Corrupt

• Goal
• Data
• Act

Marcus Aurelius (121 - 180)

Modern people don't often think positively of emperors, kings, or any other figure who holds exclusive rule, whether that figure is ruling over a city or a nation. They generally regard such men (and some women) as tyrants and brutal dictators, even if their actions don't grant such attitudes. Modern minds like to think of democracy as the one and only option for governing, divined to them by the gods. And who could blame them? For as long as anyone can remember they've been watching many of their rulers screw things up with little regard for the well-being of the people. It's hard for many to even imagine that there might have one day been a time in which a truly wise, just, and great ruler had ever existed. If they look deeply into the past, however, they might find that such a man has ruled on this Earth.

Introduction

Although not the natural son of an emperor, Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus ruled over the Roman Empire from 161 until his death in 180. His family was not without ties to Rome, however. His grandfather was a senator; his father, who died when Marcus was only three years old, loyally served the Empire; and his father's aunt was wife to Hadrian, emperor of Rome. Hadrian took note of Marcus at an early age, and this proved to be influential in the life he was going to lead.

After the death of Hadrian's adopted son, Lucious Aeulius, who was to be his successor, he named Antoninus Pius as his heir, granted he agreed to adopt both Marcus and Lucius Ceionius Commodus (later Lucius Verus), the son of his deceased adoptive son. Antoninus agreed to this stipulation, adopted the two boys, and took the throne. Letters from this period indicate that Marcus was an excellent student who was very bright and enthusiastic. He became familiar with various writings on philosophy, and he particularly grew to love the work of Epictetus. Not only did his philosophical mind begin to shape and expand, but also his role in politics.

When Antoninus died in 161, both Marcus Aurelius and his adoptive brother, Lucius Verus, began their reign as Augusti. The times that followed were filled with warfare, but the Empire as a whole remained quite healthy. They ruled jointly until 169, when, although the younger of the two, Verus became ill and died. From this time until 177 Marcus was Rome's sole ruler, at which time he appointed his son, Commodus, as co-emperor.

After Verus' death, Marcus spent much of his time on military campaigns. All the while--indeed, throughout his life--he kept a thoughtful, active, and critical mind. In his final ten years he wrote what would become Meditations. Probably kept simply as a diary, or a catalog of thoughts and ideas, Meditations provides probably the best peek into this speculative mind available. In it, Marcus records ideas about the world around him, thoughts to keep in mind throughout life, how to improve himself, and he even takes time to scold himself when he feels he has not upheld his ideals.

After his death in 180, his only surviving son, Lucius Aurelius Commodus Antonius (who served as co-emperor in his father's last years), became the sole ruler of the Roman Empire. It has been said that in Marcus' nearly twenty years on the throne, the only negative thing he did to the Romans was fail to accurately predict how his son would rule. However, of all the "Five Good Emperors," he was the only one to have a surviving son of his own as an heir. Tragically, what was possibly his only shortcoming was a rather large one. It's often noted that Commodus' rule was the spark that ignited the decline of the Roman Empire.

As Emperor of Rome

Marcus Aurelius, throughout his life, displayed characteristics of the philosopher king Plato theorized in his Republic generations prior. The philosopher king was to be a man of great integrity--powerful and unwilling to put up with nonsense, yet altruistic and intimate with his people--but at the same time a man of unparalleled wisdom and intelligence. The idea, quite obviously, was that only a small percentage of mankind is fit for rule. The ideal leader, therefore, will be the possessor of all just and virtuous traits, and he will stand above all others in his virtue.

Not being a natural heir to the throne, Marcus was selected for rule solely on merit with no objections. He matured into a protector of the people (what Plato called a guardian) who stood strong against relentless pressures from both the north and south. Rome was at war with Parthia for the first half-decade of his rule, but throughout his reign he had to command troops to fight off raiding tribes from Germania.

[In reference to the Five Good Emperors] Their united reigns are possibly the only period of history in which the happiness of a great people was the sole object of government.

...

If a man were called to fix the period in the history of the world, during which the condition of the human race was most happy and prosperous, he would, without hesitation, name that which elapsed from the death of Domitian to the accession of Commodus. The vast extent of the Roman empire was governed by absolute power, under the guidance of virtue and wisdom. The armies were restrained by the firm but gentle hand of four successive emperors, whose characters and authority commanded involuntary respect. The forms of the civil administration were carefully preserved by Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, and the Antonines, who delighted in the image of liberty, and were pleased with considering themselves as the accountable ministers of the laws. Such princes deserved the honour of restoring the republic had the Romans of their days been capable of enjoying a rational freedom.--The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

One might assume that any leader whose time was marred by almost constant warfare would have been a complete failure, unfit for rule. While it's difficult to know with much certainty what life was like in these times, most sources indicate that the Romans were happy and that they loved their leader. The wars of this time were defensive wars, in fact. The battles were not fought out of arrogance or orchestrated by an egomaniac seeking global conquest, nor were they to further some imperialistic agenda; rather, conflicts that had been ongoing, some for several generations, worsened once again and the Romans had no choice than to rise to the task.

