ACFM - ACFM Microdose: Marcus Aurelius’s Meditations

Episode Date: July 12, 2026

The Meditations of Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius are perhaps the best-selling self-help book of all time. Rooted in the rational philosophy of the Stoics, the 12 books offer a stream of personal musings on everything from cultivating self-discipline to being a successful leader. Following their episode on Resilience, Nadia, Keir and Jem offer a weird-left perspective on the Meditations, looking at their influence on western thought and current popularity among tech bros and the alt-right. Sign up to the ACFM newsletter: https://novaramedia.com/newsletters Help us build people-powered media: https://novara.media/support

This is acid man. Hello and welcome to ACFM, the home of the weird left. I'm Nadia Idol and I'm joined as usual by my friends, Kea Milburn. Hello. And Jeremy Gilbert. Hello. And today we are reading from Meditations, the philosophy classic by Marcus Aurelius.

So guys, how do we want to start? Do we want to do a bit of an introduction about why we're doing this before we actually start doing readings from the first few books or chapters. We're doing a little reading group, going to read through this text, and we've done these before. We've also advised you to go and find a version, perhaps, on the internet, or you can probably get a cheap version in text. I thought that will delay your listening, won't it? Just go and find it on the internet, and you can sort of read along. Perhaps also we should just have a little explanation of why we are doing this.

This is not like a left-wing classic, is it? It's not like the Communist Manifester. which you'd expect acid communists to be reading. This is the writings of a Roman emperor from the second century AD. It's a bit of an unusual path to take. So why I'm reading this, Gem? Well, because we've decided to go into corporate leadership training. We're going to be setting up a program. Stoicism for tech leaders.

Yeah, that's going to be the first course we'll be offering. Well, because we recorded an episode on Resilience, and we partly did that because Resilient had become a corporate. an organisational buzzword and initially it was a joke. We said as a joke, we should do Marcus Aurelius, Ourelius, because it's become really popular with so tech leaders who regard themselves the sort of philosopher kings of their corporations.

It's become part of that sort of culture, reading and quoting Marcus Aurelius, but then having said it as a joke, we started to think it was collectively, it was actually a good idea, it would be interesting. partly because we wanted to talk about stoicism for quite a while. And steroicism is a sort of philosophical tradition that's lent its name to a kind of general disposition, which people still use that word to refer to.

And we think it's an interesting topic to think about in relation to the question of resilience. And I think it's an interesting phenomenon in itself, you know, these supposed classics of like pre-modern thought, like Sun Tzu's Art of War, the Tao Te Ching. I think we were talking on a recent episode about the era of corporate Taoism in the late 90s and loads of people were reading the Tao Di Ching. And, you know, the markers are really is, it's an example of a book the year. You can pick it up and it seems to be quite easy to read. Obviously, it's translated from the Greek.

But it also has that kind of history. I mean, it has a history going about hundreds. I mean, I guess really thousands of years actually of people, sort of picking it up, he fancied the idea of reading something thoughtful and philosophical by a guy who was really top of his field and not a professional philosopher. But it's also, I think, that this idea of stoicism has come up a lot of it when we've done ACFMs in the past, this idea of like, how do we maintain some sort of adherence to the movement in its long trajectory,

the movement towards communism, perhaps we'd say, and not get distracted by, you know, the vagaries of the present, that sort of idea. You know, how can we have an adherence to, you know, this project, a project of reason I'd probably say, which is, you know, the project of socialism, communism, etc. You know, how can we have maintain attachment to that when we have these crises and, you know, the world seems to be falling apart, etc? We have these setbacks and how can we, like, overcome these setbacks,

Scott, not get attached too much to any one particular organisation or moment, etc. These things seem things that some idea of some sort of left stoicism could help us with. So perhaps it's not just a critique of the tech bros. Perhaps we are also leaders in our fields, the emperors of socialism, that can resort to these self-help books to get us through the hard times. Nadia? Yeah, well, I probably have all of that, that is right and correct and good.

I have a slightly different thing to add as well, which is that I was involved in the whole kind of online personal development world around the time of the pandemic. Critically, of course, but a lot of it was very useful. And apart from, you know, characters like Jordan Peterson, who I don't approve of, there was also a lot of reverence that was given to Marcus Aurelius and the kind of stoic philosophy.

And I'm, and I guess I'm interested in how that, applies to us as, you know, left-wing thinkers and as people who want to see a kind of progressive shift in society, both in terms of, like you guys said, how it applies to us in groups and this philosophy to groups and group behavior and organizing and going to social change the direction we'd be interested in, but also like what kind of resilience it can give us any learnings from Marcus Aurelius's work and how we can think about where we're we can put our energy. But I am interested in how this whole philosophy has been used, and this is something that I think I've had experience of in the personal development world,

as a way to basically, how can I put it, as a way to move responsibility onto the individual, and how stoicism has kind of been skewed under late capitalism to become a kind of, well, you can't change the world, but you can only change yourself to be more stoic as kind of like the top line messaging that I would take from that. So I'm interested in that, but also I just think because this is a really, you know, beautiful text in its own way. And I think it would be interesting to maybe let's do a little bit of an introduction about market. Orelius himself as well at this stage. Well, Marcus O'Reillius is seen as being a kind of inheritor of the philosophical

tradition of Stoicism, as it's called the Greek philosophical tradition. The name Stoicism, it's really a sort of institutional name, like in Athens, which is widely understood as the great capital of Mediterranean philosophy, at least in the Western Mediterranean. In the ancient period, there are two sort of groups and which constitute traditions of their own of philosophers. There's the Academy that was founded by Plato and there's the Stoics. Stoics got their name from the fact they met in the marketplace under the Stowa, which is just like one of those long, sort of poor, those really long porches with a load of columns

kind of open to the square. We're not going to have time or motivation to really try to summarize like the whole Stoic tradition. Like each of those philosophical traditions, actually what happens is it sort of changes quite a lot as you go along over the centuries what it means depending on what's going on in that particular institution that particular tradition but there are some sort of common themes of steroicism from the moment when it starts to get formulated as a school which is usually associated with the philosophy of zeno of citium not the not the famous pre-socratic zeno of his paradox but a

different zeno I guess there were plenty of zinos running about And I guess like a lot of other philosophers, what they were really concerned with is trying to work out procedures for being extremely logical in one's thinking about the world. They were concerned with understanding the whole nature of physical reality, which is a task which had not yet really been handed over to the natural sciences. I mean, that wouldn't really happen until the 17th century. And we're talking a Christian era and we're talking about a few centuries before Christian era. and famously they were really concerned with ethics. They concerned with the question of like, what does it mean to be good?

What does it mean to be a good person? And also what does it mean to live a kind of contented life? And famously, they sort of come up with the idea, which, to be honest, lots of people come up with variations on around the same time. The Buddhists, the Epicureans and other school of Greek philosophers. Lots of people sort of come up with one version or another of the idea that, well, actually, if you want to be happy, You can't be happy by just sort of running around trying to get everything you want.

You've got to learn to kind of regulate your feelings. You've got to learn to sort of talk yourself out of wanting stuff that's just going to end up making you unhappy and end up making you more stressed. You've got to kind of minimize your attention. You've got to live a kind of life which is going to make you seem like a good person in the eyes of others and make you feel satisfied. whether you're living according to a moral code. So I guess what's really interesting from the point of view of like the way we use the term stoicism today is this idea that comes to be associated with some of the stoics, this idea that really what you want to achieve is this condition of what they call apathia,

meaning a sort of freedom from passion, like freedom from any kind of intense feelings that are going to motivate you to behave in ways which will be contrary to reason. It's not that you should never experience feelings. They also believe there are good feelings. The good feelings for the Stoics sometimes get translated as volition, meaning like the rational pursuit of a goal, caution, the kind of the rational avoidance of something dangerous and joy. We're all about joy.

We like joy here. But that notion of freedom from passion apathy, that's the origin of our modern English word apathy, is often associated with them, and it means, you know, being sort of in control of yourself. to the extent that you don't get over-excited when you don't want to. I've always thought apathy would be a fun name to give a girl child. You know, there was like Victorian tradition of calling people things like hope,

hope, faith, grace. I thought, you know, the real sort of post-modern one would be to call the girl apathy. But Joe didn't want to know when I suggested that for one of our daughters. Nominative determinism, as they say. It wouldn't have been appropriate. Anyway, but anyway, so the Stoics, there are multiple generations of Stoic philosophers, and that Stoic philosophers come to be seen in the Roman world, although this is stuff is coming from Greece, they come to be seen in the Roman world, a sort of the embodiment of what it

means to be a sort of full-time philosopher. Someone who really sort of lives their philosophy, someone who doesn't pursue wealth and fame, that your sort of full-time professional philosophical teacher would make a whole thing out of like not not dressing fancy, like looking like they're above it all. And there were like plenty of jobs, like we're usually as sort of servants of the ruling class, especially in the developing Roman Empire, the kind of senatorial class, like to have servant, slaves or employees who are these Greek-trained, Greek or Greek-trained philosophers who could impart their wisdom to them and advise them on their sort of political dealings and business dealings and their children. So this idea that learning all this stuff, like it's

quite good, it's going to be quite useful, it's going to make you better at your job as like a senator or eventually an emperor. It's kind of there, it's around in the culture. And it ends up being a significant influence on like Christianity, for example. Christianity's very strong emphasis on personal ethics and on sort of treating all people equally, irrespective of their social station, and on holding yourself to the highest possible ethical standards, all of that arguably comes from stoicism into Christianity, at least as much as sort of pre-Christian, it comes from pre-Christian Judaism.

