Always remember the following: what the nature of the Whole is; what is my own nature; the relation of this nature to that; what kind of part it is of what kind of Whole; and that no man can hinder your saying and doing at all times what is in accordance with that Nature whereof you are a part.
—Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, II.9
The motto of Stoic philosophy is, as Seneca mentions more than once, ‘to live according to nature’ (secundum naturam vivere). What exactly did the Stoics mean by ‘nature’?
Traditionally, Stoic ontology is materialistic and monistic: the universe is ultimately made of a single, material substance. Stoics used the terms ‘nature” and ‘God’ interchangeably (which resembles more the kind of pantheism of Spinoza). There is no ‘outside” or ‘beyond’ the cosmos, nothing super-natural—the Stoic model of the universe is entirely self-contained. God, as defined by classical theism, has no place in Stoic thought. As for myself, I prefer to simply use the term the Whole, as Marcus Aurelius sometimes used.
According to the Stoics, human beings are a part of the cosmos, and as such, we should imitate the whole of the cosmos, rather than see ourselves as somehow separate from it. Nature then is seen as an organic unity and it is when we strive against that unity (thinking ourselves as separate beings rather than integrated), we are fighting a futile battle, only tiring ourselves out, making ourselves miserable in the process. What Marcus Aurelius is suggesting in the passage above then is that we take a bigger view of things.
And so, ‘to live according to the nature’ means to realise oneself as an expression of the Whole, rather than in terms of a fragmentary being struggling against other fragmentary beings. While there are many of other debatable aspects of what the Stoics referred to as physics, the implications of this fundamental ontological view of the cosmos is essential for understanding Stoic ethics.
Can you read Greek? I would love to read Meditations in the original Greek. I wonder how much the Christian translators inserted "God" over the years from the original and how close the manuscripts we're using are to the original. Meditations uses universe, God, gods, logos almost all seemingly interchangeably, but I wonder if there is not more to it than that.
ReplyDeleteHey, Joshua, good to see you here! Well, I can read koinos Greek (which was the Greek used in Marcus Aurelius' day), however, that is literally all I can do. Many years ago I began some lessons in Greek and got far enough to be able to read and pronounce it (the pronunciation as spoken by those in the Greek Orthodox Church). Unfortunately, that is about as far as I got, though there are particular words I am able to make out in a general way-- so I know just enough Greek to be dangerous!
ReplyDeleteThe Loeb edition of the Meditations contains the original Greek, and while the translation (by Haines-- which, even for 1915, when it was first published, is terribly outdated) isn't great, it at least contains the original Greek and the translation does at least try to stick closely to the Greek text. For that reason, even with a little knowledge of Greek, it can be handy to examine in places. From what I understand, the Meditations is rather challenging and cumbersome for beginners in Greek (Gregory Hays' "Hemingway-esque" translation is apparently misleading).
Actually, I have only begun to learn classical Latin (slowly but surely) just because I think it is a beautiful and fascinating language (and reading Seneca in the original would be interesting too). But I would like one day to revisit ancient Greek so I can do more than slowly read aloud words I can't even understand! Marcus Aurelius would definitely be at the top of my list too...
I want to address the rest of your comment in a blog post-- I think it warrants a longer and more detailed reply and so I'll probably post something in the next day or so.