Right, Marcus Aurelius an Emperor of Rome, successful reformer of it's society, public works, and education, successful leader of it's military, and generally considered one of the leaders of Rome's Golden age, was merely an unsuccessful loser trying to cope.
The only one coping here is the author of the comment, who has evidently entirely mis-understood anything about Stoicism and needs to read more.
Oh yeah, what kind of exit did Rome get? They raised a lot of rounds, but did they ever go public? I heard they got acquihired and most folks got nothing
I'm not sure there is much worth in imitating a Roman Emperor. They were violent megalomaniacal psychopaths to a man. There is little, about Marcus as a human being, I would consider "successful". Just because he was a good Emperor doesn't mean he was a morally successful person.
To me, successful "mind hacks" help us become more success at being better people; not enabling a horrible empire.
Of course the final word on Marcus should go to Mary Beard, the best classist of her generation:
--->“I have never understood what people get out of him. It’s a bad book. It’s hard to argue about it — it’s so evidently garbage that it’s hard to sit down with somebody who doesn’t think it’s garbage and fight it out. He’s a terrible writer."
I'm definitely not a classicist, but I think it's unfair to criticize his writing abilities too much. He wasn't writing a book for others as I understand it, it was his personal diaries. EDIT: also most people are reading a translation, so there's another layer of editorial in there.
Take a look into the illustration about Seneca on wasting your time, e.g. - from what Ive observed: Successful people know exactly when their time gets wasted and what could be done instead and not to waste time on irrelevant things.
