Meditations by Marcus Aurelius

I accessed  several translations of this work during my recent reading of it. I read the Gregory Hays Translation from cover to cover. The below quotes are from that translation.

Meditations by Marcus Aurelius is a work that has been renowned for centuries. The book consists of the philosophical musings of the famous Roman emperor.

I am no expert on ancient philosophy. However, several sources, including Gregory Hays’s introduction to his translation, indicate that Aurelius draw from the ideas of multiple schools of philosophy, but borrowed primarily from the Stoic school when creating this work.

The philosophy in this work is not complex. Most of the text is a straightforward and insightful exposition of Aurelius’s version of the Stoic thought system.

The author lays out certain basic precepts for a fulfilling life. First, he urges that one view and assess the world as rationally and unbiased as possible. Next, he consoles the reader not to allow painful events, life’s troubles or malicious people, to push one’s mind into the realm of negative emotions such as anger, resentment or sadness. He urges the reader to act and think rationally and ethically, no matter what external events bring. The reader is advised to control what he or she can control and not worry unduly about that which he or she cannot.  The author explains that a godlike force is guiding the Universe and all events are leading to a universal form of good. Thus, it makes no sense to lament or complain about so called “bad things.”

He writes,

“Joy for humans lies in human actions. Human actions: kindness to others, contempt for the senses, the interrogation of appearances, observation of nature and of events in nature. “

There is a sense of fatalism inherent this work. Aurelius repeatedly reminds us that everyone must die,

“Augustus’s court: his wife, his daughter, his grandsons, his stepsons, his sister, Agrippa, the relatives, servants, friends, Areius, Maecenas, the doctors, the sacrificial  priests … the whole court, dead. “

Since death is inevitable and a natural part of change, Aurelius argues that it only makes sense to peacefully accept the end of life.

One question that arises when reading this work for me: does it really rise to the level of greatness in line with the acclaim that it has received over the centuries?  As I alluded to above, my understanding is that the philosophical elements within this work are not original. In his introduction to the his translation, Gregory Hays writes

“it contains little or nothing that is original. It suggests not a mind recording new perceptions or experimenting with new arguments, but one obsessively repeating and reframing ideas long familiar but imperfectly absorbed. “

At times, the writing seems to be profound. At other times, it seems almost to be string of platitudes.

Can what is essentially a summary of a certain philosophic school be considered essential or a great work?

At the very least, due to its influence, this is an important historical and cultural book. Furthermore, the writing is always interesting. More so, it is often a joy to read.

There is something else that began to dawn upon me as I read this work. It seems extraordinarily modern. Marcus Aurelius’ advocacy of finding an inner calm, of keeping one’s mind, as well as one’s values, separate from the outside world, as well as many other insights at times sound like something out a modern self-help book, but perhaps the greatest self-help book ever written. At least in regards to how he presents his message, it seems that the ancient emperor still has something to say that is very relevant to our modern times.

 Yet, despite the above-mentioned virtues, the question still remains. Does this work stand up well to the works of philosophers such as Plato, Aristotle, Rousseau, et al? Due to its lack of originality and lack of complexity, it would be a hard sell to contend that Aurelius reaches the level of history’s great thinkers. Yet, this is still a very valuable tome. Though perhaps not all that novel, it is an eloquent exposition of stoic and related beliefs. Furthermore, if one is inclined to accept any part of this belief system, this book serves as a great motivator and a guide to self-improvement. Though I reject most of the metaphysics contained here, particularly the part about every event in the Universe leading to good, I find value in this work as a blueprint in finding an inner and outer calm not affected by external events. Thus, while perhaps a bit overrated over time, this work is well worth the read.

René Descartes - Discourse on Method

I am reading through some of the major works of René Descartes. His Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting One's Reason and of Seeking Truth in the Sciences, of which I read the John Veitch translation, is a seminal essay that is commonly read by those studying philosophy the world over. In terms of understanding Western thought and culture, this is an essential work. Despite its integral nature, it still yields a few surprises.

In the treatise, Descartes sets out to ascertain the great truths in the universe. In order to accomplish his endeavor, he examines the best method for one to reach critical conclusions.

