11 Comments

I respond to Jared’s first question: “Is it possible to write a notebook like Marcus’ if one does not believe in Providence?” Yes, absolutely. Isn’t that what Humanism is about,they we can lead a meaningful life if we’re guided by reason and empathy?

Expand full comment

I think a notebook written without providence would be relying on strength of character in order to be good. That I believe in and of itself is a good thing. The belief that God or nature is there as a protection for or insurance that good will still be the conclusion for even difficult experiences in one's life, is an idea that strengthens people's convictions. Without this belief I believe the notebook would lose some of its impact for people.

The order of the writing is a biography of one's life told through influence. Starting with family and then expanding outwards with tutors, mentors, and philosophers. Ending with "gods and fortune" shows the thread that connected it all. It reminds me of a prayer of thanks.

One of the items that stood out for me was "for he was one who looked to what ought to be done, not to the reputation which a man gets by his acts." It made me think about how today I believe most people are concerned with how they are seen, not with what they have actually done. It has something to say about character and knowing yourself. To be comfortable with the fact of doing something,hopefully for the good, and not doing it for the acclaim.

Expand full comment

I'm interested to hear what it means that some people have virtues and others do not. I don't think that Marcus is saying that; I take it that the stoic position is that everyone possesses virtue/reason, which is what would ground respect for every person (Waterfield, p. 9), but some are misguided by their ignorance or when their beliefs do not reflect the actual world. I am not very familiar with any stoicism, but I remember in the Waterfield introduction, he references the "lynchpin of stoic philosophy: assent" (Waterfield, p. xlviii). With this term "assent" in mind, to assent to the right beliefs is germane to follow the first lesson of stoicism “we must know who we are in order to be good”. Knowing who we are, goodness, and enlightenment are all related to virtue – which, in the context of Marcus and Plato, are grounded in reason or Logos. Reason, Logos, and virtue are universal or natural, it is just a matter of whether we assent to our nature. So, if reason is natural to us, and reason is elemental to virtue, then it should follow that we naturally possess virtue. When we fail to assent to nature (by forming the wrong beliefs, for example), that’s when our minds become dissociated from reality, and we do not “know who we are” by nature.

I think this system offers good groundwork for why we ought to treat even the most ignorant with respect, but it doesn’t explain well why it is so difficult. If the stoic sage is the closest to human nature, then why doesn’t it come “naturally” to everyone? For Christians (and within countless other theories of human nature), being good is totally against our nature – we are naturally compelled to turn to vice, but to be virtuous is difficult. To do good is to go beyond our nature – but doesn’t this create an impossibility – if it is not our nature to do good, then is it be possible to do good? It is impossible to do things that are not permitted by nature or reality.

Which theory of human nature seems more believable? Both have conceptual difficulties, but I don’t think we are naturally virtuous or reasonable. And maybe I have misinterpreted Marcus and the stoics, and he would not say that we are naturally virtuous/reasonable either.

Expand full comment

In the Hayes translation, Book 1 is subtitled “Debts and Lessons”. The gratitude Marcus has for each person (and Providence) is clear but Book 1 also reads like a checklist of important reminders on how to live life. The line from ‘Maximus’: “The sense he gave of staying on the path rather than being kept on it” strikes me as the theme of Marcus’ journal - constant reflections, reminders and repetitions of these lessons until, as Seneca says, the will to good becomes the disposition to good.

Expand full comment

I to am fascinated by Marcus' perspective on the importance of education. I find that his notion that ones educators should be given public office, to be a kind of thanks for their careful sculpting of personality or- as Jared put them- virtues.

Expand full comment

This is interesting timing for me: I have just preached on Philippians 3:1-11, and there are some striking similarities and differences to Marcus’ attitude here. In Philippians, Paul lists all of the things he has been given and has achieved, but then goes on to dismiss them as unworthy to be compared with the glory of knowing Christ. This is not to say that listing one’s blessings would be frowned on by someone like Paul, but the context matters.

I think that being grateful to God for my blessings is a very good thing to do; I am considering also writing my own list. And maybe that ordering from the mundane/familial to the divine is in fact the most appropriate ordering after all.

I can’t imagine how someone without some kind of faith in something bigger could express this kind of thankfulness without it ringing a bit hollow: it seems to me that thankfulness needs to be directed TO someone. For example, I am thankful to Jared for his work here and on YouTube. It would be weird to say that I am thankful - full-stop.

Anyway, that’s enough rambling. Thanks for your thoughts, Jared.

Expand full comment

From Hobbes to the contemporary welfare state, we can think about the State not as providence on terms you exposed, but we can theorically conceptualize the State as a corporation or organization that transcends human lives and provides a minimum of security and well-being for the people. On a totally diferent perspective, if I am not mistaken, in The Road to Serfdom, Hayek wrote that free market will eventually lead us to a better place.

I also find it interesting that this perspective of providence is quite different from Maquivelli´s concept of fortune, although he was a great Latinist reader. For him, fortune is a whimsical force that can be tamed only by the virtues of individuals.

Thank for your notes,

Cheers.

Expand full comment
deletedJan 7, 2023·edited Jan 7, 2023Liked by Jared Henderson
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
deletedJan 5, 2023·edited Jan 5, 2023
Comment deleted
Expand full comment