Both as emperor of Rome and Stoic philosopher, we can imagine that Marcus Aurelius spent a lot of time observing human nature — especially in the arena of politics. Here, he identifies what he considers to be an interesting contradiction between basic the human predilection to be egotistical and a equally strong predilection to submit to peer pressure.
- I have often wondered how it is that every man loves himself more than all the rest of men, but yet sets less value on his own opinion of himself than on the opinion of others.
- Marcus Aurelius, Meditations
I think that we have all observed others, as well as ourselves, exhibiting both tendencies that Aurelius describes here. It is true that people tend to be an egotistical lot, not simply putting their own interests above others’ but also valuing their own opinion above others’. How many imagine that if only political, religious, or social leaders would just listen to them, then a myriad of problems could be fixed? How many watch or read the news in bewilderment that leaders can’t arrive at a solution that seems so obvious?
At the same time, however, people don’t often exhibit a strong interest in standing out from the crowd, at least in the sense of moving contrary to what the crowd deems appropriate and “normal.” If others dislike the way certain clothing looks, we’ll find a different style. If others dislike certain expressions, we’ll find new slang to pepper our conversations with. Peer pressure exerts a powerful hold on us — and that’s to be expected, given our tribal backgrounds.
The question is, how do we reconcile these two inclinations? If a person is so certain that they are right on various political and religious matters, why would they meekly follow along with their peer group on other things? Why don’t they reject the judgment of others in these same matters? It can’t be a purely social question because politics and religion are no less social than the clothing we wear and words we use.
To frame things more generally and to return to Aurelius’s phrasing of the matter: how can we be at all egotistical while also accepting it when others arrive at negative judgments about us? In fact, Aurelius is somewhat wrong here. It isn’t true that “every man” loves himself more than all the rest, although that is a generally trend. It also isn’t true that “every man” sets less value on his opinion of himself than what others say — although, again, it is a general tend.
We are seeing, I think, an inherent conflict in what it means to be human. On the one hand, we are all individual human beings — no one else has my thoughts and I don’t have the thoughts of anyone else. At the same time, we are also social animals — that’s how our special evolved. Who we are is a product of social forces: family, community, friends, coworkers, etc. Just as there is no community without the individuals, we as individuals wouldn’t exist without the influence of our community.
I believe that the essential tension between the individual and community is what Aurelius was observing. As individuals, there is always a tendency to put ourselves first. Even if we don’t actually do it, the inclination has to be there. As members of a community, however, there is also always a tendency to adopt the perspectives of others — even negative perspectives of ourselves. Many times we can break free of that, but not always. Balancing this tension is, I suspect, part of the foundation of a healthy personality and a productive life.
