[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 37 KB, 1000x667, marcus-aurelius-quotes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13735903 No.13735903 [Reply] [Original]

>Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.

>> No.13735912

>>13735903
>but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by

What is virtue?

>> No.13735920

>>13735903
define good.

>> No.13735958

>>13735912
Virtue is the semblance of your actions.
>>13735920
Good is doing what is right by morality, morality is based on religion/culture.
Also this was Plato (Socrates) not Marky Mark OP.

>> No.13735972

>>13735903
>virtues
dogs have more virtues than the average person, are they any better in the eyes of gods?

>but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.
why should I care about some years of fading memories in the head of others after I die?

>> No.13735974

>>13735903
>heyy mann it's a good life by my standards if god doesn't agree then fuck him i want nothing to do with him
>eternal torture in hell

dumb trust fund junky

>> No.13735975

>>13735958
>Also this was Plato (Socrates) not Marky Mark OP.
debatable

https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/6999/did-marcus-aurelius-say-live-a-good-life

>> No.13735979

>>13735974
what hell?

>> No.13735980

>good
>virtue
>morality

These things are not self-evident or present in nature, they are aspects of our psyche and there are no gods to reward you in an afterlife for attending to these things. The only reason to be good is it makes you feel good, and being of use to others is usually mutually beneficial anyway.

>> No.13735990

>>13735972
>dogs have more virtues than the average person, are they any better in the eyes of gods?
Yes. In fact, the guard the Chinvat Bridge.

>> No.13735991

>>13735975
Debatable only because nobody has any proof of most preantiquity texts.
Socrates was not real, so "his" writings could have in fact been written by another "Plato" that could have taken from another source ie Aurelius.
I would like to believe that Socrates was the aesthetic ideal that Plato lived up to and his followers passed on through the years to further influence many like Marcus.

>> No.13736037

>>13735991
Was Socrates actually not real? What about his heroism in wars? Also faux?

>> No.13736038

>>13735958
>Good is doing what is right by morality, morality is based on religion/culture.
>live a good life.
>live a life that follows the morality of your religion/culture.
>If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been
do you see the problem? you're implying that to be good, you just have to follow the morality of your culture, but the quote says the exact opposite. he's implying an objective Good.

>> No.13736042

>Virtue
Better hope you spent a lot of time in Africa helping the pygmies or whatever. By no other factor would you be considered "good" in the eyes of an omniescent being. Evil isn't just what we do, it's also what we /fail/ to do.

>> No.13736063

>>13735903
>Implying you cant talk to God while alive
Embarrasing

>> No.13736076

>>13736037
It is debatable, there are no historical accounts of Socrates as man, just his living works written by his understudy/successor Plato.
It is much like Jesus and with no real proofs it is impossible to ever actually know for sure.
>>13736038
Free will isn't reals etc etc.
In context of the Stoic philosophers, there is a GOOD that is seperate and real.
It is influenced by nature and the avoidance of BASE needs.
In the context of good outside of the sphere of stocism, good is outright affected by moralism, otherwise any action can be construed as "good" not GOOD in the sense of in accordance to nature.

>> No.13736079

>>13736063
what

>> No.13736139

>>13736076
my point is that he doesn't make a clear statement on whether or not there is a God or gods, but he clearly states that there is objective Good. where does he think this objective Good can come from, if not from a Judge?

>> No.13736148

OP quote destroyed in a single sentence:
>objectively speaking, there is no such thing as "good" or "noble"

>> No.13736153

>>13735903
>just
>the gods will surely abide by my definition of just and virtue
Guy was a brainlet. Meditations was retarded

>> No.13736160
File: 32 KB, 500x371, durr.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13736160

>>13735903
>Religion destroyed with a single sentence
>posts 4 sentences

>> No.13736165

>>13736139
It comes from the inherit state of Goodness.
Stoicism in particular is anal about absolutes as in this exists, I can perceive it exists, therefore there exists this in it's oneness.
There is no judge, what is good (to oneself or nature) is GOOD, this exists as I can determine right or wrong (without influence from any of the gods) therefore there must be a higher form of GOOD I can achieve in order to live the best life I can.
>he doesn't make a clear statement
Because, while the Greeks were focused on absolutes, a lot of their philosophy was scattered and roundabout.

