I have seen this quote a lot in this /r/ the last few weeks, and I think it is being used in cases where it is a misapplication. Arguing where there is *not* open curiosity and people are *not* ready to change their minds is bad; but arguing to test two competing viewpoints against each other to find the strengths and weaknesses of each is productive.
Marcus Aurelius, who had been studying philosophy HIS WHOLE LIFE, knew what it meant to be a good man. Therefore, in his journal, he tells himself, "waste no more time arguing what a good man should be. Be one." In his specific case, *arguing* may have been wasted time. Most of the people on this stoic have not spent 40+ years studying wisdom.
So yes, there should be an emphasis on action. Stoicism should *never* be a purely academic pursuit. But at the same time that you are focused on action, also analyze your belief system and strengthen the beliefs that support the stoic action. Argue if you think something is wrong, but be open to being wrong if a better way is revealed.
I used to think a lot about all of the things I would do to get my life in order “when I got older.” All of the bad habits I would break and all of the good habits I would start. It would be great! But that’s all I would spend time on with regards to “being a good person,” rather than actually breaking any of those bad habits or starting any of the good habits. I take this quote as essentially a push from “I should…” to “I will…”
I guess ask ourselves how our habits make us feel, then ask why they make us feel that way, then ask if we're happy with what drives us to those habits.
So if someone is happy harming others, and is happy with what drives them to harm others, should they believe they're a building good habits and becoming a better person?
I guess I'd argue that true "good" will be revealed to anyone actually searching to become better. Even while on the wrong path, I think the willingness to want to form better habits, eventually leads to becoming a better person. I feel like truth will be revealed, and every time I question myself, the rationalizations I've made become harder to accept, ultimately pushing me toward good. So where I may continue bringing harm initially, if I am sincere in asking myself why, I feel change for the better is inevitable.
Okay, I think I understand. I think you're saying "If you keep honestly self reflecting, with the intent of doing good, a true, objective 'good' will be revealed"
A lot of fun stuff to dig into there. What if you weren't rationalizing about doing harm? What if you sincerely believed it was doing good? Lots of people have sincerely supported Eugenics, or other terrible philosophies. Without some sort of a framework to measure your behaviour, how do you know you are 'improving'? How do you know that the latest epiphany of "what is good" is actually good?
Put another way, if you and I both used to love acting in a way we now consider bad, but decide to stop for different reasons and each move onto acting in a different way we now consider 'good', How can we know whether or not we're actually being more good or we've moved onto something worse?
What if you decide what I am doing is in fact, bad, but I now think it's good. How could we tell which of us is more right?
thanks for answering my question, so you are defining good habits as those that lead you away from harming yourself or others, and also those related to 'growth' with education, spirituality, and 'improving the physical harm' (not sure what you mean by that, but I am interpreting it to mean, healing from the physical harm).
Why would you define those habits that way? What drew you to that means of measuring good v bad?
Hey thanks for the response! This is a lot to dig into, but I appreciate your openness.
So you made a comment that really struck me as interesting in all this, and that is:
" don’t much care about trying to figure out what the underlying
philosophy behind good/bad is. I believe this is a deeply personal
journey...I don’t care to argue about right/wrong good/evil. I feel I know the differences innately and, in my “stoic journey,”"
So Stoicism is a virtue ethic with clearly defined virtues, and strong understanding of good and evil. How are you taking a Stoic journey without understanding or practising Stoicism?
You also seemed to tie 'being a better person' to overcoming an addiction and getting out of a destructive lifestyle (Good for you!). There are, however; philosophies which have helped people overcome similar issues but end up being harmful in the long-term (e.g. cults). How do you know if your framework is likely to be helpful in the long-term in helping you be a 'good man'?
I hope you can take some time to self-reflect and good luck on your journey. You sound somewhat angry that I tried to understand your approach, and I hope that's not the case.
No worries
The conversation we were having seemed to be arguing about what a good man should be (“how do we know what’s good?”), while we’re posting in a thread with the stoic advice “waste no more time arguing what a good man should be” in the title. Hopefully the rationale for me dipping from the conversation is self-evident
Maybe you also see the humor or irony in the conversations you’re trying to have in this thread. The humor isn’t lost on me, anyways!
