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 2: It's in progress.
Speaker: Okay.
Great.
We were, we're.
Hi everyone.
Good morning, Paul.
Good morning.
We're figuring out the technology, but
don't, that's not relevant to the podcast.
So who cares?
Speaker 2: That's
Speaker: right.
How are you doing Paul?
Speaker 2: Good.
I am finishing up my
stints here in Amsterdam.
I fly back to the States this weekend.
I was just telling you before we.
Started recording that I am excited
to get back to a bit of a rhythm a bit
of a i've been basically doing this
remote work work from basically 4 p.
m to midnight thing for the past month And
it is starting to get to me a little bit.
I feel you know, it's my body wants to
go back to, wants to wake up earlier and
I'm not getting you a bunch of sleep.
So I'm just excited to we
were joking with a pasta.
Like we've had some trips, remote trips
where we work really early in the morning.
We get up at we start working at
five in the morning, local time.
And then it's not really, we used to
talk about how it's really nice that
you get all this time after work.
You have this big day.
Yeah.
And now we have the opposite, which is oh,
we get this whole big day in the morning.
And and then we get to start work.
And so you have all this morning
time and we're both like morning
birds, so that's wonderful.
Yeah.
And then we were joking that, now
what we want to do is just have one
of those like half, half days where
you can just work in the middle and
you get some time before and some
time after, so we've done full circle.
And we'd like to,
Speaker: Inverting the work routine in
every way possible other than the just
conventional work in the middle of the
day and have some time on either side.
Yes.
Speaker 2: We're coming back to that now.
Yeah.
Speaker: Yes.
Speaker 2: Turns out that
has its own advantages.
Speaker: Yeah.
Yeah.
That's funny.
Speaker 2: So yeah.
Nice.
So I figure today can be
more of a, a reading day.
Speaker: Yeah, I think so.
I think we had a big eventful, I
would say, episode last week where we
were talking about the outcome of the
election and that, that sort of thing.
But I think I don't really have
much to add on that subject,
other than Still doing okay.
Still I think yeah, trying to heed
the, heed, the lessons of stoicism
for myself personally to Yeah.
As a way of mediating my displeasure
with the outcome of that election.
Yeah.
But yeah, so far that
seems to be working for me.
Okay.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Yeah.
So Makes sense.
I think, we will, I think
the proof is in the pudding.
Like we'll see just how
things actually play out here.
Speaker: Yeah.
All right.
I think, yes, I think a good way
of countenancing that is with
some reading of the meditation.
So yes let's do it.
We are in book seven and I
think we are at entry number 49.
Speaker 2: Awesome.
Speaker: Look at the past empire,
succeeding empire, and from
that extrapolate the future.
The same thing.
No escape from the rhythm of events.
Which is why observing life for
40 years is as good as a thousand.
Would you really see anything new?
Speaker 2: Love it.
There's a little
Speaker: this isn't a word I've used
with Marcus before but I mean I detect a
little hubris here I can't help I can't
help but think like I guess maybe that's
always been a part of his character,
but this one especially strikes me as
I have figured it all out, like really
patting himself on the back pretty hard.
Speaker 2: That's, that's the
MO of a lot of his writing.
Don't want to be negative on markets.
I think it's cool.
It's a journal, right?
He's just, it's good to, the
way you progress in thinking is
you kind of work in extremes.
So he's just, he's writing in extremes,
but yes, I think this is definitely.
A little bit of oversimplification
of how cycles work.
I forget there's all these books.
Everyone tries to make this argument.
There's, I forget the book that
I was reading about it, like the
four seasons or whatever, but it's
people make an argument, but it's
more than a 40 year period that
they're where the repetition happens.
I think it's like, whatever
one book says, it's 300 years.
Another book says it's something else.
But.
Yeah.
Speaker: Yeah.
Yep.
I've heard those theories.
I, it seems to be like, he's
just saying it's all the same.
So whatever.
Empires have been around.
They're going to keep being around.
One fell, then the next one showed up.
Who cares?
Speaker 2: One.
Yeah.
Yeah, good.
Speaker: There's something,
I guess I have two thoughts.
One is there's this interesting blend
of modesty in some in some ways,
stoicism is this very humble philosophy.
I feel like that is very much
about you are not all that special.
And it's about just to me it's in some
ways, not about having necessarily
massive ambitions or yes, trying
to preserve your, Life for all
eternity or something like that.
It's this very it's a philosophy
of very sort of limited ambition.
And then, but it also gets espoused
with this very we've got it all.
It's such a no at all entry.
It's a, there's funny tension
to me there with between that
humility and that no at all.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Yeah.
Yeah.
We keep coming back to this.
