Legit. I like having a good conversation on the internet, and would enjoy your counterpoint :)

You hesitation on my decision to call Marcus Aurelius a "good person" is reasonable and well founded. He kept slaves, he prosecuted religious minorities, he reigned during wartime. And of course your most fundemental point-just because he wasn't evil/"bad" doesn't make him a "good person". Which should always be the foundation of judgement.

In defense of Marcus Aurelius, he did not want to become emperor. He tried to refuse it, but inevitably had to accept it because it was his duty to do so (he was, as you know, deeply devoted to duty to the greater whole). He did not initiate wars for blood, gold, or ego. He reigned over border disputes in over-extended Roman empire and over rebellions for the most part (in contrast for strong desire to expand). His reign was less peaceful than his predecessors, but overall was still mostly a peaceful era for the Empire. Prosecution of religious minorities was not uncommon in those times as well, although he took it to a harsher and more aggressive plane than his predecessors. I would argue that yes this is of course inherently bad to repress and murder people because they simply hold beliefs, that he reigned during the late 100's A.D., where there was not a lot global cultural appreciate for the acceptance of religious diversity. He prosecuted them, yes, but Christianity a millennium later prosecuted all non-Christians for hundreds of years during the Crusades (And remain today, thanks Trump!). So yes, religious persecution is a dick move, but in comparison to his time period was not hugely out of the norm. So I'd plead forgiveness for the positions and the era for wars and religious persecution.

What he did do was try to be a just and fair leader, and not let himself grow too far from the roots of the common people. While he was crowned an autocrat, he spent his life resisting becoming an iron-fist autocrat and trying to instead be a benevolent dictator. While the writings of a man do not define who he is as a person in the physical world, most published writing by leaders are done so for public media comsumption. The modern circulation of "the meditations" was not intended. Importantly, those writings are musings to himself as a journal of how he should act, how he should temper himself and his virtues, and how he believed one should live a good life. So he was not trying to impress anyone, he was trying to help himself become better. I think most of his writings when translated and read today sound as if from a man who is trying to be good and remain good in his heart. So for the purposes of those who read "the meditations", they can provide a stoic-flavoured source of advice on how to better oneself as a person.

But overall, I agree with you that to pass judgment on whether a man who "good" or not two millenia after he passed with limited knowledge of him and basing that opinion on a few scribbles is an inaccurate representation and description. But I do think that his codified thoughts, if meditated upon, can help improve oneself to become a better person.

Also yeah, Hitler was a dick. Pol Pot totally sucked too. At least we agree that Aurelius wasn't quite as bad as Hitler!