This post is the eighth in our Stoic Philosophy book club series on Meditations by Marcus Aurelius. Participants expressing interest are tagged at the end of the post, let us know if you're new and would like to join and be tagged!
Prior posts for context:
- Book 8
- Book 7
- Book 6
- Book 5
- Book 4
- Book 3: In Carnuntum
- Book 2: On the River Gran, Among the Quadi
- Book 1: Debts and Lessons
- Geneisis Post
Book 9
Summary and Highlights
I have appreciated Book 9 because it consists of some longer entries which lend to a feeling of more depth from Marcus, namely #1, #3, #9, #29, #30, #35 and #42. I figure I'll try something slightly different this week. Since #1 and #42 stuck out as favorites and they both open and close Book 9, I'll quote them here in their entirety and concentrate on them only with light commentary.
#1
Injustice is a kind of blasphemy. Nature designed rational beings for each other's sake: to help -- not harm -- one another, as they deserve. To transgress its will, then, is to blaspheme against the oldest of the gods. And to lie is to blaspheme against it too. Because "nature" means the nature of that which is. And that which is and that which is the case are closely linked, so that nature is synonymous with Truth -- the source of all true things. To lie deliberately is to blaspheme -- the liar commits deceit, and thus injustice. And likewise to lie without realizing it. Because the involuntary liar disrupts the harmony of nature -- it's order. He is in conflict with the way the world is structured. As anyone is who deviates toward what is opposed to the truth -- even against his will. Nature gave him the resources to distinguish between true an false. And he neglected them, and now can't tell the difference. And to pursue pleasure as good, and flee from pain as evil -- that too is blasphemous. Someone who does that is bound to find himself constantly reproaching nature -- complaining that it doesn't treat the good and bad as they deserve, but often lets the bad enjoy pleasure and the things that produce it, and makes th good suffer pain, and the things that produce pain. And moreover, to fear pain is to fear something that's bound to happen, the world being what it is -- and that again is blasphemy. While if you pursue pleasure, you can hardly avoid wrongdoing -- which is manifestly blasphemous. Some things nature is indifferent to; if it privileged one over the other it would hardly have created both. And if we want to follow nature, to be of one mind with it, we need to share its indifference. To privilege pleasure over pain -- life over death, fame over anonymity -- is clearly blasphemous. Nature certainly doesn't. And when I say that nature is indifferent to them, I mean that they happen indifferently, at different times, to the things that exist and the things that come into being after them, through some ancient decree of Providence -- the decree by which from some initial starting point it embarked on the creation that we know, by laying down principles of what was to come and determining the generative forces: existence and change, and their successive stages.
Marcus' operative word here is "blasphemy" -- the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God, the act of claiming the attributes of a deity, or irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable . My automatic connotation of this world is with the New Testament, when Jesus rails against the blasphemers, especially the Jewish Pharisees. This crowd of religious teachers seemed to be his most despicable target and he was provoked to anger in upsetting the Temple, throwing out the money changers and condemning the religious order for their false representation. I love that Marcus seems to echo the message of his late contemporary, but with slightly pagan phrasing replacing "God" for "Nature" and "the oldest of Gods". The syncretism has me appreciating how the seed of Truth found in both Christianity and Philosophy can bind seemingly competing approaches together.
The rant about lying in the second paragraph is inspiring because it lays out in rather simple terms a deep explanation and rationalization for the importance of telling the Truth. In particular, I love that Marcus emphasizes a difference between lying consciously / intentionally versus unconsciously / unintentionally and condemns both. Oftentimes we rationalize our mistakes or cutting corners on the Truth with "I didn't know". But failing to use our rational tools to "distinguish between true and false" is no excuse. In my own life, I've come to respect a difference between making an ignorant mistake and consciously doing something I know I shouldn't be doing. In the latter case, I often find that it comes back to bite me harder in the future. However, life never fails to bring me some pain along with a lesson for "innocent" mistakes in order to pull me further out of ignorance. It's important to take these experiences seriously and apply them "with reason" in the future.
