How Stoical Was Seneca? (2014)
nybooks.com
nybooks.com
It ought to be well understood that human beings are not perfectly consistent animals. We struggle to maintain an unchanging public image through the course of a continuously and inevitably changing experience. If we had to live up always to our highest ideals in order to advise others on the best course of life, none of us would ever be situated to recommend a framework for living. In Seneca's case, a school of philosophy would today be without many of its best-known works.
Incidentally, I think the fact of our inconsistency is a strong argument in favor of protecting privacy. Most of us have unrealistic and irrational expectations of consistency for others. The only way to maintain a sense of peace under these circumstances is to maintain the freedom to say one thing and do another, at least some of the time. A world without privacy might well be one in which we are all subject to the sort of treatment Seneca has received from this article's writer.
In any case, my point is primarily about the focus of the article. It's fine to examine contradictions in a notable person's life, but too few acknowledge that we all have them, and this seems especially true among literary critics. In general, I think people take charges of "hypocrisy" too seriously.
Second: This criticism is applicable to just about anything; does capitalism not "work" since just about any implementation has aspects that can be considered flawed?
You cannot generalize about an idea from people's failures to be consistent with their professed belief in it (other than perhaps that it appears to be difficult to act according to it in a consistent manner).
In the case of Seneca, it is also difficult to say whether he attempted to apply Stoicism 100%, how good his attempts were ("objectively"), or whether it is even possible at all.
As the goal of Stoicism is maintaining happiness -- and I'm referring to living in peace and harmony 24x7 -- via virtue, then it is said to "work" if it can achieve the said goal 24x7.
> Second: This criticism is applicable to just about anything; does capitalism not "work" since just about any implementation has aspects that can be considered flawed?
Irrelevant. One is a complex social phenomena; the other is pertaining to human psychology with specific goals. I could as well pick an example from the other end of the spectrum (of simplicity): eating less, for instance, leads to weight loss (or maintaining weight) - and this can be consistently demonstrated ... hence eating less "works".
> You cannot generalize about an idea from people's failures to be consistent with their professed belief in it (other than perhaps that it appears to be difficult to act according to it in a consistent manner).
I wasn't generalizing anything, and an idea/ belief is not necessarily a fact. The idea/ belief of the stoics is that virtue is sufficient for happiness. There is no doubt, in the mind of stoics, that virtue always leads to happiness (no exceptions). And it of course "appears to be difficult" - because virtue, being a higher-level cognitive function based on morality ("thou shalt remain calm" for instance), cannot consistently override the core emotions (wherein lies sorrow and malice), as humans all throughout the centuries have demonstrated time and again.
> In the case of Seneca, it is also difficult to say whether he attempted to apply Stoicism 100%, how good his attempts were ("objectively"), or whether it is even possible at all.
I doubt it is even possible at all (see above paragraph). Hence my "if it doesn't work, what is its measure of success?" question. If success that one is striving towards is ill-defined, one is probably fooling oneself.
Huh, most of what I've gotten out of him is that he thought it important not to be anxious over or fearful of the idea of losing one's riches and being poor, and not to be afraid of the state of poverty, rather than that one should not care at all for gaining wealth. He suggests occasionally playing at poverty by living on what amounts to a beggar's earnings for a few days every now and then, to reassure oneself that it's a tolerable way of living.
If anyone's looking for a good copy of his works, the (ongoing) series "The Complete Works of Lucius Annaeus Seneca" from the University of Chicago[1] is really good. They've published all his major philosophical work as of November last year. I'd guess we're getting his drama in the next volume, whenever that comes out. One of the books Mary Beard links at the top of her article is from that series.
[1] http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/series/CWLAS.html
“Emotions that Do Not Move”: Zhuangzi and Stoics on Self-Emerging Feelings
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11712-015-9463-9
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's excellent article on Zhuangzi:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/zhuangzi/
And Thomas Merton's poetic interpretations: "The Way of Chaung Tzu"
https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Way_of_Chuang_Tzu.h...
"In A.D. 58 Seneca was being attacked by people like Publius Suillius Rufus... But the campaign against him generally centered on the apparent contrast - it has been a stock criticism of Seneca right down the centuries - between his philosophical teachings and his practice."
I'm willing to go with Robin Campell's opinion on this as I'm by no means an expert. I think the circumstances of life itself lend itself to failing in your principles, reflecting and improving where possible.
But to me, Seneca is not an issue. What he wrote reminds me of my humanity, encourages me on being a better me in the way it pleases me.
So, even after reading the long article, I still prefer the subjective picture I have of Seneca rather than his actual history. I'm human :-)
Or, as the Romans afraid of a shade's retribution put it, "de mortuis nil nisi bonum", hesitating in scoring points off the dead.
Seneca himself points out that he did not live up to his principles. Starting from the book that I've linked below [1], and for a couple chapters, he points out that the model of a Stoic that one can build from his writings is a model that he is trying to become, and that he was aware of his own shortcomings when measured by that model.
It helps to contrast Seneca's relationship with his philosophy with the Greek Cynics and Stoics. The latter were often more willing to radically embody their philosophy in their actions, even if their actions were not socially accepted. Seneca, on the other hand, was very rich in his society and time, and owned multiple properties.
In fact, throughout the ages, there have always been (not necessarily well informed) commentators criticizing Seneca. This article [2] discusses precisely this matter.
Given the frequency with which Stoicism appears here, a better understanding of their earliest authors' and practicioners' relationship to the words that have survived them should be useful.
[1]: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Of_a_Happy_Life/Book_XVI
I like some ancient Roman writing. I tried to read the writings of Julius Caesar but only got part way through - too much ego.
I very much enjoyed and recommend the writings of Marcus Aurelius who was a stoic and one of the last "good" emperors. I am listening right now to a historical fiction audio book "Dictator" about the Roman Cicero. Mostly, all good stuff.