So that's another reason it's interesting. But then Marcus Aurelius himself becomes this really interesting figure in history. And I think, Nadia, you're going to talk about that a bit. Yeah, well, just a little bit. so that our listeners know a little bit more about the person who's written this interesting text. So Marcus Aurelius is born in 121 AD in Rome, and by 161, he becomes the emperor. And he dies in 180 or 180 AD 180. And the interesting thing about this text is we don't actually think that he has written this,

text for publication. We don't actually have a specific date when we know that Meditations was actually written. It's presumed to be around 170 AD. And the interesting thing about Marcus Aurelius is he's well known, there's a lot written about this, of him having, like Jeremy introduced, him dedicating his life to training in this Stoic philosophy. And he's said to have started at the age of 12, which is really interesting. And so even though, you know, he's almost like one of the end, he comes at the end of kind of the Stoic movement, as I understand it, what's interesting about this text is he never mentions the word Stoic in it once, right?

And yet he's well known to have been somebody who's been studying Stoicism for all of this time. There's been a big legacy of his thinking, like Jeremy said, and I think one thing that we should mention as well is that, is kind of how CBT, cognitive behavioral therapy, I think, takes a lot from this kind of philosophy, so it can be traced back to this, this idea that, and we'll get to this, men are disturbed, not by things, but by the views of which they take, which they take of them, sorry, which I think is at the core of what stoicism can be distilled to, although that is, I think, very, very simplistic. And that quote specifically is not attributed.

to him, but often is brought when talking about his work. So Marcus Aurelius is kind of this well-loved character, even though he's the emperor, and he's really interested in social justice, etc. And in a way, his death can be considered to be the end of what's called Pax Romana in 19. Sorry, I was going to say in 19, that's hilarious. In 180. Is he the last of the five good emperies?

Yeah, his son was a bit of a doubt. disastrous emperor by all accounts. It's his tragic error. His tragic error was he didn't really stick to his own principles and the principles that had been established by his predecessors over the past century, which was that you didn't necessarily make your own child, your heir. In fact, one of your jobs as emperor was to really kind of scout around

the whole kind of pan-imperial Roman ruling class to find like really talented, and sort of, you know, mature, kind of intelligent young men, the best of whom you would adopt, you would literally adopt as your heir, so they could then become the next emperor. And he doesn't do that. He's how he gets to the emperor. He's not like the son of the emperor.

But he doesn't do that himself. He's adopted by his uncle, basically, who's the emperor. But that's part of the kind of mythology around the text, isn't it? One reason why the text has this popularity. down the generations as he was remembered. I mean, he was remembered pretty much continually for like a thousand years as being like one of the one of the great governors of like Western culture, well not West, just Western actually, because at that time the Roman Empire extended it right into the into the east as well. So one of the great, one of the great managers.

That's partly what I think. I think that's partly why like it's super popular now is he's like the ideal manager. He's also sort of like the closest you get to the ideal type of the philosopher king, isn't he? Yeah, yeah, exactly. Yeah, he is. He's an enlightened, desperate. I mean, supposedly he does live this really austere life. You know, these guys, like they have these massive panaces and stuff, but then they'll spend years just kind of living on campaign and just sort of living like a soldier and in their own homes. They won't do load too much feasting and banqueting and so partying. And they'll just sort of dedicate themselves to to the core. It was one of the things that totally freaked out some of the

morphs of anti-communist historians when it turned out when all the Soviet records got released and it turned out that Stalin didn't have them. They thought Stalin had some secret palace somewhere and it turned out he didn't. He was just like living in a council flat all the time he was being Stalin. So it sort of freak people out because it does it has this real impact on people's imagination, the idea of someone who's like at the top of this incredibly powerful institutional pyramid

but they do just spend all their time trying to govern. He was so temperate, in fact, that he didn't even fuck his slaves, and he's very proud of that, because that's him. We've come to that in book one when we get to the meditation. Yeah, I mean, we should, on that point, we should say that, you know, like women and slaves are not people, right, here. So, I mean... I'm not sure about that at all, actually.

From reading book one, and book two and book three, you think he thinks of women as equal people. Well, we can get into this, but, like, he was introduced to all of this philosophy by slaves. And so, you know, his... We can get into this in book one if we want to go through book one. But, you know, yeah, he thanks his schoolmaster or something. It would be a slave who introduced him to philosophy at, like, age of 12, etc.

And so slaves have definitely got the spark of reason. Therefore, they are humans and there's a kinship between. And that's definitely true, basically. There's literally a bit we'll get to it where he's like, don't be like a woman. So, you know, if you didn't see that passage, we'll get to it. I have underlined it. I have underlined it.

To be clear, the book is most often published under the title of Meditations today. But it's also, its other traditional title is to himself. And what this is, is basically this is a sort of journal in which he's writing out these sort of philosophical aphorisms for his own benefit. He's kind of talking to himself. So it wasn't intended for publication. and it's like, you know, we said, we said recently, like, Walter Benjamin was a bit of a blogger, but like this isn't even a blog, isn't even supposed to be a blog.

Like, this is like, it's either somebody's personal journal or it's just, it's somebody who likes to just has one of those anonymous accounts where they like to tweet out, you know, affirmations, like, every couple of days. Or just, you know, just, or just like Instagram, just stuff they've thought about today, about, you know, how they, how they can be a better person today. So it is that, basically. But it's really interesting to think about the fact that, well, like, for like a thousand years, for loads of people, this is the only example people had of somebody doing that.

So the whole idea of like, well, sitting down and having a word with yourself and thinking, how can you be a better person and how can you not lose it and everyone will they piss you off? That's like a really interesting idea to people. And I think one bit that I'd like us to, I'd just like to explain a little bit about what you just said, Jeremy, because of how this is going to appear in the text. I mean, we should say to keep it extra fun for listeners, all three of us have different translations. So we like to keep you on your toes, fair listeners.

But I do want to bring up, before we start talking about it, what the word justice means in the text, because it is slightly different and it's a much wider understanding of what justice is. And in fact, we don't have an English word for this question. Greek word, which is dikaiosune. I'm sure I murdered it there. But that is what is translated as justice in the text. But it actually means other things. It's not just justice in the sense that we understand it, but also things like what he calls living an agreement with nature. So he has this

idea that we are inherently rational and social creatures and that is part of living with justice. and as is how those virtues of justice are expressed in your relationships with friends, spouses, children, etc. So there's something there that is also about harmony and fate not being disturbed that exists within the realm of justice as it's translated in the book. So just to keep that in mind that justice is just a kind of like, it's just a mind. it's just a much bigger and wider concept when we come across it. It's a super important idea, both in the Judaic and then Judeo-Christian tradition and in like Greek-derived thought.

I mean, the idea of what it means to be a good person for hundreds of years is to be, if you're a member of this social elite that gets read this stuff, is to be just, is to be fair. And it's interesting because I think it does indicate the way which in like very early civilization, the idea that there's got to be some rules, even if we don't really agree on what they are, you've got to have some sort of a code. You can't just have people just doing whatever they feel like all the time.

Then that is sort of precedes the idea, later ideas of virtue as in what does it, you should be good to people, you should be kind to people, you know, you should be generous to people. It's like before anything else, people have this idea, well at least you've got to have some idea of what's fair. You've got to have some idea that there is just the idea of rules at all, in a certain sense, has to be sort of instantiated. But I think Stoicism is important because partly it's one of the places in which that idea starts to mutate into the idea that you should actually be nice to people. It should actually be nice. And that's as well as being just, or that's the logical conclusion of being just. And that is really interesting.

And like I said before, has a big impact on Christianity. Shall we go to the text, as they say? Yes. We should say that this starts with chapter, well, they're called books. It starts with book one, and book one is quite different to the rest of the books, in that book one is basically a set of acknowledgments and passages where he praises people that exhibit qualities that he likes. So the structure of book one, which is right at the beginning, is quite different.

it does change as we go along. Yeah, book one is a series of shoutouts to his faves. You're going to do book one, book two and book three. There are, how many books are there? I think there are 11 books. But even book one, book two and book one took two and book three are quite repetitive. He's going over the same themes. Do you know what I mean?

You know, there's a coherent philosophy behind it. But he's like I said, you know, like we said already, these are like notes to himself, basically. and he didn't really seem to have any attention that anybody else would read these. So by just doing book one, two and three, I think we'll get the gist, basically, and we'll fit it into the four hours we've got assigned to this podcast. So the reason I think book one is interesting

is it sets as a text, you know, it sets us up in this really interesting kind of non-traditional way to get to know the author, to get to understand what this person who's writing these series of aphorisms, in a sense, what he thinks and what he likes and what he thinks is good and not good. And I think that the first bit that kind of stands out at me,

and there's numbers like 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. So I really like the bit where it says, from my tutor to be neither of the green or of the blue party at the games in the circus. So I really enjoyed that. It was kind of, yeah, right, because it's starting off by being, he's not petty when it comes to gladiators' fights. This is the bit where I first started to disagree with him, actually, because I took this as a knock at my own attachment to Lees United. It very much is that, yeah.

