If you are looking for the beginning of the study for Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations then you can go HERE for a brief introduction. At the bottom of the introduction you will find the links to each section of the study guide as it becomes available. If you would like to see the growing list of book studies available for free on this site you can go HERE. Enjoy!
Virtues/Vices/Great Ideas: (Find these in the Text and Note them in the Margins)
Contentment, Destiny, Prudence, Justice, Temperance
Grammar Questions: (The Information of the Text)
After observing “what thy nature requires” what, alone, did Aurelius think should limit a man’s actions in pursuing what is required?
What did Aurelius say about “whatever may happen to thee?”
What two “suppositions” did Aurelius label “incredible?”
What “names” did Aurelius think a man ought to seek after and “take care that thou dost not change these names” once they are acquired?
What kinds of things did Aurelius say tend to “wipe out…holy principles?”
Aurelius said that regardless of “what any man shall say or think about him or do against him” a man should be content with what two things?
Instead of talking about “the kind of man that a good man ought to be” what did Aurelius urge should be done?
To what did Aurelius liken a man “who fears or is grieved or is angry?”
What did Aurelius say that only “rational man” is able to do whereas all other creatures “necessity is imposed?”
What did Aurelius say one should not let it be ‘in any man’s power to say truly of thee?”
What ought a man “to consider as an enjoyment?”
What did Aurelius say that “there is no man so fortunate” as to not have at the end of his life?
Logic Questions: (Interpreting, Comparing/Contrasting, Reasoning)
When Aurelius asked, “Wilt thou, then, my soul, never be good and simple and one and naked, more manifest than the body which surrounds thee” what desire was he expressing? How can one’s soul be “more manifest” than one’s body?
What did Aurelius mean when he said, “the nature of the universe has this principle besides, that it cannot be compelled even by any external cause to generate anything harmful to itself?” Why might this not be true of lesser natures within the universe while still being true of the nature of the universe as a whole?
Aurelius spoke of desirable “names” which one ought to pursue and hold onto. He goes on to say “if, then, thou maintained thyself in possession of these names, without desiring to be called by these names by others, thou wilt be another person and wilt enter on another life.” What is he saying here? Why does it matter whether or not one desires others to call him by these names?
Continuing to discuss acquiring good “names” Aurelius wrote, “Therefore fix thyself in the possession of these few names: and if thou art able to abide in them, abide as if thou wast removed to certain islands of the Happy. But if thou shalt perceive that thou fallest out of them and dost not maintain thy hold, go courageously into some nook where thou shalt maintain them, or even depart at once from life, not in passion, but with simplicity and freedom and modesty, after doing this one [laudable] thing at least in thy life, to have gone out of it thus.” What is Aurelius saying one should do if they see they are about to lose hold of the good names?
In what manner are all of the things mentioned by Aurelius in Section 10 “robbers?”
Aurelius said, “He who follows reason in all things is both tranquil and active at the same time, and also cheerful and collected.” What does this mean? How can one be both tranquil and active simultaneously?
Aurelius wrote, “Constantly consider how all things such as they now are, in time past also were; and consider that they will be the same again. And place before thy eyes entire dramas and stages of the same form, whatever thou hast learned from thy experience or from older history; for example, the whole court of Hadrianus, and the whole court of Antoninus, and the whole court of Philippus, Alexander, Croesus; for all those were such dramas as we see now, only with different actors.” What does he mean by this? In what way are life and people from history like Actors in Dramas?
Aurelius wrote, “A man ought to consider as enjoyment everything which it is in his power to do according to his own nature.” What does he mean by this? Also, is this contrary to the many other places in Meditations where we have seen Aurelius warn us against the pursuit of pleasure or is there a way to harmonize these things?
Aurelius said that “intelligence and reason are able to go through everything that opposes them, and in such manner as they are formed by nature and as they choose.” What did he mean by this?
Consider Aurelius’ argument: “And finally remember that nothing harms him who is really a citizen, which does not harm the state; nor yet does anything harm the state, which does not harm law [order]; and of these things which are called misfortunes not one harms law. What then does not harm law does not harm either state or citizen.” Evaluate the reasoning here being employed. Do you think it is sound or faulty? Why?
Aurelius wrote, “In contemplating thyself never include the vessel which surrounds thee and these instruments which are attached about it. For they are like to an axe, differing only in this, that they grow to the body.” What did he mean by this? What does this tell us about Aurelius’ view of the human body?
Rhetoric Questions: (The Analysis of Ideas in the Text)
Consider Aurelius’ dictum (teaching) that one should “observe what thy nature requires” and then do it as long as thou “shall not be made worse by it.” In your answers to the following questions, be sure to define your terms (E.g. what does “worse” mean in this context?). To what extent is this good advice? Is this sufficient or deficient as a moral compass? Are there things which are according to our nature and which will not make us worse, but from which we should nevertheless refrain? Are there things which are not according to our nature, or which may perhaps make us worse, which we ought nevertheless to do?
Aurelius wrote, “No longer talk at all about the kind of man that a good man ought to be, but be such.” What is the relationship between thinking, reading, and discussing what it means to be a good person versus actually being a good person? Is it possible for a person to have the right ideas about what it means to be a good man but to still, nevertheless, fail to obtain those qualities? Contrariwise, can a person be good without knowing what it means to be good? How should a person who wants to be good proceed in the pursuit of goodness?
Theological Analysis: (Sola Scriptura)
Aurelius wrote, “Whatever may happen to thee, it was prepared for thee from all eternity; and the implication of causes was from eternity spinning the thread of thy being, and of that which is incident to it.” Compare and contrast this with the apostle Paul’s words in Romans 8:28-30. Which provides more comfort? Why?
Aurelius said “To her who gives and takes back all, to nature, the man who is instructed and modest says, Give what thou wilt; take back what thou wilt. And he says this not proudly, but obediently, and well pleased with her.” Compare and contrast this with Job’s perspective in Job 1. How are these similar and how are they different?
Aurelius wrote, “He who flies from his master is a runaway; but the law is master, and he who breaks the law is a runaway. And he also who is grieved or angry or afraid, is dissatisfied because something has been or is or shall be of the things which are appointed by him who rules all things, and he is Law and assigns to every man what is fit. He then who fears or is grieved or is angry is a runaway.” Compare and contrast this with the apostle Paul’s message to the Athenian philosophers in Acts 17:22-31. How might we find agreement between Aurelius and Paul here?
Aurelius wrote, “as when a man dies a quiet death, the poor soul is easily separated from the body, such also ought thy departure from men to be, for nature united thee to them and associated thee. But does she now dissolve the union?Well, I am separated as from kinsmen, not however dragged resisting, but without compulsion; for this, too, is one of the things according to nature.” He seems to be questioning whether death not only dissolves the human body, but also the human nature. Read 1 Corinthians 15 and consider the Christian view of death and what comes after. How does the Christian hope of the resurrection completely change our view of our inevitable death in the body?