John Vespasian

When taken out of context, philosophical statements can prove misleading; when poorly defined, they become dangerous; and the more frequently they are repeated, the more dangerous they become.
Seneca (4 BC-65 AD) did his fair share of repeating poorly defined statements. The fact that he eschewed debates spared him uncomfortable questions.
For instance, readers might have asked Seneca to clarify what he meant by “living in accordance with nature.” He loved to exhort everyone to “live in accordance with nature,” but his writings define “nature” rather fuzzily.
What did Seneca mean exactly? Was he talking about nature in the sense of trees, sheep, and mosquitoes? Or did he actually mean “human nature” as defined by Aristotle (384-322 BC)?
Seneca added to the mystification by using cryptic words. I am afraid that he only created confusion by advising people to “live in harmony with the logos.”
The word “logos” is employed by Seneca interchangeably with “cosmic order” and “universal reason.” Those don’t match exactly the Aristotelian tradition, which had only used the term “logos” to mean “intellect, reason or logic.”
The fact that Seneca had not built on Aristotle’s works should raise the alarm in the philosophically minded. To make it worse, Seneca performed his word transmutation implicitly, without ever stating his rationale for not following Aristotle.
In the Letters to Lucilius, Seneca provides us an indirect definition of “logos.” He recommends respecting the “rational order.” It reminds me of Cleanthes’ advice to align our actions with “cosmic reason.”
Cleanthes and Seneca dug up a deep trench between their concept of logos and the one used by Aristotle. The trench is as deep as an oceanic abyss and as wide as the Himalayas. If we fall into this trench, I fear that we might never see the sunshine again.
Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/senecas-on-living-in-accordance-with-nature/

Like most ancient philosophers, Seneca used grandiloquent terms to spice up his writings. For instance, he employed the words “cosmos” and “natural order” to designate rather mundane events. Similarly, he used the word “logos” to mean “destiny.”
Respect for the natural order is Seneca’s favourite theme. He regarded nature as all-encompassing, not just as wilderness or greenery. When he spoke about nature, he was also referring to human actions. I mean professional, family, political and sports activities, just to name a few.
In his treatise “On the Happy Life,” Seneca outlines his recipe for happiness. As it was customary in ancient times, the treatise was addressed to a third person.
“On the Happy Life” is not written as a dialogue, the genre preferred by Plato (427-347 BC) for philosophical writing. The advantage of dialogues as a genre is that they make it easy to present and compare contrasting views.
I must, however, clarify that Plato’s works do not constitute “dialogues” as we define them today. When we watch movies or television shows, we expect their speech to sound vivid and spontaneous. If this is not the case, viewers will lose interest and categorise the movie or show as boring.
Plato did not bother to render his “dialogues” spontaneous and vivid. It never crossed his mind that readers might rate his characters as artificial and their speech as construed.
In fact, Plato had regarded artificiality and craftiness in literature as laudable. The objective of his “dialogues” was to get philosophical ideas across. He did not consider it relevant to create compelling characters and make their speech realistic.
Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/feasibility-of-senecas-advice-to-live-in-accordance-with-nature/

It’s hypocritical to recommend poverty when one is wealthy, or to recommend passivity when one has displayed remarkable industriousness for decades. I am afraid that Seneca is to blame on both counts.
Nonetheless, he did not mean to deceive his readers. He was sincere in his feelings, convinced that he was dispensing good advice. Indeed, Seneca had good intentions, but got it terribly wrong.
I can only conclude that there is a fault in Seneca’s logic, even if he tried to teach a major lesson. Seneca made an error because, when confronted with an undesirable effect, he made a wild guess about its cause instead of investigating further.
After having jumped to conclusions too quickly, Seneca closed his eyes to the fact that his ideas were unworkable. I can only regret that these have been relayed uncritically by people who trusted Seneca’s prestige more than their own perceptions.
Seneca was elaborating on his central theme, that is, that we should live in accordance with nature. He rightly inferred that, by living in accordance with nature, we can attain better results and increase our happiness.
The problem is that, when Seneca tried to define “living in accordance with nature,” he got close to the Platonic dualism that splits human beings into body and soul.
Plato (427-347 BC) had built his metaphysics on the alleged preexistence of the soul, which joins the body at birth; and his epistemology on the alleged access of the soul to an intangible, eternal world of abstract ideas.
In general, Stoics do not subscribe to Platonic dualism, but when Seneca wrote that “we shouldn’t be slaves to our own body,” is he not accepting Platonic dualism? Is he not viewing the soul as the human essence, and the body as an auxiliary?
Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/realism-of-senecas-advice-to-live-in-accordance-with-nature/

