Mistakes in Seneca's doctrine of moderation

Practical advice from Seneca on leading a life of virtue

Although Seneca employed the term “virtue” inconsistently, his incoherence did not prevent him from making profound observations about human nature, virtue, personal success and happiness. In his 71st Letter to Lucilius, he uses a beautiful metaphor to define a virtuous life. He compares good persons to archers who choose their target carefully. Good individuals are able to shoot their arrows in the right direction, taking the wind and other elements into account. In contrast, foolish people are like unskilled archers that will shoot without choosing their target carefully. They do not pay attention to an essential factor. At some point, their arrows will be wasted or attain the wrong target. That’s what happens to individuals who get carried away by their emotions, explains Seneca. What should we do to become good archers? Seneca is giving us great hands-on advice in his 40th Letter to Lucilius. I regard this letter as one of Seneca’s best in terms of practicality that possesses permanent value. Let us pass review to the messages conveyed in this Letter. Harmony is an indicator of a well-functioning lifestyle, explains Seneca, and disharmony indicates the opposite. Fear and anxiety are signals that we should not ignore. When our mind is not at peace, it is giving us a warning that we are doing something wrong. Our emotions are not precise enough to tell us what to do in order to achieve our goals, but they can surely help us identify our errors. When we feel anxious or fearful, we should take a step back and figure out what we are doing wrong. Seneca frequently employs the term “universal order” as a synonym for “virtue.” His thesis is that we grow more resilient and happier when we live in harmony with the universal order. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/practical-advice-from-seneca-on-leading-a-life-of-virtue/

Seneca's examples of a virtuous life

There is often a considerable distance between the sayings and the actions of philosophers. Especially when they employ a grandiloquent tone, I prefer to look at their biography and see for myself if they are following their own advice. Seneca was better than most in this respect. I admire in particular his strong self-discipline in writing, elaborating and discussing difficult questions. Despite his large wealth and influence, he adopted the humble tone of an elderly friend. His 11th Letter to Lucilius is one the shortest in terms of examples. Seneca recounts stories that he had witnessed with his own eyes, or that he had learned from trustworthy sources. I find those stories particularly compelling because they are aligned with Seneca’s philosophical beliefs at the lowest period of his life, that is, when he was exiled in Corsica, an island in the Mediterranean Sea. Behind each example, we can easily discover a close link to Seneca’s state of mind at that time; when he is giving examples of sickness, loneliness and hardship, he is speaking of himself. We don’t know the exact details of Seneca’s medical issues, but his descriptions show that he was suffering from asthma or some other type of breathing insufficiency. His letters mention as well that he was experiencing pain and feeling weak. Seneca faces his medical issues courageously. His resolve is so strong that I would categorize it as an early form of positive thinking. His 11th Letter to Lucilius tells us that “the mind must remain strong” despite the body’s frailty, and that illness should be regarded as “a test for the mind.” Nevertheless, there is a decisive difference between positive thinkers and Seneca. If we take for instance Emile Coué (1857-1926) and his experiments in auto-suggestion, we can see that those aim at making the patient believe in his own healing. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/senecas-examples-of-a-virtuous-life/

Seneca on leading a life of moderation

It is easy to preach moderation when one does not have the resources or capability to engage in excesses. If I can afford to eat only bread and cheese, it doesn’t cost me anything to speak against gluttony and luxurious food. Late in life, Seneca was the foremost apostle of moderation, but his previous lifestyle did not always reflect his acquired ideas. Thus, when prompted to declare allegiance to a pure doctrine or inconsistent deeds, I tend to feel closer to the latter. What did Seneca mean by “moderation”? First of all, he was referring to wealth. He knew the widest and broadest meaning of abundance, since he was one of the wealthiest men in Rome. In his 4th Letter to Lucilius, Seneca affirms that wealth isn’t the highest goal in life, and places philosophy above the joys derived from material possessions. Nonetheless, he did not call for poverty or total renunciation. Seneca’s advocacy of moderation is radically different from the Christian defence of poverty as a virtue. For the Christians, wealth is to be freely shared or renounced. I’m speaking of the early Christians as portrayed in the Gospels. For Seneca, wealth is to be enjoyed wisely, so that it doesn’t grow into an obsession driving our life. He categorizes wealth as dangerous because it can easily render us blind to justice or compassion. Pride, according to Seneca, is to be avoided at all costs due to its enslaving power. If we allow wealth to become the driver of our actions, we become slaves, he argues. Steady wisdom is needed to ascertain the right measure in expenditures. We should keep modesty and simplicity as high goals that help us prevent low vices that turn us to fools. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/seneca-on-leading-a-life-of-moderation/

