A linear view of human nature constitutes the weakest point of Seneca (4 BC-65 AD) as a philosopher. He regarded humans as rational, but with a tendency to do too much or too little. If we want to prevent anxiety and worry, he theorized, we should embrace moderation in all things.
Seneca considered anxiety and worry to be the roots of most unhappiness. His recipe for preventing stress is avoiding strong emotions through self-control. If we restrain ourselves from all excesses, we will remain somewhere in the middle and prevent negative emotions.
The logic employed by Seneca relies on linearity, that is, on the assumption that, in all human activities, there is a line that goes from zero to one hundred.
According to Seneca, if we remain in the middle and avoid the extremes, we can free ourselves of anxiety and worry. If we keep strong emotions at bay, we’ll maintain our peace of mind
However, Seneca’s logic does not withstand a close scrutiny. Are we supposed to choose moderation in nutrition and health, so that we eat only average food, that is, not too noxious, but also not too healthy?
If we use Seneca’s logic, we should also choose moderation in virtue. We should behave honestly, but not too much. We are also to behave courageously, but not too much, and so on.
Seneca’s error about moderation
Seneca’s call for moderation would prove counterproductive in those cases. We should pursue virtue, health, friendship and love to the maximum, not with moderation. If the purpose of human life is happiness, why should we pursue happiness with moderation?
Human nature is nor made of linear traits, where we can set the emphasis always at a moderate level. Do not do anything in excess, says Seneca, but how are we supposed to make dozens of decisions per day if we cannot figure out what moderation means?
In the 18th Letter to Lucilius, Seneca mentions as example a man who fell ill because he had been eating and drinking too much. He then concludes that “anything in excess is harmful.”
Seneca employs a similar example in his dialogue “On the Happy Life,” where he mentions a king who tried to achieve happiness by leading a dissolute lifestyle, but ended up ill and dissatisfied.
In those examples, Seneca is pointing to a few areas, where human life shows certain linearity. If we eat too much, we will fall sick; and if we eat too little, we will starve. His intellectual error is to elevate those areas to a general principle.
Seneca and human motivation
Seneca overlooked that human thriving and happiness are averse to moderation. People enjoy achievement and success in their profession, but those will require immoderate dedication.
Aristotle (384-322 BC) had built his “Nicomachean Ethics” around the pursuit of happiness. He placed personal growth far above moderation and risk reduction.
Although achievement requires lots of effort, people regard it as worthy. They are willing to exert themselves to attain their goals and improve their station in life.
Seneca is placing moderation above everything else because of his imperfect grasp of human nature. Indeed, moderation in food and drink may help protect our health, but moderation in all areas will destroy our motivation for happiness.
Fear of failure doesn’t provide a formula for happiness. Nor does risk avoidance provide a formula for achievement. Seneca had placed serenity on a pedestal and built his ethical system around it, but serenity is a poor consolation for boredom and lack of achievement.
In his 33rd Letter to Lucilius, Seneca warns readers against high ambitions because those create needs that might remain unfulfilled. In this context, Seneca’s call for moderation means a systematic suppression of personal initiative, risk taking, and entrepreneurship.
Seneca’s dialogue “On the Shortness of Life” recommends embracing a modest lifestyle because it will prevent frustration and anxiety if our ambitions are not fulfilled. Nevertheless, it ‘s also warning against extreme asceticism, calling it “unwise.”
Seneca and the pursuit of ambition
Despite his good intentions, Seneca overlooked that human nature cannot operate solely on prohibitions. Don’t do this, and don’t do that, may spare us some trouble, but cannot define our long term direction.
Seneca opposed unbridled passion because he found it risky, uncontrollable, and potentially harmful. The problem is that, if we suppress passion, we’ll also be suppressing ambition, love, personal initiative, achievement, and happiness.
In any case, human nature cannot be suppressed. Seneca is persistent in his arguments, but those fail to hit the mark. If we let fear of failure paralyse our initiatives, we will never achieve anything.
If we refrain from asking because we fear rejection, we will never get what we want. If we fail to practise assiduously, we’ll never reach a high level of performance. If we stay immobile, we will never arrive at our desired destination.
In his dialogue “On the Happy Life,” Seneca warns readers against the pursuit of ambitions because failure and heartbreak could occur. Unfortunately, he also forgot to warn them against passivity because it will prevent them from finding and seizing opportunities.
I wonder which kind of human being can wake up each day and tell himself: “I am going to do nothing today because, if I pursue my goals, I might fail and feel bad.”
Seneca was wrong in seeking serenity through avoidance or inhibition. Human nature requires the pursuit of happiness with zest and decisiveness. Thriving demands steady effort, but it is certainly worth it. I wish that Seneca would have stayed more alert in this area.
If you are interested in putting rational ideas into practice in all sorts of situations, I recommend you my book “Asymmetry: The shortcut to success when success seems impossible.”