It's like the Diogenes asking Alexander
the great to move out of the sun for him.
Like it's It is simultaneously.
Oh, it's the like Diogenes,
this great philosopher in
Greece and Alexander the Great.
He was like a huge fan and like at
the height of his power, he came to
him and he's what can I do for you?
Like anything.
I have this vast empire.
I'd love to, support you.
And Diogenes says, it'd be great
if you could just move a little bit
to the left so that I can that the
sun can keep falling on my face.
Speaker: Wow.
Speaker 2: Which like anyone, like
he could have been killed for that.
Yeah.
Speaker: Wow.
I've never heard that.
That's fascinating.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Which, which is the sort of the other
side of that blade because theoretically
Diogenes also, doesn't, wouldn't kick
anyone when they're down because he
doesn't need anything or he wouldn't
be greedy or whatever, but he also
lost an opportunity here, right?
Speaker: Yes totally shrugged
off something that could have
been very helpful to him.
Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah and, could have
engaged in a bit of a conversation
or at least something, right?
But he just kind of,
Speaker: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah,
Speaker: We've discussed in prior
episodes of the podcast, what we call
James Bond moments or something like
that when discussing the kinds of the
different types of joy or pleasure
that we get to experience during life.
And James Bond moments are like our
kind of catchphrase for kind of a
little bit ego based I'm feeling cool.
I did something sweet and I'm
very proud of myself for doing it.
And it feels to me like yeah, exactly.
Oh, I don't
Speaker 2: I think they don't have
Speaker: to be narcissistic.
That's true.
It's very negative.
Yeah, individual is a
good part of ego too.
Yeah.
Anyway, one thing we've discussed is
I think that This is not a stoicism.
It's not a philosophy that lends itself
to a lot of those, I think, or at least
that's my feeling, but that's where
you just told about Diogenes does feel
like as far as a philosopher, like
Speaker 3: if you're a
Speaker: philosopher, you're You
get to have a couple moments maybe
during your life, which are a fun
style of ego driven joy or whatever.
That seems like a pretty good one.
Speaker 2: That's a good point, actually.
In some ways that was that was a
huge dunk that Diogenes got to make.
Exactly.
Yeah.
Massive.
Yes.
Totally.
Speaker: Imagine how cool he
must have felt after doing
Speaker 2: that.
So is that not stoic of him?
Yeah.
Speaker: Yeah.
Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker: Is, was he a stoic?
I don't know.
No, I
Speaker 2: don't think so.
I don't think he was a stoic.
Okay.
I think he might have predated.
Oh he's
Speaker: right
Speaker 2: of course.
But theoretically, I think
these things all have overlap.
Yeah.
I think his whole thing was like,
you don't need a lot to be happy.
And the meaning of life
isn't assets or whatever.
I say.
Speaker: Okay, which that you
Speaker 2: know
Speaker: comports well with how he's
behaving towards Alexander the Great.
Yeah, he's saying yeah You
don't have anything that I need.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Yeah, but I guess what a stoic
Behavior philosophy about that.
I think stoicism would have condoned that
behavior It's so says it was like don't
you know, don't look down or up at anyone
Speaker: Yeah, it feels just like
orthogonal to stuff like, I don't
see Marcus necessarily endorsing
that behavior, but he also, I think
it seems to be like, Marcus would be
just neutral towards he would agree
with, Diogenes commitment to his
philosophy and just like Diogenes.
Very clear eyed about what he needs in
life and what he doesn't need in life.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
But one thing I do like about
Stoicism actually is that it's a
little bit more action oriented.
There is a duty to perform.
Like we each have a, we are placed here
by nature to, accomplish something.
And so in some ways I could see Marcus
looking down on this and being like,
look, if your duty is to spread this set
of beliefs and help other people, then
you should take advantage of Marcus's
offer, and not just squander it like,
it feels a little bit Nihilistic to
just be like, no, I don't want anything.
Like
Speaker: I need nothing from you.
Nothing matters.
Like lazy or something.
Yeah, okay.
Let me I think that's a good point Let
me in diogenes defense offer like a 4d
chess move that diogenes is possibly doing
here Which is I think that if diogenes
says, oh, yes, that would be lovely here.
Here are my pamphlets Please
spread these around or whatever.
He maybe does not make as big an
impression on alexander and You I mean,
it sounds like Alexander is already pretty
impressed with that philosophy and has
maybe already proselytizing on his behalf.
It seems if I'm Diogenes, the
best thing to do there is to say.
No, go away and play a little hard
to get and maybe Alex that is very
Speaker 2: 40.
That is very 40.
