We could substantially increase our performance if we learn to think like the greatest philosophers in history, but is it really possible? I consider it feasible to the extent that one is familiar with the corresponding ideas and those are consistent.
Aristotelian thinkers know the works of Aristotle (384-322 BC), have absorbed their principles, and put them into practice each day. Aristotelians take pride in their ability to think like Aristotle on a consistent basis.
If we ask the same question to two Aristotelian thinkers, we will normally get the same answer. That’s because those people are employing the same Aristotelian logic, which constitutes a consistent body of thought.
Unfortunately, few thinkers are as consistent as Aristotle. If we take Plato (427-347 BC) for example, we will find that his ideas include mystical, supernatural elements. Plato never gave logical explanations for those elements.
In view of Plato’s deficient logic, it would be hard to answer the question whether we can think like Plato. When it came to explaining how humans learn and reach conclusions, Plato was unable to give answers. Instead, he pointed to a supernatural “world of forms” that allegedly provides us the answers.
When a philosophical system is deficient, like Plato’s, it is pointless to ask if we can think like Plato. We could regurgitate Plato’s ideas about “the world of forms,” but those ideas make no sense and are worthless for drawing conclusions.
I would not consider the regurgitation of deficient ideas as “thinking” in the proper sense. We could repeat Plato’s ideas as nauseam, but they won’t grow any clearer with use. Instead of thinking, we will be engaged in philosophical obfuscation.
The meaning of “thinking like Seneca”
Seneca constitutes less of a challenge in this respect because he circumscribed his philosophy to the field of ethics. He didn’t write anything meaningful about metaphysics, epistemology, politics and aesthetics.
If we ask ourselves whether we can think like Seneca, we’ll be referring solely to the field of ethics. In particular, we’ll be referring to Seneca’s essays (sometimes written in a disputation format) and his Letters to Lucilius. There are no ethical lessons to be drawn from Seneca’s plays.
Seneca wrote extensively about the principles of Stoicism. I find his explanations superior to prior Stoic philosophers such as Zeno of Citium (334-262 BC) and Cleanthes (330-230 BC).
If we study Seneca’s works and learn his ideas, we’ll be able to think like Seneca to the extent that his ideas are accurate and logical. When it comes to understanding emotions, Seneca is one of the best philosophers in history, but I cannot say the same in the area of achievement.
Let us review the principle that will enable us “to think like Seneca,” and assess if this principle has been proven correct or incorrect by experience.
Here is Seneca’s crucial philosophical principle: All efforts shall be devoted to the cultivation of virtue. In terms of importance, all other goals pale by comparison.
Seneca’s concept of virtue
Seneca did not advise to pursue health, wealth or popularity in the first instance. He regarded those values as less important than virtue. If virtue happens to make you healthy and wealthy, great, but if it keeps you sick and poor, that’s too bad.
Seneca’s concept of virtue conflicts head-on with Aristotle’s concept. In his “Eudemian Ethics” and “Nicomachean Ethics,” Aristotle defined virtue as the path to happiness, which would include health, wealth and popularity.
In contrast, Seneca’s concept of virtue entails renunciation. In his 71st Letter to Lucilius, Seneca is condemning ambition as such because, he argues, it inevitably creates cravings and dissatisfaction. Instead, he equates virtue with quiet, passive acceptance.
Like no other Greek or Roman philosopher, Seneca had understood that unrealistic desires lead to anxiety and despair. I consider his analysis of negative emotions more subtle than the insights gained by Plato and Aristotle.
In the 71st Letter to Lucilius, Seneca doesn’t employ modern terms such as “frustration” and “subconscious,” but he conveys the same message as Sigmund Freud.
Seneca categorized frustrated individuals as “poor” because their desires exceed their possibilities or circumstances. Today, we don’t use the word “poor” in those cases, but Seneca’s logic was accurate nonetheless.
Implications of “thinking like Seneca”
Thinking like Seneca entails pursuing virtue as he defines it, not for the purpose of happiness, but peace of mind. I want to underline this aspect because it is so different from Aristotelian philosophy.
For Aristotle, virtue leads necessarily to happiness, provided that we have enough time. For Seneca, virtue leads to peace of mind and little more. Seneca considered happiness so rare and flickering, that he didn’t even bother to pursue it.
Seneca’s primary goal was peace of mind, and virtue is the path to achieve it. At the very least, virtue will help us prevent or reduce suffering, Seneca stated in his 85th Letter to Lucilius.
If we want to think like Seneca, we should let this principle guide our actions. The implications are wide-reaching. While Aristotelian morality encourages people to pursue their highest ambitions, Seneca’s virtue does the opposite. It tells people to focus on essential, basic goals and let go of the rest.
Seneca presents this idea at length in his essay “On the Shortness of Life.” He advises his readers to focus on their key goals in order to reduce their preoccupations. He regards excessive ambition as counterproductive because it can easily generate negative emotions.
Can we think like Seneca? Yes, if we embrace the principle that I have just explained. It requires some studying, but it is workable. The problem is that the implementation would only deliver peace of mind, which is still far away from Aristotle’s concept of happiness and human thriving.
If you are interested in putting rational ideas into practice in all kinds of situations, I recommend my book “The philosophy of builders.”