Read a little more Cicero tonight.  Some excerpts and comments.

When these [understanding of nature, the art of the good life, accurate discussion and analysis] are the themes a wise man spends his days and nights contemplating, what exaltation they will bring to his heart! . . . To men immersed day and night in these meditations comes understanding of the truth pronounced by the god at Delphi, that the mind should know itself; and there comes also the perception of its union with the divine mind, the source of its inexhaustible joy.

I clearly find some affinity with this description of contemplation and the intellectual life.  But, in our post-Marxist world, we should see the elitism in such remarks, as many never have the opportunity to develop such a life.  That doesn't, however, detract from the idea that this is the best form of life, if one can live it.  And it is much better than an argument that life is about pursuing riches or stuff, as sometimes even a poor and disadvantaged person can find some opportunity to enrich the mind.

Epicurus scarcely differs from an animal.

Okay, that is an excerpt.  The opening phrase of the sentences is "Taking this attitude," but either way, it is very clear Cicero does not like Epicurus or Epicureanism.

I do want to get away from Stoic hyper-subtleties

Quite right, old chap.

But the most formidable obstacle to adopting a moral standard seems to be pain.

Ah.  I'm studying Job for an upcoming sermon series, and this line might just appear.

Happiness, I say again, will not tremble, however much it is tortured.

I just can't accept this view of the ancient philosophers.  I wrote more about it recently here.

This is the sort of person a truly wise man has to be.  He will never do anything he might regret -- or anything he does not want to do.  Every action he performs will always be dignified, consistent, serious, upright.  He will not succumb to the belief that this or that future event is predestined to happen; and no event, therefore, will cause him surprise, or strike him as unexpected or strange.  Whatever comes up, he will continue to apply his own standards; and when he has made a decision, he will abide by it.  A happier condition than that I am unable to conceive.

I am both attracted by and somewhat repulsed by this vision.  On the one hand, we should aspire to someone of such consistent and clear action.  On the other hand, this person sounds awfully close to the proud person, a vice in Christian ethics.  I have long been torn between, as has Western thought, the Greco-Roman and the Judaeo-Christian visions of the good.

Suppose one can fully embrace this mode of living (and reconcile it with other ethical narratives that have some force over you), it is also clear that someone living this way will generally be ill-regarded by many in our contemporary society.  He will be thought of as arrogant and unresponsive to the desires/needs of others.  While he lives according to what he views as right and wise, others will attack him.  This does not mean the way of life is not right, but does raise interesting questions both about society and about whether the good life should include getting along with others, even others who are not aware of the wisdom that guides one's life.

He quotes Socrates, "What a lot of things there are that I don't feel any need for!"

Amen to that.

The people who run hardest after pleasure are the least likely to catch what they are after.

Wise words.  The pleasure-seeker cannot be satisfied, whereas the person who lives simply will find pleasure more easily.

A life so wholly lacking in reason and moderation must of necessity be highly unattractive.

That I can agree with as well.

Over a few pages he begins to argue the virtues of "poverty," though I assumed he really meant simplicity, as real poverty is an evil.  Then, when I read this next excerpt, it confirmed that his view of poverty is one of a rich elite:

What a lot of trouble one avoids if one refuses to have anything to do with the common herd!  To have no job, to devote one's time to literature, is the most wonderful thing in the world.

Nietzsche was correct that the Judaeo-Christian worldview turned ethics upside down, as in the Greco-Roman world, the good person was the excellent person who avoided entanglements with what is common.  Whereas in the J-C worldview, one must live in solidarity with the poor, the despised, and the common.  The goal of life becomes compassion not excellence (as previously understood).  

As a philosophy grad student, I fully embraced virtue ethics.  When, during that period, I read Bonhoeffer's The Cost of Discipleship I wrote many times in the margin that what he was describing and encouraging was in fact a vice.

So, I have worked to figure out how to reconcile and apply both in my pursuit of what is good.

The same applies to whatever assaults fortune may launch against you.  If you are unable to face them, there is nothing to prevent you from running away.

This comes in his argument for suicide, and on this I do embrace the classical view over the traditional Christian view.