Windows on Humanity

Making money cannot be an end in itself - at least for anyone not suffering from acute mental disorder. To say that my purpose in life is to make more and more money is like saying that my aim in eating is to get fatter and fatter. And what is true of individuals is also true of societies. Making money cannot be the permanent business of humanity, for the simple reason that there is nothing to do with money except spend it. And we cannot just go on spending. There will come a point when we will be satiated or disgusted or both. Or will we?"

- Edward and Robert Skidelsky in "How Much Is Enough? Money and the Good Life" (2012)

Some of my own thoughts on the subject:

What happens after you have a lot of nice things already? Do you just want bigger, faster, or shinier nice things? Our economy does not simply work without consumption. However, just maybe we do not need more of the same, but just smarter consumption. Perhaps we do not need more cheaply mass-produced things from faraway countries. Perhaps we need more consumption of local services and things made by local producers.
When this happens our money will create more well-being in our own neighborhood. Then it will not just add the profits of the multinational conglomerates. These all too often often destroy the environment and exploit defenseless workforce in faraway countries.

I think that at this point I need to mention that I gave my own car away last winter. This did happen when I was not able to drive a car because of my then current serious illness. I did not think that I would not need a car anymore as I was promised just a few days to live at the darkest point. However, I did recover against all odds. With time, I found out that I will need a car again to get around. The more so as I was still too weak to walk to the nearest bus stop a kilometer away.
However, because of my illness, my economy was in bad shape and I could not even borrow much money for a new car. Therefore, I just had to find the cheapest car in town that would be of least trouble. I found a 10-year old little 1.0-liter odd-looking and the odd-colored thing, but which was in an extremely good shape for its age.

Now I have a much smaller, less powerful and overall much less macho car than its predecessor was. However, I am extremely happy with it. My new car is really snappy, has good proportion and uses much less gasoline than the old one. Overall, it is a colorful and bright little thing. I just love it more day by day, when the old much more mainstream vehicle did not give me any such emotional feedback.
The moral of the story is that you do not always need faster, shinier, and more macho things to be happier. One needs stuff that does really fulfill one's current needs. The things that fill them just might be slower, less shiny and less macho...

We have used our unprecedented freedoms … not to agitate for justice, for redistribution, for the defense of our common interests, but to pursue the dopamine hits triggered by the purchase of products we do not need."

- George Monbiot

http://socialsciences.exeter.ac.uk/sociology/staff/skidelsky/

http://www.skidelskyr.com/

Advocates of capitalism like to appeal to the sacred principles of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate.”

Bertrand Russell in ”Sceptical Essays” (1928)

My own ideas on some of the issues raised by the quote:

I must hasten to point out that Bertrand Russell never did advocate the Soviet model of communism or the end of private ownership. He was always a keen follower of western, democratic form of social reform. His aim was to mend capitalism so that more and more people could find their lives tolerable.
Bertrand Russell was from a stoutly aristocratic lineage. However, in a very early stage of his life he found out that open greed of capitalism must be restrained. His aim was reform capitalism so that the fruits of labor would not benefit only selected few, not to overthrow it.

Happily, the western democratic socialist movement were in very many countries successful in their fight for more just division of the fruits of capitalism. The western societies did with time become much more livable and safer for also the paid employees.
However, there is a major new threat emerging in the form of the ultra-capitalist ideologies. They are made even more dangerous by the sad situation where many people fail to understand that ultra-capitalist ideas like Randian “philosophy” or Libertarianism are just theories like communism is.

Many people do not see that what is presented as a 'scientific economic theory' can be part of an ideology. These ideologies have been created to protect the interests of the owning class and most of all to give moral justification to open greed.
There are many academics who forward these ideas, as well there are very many Christian academics forwarding Christian ideology. These builders of ultra-capitalist ideology have in common the habit of denying the central role of labor and socialist movements in building up the western standard of living. In fact, they often seem to be not interested in general standard of living at all, but just about creating maximally benevolent environment for capitalism.

