Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
A lighthearted reading of Marcus Aurelius' Meditations. Join us as we read his private journal from 2,000 years ago and talk about how it makes us feel.
Speaker: Hello, Tom.
All right.
Good morning, Paul.
Speaker 2: How you
Speaker: doing?
Good.
It is November 6th.
Speaker 2: That is Wednesday, the
morning of Wednesday, November 6th.
That's
Speaker: right.
How are you feeling?
Speaker 2: Which means just in case
that date doesn't resonate for people
that last night was the U S election.
So we've woken up this morning to
Trump having won the The election
that's been called for him.
And so I was to answer your
question about how I'm feeling.
I was definitely pretty bummed last
night as I saw the, I was trying not
to watch the election results come
in because I had a feeling this would
happen, but I did end up seeing them
come in and I was feeling pretty bummed.
And then I went to sleep last
night and woke up this morning and
this morning I'm actually feeling.
I checked in with myself.
I thought I might still be not in
a great place, but you know what?
I'm feeling, I took a little look
inside and said, you know what?
I'm okay.
This we've, I guess my attitude is there
were a lot of sneaky benefits actually
for me personally, in terms of my
personal growth and stuff with the first
Trump presidency, even though I didn't.
Have a fun time.
And I think, I think I maybe described
this even in the, in one of our early
episodes, but I think maybe worth
digging back in on it a little bit today.
But I really think the 2016 election
and then subsequent years were
actually my gateway to this philosophy
that we talk about on this podcast.
Cause I think I really, I didn't
have much in the way of tools for
dealing with the emotional effect that
those that Trump's initial election.
Had on me.
I was very upset by it.
I was very I spent the first couple
years of his presidency, you know
Reading every article about oh, no,
this is a disaster and all the and
I'm not saying that dismissively
to say, Oh, he's actually fine.
I do still, I'm not happy about it,
but I, what I acquired over the course
of that period of time was a, first
of all, a realization that reading all
that stuff and just constantly being
anxious and freaked out about what is
going on in Washington does not really.
Do me any good.
And it just ruins me for
everybody else who I might be
useful to, including myself.
So I think I, and that I think is
basically a kind of fundamentally stoic
thought that I ended up learning, which
was like, wait a minute, stuff you can
control versus stuff you can't control.
Let's focus there.
So I think without having explicitly
realized it, that really was
the thing that started the ball
rolling for me on this podcast.
And so I'm feeling like I now have a
tool, a set of tools for grappling with an
unpleasant presidency that I did not have.
Eight years ago.
Speaker: So what, what changed?
Was it just willpower and
like strength of mind?
Was it not surrounding yourself
in as much of an echo chamber?
Was it like, was it not
turning on the news?
What was it?
Speaker 2: Yeah it's All those things,
the way I would articulate it is I,
what, it's like a new habit of mind
more than anything, I think, which is I
can see when this thing is happening to
me where I'm like, Oh no, I'm having a
Trump related anxiety spiral right now.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: And my.
Initially, very, this, it sounds stupid
to describe it this way, but it just
really, what I would do is just be
like, Oh, wow, I guess I better dive
deeper into this anxiety spiral was
like, the initial reaction to that.
And I know that sounds like stupid now,
but it really is a tempting reaction
when you're feeling like that to be
like, okay maybe if I just keep reading,
eventually I'll have it all figured
out and I'll finally realize that
everything's going to be fine or whatever.
Yeah.
And that doesn't work, but it
takes, it took quite a while for
me to be able to be like, okay,
that's how I'm feeling right now.
I'm feeling anxious about the
presidency or the direction
of the country or whatever.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: What can I do?
What can I do about that?
How should I let that, be a
part of my day to day life.
And often the right reaction is actually
to say, It's not doing me much good.
Speaker: Yeah.
Speaker 2: I'm going to
put it to the side for now.
And maybe still check in on it a little
later, but let's, I'm going to focus
on living my life and trying to be
nice and good to the people around me.
Speaker: I feel like so
many, maybe it's our.
Maybe it's the age range we're at, maybe
it's just the country overall, maybe
it's the economy, I don't know, but I
feel like so many people I know have
gone through a simple me included, have
gone through that journey between the
two Trump presidencies I think there was
this real, there was this very palpable
like set of beliefs that, that I remember
the last time Trump got elected, which
is I need to do something about it.
Like it is my duty to the country.
It was like, it was also, frankly, it
was a lot of the woke stuff too, that
was related, like it was like very,
I like throw myself at these problems
and try to solve them or whatever.
And At the very least be informed,
uh, and I think maybe we all, we're
all having a little bit of a hangover
of that to some degree we've learned
that's it's it's a tough way to, it's
just exhausting as a, to, to let that to
yourself and, uh, maybe it also doesn't
produce the results you're looking for.
Speaker 2: Totally.
Yeah.
No, I think that is definitely
something I was grappling with.
And it's funny, that's
something I've actually been
thinking about a lot recently.
I'm going to raise a thing that came
up when I was talking with a couple
of friends about They, they brought
up stoicism without me even talking
about it, which is great for me, but
the conversation came up actually in
relation to, I don't know, I didn't
really watch this TV show growing
up, but I have two examples of people
who were brought up as anti stoics,
which I thought were very interesting.
Yeah.
