Seneca on living in accordance with nature

Seneca on living in accordance with nature

When taken out of context, philosophical statements can prove misleading; when poorly defined, they become dangerous; and the more frequently they are repeated, the more dangerous they become. Seneca (4 BC-65 AD) did his fair share of repeating poorly defined statements. The fact that he eschewed debates spared him uncomfortable questions. For instance, readers might have asked Seneca to clarify what he meant by “living in accordance with nature.” He loved to exhort everyone to “live in accordance with nature,” but his writings define “nature” rather fuzzily. What did Seneca mean exactly? Was he talking about nature in the sense of trees, sheep, and mosquitoes? Or did he actually mean “human nature” as defined by Aristotle (384-322 BC)? Seneca added to the mystification by using cryptic words. I am afraid that he only created confusion by advising people to “live in harmony with the logos.” The word “logos” is employed by Seneca interchangeably with “cosmic order” and “universal reason.” Those don’t match exactly the Aristotelian tradition, which had only used the term “logos” to mean “intellect, reason or logic.” The fact that Seneca had not built on Aristotle’s works should raise the alarm in the philosophically minded. To make it worse, Seneca performed his word transmutation implicitly, without ever stating his rationale for not following Aristotle. In the Letters to Lucilius, Seneca provides us an indirect definition of “logos.” He recommends respecting the “rational order.” It reminds me of Cleanthes’ advice to align our actions with “cosmic reason.” Cleanthes and Seneca dug up a deep trench between their concept of logos and the one used by Aristotle. The trench is as deep as an oceanic abyss and as wide as the Himalayas. If we fall into this trench, I fear that we might never see the sunshine again. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/senecas-on-living-in-accordance-with-nature/

Feasibility of Seneca's advice to live in accordance with nature

Like most ancient philosophers, Seneca used grandiloquent terms to spice up his writings. For instance, he employed the words “cosmos” and “natural order” to designate rather mundane events. Similarly, he used the word “logos” to mean “destiny.” Respect for the natural order is Seneca’s favourite theme. He regarded nature as all-encompassing, not just as wilderness or greenery. When he spoke about nature, he was also referring to human actions. I mean professional, family, political and sports activities, just to name a few. In his treatise “On the Happy Life,” Seneca outlines his recipe for happiness. As it was customary in ancient times, the treatise was addressed to a third person. “On the Happy Life” is not written as a dialogue, the genre preferred by Plato (427-347 BC) for philosophical writing. The advantage of dialogues as a genre is that they make it easy to present and compare contrasting views. I must, however, clarify that Plato’s works do not constitute “dialogues” as we define them today. When we watch movies or television shows, we expect their speech to sound vivid and spontaneous. If this is not the case, viewers will lose interest and categorise the movie or show as boring. Plato did not bother to render his “dialogues” spontaneous and vivid. It never crossed his mind that readers might rate his characters as artificial and their speech as construed. In fact, Plato had regarded artificiality and craftiness in literature as laudable. The objective of his “dialogues” was to get philosophical ideas across. He did not consider it relevant to create compelling characters and make their speech realistic. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/feasibility-of-senecas-advice-to-live-in-accordance-with-nature/

Realism and Seneca's advice to live in accordance with nature

It’s hypocritical to recommend poverty when one is wealthy, or to recommend passivity when one has displayed remarkable industriousness for decades. I am afraid that Seneca is to blame on both counts. Nonetheless, he did not mean to deceive his readers. He was sincere in his feelings, convinced that he was dispensing good advice. Indeed, Seneca had good intentions, but got it terribly wrong. I can only conclude that there is a fault in Seneca’s logic, even if he tried to teach a major lesson. Seneca made an error because, when confronted with an undesirable effect, he made a wild guess about its cause instead of investigating further. After having jumped to conclusions too quickly, Seneca closed his eyes to the fact that his ideas were unworkable. I can only regret that these have been relayed uncritically by people who trusted Seneca’s prestige more than their own perceptions. Seneca was elaborating on his central theme, that is, that we should live in accordance with nature. He rightly inferred that, by living in accordance with nature, we can attain better results and increase our happiness. The problem is that, when Seneca tried to define “living in accordance with nature,” he got close to the Platonic dualism that splits human beings into body and soul. Plato (427-347 BC) had built his metaphysics on the alleged preexistence of the soul, which joins the body at birth; and his epistemology on the alleged access of the soul to an intangible, eternal world of abstract ideas. In general, Stoics do not subscribe to Platonic dualism, but when Seneca wrote that “we shouldn’t be slaves to our own body,” is he not accepting Platonic dualism? Is he not viewing the soul as the human essence, and the body as an auxiliary? Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/realism-of-senecas-advice-to-live-in-accordance-with-nature/