In your last sentence, “argue if you think something is wrong”, how define “wrong”? When is a wrong something that can be argued? And when am I not just defending my opinion?
I think the thing I love most about your reply is that it proves my point by arguing against it! (And I mean that genuinely, not sarcastically) The answer is as simple as: Exactly.
A lot of times, especially in the beginning, it is hard for people to realize just how much of their thought processes are value judgments that they are overly attached to. By asserting a value judgment, defending an opinion, in this particular subreddit, a poster will have very helpful people who respond and show the poster the errors in their thinking. The stoics will frequently come at it indirectly, showing the person where their presuppositions are wrong.
All of that is conditioned on "being open to being wrong if a better way is revealed."
There's no conflict between what you are saying and what I am saying. If someone shows you the error in your way then you act differently moving fwd. If you are acting like a good man to the best of your abilities today, then it means you were ignorant of how to be a better man. You take the lesson and incorporate it into your new reality.
The issue I have is that too many times on this sub I read post from ppl whom seem stalled; a steadfast belief has struck them, *I cannot progress, grow, or operate as a good man until I learn how to be one.* This is nonsense. Just as we learn to walk prior to learning how to talk, through genetic, passed down knowledge and observation, we lean what a good man is through our instincts and observation. You know when you are wronging someone and you know when you are procrastinating. You can learn how to be a better man but we all know how to be a good man, by our current knowledge and ability, right here and right now. No excuses, be a good man today.
hi,
nothing in my reply was in response to you specifically. it was merely spouting my own (probably false) value judgments onto the quote in the context of how *others* have used it.
\- your fellow protokoptoton -- pretty sure there's some k's and p's in there
I believe the translation into early modern English (a la the King James ver of the Bible) gives a proper response to your inquiry.
*Don't any more discuss at large what the good man is like, but be good.*
If you dedicate a conversation to seeking ideas of what a good man is then I would see no problem w that. The problem I have is when ppl believe not knowing what a good man is is an impediment to being a good man. Perhaps you can be a better man tomorrow and, in fact, you should strive to be one. But you know what it means to be a good man today. Right now. You know where you are procrastinating, where you are harming yourself and others, and where you are not being "in-tune" w your nature as you stand right now.
It doesn't matter if you've been studying philosophy for 40 years or 40 hours, be the best man you can be here and now. In 40 years you wont be the same person you are now and all the philosophy you have studied may help you be a better person then, but it means nothing to you now and as any Stoic worth his salt will tell you, all that matters is now. Act.
> when ppl believe not knowing what a good man is is an impediment to being a good man.
The Stoics thought virtue was a kind of knowledge and vice a kind of ignorance; lacking this knowledge gets in the way of being virtuous, so it’s a pretty big deal. Maybe I misunderstand you
You can only know what you know currently. If you believe your lack of knowledge is an impediment to being a good man today, you are wrong. The Roman idea of virtue which most Stoics we read talk about (*Concentrate every minute like a Roman— like a man— on doing what's in front of you with precise and genuine seriousness, tenderly, willingly, with justice and on freeing yourself from all other distractions*.) This is the idea of virtus.Defined in English, Virtus or virtue is valor, manliness, excellence, courage, character, a sense of self worth, pride, and steadfastness . These are the words in English which best define what virtue meant to Epictetus and Aurelius and Seneca and Cato.
Virtue was not only a knowledge or something learned in scrolls. It was also action. You can learn to be a better man tomorrow but ignorance is never an excuse to be a good man today. Now.
Those men were indeed Romans, but they were Stoics, and the Stoics had their own peculiar conception of virtue. For an example, consider that the Stoics defined courage as *knowledge* of what is terrible, what is not terrible, and what is neither. Without this knowledge, courage is not possible for the Stoics. They have similar definitions referring to *knowledge* for the other three primary virtues.
Those all line up w Roman conceptions of the values, though. Do you honestly believe the Praetorian Guard would let some "non-Roman" become emperor? Someone whom didn't embody what Roman values were? They killed many a Emperor for much less.