The first one, the TV show that I didn't
really watch was the TV show house MD that
we, we, are you familiar with that show?
Even if you didn't watch
it, it's like a doctor guy.
Okay.
And the other one who's like him,
who everybody knows a bit better.
And we were discussing as a possible
anti stoic is Sherlock Holmes.
And the thing about both of these guys,
which is what we were talking about them.
I'm curious to get your reaction to this.
Proact.
Both of them are they're one of their
defining character traits is that they
care very much about doing whatever their
job is, and it does not matter to them how
it gets done as long as they get it done.
So it's about as opposed to being people
who are very process oriented and say
Speaker: exactly,
Speaker 2: they don't care about process.
They only care about outcome as
opposed to, and it's a little bit of an
oversimplification to say that Stoics
only care about process and not outcome.
But I.
I thought it was an interesting
lay person's perspective.
These guys are the opposite of stoicism.
These guys care only about and they're
often assholes and they're often like
doing unethical stuff or whatever
as a part of achieving their desired
ends, but they are anti stoics anyway.
Speaker: Interesting.
Speaker 2: I thought that was just
an interesting point that I hadn't
thought of because I think there
is this temptation on our podcast
sometimes to say that stoicism, we read
up an entry for Marcus on whatever,
like we're like, yup, obviously, of
course, everyone would agree with this.
And it's a good reminder that
some like popular characters.
Might not agree with it.
So I think I am going to have a little
voice in my head, maybe for this episode
of what would Sherlock Holmes agree
with the thing that we just try that.
Speaker: Yeah.
Speaker 2: I think that
might be an interesting one.
Speaker: And also Sherlock
Holmes would not sit on his hands
about Trump getting elected.
Is that the idea?
Speaker 2: Okay.
So that's a sort of related thought,
which is something I was talking
about just with a coworker the other
day too, about I think there is this
spectrum of to what extent when big.
Things like this that you
don't like happen in the world.
Are you the kind of person, we
have a choice about I'm going to
do nothing and just try to live my
own life and mind my own business.
And, or you can be like, I, the
world's troubles are my troubles.
I'm going to take it all on.
I'm going to be the one
who fixes the system.
And that, obviously
that's a sort of spectrum.
Yeah.
And I think a lot of us, the people you're
describing who have had that personal
journey, maybe, were miscalibrated in one
way or another on that particular spectrum
at the beginning of the Trump presidency.
A lot of us, I think, especially
in the direction of, okay, I
don't like the state of the world.
I'm going to do something about it.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: And, A lot of the, yeah, I
think that led to a lot of frustration
to either the feeling of okay, I, I
feel an obligation to do something, but
I don't know what to do or the things
that we have done historically in
situations like this don't seem to have
as much of an effect as they used to.
So now what am I supposed to be doing?
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: And I think that, for me,
was definitely a part of the discomfort
of that, that first presidency too,
and I guess I have come around to
the feeling that it is a little bit
more okay to just be a functional
person in a society and without saying
I am going to be the champion who
fixes all the problems on my own.
I think there is, there's lots
of virtue and good in just being
a healthy person who makes the
lives of people around you better.
So that, that is, the, a big part
of the journey that I went on.
Speaker: No, we're the problem, Tom.
We're the attitudes like
this that get Trump elected.
No, I'm just and you're like,
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Yeah.
Speaker: I see what
Speaker 2: you're saying a little bit.
Speaker: If Sherlock Holmes just
said there are things I can't
control, I've gotten to the
bottom of those terrible murders.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Yeah.
Yeah.
It's true.
Yeah.
Unfortunately, we're not living
in a Sherlock Holmes story.
I feel like where just you're a dogged
commitment to outcome always triumphs.
Speaker: I feel like there's a
difference though, between like
Sherlock Holmes, his job, he's
brought cases, people bring him cases.
It is literally his
job to solve that case.
Nobody was like, Tom, it is
your job to, to save America.
No one gave you that job.
That's a
Speaker 2: good point.
Speaker: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Yeah.
That comes from some place
of a notion of civic duty.
Yes.
That we're all constantly responsible
for saving America or whatever.
Yeah.
Which is an insane thing to ask of us.
Yeah.
So what's our relationship to that
kind of civic duty in an era like this?
Speaker: And it's also it's,
there's two ways to think about it.
One is, this isn't the same thing to ask.
It's not really my job to save America.
Another is
on what timeframe and how is it measured?
This is the classic Hey, quit your
job right now and go move to Nigeria
and like work in a soup kitchen.
That's the standard, that's the
standard thought exercise that you do
need to justify why you have not yet
quit your job and move to Nigeria.
Like you, you, sorry.
I know that's a really uncouth
example and like super racist and
lame, but I'm going to use it anyway.
Cause I think that is the sort of
stereotype of what, especially like
in college, like a lot of people would
like to display in black and white.
And, and I think it's, I think like
It's it's, the answer is so nuanced.
It's what exactly are you
going to do in Nigeria?
Do they want you what, so
you're going to serve soup?
Like to whom exactly?
Not have soup?
Are you especially good at serving soup?
Are you what, like, how does that
trade off with your opportunity cost
of things you could be doing here?
And it's just, and as soon as you
get into all those details, I think
you start to realize that actually
you have an aura of influence.
