I think I get the point they’re trying to make (anti-dogmatic?) but you’d think the writer(s) would’ve done the minimum
Love Giamatti though his Adams is perfect
I'm quite sure it's super unjust to assume Marcus is referring to the same entity religious people refer to as 'God' when he uses the term 'God'. Even though not accurately but I think his understanding of God was more in line with the Greek philosopher Chryssipus. So I get the point Giamatti's character is making, but LAZY WRITING is LAZY and if Chryssipus didn't die laughing at his own joke he'd have died laughing hearing this line.
The entity many religious people refer to as God often isn’t the same concept that their religion holds doctrinally.
The God in the theology of Christianity is Being Itself, an eternal Pure Act at rest, with no element of non-being. His existence permeates the universe and holds it in existence in each moment, not pantheistically but panentheistically. Marcus would have recognized the idea as it is developed essentially from classical Greek metaphysical thought.
I love this comment.
I’m a Christian and honestly, this is about how I view God. To me, God is not something that can be reduced to a mere human visualization (save of course Christ). The Bible to me seems to serve as a humanization of the divine in that regard.
GOD is an english word, Aurelius writes in greek and I think it's very important to understand the nuances of the translations. From what I understand there's a mix of the greco-roman gods which would be close to what jung understood as archetypes. Plus the neoplatonic conception of the logos which would then become the "word" and the monotheistic God in later translations.
I know he's talking about something that is totally unrelated to meditations, tho meditations have at least two mentions of god, that I remember, and there must be some others for sure. So in the context of the video, Bill is pointing out to something that it true...
The penguin books copy mentions how god and nature are interchangeable for most intents and purposes in the forward. perhaps the translation the writers used refers to nature rather than god, perhaps they aren’t that familiar with the book; I’d prefer to assume the best in people and believe the former.
You’re right. Made the mistake to believe Marcus Aurelius would be relatively easy to translate from Greek to Danish. And that was as an undergraduate writing my thesis. At least the Meditations helped me deal with the suffering caused by having to translate it. But it’s rich on complex references to deity.
Sorry for my slow response!
Depends on the context. Sometimes θεοί, but when referring to \*the\* deity it's usually either Ζεὺς (Aurelius also refers to the soul as a fragment of Zeus) or θεός. Here is one example of the latter: (...) κόσμος τε γὰρ εἷς ἐξ ἁπάντων καὶ θεὸς εἷς δι᾽ ἁπάντων καὶ οὐσία μία καὶ νόμος εἷς, λόγος κοινὸς πάντων τῶν νοερῶν ζῴων, καὶ ἀλήθεια μία. It translates as something like "for there is one cosmos containing all things, one God pervading all things. And one substance, one law, one universal reason shared by all thinking beings, and one truth".
Funny he was saying that as the ruler of a still pagan rome that was persecuting christians.
So my theory was that he talks about deities as human temperments and Zeus is a sort of Ego that organizes those tempermants.
Do you know what ways he used theoi?
>Sorry for my slow response!
It's okay, you responding is beyond my control, I do not suffer over it.
It’s merely a matter of Stoic theology being distinct from both Christian theology and popular polytheism. Stoicism unlike Christianity doesn’t make an absolute distinction between God and Cosmos. Aurelius likely as emperor revered the traditional deities (that’s usually the context of the plural theoi) while incorporating them into the Stoic theological framework.
I mean he talks about THE Gods
"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them."
Doesn't even mention Christians, so take from that what you will
what's interesting is that Marcus gives arguments both for theism and agnosticism.
He doesn't seem to favor outright atheism.
"To them that ask: Where hast thou seen the Gods, or how knowest thou certainly that there be Gods, that thou art so devout in their worship? I answer:
Neither have I seen my own soul, and yet I respect and honor it."
Except that quote was literally never even written in the book in the first place, it's a made up version of what he actually said;
"In all you do or say or think, recollect that at any time the power of withdrawal from life is in your own hands. ***If gods exist, you have nothing to fear in taking leave of mankind, for they will not let you come to harm. But if there are no gods, or if they have no concern with mortal affairs, what is life to me, in a world devoid of gods or devoid of Providence?*** Gods, however, do exist..."
He also very much does mentions Christians, in *Meditations* 11.3.
One of the most shocking things I noticed in the meditations is how frequent spirituality and god were mentioned. Going into the book with some understanding of stoicism I never expected so much of it
Legitimate question:
Is there passages in their works that supports this claim?