It is entirely that. And of course, as we've established, my attachment is not linked to the passions. It is linked to the hard light of rationalism. Lees United are in fact the greatest in the world. The greatest scene the world does have ever seen. And Marcus I'm sure would have been a lead supporter if he was alive today. Moving swiftly on to number six. So then he does this piece about the circus and then he goes, you know...

You're speaking to people, but the circus means the chariot races. It doesn't mean what we think of as a circus. So it was a whole thing in ancient Rome. in Constantinople, there were two big teams of chariotraces and people got really obsessed with him and he's saying, don't do that, don't be obsessed with that. Yeah, which is quite nice because it gives us a kind of flavour and then he goes on to talk about like gladiators afterwards. And then he talks about what he's learned from Diognitus, is that right? Diognitus, the idea of not busying yourself with trivial things and this is the first

time we hear this and this becomes, you know, the theme of one of the key themes throughout the book. idea of busying yourself and specifically with trivial things. So I think it's worth pointing out. And then I love this bit of say, not to give credit to what was said by miracle workers and charlatans about incantations and the exorcism of demons and such things. And then next to that, he starts talking about breeding quails and stuff, right? So it's lovely because you get this picture of basically what are all the activities and people's passions about those activities that are, going on around him.

That you shouldn't do. You're saying all this, all this trivial shit people do is a waste of time. And thank you to Diognitus for teaching me that all that is bullshit. Diognitas was his painting master by all accounts, his instructor in painting. Painting and tabletop role-playing games are often associated each other as a judicious use of free time. Okay, so in number seven, I think, you know, I'm picking out bits of phraseology, which I think set us up of how, like, you know, what he's going to start unpacking later in the text. So in number seven, from the middle there's this part or to perform benevolent acts in order to make a display.

So I take that as, you know, virtue signaling in the modern world, etc. And I love this bit of, you know, as Jeremy said in the introduction, about how he used to conduct himself and what he used to wear, you know, and not to walk about the house in my ceremonial attire, which which I really gave me a love. image of all of these emperors going, I'm spending all day in my finery and absolutely loving, just looking at myself in the mirror all the time and he's saying, no. And then we come to what is going to be Kia's favourite bits. Hang on. Is he advocating going to the shops and your pyjamas? I think he is. This is absolutely moral turpitude. I hope not. I hope not. I'm not, I'm not, I'm not pro. I think there's a middle ground between wearing your ceremonial attire in the house and

going to shop in your pyjamas. That's right. It's all about the middle ground. He's all about the middle ground. He is quite possibly a centrist dad. He's certainly centrist in terms of slovenliness, yes. Yes, I would say in slovenliness, yes. And then he gets into this bit, which I'm sure Keir would highly approve of, which I love, which is further down number seven, which is, and not to be satisfied with a superficial understanding of a book.

And I kind of love that, because he's basically saying, if you're going to get with a text, you know, get into it, do a podcast episode on it, like read it with your friends. Like, and that's saying something about, you know, a certain scholarly attitude that he's alluding to in that sentence. So I kind of like that. Quite right. And then in number nine, there is to look carefully after the interests of friends, which I loved,

and to tolerate ignorant persons and those who form opinions without consideration. And I think this is where we get into like, you know, the classic. ideas of stoicism, of, you know, look after your friends and there are going to be lots of idiots out there and you have to, you know, look after yourself in a way and be able to tolerate them. That's what I take from that, you know. There's a lot of don't get, don't do the beef on Twitter. Just don't do it. Leave it. Leave it. It's not worth it. Walk away. Don't feed the trolls. In chapter 10, I think there's this. I mean, my, my translation is very different from your story, but this is my translation.

From Alexander the Grammarian, he learns not to leap on mistakes or capriciously interrupt when somebody makes an error of vocabulary, syntax or pronunciation, but neatly to introduce the correct form of the particular expression by way of answer confirmation of discussion of the matter itself, rather than its phrasing, or by some other felicitous prompting. Now that, you see, is an inducement or, or,

or exhortation to avoid shit posting. He's way, way ahead of his time. No, it is. It's almost like a manual for persuasive conversations, isn't it? It's like a manual for how to win the battle for common sense. Not to be a pedant is won. Yeah. Yes.

Although he's got this, like I said, with the previous quote, he's saying, you know, if you're going to read a book, don't be satisfied with a superficial reading. And I would extend that to, you know, an idea. or a conversation. And obviously, like, you know, he quotes Plato later, etc. I think he's saying,

don't let AI Pracey your book and as Rita Pracey. I'm loving these modern translations of what's... Well, in one of the bits, when he's thanking his teacher, his painting teacher, he said he made him write essays from an early age.

I was thinking, yeah, don't get a chat of GBT to write your essay. Yeah. And then in 16, to his adoptive father, he's saying, and the readiness to listen to those who had anything to propose for the common good. That's a real lesson, I think, in today's kind of fractious world, this idea of, you know, when people have intentions, like the importance of taking on a varied diet of opinions is important. Well, no, in my translation, in the paragraph 16,

sorry. He praises his adoptive father, the ex-emperor, for a whole series of things, including an experience of where to tighten and where to relax. He says he praises him for putting a stop to homosexual love of young men. Ah, I don't have that. That's interesting. But I do have, I do have not to get obsessed with the beauty of his slaves. That might be the two translations of the same passage, I think, yeah. That's interesting. And before that, my favourite bit so far is he does, did bathe at inappropriate hours. And I wasn't sure whether that was like the version of

going to, you know, the baths or something or what was going on in inappropriate hours in which he was bathing. So I quite enjoyed that bit. I mean, it's worth keeping in mind that, I mean, basically, like, I mean, shagging teenage boys was like associated in the ancient Mediterranean mind a lot of the time just with sort of excessive lust viciousness. Like it was, it was considered like particularly decadent compared to having sex with girls, but it was, it was more to do with it just being really something that people who were very horny did, rather than really being necessarily homophobic in a modern sense. But obviously it does kind of shade into that. And obviously, egalitarian sexual relationships between men were considered totally unacceptable.

So the boss like real homophobia as well. He also thanks himself towards the end. He congratulates himself, as I mentioned earlier, that I never touched, Benedicta or Theodotus, and that later experience of sexual passion left me cured. And those would be two slaves, Benedicta and Theodotus, and male or women we don't actually know. Yes, well, the whole theme of lustful passion. So I think there's desire and passions comes in a lot and kind of an anger as two, you know, as two areas that he's kind of become like these huge areas where, It's the theme just comes up again and again and again as areas that you're supposed to be, you know, trying not to express or not to trying to act on anger or lust.

And then there's my favorite first sexist bit out of many, this bit after the bit about Benedicta and Theodotus, which is still number 17, where he says, I've never found myself needing to receive such assistance from other and that I have such a wife so obedient and so affectionate. affectionate and so straightforward. And this kind of comes back again, is that, like, those are the three things under patriarchy that men want from women, right? Obedience, affection, and, you know, speaking in a language that men can understand. And that becomes almost next to the end, yes. My translation is submissive, loving, and unaffected.

Pretty much in the same ballpark, I think. But last thing, just last thing, is that the last sentence that I have, I don't know what you guys have, is among the cardi at River Granua. Is that where he's written it? Yeah, so this is book two, and he's written that on campaign, near the River Danube, basically. He's on campaign subduing a revolt. This is in a camp, basically, that he's... Ah, no, I have it written at the end of each book.

So book one, it says, at the end, there's one line, and book two has a different place. So it's just, yeah, it's spaced differently in my book. Yeah, so this... book, Book 2 and book 3 actually have written at a different camp. So he's out on campaign. He's out to subdue a revolt basically and this is it, this is, you know, I don't know quite when he gets time to do this, I don't know. But yeah, so that's when he writes this, that's when we know. So book 2 starts this way in my translation. Say to yourself, first thing in the morning, today I shall meet people who are meddling, ungrateful,

aggressive, treacherous, malicious and unsocial. I found that great help actually preparing to talk to you to. Yes, I mean, I've got a different translation, but I thought it was a really good start to kind of book to, which is, yeah, this, you know, it's a piece of advice that all of us would be helpful for all of us to just be prepared that you're going to go out into the world and things will happen. So this idea that you will plan for your day to be a certain way, but if you live in a city or if you live somewhere where there's a lot of people and especially under late capitalism, like stuff is going to happen and it's, it's not going to be according to your plan. And so this starts to see this idea of, you will come across things that are out of your control. But also with that, he, you know,

the next line in my translation is, all this has afflicted them through their ignorance of true, good, and evil. And so his point in this passage is like, you're going to make people who are dicks. But, you know, that's not their essential nature that they are dicks. You know, that it's because they haven't, you know, they haven't had the advantage of philosophy, they haven't had the advantage of being able to accord.

Of ACFM? Yeah, basically. They're non-ACFM listeners. And so, you know, they don't know the difference between good and evil. And, you know, and so basically people acting in an evil way or a way which is not in accordance with the laws of nature, which is not in accordance with reason, you know, that's a failing of theirs, but not something to condemn them for, basically. Yeah.

