Always bear this in mind; and another thing too, that very little indeed is necessary for living a happy life.
And because you have despaired of becoming a dialectician and skilled in the knowledge of Nature, do not for this reason renounce the hope of being both free and modest, and social and obedient to God.
—Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 7.67
I'm having trouble with this one. There seems to be three separate statements here (paraphrased):
ReplyDelete1.) Your intelligence and instincts aren't so intertwined that you can't have self control, even if it's not obvious.
2.) You don't need much to be happy
3.) You can live in the world and not be of the world.
I'm guessing this is supposed to be a syllagism, but I can't understand how the first two statements lead to the third.
I don't know if it is intended as a syllogism, or merely as a set of related observations. They could be bound together more tightly, but that would require a longer chain and filling in the missing steps.
DeleteIn my own head, I think of it as: You have been given enough within yourself. It doesn't take much outside yourself. All the rest, including fame and fortune, don't matter.
It's a bit like an enthymeme, in the sense that a missing premise, the classic Stoic principle of virtue as the only human good, is assumed throughout.
So it's more three elaborations on a theme than a logical argument. Makes sense.
Delete