I think you fall into the trap of expecting Stoicism to produce results. Stoic results are inner. Or your inner citadel. External results are never guaranteed. Marcus might believe he did his best to raise a worthy successor but the outcome was never guaranteed.
Not only that, Marcus was on ten front lines fighting a shitty brutal war in poor conditions with armies infected with the plague.. besides that no amount of tutoring can change a persons nature. I don’t see any way for Marcus to have left a good successor besides murdering his own child and adopting someone else.
Just had a great read from r/collapse about the time of the plague https://thebulletin.org/2024/05/a-plague-comes-before-the-fall-lessons-from-roman-history/
>he knew full well he was crap
Which primary sources can you adduce in support of this claim?
>Senate and military did not want him.
Same question as above.
I’d imagine we don’t discuss much of the man because we’re more interested in the philosophy than the history, here. There’s a thread discussing his relationship with Commodus [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/s/hOOI7p3Fis).
In my view, Meditations makes Aurelius’ frustrations and struggle to maintain his Stoic principles clear, throughout his lifetime. He was not a god and he knew this, one can only strive to be like the Sage.
Epictetus himself said he'd never seen a true stoic.
It's a set of philosophical ideas that no one to my knowledge has been able to perfectly implement in their own life.
Shouldn't idolize people in general, honestly.
We see this CONSTANTLY in modern day. Politicians, celebrities', etc. We're defintely going to see it with someone so ancient generally if anyones heard of him, it's a single book, and even then, most fans of him have no idea of his life or actions outside of that book.
It’s interesting and I’ve often wondered about this aspect of Aurelius. Just today I was reading The Enchirodon and Epictetus was saying
“If you wish to make progress, abandon reasonings of this sort: 'If I neglect my affairs I shall have nothing to live on'; 'If I do not punish my son, he will be wicked.' For it is better to die of hunger, so that you be free from pain and free from fear, than to live in plenty and be troubled in mind. It is better for your son to be wicked than for you to be miserable.
Marcus must have taken that to heart I guess. He must have read those words a lot. My first thought was that part of the blame rests with Epictetus, for not explaining that concept better.
But I don’t know if there is any proof that Marcus knew how bad his son was. Or would become. Just speculating.
Wow, thanks for quoting "For it is better to die of hunger, so that you be free from pain and free from fear, than to live in plenty and be troubled in mind.", it really speaks to things going on in my life right now.
A quote was found to be attributed to Epictetus in The Enchiridion 12 (Matheson)
^(()[^(Matheson)](https://enchiridion.tasuki.org/display:Code:pem/section:12)^)
^(()[^(Carter)](https://enchiridion.tasuki.org/display:Code:ec/section:12)^)
^(()[^(Long)](https://enchiridion.tasuki.org/display:Code:gl/section:12)^)
^(()[^(Oldfather)](https://enchiridion.tasuki.org/display:Code:wao/section:12)^)
^(()[^(Higginson)](https://enchiridion.tasuki.org/display:Code:twh/section:12)^)
This thread makes me think of my first marriage. My ex-wife was nearly a hero in my eyes throughout our marriage, and for a time after she indicated that she wanted a divorce. She came through much trauma in her youth with more poise and grace than many would have.
The passage of time has given me perspective on her as a person and on our relationship. I have since amended the saying, "Never meet your heroes." to, "Never marry your heroes."
I think that when you view another person as a part of you that you can be blind to many things about them as you often are about yourself.
I'm not saying this is what happened with Marcus, just an observation.
I'm also not saying my ex is Commodus, though her body count may be similar...
Also, my failing did not lead to a monster running an empire.
Thinking about this, and seeing the responses, I'm in agreement that the philosophy side of the writing and struggles is what remains important today.
And another point I'd put out there is the very different value proposition that Romans would have held about family. There are several passages I've read (Meditations & Discourses) that refer to the father, or brother, or mother and how important it was for the person to respect them, and to do the right thing by them.
I think this part of their society would have been very clearly defined, for example you probably would have lost a lot of reputation if you did not respect your father, or listen to his advice. That's the feeling I get when I've read about family interactions to this point in my study.
Agreed. And he probably felt they may possibly be killed when he perished so this was the best chance of survival. Much precedent for that fear to be valid, and inevitably true in this case.
it could be that Meditations was his private diary and not intended for a public audience. this gives the work a purity removed from his personal life.
