I am sceptical of remedies that cure all types of sickness; and when it comes to philosophy, I’m sceptical of prescriptions that can assuage profound suffering. In the case of Seneca, resilience was the universal prescription.
What did Seneca get wrong about resilience? Is it not true that resilience can help anyone deal with setbacks and reduce suffering? If thousands of individuals have embraced resilience across the centuries, how do I dare criticize its effectiveness?
Indeed, many positive things can be said about resilience. It can help people deal with illness, disappointment and setbacks, but my point is that resilience is not enough.
I must clarify that the fact that Seneca placed resilience at the centre of his philosophy does not mean that life is a valley of tears. It does not mean that we cannot achieve happiness nor that all joyful experiences will inevitably end up in disaster.
In his 100th Letter to Lucilius, Seneca affirms that the goal of philosophy is to prepare us for poverty, suffering and death, but we should not interpret it as Seneca saying that he did not expect life to offer joy and happiness.
Why Seneca emphasized resilience
Seneca’s emphasis on resilience is consistent with his views of the universe. If all we could expect is misery, it makes sense to train ourselves to cope with misery. If all we could hope for is to suffer and die, it makes sense to regard philosophy as a form of consolation.
From reading Seneca, I come to a balanced assessment of reality. If we look around, we can see negative elements, but also plenty of opportunities for improvement.
It’s obvious that individuals who pursue ambitious goals and work hard, are likely to build a better life for themselves than those who spend their days complaining and doing nothing.
Seneca was wrong in expecting poverty and suffering to be the future of humanity. In his lifetime, Seneca must have seen himself many examples that prove the contrary. I mean people who raised themselves from poverty to prosperity, from illness to health, or from misery to happiness.
Our century leads to an even more optimistic assessment. It is providing upward mobility opportunities to vast numbers of people and raising the overall standard of living.
If Seneca was alive today, I am sure that he would point to the unresolved problems, and forecast poverty and suffering for everybody. I am also sure that some people would listen to him and vehemently agree with his forecast of doom.
In his 100th Letter to Lucilius, Seneca views resilience as the main benefit we can draw from philosophy, but what about joy and happiness? Why on earth should we content ourselves with resilience? Why not pursue health, achievement and success?
My criticism of Seneca is not just a matter of detail. If we get our goals wrong, we will end up selling ourselves short. If we devote our efforts to pursuing resilience and strength, we’ll forfeit the possibility of higher achievements.
Seneca and Tommaso Campanella
Tommaso Campanella (1568-1639) illustrates the danger of taking Seneca at face value and concentrating on resilience. Born into a poor family, Campanella became a Dominican friar at age fourteen and began his life-long study of Aristotle, Plato and other ancient philosophers.
When Campanella was in his late twenties, he began to call for radical reforms in the Church. He wanted to put Platonism into practice, as described in Plato’s “Republic”.
Campanella began to preach a bizarre concoction of end-of-the-world Christianity and Platonic communal living. Little by little, he moved from preaching to action and eventually joined a conspiracy to establish a theocracy in Calabria.
The conspiracy proved a complete failure. Shortly after his thirty-first birthday, Campanella was arrested and imprisoned. He spent the next twenty-seven years in jail, writing tracts and books to present his ideas.
Campanella’s writings attracted some minority attention, but it took his supporters decades to have Campanella released. He was almost sixty when he got out of jail and then devoted the remaining decade of his life to giving lectures about his ideas.
Like Seneca, Campanella would remain a life-long defender of resilience. He claimed that his resilience had kept him free, spiritually, while he was in jail for almost three decades. In his eyes, resilience was the key benefit to be drawn from religion.
Seneca: The drawback of glorifying resilience
Does it sound familiar? Indeed, Campanella had taken over many of Seneca’s ideas, which he had built into a sophisticated excuse for his foolishness.
The truth is that Campanella’s end-of-the-world predictions and his call for communal living are both complete nonsense. I attribute the delusion to Campanella’s lack of experience.
The years devoted to studying Plato had made Campanella naive, not wise. His life as a Dominican friar had not given him any real-world experience; and finally, his decision to join a conspiracy only shows how incredibly innocent he was.
Seneca’s and Campanella’s grandiose views of resilience are rather self-serving. Through action or omission, both men had ruined their lives but, instead of acknowledging their mistakes, they opted for glorifying resilience.
Let’s not be misled by their propaganda. Campanella’s book “The City of the Sun” (1602) remains as unrealistic as Seneca’s 100th Letter to Lucilius. Should we conclude that, after so many centuries, people will still keep doing what does not work?
If you are interested in putting rational ideas into practice in all situations, I recommend my book titled “Sequentiality: The amazing power of finding the right sequence of steps.”
Related articles
The risks of thinking like Seneca