Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 8.3

Alexander, and Caesar, and Pompey, what are they in comparison with Diogenes, and Heraclitus, and Socrates?

For they were acquainted with things, and their causes and forms, and their matter, and the ruling principles of these men were the same, and conformable to their pursuits.

But as to the others, how many things had they to care for, and to how many things were they slaves!

—Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, Book 8 (tr Long)

I suspect we will sometimes just lump people together into a category of being “great” because they were somehow important, memorable, or influential. What we may be overlooking is the distinction between the quantity and the quality of their actions, between how much they did in the world and how well they lived in the world. Greatness can have rather different standards.

Alexander, Caesar, or Pompey can be considered great because of their power, while Diogenes, Heraclitus, or Socrates can be considered great because of their wisdom. The first group turned their attention outwards, to gain dominance over others, while the second group turned their attention inwards, to gain dominance over themselves. Most of us may be more impressed by the former, while the Stoic is far more impressed by the latter.

If I attend to my own nature, and to the improvement of what is my own, I should certainly wish to know myself, to know my place in the world, and to master my actions according to the measure of what is right and good. I can then be a free man, and even if I am never recognized for it, I will have shared in something great.

If I attend rather to everything other than myself, I will try to accumulate wealth, and status, and be driven by a desire to be loved or feared by others. I may think of myself as free, but I am actually a slave to what I seek to possess, and though I may gain recognition, my character will become weakened.

There are a number of anecdotes about Alexander the Great and Diogenes the Cynic, though the best known is probably the story of how Alexander came across Diogenes sitting in the morning sun, and asked the philosopher if he could do him any favor. “Yes,” replied Diogenes, “stand out of my light!”

I can understand that response in a few different ways, but all them point me back to the recognition that Diogenes was surely the better, and therefore also the truly greater, man. While one man had everything in the world and nothing within himself, another had nothing within the world and everything within himself.

I may complain that I am not an Alexander, that sort of “great” man, but if I consider it as honestly as I can, should I not prefer to be more of a Diogenes, the man they said was like a dog?

Written in 1/2008