For ideological reasons, they always absolutely deny the central role of the labor movement in the modern economy. They commonly also deny that without labor movement the rise of productivity would not have necessarily risen living standards of the workers, but only for the owners. They can for example, deny that the rise in cost of labor has been a central factor reason in the rise of productivity also. This did happen because the rise in the cost of labor has made it more worthwhile to invest in new work-saving machines.
I well know that very many people think that economic theories would be somehow free of ideology. This has happened mainly because creating this illusion has been a major aim of the academic builders of these ideas. There is nothing wrong in having an ideology. However, I see a problem in denying its existence and claiming that it is ‘science’. This is a very similar method that was used by the communists also when they claimed that Marxism-Leninism was a ‘science’.

A very central problem with all ultra-capitalist ideologies is that they take just one aspect of production and make the whole society serve that end. This happens even if it will benefit just one part of the society or the owning class and its immediate high-salaried employees.
When you take the interests and needs of the whole society as your aim, all ultra-capitalist ideologies do fall flat on their face. Such an ideology can never aid the lot of the sick, the weak, the retired or the mentally disabled. It is an ideology for the strong, the able, but also for people with inherited wealth, even if they are unable to do anything real by themselves.

(This piece was refurbished on 1st of January, 2012)

Bertrand Russell is in Facebook at:
http://facebook.com/russellbertie

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell
"Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell, OM, FRS (18 May 1872 – 2 February 1970) was a British philosopher, logician, mathematician, historian, and social critic."

Sir, as a man advances in life, he gets what is better than admiration, — judgement, to estimate things at their true value."

- Samuel Johnson, reported in James Boswell: "The Life of Samuel Johnson" (1791)

My own ideas on the issue:

In the world of ideas, the hardest part can be to convince yourself that you have contributed something worthwhile. However, before you can convince yourself, you will have a hard time convincing anybody else. We just are extremely dependent of the judgment of others. However, with age the dependence on the acceptance of others may diminish, even if all people do not undergo this kind of change.
The big thing is to understand that you can never please everybody. Sometimes the ire of people who dogmatically oppose your ideas can be the best confirmation of their validity.

However, we are just humans. The idea that all people cannot ever accept our ideas is difficult to implement in practice, even if we can well understand it in theory. Criticism will always hurt. This is true even if we can understand on a rational level from where it is coming fro.

(This piece was refurbished on 31th of October, 2012)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Johnson
"Samuel Johnson (18 September 1709 [O.S. 7 September] – 13 December 1784), often referred to as Dr Johnson, was an English author who made lasting contributions to English literature as a poet, essayist, moralist, literary critic, biographer, editor and lexicographer. Johnson has been described as "arguably the most distinguished man of letters in English history". He is also the subject of "the most famous single work of biographical art in the whole of literature": James Boswell's Life of Samuel Johnson."

Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge, and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind. These passions, like great winds, have blown me hither and thither, in a wayward course, over a deep ocean of anguish, reaching the very verge of despair..Children in famine, victims tortured by oppressors, helpless old people..the whole world of loneliness, poverty, and pain make a mockery of what human life should be. I long to alleviate this evil, but I cannot, and I too suffer. This has been my life. I have found it worth living, and would gladly live it again if the chance were offered me.

Bertrand Russell in "The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell" (1967), Prologue: "What I Have Lived For"

My own thoughts on the quote:

Even Bertrand Russell would certainly have approved the idea that a part of human spirit does survive in the writings of that person. An honest book is always a window to the mind of another person. In fact, it does not matter if that person is living or dead.

A part of a person's mind will be preserved in his or her writings. This is true as long as there are people who are able to decipher the symbols that were used to convey these thoughts and if these writings do survive in a readable form. In this sense, a person really can achieve a certain level of immortality.

However, one needs to produce words that will interest also coming generations and which are not commentary of current affairs. In this respect, Bertrand Russell has certainly achieved a high degree of immortality, I think.

