From Marcus Aurelius’ *Meditations*, Book II, Paragraph 1 (translation by Gregory Hays):
“When you wake up in the morning, tell yourself: The people I deal with today will be meddling, ungrateful, arrogant, dishonest, jealous, and surly. They are like this because they can’t tell good from evil. But I have seen the beauty of good, and the ugliness of evil, and have recognized that the wrongdoer has a nature related to my own—not of the same blood or birth, but the same mind, and possessing a share of the divine. And so none of them can hurt me. No one can implicate me in ugliness. Nor can I feel angry at my relative, or hate him. We were born to work together like feet, hands, and eyes, like the two rows of teeth, upper and lower. To obstruct each other is unnatural. To feel anger at someone, to turn your back on him: these are obstructions.”
---
“We Were Born to Work Together”: Marcus Aurelius’ Radical Empathy and My Vision of Civic Engagement
If you want to know the measure of your character, try working at a soup kitchen on a freezing Saturday morning. I learned this the hard way in my sophomore year of high school, serving coffee to men who muttered, snapped, and sometimes threw the cup right back at me. I was shocked by my own frustration—a kind of boiling, helpless anger that made me want to turn away. That night, I stumbled across a passage in Marcus Aurelius’ *Meditations* that rewired my understanding of what it means to live well among others. In that ancient emperor’s voice, I heard something startlingly modern: a call to radical empathy, grounded not in sentimentality, but in the hard, daily work of recognizing our shared humanity. My thesis is simple: Marcus Aurelius’ vision is that to live well is not to escape conflict and disappointment, but to embrace the inescapable flaws of others as a daily training ground for virtue—and that this vision can shape how we build stronger, more compassionate communities today.
Let’s look closely at Aurelius’ words. He begins where most of us end—by bracing himself for disappointment: “The people I deal with today will be meddling, ungrateful, arrogant, dishonest, jealous, and surly.” This is not the voice of an idealist, but that of a realist who expects the worst and is determined not to be defeated by it. Yet, he refuses to meet these faults with anger or disdain. Instead, he reminds himself that wrongdoers “have a nature related to my own…possessing a share of the divine.” Here, Aurelius plants the seed for a radical reorientation: the faults of others are not personal affronts, but evidence of our shared, flawed humanity. This is a long way from the vapid self-help advice that tells us to “ignore the haters” or “cut out negativity.” Aurelius asks us to stand in the thick of disappointment, to feel the sting—and then to transform it into understanding.
What is Marcus really after? I believe the heart of this passage is the idea that anger and alienation are not just private emotions, but social toxins. “We were born to work together like feet, hands, and eyes,” he writes, invoking the image of a body in which each part relies on the others. To “obstruct each other is unnatural.” The implication is clear: when we turn away in anger, we not only diminish ourselves, but harm the whole. This is no accident of language. In Stoic thought, the health of the individual and the health of the community are inseparable; virtue is not a private possession, but a public good (Long, 2002). To hate, to withdraw, to obstruct—these are not just failures of manners, but failures of citizenship.
My own experience with service work forced me to confront the reality of this philosophy. I arrived at the soup kitchen eager to “make a difference,” armed with good intentions and a smile. But I was unprepared for the ways in which people’s pain could make them hard to help. There was a man named Carl who would curse at anyone who came near, and a woman named Janine who, after I offered her an extra cookie, screamed that I was trying to poison her. Each encounter left me feeling more helpless. My instinct was to shut down, to stop caring, to avoid the “problem people.” But that’s precisely the temptation Aurelius warns against. He insists that “none of them can hurt me. No one can implicate me in ugliness.” In other words: my dignity and purpose are not determined by how others treat me, but by how I choose to respond.
The Stoic challenge, then, is not to avoid difficult people, but to use those encounters as training for virtue. Aurelius is explicit: “To feel anger at someone, to turn your back on him: these are obstructions.” He sees every bitter word, every surly look, as an opportunity to practice patience, compassion, and self-mastery. This is not about being a doormat. The Stoics were no strangers to injustice; Aurelius himself was emperor during times of war and plague. Rather, it’s about recognizing that the only true harm is the harm we do to our own character by reacting with hatred or indifference (Hadot, 1998).
This insight has profound implications for civic life. In an age defined by polarization and outrage—where social media rewards us for dunking on our opponents and retreating into echo chambers—Aurelius’ advice feels almost subversive. He tells us that “to obstruct each other is unnatural,” that our differences are not threats, but the raw material for cooperation. Think about how this could shape a classroom, a workplace, a nation. If we accepted that everyone we meet will disappoint us in some way—and that this is not a reason to give up on them, but a call to patience—what might change? Would we be more willing to listen, to forgive, to try again? Would we see political opponents not as enemies, but as fellow citizens who, like us, are groping through their own ignorance and pain?
I have seen glimpses of this philosophy in action. The most effective service organizations I’ve worked with—whether tutoring at-risk youth or building houses for Habitat for Humanity—do not divide the world into “helpers” and “the helped.” Instead, they create spaces where everyone is both flawed and capable, where the point is not to “fix” people, but to walk alongside them. This is the Stoic ideal in practice: recognizing that our destinies are intertwined, and that we were “born to work together.”
Of course, none of this is easy. Aurelius is honest about the difficulty. He wakes up each morning and reminds himself, not just once, but again and again, that he will face ingratitude and arrogance. He does not expect to be thanked or understood. This is the spiritual discipline of the Stoic: to rehearse, to anticipate, to prepare the mind for hardship so that we are not taken by surprise. “They are like this because they can’t tell good from evil,” he writes—not to excuse bad behavior, but to place it in context. People act badly because they are confused, not because they are monsters. This distinction is crucial. If we can see the confusion behind the cruelty, we might respond not with rage, but with the kind of steady patience that can, over time, make real change possible (Gerson, 2015).
I return to my experience at the soup kitchen. By the end of that year, I had learned to greet Carl’s curses with a simple “good morning.” I had learned not to take Janine’s suspicions personally. I failed often—I am not a Stoic sage. But I began to see service not as a way to “save” others, but as a practice in humility and solidarity. The work was not to change them, but to change myself—so that, brick by brick, we might build something better together.
In closing, Marcus Aurelius’ passage is not just a meditation on individual virtue, but a blueprint for civic engagement. He teaches us that the work of living together—of bearing with each other’s faults, of refusing to turn away—is the work that makes society possible. This is as true now as it was in ancient Rome. If we can adopt his discipline of radical empathy, we might find that the people who frustrate us most are our greatest teachers. In their flaws, we find the raw material for patience. In their anger, the invitation to forgiveness. In every difficult encounter, the chance to become, not just better individuals, but better citizens.
References:
- Aurelius, M. (2003). Meditations(G. Hays, Trans.). Modern Library.
- Gerson, L. P. (2015). Stoic Philosophy and the Good Life. Cambridge University Press.
- Hadot, P. (1998). The Inner Citadel: The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius (M. Chase, Trans.). Harvard University Press.
- Long, A. A. (2002). Epictetus: A Stoic and Socratic Guide to Life. Oxford University Press.