Because to me logically the stoics being from
Ancient Greece and Rome, where the culture was polytheistic, they too would be.
Also seen reference to the gods in the writings I have read.
But again legitimate question as I’m still fairly new.
Well they were Stoics and believed in the Stoic worldview, not Hellenistic Paganism. In the Stoic worldview the Universe is governed by the Divine Reason, the Logos, sometimes called "Zeus" or just "God". They sometimes mention the other gods, but they were largely seen just as metaphorical. They weren't monotheists like the Christians or Muslims, rather a form of monotheistic pantheism, with the Logos as the one true God, and that being Nature.
Most Pagans are polytheists, the Stoics weren't. Pagan just means its not of the 5 world religions, or sometimes just not Christian. The Stoics believed in one God, and worshipped that God alone. They were monotheist by every definition, which is why you have Stoic terminology being used in the New Testament, to explain Christian Theology with Christ being the Logos.
You mean terminology that was used by more than just the stoics.
Again cite where this is I’m legitimately curious but you keep just saying they were monotheistic.
Terminology used as a direct reference to the Stoic use of it. Early Christianity built very much upon Stoic teachings. John used the stoic Logos to explain that Jesus was the Incarnated Word of God, or the Divine Reason. Stoicism teaches that the Logos is the Divine Reason and that it exists throughout Nature. There are not multiple different Divine Reasons, just one. And since that's the only Deity they worship, they are by definition Monotheists. There is One Nature and One Logos. Classical Stoicism is a Monotheistic Philosophy, built upon the teachings of Heraclitus, whom also was a Monotheist. You seem to hold the view that just because they were Greek or Roman, and just because the majority of these people were pagan polytheists, somehow means the Stoics were the same? But the Stoics were Stoics, that was their religion and philosophy. Not Roman- or Hellenistic Paganism.
It’s a misunderstanding of the actual purpose of offerings and the gifting cycle between men and the gods.
What’s wrong with giving higher powers a gift in thanks to be able to exist, or the existence of anything.
Not to even mention blessings.
I think what he means by god is Christian doctrine. The film is set in a previous decade. Christianity would have been much more dominant in US society than it is now. Christianity existed back then, but Marcus Aurelius wasn’t a Christian.
There are definitely some overlapping themes, but Christianity has its problems. IMHO the references to god and nature as an entity are the weakest parts of meditations
True. But I’d argued that Christian doctrine (as per Christ’s teachings rather than religious dogma) is much akin to if not the same as stoicism. I often wonder how much Marcus and Christ would have seen eye to eye if they ever had a sit-down together.
I don't see that. Not mentioning God in some of your writings does not make you an atheist. Two books of the Bible never mention God at all. That doesn't make the authors atheists. I know that the Meditations mention the logos several times, but I'd have to go back to see what it says about the gods. Burr may still be right here.
From what I can tell, Aurelius gives arguments both for theism and agnosticism. These are two separate quotes from Meditations:
“Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.”
“To them that ask: Where hast thou seen the Gods, or how knowest thou certainly that there be Gods, that thou art so devout in their worship? I answer: Neither have I seen my own soul, and yet I respect and honor it.”
Stoicism in general seems to mostly acknowledge the gods on a practical level, and many writers regarded the logos as God. But I can also see where an atheist or agnostic could revere the logos without seeing it as a personal God. Like I said, though, I need to brush up on the Meditations. Thank you for the quotes!
I said the exact same thing to my wife.
Yeah like honestly this was the only genuine critique I had of the whole film. I’m guessing the writers didn’t read the whole book lol
He talks about zeus in the first 30 pages. They did not read it at all.
I’m p sure the earliest mention is like book 3…
Directly I think, yeah. But there are references if I remember correctly to God in vague descriptions such as “the force that pulls you along”.
I think I get the point they’re trying to make (anti-dogmatic?) but you’d think the writer(s) would’ve done the minimum Love Giamatti though his Adams is perfect
Phenomenal character and film 💯
+1 John Adams was a top notch series. Giamatti really did amazing in that role
Marcus literally said to follow God (Reason) in the book. They must have forgotten that lol.
I'm quite sure it's super unjust to assume Marcus is referring to the same entity religious people refer to as 'God' when he uses the term 'God'. Even though not accurately but I think his understanding of God was more in line with the Greek philosopher Chryssipus. So I get the point Giamatti's character is making, but LAZY WRITING is LAZY and if Chryssipus didn't die laughing at his own joke he'd have died laughing hearing this line.
