It’s hypocritical to recommend poverty when one is wealthy, or to recommend passivity when one has displayed remarkable industriousness for decades. Seneca (4 BC-65 AD) is to blame on both counts, I am afraid.
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.
The 25th Letter to Lucilius shows the fault in Seneca’s logic, but teaches a major philosophical 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 jumping to conclusions too quickly, Seneca had then closed his eyes to the fact that his ideas were unworkable. I can only regret that those 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.
Influence of Plato on Seneca’s views of nature
The problem is that, when Seneca tried to define “living in accordance with nature,” he relied on 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.
When Seneca postulates that “we shouldn’t be slaves to our own body,” he is implicitly accepting the platonic dualism. He is considering the soul as the human essence, and the body as a disposable auxiliary.
The error becomes more apparent when Seneca exhorts the reader to “focus on the present” and don’t worry about the next day. Apparently, our soul will deal with future problems when they emerge, even if our body is totally unprepared.
Seneca keeps going in this direction, affirming that “wealth does not bring happiness.” I must assume that he knew what he was talking about, since he was one of the wealthiest persons in the whole Roman Empire.
Yet, his advice sounds surreal and impracticable for readers who must pay their bills every month. If they want to prevent bankruptcy, they need to budget carefully and plan the future.
I won’t deny that our soul needs philosophical nourishment, but Seneca seems to forget that our body needs food, our home needs heating, our children need schooling and so on. All those expenditures require that we think carefully about the future.
Seneca’s lesson from the life of Cleomenes
Seneca praises Cleomenes III (3rd century BC) as someone to imitate, as someone who embodies virtues that enhance our resilience and happiness.
According to the tradition, Cleomenes had ruled the Spartan kingdom for thirteen years. During that period, he enjoyed the prestige and accoutrements typical of the royal function.
The situation changed in the year 223 BC, when the Spartan army, led by Cleomenes, endured several defeats. The ensuing recriminations put an end to Cleomenes’ rule. He was forced to leave all his possessions behind and go into exile in 222 BC.
Seneca commends Cleomenes for his adaptability, serenity, and resilience after 222 BC. Although Cleomenes had to live in poverty, explains Seneca, he still managed to lead a contented, dignified life.
I personally have doubts about Cleomenes’ contentment, but Seneca blends the concepts of resignation and contentment. In any case, Seneca’s message is that we should be ready to lead a modest lifestyle so that “we are not slaves to our body.”
Cleomenes lived many centuries ago, but we can all picture his dramatic loss of status and income. His loss wasn’t different from an overextended high-earner, who suddenly loses his job and must liquidate all his assets to pay off his debts.
I am sure that Cleomenes would have loved to have a back-up plan, instead of losing everything and going into exile. The same principle applies to any overextended high-earner facing sudden dismissal.
Seneca’s lesson from the life of Antisthenes
Seneca should have realized that the platonic dualism is the wrong formula for enhancing resilience and happiness. People are better prepared for emergencies when they plan in advance, especially when they make back-up plans to cover their risks.
Unfortunately, Seneca had a fixation on poverty, endurance, and resignation. He praised Antisthenes (445-365 BC) for his life of exacerbated privations, which he equates with “living in accordance with nature.”
Seneca’s argumentation is convoluted and unconvincing. He postulates that Antisthenes was not a slave to his body because he had nothing; and that he was wise because he had chosen a lifestyle of deprivation.
Antisthenes was a disciple of Socrates (470-399 BC), but I wonder if had he learned anything from his master other than a few paradoxes that glorify modesty and resignation.
Seneca drew the wrong conclusion from the stories because he attributed happiness to the cultivation of the soul. He should have pointed out the obvious: that Cleomenes lacked a back-up plan, and that Antisthenes lacked a real career.
“Living in accordance with nature” becomes feasible only if we define nature as human nature, that is, as rational. Prudence and productiveness should be praised, and poverty averted, not glorified. That’s the twist that renders Seneca’s ideas workable.
If you are interested in putting rational ideas into practice, I recommend you my book titled “Against all odds: How to achieve great victories in desperate times.”