Sir Darius the Clairvoyent Posted January 19 (edited) So, I am now in the procces of reading this book. I do not read cover to cover, as it was written not in an attempt to win a pulitzer, but to reflect. This is reflected in the Norwegian tittle of the work: «to my self.» A little note before i continue: Aurelius wrote in greek, I am reading a Norwegian translation and translating it to english, so it will naturally be flawed. In the forward (by Viggo Johansen,) he raises the following question: how can a book written by the most powerfull person on the plannet, 1800 years ago, be relavent for us today? He writers: (…) every evening he (Aurelius) sits down to write, in order to remember who he is - a human. Not an emperor, but a human. For this reason, stoicism can appeal to the emperor himself, the slave Epiktet, and us. Our shell and roles are vastly different, but we are united in being human, and feel the same love, anger, desire to live authenticly, attempt to live morally and mortality. Since the will is free, we are free as well. We can be forced to act a certain way, but no one but our self controls our will, reactions and thoughts. What does it mean to be human? Science can not help us here. Science assumed that man and nature is purley material, but Viggo points out that this is just an assumption, and nothing more. A plausible assumption, but and assumption none the less. Wise men and traditions have, however, allways talked about spirit and soul. Aurelius writers: «Things can never touch the soul, but stand inert outside it, so that disquiet can arise only from fancies within.» Allthough we are more advanced technologicaly advanced today, are we any wiser? Do we understand what it is to be human? I would say no. I would even say we are less developted in this aspect. And i think this «book» shows that. It has been read and admired for almost 2000 years, by slaves, commoners and nobility as well - it touches on what it means to be human. Here are a few qoutes:  Spoiler «Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.» «Waste no more time arguing about what a good man is, be one» «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.« «No one can lose either the past or the future - how could anyone be deprived of what he does not possess? ... It is only the present moment of which either stands to be deprived: and if this is all he has, he cannot lose what he does not have.» “The universe is a single living creature, embracing all living creatures within itself.” «The first rule is to keep an untroubled spirit. The second is to look things in the face and know them for what they are.»  I will also include Hymn to Zeus, witch was included in the Norwegian edition of meditations. It might be my favorite «poem.»  Spoiler  Most honored of immortals, many-named one, ever omnipotent, Zeus, prime mover of nature, steering all things by your law, Greetings! For it is proper for all mortals to speak to you: For we all descend from you, bearing our share of your likeness We alone, of all mortal creatures that live and move on earth. So, I shall make song of you constantly and sing forever of your might. Truly, this whole universe, spinning around the earth, Obeys you wherever you lead, and willingly submits to your rule; Such is the servant you hold in your unconquerable hands, A double-edged, fiery, ever-living thunderbolt. For by its strikes all the works of nature happen. By it you direct the universal reason, which pervades all things Intermixing with the great and small lights of the heavens. Because of this you are the greatest, the highest ruler of all. Not a single thing that is done on earth happens without you, God, Nor in the divine heavenly sphere nor in the sea, Except for what bad people do in their foolishness. But you know how to make the crooked straight And to bring order to the disorderly; even the unloved is loved by you. For you have so joined all things into one, the good and the bad, That they all share in a single unified everlasting reason. It is shirked and avoided by all the wicked among mortals, The wretched, who ever long for the getting of good things, Neither see nor hear God’s universal law, By which, obeying with understanding, they could share in the good life. But instead they chase after this and that, far from the good, Some in their aggressive zeal for fame, Others with a disordered obsession with profits, Still others in indulgence and the pleasurable exertions of the body. [They desire the good] but are carried off here and there, All the while in zealous pursuit of completely different outcomes. But bountiful Zeus, shrouded in dark clouds and ruling the thunder, Protect human beings from their ruinous ignorance; Scatter it from our souls, grant that we might obtain True judgment on which you rely to steer all things with justice; So that having won honor, we may honor you in return, Constantly singing of your works, as it is proper For mortals to do. For neither mortals nor gods have any greater privilege Than to make everlasting song of the universal law in justice.  Cleanthes, 331-232bc, Translated by Stephen Hanselman Any thoughts?   ————————————————————- I made two very similar threads, so ill delete one of them and add them to this: First of all, the definistion:    Quote  In philosophical ethics, the naturalistic fallacy is the claim that it is possible to define good in terms of natural entities, or properties such as pleasant or desirable. The term was introduced by British philosopher G. E. Moore in his 1903 book Principia Ethica.[1] I hear it used quite a lot, but is it really a fallacy? To me, it seems to be the only form of ethics that is not arbitrary.  