It is not a coincidence that historians and philosophers have spread large misunderstandings of Stoicism, especially of the ideas presented by Seneca in his writings.
They did so, not to destroy Seneca’s reputation, but to push their own doctrines to the forefront. They believed that, by undermining the appeal of Stoicism, people would be driven to accept opposite doctrines.
Fortunately, those historians and philosophers did an awful job at undermining Seneca. I would argue that their distortions have achieved the opposite effect. Instead of driving Stoicism into oblivion, they had magnified its influence and endurance.
The attempts to misrepresent Stoicism come in all flavours, but share a common element: They present Seneca as a liar or hypocrite; they point to his literary praise of simplicity while he accumulated an immense fortune; they compare his words with his actions, and decry the inconsistencies.
Indeed, those discrepancies exist, but I do not know of any philosopher who perfectly embodied his own ideals. I consider the demand for perfect consistency unrealistic because it takes decades for a thinker to give shape to his body of thought.
By the time his intellectual edifice is completed, the author cannot go back in time and change his own past. He cannot be expected to reincarnate overnight into a perfect human being, one who would think and act with omniscience.
Seneca: Inconsistency between words and actions
The demand for perfect consistency between words and actions does not invalidate a body of philosophical ideas. It can drive us to examine those ideals more thoroughly and question the philosopher’s motivation, but the truth is the truth. It would not make any sense to shoot the messenger.
Seneca was conscious of the impossibility of achieving total consistency. Everybody makes mistakes, but we just tend to be stricter with philosophers’ errors.
We would like philosophers to display supernatural wisdom and alertness in their own lives. Why? Because their success is reassuring us of the truth of their assertions, and their failure is forcing us to recheck our premises once and again.
In his 41st and 83rd Letters to Lucilius, Seneca commits to practising virtue at every opportunity, but accepts in advance that he will make some mistakes, face opposition, and endure criticism. The underlying idea is that, even when we are alone, we should live as though the gods were watching us.
Seneca’s call for “detachment” from daily experience helps reinforce this principle. His 54th Letter to Lucilius encourages readers to keep practising virtue irrespective of the short-time results.
Unless we exercise ourselves in “detachment,” we will keep asking for a perfect, immediate relationship between cause and effect. We will keep asking for perfect consistency, lament our errors, and grow paralysed as a result. Paradoxically, we need a good share of “detachment” to achieve beneficial results.
Seneca: Does Stoicism require a favourable context?
The demand for a favourable context goes hand in hand with the demand for perfection. This type of criticism against Stoicism is formulated in a compassionate manner, such as: “Seneca’s philosophy was effective during his lifetime because of a favourable context, but it no longer works nowadays.”
Seneca would have compared the demands for a favourable context to the siren songs in Homer’s Odyssey. An analysis of the sirens’ metaphor appears in the 31st Letter to Lucilius and in the essay “On the Tranquillity of the Soul.” It is a warning against ideas that drive us in the wrong direction.
In Ancient Greek mythology, sirens used to sing beautiful songs to steer sailors towards rocks that would wreck their ships. Homer wrote that Odysseus succeeded in withstanding the sirens by pouring wax into his own ears and tying himself to the mast of his ship.
When confronted with demands for a favourable context, I advise imitating Odysseus. We should keep practising virtue in spite of the sirens’ beautiful songs, driving us to a sweeter and more prestigious path.
The sirens’ songs can be regarded as bait on a hook meant to catch fish. For instance, they may attempt to discourage virtue by pointing at the difficulties; or praise immorality because everybody is doing it; or encourage short-term gains at the cost of long-term destruction.
Stoicism’s benefits depend on our ability to follow through in unfavourable circumstances. Its validity as a philosophy can be compared to the endurance of true friendship during harsh times.
In his 3rd Letter to Lucilius, Seneca had characterised true friendship as a relationship sustained by wisdom. From reading this letter, I come to see true friends as two trees that naturally grow side by side and that will remain close to each other also in times of adversity.
Fair-weather Stoicism does not make any more sense than fair-weather friendship, but the criticism needs to be addressed. It does not matter if the demand for a favourable context points to the vast wealth of Seneca, or the imperial power of Marcus Aurelius (121-180 AD).
I do not contest that personal privileges made it easier for Seneca and Marcus Aurelius to practise Stoicism, but this does not mean that Stoicism only works in a favourable context.
