Like most ancient philosophers, Seneca used grandiloquent terms to spice up his writings. For instance, he employed the words “cosmos” and “natural order” to designate rather mundane events. Similarly, he used the word “logos” to mean “destiny.”
Respect for the natural order is Seneca’s favourite theme. He regarded nature as all-encompassing, not just as wilderness or greenery. When he spoke about nature, he was also referring to human actions. I mean professional, family, political and sports activities, just to name a few.
In his treatise “On the Happy Life,” Seneca outlines his recipe for happiness. As it was customary in ancient times, the treatise was addressed to a third person.
“On the Happy Life” is not written as a dialogue, the genre preferred by Plato (427-347 BC) for philosophical writing. The advantage of dialogues as a genre is that they make it easy to present and compare contrasting views.
I must, however, clarify that Plato’s works do not constitute “dialogues” as we define them today. When we watch movies or television shows, we expect their speech to sound vivid and spontaneous. If this is not the case, viewers will lose interest and categorise the movie or show as boring.
Plato did not bother to render his “dialogues” spontaneous and vivid. It never crossed his mind that readers might rate his characters as artificial and their speech as construed.
In fact, Plato had regarded artificiality and craftiness in literature as laudable. The objective of his “dialogues” was to get philosophical ideas across. He did not consider it relevant to create compelling characters and make their speech realistic.
Seneca’s dialogue “On the happy life”
Seneca chose to write “On the Happy Life” as a treatise or essay addressed to a member of his family. In older English translations, this treatise had been titled “On the Blessed Life.” It presents the insights that Seneca had gained on happiness.
The three conclusions of Seneca’s essay “On the Happy Life” are that happiness results from virtue, that virtue means living in accordance with nature, and that happiness is feasible in this life, here and now.
Nonetheless, Seneca acknowledges that most people fail to figure out what virtue is. He laments that “living in accordance with nature” has become rare and unnatural because we tend to get distracted with harmful pursuits.
Seneca regards philosophers as experts in guiding people in the direction of virtue, that is, bringing them back to “living in accordance with nature.” His explanations are not always clear, but thankfully, he illustrates them with examples.
Let’s take for instance Socrates (470-399 BC), says Seneca. He postulates that Socrates led a happy life because he devoted most of his energies to pursuing wisdom. Socrates did as little remunerated work as possible, Seneca pointed out, because he preferred to focus on immaterial pursuits.
I can tell you right away that Socrates would have starved if he had lived today. Even for ancient Greek standards, he didn’t do particularly well; when charged with ridiculous accusations, he did not seize the opportunity to flee and ended up sentenced to death; so much for Socrates’ wisdom and happiness.
Seneca’s recipe for “living in accordance with nature”
Seneca comes up with a better illustration when he refers to Crassus (115-53 BC), who had accumulated large wealth, but then embarked on a foolish military campaign and perished in the battlefield.
Nonetheless, Seneca draws the wrong conclusion from the story. He theorises that Crassus would have been happier if he had not pursued wealth, but fails to give the slightest proof for that statement.
Seneca should have simply pointed out Crassus’ foolishness in pursuing military glory, instead of enjoying his wealth. I see nothing wrong in Crassus’ business success, and everything to condemn in his expeditionary fervour.
Bellicosity kills and Crassus constitutes a perfect example. I wonder why Seneca failed to come to the obvious conclusion. Did he not see the risks inherent in military expeditions? Those cannot constitute “living in accordance with nature.”
Zeno of Citium (334-262 BC) embodies a better example of wisdom, happiness, and “living in accordance with nature.” He had lost his life’s savings in a shipwreck, where he almost died himself, but instead of wasting time with lamentations, he went to Athens and started a new career as philosopher and teacher.
Seneca lacked the right word to characterise Zeno’s resilient and proactive personality. Nowadays, we would refer to Zeno’s exploits as “entrepreneurship.” Indeed, his biography denotes a combination of qualities worth imitating.
Zeno of Citium supplies the best example of Seneca’s recipe for wisdom and happiness. His actions outline a prescription that is still valid today, and will remain valid in the future.
How can we live in accordance with nature? When we seize opportunities to exploit our talent and build a successful career, business, or artistic project. Equally, when we take good care of our health, family and friends.
Despite some meandering and imprecision, Seneca came up with the right conclusion, one that is fully workable. His path to happiness entails “self-sufficiency and independence.” Let’s commit ourselves to putting his recipe into practice.
If you are interested in applying rational ideas in all sorts of situations, I recommend my book “Rational living, rational working.”
Related articles
Productiveness and Seneca’s advice to live in accordance with nature
Realism of Seneca’s advice to live in accordance with nature
Seneca on living in accordance with nature