Is it easy?

A delayed reflection, and a struggle against Marcus.

How easy it is to banish and erase every upsetting or unwelcome thought and gain immediate and complete tranquility!

As I read this, which is the full text of Notebook 5 §2, I thought for the first time: Marcus is totally wrong.

The Met

I have written before that I am not, strictly speaking, a Stoic. I disagree with Stoics about metaphysics, as I do not believe that everything is material. I am more in favor of embracing voluntary discomfort, or even embracing radical asceticism. I have a different conception of the Logos than the Stoics do, though I do agree that there is a Logos. I am concerned about some of the more radical forms of apathy that Stoics can traditionally advocate. And, as we’ll see below, I believe that some external goods are necessary for virtue.

I say this all to provide a little bit of context. I am not inclined to believe something just because the Stoics say it is so. Yet, when I read the Meditations or other Stoics writing, I mostly find myself nodding along in agreement. Compared to many alternatives, the Stoics provide a compelling picture of the universe and human life.

When I find myself completely disagreeing with Marcus, it is jarring. So, in this week’s reflection, I want to write a little about the meaning of this paragraph. Perhaps there is some meaning there that I have overlooked.

Perhaps I have made a mistake in interpretation — this is the problem with reading Greek texts without reading Greek. I have to rely on Waterfield’s knowledge of Greek and his philosophical interpretation of Marcus, as that will inform his particular translation choices.

What does it mean for something to be easy? That’s the question I keep coming back to — I need to know the meaning of ‘easy.’ Here are a few possibilities:

• Something is easy if it is not difficult

• Something is easy if it is simple

• Something is easy if one can do it without thinking

This is not an exhaustive list, but it is a good start. Already, we can see that ‘easy’ can mean very different things. I think when I read §2, I was assuming the first definition — that something is easy if it is not difficult.

If that is what Marcus means, he must be wrong. Difficulty is determined by the character of the task and the ability of the person. For many of us, the task he is describing is inherently difficult, and our abilities are not up to the task.

So, we have to hope that Marcus means something else. I do not think he means that one can banish and erase every unwelcome thought without thinking, by mere routine. So it would seem that Marcus must mean that the methodology for banishing unwelcome thoughts is simple. Here, we can mean that it is a process without too many steps and where no step is hard to understand.

So, there is a simple Stoic procedure for banishing unwelcome thoughts. (Or more than one, perhaps.) First, you remind yourself of what really matters — what are the sorts of things that actually add value in your life. For the Stoics, the only thing that is truly valuable is virtue. And so, you remind yourself that only virtue matters. Then, you remind yourself that virtue cannot be taken away from — only you can rob yourself of virtue. So, whenever you are troubled, you remind yourself that you have complete and total control over what matters.

As I think through this process, I find myself less comforted. And I think this is because of a fact I have mentioned before: I am not a Stoic. Instead, I would describe myself as (mostly) an Aristotelian. In How to Be a Stoic, Massimo Pigliucci summarizes Aristotelianism (or the Peripatetic School) as follows:

For Aristotle, too, the point of life was to achieve eudaimonia through the practice of the virtues (of which he identified a whopping twelve). In Aristotle’s view, there is a proper function for everything in the world, including humans: our proper function is to use reason, so using reason well is the way to live a eudaimonic life. However, we also need some external goods, such as a supportive family and societal environment, some degree of education, health, and wealth, and even some good looks. Crucially, then, being able to live a eudaimonic life is not entirely within the grasp of the agent: some luck, in the form of favorable circumstances, is also needed. (233-4, emphasis added)

The italicized portion is crucial. I am inclined to think that to achieve one’s proper function, or to flourish, one needs some external goods. Which particular goods are needed is a matter of debate — I think a supportive family (including a surrogate family when a natural family fails to provide this support) is essential, as is education in a broad sense. And I do not want to deny that there are some material goods which are necessary for a flourishing life. Namely, food and shelter.

The Stoics, as far as I understand this, deny this point. For the Stoics, virtue does not require external goods; it only requires that one act in accordance with one’s nature. And crucially, external goods are not a necessary prerequisite to acting in accordance with one’s nature.

I would love if we had some more discussions down in the comments. So, let me go back to suggesting some questions for you to ponder:

1. Is it actually easy to dispel upsetting thoughts?

2. How should we try to dispel these thoughts?

3. Who do you agree with about external goods: the Stoics or the Aristotelians?