Bertrand Russell is in Facebook at:
http://www.facebook.com/russellbertie

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_russell
"Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell, OM, FRS[1] (18 May 1872 – 2 February 1970) was a British philosopher, logician, mathematician, historian, and social critic. His work has had a considerable influence on logic, mathematics, set theory, linguistics, computer science (see type theory and type system), and philosophy, especially philosophy of language, epistemology, and metaphysics. Russell was a prominent anti-war activist; he championed anti-imperialism and went to prison for his pacifism during World War I. Later, he campaigned against Adolf Hitler, then criticised Stalinist totalitarianism, attacked the United States of America's involvement in the Vietnam War, and was an outspoken proponent of nuclear disarmament. In 1950 Russell was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature, "in recognition of his varied and significant writings in which he champions humanitarian ideals and freedom of thought."

Don't worry about people stealing an idea. If it's original, you will have to ram it down their throats."

- Howard H. Aiken, as quoted in Portraits in Silicon (1987) by Robert Slater

Some of my own recent thoughts on the issue of ideas:

Radically new ideas are perhaps the most difficult things to sell. One of the main reasons for this can be that when one just goes along with the old ideas one needs not know precisely what they are and what they really mean. To accept a radically new idea one needs know the field in question well. Many people just may have a nagging fear that they do not know enough to step out of the crowd.
On the other hand, we tend to think that other people know more than we. Most people also tend to hide their lack of knowledge as well as they can. That can create a situation where most people think that others know more than they. Consequently, by just going in with the crowd people can best hide away their perceived lack of knowledge that can, in fact, be quite illusory.

However, one of the most personally liberating things a person can say is: "I do not know". Only after this moment occurs one is able to say this one can really learn from others. It is very, very difficult.
However, personally  I well remember the feeling of liberation which I did feel after I realized that a person cannot know everything. After that, I could concentrate just on the things that felt important to me personally. Before that, I had just accumulated knowledge. However, now I could put it also into better use as a base for ideas of my own.
There perhaps are no shortcuts for reaching this point. It can be that this stage can be reached just by living a life that shows you the limits but also the strong points in your knowledge.

(This piece was refurbished on 30th of December, 2012)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_H._Aiken
"Howard Hathaway Aiken (March 8, 1900 – March 14, 1973) was a pioneer in computing, being the original conceptual designer behind IBM's Harvard Mark I computer."

"It is of the nature of idea to be communicated: written, spoken, done. The idea is like grass. It craves light, likes crowds, thrives on crossbreeding, grows better for being stepped on."

- Ursula K. Le Guin, The Dispossessed (1974), Ch. 3

Some of my own thoughts on the subject:

There is a crucial difference between physical attack and a mental aggression. You normally just must respond to a physical attack, but a mental aggression is often best foiled by just ignoring it.
In fact, all too often you will gain absolutely nothing if you are drawn into a meaningless battle of words with a troll. A troll likes nothing more than make other people angry. If they get no response, they will just fade away. A troll lives and thrives on the anger of others.

However, the chance to have a honest discussion with a person who has a different set of ideas from you is a completely different matter altogether. It is a chance that one just must never miss. The chance of testing your ideas with a different mind is an extremely valuable asset if you ever want to develop your ideas further.
The difficulty, of course, is how to see when the other party is just out to search and destroy and when he is out to test his or her own ideas.

(This piece was refurbished on 30th of October, 2012)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ursula_K._Le_Guin

"Ursula Kroeber Le Guin (born October 21, 1929) is an American author of novels, children's books, and short stories, mainly in the genres of fantasy and science fiction. She has also written poetry and essays. First published in the 1960s, her work explores alternative imaginings of sexuality, religion, politics, anarchism, ethnography, and gender. She is influenced by central figures of Western literature, including feminist writers like Virginia Woolf, and also by modern fantasy and science fiction writers, Norse mythology, and books from the Eastern tradition such as the Tao Te Ching. She has won various awards, including the Hugo, Nebula, Locus, and World Fantasy Award multiple times."

"If you need something to worship, then worship life — all life, every last crawling bit of it! We're all in this beauty together!"

- Frank Herbert in "Dune Messiah" (1969)

My own ideas on the issue:

Some people seem to think that animals are just made by humans to look like humans when we say that an animal is jealous or shy or reclusive. There is a fundamental misconception here. We share at least all the very basic ones of our basic emotions with other animals.
Emotions are not something that humans need to teach to animals. Emotions are things that are shared by all animals that have passed beyond certain evolutionary level. We have these feelings and emotions because we are animals and not the other way around.