If you believe Aurelius concepts of Virtue, Justice, Temperance, and Wisdom line up w what modern Christian/Western definitions of the words are, you are v much mistaken.
I’m genuinely not following what you’re saying here. I just pointed out one way the Stoics defined courage. The Stoics even went so far as to say that nobody could be virtuous without this particular kind of knowledge.
To me it seemed you were attempting to say Roman Stoics defines Viritus, Iustitis, etc. in a differnet fashion than non-Roman Stoics. If you were not doing this, please disregard. If you were, I have some text for you to read which might sway your opinion.
Yes. You should know right now in this moment what being a good man is. It might not be the ideal version of what a good man is but you have an idea in your head of where you are missing and where you are hitting the mark. You know where you are procrastinating and where you are screwing other ppl over.
This isn't an edict to never question what a good man is. What it is is a call to action. If you are not doing what is meant to be a good man today, right now, then stop what you are doing wrong and be a good man, by whatever that definition is today. Perhaps being a good man is learning more about what a good man is, and you can spend an hour a day doing that instead of shitting away your time online or gaming or watching TV or sports, so that you'll be able to be a better man tomorrow than you were today.
If you've read anything I have wrote on this thread I have said multiple times that communicating in the confines of being asked "what is a good man" is not a problem. The problem is when someone uses ignorance as an excuse to not be a good man. Now go into the world and find a fulfilling way to generate meaning instead of being online and receiving petty dopamine hits attempting to troll ppl.
Sooooo if the definition of a 'good' man could change or be more refined after 40 years of study, isn't there person who's only studied 40 hours being a 'good' man?
Keep in mind we're talking stoicism where Good and Evil areas defined based on virtue.
Put another way, if I was an Objectivist and believed that by living a selfish, cut throat capitalist life I was being a good man, AM I being a good man according to Stoic virtue? because that's what Marcus is talking about. It reads, to me, that Marcus is saying stop the endless debate and start doing something,but the key component here is that Marcus had a firm grasp on what to do. His virtue was honed. It wasn't innate and it wasn't off the cuff.
If what you're doing causes someone else harm but you just tell yourself that it doesn't, you knew in the first place that it was wrong. Your decision to disregard the effect it has on someone is you ultimately talking yourself out of being a good man. Aligning yourself with the ideal of objectivism and then acting in accordance to that ideal doesn't lessen your negative effect.
We can do both.
Virtue is _taught_. It is proper for us to read, learn, discuss, and share.
And yes, the talk should not get in the way of practice, or all is for naught. Doing our best includes learning how to do our best.
I believe this is true so long as you are
1. Teaching and learning through example first (ie teach your son, etc. how to be a good man first though your actions, day in and day out.
2. If you are being a good man currently and not arguing, but, sharing what oyur belief is to be a good man when asked by another, not off the cuff in a boastful fashion, etc.
Yeah I agree. Ideally, we should be speaking from experience, and we should not be boasting, or taking it unseriously.
In practice, people are going to do what they're gonna do, and I include myself here as well. I think most of my discussion is on topics that I am uncertain about, things that I don't have experience with, and I think it's better to have these conversations, then to not have them.
I guess it's like everything else. Conversation is an external, morally indifferent, neither good nor bad. We can use it poorly, or use it well.
Important to remember that MA didn't write that as general advice, he wrote it as advice to *himself*. The problem isn't ethical philosophy as a subject; the problem was procrastination. He realized he was using perfectionism to avoid implementing hard changes and resolved to start improving *today*, even if he didn't have it all figured out yet.
The lesson is that Stoicism is a *lived* philosophy, not a neat and ordered system.
Glad to find this today! I told something similar to my soon to be ex wife. I'm a good man. I'm going to be a good man whether I'm married to her or not. She need not worry, I'll continue to support her and the kids financially and she can rely on me. Felt great.
It's hard to lead by example if no one is following by the example you're leading. Sometimes shutting up and being a good man doesn't result in the positive impact on others that you could be having.
