In contrast to most Ancient Greek and Roman philosophers, Seneca (4 BC-65 AD) remained highly consistent between his writings and his own life. I am referring specifically to his life in Corsica, where he had been exiled by Emperor Nero (54-68 AD).
Seneca’s wisdom or “art of living” has maintained its value through the centuries because it responds to a crucial need. It is answering the question “What to do when things fall apart?”
Undisputedly, we face nowadays different challenges than in the early years of the Roman Empire. Seneca did not have to worry about pollution, overpopulation, inflation, traffic jams or unemployment, but he witnessed first-hand the ravages of war, famine, slavery, and judicial arbitrariness.
I’m going to articulate Seneca’s art of living around two key insights. Those are spread across his philosophical writings, which consist of dialogues (essays in a conversational format) and his Letters to Lucilius.
Seneca and the benefits of a modest lifestyle
Wealth plays an enabling role in human life, but it is just one factor out of many in the formula for happiness. Seneca is the first author in history to argue at length in favour of leading a modest lifestyle, voluntarily limiting our expenditures.
The recommendation of a modest lifestyle was not new, but prior authors had never addressed it in detail. I mean “authors” and not only “philosophers.”
We can trace back this idea to the Bible, but not as a central theme in the Ancient Testament. The exhortation to embrace a modest lifestyle appears repeatedly in the Gospels, but those were written long after Seneca’s death.
Indeed, Seneca was the first author to recommend discipline in expenditures and a modest lifestyle. I haven’t mentioned the Taoist philosophers Lao-Tzu (571-531 BC) and Chuang-Tzu (369-286 BC) because those had taken poverty for granted.
Seneca was perfectly aware that some prior philosophers in Greece had chosen to live in poverty. He specifically mentions Diogenes of Sinope (412-323 BC), a cynic philosopher living in abject poverty, but who rejected nevertheless the financial support of Alexander the Great.
Like Seneca, Diogenes viewed a modest lifestyle as morally desirable. Why? Because a low-cost lifestyle strengthens our self-reliance. Renunciation protects our independence because it renders us impossible to manipulate.
Seneca’s arguments differ slightly from Diogenes’ because Seneca cared for serenity more than he cared for independence and self-reliance. For Seneca, the greatest advantage of a low-cost lifestyle is that it removes preoccupations about earning more money or losing the little we have.
Seneca on dealing with setbacks
We can do better in life if we concentrate our efforts on aspects under our control, and then learn to cope with the rest. This insight attained full fruition only in the next generation of Stoic philosophers, in particular with Epictetus (55-135 AD).
Seneca anticipates Epictetus’ doctrines in this regard, but in a fragmentary manner. In today’s language, I would formulate this insight as: Do not cry over spilled milk, nor over stupidity, ignorance and waste in the world.
In Ancient Greece and Rome, the enunciation of this tenet is mostly negative. I mean that antique philosophers are telling us what to avoid rather than pointing in the right direction. I agree that we should not cry over spilled milk, but we need to know what to do instead.
Seneca establishes this negative principle in his 13th Letter to Lucilius. He criticizes a man for crying and wailing because his son had passed away. Since his son is already dead and not coming back, argues Seneca, what’s the point of crying?
If we follow Seneca’s logic, we should categorize the son’s death as spilled milk over which we should not cry, but there is a major problem with this logic: it seems inhuman to repress one’s tears in the face of unmitigated disaster.
Seneca fails to explain the advantages, if any, of repressing one’s sentiments in those situations. Will the father grow more effective if he refrains from crying? Will he become happier or more fulfilled? Hardly.
Epictetus and the art of living
Epictetus would continue to develop this Stoic principle, but without changing the negative formulation. He argued that we can increase our serenity if we refrain from loving too much or displaying too much affection.
His advice remains negative. It all revolves around steering away from this, refraining from doing that, and renouncing lots of things that render our life pleasurable.
I fail to see the point of those recommendations. If we take negative prescriptions literally, we would do very little in life. I would have to stopped most initiatives and projects because, if they fail, I will feel disappointed. Really?
Seneca’s and Epictetus’ advice only makes sense when we formulate it in a positive manner. Instead of criticising the man for crying about his dead son, he could concentrate of his other children, on his profession or on his hobbies.
At the very least, he would be busy and distracted from his sorrow. His dead son is not coming back, but solely crying will not do the father any good. He needs to take constructive steps, or at least keep himself busy, in other areas.
In his dialogue “On the Happy Life,” Seneca is providing a positive formulation of this principle. Imagine a ship surprised by a storm on high seas. The storm is shaking the ship up and down and the crew is terrorized. They think that they are going to die.
What’s the optimal philosophical reaction? Seneca correctly points out that crying and wailing are pointless. Sailors would do better if they busy themselves trying to save the ship.
There are some actions they could undertake. For instance, remove the sails to minimize the effect of the wind and prevent the mast from breaking. Even if the do nothing and just pray, I think that they would feel less terrorized by the storm.
Seneca’s example is far from ideal because it portrays a life-or-death situation where little action is possible. I can come up with better examples taken from everyday life. What’s the best philosophical response to divorce, unemployment, injury, etc.?
A positive formulation (doing something constructive) will help more than a negative one (refrain from crying). However, considering the historical context of Seneca’s writings, one can only praise the quality of his insights.
If you are interested in putting rational ideas into practice in all kind of situations, I recommend you my book “Against all odds: How to achieve great victories in desperate times.”