I mean, it's classic parental advice to the child. You know, when people are behaving really badly, try to feel sorry for. for them. Don't just get angry. So, um, classic advice. Classic advice. My bit ends like this. Nor can I be angry with my kinsman or hate him. We were born for cooperation like feet, like hands, like eyelids, like the rows of upper and lower teeth. So to work in opposition to one another is against nature and anger or rejection is opposition. Yeah, so like, chill out, man, don't. Yeah, don't get angry at people who are still in the Labour Party. So the second paragraph contains this line here.

Quit your books. No more hankering, this is not your gift. I mean, that is terrible advice, isn't it? He's talking to himself. He is, he's taken to himself and he's like, you know, I know the feeling basically. Yeah, the end of this passage actually. No, no, it's the end of paragraph three of this book.

He says, give up your thirst for books and do not die a grouch, it says, in my translation. Yeah, I've got murmuring, but it's the thirst. That's the problem here, not the books. Yeah, the first line of this, in this translation I've got, which is this Robin Waterfield's very recent translation, says this thing that I am, whatever we are to call it, is flesh, spirit and the command center. The command center does how they're translating this notion of, you know, the sort of intentional consciousness.

My translation of that is the directing mind. One of the things he's reflecting on there, which is a huge problem in nature and philosophy and in stoicism is what's the relationship between consciousness and the body. Of course, I should have said before, actually, stoics were committed to the idea that everything is physical. So they were materialists,

but also they were sort of pantheists. So they thought the whole universe was a sort of intentional god. He's sort of coming from there. But also, but this is one of the paragraphs where I think he is just sort of stream of consciousnessing at himself. Like it isn't really like reflective of a coherent philosophically worked out position. He's really talking to himself. And it feels like it's in response to something specific.

Like he's got himself all word up about something he's read or something. And he's telling himself, don't do that. Well, just after that quit your book's thing in my translation, it says this, don't let this directing mind of yours be enslaved any longer. No more jerking to the source. strings of selfish impulse. So, you know, people have all sorts of selfish impulse, but I also recognize the impulse to buy more books and read them.

Yeah, I mean, there is that question. You know, Jeremy's point is a good one. I think if he perhaps wasn't the emperor, he would have been, you know, he wouldn't be, been forced to edit out a lot of this, you know what I mean? Is that we're getting to see, I think, a version of, of a text, which is, which is interesting because it's, it's, like you said, a lot of it seems. speaking to himself and it kind of drops in and out. So as a text, it's kind of interesting to read. I wanted to talk a little bit about five. You can see in this, you know, the attraction for,

you know, these tech oligarchs who think they're going up at six and work all day. In fact, they probably just toss it off most of the day. Every hour of the day, give rigorous attention, he says, vacate your mind from all other thoughts apart from their pursuit of reason, etc. You will achieve this vacation of other thoughts. If you perform each action as a if it with a last of your life. That's another theme that comes up a lot as well of like, you know, live every day like it's your last sort of idea.

You'll receive this vacation if you perform every action as if it were the last of your life. Free, that is, from all lack of aim, from all passion-led deviation from the ordinance of reason. That's another key, key theme that this idea, like, that there should be all your actions, every single one of them should be in accordance with like a bigger aim, basically,

a bigger aim of your life. and then that's that the accordance with that aim can be the you know that aim is to live it with reason etc but that's a way to avoid distraction these sorts of things he says you'll be able to avoid dissatisfaction with what fate has dealt you and that's the other one of the big things we'll come back to over and over again this idea that you should be accommodated with your lot your lot in all sorts of ways you're lot in society but also the amount of life that your time on earth that you're given, et cetera, et cetera. Yeah, well, the whole idea of fate is really important for the Stoic.

I was going to say that, yeah, fate of providence, basically. Well, the tension between, I mean, within Stoic philosophy, which this isn't really, this is a guy who knows quite a bit about Stoic philosophy, but he's Emperor of Rome and he's thinking about stuff aloud. But within Stoic philosophy, the problem of free will, and its relationship to an idea of fate is a massive problem, and they don't really settle on how to sort. it because obviously the problem is always, well, if you actually think that, if you actually think like you can't affect any sort of outcomes because everything is predetermined or is kind of

programmed by whatever range of complex factors, then there isn't really, there's absolutely no reason to try to control yourself in the way that they say. So there's a kind of paradox, potential paradox, being saying, well, the thing is to be really under self-control, but also so to accept that you can't really change things. Unless, I guess, I mean, I think, you know, one way of resolving that, which I think is the sort of way in which Stoicism has come to be understood in a popular sense, as a general disposition is, well, you do accept the most things, you can't really empower much. And you accept you are going to be subject to all kinds of external forces that you can't change, and you don't allow yourself to become distressed by them.

But then you do try to make intentful interventions in whatever area of life it seems possible to do so. So I guess that is reasonable. I mean, really, it's become a sort of trite cliche, hasn't it? But it's not, you know, change the courage to change what I can and the wisdom to accept what I can't. But that is what he's saying, really. And it is, you know, it's sort of reasonable. I know, but, like, all the way through reading this, I had, like, you know, I just kept coming back to thinking, And underlying that is some sort of belief in like divine providence. Do you know what I mean?

That there is a, there's a cosmic order that we have to sort of attune ourselves to. Do you know what me? And like when you get that to its most cod form, you know, it's saying everything happens for a reason, which people say to themselves, which is either banal as in there is causality in the world or it is supernatural as in, you know, there is a divine reason or divine order that we can't affect, basically. That's the first part when I really started to recoil, basically. I could go along with the rest, you know, the anti-sports, the anti-book collecting, but that was the thing in which I started to recoil. Yes, I think that's a good point, yeah.

Yeah, it is all sort of, it is based on that. And it's partly why it becomes accommodated very quickly within Christianity, a lot of stoic ideas, because there is this idea of a basically benevolent God. Indeed, the Christian narrative, the Christian metaphysical narrative. of somehow the process of salvation cosmically working itself out, you know, via the sort of life and passion of Christ and the establishment of the Christian church, it does sort of fit quite nicely with the stoical idea that ultimately, you know, ultimately everything's going to be for the best. Everything is somehow, everything that happens is somehow the unfolding of the providential

will of God straight at the universe. So, again, I mean, it does, it resonates with the, a lot of contemporary, sort of casual, like new age ideas, actually, like the universe. The universe is doing stuff and everything happens for a reason. Yeah, but at the same time, what's interesting is that a lot of his ideas have been taken on by, you know, the same kind of crew or, you know, at least in somehow related to groups of people who, you know, believe in manifesting, you know. And we talked about manifesting before on the show, like this idea that you can, there are things that you can control, but you have to believe that you're able to change them first, you know.

And so that's interesting because that seems to be contradictory from this idea of fate, but it's still, but that stoic ideas are still in a way, you know, a set of kind of inspiring ideas for that, for that world. So I think, I think that there are things in the book which are inherently contradictory, but I think that's part of the fun, to be honest, you know, of reading it. No, I agree, yeah. I did have fun reading. I enjoyed it, basically. I've not read it before. And it is exactly that, that you can, basically, you can get into it. It's not a coherent philosophy laid out in a sequential manner, basically. It's little nuggets that you can get into. And so let's move on to the next nugget. Yeah, so number six, I was kind of confused. It just felt a bit like, you know, he was in a bit of a hole with this one. So maybe your translation is, you guys seem to have more literal translations than I have or, you know, using more contemporary language. But, you know, But my one, number six, says, do wrong to yourself, do wrong to yourself, my soul, but you will no longer have the opportunity of honouring yourself.

Every man's life is sufficient, but yours is nearly finished. As far as I can work out, the important bit of that is the last sort of bit. It's sort of like that self-sufficiency thing, you know, which is part of the attraction of stoicism these days, which is like you can't allow your own self-worth or your own welfare to be reliant on the souls of others, basically. Other people's sort of judgments and opinions, basically. You've got to be self-directed in some sort of way.

I did like in Seven, the bit, he basically says, don't get distracted. Stop getting distracted by stuff. Just get on with a job in hand. That's basically the whole point of it. Distraction and procrastination as evils to be avoided. In the age of, you know, the great distraction engines, the phones and the platforms,

it's kind of interesting. It's kind of intriguing, really. Put down your social media apps and get your Stoicism self-help app out. I think when he's talking about distraction, from a very kind of male perspective, he's thinking about it from his experience. And I think he's thinking about anger and desire when he's talking mostly about distraction. I mean, he might be thinking about circuses and gladiators and betting and whatever, but I think he's more thinking about anger and desire.

Anger's a really big thing. it goes over and over again, then he's not sure it's definitely in this part, but in other bits it definitely is. I also think it's just like that, that again is like that self-direction sort of thing, you know, that paragraph starts in my translation. Do externals tend to distract you? Then give yourselves the space to learn some further good lessons. Stop your wandering.

