Instead of endless abstract discussions, I prefer philosophers to cut to the chase and give me an example of their theories. If the example is convincing, I may explore their theories further.
On the other hand, if the example doesn’t make sense, I will no longer care what that philosopher claims to know. If a plan cannot be put into practice, I don’t want to waste time studying the details.
Seneca came up with excellent, deep insights in many areas, but from time to time, he got completely lost. In particular, his views on human nature rest on assumptions that contradict our daily experience.
In his 82nd Letter to Lucilius, Seneca mentions Socrates (470-399 BC) as an example of wisdom. Seneca emphasised that Socrates had devoted his life to acquiring knowledge, which he viewed as more valuable than wealth and popularity.
Seneca expresses appreciation for Socrates, although not in every aspect. I believe that he regarded Socrates as an example to be imitated in some areas, as the embodiment of wisdom. The 83rd Letter to Lucilius also mentions Socrates.
Nevertheless, I have a problem with Seneca’s appreciation for Socrates. The attention that he bestows on Socrates seems to me gratuitous, perfunctory and exaggerated.
The wisdom of Socrates
If Seneca had limited his references to Socrates’ ability to come up with pertinent questions, I would have seconded his words, but I disagree with Seneca’s portrayal of Socrates as an example of wisdom.
Socrates is not an example to imitate, unless one is socially insensitive and suicidal. On the hand, he did not build anything tangible; he didn’t write any books, build a business or perform any remarkable feats. He simply talked and talked.
On the other hand, he made numerous enemies, got himself into unnecessary trouble, and proved incapable of extricating himself from the whole mess.
To make things worse, Socrates didn’t seize the opportunity to flee during his trial or after the sentence. In his “Apology,” Plato (427-347 BC) recounts that Socrates, aided by a friend of his, could have fled Athens and gone into exile, but instead, he stayed put and died shortly after.
Socrates’ wisdom must have been purely theoretical because he made the wrong choice when he found himself under strong pressure. I would have gone into exile and enjoyed a few more decades of a productive, joyful life.
There was no sound philosophical reason for Socrates to die and Seneca seems unable to see the obvious. When he praises Socrates as an example to imitate, Seneca is taking for granted that we are all willing to stand still like sitting ducks and get ourselves obliterated.
The animal element
Does Socrates’ pitiful ending embody Seneca’s views on human nature? Seneca did not regard humans as conformists, unable to give shape to their lives, but not as entrepreneurs either. We should be careful in portraying Socrates as highly accomplished, as an example to imitate.
Seneca’s got human nature wrong because he did not grasp motivation. He failed to understand that humans need to grow, develop and thrive in order to achieve happiness.
Aristotle (384-322 BC) had never considered passivity and conformity as virtues. He had known of Socrates and his ideas directly from Plato, who had talked to Socrates extensively, but it would have been anathema to Aristotle to elevate Socrates to an example to initiate.
Furthermore, Seneca exaggerates the animalistic element in human nature. Some Letters to Lucilius exhort us to live in the present moment. That’s something that Socrates must have practised, but with little success.
Seneca never grasped that humans are happier when they’re pursuing ambitious, long-term goals. It is unrealistic and cruel to expect humans to behave like animals and focus solely on the present, without thinking about the future.
Intellectual shortsightedness
Intellectual shortsightedness tends to produce deleterious, unwanted consequences. Even if we practise meditation twelve hours per day, we will still have to face the demands made by reality.
Socrates is the perfect example of the ethical ideal endorsed by Seneca, but the ideal was itself deficient. It’s a passive, inert ideal of blind conformity that cannot make anybody happy.
Am I distorting Seneca’s philosophy? I do not think so because several Letters to Lucilius mention Cato the Younger (95 BC-46 AD). One of those Letters points out that Cato had committed suicide as moral statement against Julius Caesar’s ascent to power as sole ruler of Rome.
Cato’s suicide was as pointless as Socrates’. Neither one nor the other changed the course of history. For no good reason, they just shortened the lives of talented individuals who could have done great things for decades. What a terrible waste.
The fatal flaw in Seneca’s views on human nature does not invalidate other elements of his philosophy, but it should make us wary of accepting any package deal in the realm of ideas. It is wiser to content ourselves with a few true principles, carry them out assiduously, and enjoy their fruits.
If you are interested in applying rational ideas in all sorts of situations, I recommend my book “Undisrupted: How highly effective people deal with disruptions.”
Related articles
Seneca on finding joy in solitude
A summary of Seneca’s advice on personal fulfilment
Seneca’s insights on human nature