Yeah I
Speaker: may be giving him way too
much credit there, but there might
be something to be said even yeah And
in that way, maybe Marcus in us in a
roundabout way could even agree with
diogenes behavior I think because yeah,
it would be achieving his role or his task
Speaker 2: Yeah.
But back to the sort of the
entry here, I think that
this idea that no one can escape
from the rhythm of events the
person the immediate perception
you had of this is a little bit.
Yeah, there's some hubris here.
Speaker: Yeah,
Speaker 2: I think that's just yeah,
I think that's very true of stuff
Like I think that's why people enjoy
that's the enjoyment that Marcus
and you know Probably people like
us get from these philosophies.
They allow us to feel superior
Speaker 3: Yeah without little, you
Speaker 2: know in a way that we can
control right in a way that isn't
actually tied to things that outside of
our control It's like a perfect formula.
You can have it all and you
Speaker: don't.
Yes.
You can.
Yes.
You can feel like a little master
of your dominion and all you have
to do is just yeah, be thoughtful
about the way you're acting.
And it's not even about the outcomes
that you achieve or whatever.
Speaker 2: But it is innately, like in
some ways, if everyone behaved this way.
If this was really obvious, then
maybe it wouldn't be fun to study.
Like part of it is that you're, yeah,
it's that it's contrarian to some degree.
It's
Speaker: that's the, that's
exactly the word I was about.
Yeah, that's interesting.
Speaker 2: I feel like
better than other people.
Yeah,
Speaker: that's interesting.
I definitely agree that Marcus
has that element at times of life.
We see him all the time where he
can barely contain his detest for,
the people he has to interact with.
And it does seem like some, a lot
of that comes from the, what he
perceives their philosophy to be that
they're just like dumb animals running
around and he's this enlightened.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker: Thinker.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker: But I guess I have, I've
had trouble squaring that with my own
experience of trying to Incorporate
some stoicism into my life where
at least for me, I don't feel
like it's not about other people.
Speaker 2: Yeah,
Speaker: it's really not.
It's truly, not to hammer the politics
thing too much, but like when I'm
trying to use stoicism there, it is
very much just about my own sanity
and very it truly has nothing to
do with anybody other than me.
I, okay, do I sometimes get some
satisfaction from seeing other
people struggling with the same
issue and be like, aha, I have
stoicism to help me deal with that.
Yeah, maybe a little bit.
So I guess that's a way in which,
Speaker 2: you're right.
Those are separate.
You could practice very
individual stoicism and not
just Apply that to anyone else.
I think it's hard to do that.
I think Marcus clearly struggles
with that and constantly, I
don't even know if Marcus is
Speaker: struggling with it.
He seems to be perfectly fine with that.
That's the kind of it where he just
is looking down at other people.
Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker: Yeah.
Cut up some slack.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's true.
It would be very difficult, I think,
to both develop these beliefs.
And not to be totally okay with
someone else, choosing to, to be a
sniveling, people pleaser or whatever
it was the opposite of stoicism.
Speaker: Yeah.
Speaker 2: It's, that's the ultimate
that's like level three right there.
Yeah.
Speaker: Yeah.
Agreed.
Yeah.
I have one other thought about this
little entry, which is that you use
the word nihilism earlier when we
were talking about Diogenes, and
there's something about this entry
for Marcus, which also feels a
little bit nihilistic in the sense of
Speaker 2: that's true.
Speaker: He does not have much
love for life in a way to me in
this entry, because he's just you
saw it all for a little while.
Life's basically pretty disinteresting
and boring is the subtext.
That's, that is at odds to, the
dude is full of contradictions.
I guess it's not novel for us to point out
that there are some contradictions here.
There are times where he writes nice
little poetry and talks about how
the world is interesting and full
of a grand tapestry who's designed,
we can barely make out or whatever.
Yeah.
Just another contradiction, is the
subtext here of yeah, you've got
a good glimpse of the tapestry.
That's good enough time to die.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you're right.
This is, yeah.
The way to give Marcus credit here
is to say, this is just one idea, not
the end, like an end, a holistic idea.
Cause I, I much prefer a version of this.
That starts, the sentence starts with.
Nothing matters or some version of that
nihilism and but it has a second part
to it Which is that so just do your
job and enjoy what you do and do it.
Speaker: Yeah,
Speaker 2: Yeah,
Speaker: enjoy the beauty that's
around you to stuff like that.
Yes acknowledges that he's talking
about observing life But like there
Yes, he's a little dismissive to
me of the value of that observation
Speaker 2: the obvious question after
you read this is okay So what do I do
and that question is not being answered
and I like it a lot more with that.
That question is at least
attempted to be resolved.
Yeah.
Yes.
Speaker: Yeah.
I think you're right.
Yes.
