What's the deal with Marcus Aurelius? Why was he so plagued with anxiety as emperor even though he grew up a stoic...

Most of his time was spent fighting when he really just wanted to chill but couldnt because the empire depended on him.

Just because you have self discipline doesn't mean other people have it. Some people can be trained to do certain things, other can't be.

> reactions can be mediated by experience and thought
There is limit to that. Mo mind is powerful enough to have a control over any type of situation. Like it isn't humanly possible to know all languages, it isn't really possible to control all emotions.

He was the Emperor of a huge Empire in the final years of its peak, a stoic is still just a man trying to be virtuous. Would've been very stressful work as things go, he took it seriously and strove for good governance when he could have taken the easy no worries path of hedonism as many Emperors did.

Stoicism doesn't turn you into a vulcan, you can still feel emotion, but you're better equipped to deal with it and think through it.

"Work, therefore to be able to say to every harsh appearance, "You are but an appearance, and not absolutely the thing you appear to be." And then examine it by those rules which you have, and first, and chiefly, by this: whether it concerns the things which are in our own control, or those which are not; and, if it concerns anything not in our control, be prepared to say that it is nothing to you."

Yes, let's use self-discipline to remedy to the lack of self-discipline. How wise of the stoics to think of that!

What if saying a lie is the right thing to do?

Depends on the Stoic really, Seneca (I think) was ok with doing something unvirtuous if it would result in a greater good, certainly not his exact words on it.

It's more using knowledge to bolster self discipline.

It's more like using knowledge to deal with the lack of self-discipline. But dealing with anxiety better won't make you any less anxious, it will only make you fuck up less when you are.
Which is why it's idiotic of the stoics to think they can eliminate anxiety and that being a stoic sage is enough to make you happy.

I was actually attacking the stupidity of sweeping aphorisms like this. People say them to look smart and they just end up revealing what a moron they actually are.

This is actually true. There is no point to try to deal with anxiety. The real man would act properly despite of it.

>Why was he so plagued with anxiety as emperor even though he grew up a stoic?

Random speculation, he may have just been an anxious man. He may have even had a disorder such as generalized anxiety.

>and that being a stoic sage is enough to make you happy.

Actually, I don't think that's the case at all. They never use the term eudaimonia or anything of the sort. To them, your personal happiness is irrelevant compared to your virtue and pursuit of moral duty.

>To them, your personal happiness is irrelevant compared to your virtue and pursuit of moral duty.
That's even worse.

>Also is Meditations worth reading for any purpose?
Yes.

Why? The idea of some sort of persistent state of "happiness" is a pipe dream, human brains don't work like that (that whole hedonic treadmill bit). But you can maintain a state of virtue and pursue moral duty regardless.

Why is it that most people who bitch about stoicism haven't actually read up on it?

This guy gets it.

I like Stoicism, I honestly do. I'm not a Stoic myself, but I think they have very commendable ideas (I never could fully swallow the idea because I'm of the opinion that pleasure and pain both serve a purpose, and you shouldn't be entirely indifferent to them).

>virtue and moral duty
Why would I put something as nebulous and subjective as that before my happiness?
There's a reason stoics strive to equate virtue with happiness: because there's no reason to be virtuous if it doesn't bring you happiness.

What I was saying was he had a lot of anxiety despite being a stoic, not that stoicism caused it..

>Why would I put something as nebulous and subjective as that before my happiness?

You can't really criticize something for being nebulous and subjective when you're touting happiness as its alternative. But to the stoics, virtue isn't nebulous and subjective. They, like the other classical philosophical traditions believed there was an objective Good, and that by being virtuous you became more akin to this good and that this Good was something to be aspired to in all things.

>because there's no reason to be virtuous if it doesn't bring you happiness.

While I'd criticize you for psychological hedonism, I don't necessarily disagree with you. But at the same time, I'm sure even one as hostile to yourself could see a possible psychological benefit to being able to remind yourself that you're a virtuous man who does virtuous things, even when things are going shitty for you.

The stoics never strive to equate virtue with happiness; virtue is virtue, and happiness is happiness.