So the externals, I think, could also just be, you know, the distractions of other people, other people giving their opinions or wander. or desire, something like that, I think. That phrase self-direction actually is quite a good one to bring in to here, which is, and I think somebody mentioned self-reflection as well. I think that's what's being alluded to, is that, like, if you find yourself, like, in a bit of a state, take a minute and figure out what's going on before you go out and, you know, start lashing out

at people or, like, start getting obsessed with shit. Think before you tweet people. So, Ten, obviously, you know, was going to draw my attention. I have to point out all the sexist bits, even though I, of course, understand that that is the context. But before that, I like this bit close to the beginning, where he says, like a true philosopher, that the offences which are committed through desire

are more blamable than those which are committed through anger. So this is, I think, the first bit where he starts to talk about desire. Well, he basically brings up both desire and anger, positing that those offences committed through desire, are worse, effectively, than anger. He then goes on to explain by saying, someone who offends through desire, being overpowered by pleasure, seems to be, in a sense, more intemperate and more womanish in his offenses.

I'm trying to understand, you guys have different translations, he's using woman as a pejorative there, and I'm trying to understand what he means. I think he means of changing mind. Yeah. Which, of course, is the, you know, like the sexist trope. My translation is somehow more abandoned and less manly in his wrongdoings. Tomato, tomato, tomato and it's the same.

That was just the understanding within elite Mediterranean culture, like for the whole millennium, probably for two millennia, that were the principal difference in men and women, is that women were less rational and were more governed by emotion. And that was a bad thing. Yeah, which is ironic, because of course he's talking about anger, of which men have a lot of, But even if we keep the sexism to one side,

I'm still trying in that bit, I'm trying to get my head round the argument that he is making. So maybe it'll be helpful if one of you guys read out how what it's translated as there. Because this is the bit where he's explaining why offences, which I've got it as written as offences, offences committed by desire, I worse than anger.

And I think that's important to kind of understand before we go on, right? No, sure. Well, he says that when you're angry, Basically, when you're angry, you're not having a good time. You know, you're in distress of some kind. And that's sort of more forgivable or less contemptuous than someone who's doing something wrong because they're enjoying it. That's his argument.

Yeah, in mind, instead of offences of desires, it's offences of lust, which gives it a more, you know, derogatory sort of. Yeah, and it's a pleasure. He says several times in the paragraph, he says the problem, if it's a wrongdoing accompanied by pleasure, then that's more deplorable. Because you're enjoying, you're enjoying that. I see what you mean.

So then in the end, the bit that I underlined as kind of trying to understand this as the thesis is on the whole, one is more like a person who has been first wronged and through pain is compelled to be angry, whereas the other is moved by his own impulse to do wrong, being carried towards something by desire. Right. So that's the bit that you guys had translated slightly different. Okay, that makes sense now. an interesting point to keep in mind when you're sort of dealing with anger as a factor of life, you know, in person or online or any other contacts, that people are in, it's not, being angry isn't actually fun and it can be, it's really easy to react to somebody being angry at you by just being annoyed that they're angry, like, you know, the negative affect comes and the

sense of fear and panic, but, you know, people don't actually enjoy it. Like, and they're, you know, it's, he's saying it's like a negative emotion with the person who's experiencing, it too. And that's an interesting point, I think. But also, I think he's saying that when somebody's angry, it's because they have a perception of being wronged. You know, they might have been wronged or they might just have that perception of being wronged. And so that's why, you know, that anger often goes along with some sort of like feeling of justice. Do you know what I mean? You know, yes, and I'm writing a wrong, basically, even if it's just a perception of a wrong.

Do you know what I mean? And a fake, you know, false perception of a wrong. whereas lust is something else it's different, you know, it's not somebody who's been wronged and if it's driven to something intemperate then you're wronging somebody else from pursuit of your own desires or something like that. Chapter 11, this is once again

one of his meditations on death, isn't it, basically? You may leave this life at any moment, have this possibility in your mind in all that you do or say or think live every day as though it's your last. Never really makes sense to me that because if I knew it was my last day,

I'd be making arrangements for the funeral and stuff like that, wouldn't I? But I see his point and it has become a cliche, obviously. Yeah, I think, I mean, the idea is really, you know, don't assume that you can start being a good person tomorrow. Yeah, it's like trying to come to terms

of mortality, isn't it, basically? And he's got arguments running all the way through about how there's nothing to fear from death. Actually, I think it's chapter 12. which is more about how do we deal with death, isn't it, basically? How rapidly everything vanishes. Physical bodies lost in the universe and the memory of them lost in eternity. You know, there's a lot of like everything, everything passes.

I think it's all kind of evocative of this world, this sort of elite world where people will often wait until they're old to start doing good works and becoming philanthropist, like sponsoring games for the people and wanting everybody to think they're a good guy. and he's sort of saying you shouldn't do that. I mean, in my translation, he asks that, what is death?

He goes on a little bit and he says, it's nothing more than a function of nature. Yeah, it's nothing more than a function of nature. If anyone is afraid of a function of nature, he is a mere child. And death is not only a function of nature, but also to her benefit. It's a circle of life, isn't it?

Matt, put in a little bit of the circle of life from the Lion King. It's hard not to keep going out to cliches, isn't it, from these sorts of things? In 13, you know, he says, nothing is more miserable than one who is always out and about, running around in circles, impinders words, delving deep into the bowels of the earth,

and looking for signs and symptoms to divine his neighbour's mind. He does not realise that it is sufficient to concentrate solely on the divinity within himself and to give it true service. That divinity, the spark of divinity within yourself is like reason, the ability to reason. And so in the way that sort of like indicates a certain solipsism, in stoicism.

Do you know what I mean? Don't go looking about what's in other people's minds. Just concentrate on your own ability to reason, I think is something like that. And then in 14, there's bits where he's basically making this argument, this idea of stoicism that like, that history just keeps repeating itself, basically.

It's like a loop in which everything has happened, everything has happened before and happen again is basically that sort of idea. Yeah. That's a steric idea. The eternal recurrence. This is where Nietzsche gets it from. Yeah.

And so, like, why would you, why would you fear death? He says somewhere later on, I think. Why would you fear death? Because, you know, the same thing's going to happen. You know, do you want to live forever and like see the same thing happen over and over again? You know, you've had your bit.

It's basically all the same stuff. 16 then? What have you got there? Well, it's about resentment, isn't it? Again, but again, I think this is a kind of influence on Nietzsche. So they said to resent anything. that happens is to set oneself apart from nature, of which the various individual natures of everything else are parts. I mean, this is another reflection on the way everything is connected.

Because I think actually we did skip over, I think paragraph, I think it's paragraph nine where he says, you know, you should always bear in mind what the nature of the whole is, what my nature is, how my nature is related to the nature of the whole, what kind of part it is, of what kind of whole and that no one is stopping you from being in accord with the nature of which you are a part. So there's this idea that like everything is part of, we're all, we're all part of nature, we're all part of the universe as it is and therefore you shouldn't, to resent anything, it's sort of to fail to come to terms of that reality. Yeah, this sort of like paragraph 16 and in paragraph 17 are the last paragraphs of this book.

And they're sort of almost like summary bits, aren't there? they go back over some of the lessons from, that I've already been mentioned, the one about resentment, for instance, and then he, you know, he says, you know, you shouldn't be gripped by anger. You shouldn't give in to pleasure or pain. You know, you shouldn't dissimulate,

say things which are feigned or false. You should direct your own actions towards a goal and not act at random. And even the most trivial action should be undertaken in reference to the end and the end of rational creatures is to follow the reason and rule that most venerable archetype of a governing state, the universe. So that's his sort of summary, perhaps, of that book. The beginning of paragraph 17, to me again, was interesting

because it is very resonant actually of some of those Taoist classics from China. So he says, in my translation, says a person's lifetime is a moment. His existence is a flowing stream. His perception dull, the entire fabric of his body readily subject to declare. His soul and aimless wonder. His fortune erratic. His fame uncertain. In short, the body is nothing but a river. The soul is dream and delusion. I think it's, I mean, this idea that like everything is changeable, so you can't really, you can't stop the flow of time and change. You have to accept that. I mean, that's also this cool theme in Taoism. And they're both coming out of these historical contexts, actually.

But you've got these, you've got a sort of, you know, for one of a better phrase. You've got kind of civilization at a kind of higher level than it's ever existed before. You've got these big, big state structures and bureaucratic institutions that are kind of almost recognizable. to modern people and you've got these kind of cultures within sort of ruining elites of like intense competition for access to status in a way which is maybe starting to be experienced by people in a very very stressful way which seems kind of different from the kind of lower stakes to status competitions like in in less highly organized or less highly structured societies and and it's kind of and i think this i think this is a sort of response is what's emerging as a kind of

of psychology, there's a kind of psychology and a kind of under kind of therapeutic psychology about how to relate to that, about the idea that well, when you're in these super hierarchical and increasingly complex societies, then if you allow yourself to be driven totally by the kind of the search for fame, the search for status, then you're just going to drive yourself mad because there's like no end to it, basically. And I think that's what's sort of provoking this, all these kind of this tendency to reflect on changeability and on this kind of philosophy of non-attachment. Because Stoistocism is a philosophy of non-attachment in the same way

that kind of Buddhism and Taoism manifests themselves in that way, which is interesting. It's interesting that it's not accompanied by any, as far as we know, there isn't really any sort of tradition of intense consumptive practice. So it's just, you're just sort of getting on with it in a kind of day-to-day way and you're engaging in this process of self-reflection and sort of self-auditing, but you're not doing kind of hours of sitting meditation a day to get yourself into a bliss state like you are in some of those Asian traditions.

