When it comes to happiness, I can summarise the ideas of Seneca (4 BC-65 AD) in a few words: On this subject, Seneca knew little, learned nothing, and could not care less. In fact, he barely used the word happiness in his dialogues and Letters to Lucilius.
Am I being too harsh with Seneca and Stoicism in general? I don’t think so, but I am going to put forward my arguments, so that readers can decide for themselves.
However, before starting my analysis of Seneca’s insights on happiness, I must get the question of historical perspective out of the way: In Ancient Rome, during Seneca’s lifetime, did people define happiness in a manner different to ours? Would they have been puzzled by our relentless search for happiness?
Certainly not, because today’s definition of happiness comes from Aristotle (384-322 BC), in particular from his “Eudemian Ethics” and “Nicomachean Ethics.”
Seneca lived almost four hundred years after Aristotle, and must have been conversant with Aristotelian ideas such as the link between virtue, personal development, and happiness.
Seneca’s idea of happiness compared to Aristotle’s
The Aristotelian concept of “human flourishing” or “human thriving” is widely employed nowadays by psychologists and sociologists.
Indeed, Seneca did not have access to today’s vast body of knowledge on personal development, but he couldn’t ignore the insights that Aristotle had gained.
Thus, I want to reaffirm that an Ancient Roman’s definition of happiness would not have been far from ours, even if he was living in a world of primitive technology, low productivity, and exacerbated violence.
Seneca almost never employed the Aristotelian definition of happiness. Instead, he went in the opposite direction and used a twisted definition. To make things worse, he never admitted openly that he had changed the definition.
When Seneca wrote that philosophy plays an enabling role in our living a happy life, he didn’t mean “a flourishing life” or “a thriving life.” No, he just meant “a peaceful, tranquil life,” emphasising aspects such as orderliness, smoothness and peace of mind.
I find it highly concerning that Seneca is constantly pointing to Socrates (470-399 BC) as a model to be imitated; the Letters to Lucilius contain dozens of instances where Seneca is telling us to admire and imitate Socrates because he was such a great man.
For instance, in the 24th Letter to Lucilius, Seneca is stating that Socrates must have been a happy person because, when he was about to die, he was able to entertain a calm conversation with his friends.
I do not know of anybody who has made it his top priority to learn to entertain a calm conversation with friends shortly before death. Neither do I know of anybody who would regard such a conversation as a sign of profound happiness.
Seneca: the role of moderation in happiness
Seneca has twisted the Aristotelian definition of happiness. Instead of defining happiness as something to be achieved in life, Seneca has turned it into an escape from life into a parallel dark realm called “serenity” or “peace of mind.”
Let me give two other examples that drive this point home. In his 59th Letter to Lucilius, Seneca is praising Gaius Laelius Sapiens, a contemporary of Scipio Africanus, because Laelius had embraced a lifestyle of moderation.
Seneca is advising us to imitate Laelius and avoid too much pleasure, too large ambitions, and too much love for our family and friends. We should embrace moderation in every area, says Seneca, because that’s the path of wisdom.
I fail to see how moderation could have made Laelius happy in theory or in practice. Should Laelius have refrained from learning too much philosophy? Should he have refrained from eating good meals because, in the name of moderation, he was supposed to also eat bad meals?
Seneca: the role of resilience in happiness
What about Stilbo of Megara? In the 9th Letter to Lucilius, Seneca praises Stilbo because he had stayed calm after losing everything he had. When enemies had attacked Megara, Stilbo had seen his wife and children die, and his home burned down. In Stilbo’s serenity, Seneca sees an example to imitate.
Stilbo was a contemporary of Aristotle, but I assume that he hadn’t met Aristotle and learned about Aristotelian philosophy. Nonetheless, Stilbo’s peace of mind cannot be viewed as a sign of happiness.
Serenity means acceptance, usually passive acceptance. It is better than despair, but vastly inferior to human flourishing and thriving.
Aristotle would have had no problem with Stilbo’s serenity as a starting point on the path to happiness, but we should not confuse the starting point with the final destination; tranquillity is great as a fallback frame of mind, but isn’t the same as well-being and happiness.
Seneca’s distortion of the Aristotelian concept of happiness constitutes a philosophical error because it places an artificial ceiling on human ambitions. It narrows down our vision to our immediate concerns, depriving us of motivation and strength to build a better life.
In the 67th Letter to Lucilius, Seneca acknowledges that the goal of his philosophy is to minimize suffering, not to pursue happiness. In doing so, he is taking for granted that happiness is just too difficult to achieve, and that we should rather devote our efforts to acquiring serenity.
I submit that Seneca was wrong in his concept of happiness. If we imitate Marcus Porcius Cato Uticensis (95-46 BCE) and train ourselves to walk barefoot in the snow, we might increase our physical resilience, but frankly, is walking barefoot in the snow the path to happiness?
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
Seneca’s simple formula for happiness
Seneca on living without regrets
Seneca’s best advice on happiness
Seneca’s errors about time management