And you have the ability to improve things
in that aura that have, that are actually
both the most meaningful thing you can do
and in some ways, the most like pleasant
or can be, I think both of those things
can be true and they don't actually
involve dropping everything and donating,
donating all your income and whatever
Speaker 2: yeah.
So I really, yeah, I agree with that.
I do think.
That is something that I, it
took me a while to come around
to, I think, because there is.
There is this voice in the back
of my head as we say this of
yeah we're rationalizing our
Speaker: own.
Yeah,
Speaker 2: exactly.
Sure.
Speaker: Totally.
Speaker 2: I, for me, the way that I have
been able to sleep at night or whatever
with that choice is the feeling that.
I think the impact we have on the people
in our immediate environments is bigger
and more important than we can quantify
or it might look like from the outside.
So I think like our friendships and
our whatever that the other people
who are important to us in our lives,
what we do for them in maintaining our
relationships is actually a huge service,
not only to ourselves and to each other,
but even to our society as a whole.
And then that sounds maybe kumbaya
and hokey or whatever, but I really
have come around to believing that,
that is, that helps me sleep at
night more than anything, honestly.
Speaker: Yeah.
There's that.
And then let me also, let me do
the non PC thing and go back down
the sort of the stick rabbit hole.
There's also the thought exercise of
like we're all, there's a spectrum.
We're all relatively There's a
relative, compared to Bezos, like
I'm this poor, suffering guy.
But I don't fucking, I
don't need Bezos to help me.
I don't like, I don't
want anything from them.
And that was true and
that's always been true.
Yes, I am privileged.
But there have been times in my life
where I've been, I've been upset.
There are things I've been wrong,
like where, but I didn't, I don't
need anyone to come save me.
And there is this degree of I think that's
more common at every level of society
that I think the sort of attitude of Oh
just the savior mentality attitude creates
room for, I think the safer mentality.
It like really wants to create
people who need to be saved.
Yeah.
And sometimes there's this degree
of listen like what exactly are you
gonna do for ? I don't know like you
think you're your life is so great
and you can come waltz in here and
I don't know, do something for me.
What exactly are you gonna do?
Yeah.
Totally.
That part is always tricky to me too.
Like actually like the logistics
of what exactly can I do to help?
And is it actually helpful are
way harder than they might.
They seem in an ivory tower.
It's okay, great.
You donate shoes, but you're
not really creating an industry.
It's not like they can now
produce their own shoes.
You're just giving shoes and then
they're going to wear them and
then they're going to wear out.
And what's the, I don't know did
you make the world a better place?
It's hard to say.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Yeah, I think I agree with that,
especially, I think, especially even here
in our own backyard, I think it feels
like a lot of the stuff that really,
Is challenging for our country right
now feels very systemic and very like
you could like treating the symptoms of
these issues doesn't really do that much.
And but the root causes of the
thing are very deeply ingrown
and they're hard to attack.
So all of that adds up to me to say,
it's okay to be a functional person
who is trying to make very slow
incremental progress towards making the
world around you a little bit better.
Speaker: That's better in a way
that is unique to your skill set.
I guess that's the point
that I always come back to.
It's like what I, my response
to every year is let's donate
10 percent of our income.
And I'm like, to what what are we going
to what are we going to donate to?
What are they going to do with it?
It's like, how do you, Tom, why
aren't you donating 10 percent
of your income every year?
Speaker 2: Yeah.
That's a fair question.
Put you on the
Speaker: spot on that one.
What?
Speaker 2: Yeah.
What's my rationale for doing that?
Yeah.
I see myself as, maybe that's maybe
this sounds pretty selfish, but I
see myself also as a force for good
in the world that is worth funding.
Speaker: Yeah, exactly.
Exactly.
Yeah.
I think that's actually the right
answer that my answer, then we have this
discussion, which we have all the time.
My answer is.
Every day.
I work at a charity.
I educate people on how to claim tax
deductible business expenses, which can
save them thousands of dollars a year.
And I have this crazy unique system
for doing that because fucking trying
to like, yeah, like teaching people
in school is not going to work.
It's so boring, right?
And don't care.
So you have to do it by building it.
A property business, something that
makes sense, something that can scale
that can generate revenue and run ads.
And guess what?
So I run a charity, a
massive charity, right?
And that's the way that's actually
way more effective than me working in
a soup kitchen or donating 10 percent
of my income, way more effective.
Yeah.
And that's, So that's contextual to me.
It's like something like that's
the answer, like it's something
specific that I actually can do
that isn't just a generic, like
here's some money, here's some soup.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
But I totally, I think
that's completely valid.
Yeah.
It's, you're being a little tongue in
cheek by describing it as a charity.
It's not a charity, but it is if you,
if by charity, you mean an organization
that does good in the world, it is,
but I am being a little tongue in
Speaker: cheek.
It's not a charity, but I guess this
is where things get tricky, right?
Wow, like a dollar that you put into
our company will produce more good.
I think than a dollar put into charitable
company, which burns it and has no way,
no self sustaining way to generate more.
Like we generate more of
that value down the line.
We get that dollar.
We like grow that dollar over
time and grow our impact.
Is that a problem?
Does that make us about yeah,
Speaker 2: no, yeah, no, I don't think so.
Yeah.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I guess
that's also, yeah no.