Yeah, which is why I think it's relevant specifically towards a discussion of resilience and therefore psychological resilience and political resilience, right? Because that is the job in itself rather than nirvana. It's true, yeah, and it is interesting from our point of view, actually, because I don't, I mean, we talk a lot about, you know, like Nadia and I, you know, being sort of interested in yoga and meditation. But I'm sort of concert. I'm very conscious these days. Well, there's no way I could have got into that stuff if my life was like it is now.

I don't know if I would have been able to if I'd been living under the conditions that most of the people I know are living under at the age. So I got into all that stuff in my sort of early 30s at a time and you could basically still like have a house in London and like and have a reasonable job. and live a fairly, you know, fairly calm life and have a lot of free time to do stuff like, I think I'll take a, I think I'll take up Tai Chi for a couple of years, well, you know, while being a, while being a university lecturer, because until I've got kids, there isn't really any, that many other demands on my time. I'm sort of really conscious that I can't really go around, I can't really advise people who are like 30 now. That's what they should be doing, because the material conditions just aren't there.

But the utility, the potential utility of this story, cool stuff, is that it doesn't depend on somebody having the time and resources to like take a lot of time out of their life to go to a class or something. It's some kind of really immediate advice. But of course that's a potential problem with it. I mean that's that's you said totally rightly right, you know, it's it's got this similarity to cognitive behavioural therapy and there's a lot of controversy in the NHS when mental health services started pushing cognitive behavioural therapy in a very top-down way. It was being pushed by the Blair Brown government's because there was a strong suspicion that it was being pushed because it was seen as a much more cost-effective,

much less resource-intensive than giving people traditional talking therapies. And so there's always this danger, isn't there? There's a danger that is something that's going to be sort of efficacious in the short term. It's going to end up being the thing people are fobbed off with, even though it might be fairly superficial. So I don't know where, so that's partly a sort of my ambivalence about some of the stoicism stuff. I think it is like it's really useful in a kind of relatively short-term way, but I think also people ought to, people always have the access to resources to be able to explore things that are going to be more demanding

than just tending itself every morning that people will be nasty to here. In some sort of ways, this sort of mirrors the sort of commitment, which was that the cynics asked, you know, the cynics like deogenes, etc. Do you know what I mean, in order to fulfill that cynical philosophy, or to display it, you know, he used to live in a jar, didn't he, you walk around naked and masturbate on the street and stuff like that? Which is, you know, that's like a harder philosophy to incorporate into your everyday life. And stoicism is, perhaps it's that sort of, you know, it takes from the cynics,

but incorporates into something which is much more in which you can lead a normal life and, you know, do this bit a bit on the side. You don't have to live in a jar. You could actually live in a house and something like that. Book three, let's get through this. I love number two because it has, you know, it starts talking about bread in figs and I want to get into that bit. But the first sentence, what do you have it written as Keir? Because you've got quite a different translation. What does your first sentence say?

Yeah, mine says, we should also attend to things like these, observing that even the incidental effects of the processes of nature have their own charm and attraction. And then it goes on about, you know, the bread, the bread splits, you know, at the top there, but that's very attractive, isn't it? And the ripe, the fig ripens and bursts, but, you know, that gives pleasure. So it's, yeah, so it's paying attention to the sort of accidental, incidental elements of nature, basically, the non-intentional element, something like that. Well, in my translation, he's really talking about the fact that he's saying that you shouldn't only like things that are really beautiful, all people that are really beautiful, according

to very conventional standards, because, for example, a loaf of breads, as he puts, it will always look a bit sort of imperfect. I mean, this is before you've got like machine produced, perhaps you produced bread, but the very kind of shape of it, because he says, although, he says that in the process of baking bread, the loaf breaks open in some places.

And although these cracks in a sense represent a failure of the baker's art, they do somehow catch the eye and in their own way stimulate the desire to eat the bread. And he goes on in the rest of the section to compare this to, you know, the fact that he says, you know, you can find old people beautiful, like if you don't have a really kind of conventional,

you know, narrow idea of beauty. He's saying that anything that's natural won't conform to some really narrow idea of kind of aesthetic laws, but you should still find it attractive because it is actually a sort of product of nature. And he said the examples he gives are ears of wheat bowing down to the ground, a lion's wrinkled brow, a boar foaming at the mouth, many other things. They are hardly lovely if viewed in isolation, but they enhance the appeal of the natural phenomena of which they are concomitants, and so we find them attractive. It's a sort of critique of sort of the classical ideas of aesthetics that we usually associate, like with Greek culture, but not with Greek

philosophy, actually. Greek philosophers have been saying all that stuff superficial bullshit, like, since as long as there's been Greek philosophy, but sort of the Greek culture we think of as kind of venerating this idea of the perfect athletic body and he's sort of critiquing that and saying no actually it's kind of natural for people to be not be to not have this perfect athletic body or not everybody's not going to look like a 19 year old like for the rest of their life again this again it is sort of resonant of some of those Taoist themes that Taoism there's a lot about things are changeable things are variable and nothing's perfect everything's changing and this is all nature this is the way of nature

I thought it was quite profound actually. It was quite interesting. I thought it was really interesting. It's also just very, in the contemporary context, like in his example is like super comprehensible because we now live in a world in which we're used to having loads of breads, which don't have any of the imperfections, which, as he puts it, which would come with like handmade bread.

And we absolutely now, we look at a piece of bread that looks a bit different from every other piece of bread and has little wrinkles and texture or differences, and that makes us think, oh, that's artisanal, that's proper bread. Like, that's going to be nicer. So he's sort of, he's entirely vindicated by history. He couldn't even know he was going to happen in that sense, which is really interesting, I think.

Again, in my translation, I didn't get this bit, the second part of three, when he says about how lice have destroyed Socrates, that's how I've got it written down as. And then what does all of this mean? you have embarked, you have made a voyage, you have come to shore, get out, if indeed, to another life, there is no want of gods, not even there. But if to a state without sensation, you will cease to be held by pains and pleasures and be a slave to the body vessel, which is as much inferior as that which serves its superior, for the one is intelligence and deity, and the other

is earth and corruption. So the first bit of that, I'm not entirely sure what he's saying. The second I think he's saying is about the separation of body and mind, which is not a philosophy that I agree with. But is that what you guys take from this? I mean, I don't really get this voyage and get to shore and get out. This chapter is about death, basically. And so, like, so my translation says, vermin with the death of Democritus, who actually was killed by an infestation of lice, apparently. And vermin of another sort killed Socrates and the vermin of the other sort, but you've got lice, just an insult to the jury that convicted Socrates basically and forced him to take poison.

And so it's all about death. And so, you know, that set and sail, that whole passage is basically, don't be afraid of death, you know. We don't know whether there's, whether when you set sail from this life, you're going to set shores on another life, a different, an afterlife or some sort. We don't know if it's that or we don't know if there's nothing, basically. And it, but either way, you know, what does it matter? You know, because if it's nothing, then you're freed from. from both the pains and pleasures of your thrall to the bodily, basically. Either you have some afterlife or you have nothing, basically, but that's nothing to be scared of, I think he's saying.

Yeah, I think that's right, yeah. So let's do four, because that's four starts off. Four is punchy, it's punchy, it's punchy, it's punchy, it's punchy. Four is get off, get off Facebook, get off Twitter, get off Instagram immediately. Don't waste what remains of your life thinking about other people, unless you do so with reference to the welfare of the state. I mean, wondering what so and so is doing and why, or what he's saying, what he's thinking, what his designs are and so on,

which distract you from paying attention to your own command centre. They use that phrase again. Well, it's fair up to a point, but you can't always do, you can't always withdraw your attention from one of the people are doing and saying. No, I wonder what the gossip is about the Labour Leadership campaign. Oh no, that is the affairs with the state, isn't it? I don't have the state. I know. We are concerning ourselves very much with the affairs of this state. I know, but mine is not translated as the state, but as the common good.

Yeah, me too. I've got common utility. Say, what else have we got before? We ought to then check in with a series of our thoughts, everything that is without a purpose and useless, but most of all, the over-curious feeling and the malignant. And I thought that was interesting, at least in my translation, this idea that curiosity can be bad or wrong or unhelpful, which makes sense in terms of carrying on from the piece above,

which is basically like concerning yourself with what's going on with other people. Yeah, in the middle of four, he starts laying out the qualities of the good man. Perhaps you should say the good person, but I'm sure he would have said the good man. And in mind it says, you know, the good man is a wrestler for the greatest prize of all to avoid being thrown by any passion, died to the core with justice, embracing with his whole heart, all the experience allotted to him. Once again, we get all of those classic stoic things, you know. I would raise the idea that it might be easier to be resolved with your allotted lot

if you are the emperor of Rome, the most powerful person in the known world, than if you're a slave in the mines just outside Rome. But, you know. heavy is the head that is true heavy's the head key that is true yes I did like the end of five

I like to at least how in my translation be cheerful also and do not seek external help or the tranquility which others give and then he says a man must stand erect not be kept erect by others which is kind of

interesting right I don't know what I think about that your duty is to stand straight not hell straight. Well, also I think it seems to be you know alluding to a certain kind of masculinity which goes outside

more of a universality of some of the other stuff that he says, this idea that you shouldn't need other people's help that it all should come from yourself which I'm not sure, you know, I think is very progressive. Yeah, I think, yeah, you could imagine Pete Hegseth getting my version tattooed on his arm below his fascist tattoos, couldn't you?