>> No.13736206

>>13736153
>worshiping gods that don't play on the same level like us
retard

>> No.13736216

>>13735958
this is factually wrong, you may eat meat, but clearly torturing an animal for the sake of it is wrong, albeit using for spectacle not so much: elephant in circus neutral, but if in bad conditions, bad

>> No.13736224

>>13736165
sounds like a pretty bland philosophy

>> No.13736261

>>13736216
>this is factually wrong
Nothing I said is wrong or contrary to your retort.
List exactly what I said was wrong before commenting on my post.
>>13736224
It is, I started my readings with the Greek greats.
There are many themes and ideas they propose that give me something, more of indifference to things hence stoicism. Stocisim is basically freewill without freewill, what is is, you can't let the outside affect you, you are your own person but you should live with nature and don't succumb to your faults.
It is a lot like religion in that way I guess.

>> No.13736267

>>13735991
>>13736037
>>13736076

There is no debate about the existence of either Socrates or Jesus amongst anyone who understands how history as a discipline works. For sure, we have hard time knowing the historical person behind the myth they turned into, but their existence is deniable by any reasonable standard of evidence.

For Socrates there is not only Plato, but also another of his students, Xenophon, as well as the contemporary play Clouds by Aristophanes. Additionally there is another tradition, or rather traditions, independent of any of the above, likely originating from his other disciples that is preserved in secondary sources like Diogenes Laertios.

As for Jesus, the Bible itself is a fairly good source regardless of what rabid atheists on the Internet say. Additionally there is the Testimonium Flavianum which, it should be said, is a later Christian fabrication. The funny thing about it is though that when you remove all the overtly Christian parts of it you are left with a perfectly Flavian sentence containing the expression "doer of paradoxical deeds". This is not a very Christian wording and indeed seems to imply certain scepticism on the part of author which fits a Jew like Flavius Josephus. The word is also quite rare, occurring exactly one other time in our extant corpus of Ancient Greek, namely in the same book when Josephus is talking about another itinerant Jewish miracle maker. Were the entire sentence a fabrication then, the otherwise rather clumsy scribe would have had to make an extremely choice use of the word all of a sudden. There is also Justin Martyr who is reporting stuff like Jesus specializing in ploughs and yokes in his carpentry business, which he could have technically received second-hand from eyewitnesses.

However, the big point which Jesus birthers miss is that a Jewish preacher telling his disciples to go and make all nations his followers in a time that was rife with Jewish preachers going around and causing ruckus is rather easy on Occam's razor whereas all the theories supposing Jesus to not have existed must jump multiple hoops to explain away the very first generations of Christians evidently thinking Jesus of Nazareth a real man.

>> No.13736278

>>13735972
All dogs go to heaven. Except pitbulls.

>> No.13736283

>>13736261
should i read hesiod before the iliad? i'm reading greek history right now and it seems like it could provide insight into greek life at the time, but idk.

>> No.13736294

>>13736283

There's no right or wrong order, just read what you feel like reading first. You'll probably want to read both anyway.

>> No.13736296

>>13736267
I didn't contend these people weren't real, just their feats/actuality were not.
Socrates could have been a great teacher that influenced many men and Jesus could have done the same.
I contest their feats/lives as attested by their followers/enemies.
These people as men may have existed, though these people as "them" are suspect.

>> No.13736307

>>13736294
i already have both, i just want to have as much context as possible before i read homer

>> No.13736350

>>13736296

Ah, sorry, I thought that might have been the case, but have evidently run into too many "Socrates/Jesus literally didn't exist" -types in my time and jumped the gun here. That said I'm perhaps a bit more positive about our ability to tease out something about the historical person from our sources, but I do agree that the two as they appear in our sources are highly mythologized and therefore suspect.

>>13736307

Well, I think reading Hesiod is going to give you context for Homer and reading Homer is going to give context for Hesiod. If you have the chance, it might be a good idea to skim through the contents of those Oxbridge Companions to Homer/Hesiod for context. There's been such a shit ton written that they'll likely answer at least a couple of questions you might have.

>> No.13736351

What is just? Is power a virtue?

>> No.13736357

>>13735903
Very based Marcus Aurelius poster.

>> No.13736365

>>13735903
This attidude supports religious life rather than "destroying" it. It is anticipating Pascal's reasoning.

