Mostafa Malekian Lecture: “The Authentic Life versus the Inauthentic and Borrowed Life”

Greetings to the ladies and gentlemen, and I express my happiness at being in this gathering. The subject of the discussion is the authentic life, with reference to passages from Nahj al-Balagha and passages from the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius, the Stoic philosopher. To address this discussion, it is necessary first to deal with the question of why the Stoic school has been so warmly received again in the world since the second half of the twentieth century; for without addressing it, the objection arises: what is the priority of attending to Marcus Aurelius over other sages? To explain this matter, I will address several points.

The first point is that the reality is that in the traditional world, before modernity and modernism, the majority and generality of human beings held a religious perspective, and religion served three functions for them: The first function of religions was to be a map; in fact, religions presented to human beings a general plan and map of the universe that encompassed everything and addressed all beings, all times, and the worlds of nature and the supernatural, and religions had the utility of a map for human beings. The second utility of religions was that they were considered a book of law and specified the dos and don'ts for human beings. Religions said what things must be done and what things must be avoided, what actions have rewards and what actions have punishments, and how individuals should regulate their relationships with themselves, God, other human beings, and nature. The third task that religions performed was providing prescriptions and solutions for the spiritual, psychological, and mental illnesses of human beings, guiding them on the method and path by which to treat their souls; although some human beings also sought the treatment of their physical illnesses from religions, most human beings, in turning to religion, sought the treatment of their spiritual and inner illnesses. Religions differed from one another in the relative emphasis they placed on each of the mentioned aspects; some religions emphasized the map aspect more, some the prescription aspect, and some the utility of being a law; but despite this difference, all religions generally had the three stated functions, and human beings in the past managed and directed their individual, familial, social, and political lives by referring to religions and their custodians. This way of life was common among people for centuries; but from the beginning of modernity onward, religions gradually lost their majesty and authority in the minds and souls of human beings. This story first began in Europe, then extended to the American continent, then was transmitted to the Far East, and parallel to the spread of Western civilization and culture throughout the world, the credibility of religions and their influence among people was called into question. In the past, despite the fact that human beings could define themselves under the title of a specific religion and, in general, had a theoretical and practical commitment to that religion of theirs, and that religion met the needs of individuals; subsequently, a series of theoretical problems and practical problems arose for human beings that caused religion to lose its strength and majesty among people.

The second point is that in the modern era, social ideals gained great importance among people, whereas in the past and in previous eras, they did not have this importance. In a more precise sense, people gradually came to need a society that possessed order, security, welfare, justice, freedom, and peace with other countries. These six social ideals were never raised to this degree of necessity and need in the pre-modern era, and political regimes and governments in the past were not responsible for the realization of these ideals, and the duties of governments were limited to providing security against internal unrest and foreign aliens and collecting tribute. It is in the modern era that governments assumed responsibility for all social affairs, including education, health, culture, etc., and accordingly, governments are expected to realize social ideals in society. Following these demands, various different views and political schools were formed that sought the realization of the desirable government that could put these ideals into practice; but the reality is that none of these schools could gain the acceptance of all human beings and, through power and reasoning or at least practical problem-solving, set aside other schools and realize a society with the six ideals of order, security, welfare, justice, freedom, and peace.

The third point I will address is that in the modern era a kind of individualism emerged; individualism in the sense that every human individual must be left to themselves, and as long as their lifestyle does not cause pain and suffering to others, they can live according to their own method and way. In fact, based on individualism, one cannot impose a single method and lifestyle on everyone, and human beings are free to choose their own way and manner of living, even if their lifestyle differs from that of others, and the limit of this freedom is non-infringement upon the rights of others. According to this approach, governments cannot steer all individuals toward a single, common, and similar lifestyle; rather, they must recognize individualities and can and should only prevent friction between individuals and the infringement of citizens upon one another through the enforcement of law; therefore, individuals are free to choose their own lifestyle themselves and to consider themselves entitled, and at a higher level obligated, to realize their own method and lifestyle by referring to their own reason, needs, and desires, and governments must be the guardians of individuals' freedom. Individualism makes the world pluralistic and diverse in terms of lifestyle, and contrary to the past, when lifestyles were roughly of eight types and based on collective choices—such as the Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, Christian lifestyle, and so on—today, lifestyles have become individualized, and individuals have differences, not enmities, in lifestyle with one another, and it is as if steering others toward a specific, correct, and virtuous way of life has become obsolete.

