Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

I expected grand truths. What else from a writer whose works have survived so long, who's influenced so many philosophers and authors over centuries? Apparently not. I kept plowing through all the circular rubbish ("All good things are enjoyable. What is enjoyable deserves credit and pride; that is to say, it is glorious: and, if so, it must be praiseworthy. What is praiseworthy has to be morally good: therefore goodness means moral goodness" - ???) deciding that, "hey, if it's not making any sense, at least it gives me a window into the past". I finally had to give it up though - halfway through "Discussions at Tusculum". I do admire his humanistic outlook in the politically oppressive environment he was living in and maybe some things have been lost in translation, but is Western philosophy (setting aside the Greeks for a moment) seriously based on these nonsensical foundations?