Despite the overall soundness of his ideas, Seneca (4 BC-65 AD) incurred important inconsistencies. His wisdom or “art of living” needs rectifications to avoid potentially lethal risks. Let us point out those inconsistencies and see how to address them.
In his 104th Letter to Lucilius, Seneca enunciated a crucial tenet of Stoicism: “Individuals who conform to the dictates of their circumstances tend to do better in life than those who are reluctant.”
In order to adapt the original Latin text to modern language, I have translated “fate” by “the dictates of their circumstances.” When Seneca employed the word “fate,” he was not referring to divine predestination. He just meant “inevitable, inescapable or unavoidable.”
Seneca’s statement entails an inconsistency that runs across his whole philosophy. The problem arises from the concept of “willing individual.” Seneca meant individuals who align their thoughts and actions with fate.
He used the word “fate” to underline that those constraints and circumstances cannot be modified. Seneca was taking for granted that individuals cannot steer their life in their chosen direction, and that obstacles and setbacks should be accepted.
Fate and Seneca’s art of living
Seneca overlooked that the terms “willing” and “fate” are incompatible; a willing person has passed review to his options and made a choice, but if there are no options, it’s meaningless to speak of “choice” and “willingness.”
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) considered freedom of choice a precondition for morality. In his book, “Critique of Practical Reason” published in 1788, he declared it pointless to establish ethical rules for circumstances that do not offer a choice.
Seneca didn’t commit an innocent error when he enunciated the principle of conforming with fate. He really meant what he said. There is no doubt about it because the same idea appears in all Letters to Lucilius.
Why did Seneca fail to remove the inconsistency? Because he was taking for granted that we cannot overcome the dictates of our circumstances. No wonder that his theatrical plays only portray heroes that suffer and perish due to inescapable threats.
Seneca often advised “to live in accordance with nature” but his concept of “nature” is equivalent to “fate.” It seems that all we can expect from nature are shipwrecks, war, famine, illness and death.
Zeno of Citium and the art of living
In his dialogue “On the Shortness of Life,” Seneca praised Zeno of Citium (334-262 BC) for going on with his life after having endured a shipwreck, but what is there to praise? Zeno had been a victim and survived by sheer luck. Why should we praise him for resuming his life after the shipwreck?
Seneca draws the following conclusion from Zeno’s story: “We will live more harmoniously if we accept the inevitable.” Again, his conclusion entails an inconsistency. If a catastrophe is “inevitable,” it is irrelevant if we accept it or not.
Zeno had not survived the shipwreck because he was living “in harmony with nature.” Neither could Seneca convince me that a shipwreck is an opportunity for personal growth or self-improvement.
I am sure that we all can do better in life if we do not endure shipwrecks, bankruptcy, divorce and severe illness. Seneca has a very negative view of “nature” and “fate.” He regards human beings as puppets of destiny, and is exhorting us to view every shipwreck as an opportunity to strengthen our character.
Seneca’s philosophy needs improvement. We should not put it into practice before we remove its inconsistencies. Luckily, it is not hard to fix the problem. I am going to use the example of Zeno to point in the right direction.
Zeno’s virtue didn’t consist of “willingly conforming to fate” because he had just been lucky in surviving the shipwreck. We should not use disasters for self-aggrandisement.
Willingness and Seneca’s art of living
It’s far better to avoid shipwrecks and cancer than to portray ourselves as heroic survivors. I suspect that Seneca incurred in self-aggrandizement when he praised the acceptance of exile in his essay “On the Happy Life.”
Seneca coped well with exile in Corsica, but led a relatively comfortable life anyway. There is some merit in his equanimity and steadiness, but not enough to turn them into archetypes of wisdom.
Zeno’s story contains exemplary behaviour only in the years after the shipwreck. I find admirable that Zeno deployed vast ingenuity in establishing himself as philosopher. He had started from scratch after the shipwreck and earned a good living in a foreign country.
Instead of praising Zeno’s for his willingness to accept fate, Seneca should have praised his zest and determination. I would point to the biography of Heinrich Schliemann (1822-1890) as an equivalent of zest and determination after having endured a shipwreck.
It is high time to reformulate the tenet enunciated by Seneca and replace “willingness” by the correct term. The updated text reads as follows: individuals who face their circumstances with zest and determination tend to do better in life than those who remain passive.”
Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that the next Heinrich Schliemann or Zeno of Citium would survive a shipwreck. Let us thus focus our efforts on avoiding unnecessary risks, so that we can deploy our zest and determination still for decades.
If you are interested in putting rational ideas into practice in all kind of situations, I recommend you my book titled “On becoming unbreakable.”