Let us beware of people who preach passivity because they might be trying to slow us down. If they have already taken advantage of the situation, they might be preaching resignation to prevent their victims from taking action.
Seneca (4 BC-65 AD) condemned revenge, but his idea of revenge excluded creative, peaceful solutions. When he wrote about revenge, he meant bitterness, aggression and chaos. His conception was warlike and obsessive.
If we give revenge such a narrow definition, it is no wonder that Seneca was against it. I’m also against it and I assume that my readers will also be against it.
However, we can give revenge an alternative definition, one that includes peaceful, clever, constructive action to redress the grievances. I want to emphasise the peaceful character of this approach.
If someone has suffered damage, he should not just remain passive. Instead, he should review the alternatives, look for a creative, peaceful solution, and implement it without delay.
Seneca and the Cynic philosopher Crates of Thebes
Seneca’s calls for passivity and resignation are misguided. I share his condemnation of aggressiveness, but there is a broad range of possibilities that he never explored. One can conceive revenge as peaceful, creative action to bring back balance and fairness.
In his 89th Letter to Lucilius, Seneca employs other narrow definitions that are also false. He mentions Crates of Thebes, a Cynic philosopher, who criticised formal logic because it does not teach us how to live.
Crates was actually criticising Aristotle (384-322 BC), who had written his treatises on logic one generation earlier. The conception of logic employed by Crates is too narrow, because it ignores the connection between logic and ethics.
Similarly, the narrow conception of revenge used by Seneca ignores the connection between revenge and justice. He doesn’t realize that one can take revenge, so to speak, by finding clever solutions that are peaceful. One does not need to behave like a suicidal, enraged hero in ancient Greek plays.
Seneca’s praise for passivity comes from his dislike of logic. That’s why he loved paradoxes so much. In his essay “On the happy life,” Seneca recounts that Socrates once went to consult the Oracle of Delphi, and received as an answer that “I only know that I know nothing.”
The answer from the Oracle of Delphi is paradoxical and inscrutable. Each person can interpret it to suit his own needs, and argue against knowledge, objectivity and certainty.
The Oracle of Delphi’s response to Socrates
Seneca made the same mistake in his blanket condemnation of revenge because he overlooked the possibility of a peaceful, creative, logical, sophisticated response.
I am afraid that people who subscribe to the bromide “I only know that I know nothing” will be the first to overlook logical, creative, sophisticated answers to problems. They are too busy promoting helplessness, passivity and resignation.
What a pity that the Oracle of Delphi had not employed Aristotelian logic. Otherwise, Socrates would have received a different answer. The Oracle would have said: “I do not know everything, but I can expand my knowledge if I work hard.”
Seneca would have abandoned his condemnation of revenge and called for peaceful, creative action to remedy injustice. He would have stopped recommending passivity and resignation, and instead, he would have encouraged people to employ logic to solve their problems.
Oversimplification is not a tenable approach in philosophy. Seneca is to blame for focusing to much on conflict avoidance, and too little on justice and fairness.
Indeed, we can avoid conflicts if we embrace passivity and resignation, but can we be happy in that manner? We can adopt oversimplified ethical guidelines, but can they help us sort out the problems we are facing?
Seneca and Heraclitus’ doctrine about fire
Seneca was half-right about revenge. Indeed, we should not let bitterness take control of our mind, but this does not mean that we should give up the quest for justice.
Let’s not forget that, in his “Nicomachean Ethics,” Aristotle had derived justice from logic, and his other works had derived logic from consciousness. That’s why I regard Seneca’s call for passivity as erroneous.
Seneca’s works often reject formal logic (Aristotelian logic) and sharp definitions. Even his work “Questions about Nature” categorizes Heraclitus’ theory about the role of fire in nature as “pointless” because “such a doctrine doesn’t give us any ethical guidance.”
Unsurprisingly, the dislike for logic led Seneca to employ a conception of revenge that is emotionally tainted. He went too quickly into a blanket condemnation of revenge without giving any thought to the drawbacks of passivity and resignation.
In his dialogue “On the Shortness of Life,” Seneca brushes logic aside by saying that “Virtues are things we must do, not only define.” Fair enough, but we will need a sharp definition before taking any action.
Seneca is not employing a sharp definition of revenge. His admonitions against revenge assume that there is only one dark and sinister path to walk, and no other alternative. He has shut down his peripheral vision and his imagination.
Let us not adopt a cartoonish concept of philosophy. Seneca is ignoring that morally injured individuals can take revenge in a myriad of creative ways.
They can pursue self-development, attain great success, and enjoy life to the maximum. They can seek reparations through the legal system. They can speak out against injustice and help bring about fairness.
We should regard creative, peaceful revenge as desirable in so far as it makes the world a better place. To discover feasible solutions, we need to think logically and discard emotionality.
Seneca and Diogenes’ search for an honest man
Seneca had praised Diogenes (412-323 BC) for his mockery of hypocrisy, when Diogenes walked around Athens, holding a lantern in the middle of the day, and announcing that he was “looking for an honest man, but could not find any.”
I think that Diogenes had not searched very hard because he could have met Aristotle, attended his lectures, learned some logic, and become more productive and happier.
The same principle applies to Seneca’s narrow definition of revenge. He didn’t think about it very hard and overlooked that passivity and renunciation could generate more problems that they solve.
In his 101st Letter to Lucilius, Seneca exhorts perseverance, willpower and determination, and condemns passivity because it leads to decay and eventual collapse. I wonder how he could conciliate this recommendation with his blanket condemnation of revenge.
Seneca had good intentions in steering away from bitterness and conflict, but he should have explored other alternatives. He took for granted that passivity and resignation are the only path open to morally injured people, but this is factually untrue.
In his “Questions about Nature,” Seneca praises Milo of Croton, a contemporary of Plato, for following a daily exercise routine that made him very strong.
Let’s learn the lesson and adopt the daily intellectual routine of looking for peaceful, creative solutions that are superior to passivity and resignation.
If you are interested in putting rational ideas into practice in all sorts of situations, I recommend my book “Undisrupted: How highly effective people deal with disruptions.”