Turning again to Plato, we can consider a common criticism of his Republic. In it is illustrated the kallipolis--the perfect and completely just city over which the perfect and completely just ruler will preside. However, many say that the city described is far from ideal. Critics say that the city is tyrannical, authoritarian, and that that this is not a favorable method of governance. Within this very same text, however, Plato addresses these issues.

The reluctance to accept such a city and such a form of government seem to stem from the inherent disbelief that such a place could come to be. In modern times this seems amplified: since we, in our time(s), have not seen such a ruler--a person who has been raised and groomed to be a protector of the land and of the people, and who makes decisions not based on selfish desires but on a genuine will to do good--we find it hard to accept that such places and such governments could exist. When examined closely, though, one might find that this place and this government are among the best possible.

A little flesh, a little breath, and a reason to rule all--that is myself.

Marcus Aurelius believed strongly that he was meant to rule the Romans, that this role was what the gods and Nature had intended for him, and he embraced this role. Power did not corrupt him and he did not become a tyrant; because he was just, critical, philosophical, and believed strongly that this was the life he had to lead, he stepped up and was greatly successful. The mark he has left on the world, both by the example he set and by the wisdom he has bestowed upon those after him with his attitudes and words, is a significant one.

Stoicism

All of the so-called Five Good Emperors are said to have had Stoic connections. The philosophy of these men, including Marcus Aurelius (and indeed all other Stoics), esteemed self-control and restraint highly, while placing little value on things like sexual pleasure and other physical desires.

The Stoics believed that there was much in life that could not be controlled by humans. Therefore, they essentially divided life's occurrences into two categories: that which could be controlled and that which could not. Human emotions, behavior, attitude, and all extensions of those are things human beings can influence and change; the weather, life and death, the nature of all things, the behavior of others (human or non-human), on the other hand, are not to be controlled by us as individuals.

With this distinction they found it very important to control the controllable as much as possible while not worrying about what was to be left up to the gods. They also recognized that the human mind was capable of great things and should not simply be filled up with lower thoughts and selfish desires. It was therefore important to live a virtuous and honorable life. Likewise, they did not fret when nature/the gods threw unpleasant things their way once in a while; this is simply the nature of life. Not only would it be unwise to cloud one's senses by dwelling on suffering or unpleasantness, which would interfere with reason, they understood that for the overall health of all life both good and bad was necessary. The gods, they believed, had created all and knew what was best for all.

While not a universally-held belief, many Stoics did not belief in an afterlife, and as such felt it was their duty to fulfill their roles in life while still on Earth. With those that professed this belief, there was no Heaven, no Hell, and there would be no possibility of coming back to Earth in another form. It should come as no surprise, then, that these men were great leaders: knowing that each man had his own nature, and knowing that they were naturally inclined to lead, they maximized their potential to do so. Their traits and behavior were also accommodating to strong leadership.

It's noted in history that these men--Marcus Aurelius and others of the Five Good Emperors as well, but also other Stoics--were pious men, sometimes unusually calm, collected, rational, and contemplative. But they were joyful, as well; no matter what hardships they encountered they would often have a smile on their faces and wouldn't simply turn negative at the first glimpse at misfortune. They were simple men who did not desire extravagance or luxury, nor praise.

Meditations

Late in his life, mostly while on campaigns to the north, Marcus Aurelius kept a journal which would later become the book Meditations. The book is filled with reflections that contain many Stoic ideas on a variety of subjects: life and death, the nature of things, Nature/reality itself, the gods, the good of the whole, and many other things men have to deal with on a day-to-day basis.

How ridiculous and how strange to be surprised at anything which happens in life!

Nature is amazing just how it is. It is wonderful and beautiful, and even out of the bad we can see good (because it was never really "bad" in the first place). There is beauty and compassion and love and harmony all around us, if we just look, but there is also brutality and viciousness, and the presence of unpleasant things is just as necessary as the pleasant. With regards to nature, and not our artificial ones, not a thing should be changed: it's perfect just how it is; there is a delicate balance that ensures all things work as they should. Nature had evolved to work in the way it does long before human beings came along and it will continue to work in the same way long after they are gone.

