The accuracy of a philosophy does not depend on the length of the examples and explanations. Nonetheless, it does not hurt if the philosopher recounts anecdotes from history, literature and his own life, and complements them with well-structured arguments.
Seneca was a master in this respect. No other Stoic philosopher comes close to his literary achievements. In order to assess his contributions, we should compare him with his predecessors and with his intellectual heirs.
In terms of accuracy, he surpassed his predecessors Zeno of Citium (334-262 BC) and Cleanthes (330-230 BC); and in terms of practicality, he remained ahead of later Stoics such as Marcus Aurelius (121-180 AD) and Epictetus (55-135 AD).
Seneca’s essays on life encompass his Letters to Lucilius on the one hand, and his essays on the other hand; the latter are similar to today’s essays, but the “essay” genre did not yet exist in the first century AD.
Why are they sometimes called “dialogues”? Because they partly imitate the structure of Plato’s dialogues, in which a subject is debated by having different participants (persons such as Socrates) make comments that present their viewpoint.
Seneca’s five best known treatises or essays are titled “On the Shortness of Life,” “On the Happy Life,” “On Anger,” “The Constancy of the Wise” and “On the Tranquillity of the Mind.”
They revolve around avoiding destructive emotions such as anger, and living effectively by cultivating virtue. For Seneca, virtue was equivalent to living in accordance with nature, which he believed to be driven by reason.
I must however hasten to add that Seneca’s definition of reason is different from Aristotle’s definition of rationality. For Aristotle, reason is a synonym for logic and common sense. In contrast, Seneca defined reason as a supernatural, perennial force that governs the universe.
Seneca “On the Shortness of Life”
Seneca’s essay “On the Shortness of Life” contests the idea that human life is too short, but the arguments given by Seneca contradict the premise.
When people complain that life is too short, they mean that they do not have sufficient time to do everything they want. In the area of career development, it means that they do not have sufficient time to learn and practise several professions.
It takes years to study and train to become a physician or a lawyer. For most individuals, it’s not feasible to go through the process several times. It just consumes too much time.
History records a few cases of individuals who’ve changed careers and gone through the study/training process twice, for instance, Albert Schweizer. He was a middle-aged theologian that enrolled in the university to become a physician, and then practised medicine for decades.
Would Seneca have viewed Albert Schweizer as an example to imitate? I don’t think so. Seneca’s essay “On the Shortness of Life” tells us that human life is long enough provided that we concentrate on the essentials.
Seneca was fifty-three when he wrote “On the Shortness of Life.” The desire to do too much leads to worry and anxiety, he argued. We should not waste time pursuing too many goals. If we want to make the best of our life, we need to circumscribe our ambitions to what’s possible and leave the rest aside.
Seneca “On the Happy Life”
Almost a decade later, Seneca wrote “On the Happy Life,” where he presents moderation as the path to happiness. He then explains what moderation means in terms of food and clothes, exercise, and other lifestyle elements.
Strangely enough, Seneca was doing exactly the contrary at the time when he wrote “On the Happy Life.” His food, clothes and exercise habits had remained modest, but his professional and financial ambitions had become extreme.
Through his connection to Empress Agrippina, Seneca had gained political influence and accumulated a fortune that didn’t square with his call for “moderation in all things.”
Seneca was aware of the blatant contradiction, but did not flinch. He acknowledged that life had blessed him with great wealth, but claimed that he possessed enough wisdom to live with moderation notwithstanding.
Historians have criticised Seneca’s reply as hypocritical. It’s indeed difficult to reconcile Seneca’s lavish estate near Naples with his praise for the low-cost lifestyle of Diogenes of Sinope (412-323 BC).
Seneca “On Anger”
Seneca wrote his essay “On Anger” possibly before his long exile in Corsica. This essay condemns anger as a harmful emotion that can cause enormous havoc. For example, anger led Alexander the Great (356-323 BC) to kill his close friend Clitus because he had dared to criticize him.
The arguments in the essay are powerful, but not powerful enough to convince Emperor Claudius (10-54 AD) to put an end to Seneca’s exile. Later, Seneca wrote the essay titled “On Clemency” that praises the virtues of mercy and leniency.
Eventually, Empress Agrippina put an end to Seneca’s exile, but brought his philosophy into disarray. She invited him to return to Rome and tutor young Nero, the future Emperor.
Seneca deployed his best efforts as tutor, but it was all to no avail. Nero was already a psychopath with no hope of recovery or improvement. At the same time, Seneca assisted Agrippina in managing the Empire and accumulated vast financial assets.
Seneca “On the Tranquillity of the Mind”
When Seneca was in his fifties, he wrote the essay “On the Tranquillity of the Mind.” Nineteenth-century translations call this essay “On the Tranquillity of the Soul.” I find “Tranquillity of the Mind” more appropriate because this essay does not deal with metaphysics.
Seneca retakes the idea of moderation as the key to the good life, but placing less emphasis on happiness. Peace of mind had become his top priority. He employs arguments similar to those “On the Happy Life,” but does not speak of “happiness.”
I consider “On the Tranquillity of the Soul” as an exercise in self-help, where Seneca is encouraging himself to “stand firm” in the middle of his financial and political preoccupations, but without fundamentally changing his lifestyle.
Seneca “On the Constancy of the Wise”
Finally, his essay “On the Constancy of the Wise” calls for steadfastness when encountering adverse circumstances. This text, which precedes by five years “On the Tranquillity of the Mind,” elevates passive acceptance to a major Stoic virtue.
Seneca employs repeatedly the word “constancy,” meaning “passive acceptance.” He does not mean persistence, resolve or determination. He defines wisdom as patience or endurance in the context of a pessimist worldwide that modern readers may find difficult to comprehend.
I regard “On the Happy Life” as the best of Seneca’s essays and “On the Constancy of the Wise” as the worst. Both present the ideas of mainstream Stoicism, but give the two poles of the range. I take the pole that maximises individual initiative.
If you are interested in putting rational ideas into practice in all sorts of circumstances, I recommend my book titled “The 10 principles of rational living.”
Related articles
Misunderstandings about Seneca’s ideas
Understanding Seneca’s philosophy