It's, again, it's wrong to read
this text as he's laying out his
full plan or whatever, he's debating
little points with himself and then
arriving at an answer to an argument
that we can only see a part of here.
Speaker 2: Sorry, Tom.
I got one more thing.
I can't help myself.
This is the reason we're so slow.
Speaker: This is what?
Yes.
That's what the podcast is.
Speaker 2: The tying the
elections to this entry.
I can't help, but do you know
about the triumvirate in the
sort of the late Roman empire?
Speaker: I know that word,
but I don't really know.
Speaker 2: Or sorry,
the late Roman Republic.
So basically what happened is
that Crassus, the richest man
ever in history teamed up with two
generals, Caesar and and Antony.
Okay, I'm going to butcher this,
but basically two generals.
And they formed the triumvirate and that
was like the, basically the last bit
of the Republic of the Roman Republic
before it became this dictatorship
what we call the Roman Empire.
And I can't help but see a connection
to the way that Elon is the richest
man we have who's like really involved
in politics now and has created
a, maybe not a triumvirate, but a,
a partnership with the president.
Yep.
And.
Yep.
I, yeah.
I think it's history repeats itself.
Empires repeat themselves
as I guess the segue there.
Yeah.
Speaker: Yeah.
I see.
As a total Roman history nobe, was that,
what did that end up meaning for Roman
history when that triumvirate formed?
Was that a good thing?
Speaker 2: It's hard to say.
In some ways, the Republic was doomed.
Basically what happened is, I think,
the same thing that's happening
in our democracy, which is that
at some point the formula breaks.
And it's oh, a politician, in a system
where you just, you know, you get
elected by popular votes, You just
you know, the way to get elected is
to give people stuff and terms are
short So you just give people lots
of stuff, even if it's economically
Speaker: unviable
Speaker 2: how you get elected That's
just how people figure that out and
this idea that you're like, you know
Trying to help the long term future of
that like fuck like that just doesn't
people don't care about that And so
that, that formula starts to break.
And then that's, that was the
beginning of the end of the Republic.
And I would argue that if Rome
hadn't turned into an empire, and
obviously a lot of people will
argue like the empire was horrible.
There was all this genocide that, Caesar
committed in Northern Europe and like in
general, just like dictatorship bad, but
also the Republic would have probably Died
and like we wouldn't have had another 400
years of empire And there were good things
that were created in the decadorship
I saw so I guess there's an argument.
That's just like this is
inevitable and You know this, yes.
Would it be nice to just continue with
this beautiful, Republic where, the
power is split and there's all these
things yeah, it would be nice, but
that might not be an option at this
stage in our maturity as an empire.
Speaker: Yeah.
That's, that's a scary thought to me,
but yeah, I hear what you're saying.
We have a
Speaker 2: lot of debts.
But anyway, yeah, that's, it's a very I
don't actually know if we're at that stage
as a country, but there are parallels.
Speaker: Yeah.
Yeah.
Interesting.
It's interesting how that does seem to
really, that is very tied into the point
here that this is seeming to make, but.
The way in which these things repeat,
it's remarkable to me, that he
was able to, maybe this is just my
own sort of modern bias, but to me,
that observation that you just made is
like a non trivial one that requires
knowing quite a bit about world history.
I guess he knew as much as we did
about world history at the time, but
the fact that he was that it was, it
seems so easy for him to just look
back on the history of the world
and say, ah, yes, all the same.
Look at these same patterns repeating.
He must have been quite a
student of history, is one
thing I'm taking away from that.
Speaker 2: I wonder.
I wonder if it's because he was
really a great student of history,
or if it's because, it's an
alluring thought and it's nice.
It's a nice thought, right?
It's a, or how do I put this?
There's two versions of
making the statement.
There's the Sort of eighth grader in world
history version where you're like, you're
high on learning a few things and you're
like, Oh, history just repeats itself.
Speaker: Here's a simple pattern.
Speaker 2: I'm really cool by saying that.
And there's the version
where a PhD student says it
Speaker: and they're very different.
You're accusing him of possibly being
the eighth grader who's saying it.
Sorry.
I think that's fair.
Unless you're a PhD student,
Speaker 2: you don't really have time
to back up that kind of statement.
Speaker: Yeah.
Speaker 2: I think we're all eighth
graders when we say that kind of thing.
Speaker: Yeah.
He in his defense, I guess he, he
especially probably would have had a real,
a really unique interest in the trajectory
of empires and like specifically
what they, what tends to happen, that
neighborhood of history, that's true.
Speaker 2: That's true.
He, yeah, he, yeah.
And there is this.
Dark irony that he was the quote
unquote last good emperor and
he yeah chose to make his son
Commodus and the next emperor.