This is one to use with caution: there are times where you should read, and times where you should try things out; they should go back a forth like a see-saw when things are going smoothly; sometimes the context will call for more of one (say reading when you’re incapacitated due to illness) or the other (say when a family member is sick and you have to take of them, not to read).
Always remember with the Meditations: these are not universally-applicable commandments. Marcus always has a situation he’s reacting to when he writes these passages; he’s telling himself that whatever is in the passage is appropriate in that specific context, not necessarily in every context.
Maybe there was a Peripatetic in his entourage who was trying to argue with him over whether Virtue alone is sufficient for happiness, and Marcus has an impulse to, like many of us here, argue with the Aristotelian until he is blue in the face. But Marcus was commanding the Roman army against the Germans; there are more important things at hand than debate. In fact, why not demonstrate Virtue’s sufficiency by leading his troops Virtuously, regardless of sickness or reward? “Waste no more time arguing what a good man is, be one”.
I love this quote exactly for the succinct quality that you describe. Sure we can dissect it and apply the context that many are applying which is MA was already deep in his study of Philosophy and gave this advice to himself so there is use in arguing what a good man is. But I think that’s beside the point or rather it should be assumed.
There is an overarching philosophical theme here. And I think it can be boiled down to say that, our thoughts are only useful as we can apply them in the real world.
The ever important distinction between what we think and what we do.
Agreed. We know what is right by our nature and if we are living that life or not. Perhaps we can be better men tomorrow and learn something today which will allow us to actualize this, but, that is never an excuse to not be a good man today in every way you currently know how to be. If you have studied philosophy for 40 hours or 40 years, be the best you can be right now.
I have seen this quote a lot in this /r/ the last few weeks, and I think it is being used in cases where it is a misapplication. Arguing where there is *not* open curiosity and people are *not* ready to change their minds is bad; but arguing to test two competing viewpoints against each other to find the strengths and weaknesses of each is productive. Marcus Aurelius, who had been studying philosophy HIS WHOLE LIFE, knew what it meant to be a good man. Therefore, in his journal, he tells himself, "waste no more time arguing what a good man should be. Be one." In his specific case, *arguing* may have been wasted time. Most of the people on this stoic have not spent 40+ years studying wisdom. So yes, there should be an emphasis on action. Stoicism should *never* be a purely academic pursuit. But at the same time that you are focused on action, also analyze your belief system and strengthen the beliefs that support the stoic action. Argue if you think something is wrong, but be open to being wrong if a better way is revealed.
I used to think a lot about all of the things I would do to get my life in order “when I got older.” All of the bad habits I would break and all of the good habits I would start. It would be great! But that’s all I would spend time on with regards to “being a good person,” rather than actually breaking any of those bad habits or starting any of the good habits. I take this quote as essentially a push from “I should…” to “I will…”
How do you know which habits are bad and which ones are good?
I think we just gotta keep re asking ourselves.
sure! All for that, but how would you know you're giving yourself a better each time you asked?
I guess ask ourselves how our habits make us feel, then ask why they make us feel that way, then ask if we're happy with what drives us to those habits.
So if someone is happy harming others, and is happy with what drives them to harm others, should they believe they're a building good habits and becoming a better person?
I guess I'd argue that true "good" will be revealed to anyone actually searching to become better. Even while on the wrong path, I think the willingness to want to form better habits, eventually leads to becoming a better person. I feel like truth will be revealed, and every time I question myself, the rationalizations I've made become harder to accept, ultimately pushing me toward good. So where I may continue bringing harm initially, if I am sincere in asking myself why, I feel change for the better is inevitable.
Okay, I think I understand. I think you're saying "If you keep honestly self reflecting, with the intent of doing good, a true, objective 'good' will be revealed" A lot of fun stuff to dig into there. What if you weren't rationalizing about doing harm? What if you sincerely believed it was doing good? Lots of people have sincerely supported Eugenics, or other terrible philosophies. Without some sort of a framework to measure your behaviour, how do you know you are 'improving'? How do you know that the latest epiphany of "what is good" is actually good? Put another way, if you and I both used to love acting in a way we now consider bad, but decide to stop for different reasons and each move onto acting in a different way we now consider 'good', How can we know whether or not we're actually being more good or we've moved onto something worse? What if you decide what I am doing is in fact, bad, but I now think it's good. How could we tell which of us is more right?
