Despite the overall soundness of his ideas, Seneca 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.
Three centuries before Seneca, Cleanthes (330-230 BC) had enunciated a crucial tenet of Stoicism: “People 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 text to modern language, I have translated “fate” by “the dictates of their circumstances.” When Cleanthes used the word “fate,” he was not referring to divine predestination. He just meant “inevitable, inescapable or unavoidable.”
His statement entails an inconsistency that runs across the whole Stoic philosophy. The problem arises from the concept of “willing individual.” Cleanthes 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. He 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
Cleanthes had overlooked that the terms “willing” and “fate” are incompatible because a willing person has reviewed his options and made a choice, but if there are no options, it is 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.
Did Seneca commit an innocent error when he enunciated the principle of conforming with fate (in Latin, “fatum”)? I am of the opinion that he did believe in conformity or acceptance because this idea appears in several 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.
The Ancient Stoics often advised “to live in accordance with nature” but their concept of “nature” is equivalent to “fate.” It seems that all we can expect from nature are famine, shipwrecks, war, illness and death.
Zeno of Citium and the art of living
In his essay “On the Happy Life,” Seneca did not mention Zeno of Citium (334-262 BC) as an illustration of going on with one’s life after having endured a shipwreck, but I find Zeno to be a great example. He had been a victim and survived by sheer luck, but it is admirable how he rebuilt his life.
I draw the following conclusion from Zeno’s story: We will live more harmoniously if we accept the inevitable. Yet, one could question if my conclusion is sound. If a catastrophe proves inevitable, is it relevant if we accept it or not?
Zeno had not survived the shipwreck because he was living “in harmony with nature.” In this sense, we should certainly not welcome shipwrecks as opportunities for personal growth or self-improvement. I am sure that we all can do better in life if we do not have to endure shipwrecks, bankruptcy, divorce and severe illness.
Seneca had a rather negative view of “nature” and “fate,” but did not regard human beings as passive puppets of destiny. His main exhortation is to learn to use every setback or failure 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 reformulate my example of Zeno to point in the right direction.
Zeno’s virtue did not consist of willingly conforming to fate because he had just been lucky in surviving the shipwreck. We should not use disasters for self-aggrandizement.
Willingness and Seneca’s art of living
It’s far better to avoid shipwrecks and cancer than to portray ourselves as heroic survivors. I wonder if Seneca incurred in self-aggrandizement when, in the “Consolation to Helvia,” he failed to categorize exile as evil and destructive.
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 conforming to fate.
Zeno’s story contains exemplary behaviour only in the years after the shipwreck. I find it admirable that Zeno deployed vast ingenuity in establishing himself later as a philosopher. He had started from scratch after the shipwreck and earned a good living in a foreign country.
Instead of praising Zeno for his willingness to accept fate, we should praise 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 would read as follows: people 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 applying rational ideas in all sorts of situations, I recommend my book “On becoming unbreakable.”
Related articles
Seneca’s insights on human nature
Seneca’s views on human nature