QuestionsDoes life have a meaning?Either Providence or atoms
Does life have a meaning?A given meaning

Either Providence or atoms

Marcus Aurelius 121 · 180What is not up to you should not trouble you.
See profile
What it claims

In either case, there is no reason to be troubled: serenity does not depend on the answer to the great question.

Why

With Providence, what happens serves the whole; with atoms, it happens anyway: either way, no reason to be troubled.

In short

"Either Providence or atoms" is an argument by Marcus Aurelius (Meditations IV, 3; VI, 10; IX, 39; X, 6; XII, 14) on the question "Does life have a meaning?" (answer: a given meaning). Its claim: In either case, there is no reason to be troubled: serenity does not depend on the answer to the great question. According to AskPhilosophy's logic check (Z3 solver), the argument is valid only if one grants a premise the author leaves unstated (P5). AskPhilosophy presents 3 objections, 1 of them with a documented reply, and the original text behind each premise, checked word for word.

Meditations IV, 3; VI, 10; IX, 39; X, 6; XII, 14
Valid with an implicit premise

Does the world have an order and a purpose, or is it just a chance mixture of atoms? Marcus believes in Providence, but he does not make his serenity depend on that belief. He examines both hypotheses and shows that in either case there is no reason to be troubled.

P1One of two things: either the world is governed by Providence, a single intelligence; or there are only atoms that mix and scatter.
P2If there is Providence, what happens is done for the good of the whole, as in a single body.
P3What is useful to the whole cannot harm the part: so the part has no ground for complaint.
P4If there are only atoms, the scattering of my elements will happen whatever I do.
P5 · implicit premiseIt is pointless to be troubled by what will happen anyway, whatever one does.
Therefore, in either case, there is no reason to be troubled: serenity does not depend on the answer to the great question.

click a premise to reject it

If you accept every premise, logic forces you to accept the conclusion. So the debate is about the premises.
Checked by a logic solver: the premises cannot all be true while the conclusion is false.
Without the implicit premise: Without P5, the computer finds a world made only of atoms, where death will come whatever one does, and where one is nevertheless right to be troubled by it.
This is a dilemma: we examine the only two possibilities (P1) and show that each leads to the same conclusion. The "Providence" branch is complete with P2 and P3. The "atoms" branch needs P5: from the fact that death will come whatever I do, it does not follow by itself that it is pointless to be troubled by it. Marcus implies it with a question ("why am I disturbed?"). Note: the argument does not prove that life has a given meaning, nor that God exists. It only shows that one can live serenely without having decided, even though Marcus himself clearly leans towards Providence.
Analogy. You are waiting for the results of an exam that has already been marked. Either your paper is good or it is not; either way, your mark is already written. Worrying tonight changes nothing: you may as well sleep well. (The analogy has limits: for Marcus, Providence does not make life absurd, it gives it a purpose.)

Objections

3

Each objection is a conversation: click to see who replies and where the debate stands.

A
An objection drawn from his own notes attacks premise 5

In the "atoms" branch, Marcus himself does not find serenity: he asks why he should wish to stay in "such a disorder". If everything is chance, the natural conclusion seems to be disgust with life, not peace.

Marc Aurèle replies
Marc Aurèle What he writes elsewhere on the same hypothesis (XII, 14)
If the world is a confusion without a governor, be content: in such a tempest you have within you a ruling intelligence, and the flood will not carry it away.
Nietzsche 1886 · attacks premise 2

Nature is wasteful, indifferent, without purpose, without pity or justice. The Stoics do not read a Providence in nature: they project their own morality onto it, then claim to discover it there.

no reply
No reply possible: objection raised in 1886, after the author's death (180).
The debate goes on (our summary) A Stoic could answer that the argument was built precisely for this case: even if nature is indifferent (the "atoms" branch), Marcus holds that being troubled remains pointless. Nietzsche would then be aiming mainly at P5: wanting to remain unmoved before nature's indifference is already, for him, "self-tyranny".
D
Dostoevsky (Ivan Karamazov) 1880 · attacks premise 3

Even if a child's suffering served the harmony of the whole, that harmony would not be worth its tears. That the part suffers "for the good of the whole" is not a consolation but a scandal.

no reply
summary: their text is not yet in our corpus
No reply possible: objection raised in 1880, after the author's death (180).