Seneca (4 BC-65 AD) made some worthy recommendations about how deal with pain and suffering. Unfortunately, he also dispensed plenty of irrational, harmful advice. It’s important to tell the difference between one and the other.
For instance, Seneca was wrong in regarding suffering and pain as predominantly mental constructs. In his 13th Letter to Lucilius, he affirms that “our suffering arises more frequently from our imagination than from the facts.”
I can only wonder if Seneca had forgotten all victims of the cruelty inflicted by emperors such as Nero (54-68 AD). We are talking about vast numbers of individuals being sent to exile or executed.
How could Seneca possibly argue that the suffering of those victims was predominantly a mental construct? Was their pain and anxiety a fibre of their imagination? Did those individuals suffer just because of their negative thinking?
Seneca’s emphasis on psychological aspects
Seneca was wrong, but his error is not obvious. Through the centuries, many readers have taken him seriously and adopted his insights. They have confronted pain and suffering by telling themselves that those emotions are mostly imaginary.
They were convinced that Seneca was telling them the truth, but over time, they were forced to recognize reality. Their pain and suffering eventually became so acute that could no longer be categorized as imaginary.
Seneca never acknowledged that his recommendations had failed. Human suffering arises mostly from harmful situations, not from delusion or imagination.
When individuals fall sick or suffer severe injuries, I find it abusive to attribute their suffering to psychological reasons. Or when someone loses his job, his home, or his life’s savings, I consider it heartless to categorise his suffering as imaginary.
Seneca’s view of adversity as a test of strength
Seneca was equally wrong in recommending defeatism as a way of life. His dialogue “On Providence” views the world as a bad place, where criminals ply their trade unmolested and little people must endure abuse and exploitation.
I am not exaggerating Seneca’s defeatism. In fact, his essay “On Providence” advises readers to accept pain and suffering without complaining because “we all live in a world where bad things happen.”
Seneca’s call for passive suffering is irrational and should be determinedly rejected. I won’t deny that bad things sometimes happen and that bad people sometimes get their way, but that’s no reason for remaining passive.
Instead of suffering quietly, we should seek justice when it’s possible, and adopt measures to prevent further damage. Today we live in a far more advanced world than in Seneca’s century. Instead of suffering silently, we can relocate to better places.
Was Seneca right in viewing adversity as a “test of strength” that probes the soundness of our convictions? His 17th Letter to Lucilius portrays misfortune as “an opportunity for building up our resilience,” but I am willing to relinquish that opportunity.
In contrast to Seneca, I see no value in adversity, hardship, pain and suffering. We should do everything possible to avoid them, never welcoming them, never viewing them as natural or inevitable.
Seneca doesn’t help anybody by framing hardship as a “test of strength” or “an opportunity for building up our resilience.” He is advising people to delude themselves in calling suffering a blessing, but nothing good can arise from delusion.
In times of adversity, we should establish priorities and use our energies wisely. First of all, we should avert further danger, stop the bleeding and stabilise our situation. Subsequently, we should take steps to heal and rebuild our life.
Seneca’s excellent advice on gaining perspective
Seneca came up with excellent insights for reducing anxiety in crisis situations. His encouragement to “focus on the aspects that we can control” is a call for action, not for passivity.
Let us not make the mistake of overrating our problems and underestimating our possibilities to find solutions. Seneca gave excessive emphasis to our power to find serenity, and too little to our power to solve the underlying problems.
Seneca’s exhortation to view all suffering as “temporary” or “transient” does not make sense to me. Indeed, we are all going to die one day and then we will suffer no more, but so what?
How does the fact of our lifespan is limited help solve any problem today? How can our future mortality offer consolation for today’s pain and suffering? Seneca’s arguments in this area are convoluted, weak and unconvincing.
Seneca’s most useful recommendation is his call for viewing our problems from the right perspective. If we endure sickness for a year, it is indeed annoying, but shouldn’t prevent us from enjoying the next years or decades.
Similarly, if we lose our job, we might go through a difficult period, but we should normally succeed in finding another job, or start a business, or find other ways to rebuild our finances.
As Seneca said, it’s crucially important to place problems in perspective, so that we do not lose heart. People who panic are doing themselves a disservice because their anxiety will drain their energy and curtail their initiative.
In his 16th Letter to Lucilius, Seneca compares philosophy to a sanctuary in times of trouble, but I regard this comparison as inadequate. Philosophy is a tool for making good decisions, not a sanctuary for taking refuge from reality.
If you are interested in putting rational ideas into practice in all sort of situations, I recommend you my book “Asymmetry: The shortcut to success when success seems impossible.”