Very little philosophy in Meditations if you ask me. It's a self help book written by a Roman emperor.

He included much of the wisdom of his time, but its also just what he told himself to rationalize his own experience.

And the problem is that the author just vaguely appeals to "lessons" or "teachings," but then just poorly paraphrases them into modern language that suits him. It's very similar to how we hear appeals to the founding fathers, the same two hundred years old quotes that get dragged up in objection. They imply us to ignore the contradictions, accept the appeal to authority, and insist that it should only applies to this one topic.

But armed with a few quotes from the ancients and from the founding fathers, the twenty something political science major can now weather any criticism, because he is simply acting upon his stoic reflection. If his critics were less emotional, if they were more stoic, if they understood Meditations, they they would agree.

What right wingers often do when they appeal to Aurelius, is they purify their own intentions, elevating their political opinions to the status of revealed truth after they proclaim to have done the same hard work that Aurelius did.

The result is someone who thinks their own thoughts are pure, and everyone else's are hindered and impaired by emotion. And this can permit them to maintain indefensible ideals through any criticism.

Meditations is less philosophy, more self help/religion.

> If his critics were less emotional, if they were more stoic, if they understood Meditations, they they would agree.

This is the key point, not of just Aurelius, but of the majority of conversations/debates that take place in political discourse. Implicit within these debates is the notion that the opposing party lacks knowledge about a certain thing and they would change their mind (and political party/ideology) if only they were exposed to such knowledge. This is faulty thinking. As it has been mentioned recently on this subreddit, facts do actually care about your feelings, because feelings is what animates us into action and it is through these actions that political change occurs (for better or worse).

Likewise, learning/spreading knowledge is important, but it is the value-judgements that one has of the knowledge that they have which is more important. Value-judgements are buttressed by knowledge, but they do not create them/follow at 1-1 path. I could explain something quite well to someone, have more knowledge than them, impart it upon them, but that still not change their value-judgement. We all heard the quote, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” but I would not go as far to say that someone "refuses to change" when presented with new information. Does he have an obligation to change? Is that information actually correct, pertinent to the conversation?

Someone could present to me several novel facts about a topic that are interesting and important, but it no way change my value-judgment on the topic. In fact, that person may be trying to dislodge me from pursuing my material interests surrounding a topic by leaning hard into moral/ethical (but not material) reasons why I should vacate pursuing my material interests. In this case my value-judgement isn't really at all predicated upon knowledge, but an understanding of the zero-sum game I find myself within the political framework and the struggles that I have with others who are likewise operating within the very same zero-sum game.

In short, I am not obligated to "change" my value-judgement when someone presents what he thinks is novel information to me. It is not a sin of my own that I didn't change. Perhaps the speaker was not sufficiently persuasive, and should dwell within his own lack of virtue in this regard.

So what do you advise in true philosophy?

Not OP, but modern philosophy has shifted pretty heavily away from the metaphysical, and most discussions require some amount of empiricism to hold any actual value.

Basically if the claims you're making can't be verified (or if they cannot be falsified) then they're generally disregarded, or they're analyzed further to see if there's any actual truth that can be verified/useful.

Meditations is not that. It's mostly a collection of bold statements that worked specifically for him. But even though they worked for this grand emperor, that doesn't mean they will work for you, or that they are the most correct thing to do, or that they're even relevant in a modern context.

I would say take Meditations as the musings of a pretty decent emperor, and do what people do with most religious/self help texts and pick the parts that apply to you.

And keep in mind that you're not a Roman emperor with advisors and a practically endless supply of wealth, and the ability to basically do what you want anyway.

And then read Hume, Locke, Russel, and my favorite: AJ Ayer.

I've always thought about this, too! I knew a lot of would-be stoics in college and, besides how stoicism in general is misinterpreted, the Meditations is always particularly thorny for me.

Like no one ever seems to talk about Aurelius' philosophy from the point of view that he was the most privileged person (arguably) in the known world.

OF COURSE he would want people to do what's good for the state without emotion or worry about strife - he needs them to in order to justify his rule.

That is more empiricism…moving into modern of modern philosophy, the claim that cannot be verified but have some rational backup can also be a possible of the knowledge. You cannot verify everything… (skepticism).

This is a particularly naive take given the scope of Aurelius' life and the lives of other Stoics (who were variably affected by their "privilege"). Yes, Aurelius was privileged in terms of his social status, but he was weathered by misfortune in his relationships and health. He was given power, but used it well for the benefit of those affected by his power--not just himself. In this case, not his philosophy but the results of his philosophy in application justify his rule and place him among the "five good emperors".

The point of Aurelius' privilege is his perspective towards it, which is that his circumstances are transient and both fortune and misfortune come and go throughout time. He knew, as you do, that he did not earn his privilege and therefore could not claim it as his victory. For this reason--not the privilege itself--Aurelius is of note.

Simply looking at the highs of these Stoics' lives and using them to cast doubt on the validity of their philosophy as a whole is a very partial understanding of their lives and work and does them a disservice.