>> No.13736374

>>13736350
No need to apologize; my posts left much to be desired and I can understand where the confusion would come from.
I need to read more into the Christian texts and supplementing works, as despite being raised Catholic, I haven't even read half of the bible.

>> No.13736381

>>13736278
Neither pitbulls nor cats should be bred or transported around imo. It's not their faults.

>> No.13736388

>>13736278
kek

>> No.13736406

>>13736351
Asking what is just is asking what is right (good) which again is morally subjective.
Power in the physical sense is a virtue as a strong body is a desirable feature especially in the sphere of aesthetics.
Power as in political power is often unused and in no way an idication of one's virtue.
Power is also the basis for JUSTICE if that was your original question to begin with.

>> No.13736422

>>13735974
>hey man it's my religion that's correct and not anyone elses
>eternal torturer in hell

>> No.13736453

>>13735980
Why do we have notions of simple things such as virtue if they do not exist? Why futz with moral language if it so evident morality does not exist? You’re sophomoric atheism is tiring

>> No.13736461

>>13735912
seeking to maximize the pleasure of other beings through your actions

>> No.13736485

>>13735903
>If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been
How does this make any sense?

>> No.13736674

>>13735980
I don't know. But more importantly, neither do you.

>> No.13736681
File: 137 KB, 340x340, 729.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13736681

>god is only just if he agrees with my subjective, human moral standards

>> No.13736684

>>13735912
Quid est virtue?

>> No.13736696

>>13736037
No, he was a real person, although he never wrote anything down himself, likely out of principle. "Socrates'" words are written in Plato, Xenophon, and a few others. I'm most familiar with the Platonic Socrates. Some of these are clearly (IMO) Plato conveying what Socrates said/thought or at least what he might have thought, others are probably more or less Plato using him as a stock character. Euthyphro, Phaedo, Apology dialogues for instance are almost certainly pretty straight accounts of Socrates, whereas "Socrates" in the Republic is probably more of a literary device.

The sort of radical skepticism that leads to tards like >>13735991 saying he never existed is mostly a by-product of attempts to discredit Christianity.

>> No.13736704
File: 151 KB, 600x980, 1526888980863.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13736704

Imagine if he was actually that cringe

>> No.13736705

>>13735903
>Live a good life
>tfw life full of poor decisions and wrong choices
>tfw was doomed to this due to poor upbringing and bad genetics
>tfw started to obtain some consciousness and self-responsibility only in your middle twenties

>> No.13736748

>>13736704
wtf i love marcus aurelius now

>> No.13736754

But whaf if there are evil gods, who will punish you if you live a good life?

>> No.13736773

>>13736681
It's literally (mathematically) impossible to think otherwise

>> No.13736789

>>13735903
I dont think masturbating to blacked threads on /gif/ or never leaving your room constitute virtue

>> No.13736792

>>13735990
Cynics were right.

>> No.13736818

>>13736773
How so?

>> No.13736829

>>13736773
Why are you shitposting right now, anon, and not out doing good? By shitposting right now, aren't you committing evil by allowing it to fester? And how much of your life has been spent /not/ doing good? If the total worth of your life was measured purely by your actions, would you honestly be able to justify your existence to a deity who saw everything about you?

>> No.13736882

>>13736818
1. Let's assume that one has a "subjective moral code" (the sense of what is just or injust)
2. Let's assume that any moral code that's different and incompatible with one's own is considered immoral (or unjust)
3. Thus if a God doesn't "agree" with one's moral code, such God has to be considered unjust

>> No.13736908

>>13735903
Unrelated but how did they get marble to look like his hair and beard? Beards and hair look like they would be really hard to carve out of marble.

>> No.13736911

>>13736908
They made the hair out of fossilized spaghetti

>> No.13736913

>>13736829
>and not out doing good?
Cringe

>> No.13736918

>>13735974
>believing in the eternal punishment lottery
you sure you picked the right lotto numbers? I mean the right religion?

>> No.13736920

>>13736882
Sure, if you're so stubborn that you can't set aside your own morals and defer to God's judgment.

>> No.13736927

Epicurus was all over that way before Aurelius. Why go out of your way to quote Aurelius instead? More than half of his philosophies are plagiarized from earlier stoics and hedonists. Dude's overrated.