He was the first of whatever six or
seven emperors to go by bloodline
succession instead of I didn't know the
Speaker: beauty
Speaker 2: whatever the way this sort
of classical Narrative goes is that like
the great emperors were great The series
of six or seven last great emperors
were so great because they chose like
meritocracy over bloodline And then Marcus
was the first broke that trend and then
the everything went downhill That's the
that's it's probably not true The reality
is probably like Commodus was probably
pretty like we don't know if Commodus
was good or not All we know is what the
Senate wrote about him but there is an
irony, like if he both knew that this
maybe there's a certain resignation.
He was like, this is going
to happen regardless.
I can't just, it's been seven good
emperors, but it's inevitable that
it's, there's going to be a bad one.
Why don't I just give my son a shot?
He really wants it.
Speaker: Give it a kick.
Yeah.
I say that's interesting.
I didn't have that.
So it also circling back to the
discussion of hubris a little bit too.
I guess that.
Little historical fact was something
that I didn't know before, but the flavor
it gives me now is Marcus for all his
merits, obviously very thoughtful guy.
I could also imagine how he would be maybe
a little self absorbed and maybe not doing
quite as good a job as the prior emperors
at scouting out the meritocratic playing
field for who's going to be good after me.
He's maybe going back to his tent to write
and not checking out the talent so much.
That's true.
So maybe.
Maybe his thoughtfulness and,
devotion to philosophy was a double
edged sword a little bit for him.
Speaker 2: And Marcus
was like very much just.
Tasked with this job, like unlike
it feels like the other emperors
were more like they wanted it more.
I said, yes.
And so
Speaker: that can be more passive.
Yes.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Yeah.
What a fascinating guy.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker: Okay.
Number 50.
Let's
Speaker 2: do
Speaker: it.
This one's in quotes, classic markets
and in quotes, and it starts with
a quotation and then an ellipsis.
So quote dot Earth's
offspring back to Earth.
But all that's born of heaven
to heaven returns again,
Speaker 3: boy,
Speaker: this feels like maybe
a little passage from a piece of
poetry or something like that.
Sure.
To me.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker: Um, I'm not going to speculate
what the source of that poetry is,
but it's an interesting idea that he
hasn't really, we haven't discussed
too much before, but his idea being
basically like, we've discussed a
lot, how, he constantly discusses how,
yeah, the stuff you're made of, yeah.
Made up of on earth.
We'll go back to the earth
and get recycled and whatever.
But he's saying there's also this stuff in
heaven and it's a closed loop there too.
Speaker 2: What is heaven to him?
Is it like,
Speaker: yeah, heaven is, I was about
to say, heaven is an interesting word
that I'm sure there's some translation
going on here, but it's not a word that
I really remember hearing him use much.
I guess I'm going to assume that what
that means is the dominion of the gods.
Speaker 2: Sure.
The top of Mount Olympus
Speaker: In his philosophy.
Speaker 2: What?
Okay, Earth's offering
back to Earth makes sense.
That's he loves that concept.
But then, yeah, what's the point of
making that statement about heaven?
Speaker: I read that as
the stuff of gods doesn't get
intermixed with the mess here on Earth.
We don't it's not yes, we're all.
Born and then die and decay and whatever,
but there are also these gods and one
model of the world is that they come
down, the stuff of Greek and Roman myths
is that the gods come down and, do stuff,
give birth to heroes, whatever, and that.
You could interpret that as, okay,
so there's some God stuff down here
that's on earth from that gets left
behind when they're done with their
journey or whatever here on earth.
And so some humans might have some
of that God stuff mixed up in them.
And there might, so there might be divine
stuff down here in the sense of being
literally made of the gods or whatever.
And I Stay the gods and we stay the earth,
but it's not like we're creating some sort
of heaven and earth mixture over time.
So this is his
Speaker 2: like, this is his humility
statement that he's, just because he's
an emperor, he needs to stay grounded.
Speaker: Yes, I interpret it very much
as, yeah, we're, you can't become a god.
Yeah you're gonna, you're going
back to the earth and that, that's
the end of the story and you were
never a god and you can't be.
Speaker 2: That that scans for me based on
other things Marcus likes to talk about.
I had originally read it differently.
I had originally read it as There is
a part of each of us that is godly and
that, that thing is effectively stoicism.
Yeah, like your body might decay,
but you're like, he has talked
about the spirit and like our
duties and all these things, but
Speaker: yeah, that's one is more.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker: You know what I, you know what
I've just realized as I'm looking at this
on my iPad, I didn't finish the entry.
I think it was the first time I've
flubbed one of these entries, but
there's another sentence that I think I
probably should have read after the poem.