But because sometimes nature can be brutal and harsh humans began to prefer avoiding it--withdrawing from it. And so they began to create artificial worlds for themselves. Because they made themselves kings in these new worlds they started to forget that they were a part of nature too; the humans declared their superiority over the other species, and shortly after, forgot that they were simply another role-player. Everything became moralized in nature--the very same nature humans are a part of, even if they chose to believe otherwise. And of course this doesn't work because nature is outside of morality. A flood, a tornado, a hurricane--these are just natural occurrences that are neither good or bad, right or wrong, but things that must happen.

So why shed tears? It would be better to acknowledge all of these things for what they are. Nature/the gods/Reason (the same idea is referred to using different terminology throughout the text) has a plan for all men, and these planned paths work together; it is better for one to embrace the plan laid out for them than to reject it, which would almost guarantee more hardship. We should therefore live in accordance with nature, and not opposed to it. Given our plans, we've been prepared for tremendous things, but even when we are unprepared, all was according to plan; there is no "bad."

We should celebrate each day for what it is and what it brings us. We should celebrate not only the blooming of the flowers and of the leaves, but the changes of the seasons that bring about their death, as well--the cold winters, the wet rains, and the howling winds. Even though every day might not bring us good fortune, all has been done for the sake of something grander.

Pain of hand or foot is nothing unnatural, so long as hand and foot are doing their own work. Likewise no pain is contrary to the nature of man, as man, so long as he is doing man's work. And if it accords with nature, it cannot be an evil.

Good and evil are, of course, human constructs. When the hawk eats the field mouse, is not he evil as well? He has inflicted pain, suffering--indeed, even death--on another creature. Or was the mouse simply dinner?

It's important, instead of moralizing and making binary distinctions between "good" and "bad," to recognized events for what they are. It's easy to simply say a criminal is "evil" for committing whatever heinous act, but more wise to look deeper toward the source of his actions. We can simply blame the culprit and throw him in jail, but if this is all that is done, where have we combated evil? We can blame his act on his evilness, but what has been done to snuff out evil itself? The wisest response is to look critically at the situation: identify motivation and what might have led even to that, and then act appropriately.

Allowing that there are forces of good and evil at play in the realm of humans (where better for human concepts/constructs of the human mind to dwell that in the human worlds?), it's important to not simply allow oneself to be evil because "shit happens," or for any other reason. Living a virtuous, good life, instead of an evil and greedy life should be considered admirable and preferable. And indeed, if one lives in accordance with nature and its laws, one can do no evil; it is only in the worlds humans have created for themselves that men need to worry about such things.

We should not have to worry about good and evil: simply live in accordance with nature and it will take care of such things.

What is no good for the hive is no good for the bee.

The good of the whole is paramount--it is of utmost importance. This goes all the way down the line: there must be a healthy planet for there to be healthy ecosystems, healthy ecosystems for there to be healthy organisms, healthy organisms to create healthy living communities.

The above sentiment is repeated several times within the text using different language; the core idea remains the same, though: the larger system--the whole--must always be considered, and considered heavily. If the hive is destroyed then the bee--in fact, all of the bees--will be destroyed along with it. For this reason it is crucial to place every idea and action within the context of the larger system. There are many things in life that may be beneficial on some (shallow) level to the individual but bad for the whole. When an idea or action is enacted with the good of the whole in mind, however, that idea/action has the potential to do good for all.

Looking at things in a slightly different way we also see that all things, good and bad, work together for the good of the whole (meta-good). We shall not be afraid of death because it is only natural, and necessary. We shall not be jealous of our neighbors because their jobs afford them more luxury and riches; rather, we should follow our calling (or if we don't know what our calling is, find it) and do what we are best at as best we can. When everyone has found their calling and maximized their potential, the entire community benefits. It is not in the nature of a blacksmith to lead armies into battle, anyways.

Soon you will have forgotten the world, and soon the world will have forgotten you.

Why be afraid of death? After all, it is only natural. Every living thing must die--plant and animal, insect and human alike. Death is as certain as life itself--in fact, more so: life is never a certainty to begin with. Since we will all die there is no sense in categorizing it as bad. Our time on this earth is short, and we will all be going soon. Doesn't it then make sense to live one's life unafraid so that each of us gets the most out of every day?

Marcus Aurelius, in all ways detectable, lived in a way that celebrated life because he loved life. This is in contrast to others--especially those who came after him--who live their lives in fear of death. We could call this a pre-Christian worldview, although it's debatable how accurate this would be, but it is certainly true that this view of life and death is more holistic and more healthy than the philosophies of the West today.