>> No.13736935

>>13736920
But once you "defer to God's judgement", then you don't hold your original moral code anymore.

>> No.13736941

>>13736935
Exactly. That's the point. Stop following your made up morals and follow what God has revealed.

>> No.13736948

>>13736941
which god?

>> No.13736957

>>13735912
Doing more good than is expected of you, doing less evil than you are capable of.

>> No.13736964

>>13736918
Yeah, he's sure. Certainty is a mark of the biggest shit-heel and evangelist christian certainty makes a mockery and a grimace of all faith.

>> No.13736972

>>13736920
Ever seen that experiment showing how even a monkey can be aware of the fairness in a situation? Justice is easy, not relative.

>> No.13736978

>>13736941
>Stop following your made up morals and follow my made up morals given to me by old people who totally promise that God said it.

>> No.13736984

>>13736935
If I am supposed to get my morals from God, then where did God get his morals from?
Your argument sounds like a simple Argument at Authority:
>God is always right because he's older and more powerful than you

>> No.13736988

>>13736984
Sorry, I was meaning to reply to
>>13736941

>> No.13737006

>>13736984
God is always right because He is God. He doesn't need to get his morals from anywhere because morality does not precede Him. He is thus not obligated to act in a certain way. He does what He wills and will not be questioned about anything He does, but we will all be questioned about our deeds.

>> No.13737011

>>13735903

Go back to /his/

>> No.13737016

>>13736984
>then where did God get his morals from?
where did you get your arms from lol

>> No.13737032

>>13737006
Well, once you define God as being always right, then your argument makes sense. But why would you presuppose that?
Afterall, if a God has a will, a moral code of his own, and he communicates with humans, then he must be a conscious being, and conscious beings are notorious for making mistakes all the time.

>> No.13737093

>>13737032
I presuppose that, firstly, because He has revealed Himself as such, and secondly, since it only follows that an imperfect creator (which, being imperfect, would not be necessary), cannot be the origin of all that exists. Moreover, God is not merely a being among other beings but is pure, unadulterated being, even the ground of being, and therefore perfect; and He cannot be called conscious, or even consciousness, which is the creator of consciousness and conscious beings. He transcends all such things and is not limited by them.

>> No.13737142

>>13737093
According to the Christian religious tradition, God has signed the Old Covenant with Israelites only. He explicitly told the Israelites to invade, kill, and enslave other nations. Later he revoked the Old Covenant, signing the New Covenant - this time including all human ethnicities, and with diametrically different teachings.
If God is never wrong, then why did he change his mind?
If God is all-knowing, then why did he cast Adam and Eve out of paradise and impart guilt (the original sin) on all future generations? He should have known what the humans will do.
If God always knows what's best, then what's even the point of prayer? Why does God require worship?

[That post assumes you follow the Christian religious tradition, which is but one of countless religious traditions]

>> No.13737162

>>13736461
That's not virtue, that's a virtue. Learn the difference.

>> No.13737175

>>13737142
I'm a Muslim.

>> No.13737195

>>13737162
no, that is virtue and the ways of achieving it are virtues

>> No.13737196

>>13737142
>According to the Christian religious tradition, God has signed the Old Covenant with Israelites only. He explicitly told the Israelites to invade, kill, and enslave other nations. Later he revoked the Old Covenant, signing the New Covenant - this time including all human ethnicities, and with diametrically different teachings.
>If God is never wrong, then why did he change his mind?
Not a christian (or op), but wouldnt the easy explanation for this seeming inconstancy be the just say god is anti-Semitic? It would explain why in the old testament he is always telling jews to kill other desert tribes and giving them laws like circumcision or stoning your children for being disobedient. Only to suddenly be all love thy neighbor and forgiveness when he address the whole world?

>> No.13737203

>>13735903
Isnt this quote meant more as a btfo of polytheism than monotheism?

>> No.13737219

>>13735920
impossible. another quote by Marcus goes something like "stop worrying about what a good man does, and just be one."

>> No.13737226

>>13735972
yes of course dogs are better than humans. is this a real question?

Diogenes fo lyf

>> No.13737248

>>13735974
it's amazing to me that there are actually people as stupid as you who are capable of using a computer. truly amazing.