Marcus Aurelius-the closest ideal to the unrealistic idea of a philosopher king. On a separate note, I wish I had lecturers like this guy-thoroughly engaging to listen to.
Professor Sugrue has a GREAT lecture series on the examined life and lectures over multiple Platonic Dialogues. He goes into the esoteric meaning that he derives from Plato. Reads the Dialogues almost as beautifully as Leo Strauss or Allan Bloom
This was a great lecture, came in very handy preparing for my ethics mid-semester exam. I love the way he just flows!! Does anyone know of additional posted materials by this lecturer (ANY subject matter).
Good for you. I have -however- both met and read about stoics and I always had the idea that those people feel really oppressed by their sense of what they consider their "duty". As a matter of fact we're born with no duties (that's why we're not agents of any force or spirit), thus we have no reason to hypothesize that we gain a "duty" as we grew older. Marcus Aurelius is a great example of a virtuous stoic, I'm not sure -however- that he was ever happy with his life though.....
My gratitude for posting a stimulating and informed presentation. My only complaint--I think the lecturer gave us the "forest" of stoicism, but missed opportunities to tell us more about its "trees." Stoicism has many practical applications to contemporary life, perhaps most especially for students.
@PaintedPorch I agree, though virtue is something many take an interest in as they get older and not something found amongst the youth. Classical studies are taught nowadays, though they concentrate on the men who lead anxious lives full of thirst for pointless glory (Alexander, Achilles, Odysseus, Alcibiades). If money wasn't the measure of success and power it would be a far better world.
>>> not everyone can bear it for one, - no, but you can still do your best, and that is the virtue of it >>>we don't have to be miserable from the inside - the truly virtuous man is apathetic to misery: a) If you CANNOT change misery, don't worry about it, b) If you CAN change it, stop whining and just change it. Your definately right about the hedonism though...!
There is a great problem with stoicism that goes unanswered all those centuries. The stoic theorizes that he's not part of the nature and that he has to do anything in accordance to nature. That -however- lives his very self outside and leads his psyche to a miserable life, all stoics fell into deep depression and that's why they were seeing death as release.
Having said that, I have to conclude that that's exactly why I "railed" against Stoicism, it hypothesizes a duty which is not there. If you have a duty then you're an agent. The argument of one being an agent -though- is fallacious by design, since we have no proof of anything -apart from us- to be logical in nature, thus we cannot act on behalf of anything, even logic since -even that- is an anthropic concept.
....of course Epicurus was a bit biased in favor of the self over the world but even so it a lot more balanced opinion (that of Epicurus). I hope that in the following decades to come people will understand the shallowness of blind hedonism and virtuous people (will) accept the shortcomings of Stoicism (not everyone can bear it for one, we don't have to be miserable from the inside -secondly).
If folks read Meditations after reading machievel's The Prince then the world would be more virtuous rather than trying to do folks over. Stoicism mixed with the social market is the way forward.
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, Idi Amin Dada or ...Marcus Aurelius?
I'm a huge admirer of Marcus Aurelius, but something I've never sussed. Unlike his four predecessors he gave Rome a truly awful heir - Commodus one of the worst rulers in history, one that the empire never really recovered from. Did he know?
He wouldn't mind Cassius, after his successful campaigns in the East. But it got into his head and proclaimed himself Emperor while Marcus bounced back from illness. In his campaign in the North. Cassius was killed by his own men to avoid a Civil war. There was no other. He made his son heir, it was by far the logical thing to do in case he did died from battle with the Germanians, Roman Rebels, and disease. But what goes up must come down. Rome expanded too much and already was running low on money from social programs. And was hit by plague. Soldiers carrying the disease from the military campaign against Parthia, spread throughout Rome thanks to the Roman Triumph ritual.
we're only born with instincts which we identify as needs. You could hardly call them a duty as not doing some of them may not ultimately drive you or your fellow humans to their doom, like for example the sexual life (there were many asexual -by choice- people in history who where rather beneficial rather than harmful to humankind, Da Vinci is a great such example). I don't think that socializing is anything different than drinking a glass of water when thirsty, or sleeping when you're tired.
I'm sorry to say but where do you get the fact that we're born with the duty to serve others? Sure we're born social animals, that's why to socialize is one of our prime needs, but there are people who would stop socializing with their original family (the one they were brought up) but still feel no drawbacks (because they socialize with other people). Think it like a quick fix. Since we're evolved and not created (as I have remarked on my previous comments),
Marcus Aurelius-the closest ideal to the unrealistic idea of a philosopher king. On a separate note, I wish I had lecturers like this guy-thoroughly engaging to listen to.
Professor Sugrue has a GREAT lecture series on the examined life and lectures over multiple Platonic Dialogues. He goes into the esoteric meaning that he derives from Plato. Reads the Dialogues almost as beautifully as Leo Strauss or Allan Bloom
I don't need none of yer fancy-pants Princeton egg-headed book-learnin! Kidding. Actually watched all 5 parts. Thanks for making this available.