Whoops.
Okay.
I'm going to read the whole thing.
Cause they have the poem party short
earth's offspring back to earth,
but all that's born of heaven to
heaven returns again, end quote.
And now Marcus is talking either
that or the cluster of atoms
pulls apart in one way or another.
The insensible elements disperse.
Okay.
This I think
Speaker 2: Is two options.
Speaker: Yes.
He likes to do two options with
whether or not there's there
are gods or like we have that.
Yeah, I think the latter I'm
reading as this thing about the
cluster of atoms pulls apart and
the insensible elements disperse.
Okay.
Is I think his way of if there's nothing
in heaven or I'm interpreting that,
I guess it's a very like his physical
explanation for what goes on in the
world, but does it does that last
sentence complicate our first sentence?
Yeah.
What's the relationship
between these two sentences?
Speaker 2: I don't
understand the heaven piece.
I don't, I feel like we could have
had this whole entry, just be earth's
offspring, offspring back to earth,
Speaker: either that, or
Speaker 2: the cluster
of atoms pulls apart.
By the way, it doesn't, it also
doesn't sound, I don't fully
understand why this isn't either.
Or this seems like an, and to me, this
seems like both of those things can
be true, but maybe that's because we
have a modern understanding of atoms.
And
Speaker: yeah, maybe, okay let's explore
the thing that you mentioned, the other
interpretation of the quote, which I
was persuaded by, even though you seem
to maybe prefer the first one that we
discussed the idea that, okay, yes,
we're, humans are earth's offspring,
but we also have, let's just say
some kind of spirit that we're given
from heaven or whatever some spark
from heaven or something like that.
And in which case we read that.
The sentence has like, when you die,
your body goes back to the earth,
but your spirit returns to heaven, or
Speaker 3: Huh.
Speaker: Or whatever.
And then, if we interpret it that
way, he's saying either that.
Speaker 2: Oh, I see.
Okay.
Speaker: There's nothing
meaningful going on.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
And
Speaker: the, that it's just
your atoms get rearranged.
So I actually think given the
second sentence that the reading
you were offering makes more sense,
Which is cool.
I actually did, I did not read the
first poem that way at all first.
And to me it felt very much about
keeping things separate, but
Speaker 2: yeah good literary analysis.
You're right.
Actually, that second
section did illuminate.
Yes.
Speaker: Yes.
It's good.
A nice, important job for
people reading texts like this.
Read the whole entry.
I think it's a nice lesson
to take away from that.
If you're trying to make sense
of what Marcus is saying, go
ahead and give it all a read.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Fair enough.
I think also it's easy to make.
Yeah.
To interpret things in
lots of different ways.
That's the other lesson.
Speaker: Yes.
Yeah.
That's true.
And if you're confident about it,
yeah, it can be hard to see your
way through it without some help.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker: Okay.
Number 51 is of course, love
this, quotations starting
with an ellipsis, quote dot.
With food and drink and magic
spells, seeking some novel way
to frustrate death, end quote.
Speaker 2: Nice.
Okay.
Okay.
Bye.
I like it.
I really like the phrase, frustrate death.
Speaker: Yeah, I love that.
I agree.
Yes.
It makes me think of those we were
discussing on a recent prior episode,
Speaker 3: quotes
Speaker: about inspiring legions
of men with like speeches about,
one day we will die, but today
is not that day or whatever.
Frustrate death feels like it
belongs in that same vocabulary,
those kinds of speeches.
Yes.
I agree.
Yes.
To me.
Speaker 2: Yes, it's very personified.
It's very much like death is the
skeleton with a scythe And just
getting under its skin a little bit.
You're a
Speaker: little, Mary trickster who runs
around and evades his plans for you.
Yeah.
Yes, I think what we're meant to,
this isn't even a full sentence,
but I'm interpreting that.
This clause of a sentence as being like
making fun of people like by listing
food and drink and magic spells that
you're belittling any sort of way of
yes, people who are trying to eat a
special diet or do a special ritual
or whatever in order to live longer.
And he's just, he likes that quote as
a way of saying, yeah, that's stupid.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I
agree with that reading.
I would have a hard time imagining
him condoning that behavior.
Speaker: Yes, does not seem
like his kind of move at all.
Everything that's preceded this
point, it would be very strange
for him to start telling us about
the magic spell that he likes.
Speaker 2: That he is trying to find.
He's been seeking some novel
way to frustrate death.
It seems very unlikely.
Yeah.
Speaker: Yes.
Oh, okay.
And this one is another one of his
ones where it's a numbered entry.
That was 51, but there's also a 51 a
Speaker 2: nice.
