Reading Group on Stoicism (Post #2)

Marcus Aurelius

Meditations (BOOKS 5-8 summary)

For the second meeting (notes for the first is here) of the Stoics Philosophy Meetup group we will be covering books 5-8 of Marcus Aurelius’s Mediations. 

A number of themes we have encountered in Books 1-4 are addressed again in these later chapters, including “presentism”, taking guidance from Nature/ Logos, our mortality and death and our ability to control or modulate our internal beliefs to relieve unnecessary anxiety and suffering.  I will note a few quotations on these themes below, to help give our discussion some focus.  I conclude with some criticisms or reservations I have about some of the insights MA advocates.

Book 5 begins with some insights into the attitude we should have at the start of the day, as we wake up in bed.  MA remarks:

1. At dawn, when you have trouble getting out of bed, tell yourself: “I have to go to work—as a human being. What do I have to complain of, if I’m going to do what I was born for— the things I was brought into the world to do? Or is this what I was created for? To huddle under the blankets and stay warm?

—But it’s nicer here. . . .  So you were born to feel “nice”? Instead of doing things and experiencing them? Don’t you see the plants, the birds, the ants and spiders and bees going about their individual tasks, putting the world in order, as best they can? And

you’re not willing to do your job as a human being? Why aren’t you running to do what your nature demands?

             I like the message MA starts off with in this chapter, we do not need to have lofty plans for the day, packed with grandiose aspirations of wisdom and moral actions.  Instead, the focus should on our purpose in life, those core values can be our inspiration.  We are part of nature, and understanding and appreciating that connection can help provide the needed inspiration to get out of bed and do things.

             A number of times MA addresses the issue of interpersonal conflict, when people frustrate our goals or life. The following passage notes that other people are the right occupation of our life, but at the same time we need to be prepared to adapt when they obstruct our life purpose:

20. In a sense, people are our proper occupation. Our job is to do them good and put up with them.  But when they obstruct our proper tasks, they become

irrelevant to us—like sun, wind, animals. Our actions may be impeded by them, but there can be no impeding our intentions or our dispositions. Because we can accommodate and adapt. The mind adapts and converts to its own purposes the obstacle to our acting.

             In section 25 he makes the following statement regarding being wronged by people:

25. So other people hurt me? That’s their problem. Their character and actions are not mine. What is done to me is ordained by nature, what I do by my own.

             I am not sure I agree with this sentiment, which doesn’t strike me as very humble.  At least I would like to first try to understand why someone hurt me before saying “that is their problem”.  Elsewhere MA makes that kind of proviso, but not here.  I think it is important to note such provisos to the type of proclamation in section 25, otherwise it will legitimate a rather defensive and arrogant attitude vs flexible and humble one.

In Book 7 MA returns to this same them when he remarks, with a bit more nuance this time:

26. When people injure you, ask yourself what good or harm they thought would come of it. If you understand that, you’ll feel sympathy rather than outrage or anger. Your sense of good and evil may be the same as theirs, or near it, in which case you have to excuse them. Or your sense of good and evil may differ from theirs. In which case they’re misguided and deserve your compassion. Is that so hard?

             In this passage MA is recommending you engage in some empathetic understanding, not for the purposes of appeasing or legitimizing the actions of the wrong doer, but rather for your own inner peace and benefit.  Once you better understand their motives you may be able to forgive or have compassion for them.  Again, this is a bit better than the comment above, but I think we should not ignore the possibility that we were wronged by someone “because we, in some sense, deserved it”.  There may be occasions were our own actions (unknowing) hurt others, and so they reciprocate the hurt (which of course may not be the best way of communicating that they were wronged, but they do so nonetheless).  If we defensively say “that is their problem” or “they have a different sense of good and evil from me” we miss the opportunity to re-evaluate how adequate our sense of good and evil was in this particular instance.  Perhaps we misjudged things.  In his rush to ensure “inner peace” I think MA is prescribing we sacrifice some humility and the opportunity for growth and learning.    

MA also offers some short, pithy comments about being positive and happy.  Here are a few samples I thought were worth reflecting upon and discussing: 

Book 6, 48. When you need encouragement, think of the qualities the people around you have: this one’s energy, that one’s modesty, another’s generosity, and so on.  Nothing is as encouraging as when virtues are visibly embodied in the people around us, when we’re practically showered with them.

Book 7, 69. Perfection of character: to live your last day, every day, without frenzy, or sloth, or pretense.

Book 8 , 26. 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.

