On The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius
I wrote this paper about a month ago for Philosophy class. Please read the previous post, it is superior to this one, but this one is postworthy.
Marcus Aurelius (c.121-180) was one of the greatest Roman Emperors of all time, and one of the most influential stoics too. However, his works have been highly criticized, and his popularity has been inconsistent. Aurelius, in one of the most striking ironies in history, was the most powerful man in the world, but still wrote under a stoic doctrine, and his Meditations are very humble. Yet Aurelius’s philosophy is somewhat impractical, and his merit as a philosopher is highly in question.
A main critic of stoicism was Boethius. He, writing in the fifth century, claimed that the stoics, and Aurelius, were not true philosophers, only Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were. While I am not that extreme, I am greatly skeptical of his merit as a philosopher. Aurelius’s philosophy is consistent, but its application is difficult to achieve. The stoic doctrine is one that is very in tune with nature and in some respects similar to Buddhist and Taoist teachings. Yet he is disturbingly predictable, and history does not tell us exactly to what extent he preached. Granted, the Roman ideal was very different from the Stoic, but if even the man who wrote on stoicism could not be stoic, how could anyone else hope to fulfill these sentiments?
To elaborate on the claim that he was elementary, predictable, and idealist in his philosophy, one only needs to look at Meditation 6.51 (book six, meditation fifty-one). In this, he references the nature of three types of men: ambitious, pleasure-desiring, and understanding. What he does is makes the man of understanding the one that the reader hopes to be. What however, we do not so much learn something from Marcus, and many of his aphorisms are poetic (he did write in the scholarly Greek that the educated tended to write in), but in terms of philosophy, poetic language is a bonus, but it is not essential to the text.
Another place where Marcus’s mediocrity is evinced is meditation 4.44. In this meditation, he is merely commenting on the on the fact that events happen. At the meditation’s core, it is a blatant observation, dressed up in some language, with some respected added to it by the hand that wrote it. Nothing is being shown by this meditation, and when we attempt to go deeper into its meaning confusion arises out of its simplicity. To call this meditation the work of a bona fide philosopher is slander and degrading to all those who came before and after him. This is not to say that Aurelius was not a great man, and a moral individual, but his philosophy is far from impressive and the overall doctrine of stoicism is, only applicable in extreme situations. For example, if one becomes a war criminal, or a prisoner of war (POW), stoicism may help one keep his sanity. Stoicism deals with the present in great depth, and enforces the doctrine of being oneself through selflessness. However, of the stoics, Aurelius is only the most famous, but not the most influential (Epictetus, Zeno, as well as others were more influential; Aurelius is more popular because of his position as Roman Emperor, “Imperator.”)
A third example of Aurelius’s lack of insight is meditation 2.4. For this Marcus has chosen to discuss the idea of procrastination, and heavily criticizes those who do not make the best use of their time. This may be inspirational, but only to the man who has not used his time well, and again, nothing is shown by this. Aurelius has been called timeless because he only discussed the fundamental principles of humanity. While this is impressive in comparison to the other Roman emperors, the great philosophers have progressed well between this state of thought. The fact that so many have been able to relate to him throughout history is because he appeals to simple tendencies of man, and while he appeals to the general reading community, he is not extremely respected in the philosophical community, hence he is not considered one of the greatest philosophers.
From a personal standpoint, I was greatly disappointed by The Meditations. I read them my sophomore year of high school (I am currently a junior) and was not very impressed. By the third book, I was able to write my own meditation the same caliber of Aurelius’s, and I must say that little was learned from those. Around that time I had also read Aristotle’s Poetics and John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism, two of my least favourite philosophical works, and The Meditations rank lower than those two (since them I have moved onto Nietzsche and Russell, and true philosophical genius, although Aristotle has since redeemed himself.) My main criticism of Aurelius is his lack of insight. I have tried to consider the time period, and the fact that the classical definition of “philosophy” is different from the modern definition. However, Plato, Aristotle, Heraclitus and Anaxagoras came centuries before him and were much more insightful.
What I have come to conclude after studying Aurelius in depth is that he is not a great philosopher, and if he indeed is a philosopher is in question. Granted, his body of work is minimal, but his profession (most powerful man in the world!) superceded his philosophical development. The main reason why I wonder of Aurelius is a philosopher has to do with Plato. In his Republic, Philosophers were chosen to rule the state. Had this Aurelius been involved in this type of government, I do not know if he would have been considered worthy of the title of “philosopher.” Finally, philosophers are thinkers, and Aurelius was a “doer”, so by little fault of his own he may not be a philosopher. All in all Marcus Aurelius, Emperor of Rome, is a fascinating character, and his meditations live on timelessly in history.