Though a relatively short work, Descartes’s ruminations are extensive and multifaceted. He first starts off dispensing with, at least temporarily, all preconceived ideas, including our basic assumptions about life.   Included among the discarded ideas are philosophic, theological and scientific views espoused by the great minds of history.

On the issue of philosophy, Descartes writes,

“Of philosophy I will say nothing, except that when I saw that it had been cultivated for many ages by the most distinguished men, and that yet there is not a single matter within its sphere which is not still in dispute, and nothing, therefore, which is above doubt, I did not presume to anticipate that my success would be greater in it than that of others; and further, when I considered the number of conflicting opinions touching a single matter that may be upheld by learned men, while there can be but one true, I reckoned as well-nigh false all that was only probable”,

Descartes then proceeds to build up a belief system, supposedly rejecting any thoughts that can be doubted in any way. He contends that the only truths that he will accept are those that he can prove through experimentation and reasoning. He starts with his famous proposition of Cogito ergo sum, or “I think, therefore I am,” by which he establishes that his mind exits.  He builds up from here. Through a chain of reasoning, the famous philosopher goes on to prove, in his view, the existence of a perfect God. The work concludes with the championing of scientific experiments as the only way to reach additional universal truths.

There is so much here that I think one could devout years to the study of this essay. It has had a profound impact upon the modern world. Many of our notions about skepticism, the scientific method, thinking for one self, as well as theological ruminations can be traced through this work. Though Descartes did not invent all of these ideas, he expressed and organized them in a way that helped set the tone for their dissemination throughout our culture. Variations upon this approach have reverberated down the centuries and have played a key role in shaping both the scientific method as well as modern thinking and discourse employed by people with enormously diverse belief systems.

One of many things that I find of great interest here is how Descartes’s view of God flies in the face of the entire “faith must be opposed to reason” mindset. Of course, the supposed dichotomy between faith and science is a legitimate point of inquiry and an interesting take upon human ideas. However, it is but one way to look at these ideas. Perhaps as a result of simplistic films, television shows and books, our culture seems inundated with the idea that reason in opposition to religion is the only way to examine these issues.

Such a conflict does not exist in Descartes’s worldview. This philosopher helped to invent the modern skeptical, rationalistic worldview. However, he also finds that the existence of the Supreme Being to be eminently provable from the point of view of a rational mind.

Descartes’s reasoning in respect to God is complex. I cannot really do it justice in a single blog post. An oversimplification of it starts with the idea that humans are imperfect. We have an understanding of perfection, however. Such a comprehension of true perfection could only exist if there was a truly perfect Being who created us. We need such a perfect Being to compare ourselves to, otherwise we could not even have a concept of perfection.

He writes about the idea of perfection inherent in our minds,

“But this could not be the case with-the idea of a nature more perfect than myself; for to receive it from nothing was a thing manifestly impossible; and, because it is not less repugnant that the more perfect should be an effect of, and dependence on the less perfect, than that something should proceed from nothing, it was equally impossible that I could hold it from myself: accordingly, it but remained that it had been placed in me by a nature which was in reality more perfect than mine, and which even possessed within itself all the perfections of which I could form any idea; that is to say, in a single word, which was God”

There is much more to this line of reasoning for the reader to discover.

I do not agree with Descartes’s logic for various reasons. My big quibble would be that the concept of “perfection,” while a vital human idea, is not something that is actually built into the universe. Despite its extremely important value within human thought systems, it is not really “real” on a certain level. Furthermore, there is no actual objective concept of “perfection.” Finally, even if there was a reality to the “Form” of perfection, it seems a trick of semantics to assert that an imperfect mind could not imagine true perfection, even if such true perfection did not actually exist in the form of a God.

With that said my objection to Descartes’s reasoning is not my primary point. To the contrary, I admire this philosopher’s methodology. I am somewhat understanding of an assertion that God exists based upon a thoughtful approach to reality such as this. Though I disagree with him, Descartes’s theory on a deity is based upon a systematic search for the truth. Especially in our age with its profusion of stories that only seem to be capable of approaching this issue from the perspective of reason and belief in God as irreconcilable enemies, Descartes’s alternate view is eminently refreshing and due much respect.

