Accidence or providence? Marcus Aurelius 6.10

Marcus takes two views of the world: first an Epicurean view that sees all outcomes as accidental, emanating from contingency that lacks any unifying integrity; then, a Stoic one that sees them serving a greater purpose, essential somehow to the integrity of the whole.

Ἤτοι κυκεὼν καὶ ἀντεμπλοκὴ καὶ σκεδασμὸς ἢ ἕνωσις καὶ τάξις καὶ πρόνοια. εἰ μὲν οὖν τὰ πρότερα, τί καὶ ἐπιθυμῶ εἰκαίῳ συγκρίματι καὶ φυρμῷ τοιούτῳ ἐνδιατρίβειν; τί δέ μοι καὶ μέλει ἄλλου τινὸς ἢ τοῦ ὅπως ποτὲ αἶα γίνεσθαι; τί δὲ καὶ ταράσσομαι; ἥξει γὰρ ἐπ’ ἐμὲ ὁ σκεδασμός, ὅ τι ἂν ποιῶ. εἰ δὲ θάτερά ἐστι, σέβω καὶ εὐσταθῶ καὶ θαρρῶ τῷ διοικοῦντι.

The world is either a mess—a mad brew seething with momentary entanglement and scattering—or the opposite: a unified integrity marked by order and rational anticipation. If the former is our situation, then why would I wish to persist in any fixed position as part of a random heap, carried on in total disorder? Why does it matter to me that the earth be one way rather than another? What is the point of troubling myself? For the wild scattering will get me in the end, no matter what I do. But if our situation is the opposite of this one, then I should worship providence, resting and rejoicing in it.