I’ve found myself in a transitional phase of life. Old tidbits of Popperist radicalism have been my mantra for some time, but they never seemed to provoke a change in outlook. I have changed a lot but not directly from Popper and his thought.

My more recent review of Taleb has left me leaning a more conservative bent. My temperament aligns with Taleb, but my radical impulses contest his thoughts. For good or ill, my temperament has been winning the battle for my actions, so I’ve realized that I must turn to Tabeb and his ilk to understand myself.

To that end, I just recently decided to pick up some works on Stoicism, the old philosophy that’s been making a comeback recently. The conundrum that I feel reading Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations leaves me thrown for a loop. The guy is amazing and I can connect to him and his outlook rather deeply. His mysticism I can do without. I just don’t know what my conclusions should be here.

Aurelius suggest contemplative meditation through writing. Considering the advantages of such, I’ve decided that I’m going to combat my conservative temperament and public discourse about my ideas. I plan to connect these three philosophers together and expound upon them here.

Aurelius’ Stoicism: the understanding that all is natural and the imperative to maximize the virtue of that which can be controlled and minimize emotional connection to that which cannot.

Popper’s Logical Positivism (Empiricism): the drive to regularize of all phenomena into explicable processes and the imperative to understanding ever more through challenging all authorities, notions, and beliefs.

Taleb’s Rational Conservatism: the warning against hubris and the imperative to give deep though to all ideas challenges and ideas

I have a feeling that expounding upon these three philosophical writers and their aide-de-camp will reveal new truth for me and, considering how intellectually powerful these men have been, could bring about a superior philosophy of life that could make me a better man.