Meditaciones (edició 2012)

In my edition of "Meditations" the prologue described in exceptional detail the context of this book. Here's what I found:

1. Marcus Aurelius is now interpreted as a venerable stoic, not necessarily because of what he did in his lifetime, but because he treated the senate exceptionally well, which later members have gone to write of him in glorious, superfluous dialogues that influence our understanding of him to this day.

2. Aurelius wasn't a stoic; while he might have considered himself a stoic if you were to ask him, the truth is he was just a roman emperor who happen to take philosophy as a hobby.

And finally, 3. Meditations is not philosophy book: it doesn't build itself up to any core ideas, and it doesn't try to explain what's being represented through any line of logic. It's a philo-spiritual diary that was never meant to be published.

This book isn't exceptional, and while what may have been written could be assuring to some as a sort of collection of self-help axioms, don't come into this thinking it's learnable philosophy.

Personal Note: Marcus Aurelius is an absolute drag! Always practical, on that sigma grind, never any fun, How can you call that a life worth living? Life's about experience: meeting new people and gaining new perspective. While he does thank all the people who have influenced him for the first book (which was very considerate and sweet, I'll give him that), he literally starts by dissing books. Books! Y'know, what "Meditations" is? What a Philistine! ( )

In my edition of "Meditations" the prologue described in exceptional detail the context of this book. Here's what I found:

1. Marcus Aurelius is now interpreted as a venerable stoic, not necessarily because of what he did in his lifetime, but because he treated the senate exceptionally well, which later members have gone to write of him in glorious, superfluous dialogues that influence our understanding of him to this day.

2. Aurelius wasn't a stoic; while he might have considered himself a stoic if you were to ask him, the truth is he was just a roman emperor who happen to take philosophy as a hobby.

And finally, 3. Meditations is not philosophy book: it doesn't build itself up to any core ideas, and it doesn't try to explain what's being represented through any line of logic. It's a philo-spiritual diary that was never meant to be published.

This book isn't exceptional, and while what may have been written could be assuring to some as a sort of collection of self-help axioms, don't come into this thinking it's learnable philosophy.

Personal Note: Marcus Aurelius is an absolute drag! Always practical, on that sigma grind, never any fun, How can you call that a life worth living? Life's about experience: meeting new people and gaining new perspective. While he does thank all the people who have influenced him for the first book (which was very considerate and sweet, I'll give him that), he literally starts by dissing books. Books! Y'know, what "Meditations" is? What a Philistine! ( )

Reading this feels like I'm reading the original source for a lot of other books. ( )

"Az emberi élet tartama pillanat; az anyag változó, az érzékelés homályos; egész testünk összetétele könnyen romlandó; a lélek ide-oda kapkodás; a szerencse kifürkészhetetlen; a hírnév bizonytalan. Egyszóval: minden testi dolog rohanó vízfolyás, minden lelki jelenség álom és ködkép, az élet harc és számkivetés, az utókor dicsérete feledés. Mi hát a biztos vezető? Egy, csak egyetlenegy: a filozófia - írja a filozófus-császár a Garam partján. A nem szűnő önvizsgálatnak, a helyes út keresésének, az önmagával folytatott párbeszédnek megragadó dokumentuma ez a mű, amely mindig is kedvelt olvasmány volt és marad."

"Mi az igazság? Milyen igazságelméleteket ismerünk? Miben rejlik a logika ereje? Hogyan vonhatunk le helyes következtetéseket? Mit jelent a homályosság a logikában? Mit bizonyít a matematikai és a nyelvi érv a logikában? - ezekre és az ehhez hasonló kérdésekre ad választ ez a könyv, amely a logika filozófiájába vezeti be olvasóját. Igazság és helyes következtetés - ezek kutatására vállalkozik Stephen Read, a St. Andrews Egyetem tanára, s ez a kutatás szorosan összefügg a paradoxon problémájával. A paradoxon számos helyen felütheti a fejét, s feloldás után kiált. Miközben ennek módját megleljük, többet tudunk meg az igazság, a következmény és a valóság természetéről, mint amennyit az alapvető elvek bármiféle átfogó áttekintése valaha is nyújthat. A kiindulópont ezért a logika filozófiájának szíve és lelke: az igazság fogalma, azoknak az alapvető elveknek a vizsgálata, amelyek kiiktathatatlanul meghatározzák azt, ahogyan a nyelv megfelelésbe kerül a világgal."

Stoicism is healthy in small doses. Embrace it too fully, and in my view, it leads incontrovertibly to nihilism (or something darn close!). This book reminds me of the wisdom of Ecclesiastes, but like on steroids. ( )