Well, it raises this really interesting. question about the relationship in kind of individualism and anti-individualism that comes up with a lot of this self-reliance stuff doesn't it because I think on the one hand we're totally opposed the idea that anyone can actually just sort of stand on their own but like it's also the case that you know there are definitely times when like someone who's a political radical like needs to be able to you know you need you need to have the courage of your convictions like if you're in a contact where the norms of the immediate social context you're in or the institutional context and reactionary, well then you have to have a certain capacity for resilience to withstand them. And when I was growing up, this was a real, you know, it was a real kind of thing to think about

because, you know, my mum had, you know, my mum's basic politics is like socialist, but her personal experience that had really shaped her was actually, like being like the only person in her high school in Atlanta, who was like like a, it was like a one, white person who was like pro-civil rights but basically getting driven out of the school like being harassed for for it so she had this very strong like ethic of well you've got you've got to stand up for what you believe in and not give into peer pressure and like not you know not be a conformist because if the culture you're conforming to is a reactionary culture and that's bad and then I mean a lot of my sort of philosophical interest came out of sort of discussing those ideas with like a friend who was like

a friend who was like conservative Christian and figuring out, well, where's the overlap between that and Christianity? Where's the overlap between a kind of conservative critique of liberal individualism? And that sort of sterical idea of standing up for your individual beliefs. So this stuff does get complicated when things are kind of really lived out. I suppose our position would be, wouldn't it? Well, yeah, there are times when you need that. But you also, if you stick with the fantasy, you're just the guy standing up in the meeting in that painting.

you know, the lone voice. If that guy doesn't recognise he needs, like, allies and very quickly, and he needs to find people he can build solidarity with, then he just quickly becomes like the A-N-R-R-Rang character. Yeah, but, like, you can see the attraction for the tech bros, can't he? Because this guy who's written this, he is the fucking emperor. Do you know what I mean? He does make his brother joint emperor for a while until his brother dies.

But, like, you know, their role is to get advice, etc. You know, to take advice from those they trust and, you know, these sorts of things. but then to make decisions basically. They do not see their role as like, you know, getting, surrounding themselves with his peers. Yeah, well, surrounding yourself with his peers because he has no peers. For a time you have his brother, but apart from that, no, everyone's below him.

And so it's to be a judicious ruler. So yeah, he has to stand straight. He cannot be held straight, basically, because there's no peers around him. Yeah, and Marcus Aurelius is he's not doing class struggle. is he's not advising people to do all this for the sake of changing stuff. Yeah, no. Yeah, and so at the bottom of paragraph six here, he says, you know,

so I repeat, simply and freely, choose the better and hold it, but better is what benefits. If to your benefit as a rational being, adopt it, but if simply to your benefit as an animal, reject it, and stick to your judgment without fanfare, only make sure that your scrutiny is sound. It's that, you know, yes, I'm acting with reason, therefore my judgment is sound and I should stick with my decision, basically. That is the sort of thing, the sort of reasoning that a leader

needs to make, basically. Make sure your decision is sounding and then stick with it. Whereas, you know, I think we would probably want more collective deliberation. Yes, yeah. I mean, I've got seven, basically, right at the top. Never value anything as profitable to yourself which shall compel you to break your promise, which I thought was interesting. Then he goes on, to lose your self-respect, to hate any man, to suspect, a curse, to behave hypocritically, to desire anything which needs walls and curtains. I just thought that was an interesting phraseology, at least in my translation. And this idea of not

valuing anything that is as profitable to yourself, which will make you break your promise. I thought that was quite a strong statement. My translation is make you break your faith. Just slightly different, isn't it? It is slightly different, yeah. But of course, his faith is to reason, of course. I think they're using the faith, I mean, to break faith with someone, it basically means to break a promise. Yeah, that is true, yeah.

Yeah, that makes sense. I think mine's the most reason and it does break a promise. Yeah, I think good advice, like Doona, don't count anything to your advantage if it's going to force you to break a promise. Kiyosama. And don't lurk around near curtains and drapes. Well, I'm a massive curtain twitcher, So, you know, I mean, that's not going to help me.

Okay, 11. The thing that is now causing an impression in my mind, what is it, what is it made of, how long will it last, given what it is? What virtue is called for in its cause? Not that this is a complete list, but it is calmness, perhaps, or courage, honesty, fidelity, and effectiveness, self-sufficiency. In each case, then, here's what you must say. This has come from God.

or this is an accidental result of the web or even by fate and a fortuitous coincidence of some kind or this has come from one of my own kind someone who is kin and a member of the same society but who's ignorant of what's in accordance with his nature but I do know and so I treat him with kindness and justice in accordance with the natural laws of human intercourse but at the same time I aim for equity

dealing with him as he deserves when it comes to things that are morally neutral So it's basically like don't freak out when bad stuff happens, especially when other people do annoying stuff. There is a level of universality in this, isn't it? Even though it's coming from the emperor, everybody has that spark of reason within them, basically. Some people don't know that and don't act in accordance with that.

But nobody is in principle devoid of it. So there is a sort of universalism in it. And yes, there is, yeah. And that is one of the sort of long legacies of the Stoic tradition, really, is that universalising tendency. And Marcus Aurelius is an interesting figure in the kind of reception history of that philosophical tradition as well, because part of the reason he's so interesting to people is, well, he does, yeah, he happens to be the emperor, true. But he's also, he's relatable in some ways to people as just a guy who has a normal job, who's not a professional philosopher,

who's like trying to figure out how to do it because, you know, as a sort of, I was thinking it's interesting to think about. Like in both saying both in Buddhism and say in Plato, it's not really clear like what you're supposed to do if you're not like a full-time practitioner of whatever is they're advocating practicing. Like if you're not a full-time Buddhist monk,

if you're not a full-time philosopher for Plato, like communion with God and seeing the mind, seeing the form of the good and ideally becoming a philosopher king. It's not really clear what you're really supposed to be doing with yourself, if anything, if you've even got any business worrying about all this stuff. And so Marcus O'Reillius, he's this, you know, he's what now these days he's called into a Buddhist and sort of tradition like a lay practitioner. And he's a sort of lay practitioner of philosophy.

And that's one reason, I think, the text. I mean, we haven't really said about this before, but it's not in. entirely known, like why we still have this text, but it's generally assumed to be authentic. But any text of this nature only survives from ancient times because they get copied and recopied and recopied because members of various social groups think they're important or valuable for some reason. I mean, I think, you know, there's a whole story to be told about why we've got all this stuff written by Plato still, even though, frankly, a lot of it is just quite mad. We have no extant writings of democracies

who seems to have anticipated the whole atomic theory of matter and the kind of atheist and sort of democratic and egalitarian philosophy. Or of the women philosophers as well, like which all of the stuff was burnt or whatever. Yeah, all that is true. Yeah, all that is true. And, you know, because Plato's really, if you're like a priest, it's basically as if you're a priest in the emerging theocracy of late antique Christianising Roman Greece,

then Plato sounds great, you know, because you are basically becoming a sort of philosopher king. But you know, you're not really interested in people who think that the whole, all of matter might be made up of these microbe articles. And also, supposedly also it's rumoured, like suggested slavery might be a bad idea. You're not interested in that guy. So none of that stuff gets copied and handed down. Now, I always tell myself that this, when I'm thinking about,

I'm feeling resentful, I'm not famous enough. I think, you know, you could be democratist. You could have literally anticipated, you know, contemporary physics. And like, no one bothered to record it. Like Plato, they kept him going on a massive scale. But don't get, don't get distracted by the seductions of fame. Exactly. And that is, you know, is very good at home.

Which is why we do two and a half hour podcasts when people only have time to listen to 30 minutes. Okay, let's finish this off, shall we? Are people got anything before 16? 14. Don't be sidetracked anymore. You're not going to read your notebooks, all your accounts of ancient Roman and Greek history, all the commonplace books you were saving for your old age.

Head straight for your final goal and be your own saver. If you care for yourself, by abandoning vain hopes of the future while you still can. So he seems to be telling himself to stop writing this. Yeah, yeah. He seems to be saying, stop wasting your time writing this notebook. There you go. Yeah, no, that's great.

I mean, it's obviously not for anybody else is it, basically. And it's like, stop, what are you doing? So 16, in my translation, he starts, it starts body, soul, mind. To the body, the long sense perceptions, to the soul impulses and to the mind judgments. And then he sort of goes through and sort of says, you know, even animals have perceptions, you know, even catamites have impulses, etc. Is that what it says? In yours?

Yeah. And even Nerov had the idea of the mind as a guide to appropriate action. Yeah, mine has the word queers. So yeah, he's being explicitly homophobic here. And that's not very advanced. So if all of that is held in common with categories mentioned above, you know, the disruptible categories, etc, the people you shouldn't be following.