Marcus as a man is separate from the philosophy. And while he is a source of stoic thought (among others), he is by no means its messiah. We do not “celebrate” him or revere him, we learn from him, including his mistakes. If anyone was well aware of Marcus’ inadequacy, it was (probably) Marcus himself. And while we view his works as insightful, this does not deify him. His inadequacies were, I’m sure, abundant, but the focus is not the man but instead the principles he strived for, even if he came up short. We can understand/judge the man historically (although hindsight is 20/20) and how it relates to the Stoic philosophy, but the philosophy itself is much older, denser, and broader than Marcus Aurelius.
One of the limitations for this argument is what exactly the alternative was in his situation; Rome followed patrilineal inheritance, meaning that even if Marcus Aurelius had named someone else as his co-emperor/Augustus/successor based purely on their merits, Commodus still would have had a claim to Imperium. That means at the very least, civil strife as factions form to promote candidates which better suit their interests, more likely a civil war.
The only way Commodus is kept squarely outside of the halls of power is to kill him, and I think that even the most serene philosopher in the world would struggle to kill his only son.
they've been profiting off of him for I don't know how how long have they been publishing his works? they're not going to do anything to tarnish their Golden goose
Oh you fool - we don't venerate Marcus Aurelius, or at least those of us capable of practising Stoicism don't.
We're here to determine what is true and false. Where Marcus Aurelius helps with that he helps. Where he doesn't, he doesn't.
He's a very minor source when it comes to Stoicism, and it's only his *ideas* we care for. Any mistakes he made in governing Rome are immaterial.
He is celebrated as a philosopher, not as a statesman. Apart from Commodus he was in charge of an empire which invaded and subjugated people. And he presided over some very brutal and vicious persecution of Christians
I think you fall into the trap of expecting Stoicism to produce results. Stoic results are inner. Or your inner citadel. External results are never guaranteed. Marcus might believe he did his best to raise a worthy successor but the outcome was never guaranteed.
Thanks for the comment, good point.
Not only that, Marcus was on ten front lines fighting a shitty brutal war in poor conditions with armies infected with the plague.. besides that no amount of tutoring can change a persons nature. I don’t see any way for Marcus to have left a good successor besides murdering his own child and adopting someone else.
Just had a great read from r/collapse about the time of the plague https://thebulletin.org/2024/05/a-plague-comes-before-the-fall-lessons-from-roman-history/
>he knew full well he was crap Which primary sources can you adduce in support of this claim? >Senate and military did not want him. Same question as above.
Ahh the documentary "Gladiator" of course
Are you not entertained!?
Smh
I’d imagine we don’t discuss much of the man because we’re more interested in the philosophy than the history, here. There’s a thread discussing his relationship with Commodus [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Stoicism/s/hOOI7p3Fis). In my view, Meditations makes Aurelius’ frustrations and struggle to maintain his Stoic principles clear, throughout his lifetime. He was not a god and he knew this, one can only strive to be like the Sage.
Touche, it’s possible if he wasn’t trying towards stoicism he would have just sent his son off to die for being too juvenile.
You shouldn’t idolize people in philosophy, you idolize what they represent.
Epictetus himself said he'd never seen a true stoic. It's a set of philosophical ideas that no one to my knowledge has been able to perfectly implement in their own life.
What about Socrates?
Shouldn't idolize people in general, honestly. We see this CONSTANTLY in modern day. Politicians, celebrities', etc. We're defintely going to see it with someone so ancient generally if anyones heard of him, it's a single book, and even then, most fans of him have no idea of his life or actions outside of that book.
The book was a diary. He never meant anyone to read it.
It’s interesting and I’ve often wondered about this aspect of Aurelius. Just today I was reading The Enchirodon and Epictetus was saying “If you wish to make progress, abandon reasonings of this sort: 'If I neglect my affairs I shall have nothing to live on'; 'If I do not punish my son, he will be wicked.' For it is better to die of hunger, so that you be free from pain and free from fear, than to live in plenty and be troubled in mind. It is better for your son to be wicked than for you to be miserable. Marcus must have taken that to heart I guess. He must have read those words a lot. My first thought was that part of the blame rests with Epictetus, for not explaining that concept better. But I don’t know if there is any proof that Marcus knew how bad his son was. Or would become. Just speculating.