Mistakes in Seneca's doctrine of moderation

Despite its benefits, there is a crucial flaw in the doctrine of moderation proposed by Seneca. The problem is not new in the history of philosophy. Four centuries earlier, Aristotle (384-322 BC) had committed the same error when he came up with the doctrine of the golden mean. I blame the flaw on the philosophers’ desire to give complex advice. Aristotle had defined virtue as a middle point or golden mean between two vices. Seneca had exacerbated the error by elevating moderation to a virtue in itself. What is the problem with the golden mean and moderation? The problem with those two doctrines is that they fail to define virtue in a direct manner. Aristotle viewed generosity as a virtue, but had defined it as the golden mean between avarice and reckless expenditures. It is an ingenious definition, but there is no incontestable way to establish how generous we should be in each case. Seneca is even worse because he called for moderation in all areas of life, just for the sake of moderation. If we apply his doctrine consistently, we will make poor choices. I think that Aristotle and Seneca had promoted their ideas of the golden mean and moderation precisely because those ideas are very complex. They require endless explanations from their originators, that is, from Aristotle and Seneca themselves. In his works “Nicomachean Ethics” and “Eudemian Ethics,” Aristotle gave numerous examples of his golden mean doctrine and virtue definitions, but I’ve never seen anyone employ them in real life. They are just too convoluted. Concerning the doctrine of moderation, Seneca gave dozens of examples in his Letters to Lucilius, but his examples are as convoluted as those given by Aristotle. I am referring for instance to the 83rd Letter to Lucilius. This Letter contains Seneca’s exhortation to “eat only for the sake of maintaining one’s health, but not for the sake of enjoyment.” Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/mistakes-in-senecas-doctrine-of-moderation/

The practice of Seneca's doctrine of moderation

Experience has taught me to be sceptical of philosophical or ideological proclamations, especially when they conflict with my own observations. Seneca wrote abundantly about self-control and moderation, but I see too few successful examples in reality. Did Seneca expect that people would adopt his philosophy? Would he wonder why, centuries later, practically everybody is ignoring his advice? In the 2nd Letter to Lucilius, Seneca stated that “The most precious wealth is to content oneself with a modest lifestyle.” I think that, when he wrote that statement, Seneca was talking to himself and possibly to the few people who read his writings in the first century of our era. Do we see nowadays many people that content themselves with a humble lifestyle? I mean people who have consciously renounced ambition, advancement and improvement. Truth be told, I know a few of those individuals, but their lifestyles are severely limited. I would not want to imitate their boring existence, which they sustain by restricting their desires to the barely minimum. I wonder if the obsession for moderation and self-discipline is derived from ignorance, but presented as deep philosophy. In fact, those people are devoting massive psychological energies to justify their humdrum lifestyle. Would it not be wiser to put those energies to a better use? Seneca never answered this question, not even indirectly. I find it annoying that, instead of providing an answer, he came up with meaningless paradoxes. For instance, in his 15th Letter to Lucilius, paragraph 9, he affirms that “if our happiness depended on the achievement of some goal, we would already be happy.” He encourages us to draw happiness from enjoying our current situation without demanding anything extra. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/the-practice-of-senecas-doctrine-of-moderation/