Productiveness and Seneca's advice to live in accordance with nature

The ancient Roman republican values can be illustrated by individuals like Cincinnatus or Scipio Africanus. Their actions embody valour, equanimity, and above all, productiveness. Cincinnatus (519-430 BC) was a farmer, but found himself appointed to lead the Roman army for a while. He did his best to win the war, and as soon as it was done, he went back to his farm and continued to work. Scipio Africanus (236-183 BC) did a great deal of travelling during his military campaigns, but travelling did not prevent him from using his spare time for reading and learning. He was known to be a learned man, and his good decisions reflect the depth of his knowledge. The old Roman republican spirit was still shaping Seneca’s views when he wrote his 88th Letter to Lucilius, emphasising a virtue drawn from Aristotle (384-322 BC). I am referring to the virtue of productiveness, which plays a major role in Aristotle’s “Nicomachean Ethics.” Seneca and Aristotle did not use the word “productiveness” because it wasn’t part of their vocabulary, but they used words that convey the same meaning. Aristotle would frequently employ “human flourishing” and “thriving” as synonyms for happiness, affirming that happiness entails the development of one’s talents and skills, and putting them into practice. Seneca did something similar in his 88th Letter to Lucilius, where he praises one’s ability to deliver an objectively valuable performance or work. That was a distinct statement in favour of market value or exchange value, which he considered the coin that drives human choices. For the sake of simplicity, I am going to employ the word “productiveness” in this discussion. It encompasses accurately the concepts used by Aristotle and Seneca in their writings. Seneca categorizes productiveness as virtuous, and places it much higher than unearned reputation coming from ancestry or family connections. Productiveness is the practical outcome of important virtues such as initiative, courage and persistence. These constitute the opposite of passivity, resignation and defeatism. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/productiveness-and-senecas-advice-to-live-in-accordance-with-nature/

Seneca on living simply

Historians seldom remark that exoticism or strangeness adds value to the advice of ancient philosophers. I mean exoticism and strangeness in the sense of “Verfremdung,” the concept coined by Bertolt Brecht (1898-1956) in his theatre theory. By “Verfremdung,” Brecht meant that acerbic criticism will meet less resistance if conveyed on stage through exotic stories and characters. The public will still get the message, but subtly and metaphorically. Otherwise, they would have rejected it. Seneca provided plenty of good advice, but I doubt that his ideas would be palatable without their exotic, strange flavour. Readers are receptive to Seneca’s prescriptions for a simple life because he lived more than two thousand years ago, in the times of ancient Rome. When placed in such an exotic, strange setting, an agrarian lifestyle looks appealing. I maintain that Seneca’s prescriptions benefit from the effects of “Verfremdung” because people today would not listen to them if dispensed by a peasant living in poverty. Seneca was himself extremely wealthy, but wrote profusely against wealth. His 25th Letter to Lucilius recounts that wealthy people tend to feel anxious because they fear losing their assets and being forced to live in poverty. The argument employed by Seneca is fallacious. Indeed, he may have known some wealthy people who lived in anxiety, but there are many who don’t. In fact, there is no objective argument to affirm that wealthy people have to feel anxious, worried or fearful. There are ways to protect one’s assets and keep anxiety at bay. I am referring to relocation, insurance, asset diversification, geographical diversification, just to name a few methods used in modern times to protect one’s assets. Seneca’s argument about anxiety doesn’t hold water. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/seneca-on-living-simply/