Best lecture since my first taste of Terence McKenna
That was outstanding.
well done thanks for sharing
This was a great lecture, came in very handy preparing for my ethics mid-semester exam. I love the way he just flows!! Does anyone know of additional posted materials by this lecturer (ANY subject matter).
Thank you for uploading this 5 videos!
Wonderful. Thank you.
Good for you. I have -however- both met and read about stoics and I always had the idea that those people feel really oppressed by their sense of what they consider their "duty". As a matter of fact we're born with no duties (that's why we're not agents of any force or spirit), thus we have no reason to hypothesize that we gain a "duty" as we grew older. Marcus Aurelius is a great example of a virtuous stoic, I'm not sure -however- that he was ever happy with his life though.....
bravo!
id love to hear this in person
My gratitude for posting a stimulating and informed presentation. My only complaint--I think the lecturer gave us the "forest" of stoicism, but missed opportunities to tell us more about its "trees." Stoicism has many practical applications to contemporary life, perhaps most especially for students.
Thanks for the video.
Brilliant. Just watched the series. Had a thought halfway through - is Stephen Covey a Stoic - discuss..
best lecture
Thanks operaymond!
@PaintedPorch I agree, though virtue is something many take an interest in as they get older and not something found amongst the youth. Classical studies are taught nowadays, though they concentrate on the men who lead anxious lives full of thirst for pointless glory (Alexander, Achilles, Odysseus, Alcibiades).
If money wasn't the measure of success and power it would be a far better world.
"all men die, but not all men die whining"
>>> not everyone can bear it for one,
- no, but you can still do your best, and that is the virtue of it
>>>we don't have to be miserable from the inside
- the truly virtuous man is apathetic to misery: a) If you CANNOT change misery, don't worry about it, b) If you CAN change it, stop whining and just change it. Your definately right about the hedonism though...!
its been a while since ive seen videotape gently chew up the screen like that. god bless vhs
I certainly agree with u.
If you feel "oppressed" by your duty, then you are worrying about something far out of your control (destiny), and aren't truly a Stoic.
Not just the western world. The world as we know it.
Thanks
There is a great problem with stoicism that goes unanswered all those centuries. The stoic theorizes that he's not part of the nature and that he has to do anything in accordance to nature. That -however- lives his very self outside and leads his psyche to a miserable life, all stoics fell into deep depression and that's why they were seeing death as release.
Having said that, I have to conclude that that's exactly why I "railed" against Stoicism, it hypothesizes a duty which is not there. If you have a duty then you're an agent. The argument of one being an agent -though- is fallacious by design, since we have no proof of anything -apart from us- to be logical in nature, thus we cannot act on behalf of anything, even logic since -even that- is an anthropic concept.
....of course Epicurus was a bit biased in favor of the self over the world but even so it a lot more balanced opinion (that of Epicurus). I hope that in the following decades to come people will understand the shallowness of blind hedonism and virtuous people (will) accept the shortcomings of Stoicism (not everyone can bear it for one, we don't have to be miserable from the inside -secondly).
If folks read Meditations after reading machievel's The Prince then the world would be more virtuous rather than trying to do folks over.
Stoicism mixed with the social market is the way forward.
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, Idi Amin Dada or ...Marcus Aurelius?
Do you know where I could find these lectures by Professor Sugrue? I've looked for his articles, scholarly journals, and books, but I've had no luck.
I'm a huge admirer of Marcus Aurelius, but something I've never sussed. Unlike his four predecessors he gave Rome a truly awful heir - Commodus one of the worst rulers in history, one that the empire never really recovered from. Did he know?
He wouldn't mind Cassius, after his successful campaigns in the East. But it got into his head and proclaimed himself Emperor while Marcus bounced back from illness. In his campaign in the North.
Cassius was killed by his own men to avoid a Civil war.
There was no other. He made his son heir, it was by far the logical thing to do in case he did died from battle with the Germanians, Roman Rebels, and disease.
But what goes up must come down. Rome expanded too much and already was running low on money from social programs. And was hit by plague. Soldiers carrying the disease from the military campaign against Parthia, spread throughout Rome thanks to the Roman Triumph ritual.
After 8 years didn't expect this?
gold 03:00
What does he say at the very end?
"..that all man die, but not all man die ???"
we're only born with instincts which we identify as needs. You could hardly call them a duty as not doing some of them may not ultimately drive you or your fellow humans to their doom, like for example the sexual life (there were many asexual -by choice- people in history who where rather beneficial rather than harmful to humankind, Da Vinci is a great such example). I don't think that socializing is anything different than drinking a glass of water when thirsty, or sleeping when you're tired.
See The great Courses.com
I'm sorry to say but where do you get the fact that we're born with the duty to serve others? Sure we're born social animals, that's why to socialize is one of our prime needs, but there are people who would stop socializing with their original family (the one they were brought up) but still feel no drawbacks (because they socialize with other people). Think it like a quick fix. Since we're evolved and not created (as I have remarked on my previous comments),