
How Stoical Was Seneca? (2014) - jimsojim
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2014/10/09/how-stoical-was-seneca/
======
rtl49
At the risk of talking out of my depth, to me it seems very nearly a cliche in
criticism to hone in on a person's inconsistencies in order to unveil him or
her as a hypocrite.

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.

~~~
sridca
If something, such as stoicism, does not work consistently what is its measure
of success?

~~~
eivarv
Whether or not Seneca behaved consistently with the ideals of stoicism doesn't
really say anything about how well stoicism "works" [0].

[0]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque)

~~~
sridca
Let me rephrase the question such that evasions via Tu quoque are rendered
impossible: is there a known case (as in, a person) where Stoicism _does_ work
consistently? And if there is _no_ such case (as in, no such person) where
Stoicism works consistently - what is its measure of success?

~~~
eivarv
First: What do you mean when you talk about Stoicism working - What do you
think is the goal of Stoicism?

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.

~~~
sridca
> First: What do you mean when you talk about Stoicism working - What do you
> think is the goal of Stoicism?

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.

------
ashark
> Stoics in general were supposed to be indifferent to riches, and Seneca
> often opted for an especially hard line in praising poverty as a
> philosophical good; for Stoics virtue itself (and certainly not cash) was
> the only real aim.

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](http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/series/CWLAS.html)

~~~
mesozoic
Yeah I believe the author has misunderstood the stoic teachings to some
degree. Perhaps misunderstanding the finer points separating cynicism and
stoicism.

------
fitzwatermellow
For those interested in exploring stoicism in the Eastern tradition, consider
delving into the unswayable ethos of Chinese philosopher Master Zhuang. Pre-
dating Senaca by 4 centuries, Zhaungzi was perhaps not as inclined to view the
passions so negatively. Arising as Univ. of Toronto Prof. David Machek argues,
from differing world views: "rational versus non-rational in the Greco-Roman
tradition, and artificial versus natural in the Chinese"

“Emotions that Do Not Move”: Zhuangzi and Stoics on Self-Emerging Feelings

[http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11712-015-9463-9](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/](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...](https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Way_of_Chuang_Tzu.html?id=Od_h47AxzR4C)

------
tjawirklich
This question is about as old as Seneca himself. In page 10-11 (the
introduction) of 'Seneca' Letters from a Stoic:

"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.

~~~
gaius
You could say the same of Marx who lived a very decadent lifestyle himself. Or
Hobsbawm to declined an invitation to actually live in the USSR himself.

~~~
wiz21
You're going to kill me. But for me There's a bit of Seneca in RMS. The guy
makes it so hard to live by its principles that I sometimes wonder what is
actual life is.

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 :-)

------
ableal
I like to read about the period, and appreciate the scholarship and fact
digging (if any), but sometimes the articles have a musk of smugness that I
find distasteful.

Or, as the Romans afraid of a shade's retribution put it, "de mortuis nil nisi
bonum", hesitating in scoring points off the dead.

~~~
jhanschoo
Perhaps some context would help. Now that it is almost 2 millenia since Seneca
wrote his most famous works, it is easy to forget that Seneca lived a very
comfortable life, far from the image often associated with the moderate Stoic,
and far from the kind of person his letters persuade us to be, and it bears
repeating.

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](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Of_a_Happy_Life/Book_XVI)

[2]:
[http://www.jstor.org/stable/3294099](http://www.jstor.org/stable/3294099)

------
joekrill
Dying Every Day was one of my favorite books I've read in 2015. I'm interested
in this period, and have always tried to read about it -- but I've had a hard
time finding a book that really holds my attention throughout. And this book
did just that. I highly recommend it for anyone even slightly interested in
Roman history.

~~~
JacobJans
I too enjoyed that book tremendously. If you haven't read it yet, you should
definitely read The Twelve Caesars.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Twelve_Caesars](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Twelve_Caesars)

------
mark_l_watson
Good read, that.

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.

------
hackaflocka
According to Nassim Taleb in "Antifragile", stoics were indifferent to losses,
but not to gains. They liked gains.

------
s_m_t
I'm not sure I understand the first portion of this article... apparently
Seneca's death wasn't artistic or cool enough for the author and this somehow
reflects poorly on Seneca?

