In this post, I'll dive into a lesser discussed part of Stoicism as we explore Meditation 10 from Book 8 of Marcus Aurelius' "Meditations." That meditation reads as follows:
"Repentance is a kind of self-reproof for having neglected something useful; but that which is good must be something useful, and the perfect good man should look after it. But no such man would ever repent of having refused any sensual pleasure. Pleasure then is neither good nor useful." - Marcus Aurelius, Meditations (8.10)
Marcus Aurelius, a famous Stoic philosopher and Roman Emperor, offers us some thought-provoking insights in this meditation. He suggests that repentance is a form of self-reproof for neglecting something useful. In Stoicism, something good is always useful, and a truly good person should always seek out what is good. However, he also points out that a good person wouldn't regret refusing sensual pleasures, implying that pleasure is neither good nor useful.
It's important to remember that Stoicism views virtue as the only true good. So, according to this philosophy, pleasures like sensual enjoyments don't qualify as 'good.' But does this mean they aren't useful either? Let's unpack this a bit.
First, we need to understand that the term "repentance" used here might not align perfectly with our modern understanding, especially since it's heavily influenced by Western Judeo-Christian concepts. Marcus Aurelius lived in a time before these influences became widespread in Rome. However, for the sake of this discussion, let's consider repentance as a feeling of regret or a desire for forgiveness for not doing something beneficial.
Marcus argues that what is truly good must be useful, aligning with the idea that virtue is inherently useful. He emphasizes that a wise person, or a sage, should always seek out what is good, equating goodness with virtue. But then he throws a curveball by saying that a sage would never regret refusing sensual pleasure. This leads to the conclusion that pleasure is neither inherently good nor useful.
However, let's consider this in a more contemporary context. Is something only useful if it's always useful? For instance, a hammer is only useful when you need it. Similarly, can't pleasure be useful in certain contexts? Sexual pleasure, for example, might not be 'good' in the Stoic sense, but it can have its uses, like strengthening relationships or providing relaxation.
In a modern setting, we recognize that utility is often context-dependent. This doesn't align perfectly with the Stoic view that something must be universally good to be considered truly useful. In our daily lives, many things are conditionally useful, including pleasure.
Reflecting on this, we see that Marcus Aurelius might be offering a personal perspective in his meditations. Perhaps he was grappling with his own desires or challenges when he wrote these words. It's important to remember that "Meditations" was his personal journal, not a formal philosophical treatise.
In conclusion, while Marcus Aurelius makes a strong case for the Stoic view of pleasure not being a good, we can also see that pleasure can be useful in certain circumstances. It's not about banishing pleasure, but rather about how we engage with it. In Stoicism, the way we handle 'indifferents' like pleasure can reflect our character. So, in the end, pleasure can be quite useful in helping us understand and develop our character.
Remember, philosophy often offers more questions than answers, and it's through these discussions that we grow in our understanding and application of these ancient teachings in our modern lives. Keep exploring and questioning!
