There were many Popes in western history that could be compared to M. Aurelius. Other than that this guy is right, and I would still say that Marcus Aurelius was the greatest man to ever live. Hope we still have some of his DNA lyin around somewhere....
Are you weary of enduring the bad man of the world? The gods aren't, and they made them. Are you really weary of enduring the bad man of the world, especially given you are one of them."
@TheDuckmonk Marcus Aurelius's DNA gave the Roman's his son Commodus, the worst emperor (or amoung the worst at least). So I think it was not DNA that made him great, it was his choices.
Everybody thinking honestly: Who each one think are most likely to be with power [a kind of one person's power that no longer exist in our time]; Caligula, Gengis Khan, Napoleon or Marcus Aurelius?
@Songsmirth Not so much born bad, but born to be selfish and childish. A child who remains a child is to be pitied, a child who become a grown man or woman and who willing accepts the weight of their new station is to be lauded. In short, he's telling the world and it's people to get a set and grow up.
@TheDuckmonk I agree Marcus was probably a bad father. the man had 13 children dieon him. 13! I imagine after so many children died, hewould stop getting as connected to them. Commodus was the only male to live, so I can imagine his father was very distant in un-affectionate. of course this is all spculation, after 1800 yrs we can't say much for certain about Marcus Aurelius. my guess: Commodus made himself deliberately the opposite of his father. A sort of revenge for never getting love..
I like the presentation, although I have issues with it. The individual makes many irrational statements, Like: Marcus Aurelius is the most virtuous man in the world. Does he know this for a fact? What is he talking about?
Though interesting, the assumptions are invalid. Anyone who is part of the ongoing awakening knows that Aurelius was not lonely. He was isolated. There is a vast difference. What kind of person writes a book to self? Awakened (enlightened) people. And they all say the same things as Aurelius said. This would be a better lecture if the lecturer had experienced his own awakening. Until then, he can only make inaccurate assumptions.
To me, it was a Journal, a book with enough pages. I don't find it odd at all. He kept experiments on his philosophy, Edison for example, kept one of his experiments of his inventions.Although for the era, writing wasn't as easy as it is today.
Claiming someone is "the loneliest person in the world" can never be validated. Thus it is in an invalid assertion. It is more prudent to say "so and so felt extremely lonely", or "people thought him very lonely". Qualifying the statement with "perhaps" makes it also acceptable, but the man who presented the lecture made rather absurd statements purely for effect when he could have made correct assertions and maintained a high level of credibility. Bad communication is, well, bad communication.
@RationalPrejudice you've inadvertantly contradicted your own point. If you can't control it how can you change it? The Stoic school of thought on this matter extends to reputation and the general populace's base and selfish nature. The point is people will always speak ill of you, but as long as you remain virtuous, that won't matter. The virtuous man is the polar opposite of the scapegoat.
I like the lecture but I didn't like it when he alludes to Marcus Aurelius as perfect at arund 5:20. That type of vision of a person might lead to worship and an uncritical eye
what about a recognition of what it is to be human...what about knowing your audience? This presenter may be taking logical liberties for the sake of an interesting tale. Yes, "interesting" is subjective, but people won't sit and listen to a robot give a list of facts...get my point?
Let me give you an example. When you call someone the noisiest person in the world, you better make sure that your statement is true. Otherwise you are lying. The presentation given is loaded with irrational assertions that are not verifiable. This is what I was referring to. Presumably, a philosopher should be observant of the science of logical communication if he is to be taken seriously.
Ummm, lets see. Maybe someone trained rigorously in the craft of logic, and pure mathematics. While I do respect the work of some philosophers like Heidegger, I find the reasoning style of many of today's academic pseudo-philosophers horrific. Yes, there are people out there who still think and speak clearly and logically even when making assertions about metaphysics. Again! It is imperative that people learn to think and speak before embracing philosophy! Sorry--no royal path to Gmtry!
Sorry, such liberties do not belong in the classroom, nor in the mouth of someone claiming to be a philosopher. You can be eloquent and speak clearly. Exaggerating for the sake of effect is what I call poor communication skills. Period.
that shit doesn't matter
focus on what matters, grab what you can learn from and move on.
"We shall not see his like again".
True and untrue.
"Soon you will have forgotten all things, and all things will have forgotten you"
very good encapsulation. I am happy to have run across this.