Yeah.
I more meant like I can imagine who
pasta pushing back on that if she really
does want to donate to something that
she that's more in her convention.
We do it anyway.
This isn't there.
Yeah, that's nice of you.
Yeah.
I think also, I guess two
more quick thoughts on this.
One is it's a privilege to get to
work at a company where we believe in
the mission and that kind of thing.
Like I think part of, it's a
somewhat unique situation to feel
like, oh yeah, my work is so closely
tied to the kind of good I want
to be doing in the world anyway.
Not everyone gets to feel that way.
I feel like oh, okay.
Okay.
Yeah, one other thought that I just
had earlier that I'm going to circle
back on briefly that your point about
people come to Sherlock with the
tasks that they're supposed to do.
In some ways, he is exactly like
Marcus or whatever, because he's
just they're both just I have a job.
Here's what I do when I job is my day.
Yes.
But it is interesting, how.
So some of it is about like, how do
you interpret the mandates of your job?
Because it does seem like Marcus is
also interested in like defining the
sort of boundaries of his job and not
letting the annoying people in his
job affect him too much or whatever.
And Sherlock is about no.
There are like, my mandate
is as broad as possible.
I have the outcome of my task
is the only thing that matters.
And everything else is within, as
long as I do the job and achieve the
outcome, everything else is permissible.
Speaker: Interesting.
You know what I mean?
But if Sherlock was an American
citizen in 2024, is he gonna drop
his case and go protest Trump?
Speaker 2: No.
No, I don't think so.
I think does have boundaries.
Yeah because that's not his job.
But yeah, I mean it.
I'm yeah, I guess I'm
anything for the context.
Yes.
He's anything for the job, which
I don't think Marcus quite is.
Um, maybe that's wrong.
You think there's anything for the job?
Okay.
Speaker: It's all about
the definition of the job.
Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly.
That's
Speaker: a nice thing about being a
detective is the job is much more is very
Speaker 2: clean.
Speaker: Emperor.
Speaker 2: That's true.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Yep.
That's fair.
And housed works the
Speaker: same way.
The g of my, of Rome is
is Marcus's job, yeah.
Speaker 2: Def defend against all enemies.
Yeah.
Speaker: Yes.
Yeah.
Make our shareholders wealthier.
No , I dunno why I don't
know what his job is.
Yeah.
So he has defined his job in some really
weird, because there's no real definition.
He's defined it in this moral sense.
Like he believes his
job is to, treat people.
Yeah.
Like reasonably and, obey his duty so
I think he's trying to define his job.
The man just wants to know
what he's supposed to do.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
And in that way, I think he's
a more instructive person for
modern life than Sherlock Holmes
is because I think a lot of us,
Speaker: we feel
Speaker 2: more like Marcus
than we feel like Sherlock.
Speaker: I think.
Yeah.
It's rare to have a job
that is deterministic.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
And I think the other thing about Sherlock
is that it seems pretty clear that the
whole meaning, all the meaning he derives
from life comes from that it's, he's a
person, which is a very pleasant fantasy.
I think it's part of the appeal
of both house and Sherlock
is this is a person who.
Who just like archetypally
perfectly matches their profession.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
And
Speaker 2: so they're all the
satisfaction they need in life.
They can get from doing their job
so well, as well as they do it.
Which is a fantasy,
Speaker: of course.
Because in, in the real world, the
people who commissioned Sherlock Holmes
have their own political agendas.
And they're like, they're oftentimes
trying to like, kicked a little guy like
I'm sure there's a bunch of with the
actual job of being a detective Yeah,
Speaker 2: also he just would not be
able to solve a huge number of the
case I just feel like it's part of
being a detective is accepting that
whatever 80 percent of your case Just
like you're like, sorry, I couldn't do
it Which is not a part of the books.
Speaker: Yeah, you get paid
if you say you don't know
Speaker 2: That's a good question.
I don't know what I think, so I don't
know what Sherlock's payment structure is.
Does he
Speaker: have a retainer?
It's
Speaker 2: yeah.
Good question.
They always skip over this
part as far as I'm aware.
Speaker: I feel like if he's
hourly, then he's got a whole case.
He does
Speaker 2: not seem like an hourly
employee, given the way he is
committed to achieving the outcome.
He doesn't seem our
Speaker: does does his little
sidekick bill at halfway.
I think
Speaker 2: I got to
imagine it's a lump sum.
Lump sum.
So
Speaker: you just upfront here's 10, 000.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I guess what incentives
does Sherlock have to do a good job?
To grow
Speaker: his business?
Or is he pretty happy
as a, just, you know,
Speaker 2: I guess from what I remember
from watching the BBC show, it goes
through ups and downs where sometimes
he's being sad Sherlock and he doesn't
take any cases for a while and then other
times business is good and he takes lots.
But yeah, they always skip over the part
where the actual money gets handed over.
I don't know.
Speaker: Yeah.
Yeah.
Oh man.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Wide range of conversation this morning.
Yes.
I think lots of stuff to bear in mind
as we actually dig into the text.
So we're in book seven.
We did some quick hit single
line kind of entries the last.
Episode now we are he's really in
the, in a mood for quotations in
this part of book seven and that's
going to persist here, but I believe
we're in book seven entry number 44.
Speaker: Okay.