Animals do have emotions. The more evolved an animal is the more like human emotions these emotions tend to be. In the special case of dogs, there has been for many thousands of years a strong evolutionary pressure of selecting into breeding of those dogs who best in understanding human motions.
However, the fact that a dog can so well interpret human emotions is based on the simple fact it has quite similar basic emotions itself. The intensive breeding has just intensified this ability and now dog is a breed of animals that can read and understand human emotions better than any other breed of animals, I think.

The extremely strong human cultural evolution that originated from the invention of speech has molded how humans handle, show and control their emotions to a degree that is unknown in other species of animals.
However, the very basic emotions have been developed by evolution during the hundreds of millions of years of development that has produced the species of animals that roam at the face of the earth at this moment.

All emotions do serve a species in a very basic level. They help us cope with wild variety of different situations. They also keep us doing different things that will benefit us, our society and sometimes even the whole species. Most of all in the long run they can drive us into doing things that emotionless animals would not even dream of doing.
Emotions are sometimes seen as a disgusting animal-like force in otherwise rational humans. However, there is a very rational reason for the existence of every single emotion that we have.

A major problem is that emotions are also misused in ways that were unimaginable before the invention of language. Emotions are often used to make people do irrational things. This is, however, not a problem with emotions, but with the people who knowingly misuse them.

(This piece was refurbished on 29th of December, 2012)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_herbert
"Franklin Patrick Herbert, Jr. (October 8, 1920 – February 11, 1986) was a critically acclaimed and commercially successful American science fiction author. Though also a short story author, he is best known for his novels,most notably Dune and its five sequels. The Dune saga, set in the distant future and taking place over millennia, deals with themes such as human survival and evolution, ecology, and the intersection of religion, politics and power. Dune itself is the "best-selling science fiction novel of all time," and the series is widely considered to be among the classics in the genre."

"I am a humanist, which mean, in part, that I have tried to behave decently without any expectation of rewards or punishments after I'm dead. My German-American ancestors, the earliest of whom settled in our Middle West about the time of our Civil War, called themselves "Freethinkers," which is the same sort of thing. My great grandfather Clemens Vonnegut wrote, for example, "If what Jesus said was good, what can it matter whether he was God or not?"

- Kurt Vonnegut, in God Bless You, Dr. Kevorkian (1999)

Some of my own recent ideas on humanism:

In an analogy from the world of computers, humanism is an antivirus-program. It is not an operating system like religions, who want to decide what other programs are allowed into the system. However, humanism will check and prevent hate-inducing, fear-mongering and abuse-inducing programs (ideas) from taking over the system. A humanist is free to use any other programs (ideas) that he on she sees fit.
Humanism does not diminish a person’s freedom of choice. Accepting a humanistic basic attitude will, however, normally make a person reject violence and coercion as tools for advancing his or her personal interest or ideas.

The basic ideas of humanism are a deeply buried respect for all humans and the idea of striving for a basic human equality. This is done in full knowledge of the fact that not all things that humans do deserve respect. Humans have also never been and will never be fully equal.
A humanist just does think that acting humanely also towards those that we do not like or respect is our duty as humans. A true humanist will think that the cost of treating all people humanely will be paid back with dividends right here on Earth.

(This piece refurbished on 29th of October, 2012)

Kurt Vonnegut is in Facebook at:
http://www.facebook.com/vonnegutwriter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Vonnegut
"Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. ( /ˈvɒnɨɡət/; November 11, 1922 – April 11, 2007) was a 20th-century American writer. His works such as Cat's Cradle (1963), Slaughterhouse-Five (1969), and Breakfast of Champions (1973) blend satire, gallows humor, and science fiction. As a citizen he was a lifelong supporter of the American Civil Liberties Union and a critical leftist intellectual. He was known for his humanist beliefs and was honorary president of the American Humanist Association."

I think we risk becoming the best informed society that has ever died of ignorance.”