The ancient Roman republican values can be illustrated by individuals like Cincinnatus or Scipio Africanus. Their actions embody valour, equanimity, and above all, productiveness.
Cincinnatus (519-430 BC) was a farmer, but found himself appointed to lead the Roman army for a while. He did his best to win the war, and as soon as it was done, he went back to his farm and continued to work.
Scipio Africanus (236-183 BC) did a great deal of travelling during his military campaigns, but travelling did not prevent him from using his spare time for reading and learning. He was known to be a learned man, and his good decisions reflect the depth of his knowledge.
The old Roman republican spirit was still shaping Seneca’s views when he wrote his 88th Letter to Lucilius, emphasising a virtue drawn from Aristotle (384-322 BC). I am referring to the virtue of productiveness, which plays a major role in Aristotle’s “Nicomachean Ethics.”
Seneca and Aristotle did not use the word “productiveness” because it wasn’t part of their vocabulary, but they used words that convey the same meaning.
Aristotle would frequently employ “human flourishing” and “thriving” as synonyms for happiness, affirming that happiness entails the development of one’s talents and skills, and putting them into practice.
Seneca did something similar in his 88th Letter to Lucilius, where he praises one’s ability to deliver an objectively valuable performance or work. That was a distinct statement in favour of market value or exchange value, which he considered the coin that drives human choices.
For the sake of simplicity, I am going to employ the word “productiveness” in this discussion. It encompasses accurately the concepts used by Aristotle and Seneca in their writings.
Seneca categorizes productiveness as virtuous, and places it much higher than unearned reputation coming from ancestry or family connections.
Productiveness is the practical outcome of important virtues such as initiative, courage and persistence. These constitute the opposite of passivity, resignation and defeatism.
Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/productiveness-and-senecas-advice-to-live-in-accordance-with-nature/

Historians seldom remark that exoticism or strangeness adds value to the advice of ancient philosophers. I mean exoticism and strangeness in the sense of “Verfremdung,” the concept coined by Bertolt Brecht (1898-1956) in his theatre theory.
By “Verfremdung,” 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 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 maintain that Seneca’s prescriptions benefit from the effects of “Verfremdung” because people today would not listen to them if dispensed by a peasant living in poverty.
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 lived 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 am referring to relocation, insurance, asset diversification, geographical diversification, just to name a few methods used in modern times to protect one’s assets. Seneca’s argument about anxiety doesn’t hold water.
Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/seneca-on-living-simply/