Natural law, virtue ethics, appeal to nature, stoicism and its logos/universal order all seen pretty related to me (an amateur).  Where do you stand on this? Is it a fallacy? Is there an eastern equilient? Daoism? Edited January 19 by NaturaNaturans edit: just fixed a qoute and merged another thread to this one Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Darius the Clairvoyent Posted January 19 Sort of a related note. In his writings, he mentions «all-nature,» «cosmic law,» etc. quite a lot. Today, someone might call this the naturalistic falacy, defined as:  Quote The naturalistic fallacy is the belief that something or someone's behavior should be accepted as natural because it occurs in the natural world or fits into what people perceive as normal for their society. This fallacy aims to prove that what is seen as natural is good and what is seen as unnatural is evil. But is it acctually a fallacy? In my opinion, it has more weight behind then other moral systems, that seems entirely arbitrary to me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SirPalomides Posted January 19 The naturalistic fallacy is a fallacy because there is nothing outside of nature so it fails to provide an ethical standard. If you can do it, it's natural. I don't think that's what Marcus Aurelius and the Stoics were quite on about though- they are thinking in terms of providence and fate, their concept of nature is sufficiently broad to account for all kinds of activity.  Myself, I find the Stoic system ultimately rather sterile and oppressive, particularly due to its fatalism and asceticism. It proposes essentially a self-induced dissociation, an intellect isolated from its own embodiment. It's a good fit for a civilization that revels in work, duty, violence, the ceaseless grind, misery. I prefer the Epicureans and their Garden. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Darius the Clairvoyent Posted January 19 (edited) 1 hour ago, SirPalomides said: The naturalistic fallacy is a fallacy because there is nothing outside of nature so it fails to provide an ethical standard. If you can do it, it's natural. I don't think that's what Marcus Aurelius and the Stoics were quite on about though- they are thinking in terms of providence and fate, their concept of nature is sufficiently broad to account for all kinds of activity. The very fact that there is nothing outside of nature, or you may call it cosmos, is why it appeals to me. It is about oneness, it seems. We are connected. Seperating mankind from nature is harmfull in my eyes. Alan Watts said something along the lines of: just as an apple tree apples, the earth peoples. And lastly, it would be stange to put a moral label on a lion killing an antilope.    Quote Myself, I find the Stoic system ultimately rather sterile and oppressive, particularly due to its fatalism and asceticism. It proposes essentially a self-induced dissociation, an intellect isolated from its own embodiment. It's a good fit for a civilization that revels in work, duty, violence, the ceaseless grind, misery. I prefer the Epicureans and their Garden. I to belive in faith. As did the pagan europeans. The tree norns, the moirar and the parcae, from norse, greek and roman tradition respictivley, snd deciding the fate of men.  The Norns Urd, Verdandi, and Skuld under the World-tree Yggdrasil” by Ludwig Burger (1882) Quote There are exactly three of them, and their names suggest their ability to construct the content of time: one is Urd (Old Norse Urðr, “The Past,” and a common word for fate in and of itself), the second Verdandi (Old Norse Verðandi, “What Is Presently Coming into Being”) and the third Skuld (Old Norse Skuld, “What Shall Be”). They live in a hall by a well (Urðarbrunnr, “Well of Fate”) beneath Yggdrasil, the mighty tree at the center of the Norse otherworld, which holds the Nine Worlds in its branches and roots.[2] https://norse-mythology.org/gods-and-creatures/others/the-norns/  If you accept cause and effect, then there is no free will and everything is predetermined, or you might say destined.   Quote  Myself, I find the Stoic system ultimately rather sterile and oppressive, particularly due to its fatalism and asceticism. It proposes essentially a self-induced dissociation, an intellect isolated from its own embodiment. It's a good fit for a civilization that revels in work, duty, violence, the ceaseless grind, misery. I prefer the Epicureans and their Garden.      I lack the knowledge to respons to this, but if you have something to add, im listening. Does any beliefs of a culture with less focus work and radically different attitydes to these concepts, come to mind? Edited January 19 by NaturaNaturans Just added the source to the illustration Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Darius the Clairvoyent Posted January 19 Id like to add one more statement: i belive that the abrahamic traditions that focuses on free will (in other words, reject fate) and a very black and white view on morals are more harmfull and less logical. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sir Darius the Clairvoyent Posted January 19 I think it is more that nature is everything, the enviorment and ourselves. There is no good or evel, but potential. The potential of an oak is to grow tall. We dont judge Lions for eating an antilope. If the current goes north, dont try to said south. For Aristotele, humans had the following inclinstions: Eudaimonia is often translated to human flowering. The opposite, and least desierble condition was akrasia (non-manegment, lack of self controll. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