No doubt, readers will take all sorts of things from this work. My point about faith and rationality is only one of many peaks in a very, very large iceberg. This work is a stimulating and essential read for anyone who seeks to understand some great thinking of the past as well as how our modern world came to be.

Self Reliance by Ralph Waldo Emerson

Self Reliance by Ralph Waldo Emerson is an essay by the very influential American philosopher. Emerson, whose life spanned from 1803 to 1882, introduced the philosophical school known as Transcendentalism. I am slowly working my way through this philosopher’s major works and becoming acquainted with his worldview.

One problem that I have with Emerson, at least compared to the limited number of other philosophers that I have read, is that he tends to stay general and does not always drill down into historical, fictional or real life examples on the points that he is attempting to make. This makes him very difficult to pin down. Most interpretations of his meaning and intentions lend themselves to a counterargument that he is being misinterpreted.

Self Reliance is both a positive exhortation of the intellectual and spiritual self, paired with the negative rejection of outside influences upon the psyche. He decries the idea of individuals following particular philosophies, political parties, organized religions etc. One basis for his arguments is that there is a universal spirit of wisdom endowed by God and nature that is inherent in all people.

“Here are the lungs of that inspiration which giveth man wisdom and which cannot be denied without impiety and atheism. We lie in the lap of immense intelligence, which makes us receivers of its truth and organs of its activity. “

Following external organized belief systems can never lead to an understanding of the essence of this inner wisdom.

Emerson goes further down this path as he even rejects the over-reliance on reason as being essentially an external belief system and instead exhorts the reader to follow their instincts and gut feelings when determining what is right and what is moral.

“When we discern justice, when we discern truth, we do nothing of ourselves, but allow a passage to its beams. If we ask whence this comes, if we seek to pry into the soul that causes, all philosophy is at fault. Its presence or its absence is all we can affirm. Every man discriminates between the voluntary acts of his mind and his involuntary perceptions, and knows that to his involuntary perceptions a perfect faith is due. “

Emerson keeps going as he identifies even our past beliefs and perceptions as external and therefore factors that should not be relied upon.

“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day.”

Later, he rejects other things such as personal property, searching for truth through science and even European influence upon American architecture as counterproductive overreliance on the external.

On the positive side, the essay is full of exhortations for the individual to trust their own mind as well as to disregard the approval of others. When one contemplates the plethora of self-help books that are so popular these days and whose authors urge one to become self-actualized by loving oneself and rejecting the opinions of others, one discerns Emerson’s influence.

As a firm believer in independent thinking and intellectual independence, I find some of Emerson’s views here very much in line with my own. For instance, when it comes to the issue of not conforming to the ideas of loved ones just to go along and be accepted, while at the same time balancing this independence with the value in the relationships themselves, Emerson writes,

“Live no longer to the expectation of these deceived and deceiving people with whom we converse. Say to them, 'O father, O mother, O wife, O brother, O friend, I have lived with you after appearances hitherto. Henceforward I am the truth. Be it known unto you that henceforward I obey no law less than the eternal law. I will have no covenants but proximities. I shall endeavour to nourish my parents, to support my family, to be the chaste husband of one wife,— but these relations I must fill after a new and unprecedented way. I appeal from your customs. I must be myself. I cannot break myself any longer for you, or you. If you can love me for what I am, we shall be the happier. “

But then the philosopher descends into what for me is untenable territory,

“If you are noble, I will love you: if you are not, I will not hurt you and myself by hypocritical attentions. If you are true, but not in the same truth with me, cleave to your companions; I will seek my own. “

I believe that the above represents an extreme intolerance towards belief systems that one does not agree with and is thus the road to strident closed-mindedness. Furthermore, cleaving only to those who agree with one’s self is surely the path to intellectual stagnation. In addition, Emerson’s criticism of science and reason does not, in my opinion, reflect a realistic way to find truth in life.