Speaker 2: And so as I promised, this
one is in quotes, then the only proper
response for me to make is this.
So now quotes within quotes,
Speaker 3: right?
Speaker 2: You are much
mistaken, my friend.
If you think that any man worth his salt
cares about the risk of death and doesn't
concentrate on this alone, whether what
he's doing is right or wrong and his
behavior, a good man's or a bad ones.
A bit of a wordy.
Yeah.
Multi layered way of saying
something that's really at the
heart of Stoicism, I think.
Okay.
But it's very
Speaker: this is so black and white.
Okay, so he's, presumably he's talking to
someone and this other person is saying,
Speaker 3: Hey,
Speaker: I think that some
men are worried about dying.
Yeah.
And his response is, you are
much mistaken, my friend.
If you think any man is salt,
which is a hilarious expression.
Yeah.
Speaker 2: It's all so stagy.
Yeah.
Then the only proper response for me
to make is this yeah, it's very, yes,
he's really having, it feels like he is
very much having a fun fantasy argument
with the enemies of stoicism who think
that his ideas are dumb and he has I
finally cornered them and here this
is his killing blow of the argument.
Yes, you're right.
You're right.
You are much mistaken.
My friend, if you think and so he's,
I guess the contention that the
enemies of stoicism are making is
that some good man, some important man
Speaker 3: cared about
Speaker 2: something other than what,
whether what he's doing is right or
wrong and his behavior, a good man's or a
Speaker: bad.
It's hard to side with Marcus on this one.
I can see the argument.
Speaker 2: There's a lot of wind up
here before he actually says anything.
And minus the wind up, I agree with
I guess it's whether or not you
agree with this is basically just a
referendum on do you like Marcus already?
And do you agree with his
steric philosophy already?
He's not making a new case for it here.
Speaker: But I don't agree with this
version of the stoic philosophy.
Like I think that good people
worth their salts do care about
Speaker 2: the risk of death.
Yeah.
Speaker: Yeah.
Yeah.
That's totally normal.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
I agree with you do both, you're right.
Yeah.
Or there's even another way of like
making the argument for stoicism, which
is because they're like, death is scary.
That's why we should consider
why, how we live so carefully.
And, the importance of stoicism
is magnified by the risk of death.
Not minimized by it.
Speaker 4: Yeah,
Speaker 2: I agree.
He's seen, yes.
I guess there, there's also a degree
of he wants to seem like a badass.
I guess that's part of the fantasy here.
Speaker: Here's how I see the argument.
So he is making a claim for we should
our soldiers will storm the Gates,
even though it's like imminent death or
whatever they'll climb the ladders and
it's there's this is a real problem.
If you're like a medieval general,
it's really hard to get sold.
Who's going to go up that fucking ladder.
Like that is not a fun job.
You are definitely going to die.
Yes.
That's true.
Just a classic problem in every,
like every medieval army is like,
how do you incentivize that first guy
Speaker 2: to do it?
Yeah.
Go
Speaker: up the ladder.
Speaker 2: Yep.
Speaker: I guess Marcus is making an
argument that you don't need an incentive.
We don't need to like
send their family flowers.
Like we can just they'll do it out
of the goodness of their own hearts.
Speaker 2: Or when he, like I agree
with you he's maybe workshopping
his motivational speech for the
battle or whatever, but there's
also what's going on here.
Another read.
Another way is that he is implying that
any man who's not willing to go up on
the ladder there is not worth his salt.
And that's insulting enough
that they should just go do it.
Yeah.
Speaker: Being not worth
your salt is a real issue.
Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Not good.
We know that Romans and their
salt very salt, very important.
Yeah.
Speaker: You want to be worth the
Speaker 2: amount of salt in your body.
Yeah.
Speaker: Okay.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Just the writing style here is
not, it sounds like Sherlock
Holmes to me more than Marcus in
a way, this kind of like stagey.
A bit British, a bit polite.
Speaker: Yeah, that's
the translator, right?
Speaker 2: Yeah, but it feels different
from some of the prior translations.
Anyway, keep an eye on that.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Okay.
Speaker 2: Does does
Speaker 3: Sherlock agree?
Speaker 2: Does Sherlock agree?
No way.
He does.
Sherlock likes to risk
death in doing his job.
I feel like that's, I do feel like
that's part of his thing is he certainly
goes to dangerous places or whatever.
Speaker: Okay.
Speaker 2: I actually think on this one,
they might be aligned because they're
both being a idealistic, I feel like.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: And that's the
thing they have in common.
Okay.
Fair
Speaker 3: enough.
Speaker 2: 45 also in quotes.
It's like this, gentlemen of the
jury, the spot where a person decides
to station himself or wherever his
commanding officer stations him.
I think that's where he ought to
take his stand and face the enemy
and not worry about being killed or
about anything but doing his duty.
Okay.
I think you had your read on the last one
was spot on because we are, Marcus is in
practicing his, you're going to your death
speech for His soldiers, it seems but
Speaker: it's a trial.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, that's true.
He's in a very theatrical mood.
He's
Speaker: practicing
for the trial tomorrow.
Tom.
Speaker 2: Okay.
He's okay.
So he's yes, you're right.
The only, the proper response for me
to make is this from the last thing
is him responding to a question from
the opposing attorney or whatever.
