“Never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you have to, with the same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present.”

Source: VII, 8 (Penguin Classics edition of Meditations, translated by Maxwell Staniforth)

Adopted from Wikiquote. Last update June 28, 2023. History

Help us to complete the source, original and additional information

Do you have more details about the quote "Never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you have to, with the same weapons of reason which today arm you…" by Marcus Aurelius?
Marcus Aurelius photo
Marcus Aurelius 400
Emperor of Ancient Rome 121–180

Related quotes

“Let today be the day … You look for the good in everyone you meet and respect their journey.”

Source: Life, the Truth, and Being Free (2010), p. 23
Context: How would your life be different if … You stopped making negative judgmental assumptions about people you encounter? Let today be the day … You look for the good in everyone you meet and respect their journey.

Jerry Spinelli photo
Fausto Cercignani photo

“If you are living in the past or in the future, you will never find a meaning in the present.”

Fausto Cercignani (1941) Italian scholar, essayist and poet

Examples of self-translation (c. 2004), Quotes - Zitate - Citations - Citazioni

““Let go of my arm, or I will scream for God.”
“He never helped you. Have you forgotten?””

Source: Titus Alone (1959), Chapter 56 (p. 910)

Robert Walser photo
Posidonius photo
Robin S. Sharma photo

“Never be a prisoner of your past. Become the architect of you future. You will never be the same.”

Robin S. Sharma (1965) Canadian self help writer

Variant: We are all here for some special reason. Stop being a prisoner of your past. Become the architect of your future.
Source: The Monk Who Sold His Ferrari: A Fable About Fulfilling Your Dreams Reaching Your Destiny

Dennis Prager photo

“The moment you meet a person of another religion whom you consider to be as good, as intelligent, and as religious as you are, you will never be the same.”

Dennis Prager (1948) American writer, speaker, radio and TV commentator, theologian

How Can a Religious Person Tolerate Other Religions? https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V24N02_13.pdf, 1990.
1990s

Stansfield Turner photo

“America and Russia have excessive numbers of nuclear weapons today because we treated nuclear weapons, at the end of World War II, like they were just bigger conventional weapons. If you have tanks, and the other side has more than you, you may be in trouble — or airplanes or ships or whatever. With nuclear weapons, it's not the same: they're too powerful, and at some point you just can't use any more, it's just not meaningful.”

Stansfield Turner (1923–2018) former United States Navy admiral and former Director of Central Intelligence and President of the Naval Wa…

Interview (18 December 1997) http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/coldwar/interviews/episode-21/turner1.html for CNN : Cold War. Episode 21 : Spies (14 March 1999)
1990s
Context: America and Russia have excessive numbers of nuclear weapons today because we treated nuclear weapons, at the end of World War II, like they were just bigger conventional weapons. If you have tanks, and the other side has more than you, you may be in trouble — or airplanes or ships or whatever. With nuclear weapons, it's not the same: they're too powerful, and at some point you just can't use any more, it's just not meaningful. But what happened was, we had the lead of course, because we invented them. The Russians tried to catch up with us; we tried to stay ahead of the Russians; they tried to catch up with us, and we just had a never-ending race upward. By the mid-Sixties, we realized this, but because of the Cold War mentality, politicians couldn't stand up and say, "I'm willing to have less than the Soviet Union," and so the race continued, but we tried to mitigate it by instituting an arms control process, which at first tried to cap and then later to reduce these numbers. … there's just no way you can actually use them; they become so destructive. I estimate that a couple of hundred nuclear weapons, not just on the center of cities, but on economic positions in the country, will drive a country to the point it will never recover, it will never be the same again. It will survive, but it'll be a totally different country. You don't need thousands to do that. There are only a few hundred cities of any size in even Russia or the United States, like 200, and you just don't need thousands of weapons to demobilize a country.

Related topics