Then the defining characteristics of the good person is to love and embrace whatever happens to him along his thread of fate and not to pollute the divinity which is sealed within his breast or trouble it with a welter of confused impressions but to preserve its constant favour

in proper allegiance to God saying only what is true doing only what is jest and the last paragraph is and if all people mistrust him for living a simple, decent and cheerful life he has no quarrel of any of them and no diversion from the road

which leads to the final goal of his life to this he must come pure at peace ready to part in unforced harmony with his fate if he comes across like a happy simpleton so be it yeah that's very interesting

okay so that's the first three books what do we make of all of this what happens to stoicism after Marcus Aurelius basically we start having the the rise of Christianity within the Roman Empire. And as Jem said, Stoicism becomes a big influence in the form of Christianity that passes through Rome, et cetera,

and expands through Rome. It becomes incorporated into the Christian sort of, you know, Christian, well, it's not the Christian canon because nobody thinks it's like religious literature, but it's part of the kind of philosophical canon which Christians will keep reading. like educated and literate Christians and the whole, I mean to some extent the whole development of Christian theology and philosophy up to really up to the early modern period is about them trying to reconcile

this quite odd set of beliefs they've got from first from the the old testament, you know, from the pre-Christian Jewish people and then from this weird mystery cult, there's messianic mystery cult which mostly kind of which is a weird synthesis of apocalyptic Judaism and and sort of had late Hellenic philosophy and then they've got to try and without anybody really planning that that turned into a massive institutionalized religion and they have to keep figuring out how to reconcile it with the sort of much really much more well-organized and intellectual tradition of the academy and the Stoa and the Epicureans and those people so and that just goes on for sort of that's Well, in some ways it's still going on, I guess.

Like if you're into theology, it's still going on. And that's how it gets preserved. And I don't think people really, I don't know at what point people start reading it again completely outside of a Christian context. I mean, that would be pretty recent. Well, I suppose something like Spinoza or something. I mean, it's a Jewish context.

He's reading it in Israel. Yeah, yeah. Spinoza doesn't, I mean, Spinoza definitely, he's, yeah, he's not Christian. I mean, he claims he believes in God. Yeah, but you can sort of see some sort of, like God as reason and stuff like that. You can sort of see some things of that. Yeah, yeah, no, it is.

Yeah, there's massive echoes of Spinoza. Yeah, it is the same deal. I mean, if you read Spinoza's ethics, and you say, what is the point of it? Like, what is the payoff if you read this and believe it? It's exactly the same. It is to live your life in the manner that Marcus Aurelius is recommending here, recommending himself to live it. So that is interesting, yeah, that's a good point.

And it's also, like, it's a lot easier to follow. It's a lot easier to follow how one thing leads to another in Marcus Auret, than in Spinoza. Stoicism gets picked up in the sort of, the late 19th century sort of Victorian era, particularly in like English public schools, you know, around the project of empire basis. It's Cecil Rhodes' favourite book, for instance, Meditations.

And Bill Clinton's fourth favourite book, apparently, What's his top three? I wish I knew. What's his top three? I know it was radical abundance and generation left, but I don't know what the third one was. That's not Bill Clinton's favourite book. I can tell you that.

It's not tweets from Tahir. That will be Hillary's favourite. The last two books, they're written on campaign, on imperial campaign, to put down revolts in northern Europe. Now, this is part of justification for an imperial project, and it gets picked up in the, you know, at English public schools, you know, as training for people involved in an imperial project. And I'm very sure it'll be, you know, read by tech bros who have not quite got,

have got an imperial project of a different kind, perhaps, or a project of domination over the world, which takes a slightly different form. It's increasingly not that different. Yeah. They're erasing the differences. Yeah, actually, yeah. That's why it's in an interesting tech. yeah, because you can take it in various different directions. And, you know, I think it's, the nice

thing about it is, is it's, I don't think it's possible to completely claim him for what died, right? Like, it's got some real, like, wisdom and useful nuggets of thinking that are really helpful to anyone who's a progressive as well, you know. But to your point, Keir, it's important to understand what the context is in which things are being written, because it helps us understand, you know, the history and the social life of this work. And why, you know, as Jeremy pointed out earlier, we are even able to read it and it hasn't been destroyed, you know, like the vast majority of stuff that was written.

Yeah, it's a really good point that, like, there's some sort of selection bias. And to those who have the power to command this to be reproduced or think it's of a use to be reproduced, etc., etc. You know, what is of use to the ruling class of the day gets preserved, basically. So you get a distortion of a distorted concept of history, and it's a little bit like this, you know, what survives, what tends to survive archaeologically are like,

you know, the big buildings, such as the pyramids and these sorts of things, which tend to be linked to hierarchical societies, etc., etc. And the great mass of human experience is lost to the midst of time, etc. It's much easier to destroy text than it is to destroy a pyramid, do you know what I mean? Yeah, but like, you know, most people didn't live in. in pyramids and like the social structures that most people lived in didn't take on the sort of concrete forms.

Nobody lived in pyramids. No, no. Nobody lived in pyramids. Didn't they? Dead people went in pyramids. But it's like, you know, people's social relations can take on concrete form or stone form. But the ones that most people live with don't get to last through millennia, basically, only the ones which are incredibly hierarchical tend to last through history.

and a little bit like the philosophy that survives basically similarly can give you a distorted view of the history of philosophy. So yeah, this stuff does get taken up by the English public school and university system in the 19th century as part of the mechanism really for producing and reproducing an imperial ruling class. Which like as I'm always remarking is, you know, one of the problems they're having to deal with

is that early on in the imperial projects, people keep going over to India and deciding they'd rather be Indian because they've just got a much more exciting culture. If you're once you get into the elite culture, the music's better, the philosophy's better, the food's better, you know, the whole mystical traditions, you know, attractive. It's just compared to like, compared to like English Protestantism, just seems more exciting. So they've got to come up with something. They've got to come up with like a culture of the imperial ruling class, especially for these men, the A is going to make them really hostile to all that stuff. It's actually going to induce them a sufficient level of sort of self-control and philistinism. But it's also got to seem like

it's got some deep roots. Like it's going all the way back to Athens. Because if it's just like John Bunyan, forget it. People are going to pick the Bagavad Gita instead. So yeah, it becomes part of that whole project. But then the thing I've always thought about that, you know, the culture of the public schools is well, and it's not. a new thought. I mean, this is something people, like in the Labour movement, were thinking, like a hundred or years ago, think, well, actually, part of what they do is they do train these guys to work really hard. They do train these guys, but they're like cold showers, and they're like sports and stuff. You know, they train people to withstand hardship and to be

really knowledgeable and to be really good at rhetoric and stuff. And some of that is stuff you want to borrow for radical causes. I mean, the other thing that comes to mind, quite often over the time we've been doing this podcast, we've come back to this idea of like, what allowed people to have the sort of self-discipline and even self-sacrifice to commit to like socialist and communist movements and like, you know, to sacrifice themselves to, you know, or to take incredible risks, personal risks.

And it was an attachment to the idea that, you know, that they basically were acting for a higher cause, of course much higher than themselves. Do you know what I mean? Part of what separates us now, the reason we find it hard to get those levels of self-discipline is because, you know, in the early 20th century, for instance, you know, people did think that they were, you know, they were acting in accordance with the laws of history to some degree, with a sort of teleological

idea that like this is where society has to go, do you know what I mean, or should be going, almost like not quite like there's a cosmic order, but, you know, that there is a direction of society towards like universal equality and these sorts of things, basically. That is a sort of version of left stoicism that I think. we'd find attractive. Do you know what I mean? And we'd like to find ways to get back there. Also, one reason I think it's popular with tech bros is because they know perfectly well that what they're trying to do to the rest of us is make us completely a slave to our passions.

That is how they rule us. You know, that is the mode of their hegemony. You know, that's why famously never repeated enough. Like Steve Jobs wouldn't let his own kids have like iPads and iPads because he knew perfectly well. these were technologies of ruling class like domination and hegemony. Like that whole thing is to make us all kind of crazy and distracted. And to make us these, they want us to be these kind of infantile beings that are constantly distracted and, you know, just clicking for the next treat all the time.

That's exactly what they want. And he, and this is Marcus O'Reilly. He is legitimately saying, even if he really saying to himself as a member of the first century 80, Roland ruling elite, like that's a d. You know, you've got the day, there's a danger of you being like so distracted by all this stuff. You can't get any of your own stuff done. What's interesting about that discussion that we're just having is that maybe one thing that Marcus Aurelius didn't take into consideration is the problem of addiction, particularly

to those desires. That's all true, but I sort of do think addiction, it wouldn't be the phrase that they would use them. But that's what they're talking about a lot of the time in a way. They're talking about the idea that all these pleasures. Maybe addiction is a modern way of thinking about it. But the idea of being enslaved by habit, by pleasurable habits is the thing they're really conscious of. It doesn't weaken your point at all because I think, you know, actually that's another reason why the tech pros are because the tech bros know perfectly well. They've been there studying addictive technologies and figuring out how to reproduce them and make them on a mass scale.

So they're interested in a philosophy which is basically all about how trying to avoid that kind of addiction. Or as Delis and Grotin would say, machinic enslavement. Yeah, and so Stoicism can be seen as like one of those technologies developed perhaps even by the ruling class of Rome. That's not fair, actually, is it? That's not fair. But, you know, one of those technologies that we can try to revive and put to use in contemporary. times. One of the places we're going to do that is at ACFM Fest. Get saving now. The tickets cost £10,000 a day, but you will learn a vital leadership skills for the contemporary world. It wouldn't be like fire festival at all. This is a lot.