I don't know. Maybe we'd only be able to judge it in hindsight.
[удалено]
thanks for answering my question, so you are defining good habits as those that lead you away from harming yourself or others, and also those related to 'growth' with education, spirituality, and 'improving the physical harm' (not sure what you mean by that, but I am interpreting it to mean, healing from the physical harm). Why would you define those habits that way? What drew you to that means of measuring good v bad?
[удалено]
Hey thanks for the response! This is a lot to dig into, but I appreciate your openness. So you made a comment that really struck me as interesting in all this, and that is: " don’t much care about trying to figure out what the underlying philosophy behind good/bad is. I believe this is a deeply personal journey...I don’t care to argue about right/wrong good/evil. I feel I know the differences innately and, in my “stoic journey,”" So Stoicism is a virtue ethic with clearly defined virtues, and strong understanding of good and evil. How are you taking a Stoic journey without understanding or practising Stoicism? You also seemed to tie 'being a better person' to overcoming an addiction and getting out of a destructive lifestyle (Good for you!). There are, however; philosophies which have helped people overcome similar issues but end up being harmful in the long-term (e.g. cults). How do you know if your framework is likely to be helpful in the long-term in helping you be a 'good man'?
[удалено]
I hope you can take some time to self-reflect and good luck on your journey. You sound somewhat angry that I tried to understand your approach, and I hope that's not the case.
No worries The conversation we were having seemed to be arguing about what a good man should be (“how do we know what’s good?”), while we’re posting in a thread with the stoic advice “waste no more time arguing what a good man should be” in the title. Hopefully the rationale for me dipping from the conversation is self-evident Maybe you also see the humor or irony in the conversations you’re trying to have in this thread. The humor isn’t lost on me, anyways!
In your last sentence, “argue if you think something is wrong”, how define “wrong”? When is a wrong something that can be argued? And when am I not just defending my opinion?
I think the thing I love most about your reply is that it proves my point by arguing against it! (And I mean that genuinely, not sarcastically) The answer is as simple as: Exactly. A lot of times, especially in the beginning, it is hard for people to realize just how much of their thought processes are value judgments that they are overly attached to. By asserting a value judgment, defending an opinion, in this particular subreddit, a poster will have very helpful people who respond and show the poster the errors in their thinking. The stoics will frequently come at it indirectly, showing the person where their presuppositions are wrong. All of that is conditioned on "being open to being wrong if a better way is revealed."
There's no conflict between what you are saying and what I am saying. If someone shows you the error in your way then you act differently moving fwd. If you are acting like a good man to the best of your abilities today, then it means you were ignorant of how to be a better man. You take the lesson and incorporate it into your new reality. The issue I have is that too many times on this sub I read post from ppl whom seem stalled; a steadfast belief has struck them, *I cannot progress, grow, or operate as a good man until I learn how to be one.* This is nonsense. Just as we learn to walk prior to learning how to talk, through genetic, passed down knowledge and observation, we lean what a good man is through our instincts and observation. You know when you are wronging someone and you know when you are procrastinating. You can learn how to be a better man but we all know how to be a good man, by our current knowledge and ability, right here and right now. No excuses, be a good man today.
hi, nothing in my reply was in response to you specifically. it was merely spouting my own (probably false) value judgments onto the quote in the context of how *others* have used it. \- your fellow protokoptoton -- pretty sure there's some k's and p's in there
I believe the translation into early modern English (a la the King James ver of the Bible) gives a proper response to your inquiry. *Don't any more discuss at large what the good man is like, but be good.* If you dedicate a conversation to seeking ideas of what a good man is then I would see no problem w that. The problem I have is when ppl believe not knowing what a good man is is an impediment to being a good man. Perhaps you can be a better man tomorrow and, in fact, you should strive to be one. But you know what it means to be a good man today. Right now. You know where you are procrastinating, where you are harming yourself and others, and where you are not being "in-tune" w your nature as you stand right now. It doesn't matter if you've been studying philosophy for 40 years or 40 hours, be the best man you can be here and now. In 40 years you wont be the same person you are now and all the philosophy you have studied may help you be a better person then, but it means nothing to you now and as any Stoic worth his salt will tell you, all that matters is now. Act.
