and cuttings, and the universal nature has no external space; but the wondrous part of her art is that though she has circumscribed herself, everything within her which appears to decay and to grow old and to be useless she changes into herself, and again makes other new things from these very same, so that she requires neither substance from without nor wants a place into which she may cast that which decays. She is content then with her own space, and her own matter and her own art.
^^^ I’m sure there’s a profound point here, but somehow the fact that “A cucumber is bitter; throw it away” is a quote from an emperor’s philosophy treatise cracks me up!
He then who lies intentionally is guilty of impiety inasmuch as he acts unjustly by deceiving; and he also who lies unintentionally, inasmuch as he is at variance with the universal nature, and inasmuch as he disturbs the order by fighting against the nature of the world; for he fights against it, who is moved of himself to that which is contrary to truth, for he had received powers from nature through the neglect of which he is not able now to distinguish falsehood from truth.
^^^ Marcus Aurelius doesn’t disapprove of ignorance, he disapproves of willful ignorance.
He who does wrong does wrong against himself. He who acts unjustly acts unjustly to himself, because he makes himself bad.
^^^ This is a kind of internal, spiritual version of “Crime doesn’t pay.” I think it’s easier to believe in than the external version, but it still requires some effort.
[T]hou dost not even understand whether men are doing wrong or not, for many things are done with a certain reference to circumstances. And in short, a man must learn a great deal to enable him to pass a correct judgement on another man’s acts.
^^^ Marcus Aurelius, proto-libertarian, says probably we should just leave people the heck alone.
I have often wondered how it is that every man loves himself more than all the rest of men, but yet sets less value on his own opinion of himself than on the opinion of others.
^^^ Integrity needs people to care about their own opinions of themselves.
George Long’s note 109: The ancient notion of justice is that giving to everyone his due. It’s not a legal definition, as some have supposed, but a moral rule which law cannot in all cases enforce. Besides law that has its own rules, which are sometimes moral and sometimes immoral; but it enforces them all simply because they are general rules, and if it did not or could not enforce them, so far Law would not be Law. Justice, or the doing what is just, implies a universal rule and obedience to it; and as well as we all live under universal Law, which commands both our body and our intelligence, and is the law of our nature, that is the law of the whole constitution of man, we must endeavor to discover what this supreme Law is. It is the will of the power that rules all. By acting in obedience to this will, we do justice, and by consequence everything else that we ought to do.
^^^ Long is differentiating “justice” as understood in two philosophical domains, ethics and politics. Ethics tell us how we as private individuals should treat other people (morality, ancient justice, or universal natural law) and politics tells us how governments are or should be constructed and how they operate or should operate (a specific country’s specific justice system: law in the legal sense and law enforcement by government representatives). Meditations is concerned with the abstract ethical meaning of justice rather than a legal system.
Best quote from Meditations
This advice appeals to me, and also sounds exactly like the sort of thing a stoic would say:
Let not future things disturb thee, for thou wilt come to them, if it shall be necessary, having with thee the same reason which now thou usest for present things.
However, I prefer this more striking formulation:
Never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you have to, with the same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present.
Perplexity says this version is from Maxwell Staniforth’s 1964 translation for Penguin, and that the combative wording “weapons that arm you” is not a literal translation; George Long’s wording is probably closer to the original. But Staniforth’s sounds cooler. (Translation always has this tension!)
When and Why I Read Meditations
Foundational stoic text.
Genre: philosophy
Date started / date finished: 29-Aug-26 to 10-Sep-26
Length: 101 pages
ISBN: marcus-aurelius_meditations_george-long
Originally published in: written between 170 and 180, translated from Koine Greek in 1862, ebook in 2014
Source link: Meditations