The fourth point concerning the modern world is that the closer we get to our own era in time, the wider the theoretical scope of human beings becomes and the narrower their practical scope. In the past, people were unaware of the lifestyles of others across the world; they were devout in their own religion and did not know that other religions existed in the world and that some people lived according to those religions. They had little knowledge of the political regimes of other countries. Therefore, theoretically, their horizon of vision was limited to their own lives, and they passed their days with its good and bad aspects, feeling a sense of contentment. Since they were oblivious to others in the realm of theory, they did not engage in comparison and did not compare their own affairs with those of others. However, in the modern era, with the expansion of communication tools and media, while living in their own world, people are also aware of other worlds. They are devout in their own religion but also know other religions and are aware that apart from their own political regime, other political schools exist in the world. Similarly, in other domains, the theoretical horizon before humanity has become very broad. This breadth of vision has created the opportunity for comparison, and people constantly compare their lifestyle, religion, culture, government, and so on with those of other human beings. Diversity and plurality have emerged, each inviting the individual to choose. As a result of this breadth of vision, in the realm of practice, human beings have encountered a predicament; because, on the one hand, choices have multiplied and become difficult, and on the other hand, human lives have become interconnected and influenced by one another. Thus, the choices and actions of each individual are no longer a matter pertaining solely to that individual; rather, they also affect others, and people can no longer be indifferent to their own actions and their consequences, because others react to them. Therefore, human knowledge increased while human abilities diminished more and more. The sum of these factors has placed humanity in a state of bewilderment, where, in choosing a lifestyle, religion, government, etc., the individual has become perplexed and disoriented, and a kind of practical indecisiveness has emerged in the world. Thus, in the realm of theory, one is bewildered in choosing a lifestyle, and in the realm of practice, whatever kind of life one chooses also affects other human beings. Gradually, this bewilderment led humanity to the point where it decided to abandon the clamor and attend to the certainties of its own life and live based on them. In fact, humanity turned towards a more summarized, self-oriented life. It must be noted that what is certain for the individual today differs from what was considered certain in the past. For example, in the past, religions stated that God exists and there is an afterlife; but now, the existence of God and the afterlife is not taken as certain. Or, regarding human free will, the moral order of the world, and many other beliefs, doubt and skepticism have arisen, and they are no longer considered certainties. One of the certainties for us is that whatever beliefs and convictions I hold in any domain, I have a limited lifespan and spend a limited number of years in this world. The next certainty is that every human being, during their limited life, seeks tranquility, happiness, hope, contentment, and meaning in life. Every human being wants to be at peace with themselves throughout their life, to be deeply happy, and to be free from anxiety and sorrow. Psychological research has shown that tranquility, happiness, meaning, and so on cannot be attained through wealth, fame, power, popularity, or knowledge. On the other hand, human beings are not responsible for each other's lives. Therefore, the individual is in search of a way that, while not negating this limited worldly life and not making it superfluous to any other life or ideal—since it is not clear whether other ideals are real—can lead them to their desired states of tranquility, hope, meaning, and happiness.

Gradually, after the Second World War, humanity understood that it could have this life without all that clamor and achieve its desired state. In this regard, three schools of thought captured human attention in the world. These schools had understood human bewilderment beforehand and offered minimal promises for managing the human being and their life.

One of these schools is Buddhism, particularly the Zen branch, which is one of the branches of the Buddhist tradition. Of course, the term “Buddhist religion” is misleading and brings the concept of religion to mind; whereas Buddha can be viewed from two perspectives. Buddha as the founder of a religion and creed, like other founders of religions and creeds, and the second perspective is seeing the real Buddha and having a historical view of Buddha, who did not concern himself with any particular religion or creed and did not invite people to any specific religion. Buddha is the only founder of a religion and creed who said, “I do not invite you to any particular religion; but if you have accepted that you have problems in life, I have solutions for them, and you can test my guidance and solutions, and if you do not get the necessary result, do not accept them.” Buddha did not consider his word to be above all other words.

The second school that has received attention in the world is the Stoic school, which is our subject of discussion today. A school that makes few claims and has nothing to say about metaphysics and the supernatural, and whose teachings are about how to live this limited lifespan in this world.

The third school is that of the Dutch philosopher Spinoza, the philosopher of pantheism.