Marcus Aurelius (c.121-180) was one of the greatest Roman Emperors of all time, and one of the most influential stoics too. However, his works have been highly criticized, and his popularity has been inconsistent. Aurelius, in one of the most striking ironies in history, was the most powerful man in the world, but still wrote under a stoic doctrine, and his Meditations are very humble. Yet Aurelius’s philosophy is somewhat impractical, and his merit as a philosopher is highly in question.
A main critic of stoicism was Boethius. He, writing in the fifth century, claimed that the stoics, and Aurelius, were not true philosophers, only Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were. While I am not that extreme, I am greatly skeptical of his merit as a philosopher. Aurelius’s philosophy is consistent, but its application is difficult to achieve. The stoic doctrine is one that is very in tune with nature and in some respects similar to Buddhist and Taoist teachings. Yet he is disturbingly predictable, and history does not tell us exactly to what extent he preached. Granted, the Roman ideal was very different from the Stoic, but if even the man who wrote on stoicism could not be stoic, how could anyone else hope to fulfill these sentiments?
To elaborate on the claim that he was elementary, predictable, and idealist in his philosophy, one only needs to look at Meditation 6.51 (book six, meditation fifty-one). In this, he references the nature of three types of men: ambitious, pleasure-desiring, and understanding. What he does is makes the man of understanding the one that the reader hopes to be. What however, we do not so much learn something from Marcus, and many of his aphorisms are poetic (he did write in the scholarly Greek that the educated tended to write in), but in terms of philosophy, poetic language is a bonus, but it is not essential to the text.
Another place where Marcus’s mediocrity is evinced is meditation 4.44. In this meditation, he is merely commenting on the on the fact that events happen. At the meditation’s core, it is a blatant observation, dressed up in some language, with some respected added to it by the hand that wrote it. Nothing is being shown by this meditation, and when we attempt to go deeper into its meaning confusion arises out of its simplicity. To call this meditation the work of a bona fide philosopher is slander and degrading to all those who came before and after him. This is not to say that Aurelius was not a great man, and a moral individual, but his philosophy is far from impressive and the overall doctrine of stoicism is, only applicable in extreme situations. For example, if one becomes a war criminal, or a prisoner of war (POW), stoicism may help one keep his sanity. Stoicism deals with the present in great depth, and enforces the doctrine of being oneself through selflessness. However, of the stoics, Aurelius is only the most famous, but not the most influential (Epictetus, Zeno, as well as others were more influential; Aurelius is more popular because of his position as Roman Emperor, “Imperator.”)
A third example of Aurelius’s lack of insight is meditation 2.4. For this Marcus has chosen to discuss the idea of procrastination, and heavily criticizes those who do not make the best use of their time. This may be inspirational, but only to the man who has not used his time well, and again, nothing is shown by this. Aurelius has been called timeless because he only discussed the fundamental principles of humanity. While this is impressive in comparison to the other Roman emperors, the great philosophers have progressed well between this state of thought. The fact that so many have been able to relate to him throughout history is because he appeals to simple tendencies of man, and while he appeals to the general reading community, he is not extremely respected in the philosophical community, hence he is not considered one of the greatest philosophers.
From a personal standpoint, I was greatly disappointed by The Meditations. I read them my sophomore year of high school (I am currently a junior) and was not very impressed. By the third book, I was able to write my own meditation the same caliber of Aurelius’s, and I must say that little was learned from those. Around that time I had also read Aristotle’s Poetics and John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism, two of my least favourite philosophical works, and The Meditations rank lower than those two (since them I have moved onto Nietzsche and Russell, and true philosophical genius, although Aristotle has since redeemed himself.) My main criticism of Aurelius is his lack of insight. I have tried to consider the time period, and the fact that the classical definition of “philosophy” is different from the modern definition. However, Plato, Aristotle, Heraclitus and Anaxagoras came centuries before him and were much more insightful.
What I have come to conclude after studying Aurelius in depth is that he is not a great philosopher, and if he indeed is a philosopher is in question. Granted, his body of work is minimal, but his profession (most powerful man in the world!) superceded his philosophical development. The main reason why I wonder of Aurelius is a philosopher has to do with Plato. In his Republic, Philosophers were chosen to rule the state. Had this Aurelius been involved in this type of government, I do not know if he would have been considered worthy of the title of “philosopher.” Finally, philosophers are thinkers, and Aurelius was a “doer”, so by little fault of his own he may not be a philosopher. All in all Marcus Aurelius, Emperor of Rome, is a fascinating character, and his meditations live on timelessly in history.
posted by Brian Hillman at 5:40 PM
1 Comments:
Remember that the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius is the modern name for what was essentially a blog to himself. And blogs are rarely of both literary and historical merit every post! The thing that is most inspiring about them is that a mere human could prove that "even in a Palace you can live a good life". "O tempores, o mores" as an earlier Roman Consul of good heart once said.
Post a Comment
<< Home