It is not reasonable to assume that a person lives in harmony with nature when they live a comfortable life filled with pleasures, but when they live a life filled with virtues.
On Food – Part I
He often spoke about the topic of food, strongly and decisively, as a matter of significant importance that leads to significant consequences; he truly believed that the beginning and foundation of moderation lie in self-control in eating and drinking. Once, setting aside other topics he discussed, he continued something resembling the following. One should prefer cheap food over expensive food and what is abundant over what is scarce… But now, he said, we feed ourselves much worse than irrational beasts. Because even if they, driven by appetite like a whip, pounce on food, they are not to blame for excessive concern about food and resourcefulness in that regard, but are satisfied with whatever comes their way, seeking only satiety, nothing more. And we devise all kinds of skills and ways to increase the pleasure in food and make it more tempting… Musings. We have reached such a level of refinement in food and gastronomy that, just as some people have written books about music and medicine, some have written books about cooking with the aim of enhancing pleasure of the palate but compromising health. In any case, it is well known that those who indulge in abundance and are immoderate in food are of much weaker physical health…
About food – Part II
Completely shameful, he said, are gluttony and living the high life, and no one dares to deny it, yet I have met very few who are willing to avoid these vices… Because although there are many pleasures that lead a person astray and compel them to succumb to them, contrary to what is good, the pleasure of eating is probably the hardest to resist… Because while we encounter other pleasures less frequently, this one tests us every day and usually twice a day… Therefore, the more often we are tempted by the enjoyment of food, the greater the danger. And indeed, with each meal there is and not just one danger of making a mistake, but many. First of all, a person who eats more than they need is doing harm, and no less is a person who eats in excessive haste, as well as a person who indulges in pickled vegetables and sauces, and a person who prefers sweet food over healthier options… One should get used to choosing food for nourishment through constant practice, not for pleasure, in order to strengthen the body rather than tickle the palate… The stomach is designed for the same purpose as the root of a plant. Just as the root nourishes the plant by taking in food from the outside, the stomach nourishes the living being from the food and drink that are consumed. Similarly, just as plants obtain food to survive, not for pleasure, food is our medicine of life. Therefore, it is fitting for us to eat in order to live, not to indulge, if we want to be in accordance with Socrates’ wise words, who said that most people live to eat, but he eats to live. 1 Certainly, no rational being striving to be human will consider it desirable to be like The majority, who live to eat, and spend their lives in search of the pleasure that comes from food… Indeed, you can observe that slaves are usually stronger than their masters, peasants than citizens, the poor than the rich, that they are more capable of hard work, less exhausted from their labor, less prone to sickness, more resilient to cold, heat, lack of sleep, and all such discomforts. Furthermore, even if expensive and cheap food equally nourish the body, it is still advisable to choose cheaper food because it is more suitable for moderation and more becoming of a good person. In general, when it comes to food for people with healthy senses and reason, it is better to have what is easily obtained rather than what is hard to obtain, the food that does not require any effort rather than the one that does, what is available is better than what is not easily accessible. But, to conclude regarding food, I believe its purpose should be to maintain health and strength, that for this purpose one should only eat what does not require significant expenses, and finally, that at the table there should be fellowship, One must bear in mind the corresponding decency and moderation.
What is the best provision for old age?
On another occasion, when an older man asked him what the best provision (viaticum) for old age was, he said: the same as what is best for youth, namely to live in accordance with nature. You would best understand what that means if you understood that humanity is not created to enjoy life, just as neither is a horse, nor a dog, nor a cow… Because the nature of every being leads it to its own virtue; therefore, it is not reasonable to assume that a person lives in harmony with nature when they live a comfortable life filled with pleasures, but rather when they live a life filled with virtues. Then, they are truly praised and proud of themselves, and they are enthusiastic and courageous, with cheerfulness and peaceful joy naturally accompanying such qualities.
In general, of all creatures on Earth, only humans resemble God and possess the same virtues that He has, since we cannot imagine anything better than prudence, justice, and fortitude and moderation. Therefore, since God possesses these virtues and is unconquerable by pleasure or greed, superior to desire, envy, and jealousy, noble, benevolent, and good (because such is our concept of God), so too should we think of a person created in His image – when living in harmony with nature – as being similar to Him and like Him… Indeed, it is not impossible for a person to be like that, for surely when we encounter people we call devoted to God and divine, we do not need to imagine that these virtues came from anywhere else but from the person’s own nature. However, if a person, with some luck, diligently seeks proper guidance and thoroughly masters all the teachings that are considered good, and practically applies them, such a person would, in old age, live in harmony with nature by utilizing these inner resources and would deal with the loss of youthful pleasures without regret, not worry about bodily weaknesses, and not be disturbed by neighbors mocking or relatives and friends They neglected their education, as they would have had a good antidote for all these things in their own spirit, namely their past education…
The best thing in life, you will agree, is the life of a good person, and yet even such a person’s end is death. Therefore, as I have already said, if someone were to succeed in old age in mastering this lesson: to await death without fear and courageously, they would gain a great deal of knowledge about how to live without complaints and in accordance with nature. They would gain this by associating with people who are philosophers not only in name, but in truth, and if they were willing to follow their teachings.