The entity many religious people refer to as God often isn’t the same concept that their religion holds doctrinally. The God in the theology of Christianity is Being Itself, an eternal Pure Act at rest, with no element of non-being. His existence permeates the universe and holds it in existence in each moment, not pantheistically but panentheistically. Marcus would have recognized the idea as it is developed essentially from classical Greek metaphysical thought.
I love this comment. I’m a Christian and honestly, this is about how I view God. To me, God is not something that can be reduced to a mere human visualization (save of course Christ). The Bible to me seems to serve as a humanization of the divine in that regard.
GOD is an english word, Aurelius writes in greek and I think it's very important to understand the nuances of the translations. From what I understand there's a mix of the greco-roman gods which would be close to what jung understood as archetypes. Plus the neoplatonic conception of the logos which would then become the "word" and the monotheistic God in later translations.
He mentions god several times on that book tho... Bill Burr is right
Bill Burr is talking about if there are any reason to hit a women.
I know he's talking about something that is totally unrelated to meditations, tho meditations have at least two mentions of god, that I remember, and there must be some others for sure. So in the context of the video, Bill is pointing out to something that it true...
The penguin books copy mentions how god and nature are interchangeable for most intents and purposes in the forward. perhaps the translation the writers used refers to nature rather than god, perhaps they aren’t that familiar with the book; I’d prefer to assume the best in people and believe the former.
Pretty sure it still mentions gods by name. It also refers to the heavenly substance and things of that like nature.
I’ve only read one translation, I’m only speculating how that may have made its way into the script.
This is quality memeing right here
You’re right. Made the mistake to believe Marcus Aurelius would be relatively easy to translate from Greek to Danish. And that was as an undergraduate writing my thesis. At least the Meditations helped me deal with the suffering caused by having to translate it. But it’s rich on complex references to deity.
What are the exact greek words he uses to talk about deities? I haven't read it in greek but my guess is he uses θεοί(theoi) and λογοσ (logos)
Sorry for my slow response! Depends on the context. Sometimes θεοί, but when referring to \*the\* deity it's usually either Ζεὺς (Aurelius also refers to the soul as a fragment of Zeus) or θεός. Here is one example of the latter: (...) κόσμος τε γὰρ εἷς ἐξ ἁπάντων καὶ θεὸς εἷς δι᾽ ἁπάντων καὶ οὐσία μία καὶ νόμος εἷς, λόγος κοινὸς πάντων τῶν νοερῶν ζῴων, καὶ ἀλήθεια μία. It translates as something like "for there is one cosmos containing all things, one God pervading all things. And one substance, one law, one universal reason shared by all thinking beings, and one truth".
Funny he was saying that as the ruler of a still pagan rome that was persecuting christians. So my theory was that he talks about deities as human temperments and Zeus is a sort of Ego that organizes those tempermants. Do you know what ways he used theoi? >Sorry for my slow response! It's okay, you responding is beyond my control, I do not suffer over it.
It’s merely a matter of Stoic theology being distinct from both Christian theology and popular polytheism. Stoicism unlike Christianity doesn’t make an absolute distinction between God and Cosmos. Aurelius likely as emperor revered the traditional deities (that’s usually the context of the plural theoi) while incorporating them into the Stoic theological framework.
I mean he talks about THE Gods "Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them." Doesn't even mention Christians, so take from that what you will
what's interesting is that Marcus gives arguments both for theism and agnosticism. He doesn't seem to favor outright atheism. "To them that ask: Where hast thou seen the Gods, or how knowest thou certainly that there be Gods, that thou art so devout in their worship? I answer: Neither have I seen my own soul, and yet I respect and honor it."
Except that quote was literally never even written in the book in the first place, it's a made up version of what he actually said; "In all you do or say or think, recollect that at any time the power of withdrawal from life is in your own hands. ***If gods exist, you have nothing to fear in taking leave of mankind, for they will not let you come to harm. But if there are no gods, or if they have no concern with mortal affairs, what is life to me, in a world devoid of gods or devoid of Providence?*** Gods, however, do exist..." He also very much does mentions Christians, in *Meditations* 11.3.
What movie is this
The Holdovers. Great more, def recommend.
One of the most shocking things I noticed in the meditations is how frequent spirituality and god were mentioned. Going into the book with some understanding of stoicism I never expected so much of it
Honestly it’s a big reason why I love it. I read it as an addition to my Christian faith.