In the 57th Letter to Lucilius, Seneca argued that the value of his philosophy resides precisely in that it helps us cope with fear and discomfort. Stoicism prompts us to look at the whole picture and realise that many of our troubles are indeed brief and trivial.
Seneca: The Stoic concept of the universe
The third common misunderstanding about Stoicism can be traced to the British philosopher Margaret Cavendish (1623-1673), who had studied the Latin classics in great detail.
Upon turning twenty-two, Cavendish married the Marquis of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, a supporter of the English monarchy. As a result of the king’s execution in 1649, they emigrated to continental Europe and spent a decade in France and Holland.
Cavendish wrote several books about natural philosophy, in which she defined the universe as “alive and self-moving.” Her concept of a self-directing universe is reinterpreting Seneca’s concept of “a universe driven by reason.”
Her “Principles of Natural Philosophy” and “Observations on Experimental Philosophy” speak of the universe as active and self-organizing, emphasizing the idea that all creatures and things are “interconnected.”
Interpreted in this manner, Stoicism would mean that people cannot oppose the events shaping their lives. Justice would be the result of universal cause and effect. Social harmony would arise organically and automatically.
Since Cavendish was focusing on natural philosophy, she failed to realise the wider implications. If the universe is self-directing, will it deliver justice to the victims, and consolation to the oppressed? Will it be governed by reason, as Seneca had theorized?
The idea of an active, self-directing universe is anathema to classical Stoicism and I regard it as a misunderstanding. In the writings of Zeno of Citium (334-262 BC) and Cleanthes (330-230 BC), I cannot find expectations for the universe to deliver results in an active, self-directed manner.
Did Cavendish mean to bring Stoicism close to religion and decouple it from ethics? I very much think so because her later works drift from philosophy into the supernatural.
Her novel “The Blazing World” recounts the adventures of a woman who becomes the empress of a parallel universe, and her play “The Convent of Pleasure” depicts an enclave solely inhabited by women.
In those fictional works, Cavendish plays with the concept of a self-directed universe that grants exceptional wisdom and strength to her protagonists. The idea is incompatible with the teachings of Stoicism and must have made Seneca turn on his grave.
Seneca: Stoicism compared to pragmatism
The categorization of Stoicism as a benevolent doctrine is a widespread misunderstanding. Why is such an idea wrong? Because, although Stoicism does deliver beneficial results, it is not driven by profit-and-loss considerations.
Seneca rejected pragmatism outright, arguing that virtue is to be practised automatically and immediately. Decisions are to be made on principle, without reference to practical benefits.
His 50th Letter to Lucilius emphasises the importance of practising virtue especially when nobody is watching. In those circumstances, it becomes particularly appealing to ditch virtue and grab any short-term benefits available.
Seneca abhorred pragmatism because it destroys principles. It prompts people to calculate profit and loss, but renders them blind to the big picture. Pragmatic decisions cannot withstand close scrutiny because they further short-term pleasure at the expense of long-term happiness.
Without moral principles, Seneca argued in his 50th Letter, it becomes hard to resist the temptations of excessive drinking, excessive eating, gambling or laziness. That’s why we should practise virtue on principle, without checking if we are being watched or if our actions will bring us short-term benefits.
Stoicism revolves around integrity, which Seneca promoted by using the word “reason.” Decisions should be based on the fact that “something is right,” he affirmed, not on expectations of personal gain, let alone profiteering or abuse.
I regret that Seneca undermined his logic by assuming that virtue is its own reward. Such an assumption implies that virtue has been defined arbitrarily, without concern for the outcome. I cannot imagine how we could identify any ethical principles if we fail to look at the consequences.
In fact, the opposite is true. Reason leads to identifying the principles of behaviour that apply in all circumstances. Seneca had correctly called for applying those principles automatically but he should have explained why.
Instead of nonsensically postulating that “virtue is its own reward,” Seneca should have argued that virtue enables people to look beyond short-term benefits and make optimal decisions in the long-term. Unfortunately, he totally missed this point.
Seneca’s omission ended up weakening the Stoic opposition to pragmatism. His call for living “as though we were always in public” pushes ethics from the objective to the subjective. In this context, it is no wonder that Stoicism has found it difficult to keep pragmatic considerations at bay.
If you are interested in applying rational ideas in all areas of activity, I recommend my book titled “Consistency: The key to permanent stress relief.”
Related articles
Seneca’s thoughts on self-reliance
Seneca’s principles for thriving in life