And now he's.
I guess I've been given is he,
why is he addressing the jury?
Is he a lawyer?
Okay.
Anyway,
Speaker: so maybe he is a lawyer.
He's got,
Speaker 2: yeah.
He might be just giving
his statement or something.
It would be confusing.
It would be confusing for the emperor
to also be a party in the trial.
Like trial about so he could
be like gentlemen of the jury.
You could say this kind of like
in English as a sort of like.
You don't literally mean a jury.
It's more like I'm saying this
for everyone who's interesting and
interested in paying attention.
You're using it as like idiomatically.
To just address the public or whatever
but it could also be more, more literal.
I'm don't know the concept, like the idea
that there's some sort of literal trial
going on seems a bit confusing to me, or
at least we sure don't have much detail
about what that trial would be like.
Do you have a theory
about what kind of theory?
Okay.
Speaker: The, do you know
the concept of decimation?
You know what that means?
Yeah.
So I think this is a
trial about decimation.
So basically if someone in your
battalion runs the, then they kill one
in 10 people in that battalion, right?
That's just the rule.
And the trial is, should
we decimate this battalion?
Because this guy turned and ran.
And the argument from the plaintiff,
or no, from the defendant, is that
it's actually quite reasonable.
This was a certain death situation.
He was like, he was completely
surrounded by enemies.
So of course he he left his station
and Marcus is the plaintiff and he's
saying, we got to decimate because
this guy was, look at what he did.
I think that's what I'd say.
Speaker 2: And he's saying, so the
spot where a person decides to station
himself, or wherever his commanding
officer stations him, I think that's
where he ought to stand and face
the enemy and not worry about being
killed or anything but doing his duty.
Yeah, so it is
Speaker: immoral for him
to have turned and ran.
And therefore decimation is an order.
By the way, listener, I don't know if
you're not as nerdy about Roman history.
Decimation is where you
kill one in 10 people.
It's yeah, it's actually insane.
So you don't even kill the
person who committed the crime.
You forced them to live with
the guilt of knowing that one in
10 innocent people had to die.
Yeah.
Like
Speaker 2: the famous theatrical
version of this is you like
literally line them all up together
and you like count off by 10.
I think they did that.
The 10th bird.
Yeah, exactly.
Speaker: How else would they, I don't
know if they, people had numbers.
Yeah.
Speaker 2: But yeah, I guess I wondered,
do we think this is just literal?
Or is there some sort of does Marcus
mean something more than quote from
my recently legal case re decimation,
I guess I'm like this thing about the
spot in which someone decides to station
himself or his command is commanding
officer stations him could be interpreted
I think somewhat metaphorically
about that is your station in life.
That is your like.
where you find yourself in the world.
And so metaphorically speaking,
staying there and fighting or
whatever is about doing your job in
the place that you are and not being
envious of somebody else's position.
Speaker: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Or whatever.
Speaker: I guess so.
The analogy starts breaking down when
your station in life is notary Yeah.
Or whatever.
Like it's you not worry about being killed
is not like a primary concern of a notary.
Uh, but I, yeah I, yeah, Marcus
wasn't a general, so there is a
degree to which maybe he is about the
thing he knows but no, you're right.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I, yeah, I guess I
may, maybe this is just my soft modern
ways, but I I prefer to read it a
little bit metaphorically as opposed to
just, here's why my soldiers must die.
Sure.
Speaker: Sure.
Tom.
The spot where you've
been stationed by David.
Speaker 2: Yes I'm happy to not worry
about being killed at my current job or
doing, doing anything but doing my duty.
That's fine with me.
I can stand and face the enemy.
I can face the enemy from there,
which I think is our users.
For my job.
Yeah, for sure.
The enemy.
Yeah.
Yeah, I think so.
Speaker 3: Nice.
Speaker 2: Okay.
46 Looks like another one of
these hypothetical quotes.
It's in quotations, but my good friend
consider the possibility that nobility
and virtue are not synonymous with a
loss or preservation of one's life.
Is it not possible that a real man
should forget about living a certain
number of years and should not
clinging to life, but leave it up
to the gods accepting as women say.
That no one can escape his fate
and turn his attention to how he
can best live the life before him.
He's doing, it's like a
really he really wants
Speaker 3: to, he really wants
Speaker 2: to be it.
Yes.
That's either.
Yeah.
It's either like a courtroom speech
to kill a mockingbird style kind
of thing, or it's like gladiator or
something is the other vibe I get.
Yes.
Yes.
From it.
Yes.
Speaker: Guess what my
favorite part of this was?
Speaker 2: The women say that
I was going to ask you about
that as I was reading it aloud.
I was like, what does this mean?
Speaker: As women say,
Speaker 2: yes.
Okay.
He says that accepting as women say
that no one can escape his fate.
I'm fascinated by that part.
I, that seems, do you have any sense
of why that would be a notion that
is particular to women in that era?
Yeah.
Speaker: Yeah.
Fate isn't fate like it might be a
fate might be a womanly concept in oh
Speaker 2: yeah there are the fates
i think are like actually yeah okay
Speaker: the sisters who share an eyeball
are the like they are the manifestation
of fate I say the Greek world.
And so maybe it's just the concept
of fate as a feminine concept.
Speaker 2: I say, okay.
Yeah.