Gods* Old Marcus was a pagan
Still mentions deities though lol
Oh I know
The Stoics were largely monotheist, but he was probably a mix of both.
Legitimate question: Is there passages in their works that supports this claim? Because to me logically the stoics being from Ancient Greece and Rome, where the culture was polytheistic, they too would be. Also seen reference to the gods in the writings I have read. But again legitimate question as I’m still fairly new.
Well they were Stoics and believed in the Stoic worldview, not Hellenistic Paganism. In the Stoic worldview the Universe is governed by the Divine Reason, the Logos, sometimes called "Zeus" or just "God". They sometimes mention the other gods, but they were largely seen just as metaphorical. They weren't monotheists like the Christians or Muslims, rather a form of monotheistic pantheism, with the Logos as the one true God, and that being Nature.
Funny enough you get in to pagan beliefs and that’s a fairly similar. Though thoughts of what the gods are is a widespread.
Well yeah, the Stoics were considered Pagans, they just weren't polytheists.
You realize most definitions of pagan falls under polytheist?
Most Pagans are polytheists, the Stoics weren't. Pagan just means its not of the 5 world religions, or sometimes just not Christian. The Stoics believed in one God, and worshipped that God alone. They were monotheist by every definition, which is why you have Stoic terminology being used in the New Testament, to explain Christian Theology with Christ being the Logos.
You mean terminology that was used by more than just the stoics. Again cite where this is I’m legitimately curious but you keep just saying they were monotheistic.
Terminology used as a direct reference to the Stoic use of it. Early Christianity built very much upon Stoic teachings. John used the stoic Logos to explain that Jesus was the Incarnated Word of God, or the Divine Reason. Stoicism teaches that the Logos is the Divine Reason and that it exists throughout Nature. There are not multiple different Divine Reasons, just one. And since that's the only Deity they worship, they are by definition Monotheists. There is One Nature and One Logos. Classical Stoicism is a Monotheistic Philosophy, built upon the teachings of Heraclitus, whom also was a Monotheist. You seem to hold the view that just because they were Greek or Roman, and just because the majority of these people were pagan polytheists, somehow means the Stoics were the same? But the Stoics were Stoics, that was their religion and philosophy. Not Roman- or Hellenistic Paganism.
But not the bad one!
Most of the Roman gods required sacrifice. Ya sure about that lol
Just saying that’s an oversimplification of pagan religions
It’s an example. What would pagan religion practices look like without scarifies or offerings they are the same but different?
It’s a misunderstanding of the actual purpose of offerings and the gifting cycle between men and the gods. What’s wrong with giving higher powers a gift in thanks to be able to exist, or the existence of anything. Not to even mention blessings.
Exactly lol. That said, I don’t think Marcus favored them in that regard really much at all.
[удалено]
I mean God likely is everything so idk 💀
True Marcus also referred to nature a bunch also like a natural order to things. Supreme intelligence god all that
If you mean the one painted by fundamentalists and cultists, then yes.
I think what he means by god is Christian doctrine. The film is set in a previous decade. Christianity would have been much more dominant in US society than it is now. Christianity existed back then, but Marcus Aurelius wasn’t a Christian.
There are definitely some overlapping themes, but Christianity has its problems. IMHO the references to god and nature as an entity are the weakest parts of meditations
True. But I’d argued that Christian doctrine (as per Christ’s teachings rather than religious dogma) is much akin to if not the same as stoicism. I often wonder how much Marcus and Christ would have seen eye to eye if they ever had a sit-down together.
Yes, he talks about God, but he doesn't mean the Christian God, he means nature. I can see what he Director of the movie means.
The director seems to think that Aurelius was an atheist though 😂
I don't see that. Not mentioning God in some of your writings does not make you an atheist. Two books of the Bible never mention God at all. That doesn't make the authors atheists. I know that the Meditations mention the logos several times, but I'd have to go back to see what it says about the gods. Burr may still be right here.
From what I can tell, Aurelius gives arguments both for theism and agnosticism. These are two separate quotes from Meditations: “Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.” “To them that ask: Where hast thou seen the Gods, or how knowest thou certainly that there be Gods, that thou art so devout in their worship? I answer: Neither have I seen my own soul, and yet I respect and honor it.”
Stoicism in general seems to mostly acknowledge the gods on a practical level, and many writers regarded the logos as God. But I can also see where an atheist or agnostic could revere the logos without seeing it as a personal God. Like I said, though, I need to brush up on the Meditations. Thank you for the quotes!
No prob! 🙏👍