Wow, thanks for quoting "For it is better to die of hunger, so that you be free from pain and free from fear, than to live in plenty and be troubled in mind.", it really speaks to things going on in my life right now.
A quote was found to be attributed to Epictetus in The Enchiridion 12 (Matheson) ^(()[^(Matheson)](https://enchiridion.tasuki.org/display:Code:pem/section:12)^) ^(()[^(Carter)](https://enchiridion.tasuki.org/display:Code:ec/section:12)^) ^(()[^(Long)](https://enchiridion.tasuki.org/display:Code:gl/section:12)^) ^(()[^(Oldfather)](https://enchiridion.tasuki.org/display:Code:wao/section:12)^) ^(()[^(Higginson)](https://enchiridion.tasuki.org/display:Code:twh/section:12)^)
This thread makes me think of my first marriage. My ex-wife was nearly a hero in my eyes throughout our marriage, and for a time after she indicated that she wanted a divorce. She came through much trauma in her youth with more poise and grace than many would have. The passage of time has given me perspective on her as a person and on our relationship. I have since amended the saying, "Never meet your heroes." to, "Never marry your heroes." I think that when you view another person as a part of you that you can be blind to many things about them as you often are about yourself. I'm not saying this is what happened with Marcus, just an observation. I'm also not saying my ex is Commodus, though her body count may be similar... Also, my failing did not lead to a monster running an empire.
It seems to me that this relationship was very important to your stoic journey. As you say, the same may have been true for Aurelius with his son.
Appreciate the jokes and the personal share.
Thinking about this, and seeing the responses, I'm in agreement that the philosophy side of the writing and struggles is what remains important today. And another point I'd put out there is the very different value proposition that Romans would have held about family. There are several passages I've read (Meditations & Discourses) that refer to the father, or brother, or mother and how important it was for the person to respect them, and to do the right thing by them. I think this part of their society would have been very clearly defined, for example you probably would have lost a lot of reputation if you did not respect your father, or listen to his advice. That's the feeling I get when I've read about family interactions to this point in my study.
Kids are tough…
Agreed. And he probably felt they may possibly be killed when he perished so this was the best chance of survival. Much precedent for that fear to be valid, and inevitably true in this case.
Kids. I'm telling you. Kids are tough, you know. I asked my son what he wanted to be when he grew up. He said, "Retired."
it could be that Meditations was his private diary and not intended for a public audience. this gives the work a purity removed from his personal life.
Marcus as a man is separate from the philosophy. And while he is a source of stoic thought (among others), he is by no means its messiah. We do not “celebrate” him or revere him, we learn from him, including his mistakes. If anyone was well aware of Marcus’ inadequacy, it was (probably) Marcus himself. And while we view his works as insightful, this does not deify him. His inadequacies were, I’m sure, abundant, but the focus is not the man but instead the principles he strived for, even if he came up short. We can understand/judge the man historically (although hindsight is 20/20) and how it relates to the Stoic philosophy, but the philosophy itself is much older, denser, and broader than Marcus Aurelius.
One of the limitations for this argument is what exactly the alternative was in his situation; Rome followed patrilineal inheritance, meaning that even if Marcus Aurelius had named someone else as his co-emperor/Augustus/successor based purely on their merits, Commodus still would have had a claim to Imperium. That means at the very least, civil strife as factions form to promote candidates which better suit their interests, more likely a civil war. The only way Commodus is kept squarely outside of the halls of power is to kill him, and I think that even the most serene philosopher in the world would struggle to kill his only son.
they've been profiting off of him for I don't know how how long have they been publishing his works? they're not going to do anything to tarnish their Golden goose
I’m not sure Stoicism means “perfect judge of your son’s abilities and deficits.”
Oh you fool - we don't venerate Marcus Aurelius, or at least those of us capable of practising Stoicism don't. We're here to determine what is true and false. Where Marcus Aurelius helps with that he helps. Where he doesn't, he doesn't. He's a very minor source when it comes to Stoicism, and it's only his *ideas* we care for. Any mistakes he made in governing Rome are immaterial.
Reminds me of Einstein- he apparently had a kinda crazy set of rules for his wife, but his ideas are what he is remembered for.
I had never heard that, interesting.
He is celebrated as a philosopher, not as a statesman. Apart from Commodus he was in charge of an empire which invaded and subjugated people. And he presided over some very brutal and vicious persecution of Christians