- Rubén Blades, in a conference at Harvard University (1993)

Some of my own thoughts on the subject:

Human society is like a deep sea. Just a tiny part of it is visible on the surface. Even when it is high winds and massive waves at the top, there can be great calm all over in the deep recesses of this sea.
As in a sea the winds on the surface can go to one direction while the deep currents deep under go unhindered to another direction. They can have flown for centuries quite unshaken by the changes of the winds on the surface.

As in research of seas is done from mainly from the surface, so is the research of society. The direction of the prevailing winds is well known and often even predictable, but we still know surprisingly little of the deep currents. However, these currents do in the end keep the whole system going century after century.
These deep currents change so slowly that their changes can be passed over quite unnoticed. However, when they do break to the surface, they can have a devastating effect.

A major problem is that the deepest changes are too slow to be noticed in the endless stream of information that does drown us daily. This onslaught can make us gasp for air after a day of being bombarded by violent things that are news because they so often just are so rare, not because they would be in any way important to us personally.
In this endless bombardment, it is very difficult to pause and look around to search for the really important things. We may not even notice how the way we see other humans does change in this bombardment of meaningless violence.

This thought comes to my mind sometimes: Who benefits from the fact that we are losing our trust and faith in other humans when we are subjected to constant and endless stream of violent images. This often happens even if in our immediate neighborhood there is nothing to be really afraid of.
I do not have any answers as I am not a follower of conspiracy theories. I’m just afraid that humankind has a bad record of going carried away with the trade winds as long as the going is good. Humans can just go on forever without ever realizing what they are doing to themselves.

(This piece was refurbished on 28th of December, 2012)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruben_Blades
"Rubén Blades Bellido de Luna (Spanish pronunciation: [ˈruβen ˈbleðz] born July 16, 1948) is a Panamanian salsa singer, songwriter, actor, Latin jazz musician, and activist. He holds a law degree from the University of Panama and a master's in international law from Harvard University. He managed to attract 18% of the vote in his attempt to win the Panamanian presidency in 1994. In September 2004, he was appointed minister of tourism by Panamanian president Martín Torrijos for a five-year term."

We all have a tendency to think that the world must conform to our prejudices. The opposite view involves some effort of thought, and most people would die sooner than think — in fact they do so."

- Bertrand Russell in "The ABC of Relativity" (1925), p. 166

My own thoughts on the issue:

The biological and most of all cultural evolution of humans has created a bewilderingly complex and varied subject. No single one even of the greatest existing explanations can wholly explain why humans and human societies are what they are. Most of all no single explanation can wholly explain why humans will want humans and human societies to be in a certain way.
A very basic thing is that what humans are and what they would want to be are two different questions altogether. We just so easily see things be as we would so much want them to be. Making us realize this will just make us angry.

The world that would be as would like it to be just is so often much more to our liking than the world as it is. So often, it would all too painful to give up the illusion that we have nurtured and cherished often for a very long time. Therefore, we keep constantly finding support for our own illusions and rejecting all contrasting evidence.
The other big problem with humans is that we seem to have an inner need to gain some kind absolute knowledge. We just cannot accept the fact such a thing just do not exist in very many things.

An unpleasant fact is that we so often have big trouble living with uncertainty. We easily accept explanations that seem to offer great certainty on the surface, but so often are just one way for looking at things.
There can be fine, forceful, and beautiful explanations. However, very often other explanations can offer more but different insight to the same issue when it is just seen from a bit different angle.

We (and this group naturally include the writer of this piece)just do not have the nerve to accept the simple fact there just is no single ultimate answer to even most of the complex question that can bother us. We all are unable for some degree to face the fact that most questions that concern the nature and development of humans and human societies are bound to be extremely complex. With high probability they will always remain without a single, definite, final answer, when things do also continue to change and evolve.
There just perhaps never will be a single answer that will explain the big questions wholly. This is an extremely difficult thing to accept. We all are just humans and as humans we will quite inevitably fall in love with beautiful and final-sounding explanations.