For years I have been saying that the solution to our problems is to combine rationality and spirituality; that is, neither eliminate rationality in favor of spirituality, like the ancient Indian thought which ultimately perished, nor be purely rational like the school of modernity and fail to fulfill the right of spirituality. In my view, the greatest exemplar of combining rationality and spirituality is Spinoza, followed by Buddhism, and the third school is the Stoics. Although in the eyes of the world, the Stoics are more important, in my opinion, Spinoza’s perspective is more defensible. In past decades, the views of the Stoics were not presented in this way, and more attention was paid to the thoughts of Plato and Aristotle, etc., but due to the many epistemological and practical transformations that occurred in the world, the Stoics are receiving much attention today. The Stoics had proposals for our present, worldly life that, if we pay attention to them, even if another world exists or does not exist, we will not lose out in this life of ours. One of those influenced by the Stoic school is Marcus Aurelius, the emperor of ancient Rome, and it is noteworthy that someone with Stoic views could govern a country amidst a backdrop of war and slaughter. The book called the Meditations or Thoughts of Marcus Aurelius, which is one of the most valuable books in the world in this field, is not a book that Marcus wrote for others; rather, he wrote it as a reminder and a wake-up call to himself.

Stoic thought has also been influential in the Islamic world without the Stoics being mentioned by name. Stephan Körner, one of the greatest commentators on Kant, mentions a point in the introduction to a book he wrote on Kant’s philosophy that holds true for the Stoics. Stephan Körner says that if you want to know whether a thinker has penetrated a society, you must examine whether their name is mentioned when their views are expressed. For example, as long as it is said, “One of Kant’s views is this,” this indicates that Kant’s views have not penetrated society; but if at some point Kant’s views are stated as a matter of fact without reference to Kant, this represents Kant’s penetration into society. This penetration has occurred for the Stoics in the Islamic world, and the views of the Stoics have become intertwined with the thoughts of the great figures of Islam. For instance, when you study Nahj al-Balagha, you observe some Stoic thoughts within it; of course, this repetition of content does not necessarily imply that Ali ibn Abi Talib adopted and borrowed these thoughts from the Stoics. Regarding the repetition of Stoic thoughts in Nahj al-Balagha, three possibilities can be proposed:

1- Ali ibn Abi Talib may have studied the works of the Stoics and adopted these thoughts from them, a possibility that is historically ruled out; because the works of the Stoics were translated into Arabic approximately two centuries after the death of Ali ibn Abi Talib.

2- The thoughts of Ali ibn Abi Talib and the Stoics converged, meaning that Ali ibn Abi Talib and the Stoics, unaware of each other’s thoughts, arrived at the same view.

3- The third possibility is that Stoic thoughts entered the Islamic world and were so accepted within the fabric of society that Ali ibn Abi Talib also accepted them. Further exploration of these possibilities is the concern of historians and lies outside our main discussion, so we will pass over it.

A point I must mention regarding sacred texts and the scriptures of religions and sects is that a healthy approach to sacred texts is that they should not be treated as religious books that are the product of a specific religion; rather, one should examine the words of the book, and if they are acceptable, accept them, and if they are incompatible with life and of no use to living, abandon them. In fact, regarding sacred texts, three things can be done:

1- Never be completely indifferent to the sacred texts of the world; for sacred texts are also part of the treasure of global culture, and just as we learn from sages, scholars, philosophers, and mystics and do not disregard their thoughts, we cannot be inattentive to the thoughts of the founders of religions and sects and theologians. If we are indifferent to sacred texts, we have cheated and deprived ourselves; because one can also learn from them, and sacred texts have also shared in the cultural treasuries of humanity.

2- Let us not suppose that all truths and everything considered true exists within sacred texts; rather, some truths are in one text and some in other texts, and some truths are not in sacred texts at all but have appeared in the works of mystics, scholars, philosophers, and sages.

3- The third point is that we should not imagine that everything expressed in sacred texts is true; in sacred texts, there is both truth and falsehood. If we pay attention to these three points when encountering sacred texts, we will witness that even if we have no theoretical or practical commitment to a specific religion, we can still learn from that religion and, in the shadow of those teachings, improve our lives. For example, if we look at Nahj al-Balagha with this view, we encounter many points that help us attain peace, meaning, and hope in life, to be at peace with ourselves, and to have contentment. Therefore, we must turn to anyone who makes our lives better, and just as we learn from mystics, sages, philosophers, and scholars, let us also learn from sacred texts.

Now I turn to the shared teachings of Ali ibn Abi Talib and Marcus Aurelius, both of whom have the experience of governance and suggest ways to improve life, ways that, regardless of religious beliefs, are useful for living.