Speaker: Also in quotes, to
labor cheerfully and so endure
the wind that blows from heaven.
Okay, like a communist
Speaker 2: slogan
Speaker: Yeah, it is,
but it's also very stoic.
I think actually yeah, it's like a pretty
Pretty succinct summary of the philosophy
in a way I think That if you interpret
labor cheerfully as like labor or, do
your job in Marcus a sense, figure out
what it is you're supposed to do here
and do it with joy is a way of enduring.
I interpret the wind that blows from
heaven as the forces of death and
the world or, yeah, like things you
can't control all the things outside
Speaker 2: you.
Speaker: Yeah, this is a
Speaker 2: fridge magnet.
Tom.
Speaker: Yeah, I agree.
That one is pretty good.
I think that is as strong a
candidate we have for a stoic fridge
magnate as we have encountered.
It does sound a little bit
Marxist, to your point, I think.
But, maybe not so bad
for a fridge magnate.
Speaker 2: A lot of these yeah,
governments schemes, co opted,
otherwise good philosophies.
Speaker: Yeah.
Yeah, I like that one.
It is, I guess we have not really heard
the word labor used exactly in that.
Again, that's just maybe a translation
thing, but yeah, it is a philosophy that
is in some ways about, yeah, about labor.
Yeah.
I wonder what, Marx's relationship
to . I'm not enough of a philoso
philosopher by any, yeah.
Yeah.
I am curious 'cause I think you're
right that quote could have been,
could come from either text in a way.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
I think, I don't know about
Marx, but I do think that the.
Soviet Union, after abolishing
religion, sorely needed something
to explain to hardworking people why
they needed to keep working hard.
And so I think they effectively used,
some Frankenstein version of yeah, of
Stoicism and other things to explain that.
Yeah.
Humanism.
Yeah.
Speaker: Yeah.
Interesting.
Okay.
52.
A better wrestler, but not a
better citizen, a better person,
a better resource in tight places,
a better forgiver of faults.
What?
Okay.
This one has no quotes, by the way.
Yes, no, this one is straight
from the horse's mouth.
Straight from the horse's
Speaker 2: mouth.
Yeah, exactly.
Speaker: Yes.
Obviously, when you're getting
wisdom like this, you don't want
to attribute it to anybody else.
A better wrestler.
Okay.
Tell me if this is your reading too,
or if what I'm saying is totally
stupid, but the only sense I can make
of this is getting better at things.
Like just because you become a
better wrestler does not make
you better at all this, what he's
implying is the more important
Speaker 2: stuff, basically.
A better resource in tight places.
Speaker: Yeah.
I like that.
Yeah.
I like it.
That is a cool thing to want to be.
I like that he included a
better forgiver of faults too.
Yeah.
No kidding.
Is that that stands out to me.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker: A better, okay.
Okay.
Speaker 2: Just so specific.
He could have said a better
general or something.
I guess wrestling is important to him.
Yeah.
It was,
Speaker: That, that was
like a popular sport, right?
But yeah, it does feel like one of those
things where he's referring to a detail
or something that happened in his day,
probably that I think he's talking about.
Commodus access to, okay.
Commodus.
Yeah.
Okay.
Was he he was a big sports guy.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Look, I'm going off of
the movie gladiator here.
So
Speaker: great.
Speaker 2: But, now that I've qualified
my lack of Qualification let me say that.
Yes.
Commodus was really into
like physical prowess.
Yeah.
Speaker: I say, was he, did he
have a lot of physical prowess?
He,
Speaker 2: yes, he famously
participated in the gladiator games.
In a way that was like really frowned
upon by the Senate or whatever.
But that was his whole thing.
And so he, maybe that's what,
anyway I'm making a huge leap.
Speaker: Yes.
Yeah.
No.
I like it.
I wouldn't have much for this otherwise.
I did.
Okay.
If so, some harsh criticism from
dad coming here and entry number 52.
This is pretty tough stuff.
This is saying.
He's not improving himself
by improving his wrestling.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker: Yeah.
Okay.
It's giving me an idea, by the way, I
have never seen the original gladiator
as far as I know, or maybe I saw like a
clip of it when I was a kid or something.
Yeah.
Might be.
And obviously there's a second gladiator
that's already out or about to come out.
This could be good
material for the podcast.
Maybe I will find a way to watch.
The first gladiator at the very least
and then we can figure out maybe we
could watch the second one at the
same time or something like that.
So
Speaker 2: yes, watch the first
gladiator because Marcus makes a
big yes, I now that I've realized
Speaker: how have we not
thought about this before?
It's probably the way that Marcus
is the most Existent in the
popular American imagination.
Yes.
Anywhere is in gladiator, right?