Late in his life, when he sensed that death was near, he did not let it worry him; he knew that he had led a good life, but that it was his time to go. There is no knowing his behavior while lying on his deathbed (although modern media provides conjectures), but given his behavior and attitude all the while beforehand it's likely that he died with great dignity. His embrace of death should not be thought of deranged or lunatic, but healthy; it was not a love of death but an acceptance of it. Let him be an example.

Nothing happens to anybody which he is not fitted by nature to bear.

Marcus was not a misanthrope by any means--it seems he was actually quite fond of humanity--but he did not think men were without flaws, either. He believed that nature had bestowed men with wisdom and great potential, and that they were prepared to do amazing things (should they choose to handle them), but that sometimes their own habits got in the way and clouded their vision.

Selfishness and greed can destroy greatness. Man asks for too much of the gods; he should ask for little or nothing at all, and expect nothing. He often sets unrealistic goals for himself that would be impossible accomplish, but he tirelessly strives after them anyways. Just because he thinks he can, or should, have something doesn't mean it is so.

Delusion and exaggeration create unreal expectations. Men are prone to do, say, and think things that are not in conformance with nature/reality. We must see things for what they are. We must not always make things into personal issues and "make mountains out of molehills." Don't dwell on things that can't be changed; go forward in life with a smile on your face.

A man should be like a brave warrior, fighting his battles with pride in the pursuit of victory, but he should also know when he is defeated. He should be gracious; he should admit when he has been outdone. It takes great strength of character and great wisdom to learn from one's mistakes and to improve one's understanding. Only a fool will repeat these mistakes until his death.

It has been said before: Mankind is capable of great things. Nature does not throw at us anything we cannot handle; should we not, it should be recognized that it was our decision not to. If men work together in agreement with what nature has planned for them and prepared them to accomplish, humanity itself will be strengthened. Once men find their purpose and embrace it, everything comes together in the way nature intended.

Marcus Aurelius – A CORRUPT Perspective

Given the ideas outlined above, it's easy to see what Marcus Aurelius and CORRUPT have in common. Like him, CORRUPT places a high value on nature/reality, and we respect it greatly; we place the good of the whole over the good of the individual; we accept death, pain, and suffering as they are natural parts of both that whole and of life; we look at the world without pretense, in an unassuming way through a clear lens.

We can be influenced not only through his ideas, but through his actions, his attitude, his behavior, and the way he lived his life, as well. Like other Stoics, he lived with great restraint, not taking in temporary pleasures that he knew would do him no good. It was within his capacity to lead and look after his people, and he executed his tasks brilliantly. Here was a man who found his path and followed it, and it led to great success. He analyzed and philosophized all the while; it's not unreasonable to suspect that from a very young age on, his mind was never at rest. A great example of a strong and just, yet wise leader, the ghost of Marcus Aurelius lives on.

If there is an area in which he lacked, however, we might say that it was in parenthood. Some depictions of the man show him as someone who regretted that he could not have been a better father, and with thirteen children and a reign of almost constant hardship, it's easy to see where he could have fell off. As noted earlier, it is said that the only negative aspect of Marcus Aurelius as emperor of Rome was his choice of successor. Had his family life been what he might have wished, the succession of his son Commodus might have went much better. We can take this not only as a critique, but as an opportunity to learn.

We should not be sad that his man of great wisdom and virtue is no longer with us, but rather rejoice, for his ideas and his mark shall ring out for eternity. It is this author's feeling that if one were to read Meditations at an early age, and continued using that book as a guide throughout life, that such a person would lead a happy and noble one. The calm and matter-of-fact way that everything is conveyed instills a sense of confidence in the student--confident that these words are the result of heavily scrutinized thought and contemplation.

One should live rationally and within the bounds of nature. Likewise, communities should be constructed in this way as well. Go into life unassuming and unafraid. Do not fear death or hardship; both will come with time, and there is nothing any of us can do about it. Do not be selfish and greedy, and be kind to your fellow man unless he is deserving of your scorn. Do everything you can to fulfill your potential as a human being, but do not be unrealistic. Find what you are good at and do it well. Let not natural events be the recipient of your harsh thoughts and words, for this is the way it is--the way it needs to be--and it is all for the best. Recognize that life is a process, and that all of our lives together work in sequence. See things for what they are, and not for what they might simply appear.

Most importantly, turn around and leave here--go out into the world with a smile on your face and embrace all that comes your way. If you are meant to fight, then fight; if you are meant to lead, then lead. Maybe you'll create. Maybe you'll destroy. Your life will be harsh, but do not let that deter you, for your hardships will be overcome.

Written by Anthony Domke

Further Reading

Marcus Aurelius, "The Meditations"