So, I tell you that the best provision for old age is the one I mentioned at the beginning, living in accordance with nature, working and contemplating about what should be. For in this way, even as an old person, they would be cheerful and deserving of the praise of others, and they would live happily and honorably. But if someone thinks that wealth is the greatest comfort in old age, and that acquiring it means a life without sorrow, they are quite mistaken; wealth is capable of providing pleasure in eating and drinking, but it cannot provide true inner peace. I will experience other sensory pleasures, but it can never provide clarity of mind or relieve the sadness of the one who possesses it…
About how even kings should study philosophy
When one of the kings from Syria came to him on one occasion (because at that time there were still kings in Syria as Roman vassals), what he had to say to that man were, among other things, the following emphasized words. Don’t think, he said, that it is more appropriate for anyone else to engage in philosophy than for you, not for any other reason than because you are a king. Because the first duty of a king is to be a protector and benefactor of his people, and a protector and benefactor must know what is good for people and what is bad, what is useful and what is harmful, what is favorable and what is unfavorable…
And to distinguish between good and bad, advantages and disadvantages, useful and harmful, no one else has a role other than the philosopher, who constantly deals with those questions so as not to be uninformed about any of those matters. And how would you use your skill to understand what leads to human happiness or unhappiness? Therefore, it seems that the king should study philosophy.
Furthermore, it is fitting, more precisely necessary, for the king to judge fairly among his subjects, so that no one can have more or less than what they deserve, but rather they should receive honor or punishment according to their merit. But how could anyone unjust ever rule by this? And how could anyone ever be just if they do not understand the nature of justice? This is an additional reason why the king should study philosophy, because without such study, it cannot be assumed that he knows justice and the just. For it cannot be denied that someone who has studied it understands justice better than someone who has not studied it, or that all those who have not studied philosophy do not know its nature…
Furthermore, it is crucially important that the king governs himself and demands that his subjects govern themselves, and with the help of sober rule and proper obedience, there should be no room for any. There is no indulgence on either side. Because indulgence leads to the downfall of both the ruler and the citizens. But how could anyone rule themselves if they do not make an effort to restrain their desires, or how could the unruly one force others to moderation? No teaching can be cited, except philosophy, by which self-control is achieved. It especially teaches us to be above pleasure and greed, to embrace thriftiness and avoid waste; it accustoms us to feel shame and to restrain our language, and this creates discipline, order, and politeness, and generally what is appropriate for human behavior and demeanor. When these qualities are present in an ordinary person, they give him dignity and self-control, but when they are present in a king, they make him god-like and worthy of respect.
Therefore, since fearlessness and boldness are the fruits of courage, how else could a person acquire them except by a firm conviction that death and misfortunes are not evil? Because, I repeat, death and misfortunes are things that bring imbalance and scare people when they think that There is evil; philosophy is the only thing that teaches that it is not evil. Therefore, in order for kings to possess courage, and they should possess it more than anyone else, they must dedicate themselves to the study of philosophy, because there is no other way for them to become brave…
In general, it is most important for a good king to be righteous and flawless in words and deeds if he truly wants to be a “living law,” as people of ancient times perceived him, to bring order and harmony, suppress lawlessness and discord, and to be a father to his people in the likeness of Zeus, and like him. But how could anyone be such a king if they are not endowed with extraordinary nature, if they have not received the best education possible, and do not possess all the virtues befitting a human being?…
How else could a person be a good ruler or live a good life if not by studying philosophy? Personally, I am convinced that a good king is simultaneously and necessarily a philosopher, and a philosopher is a royal person. Let us examine the first of these claims: Can anyone be a good king if they are not good Man? No, that is impossible. If someone is a good person, wouldn’t they have the right to be called a philosopher? Certainly, since philosophy is the pursuit of the ideal good. Therefore, a good king is necessarily also a philosopher from the very beginning.
So, you can understand that a philosopher is like a king from the following. The characteristic of a royal person is the obvious ability to govern the people and cities well, and the dignity of managing people. So who would be more capable of leading a city or more worthy of governing people than a philosopher? Because it befits him (if he is a true philosopher) to be prudent, to rule himself, to be of noble spirit, to judge well what is just and what is fitting, to be effective in implementing his plans and patient in adversity. Additionally, he should be courageous, fearless, able to face things that appear dreadful, and also kind-hearted, reliable, and humane. Can anyone be found who better fits this or is more capable of ruling than such a person? None. On Home Decoration
…As far as I’m concerned, I would rather choose illness than luxury because illness only harms the body, while luxury destroys both the body and the soul, causing weakness and incapacity in the body, as well as lack of self-control and cowardice in the soul. Furthermore, luxury breeds injustice because it also breeds greed. For no extravagant person can avoid being wasteful in expenses, and such extravagance cannot entail frugality. However, in their desire for many things, they cannot restrain themselves from acquiring them, and in their pursuit of acquiring them, they cannot help but be grasping and unjust, because no person can attain much in a just manner. In another way, a person with luxurious habits would be unjust by hesitating to take on a part of the burden for their city, so as not to sacrifice their comfortable way of life, and if it seemed necessary to endure deprivation for the sake of their friends or relatives, they would not subject themselves to it, because their desire for extravagance would not allow it…
1 This saying is often attributed to Socrates. , and sometimes even to Diogenes.