Meditations: A New Translation

Good insights, a bit copey on the existential side

Due to my split opinions on this book, I will break up my review into the things I liked and what I didn't.

Stoicism and the perspective Marcus Aurelius expands on is very thought provoking. Most of the sections and passages describe a way of living I relate to deeply. Logic over feelings, not worrying about things you can't control and not living to preserve a legacy after death are among many of the themes I enjoyed. He (or perhaps the translator), does a great job creating interesting allegories and metaphors to better put his thoughts into perspective. Throughout the book there were multiple times I was impressed with the poignance of the writing. Much of my time reading, I thought about how much I agreed with parts of his perspective and how impressed I was in the way it was described. I also really enjoy how this book is organized. The various personal writings being pieced together in this way creates such an interesting read. I think it works really well with the very philosophical ideas. It breaks things up and allows his musings to sit and be really digested by the reader.

All that being said, there were a few things that rubbed me the wrong way. I believe the stoicism, at least in this book, often advocates for a toxic mindset. Specifically, it was the ideas about controlling your emotion and the pursuit of pleasures. For starters i found the logic over emotions parts overdone. I agree that a rational, logical mind is immensely important. It can be an incredible asset in life to have a rational perspective on the world and life. That being said, emotions is an essential part of human life. In my opinion, emotions should be something embraced not guarded from. Fleeting moments of joy, anger, sadness excitement, humiliation and everything in between are all parts of life. This book often advocates for a complete lack of emotion. At one point I believe it even calls emotion blasphemous. I do believe control of emotion is important, obviously. Controlling your emotions and using logic and reasoning are all good things. Letting negative feelings destroy your life is not something anyone would advocate for. However if you spend your life trying to shield yourself from everything, I don't think that is a great way to live. Similarly, I find Marcus Aurelius' perspective on the pursuit of pleasure as frustrating. He says that pleasures shouldn't be pursued and they can "hardly avoid wrongdoing—which is manifestly blasphemous." He also describes certain activities such as singing and dancing as distractions. Distractions from virtue, which is the real key of life. This is something I feel he does not expand on well. Why must they be mutually exclusive? Why does someone finding purpose in an art form or activity discourage their wisdom and justice? These were questions that were not answered effectively and just leave us with this false dilemma fallacy.

All in all I think this book is fine. The vast majority of the passages provide the reader with some interesting knowledge, advice and ideas that could help them live their lives. Beautiful and poignant writing is all over this thing in various parts. However, I do think Stoicism as a whole can, when interpreted a certain way, lead to a toxic mindset. Similar to the problems with "toxic masculinity" we see often today, "Meditations" dabbles with teachings that promote the subversion of emotions and a way of life that is not fulfilling or healthy for everyone. This book has a lot of standard good life philosophy teachings, but it definitely crosses the line into toxic at multiple points. Lastly, I think it is worth noting, that I did take up some issue in Marcus Aurelius himself. In his time, I'm sure he was considered a pretty decent man. However, I can't help but look at him with modern glasses. Marcus Aurelius was a wealthy Roman emperor. Although I find much of the book valid, it is hard to not think of him as an unreliable narrator. How can I listen to this man, write about how to be a decent person and live a decent life, when he almost assuredly owned slaves. He talks a big game of not worrying about life when he probably had slaves taking care of everything. Would he say the same things if he lived in squalor like many of his Roman citizens? I know this might be an annoying complaint, but I do think it is relevant. Especially when I see people romanticize stoicism and Aurelius more than the looking at the person with some modern context.

It was good