That's a good theory.
I have no, to me, like no one can escape
his fate just feels like general old
timey wisdom about life or whatever.
It does not feel particularly today.
Just
Speaker: like table stakes.
Yeah,
Speaker 2: exactly.
But yeah, I like that theory.
This other than that, this quote
seems to me to be very, he's really
going down the off the diving board
of just wow, isn't stoicism romantic
and heroic to say this kind of stuff.
Look at what my cool
philosophy lets me perform.
Speaker: Which
Speaker 2: I
Speaker: yeah, it's cool.
A
Speaker 2: gladiator style
speech where he says basically
this, I would be, I'm pumped.
I'm into
Speaker: gladiator movies coming out soon.
Oh
Speaker 2: yeah.
Speaker: Yeah.
So I, I realized I'm a sucker
for the following phrase.
We're all going to die, but not this day.
Not today.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker: I dude, I love every
time any movie says that it's so
cliche, but it just, it like it
brings, it swells tears to my eyes.
I just it's
Speaker 3: so
Speaker: cool to me.
Like it's this, it's the simultaneous
acceptance of like life, but also just
like this exertion of your own will
over that is just a beautiful concept.
Speaker 2: Defiance too.
But
Speaker: not yet.
Not today.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
So I feel like both George r.
Martin who wrote Game of Thrones and J.
R.
Tolkien who wrote Lord of the Rings kind
of, they're talented guys, but they built
their careers in part on cool phrases
and sentiments very much like that one.
No, I totally agree.
I think it's not, it
Speaker: must have been
a standard at some point.
Like line and any speech that was
given to us, to a bunch of soldiers.
Speaker 2: Yeah,
Speaker: it's a beautiful line.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker: It's so good.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Yeah.
No, I think there's a reason that
sentiment has persisted through history
and is still very popular, I think,
with a lot of certainly people who are
interested in reading about any kind of
Speaker 3: battle
Speaker 2: or conflict are often
very taken with that concept
and very affecting to me too.
Speaker: it must have been like
workshopped quite a bit, right?
'cause the first version is
we're all gonna die anyway.
It's
Speaker 2: yes.
That's, I don't know
Speaker: if I'm excited about this.
Yes.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's true.
It's
Speaker: like there's another
version that's don't die.
It's
Speaker 2: I would contend that's
maybe the first version actually.
Speaker: Yeah.
The first version is,
okay, we're not gonna die.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker: And then it's okay,
philosophical you're gonna die anyway.
It might as well be today.
Speaker 2: And then you.
Balance the scales and say, ah
Speaker: yes, exactly.
But
Speaker 2: today is not that day.
Speaker: Yeah
Speaker 2: yes.
Very dramatic.
I agree.
And it seems like that is the mood I
would not, but not at all be shocked
to hear that basically that exact
phrase come out of Marcus's mouth here.
Although interestingly, he almost is
saying something like the opposite in 46.
Cause he's so obsessed with
not worrying about the.
Your lifespan.
Speaker: He, he's at stage two here.
He's saying we're all going to die anyway.
Yeah, just do your job is his
stance, which is not as inspiring.
Speaker 2: I guess to be generous
to him, I think he's doing, it's a
little bit more than do your job.
It's okay, we've got a finite
amount of time and it's don't
worry about that at a time.
Don't worry about it.
But.
Focus really hard on how you can
best spend that limited amount
of time that is available.
Speaker: That's true.
I guess that is a form of control.
Like the sec the sort of movie
statement is saying, but try
to control what happens today.
And the, he's saying try
to control something else.
Yeah.
Okay.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
But I, that is interesting.
It's not quite the same as the, whatever
the, I don't remember the prominence
of the quote that we're talking about,
but yeah, that today is not that day
Speaker 3: quote.
It's
Speaker 2: a little bit of a
different sentiment, I think.
Yeah.
Okay.
Number 47, to watch the courses of
the stars as if you were revolved
with them to keep constantly in mind.
How the elements alter into one another.
Thoughts like this wash
off the mud of life below.
I like this.
Okay.
He's, we're not in quotation
modes anymore, even though
this is just the entry 47.
I think we've moved on from fantasizing
about dramatic explanations of stoicism.
And now he's writing what to
me reads as almost poetry.
It's poetry.
Speaker: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
So to watch the courses of the stars
as if you revolved with them is nice.
I think.
Yeah.
Speaker: What does that mean?
So rather than watching it's
assume imagine that you're part
of the universe and not just
Speaker 2: yeah, that's, I guess that's
there's to me that first sentence conjures
this idea of being like stepping very
much Yeah, out of yourself and into a much
longer time scale where you're just kind
of like, perceiving the movement of the
stars in relation to the earth which is
obviously something that happens slowly.
to keep constantly in mind how
the elements alter into one
another is also, the elements
altered into one another slowly.
So I think he's talking about zooming
out and saying I'm just a part of
this much longer timescale process.
Speaker: This is nice, Tom.
This is like fridge magnet.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
It does the mud of life below
is a little, I don't know.
That
Speaker: part too.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker: Yeah, it's a
little negative about life.
Is that what you're saying?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't know.
I don't necessarily need to be thinking
about the mud of life below every
time I walk by the fridge or whatever.
But the first two sentences,
especially the, I guess it's the
first one that I'm taken with.