There were many Popes in western history that could be compared to M. Aurelius. Other than that this guy is right, and I would still say that Marcus Aurelius was the greatest man to ever live. Hope we still have some of his DNA lyin around somewhere....
Are you weary of enduring the bad man of the world?
The gods aren't, and they made them.
Are you really weary of enduring the bad man of the world, especially given you are one of them."
@TheDuckmonk Marcus Aurelius's DNA gave the Roman's his son Commodus, the worst emperor (or amoung the worst at least). So I think it was not DNA that made him great, it was his choices.
well done thanks for sharing
Everybody thinking honestly:
Who each one think are most likely to be with power [a kind of one person's power that no longer exist in our time]; Caligula, Gengis Khan, Napoleon or Marcus Aurelius?
@Songsmirth Not so much born bad, but born to be selfish and childish. A child who remains a child is to be pitied, a child who become a grown man or woman and who willing accepts the weight of their new station is to be lauded. In short, he's telling the world and it's people to get a set and grow up.
What is this guy's name? Fantastic lecture series!
Michael Sugrue - - www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/plato-socrates-and-the-dialogues.html
@TheDuckmonk I agree Marcus was probably a bad father. the man had 13 children dieon him. 13! I imagine after so many children died, hewould stop getting as connected to them. Commodus was the only male to live, so I can imagine his father was very distant in un-affectionate. of course this is all spculation, after 1800 yrs we can't say much for certain about Marcus Aurelius.
my guess: Commodus made himself deliberately the opposite of his father. A sort of revenge for never getting love..
I like the presentation, although I have issues with it. The individual makes many irrational statements, Like: Marcus Aurelius is the most virtuous man in the world. Does he know this for a fact? What is he talking about?
has anyone here not heard of Ashoke??
Everything we hear is opinion & not fact. Everything we see is perspective, & not truth.
I think he's just like a first year philosophy student or something...
Though interesting, the assumptions are invalid. Anyone who is part of the ongoing awakening knows that Aurelius was not lonely. He was isolated. There is a vast difference. What kind of person writes a book to self? Awakened (enlightened) people. And they all say the same things as Aurelius said.
This would be a better lecture if the lecturer had experienced his own awakening. Until then, he can only make inaccurate assumptions.
To me, it was a Journal, a book with enough pages. I don't find it odd at all. He kept experiments on his philosophy, Edison for example, kept one of his experiments of his inventions.Although for the era, writing wasn't as easy as it is today.
Claiming someone is "the loneliest person in the world" can never be validated. Thus it is in an invalid assertion. It is more prudent to say "so and so felt extremely lonely", or "people thought him very lonely". Qualifying the statement with "perhaps" makes it also acceptable, but the man who presented the lecture made rather absurd statements purely for effect when he could have made correct assertions and maintained a high level of credibility. Bad communication is, well, bad communication.
@RationalPrejudice you've inadvertantly contradicted your own point. If you can't control it how can you change it? The Stoic school of thought on this matter extends to reputation and the general populace's base and selfish nature. The point is people will always speak ill of you, but as long as you remain virtuous, that won't matter. The virtuous man is the polar opposite of the scapegoat.
I like the lecture but I didn't like it when he alludes to Marcus Aurelius as perfect at arund 5:20.
That type of vision of a person might lead to worship and an uncritical eye
what about a recognition of what it is to be human...what about knowing your audience? This presenter may be taking logical liberties for the sake of an interesting tale. Yes, "interesting" is subjective, but people won't sit and listen to a robot give a list of facts...get my point?
Let me give you an example. When you call someone the noisiest person in the world, you better make sure that your statement is true. Otherwise you are lying. The presentation given is loaded with irrational assertions that are not verifiable. This is what I was referring to. Presumably, a philosopher should be observant of the science of logical communication if he is to be taken seriously.
Ummm, lets see. Maybe someone trained rigorously in the craft of logic, and pure mathematics.
While I do respect the work of some philosophers like Heidegger, I find the reasoning style of many of today's academic pseudo-philosophers horrific.
Yes, there are people out there who still think and speak clearly and logically even when making assertions about metaphysics.
Again! It is imperative that people learn to think and speak before embracing philosophy! Sorry--no royal path to Gmtry!
Sorry, such liberties do not belong in the classroom, nor in the mouth of someone claiming to be a philosopher. You can be eloquent and speak clearly. Exaggerating for the sake of effect is what I call poor communication skills. Period.