The first shared teaching of Ali ibn Abi Talib and Marcus is that both of these great figures consider the ideal life to be the moral life. There are numerous opinions regarding the ideal life, and the ideal life is a life in which, if realized, you would have no unfulfilled wishes and no deficiencies, and each individual must define their own ideal life, and no philosopher can determine the ideal life for them. Some have defined the ideal life as the pleasant life; that is, a life in which the most pleasures and the least pain and suffering are attained. Others believe the ideal life is a life that encompasses both goodness and pleasure, and yet others propose a third option, that in the ideal life, besides goodness and pleasure, the high-functioning nature of life is also necessary, and thus in their view, the ideal life is a life accompanied by goodness, pleasure, and function. Figures like Ali ibn Abi Talib and Marcus did not accept the pleasant life as the ideal life. They believed that if they experienced a life full of pleasure and delight, but in that life also committed evil and immorality, this life would not be desirable or acceptable to them. In the view of Ali ibn Abi Talib and Marcus, the ideal life is not the pleasant life; rather, it is the good and moral life, and if someone's living is such that they observe all moral limits, rules, and regulations, this person has the ideal life; even if they do not experience pleasure in this life. Both of these great figures believe that if it were possible in life to attain pleasure in addition to goodness, that is, to live morally and also experience the most pleasures and the least pain and suffering, this would of course be more desirable; but the structure of the world is such that this matter is not achieved, and the world was not made for pleasure, and enjoying life is mixed with much pain and suffering, and in the words of Ali ibn Abi Talib, this worldly life is intertwined with calamity. The difference between Ali ibn Abi Talib and Marcus regarding the ideal life is that what Marcus means by morality is morality in the specific sense of the word, but Ali ibn Abi Talib also added religious rituals and rites to morality and said that a moral person observes both moral rules and regulations and religious rites and practices such as prayer, fasting, and Hajj. Therefore, these two great figures encourage human beings towards the moral life.

The second shared point is that Ali ibn Abi Talib and Marcus believe that this world is a realm of instability, and in this world, there is no constancy or stability; therefore, one cannot expect stability from matters. In fact, the only constant matter in this world is the very principle of the world's instability, and we must manage our lives by accepting this restlessness in the world, and if the principle of the world's instability is not accepted, one cannot attain peace, tranquility, joy, and serenity. Attributing stability to matters takes away our constancy and makes us restless. In the words of Rumi:

All your restlessness is from your quest for constancy; become a restless seeker, so that constancy may come to you.

In a world whose only constant principle is instability, everything is subject to change, alteration, transformation, and flux, and there is no stability. Therefore, we must prepare ourselves for an unstable world so that, despite the instability of matters, we may still have peace within ourselves and not fall into anxiety and turmoil. For example, Marcus says, when you kiss your child, say to yourself, although I love you, I consider it possible that this is the last kiss on your cheek; meaning Marcus has accepted that his child is also subject to the principle of the world's instability and he may lose them, and therefore, if this happens, he does not lose all his strength and spirit in facing it; but when you have not accepted instability, in the event of your child's death, you will lose your balance and peace. Anyone who understands that the restless world surrounds them will have peace within, and one who does not understand it will not attain peace. These great figures paid attention to this point and stated that attention to the world's instability brings stability within, and lack of attention to it causes instability.

The third shared teaching is that Ali ibn Abi Talib and Marcus said that in choosing and carrying out actions, a person must take only their own reason and moral conscience as the criterion, and must avoid making the judgment, approval and disapproval, and tastes and preferences of people the standard. They believed that whatever reason and moral conscience dictate must be done, and whatever they do not dictate must not be done. Ali ibn Abi Talib and Marcus advised that one should not be susceptible to indoctrination and suggestion, nor imitate people in matters, nor follow public opinion. If reason and moral conscience dictate the performance of action A, one must not refrain from performing action A because of people's likes and dislikes, nor perform action B to please people. Ali ibn Abi Talib says: If all the Arabs and non-Arabs were to stand back-to-back and oppose the truth I speak, I would feel no fear; meaning my criterion is reason and moral conscience, not people. The Stoics also stated: Live as if the world has only two inhabitants, you and God. If only you and God existed in the world, how would you live? Now, live in the same way. In other words, in this approach we are asked to eliminate people; it should be noted that eliminating people does not mean indifference to people's pain and suffering, for such indifference is an instance of immorality; rather, it means that in relation to people, a person must act according to their moral duty, while at the same time, people's approval and disapproval are not the criteria for their behavior; instead, they act as dictated by their own reason and moral conscience. Therefore, these two great figures recommended following reason and moral conscience.

.

---

.

Audio of Mostafa Malekian's lecture at this session

* Despite all the efforts of the Sedanet team to enhance the sound of this lecture, the quality of the uploaded audio file is not satisfactory, and it is better to use only the text.

.

---

.

Mostafa Malekian's lecture on the topic of "The Authentic Life versus the Inauthentic and Borrowed Life" (with reference to the Nahj al-Balagha of Imam Ali (AS) and the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius, one of the five wise and sagacious emperors of Rome) on June 1, 2019, in Dezful city

.

---

.