With regard to pleasure and pain, so often we mistake what is Good for pleasure, and that itself is a kind of lie. And a convoluted relationship to these sensations gets us mixed up expectations. Marcus spells out the Middle Path of indifference, pure observation. I think it's easy for humans to over-anthropomorphize God and confuse God being "good" with bringing them pleasurable experiences they desire and protecting them from pain. But if we see God's Laws, or Nature as indifferent, we come to have altogether difference expectations from life. What are the implications of this? Does this make for a cold, uncompromising deity in place of the "loving father figure" the religious take solace in? Or no deity figure at all replaced by physics and metaphysics? Maybe a reasonable ruleset designed to teach us to evolve ourselves is indeed a strict, yet compassionate system designed by a loving Intelligence. Individual relationship to Deity is just that, individual. In my reading, Marcus is alluding to his interpretation in that enigmatic final paragraph.
#42
When you run up against someone else's shamelessness, ask yourself this: Is a world without shamelessness possible? No. Then don't ask the impossible. There have to be shameless people in the world. This is one of them. The same for someone vicious or untrustworthy, or with any other defect. Remembering that the whole class has to exist will make you more tolerant of its members. Another useful point to bear in mind: What qualities has nature given us to counter that defect? As an antidote to unkindness it gave us kindness. And other qualities to balance other flaws. And when others stray off course, you can always try to set them straight, because every wrongdoer is doing something wrong -- doing something the wrong way. And how does it injure you anyway? You'll find that none of the people you're upset about has done anything that could do damage to your mind. But that's all that "harm" or "injury" could mean. Yes, boorish people do boorish things. What's strange or unheard-of about that? Isn't it yourself you should reproach -- for not anticipating that they'd act this way? The logos gave you the means to see it -- that a given person would act a given way -- but you paid no attention. And now you're astonished that he's gone and done it. So when you call someone "untrustworthy" or "ungrateful," turn the reproach on yourself. It was you who did wrong. By assuming that someone with those traits deserved your trust. Or by doing them a favor and expecting something in return, instead of looking to the action itself for your reward. What else did you expect from helping someone out? Isn't it enough that you've done what your nature demands? You want a salary for it too? As if your eyes expected a reward for seeing, or your feet for walking. That's what they were made for. By doing what they were designed to do, they're performing their function. Whereas humans were made to help others. And when we do help others -- or help them to do something --we're doing what were designed for. We perform our function.
Marcus' point at the end of the fourth paragraph stands out as almost intimidating. To imagine the whole field of human expression -- virtuous, evil, right, wrong, beneficent, malicious, clever, stupid, generous, miserly -- none of it means anything without its opposite. And if someone wasn't acting that out, it wouldn't be a part of humanity. The suggestion is that people acting in ways or doing things we judge as "wrong" are actually necessary in order to fill out the full definition of humanity. It's approaching that ever-elusive justification of evil in the world. And Marcus even suggests an alchemical directive by applying the "antidote" of opposite quality to the flaws we observe in the world around us. Being kind in the face of unkindness doesn't fix the whole world around us, but it takes action in the space that matters -- the space within us, that we can control.
As in #1, Marcus echoes and emphasizes that ignorance is no excuse. When we go about expecting people to behave a different way, we have failed to utilize our own reason, the gift of the logos, to see things and people as they are. I am, however, reminded of Marcus' entries early in Book 2 or 3, where he reminds himself not to go delving into the minds of others. Perhaps his thinking about accurately measuring people around him has shifted, or perhaps he draws a difference between participating in dramatic judgement of others versus rational perception.
Marcus constant admonition of human duty to help others is helpful for me to read over and over again. Currently in the process of determining my next career move, I am grateful for the reminder to exercise my talents to help other people whenever there is an opportunity, regardless of reward. Unfortunately, I'm finding that there is such a strong conditioning to protect my time and attention, that I miss many opportunities. Living this way, in service, is a practice, and I'm grateful for the frequent reminders in Meditations and will likely have to commit to cultivating this mindset as diligently as committing to an exercise routine or a daily yoga practice.
There are plenty of other great entries in Book 9, so don't skip out on reading!
Participants
Thank you everyone who has been reading Meditations, and participated in the discussions. Feel free let me know if you don't want to be on the tag list anymore :)
@siggy47 @cryotosensei @carlosfandango @Bitman @gd @sudocarlos @BitByBit21 @bc52210b20 @Atreus @byzantine @davidw @Roll @grayruby @Taft @Oialt
Please signal interest in the comments if you'd like to be tagged.