Despite the fact that I mostly disagree with Emerson’s worldview and the fact that I believe he takes what are some great ideas to unnecessary extremes, this is an interesting and important work. In addition, his proses are a joy to read. Emerson was an innovative and lively thinker and his viewpoints have had a significant influence upon the modern world. 

My commentary on Emerson's Nature, is here.

The Anti - Christ by Friedrich Nietzsche

The Anti - Christ is the forth work that I have read by Friedrich Nietzsche. My recent commentary on On the Genealogy of Morals is here. I read the Horace B. Samuel translation of this treatise.  

This book is an ideological as well as emotional, even hateful, attack on what Nietzsche perceives as the Judeo - Christian tradition and philosophy. While in some ways this is a rehash of ideas presented in earlier works, in this book the philosopher maps out this particular thesis in intricate detail.  Nietzsche describes his primary contention,

“Christianity,” which is to say, the corruption of souls by means of the concepts of guilt, punishment and immortality”

“Corruption” of souls being an effect of Christianity, Nietzsche sees modern Europeans as being motivated by guilt and punishment. As a result, modern society is riddled with weakness and decadence. He equates Christianity to anarchy. He blames it for what he perceives to be the malevolency of democracy and scoffs at the ideas that humans are equal.  He sees Christianity as the revenge and rule of the lowest elements of society. A proper society in his view would be controlled by elites, and he is contemptuous of even the middle classes,

 “A high civilization is a pyramid: it can stand only on a broad base; its primary prerequisite is a strong and soundly consolidated mediocrity. The handicrafts, commerce, agriculture, science, the greater part of art, in brief, the whole range of occupational activities, are compatible only with mediocre ability and aspiration; such callings would be out of place for exceptional men; the instincts which belong to them stand as much opposed to aristocracy as to anarchism. The fact that a man is publicly useful, that he is a wheel, a function, is evidence of a natural predisposition; it is not society, but the only sort of happiness that the majority are capable of, that makes them intelligent machines. “

 For Nietzsche, the problem with the concept of immortality and the afterlife is that it focuses human attention away from the reality of life, and is thus the worship of death and, therefore, abominable. He condemns belief systems that distract people from reality.

Nietzsche extolls the virtues of what he considers to be high civilization, principally the Roman Empire, as well as the Islamic Empire. He sees those societies as great, having existed without guilt and decadence. In the philosopher’s eyes, these civilizations were springs of culture, learning and science that were not burdened by ideas that make humanity weak. In addition, he admires these empires for their warrior ethos.

There are a plethora of additional arguments here, all illustrating how Nietzsche believes that Christianity and its supposed offspring, socialism, anarchy and democracy, have destroyed high civilization.

I certainly disagree with certain aspects of the Christian belief system. However, on almost every level, Nietzsche’s arguments simply do not hold water for me. I believe that human progress has resulted from a combination of ideals. These include the drive and will of the individual to succeed despite societal constraints that Nietzsche champions. However, human progress has also been driven by the tendency to exhibit compassion and charity, ideals that the philosopher treats with contempt. Furthermore, much of the tendency in people that Nietzsche defines as a “slave morality” is clearly built into our genes.

I also find many flaws in Nietzsche’s views of history, sociology and psychology. For example, he attributes the fall of Rome entirely to the spread of Christianity. He also gives too much credit to Christianity by implying that the world would be mostly devoid of charity, democracy, the philosophy of equality, etc. without it. His reasoning is, on some issues, utterly without nuance. He is full of hatred towards thought systems and people that he disagrees with. As a result, I find this treatise to often be childish and downright silly.

To be sure, Nietzsche has been influential on subsequent belief systems. For example, his thoughts have not only heavily impacted the philosophies of Libertarianism and Objectivism, but even upon deeper and more reasoned thinkers such as D.H. Lawrence and Hermann Hesse.  He does delve into extremely audacious and uncharted territory. He is opinionated and, at times, lays out interesting arguments. He often exhibits great insight. I also remember other works by the philosopher, such as Thus Spoke Zarathustra and Beyond Good and Evil as being less vitriolic as well as a little more levelheaded. However, at least when it comes to this work, for me, these attributes do not compensate for the immaturity and the flawed nature of these writings.