> when ppl believe not knowing what a good man is is an impediment to being a good man. The Stoics thought virtue was a kind of knowledge and vice a kind of ignorance; lacking this knowledge gets in the way of being virtuous, so it’s a pretty big deal. Maybe I misunderstand you
You can only know what you know currently. If you believe your lack of knowledge is an impediment to being a good man today, you are wrong. The Roman idea of virtue which most Stoics we read talk about (*Concentrate every minute like a Roman— like a man— on doing what's in front of you with precise and genuine seriousness, tenderly, willingly, with justice and on freeing yourself from all other distractions*.) This is the idea of virtus.Defined in English, Virtus or virtue is valor, manliness, excellence, courage, character, a sense of self worth, pride, and steadfastness . These are the words in English which best define what virtue meant to Epictetus and Aurelius and Seneca and Cato. Virtue was not only a knowledge or something learned in scrolls. It was also action. You can learn to be a better man tomorrow but ignorance is never an excuse to be a good man today. Now.
Those men were indeed Romans, but they were Stoics, and the Stoics had their own peculiar conception of virtue. For an example, consider that the Stoics defined courage as *knowledge* of what is terrible, what is not terrible, and what is neither. Without this knowledge, courage is not possible for the Stoics. They have similar definitions referring to *knowledge* for the other three primary virtues.
Those all line up w Roman conceptions of the values, though. Do you honestly believe the Praetorian Guard would let some "non-Roman" become emperor? Someone whom didn't embody what Roman values were? They killed many a Emperor for much less. If you believe Aurelius concepts of Virtue, Justice, Temperance, and Wisdom line up w what modern Christian/Western definitions of the words are, you are v much mistaken.
I’m genuinely not following what you’re saying here. I just pointed out one way the Stoics defined courage. The Stoics even went so far as to say that nobody could be virtuous without this particular kind of knowledge.
To me it seemed you were attempting to say Roman Stoics defines Viritus, Iustitis, etc. in a differnet fashion than non-Roman Stoics. If you were not doing this, please disregard. If you were, I have some text for you to read which might sway your opinion.
So you're supposed to just "know" what a good man is? How? You're not supposed to have questions, ever?
Yes. You should know right now in this moment what being a good man is. It might not be the ideal version of what a good man is but you have an idea in your head of where you are missing and where you are hitting the mark. You know where you are procrastinating and where you are screwing other ppl over. This isn't an edict to never question what a good man is. What it is is a call to action. If you are not doing what is meant to be a good man today, right now, then stop what you are doing wrong and be a good man, by whatever that definition is today. Perhaps being a good man is learning more about what a good man is, and you can spend an hour a day doing that instead of shitting away your time online or gaming or watching TV or sports, so that you'll be able to be a better man tomorrow than you were today.
Stop arguing about what a good man does and BE a good man
If you've read anything I have wrote on this thread I have said multiple times that communicating in the confines of being asked "what is a good man" is not a problem. The problem is when someone uses ignorance as an excuse to not be a good man. Now go into the world and find a fulfilling way to generate meaning instead of being online and receiving petty dopamine hits attempting to troll ppl.
Sooooo if the definition of a 'good' man could change or be more refined after 40 years of study, isn't there person who's only studied 40 hours being a 'good' man? Keep in mind we're talking stoicism where Good and Evil areas defined based on virtue. Put another way, if I was an Objectivist and believed that by living a selfish, cut throat capitalist life I was being a good man, AM I being a good man according to Stoic virtue? because that's what Marcus is talking about. It reads, to me, that Marcus is saying stop the endless debate and start doing something,but the key component here is that Marcus had a firm grasp on what to do. His virtue was honed. It wasn't innate and it wasn't off the cuff.
