When taken out of context, philosophical statements 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 are foreign connotations in the Aristotelian tradition, which had only used the term “logos” to mean “intellect, reason or logic.”
Seneca’s views on nature compared to Aristotle’s
The fact that Seneca had decided to abjure Aristotle should already raise the alarm in the philosophically minded. To make it worse, Seneca performed his word transmutation implicitly, without ever stating his rationale for repudiating Aristotle.
In his 41st Letter to Lucilius, Seneca provides us an indirect definition of “logos.” He recommends respecting the “rational order” and quotes Cleanthes’ advice to align our actions with “cosmic reason.”
By referring to Cleanthes, Seneca is digging a deep trench between his logos and the one defined by Aristotle. This trench is as deep as an oceanic abyss and as wide as the southern side of the Parthenon. If we fall into this trench, we might not ever see the sunshine ever again.
Aristotle always employed the term “logos” in connection with the human capacity to reason, make good decisions, and achieve happiness. In contrast, Cleanthes used the term “logos” to refer to an external force against which we are powerless.
Seneca continues to deepen the trench every time he uses the word “logos.” In his 107th Letter to Lucilius, he equates the “logos” with “necessity.” We are all parts of a wagon that keeps advancing in a certain direction.
We can neither escape the wagon nor change its direction or speed. The best advice, argues Seneca, is to accept our plight and enjoy the ride as much as possible. If the wagon ends up crashing or falling off the cliff, that’s too bad, but we could not have prevented the disaster anyway.
Aristotle would have rejected Seneca’s views on nature and the cosmos. The whole point of human reason is to make good choices. If choices are impossible, if we cannot escape destiny, philosophy becomes an exercise in pointless resignation.
The duality of Seneca’s definition of nature
Luckily for Seneca, he was inconsistent with his own ideas, and had no qualms about stretching his own definitions beyond recognition. I can only assume that he must have realized that his definition on “living in accordance with nature” was flawed and demotivating, but never found the time to correct it.
While the Letters to Lucilius often speak about acceptance, inevitability and resignation, Seneca gives strongly optimistic advice in other writings.
His essay “On the happy life” regards human beings as fully capable of shaping their own destiny, not as powerless pawns of cosmical circumstances.
Seneca praises Hercules, the mythical semi-god, for making the correct decision. Instead of giving up, doing nothing, and accepting defeat, Hercules took action. He devoted his energies to pursuing difficult goals and emerged victorious.
It takes a detailed reading of Seneca’s works to get the full picture of what he means by “living in accordance with nature” and reject the superficial defeatism of some Letters to Lucilius.
Seneca had his ups and downs in life, and those must have shaped his definition of nature. Sometimes, he regarded nature as benevolent, just as Aristotle had done in his “Nicomachean Ethics.” On other occasions, he viewed nature as overpowering and deterministic, leaving humans no choice about their future.
Seneca the pessimist versus Seneca the optimist
It makes a world of difference whether we endorse Seneca the pessimist or Seneca the optimist. Both versions of Seneca’s philosophy exist because his writings encompass decades.
Seneca’s own destiny is intertwined with his philosophical writings, and it’s up to the reader to draw the complete picture. We will do ourselves a great disservice if we limit our reading of Seneca’s works to isolated quotations because there is many more lessons to be drawn.
Aristotle was right in viewing virtue as instrumental, not as prescriptive. The purpose of leading a virtuous life is to attain happiness, not to “live in accordance with nature.”
The best of Seneca’s philosophy echoes Aristotle’s views on virtue. When the 9th Letter to Lucilius praises Diogenes (412-323 BC) for its simplicity, it’s making a point that goes beyond “living in accordance with nature.”
Diogenes was keen on leading a minimalist lifestyle, says Seneca, because he wanted to protect his independence, which he viewed as essential to happiness.
In this explanation, we witness Seneca turn a full circle and recognise the capacity of humans to shape our own destiny. I’m endorsing this interpretation of Seneca, confident in the great value of its lessons.
If you are interested in putting rational ideas into practice in all kind of situations, I recommend you my book “Sequentiality: The amazing power of finding the right sequence of steps.”