Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 7.67

How do we know if Telauges was not superior in character to Socrates? For it is not enough that Socrates died a more noble death, and disputed more skillfully with the Sophists, and passed the night in the cold with more endurance, and that when he was bid to arrest Leon of Salamis, he considered it more noble to refuse, and that he walked in a swaggering way in the streets—though as to this fact one may have great doubts if it was true.

But we ought to inquire, what kind of a soul it was that Socrates possessed, and if he was able to be content with being just towards men and pious towards the gods, neither idly vexed on account of men's villainy, nor yet making himself a slave to any man's ignorance, nor receiving as strange anything that fell to his share out of the Universal, nor enduring it as intolerable, nor allowing his understanding to sympathize with the affects of the miserable flesh.

—Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, Book 7 (tr Long)

That we know so very little about Telauges, the Pythagorean philosopher, and that we know quite a bit more about the exploits of Socrates, might seem to tell us something about the verdicts of history. We see those whose works are bigger in scale, and more admired by others, and we think we have found the better men. After all, what mark did Telauges leave, what difference did he make? But everyone knows at least something about how Socrates changed the world!

Yet the fact that Socrates was caught up in a mighty drama, and that he performed famous deeds, should not be the measure of the man, just as the fact that Telauges is barely remembered for anything at all should not be the measure of the man. We are accustomed to looking for greatness on the outside, when we should really be looking for it on the inside.

It was never posing and posturing, or basking in esteem and glory, that made Socrates noble. For all we know, Telauges might have been just as noble a fellow, and a sign of that could well have been that neither he nor Socrates cared one bit for the trappings of power and influence. They may both have been just as willing to take them or leave them, concerned only with the character within the soul.

So the great philosopher, or the great man, only needs to look to the exercise of his own virtue, whatever the external circumstances. Has he been just, satisfied with whatever Nature has given him, in calm rule over his own passions, and guided by what is true and good over what is convenient and gratifying? That is more than sufficient. He is at peace with himself, and at peace with Providence.

I am called, in however small and unrecognized a manner, to put that ideal into practice. I see people direct their efforts towards pleasure or profit, and I don’t need to be like that. I see people define their actions by fame and fortune, and I don’t need to be like that. I see people treat others, even their own spouses and children, as tools for pride and glory, and I don’t need to be like that.

I should admire Socrates for the right reasons. 

Written in 1/2008