Yeah and Marcus in
Speaker 2: this is portrayed as like
this perfect benevolent leader Yes okay,
Speaker: that would be fun I'm looking
forward to that actually because I
really have no sense of like I only
have the vaguest sense of what his
role In that movie even is I'll be
very curious to see how he is portrayed
Speaker 2: Nice.
Enjoy
Speaker: There.
Okay, cool.
Yes, that all right fodder for a
future episode for us to discuss.
You've seen the first gladiator I did.
I have I watched it again.
Yeah, recently.
Okay, nice.
All right.
Okay, cool.
We will have meat for a
good discussion about it.
Great.
Okay.
Number 53, wherever something
can be done, as the logo shared
by gods and men dictates.
There, all is in order.
Where there is profit, because our
effort is productive, because it
advances in step with our nature,
there we have nothing to fear.
Speaker 2: Nice.
He's justifying capitalism?
Speaker: Yeah, profit is an interesting
word, but I think I'm interpreting that
as like, yes, maybe capitalism, but
also like metaphorical profit, just like
meaning like goodness, or we met goodness,
Speaker 2: but the way he's
phrasing it in the sort of double
negative, we have nothing to fear,
Speaker: right is
Speaker 2: interesting, because
the assumption is Where there is
profit, we have something to fear.
Speaker: Fear, but he's saying no.
Yeah, that's interesting.
It advances in step with our nature.
It's incredible.
Yeah, that is, yeah, that is I don't,
I agree with your reading, but I think
I maybe share your confusion why.
Or maybe we have just been so
capitalism washed in the modern day
that we're like, yes, of course,
why would there be anything to fear?
Yeah, exactly.
My reaction is why would
there be anything to fear?
I, so we've talked a lot about that.
We, for a while earlier on the podcast,
we would make fun of Marcus anytime
to use the word logos, basically.
And he did use the word logos again here.
So I'm just pointing that out, but
he did do a different thing with it.
I think where he at least pointed out.
But there is that gods and men have
different logos is the implication
of this, but that they might share
certain mandates or whatever,
certain things that should be done.
And it's good to do everything
is in order when you do the stuff
that is in common between those two
logos is a very interesting concept.
I don't.
It makes me lose my, the
thread of what Logos is again.
Yeah.
What does it mean?
I,
Speaker 2: It's supposed
to mean logic, but.
Speaker: Yeah, but it's also, logic
also in the sort of sense of like
law, I think, is how we've sometimes
interpreted it in the past, like natural
law or whatever about it's I, to me,
it's roughly in the neighborhood of the
things you should do to it's what, what
ought to be done, not just logically,
but also like morally a bit as well.
Speaker 2: I just read this whole sentence
as do the right thing and all in order.
Speaker: Good.
Yeah.
Good things are good to do.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Okay.
Yes, I would.
Oh God, I wish we could just like.
Ask him one question where
you just define logos, dude.
I know.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Add this to the tally.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I guess it's like a, it's like
classic it's with when you're,
whenever you have a new language
that you have no dictionary for, you
have to rebuild your understanding
that language through examples.
Add this to the list.
Yes.
Yeah, exactly.
And
Speaker: I know our podcast listeners.
They play a drinking game where they take
a shot every time we say the word Logos.
Be safe out there.
We're saying it a lot right now.
And I think we should be
careful with how much we say it.
But yes, I agree.
We can, we color our understanding of
the word a little bit more and maybe
one day it'll all fall into place.
Speaker 2: Agreed.
All right.
Last one.
Speaker: Last one.
54.
Everywhere.
At each moment.
You have the option.
And now we've got a bulleted list.
To accept this event with humility, to
treat this person as he should be treated.
To approach this thought with care,
so that nothing irrational creeps in.
Speaker 2: Okay.
That's all one option.
Those are three different options.
Yes,
Speaker: it's very confusingly
presented, because that sounds like he's
saying you have to choose A, B, or C.
But I think he's saying you
always have this option, which is
described three different ways.
Which is lovely.
I this kind of thing is the thing
that gets me the most aligned
with Marcus of when he says
something like this, I'm like, yup.
Love it.
Yeah.
So there, this
Speaker 2: puts agency in, in, in our
actions, which is yes, my favorite agency,
Speaker: but there's also all
this just, it makes it clear to me
how much the philosophy is about
being intentional and thoughtful.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
And
Speaker: Yeah, being really present,
which that I really love about it.
Okay.
I think that's probably about as good
a place as we could possibly wrap up.
I don't know that we've ever been
this, or I've ever been this happy with
Marcus at the end of an episode before.
So let's wrap it up there.
All right.
All right.
Speaker 2: See you soon.
Bye.