I struggled with Marcus -- he's been on my kindle for months and I still haven't plowed my way through. It always seemed so rambling, so disjointed. The book I found very accessible.
I think that I could read another book or two on stoicism and then go back to Marcus and pick it up more easily. That's the plan, at least. I've got my eye on a couple of books on stoicism next, but the priority queue is getting bumped by some important technical material that needs reading.
The problem here -- and I didn't go into this in the review -- is that nobody really knows exactly what the stoics taught. Or rather, the things they taught at different times. Stoicism was both Greek and Roman, and there were schools that adapted (and stole from each other and competed for students). So the situation was very much in a state of flux. It also had a deep spiritual component, although it's definitely not religious. (The book author is an atheist)
What Irvine did was take later Roman Stoicism, used famous Romans as an example (including Aurelius) and pieced together his best version of a mish-mash of what stoicism can mean for us. So there's a bit of creative license going on, but the author is clear enough about what's happening for it not to be a problem. Because Irvine was so clear about how he put it all together, and the book so well-written, I didn't view the religious roots or the mish-mash nature of the presentation as an important detail. Others might be upset that I didn't mention it. Meh. Part of the pain in the ass of being a book reviewer, I guess. Whatever you put in or leave out, its important to somebody.
I found this to be a much more pre-digested and easily presented stoicism than reading Marcus Aurelius. A nice, light introduction.
There are some common themes off the top of my head:
1. Pantheism: everything is one, evil is only apparent, so don't let stuff stress you out (ties into my previous quote).
2. Eternal re-occurrence: everything has happened before in a cycle, so whatever bad stuff is happening will eventually pass.
It's essentially a bunch of thought patterns to keep people calm during bad times. Believable? Like I say it helps me, but I don't believe it that much.
I think that I could read another book or two on stoicism and then go back to Marcus and pick it up more easily. That's the plan, at least. I've got my eye on a couple of books on stoicism next, but the priority queue is getting bumped by some important technical material that needs reading.
The problem here -- and I didn't go into this in the review -- is that nobody really knows exactly what the stoics taught. Or rather, the things they taught at different times. Stoicism was both Greek and Roman, and there were schools that adapted (and stole from each other and competed for students). So the situation was very much in a state of flux. It also had a deep spiritual component, although it's definitely not religious. (The book author is an atheist)
What Irvine did was take later Roman Stoicism, used famous Romans as an example (including Aurelius) and pieced together his best version of a mish-mash of what stoicism can mean for us. So there's a bit of creative license going on, but the author is clear enough about what's happening for it not to be a problem. Because Irvine was so clear about how he put it all together, and the book so well-written, I didn't view the religious roots or the mish-mash nature of the presentation as an important detail. Others might be upset that I didn't mention it. Meh. Part of the pain in the ass of being a book reviewer, I guess. Whatever you put in or leave out, its important to somebody.
I found this to be a much more pre-digested and easily presented stoicism than reading Marcus Aurelius. A nice, light introduction.