The great and the invincible

Every time a man realizes his mistake, and people forgive him for that and take him in again, he becomes great by way of imparting his knowledge to them of how not to commit that mistake again. His experience is their teacher, and in that, he becomes their teacher! But, every time a man realizes his mistake, and people don't forgive him for that nor take him in again, and still he goes about imparting that knowledge to the very unforgiving lot, he becomes invincible. For, in the former, his greatness is a result of the debt paid more than full to the others' forgiveness, but in the latter, his invincibility is a result of a debt that does not exist but is still paid to even the unforgiving.

Now, isn't that a justification good enough to keep committing new mistakes?!

A stoic's hope

I have long pondered over what hope means for a stoic. It has been a persistent question in my mind - 'Does a stoic hope?', 'Can a stoic hope?', 'Why can't a stoic hope?' and so on.

Let me start by putting forth the context of hope in the founding fathers' principles. Seneca has theoretically dismissed hope as a principle to follow:

They (hope and fear) are bound up with one another, unconnected as they may seem. Fear keeps pace with hope. Both belong to a mind in suspense, to a mind in a state of anxiety through looking into the future.

There cannot be a more categorical dismissal of the admission of hope in a stoic's mind. With that set, is there a possible answer to my questions?

On the one hand, if a stoic does hope, he is violating a founding principle of living in and with the present. A man with hope cannot be a stoic. Or rather, A man cannot wish to have hope and claim to be a stoic. But, does the mere thought or wish of hoping for something just displace the fundamental tenet of accepting whatever fate has to throw at him? Does the mere presence of hope in his life puts him in a disadvantaged position from learning the ability to withstand whatever things, good or bad, life throws at him, with equanimity? Why can one not hope and be equanimous and dispassionate at the same time?

On the other hand, can a stoic hope? Is that a right he can exercise to bring a new dimension to the future, if even the concept of future holds ground for a stoic! Can he claim to have simple hopes, and yet be a stoic?

What if we turned to a more contemporary approach to hope? In today's hyper-stretched world - mostly materialistic, self-fulfilling, individualistic, and tense - hope may come to mean something as simple as an anticipatory feeling of simple contentment or peace that is achievable with minimal upset of the balance of the mind, yet the current state of which is anxiety or eagerness. Will this count as hope or will this count as a journey to learning to withstand the whiplashes of fate?

And most of all, what about the hope to learn to be a stoic?

There has to be an answer... someday!

Home stretch

"How ridiculous and how strange to be surprised at anything which happens in life" - Marcus Aurelius

This is as close to reality as I can feel at the moment. Life has come some sort of a near-full circle. I have done almost all the 'been-there-done-that' things that can possibly be counted as the 'usual scheme of things'. I see the home stretch now. I have done things that I'm not proud of. There's a good dose of regret that has gone in. But, as I now remember all of them, I feel nothing. I feel immune to the vagaries of life. I bid good riddance to the years that have passed in my mistakes and my neglect of some principles that I have conveniently forgotten in those years! I see them all indifferently and bid goodbye. The next few months will erase some more things of my scribbled slate.

And then, maybe it'll be time to start afresh. In the grand scheme of the new things to come, I'll learn not to be ridiculous or surprised at what life will turn out to be. The 2nd inning may then well steer clear of  the turbulence that has somewhat rocked the first.

Here's to more!