Okay.
Yeah, he's a I just maybe just a moment
to pause here and talk about Marcus.
Yeah, cool guy Just an interestingly
diverse writer like doesn't I feel
like if a lot of us were writing this
kind of book Yes, if I was writing this
kind of book by the time I got to entry
47 in book eight I wouldn't be doing
things like switching between courtroom
quotations to like little poetry like this
Speaker: that's why it's a diary
Speaker 2: yeah but even still
it's a diary but still he's an
interestingly diverse writer
Speaker: yeah credit because next time we
can read my diary it is Just to do lists.
Yes, exactly.
It's not the thing.
Speaker 2: By the time I was on
this bullet point, I would have
settled into a formula for how I
create my entries at the very least.
And yes, it would read as boring.
He,
Speaker 3: yeah.
Speaker 2: Maybe for his own
sake, to keep it interesting.
He has a nice instinct for, I let me
do something totally different than
what I was doing before, just in
terms of the structure of my writing.
Speaker: Yeah.
That's wild.
Speaker 2: Okay, should we
read one more entry here?
I think that's probably
what we have time for.
Okay, number 48.
This one has a sentence in brackets at the
beginning and I'll leave it to, I guess
we can discuss what we think that means.
The brackets say, Plato has it right.
Close brackets.
If you want to talk about people, you
need to look down on the earth from above.
Herds, armies, farms, weddings, divorces,
births, deaths, noisy courtrooms, desert
places, all the foreign peoples holidays,
days of mourning, market days, all
mixed together, a harmony of opposites.
Whoa.
I I really this thought actually.
I this is a quite a different.
An entry for him that we
haven't really seen before.
I feel or at least I don't remember
a sentiment exactly like this.
That is mostly just a sort
of like celebration of that
complexity and diversity of people.
Speaker: Yeah, this is nice.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I agree.
If you
Speaker: want to talk about people, you
need to look down on the earth from above.
I guess you need to have
contacts or something like that.
Speaker 2: Or yes.
Think remind yourself.
I just look down on the earth from above
means remember the 30, 000 foot view
to me of what people are like, which is
that they have all this stuff going on.
They do all this different stuff and
they're also different from each other.
Speaker: What is this
desert places option?
Yeah.
That was that one.
I also,
Speaker 2: that one he's doing these
little groupings like herds and armies
and farms, I guess all go together for him
and weddings, divorces, births, deaths.
We can understand those groupings,
but that noisy courtrooms and desert
places is a grouping on its own.
I, my theory with that one actually
is that desert in this sense
doesn't really mean like the sand.
It means like deserted, there's
places with nobody there.
And so noisy courtrooms are like the
opposite of that because they're crowded.
Speaker: That makes sense.
Okay.
All the foreign
Speaker 2: peoples.
All the foreign peoples.
Yeah.
Speaker: Great.
Speaker 2: You didn't
call them barbarians.
Yeah.
That's nice of them.
It's always funny to me when he's
willing to do these lists, like pretty
big, long lists, but then he gets
to the end and he's I don't want to,
I could list the foreign peoples.
I'm doing a list already,
but I'm not going to bother.
I'm just going to say all the foreign
peoples because they're too complicated.
Speaker: Yeah.
Interesting that these are
all a harmony of opposites.
I, it's, it is still funny to me.
Marcus has some really interesting
opinions about animals.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker: Somehow, these are opposites.
Herds, armies, and farms.
Yes.
I don't.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker: Weddings, divorces,
births, and deaths.
Yes, I get that.
Yes.
Speaker 2: If we accept the court.
Yeah.
A lot of them are, but I guess he's, he
also ends with days of mourning, holidays,
days of mourning, and market days.
Holidays and
Speaker: days of mourning are opposites.
Speaker 2: Okay.
But then market days is
just a third kind of day.
Speaker: Yeah, I guess it's
a trifecta of opposites.
I don't know what I'm
Speaker 2: okay.
Speaker: Okay.
Interesting.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Yeah.
Herds, armies, farms is a
complicated one for us too.
I guess I liked it better
when I initially read it.
I wasn't queuing too hard on the
word opposites and more just on
the concept of the, of mixture.
This is all mixed together.
Yeah.
It's just life is complicated.
There's lots of, there's lots of stuff.
People will arrange
themselves in many ways.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Which is nice.
Yes.
And I guess I read it also as he's
talking, I read this as a form of empathy
where he's saying if you want to talk
about people, he's implicitly replying
to somebody who has set up some kind
of generalization about what people
are like, and he's saying, remember,
Speaker 3: Yeah,
Speaker 2: people are complicated.
I'm into that.
I wonder what Plato has, right?
We have the brackets.
I guess Plato said something to this
effect, probably not the place of
our, not the place of our podcast to
know what Plato was talking about.
Speaker: No, this is a good one.
Nice.
All right, Tom.
We progressed the page.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
We made it one more page.
Still plenty of book seven ahead of us.
Lots to
Speaker 3: go.
Speaker 2: That's okay.
I think I am looking
forward to continuing.
Yes.
It's about the journey and given
recent political happenings, I think
continuing to exercise this muscle and
refine this skillset is important to me.
So I'm excited to keep doing it.
Speaker: Awesome.
All right.
Bye Tom.