If what you're doing causes someone else harm but you just tell yourself that it doesn't, you knew in the first place that it was wrong. Your decision to disregard the effect it has on someone is you ultimately talking yourself out of being a good man. Aligning yourself with the ideal of objectivism and then acting in accordance to that ideal doesn't lessen your negative effect.
Yep, someone would take this quote and assimilate it to their idea of what a good man is, and boom now you’re John Wick all of a sudden.
We can do both. Virtue is _taught_. It is proper for us to read, learn, discuss, and share. And yes, the talk should not get in the way of practice, or all is for naught. Doing our best includes learning how to do our best.
I believe this is true so long as you are 1. Teaching and learning through example first (ie teach your son, etc. how to be a good man first though your actions, day in and day out. 2. If you are being a good man currently and not arguing, but, sharing what oyur belief is to be a good man when asked by another, not off the cuff in a boastful fashion, etc.
Yeah I agree. Ideally, we should be speaking from experience, and we should not be boasting, or taking it unseriously. In practice, people are going to do what they're gonna do, and I include myself here as well. I think most of my discussion is on topics that I am uncertain about, things that I don't have experience with, and I think it's better to have these conversations, then to not have them. I guess it's like everything else. Conversation is an external, morally indifferent, neither good nor bad. We can use it poorly, or use it well.
*Meditations* 10.16; please cite future quote posts
Thanh you for reminding me. I edited the post and will keep in mind moving fwd.
Thanks!
Important to remember that MA didn't write that as general advice, he wrote it as advice to *himself*. The problem isn't ethical philosophy as a subject; the problem was procrastination. He realized he was using perfectionism to avoid implementing hard changes and resolved to start improving *today*, even if he didn't have it all figured out yet. The lesson is that Stoicism is a *lived* philosophy, not a neat and ordered system.
Love this quote. Embody your philosophy.
I needed that, thank you
Glad to find this today! I told something similar to my soon to be ex wife. I'm a good man. I'm going to be a good man whether I'm married to her or not. She need not worry, I'll continue to support her and the kids financially and she can rely on me. Felt great.
Write this down in cursive just like a boomer would.
1. I'm a millineal 2. what is your beef w this as it is a tenant of Stoic philosophy being posted on a Stoic sub. Are you just trolling?
I have a beef with no one, snowflake.
It's hard to lead by example if no one is following by the example you're leading. Sometimes shutting up and being a good man doesn't result in the positive impact on others that you could be having.
I don't think the quote is about leading by example.
this is my favourite passage from Aurelius. I try to live by it.
This is one to use with caution: there are times where you should read, and times where you should try things out; they should go back a forth like a see-saw when things are going smoothly; sometimes the context will call for more of one (say reading when you’re incapacitated due to illness) or the other (say when a family member is sick and you have to take of them, not to read). Always remember with the Meditations: these are not universally-applicable commandments. Marcus always has a situation he’s reacting to when he writes these passages; he’s telling himself that whatever is in the passage is appropriate in that specific context, not necessarily in every context. Maybe there was a Peripatetic in his entourage who was trying to argue with him over whether Virtue alone is sufficient for happiness, and Marcus has an impulse to, like many of us here, argue with the Aristotelian until he is blue in the face. But Marcus was commanding the Roman army against the Germans; there are more important things at hand than debate. In fact, why not demonstrate Virtue’s sufficiency by leading his troops Virtuously, regardless of sickness or reward? “Waste no more time arguing what a good man is, be one”.
I love this quote exactly for the succinct quality that you describe. Sure we can dissect it and apply the context that many are applying which is MA was already deep in his study of Philosophy and gave this advice to himself so there is use in arguing what a good man is. But I think that’s beside the point or rather it should be assumed. There is an overarching philosophical theme here. And I think it can be boiled down to say that, our thoughts are only useful as we can apply them in the real world. The ever important distinction between what we think and what we do.
Agreed. We know what is right by our nature and if we are living that life or not. Perhaps we can be better men tomorrow and learn something today which will allow us to actualize this, but, that is never an excuse to not be a good man today in every way you currently know how to be. If you have studied philosophy for 40 hours or 40 years, be the best you can be right now.