is it true that marcus aurelius caught his wife fricking a gladiator so he had him beheaded and had her bathe in his blood?
meditations lost all its meaning for me in light of this fact
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
is it true that marcus aurelius caught his wife fricking a gladiator so he had him beheaded and had her bathe in his blood?
It's sto-ver.
Two minutes looking this up and the secondary source for this story is extremely unreliable, littered with fiction and falsehoods.
Does this make him a redeemed cuck or
you're ngmi if you think that
The fact that Marcus Aurelius had to constantly remind himself not to give in to his base human nature should have been a pretty big hint that he did struggle with it.
You are giving up studying a book based on a rumour from a source that is not known to be generally reliable(Historia Augusta)? seems very immature honestly. We don't know if its true or not true, it's a literal non issue. We need to stop with the idea that Marcus Aurelius is also some demi god of Stoic thought, he's not even a major figure in the history of Stoic philosophy, unlike Zeno, Cleanthes, Chrysippus, Epictetus etc. People only think he is because his journal is only one of the few works what survived. If you go back far enough to Zeno's republic he didn't even believe in marriage and thought women should be held in common, so if this is the case i doubt Marcus Aurelius would've had his wife killed. People in the pre Christian era also didn't view sex as some sacred thing, because it really isn't.
We all struggle with our vicious side, only the sage is free from viciousness and ignorance, and the sage never existed, this is a reason why people take up philosophy in the first place, to try and be more rational and civil people.
>We all struggle with our vicious side
Most people don't have to struggle much once the hormones of puberty subside.
Yes, not as much, but it is still in us, we are people also forgetting that Marcus Aurelius had the authority to have anyone he liked killed, no questions asked, yet he didn't, he would've had plenty of senators killed otherwise, but none were during his reign.
The realisation that we are all capable of being wretched and vicious is the first step to not being a slave to such things.
>Most people don't have to struggle much once the hormones of puberty subside.
Wait, most people don't get really angry or aggressive after puberty? Or lustful?
>Most people don't have to struggle much
right.
they dont HAVE to and they DONT because most people simply run amok when their emotions get riled up
>Roman tradition ascribed to fathers and husbands great severity in punishing illicit sexual behaviour by daughters or wives. Such misconduct was stuprum in married or unmarried women, an offence against chastity (pudicitia); adulterium described sexual intercourse between a married woman and a man other than her husband. Until the legislation of Augustus, regulation was chiefly in the hands of the family: adultery probably always justified divorce; a family council might advise the paterfamilias (husband or father in whose power the woman was (see patria potestas)) on this and other sanctions, possibly including execution.
>The immediate killing of adulterers/adulteresses taken in the act was defensible (morally and in court) but probably not legally prescribed. Other physical violence against the adulterer is a literary commonplace. Adultery in the late republic, like the seduction or rape of an unmarried woman, entitled the father or husband to sue the man for damages (for *iniuria, insult) and not only to divorce the wife but to retain part of her dowry.
A google search away
I never claimed to be an expert in Roman tradition, did i? i have an interest in ancient Greek philosophy, which Stoicism is, and that still isn't proof that he had someone killed for perhaps having sex with his wife.
I never implied you were. But to claim "pre roman christians didn't view sexuality as sacred" in your defense of him in case it did happen (even though I agree with you) is lazy if you don't know it's true.
Stop making this thread already. What's the point? Seriously, enlighten me. Why this crusade against Aurelian thought?
It's also sign of a small mind to be focused on such small and petty things, especially someone who has been dead for over two thousand years.
Dont say things if you dont know what you are saying is true moron, dont get your panties in a knot over this fricking hell.
How did pickup artists do it back then?
>Hey, my name is Marcus, are you enjoying the party?
>Yea, hey what are you drinking?
>Pssh from that jug, you need to try this *pours her a drink*
>Yea I am friends with the aulos player
>So uhm, anyway, your hot, how about we go to my place.
You should be more disillusioned in his ideas by the literal fact that he was an opium addict throughout most of his life
>implying you cant hold any personal convictions while on drugs
well, no. implying you can't hold those convictions when off them.
seems a bit presumptuous to me
Aurelius is juvenile shit on the same tier as the art of war, there was no meaning to be lost, read plotinus you fricking dweeb