             And on the recurring themes of death and mortality, MA has the following to say:

Book 6   47. Keep this constantly in mind: that all sorts of people have died—all professions, all nationalities. Follow the thought all the way down to Philistion, Phoebus, and Origanion. Now extend it to other species.  We have to go there too, where all of them have already gone:

             . . the eloquent and the wise—Heraclitus, Pythagoras,

Socrates . . .

. . . the heroes of old, the soldiers and kings who followed

them . . . . . . Eudoxus, Hipparchus, Archimedes . . . . . . the smart, the generous, the hardworking, the cunning, the selfish . . . . . . and even Menippus and his cohorts, who laughed at the whole brief, fragile business.  All underground for a long time now.

And what harm does it do them? Or the others either—the ones whose names we don’t even know? The only thing that isn’t worthless: to live this life out truthfully and rightly. And be patient with those who don’t.

             Book 8

58. Fear of death is fear of what we may experience. Nothing at all, or something quite new. But if we experience nothing, we can experience nothing bad. And if our experience changes, then our existence will change with it—change, but not cease.

             The last topic I will mention is the one I am most critical of in these chapters- it is what I see as the overly glorified sense of independence MA celebrates, expressed through our exercise of philosophy and connection to nature.  It is the suggestion that we need only retreat to our mind, as if it were the sole salvation for our wellbeing.  Perhaps I’ll start with his critique of the “socialized identity” we are all prone to develop- the need for acceptance and praise from others.  I actually agree with much of what he says about this point.  For example, I am in broad agreement with this statement: 

             Book 6, 16

        what is to be prized?  An audience clapping? No. No more than the clacking of their tongues. Which is all that public praise amounts to—a clacking of tongues 

        So we throw out other people’s recognition. What’s left for us to prize?  I think it’s this: to do (and not do) what we were designed for. That’s the goal of all trades, all arts, and what each of them aims at: that the thing they create should do what it was designed to do. The nurseryman who cares for the vines, the horse trainer, the dog breeder—this is what they aim at. And teaching and education—what else are they trying to accomplish?  So that’s what we should prize. Hold on to that, and you won’t be tempted to aim at anything else.

             This point reminded me of Pressfield’s discussion of the pro and amateur in The War of Art , which I reviewed here.  In that book Pressfield argued that we can achieve “psychological security” in one of two realms- within the hierarchy of a group, or by our connection to a territory. The former is our default setting, but as we mature, and acquire the experiences and pain and growth of life, we shift to the territorial alternative.  The hierarchy orientation is fatal to the artist, argues Pressfield, because it makes us compete against others, equate our happiness with a rank in the hierarchy, treat others based on their rank (rather than their humanity).

 Much of what MA argues also reminded me of Kegan’s distinction between the socialized mind, the self-authoring mind and transformative mind.  The former  (approximately 58% of the population) just internalize the values and roles socially prescribed to them.  But the latter two conceptions of the mind, achieved by only a minority of adults, 35% and 1% respectively, can stand back and critically assess societal norms and roles.

             Where I part ways with MA concerns the strong sense of autonomy he believes we can (and should) have over our internal beliefs and wellbeing.  I think it is a matter of degree.  Yes we have “some” control (and can cultivate more), but I think there are limits and noting those limits is important.  In particular I have in mind the following comments in Book 8:

             16. Remember that to change your mind and to accept correction are free acts too. The                    action is yours, based on your own will, your own decision—and your own mind.

             28. Either pain affects the body (which is the body’s problem) or it affects the soul. But the             soul can choose not to be affected, preserving its own serenity, its own tranquillity.  All our             decisions, urges, desires, aversions lie within. No evil can touch them.

             Perhaps MA is just made of sterner stuff than I (he was a Roman Emperor afterall!), but I don’t think everything is within our control.  At a minimum I worry that MA’s sentiment could be misapplied to cases were people are really suffering a mental health crisis and rather than seeking professional help and treatment they tell themselves “I can control all my feelings and ailments”.  I think it really depends on the severity of the suffering in question, and its source.  Yes sometimes tweaking and adjusting one’s perceptions and beliefs can be sufficient to improve one’s quality of life.  But other times this attitude could simply delay, possibly even exacerbate, a mental health illness.  At its worse I think MA’s account of autonomy and independence is an avoidant-typeattachment (again, perhaps not a bad trait to have when one's career is Emperor!)

In short- I really like MA the critic of the hierarchy of a group and advocate of the self-authoring/transformative mind, but not the MA who espouses the avoidant attachment style.  I think many of his passages align with both positions.  Despite these reservations,  I think these chapters offer a plurality of provocative and insightful bits of knowledge and wisdom.  I look forward to delving into these topics in greater detail with the Meetup group.

Cheers,

Colin