I read the complete Meditations about a month ago, the gist of it:

>we're all made of the same stuff and will all return to it after we die, so nobody is worth more than anybody else by birth
>on the universal scale our lifes are incredibly short and seemingly insignificant
>to live according to nature is good, living an unnatural lifestyle is wickedness
>the nature of man is to accept his burdens and do good unto others
>therefore, a good live means doing good onto society and others individually
>glory and fame are worthless and fleeting
>death comes to all of us naturally, so there's no point in mourning your own end
>you are fully responsible and in charge of your mind
>anything that doesn't stop you from having good and honest thoughts, including pain, is not worth complaining about
>if you can't teach somebody to be a better person, have mercy with them instead of hate
>lead by example
>don't be surprised about anything that happens naturally
>lazyness, gluttony, rage, envy are all unnatural
>do not give in to trends, other people's opinions and gossip, but be firm in your convictions
>seek everything in moderation

Sounds pretty reasonable to me. The meditations describe an ideal more than a practical way of living, but it's something to strive for. The man was enlightened as fuck.

>They, like the other classical philosophical traditions believed there was an objective Good
...Which they couldn't define. Stoic opinion on what is virtuous is different depending on which stoic you ask.

Also I like that I'm the psychologically hedonistic one when you smugly tell me that reminding yourself that you're virtuous can have psychological benefits (obtained at the expense of all the advantages that might come from not being virtuous). At least I'm honest about my objectives, rather than try to obscure them under a veneer of morality and virtue.

he sounds really bro-tier desu

what a qt 10/10 emperor

>man should live according to nature
>these natural phenomena which I don't like are actually unnatural because I say so
Very enlightened. Can I have a candle pls?

>...Which they couldn't define. Stoic opinion on what is virtuous is different depending on which stoic you ask.

Actually, they had the same core virtues as most Greek philosophy, which were the four classic virtues you see in Socratic dialogues: courage, justice, temperance, and wisdom. What they disagreed on was typically how to realize these.

>Also I like that I'm the psychologically hedonistic one when you smugly tell me that reminding yourself that you're virtuous can have psychological benefits (obtained at the expense of all the advantages that might come from not being virtuous).

Hey, I was just pointing out that it can be a route to happiness. In Stoic ideal, you'd pursue it for its own sake, but it's not like it was entirely without benefit.

>At least I'm honest about my objectives, rather than try to obscure them under a veneer of morality and virtue.

I'm not a Stoic, I'm actually a Stirnerian egoist. I just happen to find the Stoic's ideals highly commendable, and their advice useful.

Have you read Enchiridion by Epictetus? That one is my favorite.
classics.mit.edu/Epictetus/epicench.html

>>we're all made of the same stuff and will all return to it after we die, so nobody is worth more than anybody else by birth
Sounds like a leftist liberal numale cuck.

Nah I'm joking. He's my favourite Emperor. It's rare to see people as modest as him in positions of power.

Natural may have had a different definition in Latin and 2000 years ago you dolt.

>these natural phenomena which I don't like are actually unnatural because I say so
Which natural phenomena do you mean exactly? The things he calls unnatural are those exclusive to civilization and "higher" minds, like gluttony and jealousy and vainglory that don't exist in the animal kingdom. Of course the birds and the bees simply do not have the option to chill on a couch all day and complain about the weather, but as the bee tends to its hive without faltering, so the Roman should tend to the benefit of the state, in Marcus' words.

>we're all made of the same stuff and will all return to it after we die

>What they disagreed on was typically how to realize these.
If you can't agree on whether an act is virtuous, then you can't know you're acting virtuously. It's the same as not agreeing on what virtue is.

>gluttony and jealousy and vainglory that don't exist in the animal kingdom
Of course they do. We have them, and we are part of the animal kingdom.
We are animals. Our tendencies are natural, because we're part of nature ourselves. You haughty stoics might want to think you're above everything else, but it's just hubris, and it shows in your failures.

>anxiety is chemicals

As someone who has conquered 2 anxiety disorders i can testify that it is not biologically determined but has more to do with thought patterns, beliefs, and ingrained behaviours. Stoicism, insofar as it addresses these core thoughts/beleifs/behaviors, is far more effective than any drugs in dealing with anxiety. Drugs only act as a temporary band aid solution at best.

this

The most practical advice in the Meditations is about physical pain. Aurelius essentially says that you are your mind, and while your body belongs to your person, you are your consciousness and have full control over your thoughts. Since (moderate) pain doesn't prohibit you from thinking straight, it doesn't really harm you. You just lock it out and look at it from inside your mental fortress, as something external.

