Philosophy as a way of life

Here it is quite clear that filth, dust, and other such apparently repulsive aspects of reality are the necessary consequence of a natural process which, in the last analysis, goes back to universal reason. It is thus not matter itself which seems repulsive to us, but the accessory phenomena which accompany its transformations. Here Marcus68 is in complete accord with Stoic orthodoxy, according to which matter is docile and subservient to reason, which molds and governs it. The function of Marcus' physico/objective definitions is precisely to make us realize that the feelings of repulsion we feel in the presence of some phenomena which accompany natural processes are nothing but an anthropocentric prejudice. In the following charming passage, Marcus expresses his belief that nature is beautiful in all its aspects: There iK Komc:thing pleasant and attractive about even the incidental hy-prudm·111 of 11111ur1d l'hc:nomc:na. For instance, when bread is being

190

Figures

baked, some parts of it split open, and it is precisely those parts which split apart in this way, and which, in a sense, have nothing to do with bread-making itself, which are somehow quite appropriate, and excite our appetite in a most particular way. The same is true of figs: it is when they are at their ripest that they burst open. In the case of very ripe olives, it is precisely their proximity to decay which adds to them a certain beauty. The same is true with ripe ears of corn which bend towards the ground; with the lion's wrinkled forehead; with the foam spuming forth from the mouths of wild pigs, and many other such things: if we look at them in isolation, they are far from being beautiful.

Nevertheless, because they are incidental by-products of natural processes, they add to the beauty of these processes and have an attractive effect on us. Thus, as long as one has a feeling for, and a deep understanding of Nature's processes, there is scarcely any of the things that occur as incidental by-products which will not present itself to one as pleasant, at least in some of its aspects. Such a person . . . will look upon the actual gaping jaws of wild beasts with no less pleasure than upon all the imitations of them that sculptors and painters offer us. With his wise vision, he will be able to discern the rich maturity of old men and women, as well as the lovely charm in young children; and there arc many such things, which do not appeal to everyone; only to that person who has truly familiarized himself with nature and its workings.69

It is instructive to compare this text with the passage from Aristotle quoted abovc.70

Already in Aristotle, but especially in Marcus Aurelius, we can see a revolution taking place. In the place of an idealistic aesthetics, which considers as beautiful only that which is rational and functional, manifesting beautiful proportions and an ideal form, there appears a realistic aesthetics which finds beauty in things just the way they are, in everything that lives and exists. We know from Aulus Gellius,71 moreover, that Marcus' distinction between nature's original plan and the unforeseen consequences resulting from this plan goes back to Chrysippus. Thus, in this case as well, Marcus stands firmly within orthodox Stoic tradition.

To return to the "provocative" passage with which we began:72 it appears that Marcus' meaning is as follows. When dealing with what the Stoics termed indiflerentia73

that is, things which depend not upon us, but upon

-

universal nature- we must not make any distinction between what is repulsive and what is pleasant; any more than does nature itself.74 Dirt, mud, and thorns, after all, come from the same source as the rose and the springtime.

Thus, from the point of view of nature, and therefore also of whoever is familiar with nature, there is no distinction t.o he made between hath-water and the rest of ercntion : cvcrythinl{ iN

"nnt ur11I . "

Marcus Aurelius

1 9 1

We can hardly hope to deduce Marcus' psychological states from any of the preceding. Was he an optimist or a pessimist? Did he suffer from a stomach ulcer? The Meditations do not allow us to respond to these questions.

All we can learn from them is about spiritual exercises, as they were traditionally practiced by the Stoics.

2 Epictetus