Historians seldom remark that exoticism or strangeness add value to the advice of ancient philosophers. I mean exoticism and strangeness in the sense of “Vervremdung,” the concept coined by Bertold Brecht (1898-1956) in his theatre theory.
By “Vervremdung,” Brecht meant that acerbic criticism will meet less resistance if conveyed on stage through exotic stories and characters. The public will still get the message, but subtly and metaphorically. Otherwise, they would have rejected it.
Seneca (4 BC-65 AD) provided plenty of good advice, but I doubt that his ideas would be palatable without their exotic, strange flavour.
Readers are receptive to Seneca’s prescriptions for a simple life because he lived more than two thousand years ago, in the times of ancient Rome. When placed in such an exotic, strange setting, an agrarian lifestyle looks appealing.
I sustain that Seneca’s prescriptions benefit from the effects of “Vervremdung” because people today would not listen to the those if dispensed by a peasant living in poverty.
Why Seneca recommended a simple lifestyle
Seneca was himself extremely wealthy, but wrote profusely against wealth. His 25th Letter to Lucilius recounts that wealthy people tend to feel anxious because they fear losing their assets and being forced to live in poverty.
The argument employed by Seneca is fallacious. Indeed, he may have known some wealthy people who live in anxiety, but there are many who don’t.
In fact, there is no objective argument to affirm that wealthy people have to feel anxious, worried or fearful. There are ways to protect one’s assets and keep anxiety at bay.
I’m referring to relocation, insurance, assets diversification, geographical diversification, just to name a few methods used to protect one’s assets. Seneca’s argument about anxiety doesn’t hold water.
Neither can Seneca’s paradoxes withstand close scrutiny. In his 25th Letter to Lucilius, he is proposing to redefine wealth in a manner that makes no sense.
Instead of defining wealth as possessions, Seneca is putting forward the opposite definition. “People who have few desires are wealthy,” he writes. His rationale is that, by having few desires, we become independent from wealth and success.
I won’t rate Seneca’s paradox as thought-provoking because of its obvious flaws. Seneca’s logic is twisted and goes against everyday experience.
Simple tastes can help us reduce our expenditures, but they don’t render us wealthy. A poor person living in a poor country may have simple tastes, but those do not render him wealthy.
Seneca’s prescription for a simple lifestyle
In his 18th Letter to Lucilius, Seneca reports the outcome of putting his philosophy into practice. He made the experiment of eating only inexpensive foods and wearing only inexpensive clothes for a while, and described the result as “liberating.”
If we imitate Seneca’s example, we will be “liberated” from some expenditures, but we might load ourselves with problems that Seneca had not considered.
For instance, cheap food is not necessarily the healthiest. Is it really a good idea to purchase the cheapest possible food? Is it not better to pay a little more, if by doing so, we can nourish ourselves more healthily?
The same argument applies to clothes. In some professions, people are expected to be well dressed. Suits make them look sharp, competent, and reliable. Indeed, those people could save money by wearing cheap clothes, but would they not lose their clients?
Seneca exhorts us repeatedly to lead a simple life, which he regards as an essential element of “living in accordance with nature.” My point is that Seneca’s recommendations need to be adapted to today’s circumstances.
The “Vervremdung” effect makes readers accept the advice from Seneca without putting any psychological resistance. Yet, we should put Seneca’s advice in perspective, separating what’s feasible from what is not.
In his 2nd Letter to Lucilius, Seneca is praising Diogenes (412-323 BC) because he lived in extreme poverty. According to the tradition, Diogenes lived in a barrel and did not possess even a bowl for drinking water from the public fountain.
I think that Diogenes would not have lived long in today’s world, at least in industrialised countries. In a modern city, no one can live in a barrel and there is no reason for wanting to do so. Seneca’s was wrong in assuming that renunciation leads to happiness.
Modern interpretation of Seneca’s call for simplicity
Aristotle (384-322 BC) in his “Nicomachean Ethics” linked personal development to happiness; the renunciation of desires favours happiness when it contributes to personal development and flourishing.
For example, it is understandable that students want to live inexpensively while they are attending college. They prefer to devote their time to studying, instead of getting a full-time job.
Such a renunciation of desires makes sense because it helps students build a better future for themselves. Their actions are aligned with Aristotle’s prescription for happiness.
Their actions are also aligned with Seneca’s idea of a simple life, but only temporarily. One expects students to graduate one day, get a well-paying job, and lead a comfortable existence.
It would make no sense to stick to a prescription of poverty one day more than necessary. Seneca’s exhortation for a simple life needs to be adapted to our century, so that we attain a fair balance between effectiveness, resilience and independence.
If you are interested in putting rational ideas into practice in all areas of activity, I recommend you my book titled “Rational living, rational working.”