(This piece was refurbished on 27th of December, 2012)

Bertrand Russell is in Facebook at:
http://www.facebook.com/russellbertie

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_russell
"Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell, OM, FRS (18 May 1872 – 2 February 1970) was a British philosopher, logician, mathematician, historian, and social critic. He is considered one of the founders of analytic philosophy along with his predecessor Gottlob Frege and his friend Ludwig Wittgenstein, and is widely held to be one of the 20th century's premier logicians. Russell was a prominent anti-war activist; he championed anti-imperialism and went to prison for his pacifism during World War I. Later, he campaigned against Adolf Hitler, then criticised Stalinist totalitarianism, attacked the United States of America's involvement in the Vietnam War, and was an outspoken proponent of nuclear disarmament."

"Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.”

- Arthur Schopenhauer in "On The Freedom Of The Will" (1839)

My own ideas on the quote:

I personally understand this marvelous sentence by Arthur Schopenhauer as explaining that we have a free will to a limited degree. We are driven but also restrained by our instincts. However, we are guided most of all by the existing customs and codes of morality that are current in our part of society.
These customs and codes of morality that will tie down an individual free will need not be the ruling ones. An ethnic, political or religious minority does can create an even more binding and even suffocating framework of allowed and forbidden actions than any ruling class.

We are normally really free to choose only the things which are available within the framework that is presented to us by accidents of birth. It really depends on your definition of 'free' when you think that somebody has a free will or not on a given situation. There just is no absolute truth for even this problem.
A person can have a definite freedom of will in some question and issues and lesser or no freedom of action in some others at the same time. I have a little string-theory of my own that is based on the idea that we have countless of little mental "strings". They are attached constantly to every individual when they live their lives. Some new ones will add up. Some others will be lost during the whole duration of our lives.

These invisible strings may pull the person to also different directions at the same time. However, the sum of the forces of these "strings" largely decides what we will decide to want as Arthur Schopenhauer says. In the end, it all boils down to the question of what we want to 'will' and from where do these ideas come from.

On the other hand, philosopher-emperor Marcus Aurelius wrote in his 'Meditations' this:

The universe is change; our life is what our thoughts make it."

We can break free from some of the models of thought that will always try to tie down our thinking. As humans are most of all social animals no person will ever have a completely free will, even if a person can create even a quite perfect illusion of having one.
We can still at least strive for more intellectual freedom. However, this can happen only after we understand the limits for exercising free will that being part of a human society will always set.

(This piece was refurbished on 26th of December, 2012)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schopenhauer

"Arthur Schopenhauer (22 February 1788 – 21 September 1860) was a German philosopher known for his pessimism and philosophical clarity. At age 25, he published his doctoral dissertation, On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason, which examined the four separate manifestations of reason in the phenomenal world. Schopenhauer's most influential work, The World as Will and Representation, claimed that the world is fundamentally what humans recognize in themselves as their will. His analysis of will led him to the conclusion that emotional, physical, and sexual desires can never be fully satisfied."

The happiness and unhappiness of the rational, social animal depends, not on what he feels but on what he does; just as his virtue and vice consist not in feeling but in doing.

- Marcus Aurelius in "Meditations"

Some of my own ideas on the subject of happiness.

Unhappiness is normally a result of a conflict between expectations and reality. To achieve happiness one needs to adjust either one's expectations or the reality. One's choice normally depends on which method is easiest to accomplish in any particular case.
However, if one chooses not to even try anything the state of unhappiness will all too often just continue unresolved.

By adjusting reality I mean things like chancing your job, taking up an interesting hobby or in general things and actions that will change things in one's life or environment environment or in other words reality. Naturally one needs to spot the thing that can make one unhappy and which one can change by oneself. There are naturally a lot of things that one simply cannot change.
There are always these two options. A very good option is always to lower one's expectations when they show to be too hard to realize. This can happen if one feels oneself unhappy,for example, because one can't travel to faraway places, buy a bigger house or buy a more expensive car.

(This piece was refurbished on 25th of December, 2012)

Marcus Aurelius also in Facebook at:
http://www.facebook.com/aureliusphilosopher

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Aurelius
"Marcus Aurelius (Latin: Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus (26 April 121 – 17 March 180 AD), was Roman Emperor from 161 to 180 AD. He ruled with Lucius Verus as co-emperor from 161 until Verus' death in 169. He was the last of the "Five Good Emperors", and is also considered one of the most important Stoic philosophers."