>The ruling faculty does not disturb itself, does not frighten itself or cause itself pain. If another can frighten or pain it, let him do so. Let the body suffer pain if it must, but the soul will suffer nothing for it will never deviate into such a judgement.

Really helps sit through that dentist appointment.

Try spending 5 minutes actually reading about anxiety disorders and you dipshits would know that there are significant genetic AND environmental factors involved.

>because there's no reason to be virtuous if it doesn't bring you happiness.

Maybe it was just the translation I was using, but I didn't enjoy reading the Meditations as much as I hoped I would. The writing was dense and somewhat convoluted. I know modern notions of punctuation were developed much later, but I've read other ancients texts and works of philosophy without so many run-on sentences.

I didn't have trouble with the content, since it was mostly reiterating a few points, just how it was presented.

I read his works this summer, i'd like to add the following (paraphrasing):

>stop every frame of second and analyze, every move in a dance, each note in music
>Don't let your thoughts linger into the unconscious, keep focusing on a rational string of thought as long as possible, this way you will be trained into this habit
>Don't come back to philosophy like it is a chore, come back to philosophy like it is a scratch that needs itching.
>You have a roman god within you, you only need to let it through
>If you inted to study a subject and become proficient 3 years is sufficient
>Be a decent human in case you die, an afterlife might exist, if so be decent enough for it to want you there
>If you die senile your senses have been torn and you will likely become senile in afterlife
>The shitty people you observe around you, crooked thiefs and beggars are part of nature, you may try to change them, though inevitably they will and has always been present
>don't give in to pleasure as it will only keep going further to push it's demands, it won't ever be satisfied

I've read many books about anxiety. There are 2 schools of thought: one going back to hippocrates claiming that it is a physical/material/medical problem, the other going back to the philosphers claiming it was an existential/rational/conceptual problem. For me the second school was the true one and helped me out of it. I can't really conceive that the first school could be true unless you actually have some serious brain disfunction, which most sufferers of anxiety (ie most people living in first world countries) don't have.

I've never read the specific translation myself, but apparently the Gregory Hays translation puts it in more plain, modern English.

Regardless, I think my answer still applies. As I said before, I think his stoic philosophy and writing was more of an effort to cope with his anxiety. I don't believe the goal is necessarily to become the ideal stoic, rather to pursue to be it and hopefully become a better person for it.

I can understand that

Marcus Aurelius was alive to experience the horrific Antonine Plague. Consider his dying words

>Weep not for me; think rather of the pestilence and the deaths of so many others.”

How bad was it? It claimed the life of Lucius Verus, his co-emperor, and may have even killed Marcus himself. As much as a third of the entire Empire was dead, the army decimated, tax revenues were a paltry fraction of what they once were, and labor shortages were so severe that the army had to conscript foreigners. People were terrified and convinced that it was the end of the world, and their trust in the central government was completely shattered.

Barthold Georg Niebuhr (1776–1831) concluded that "as the reign of Marcus Aurelius forms a turning point in so many things, and above all in literature and art, I have no doubt that this crisis was brought about by that plague.... The ancient world never recovered from the blow inflicted on it by the plague which visited it in the reign of Marcus Aurelius."

So why was he so plagued with melancholy? Maybe because he witnessed the point at which his empire was permanently crippled?

>The real man would act properly despite of it.

Exactly how is this different from "dealing with" anxiety?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioenergetics

> Also is Meditations worth reading for any purpose?
It isn't even that big of a book, just spent one hour or two to read it.

What? That's absolutely not true at all. The entire philosophy of Stoicism is that virtue is the only thing necessary and the only thing capable of giving eudaimonia. They didn't trick virtue as some spook to follow just because.

Dealing with anxiety does make you less anxious, that's the core part of exposure therapy. Anxiety is also largely a result of certain thoughts and behaviors which a philosophy like Stoicism is concerned with.

>You can't really criticize something for being nebulous and subjective when you're touting happiness as its alternative.
Pursing happiness or rather Eudaimonia IS the only rational reason to do anything. No one rationally does anything because they should be done, but because those things bring them pleasure or emotional/spiritual satisfaction.
>The stoics never strive to equate virtue with happiness; virtue is virtue, and happiness is happiness.
I'm really confused with your understanding of Stoicism since that is absolutely the opposite of the philosophy. The entire philosophy is about self-improvement so that you can live a good life and the major source of that improvement is by being virtuous.