Despite being himself wealthy, Seneca wrote extensively about the advantages of living simply. He came up with dozens of examples that support his advice, but is Seneca someone we can trust? And is it workable to put his advice into practice in our century?
In his essay “On the Shortness of Life,” Seneca recounts the story of a wealthy man who had devoted his life to working and investing. The man had devoted decades to accumulating his fortune, working every day, with little spare time for sports, hobbies or anything else.
According to Seneca, that wealthy man had wasted his life. He had been working too much, leaving no time for enjoyment or happiness. The wealthy man, says Seneca, was complaining that “he had never truly lived.”
Seneca reminds us that “life is short” and that we should adopt a simple lifestyle that enables us to live happily. He strongly condemns the pursuit of excessive wealth, and urges us to use our time wisely.
I regard Seneca’s advice as contradictory and unrealistic. In the case of the wealthy man, what was Seneca recommending exactly? Would the man be happier if he had lived in poverty all his life? Of course not, I hasten to answer.
Seneca’s admonishment against “time-wasting activities” is a rhetorical device. He does not explain why we should regard work as a waste of time.
In fact, Seneca himself did not heed his own advice because he devoted decades to multiplying the assets he had inherited from his parents.
He worked assiduously and went from millionaire to multimillionaire, and eventually became one of the wealthiest men in the Roman Empire. If such a person advises us to embrace a simple, modest lifestyle, should we believe his words?
Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/practicability-of-senecas-advice-to-live-simply/

I find it surprising that so many people equate living simply with living in poverty. They regard deprivation and discomfort as the prerequisites of simplicity. They abhor high ambitions in particular, because they require complex planning.
Seneca contributed to the confusion because his 89th Letter to Lucilius advises readers to prepare for death, meditate daily on their mortality, and stop worrying about the trivialities that fill their days.
It’s easy to preach simplicity to people who spend their days meditating about death, but the rest of us need to solve all kinds of problems, plan for the future, and pursue our dreams.
In other writings, Seneca added to the confusion by condemning the pursuit of wealth, which he regarded as “a slave to the wise, but a master to the fool.” In his eyes, a simple lifestyle motivates us to grow in wisdom, while luxury and comfort have the opposite effect.
I must however regard with suspicion the fact that Seneca judged luxury and comfort incompatible with simplicity. His dire admonitions against wealth set the prelude to medieval asceticism.
Even if Seneca’s call for simplicity was well meant, I would be reluctant to endorse, for instance, the extreme asceticism of Francis of Assisi (1181-1226). Francis had drawn inspiration from the Gospels to adopt a lifestyle that corresponds one hundred per cent to Seneca’s recommendations.
Nevertheless, I am reluctant to categorise such a lifestyle as simple just because it entails poverty. To grow and harvest wheat seems to me a simpler way to secure food than living in the forest and picking fruits and berries.
Similarly, to acquire valuable skills and pursue a productive career seems to me a simpler path to happiness than meditating six hours a day, sleeping on the ground, and eating very little.
Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/the-practice-of-senecas-advice-to-live-simply/

When people advise me to embrace a balanced lifestyle, I’m always interested in hearing the details. What do they mean by “balanced”? Do they mean that I should allocate equal time to work, sleep and play? Or that I should balance out my interests or my friends, and devote equal time to each of them?
In his writings, Seneca often repeated his recommendation to achieve a balanced life. We can find this call for balance in a few Letters to Lucilius, and in his essay “On the Shortness of Life.”
I would describe Seneca’s definition of “balance” as quasi-mathematical. His exhortation to achieve a balanced lifestyle is accompanied by a strong admonition against wasting time. He is urging us to increase useful activities and decrease worthless ones by the same amount.
As examples of wasteful activities, Seneca names the time spent on trivialities and entertainment, the pursuit of popularity and the pursuit of a high social status.
Instead, Seneca urges us to devote more time to learning and practising philosophy. In modern terms, I would translate his advice into acquiring new skills, and pursuing personal development, self-improvement and spiritual harmony.
Seneca’s advice to achieve a balanced life has become very popular, but when we look into the details, his formula doesn’t add up. His recipe is imprecise, and leaves too many questions unanswered.
For instance: Why does Seneca condemn entertainment as a waste of time? Why does he view meditation or contemplation as great? Why should we give priority to skills acquisition over productivity improvement? Why is Seneca against the pursuit of an ambitious career?
Instead of giving solid answers, Seneca reminds us that life is short and that we should use our time wisely. His repetitions though fail to add clarity to his advice.
In the Letters to Lucilius, there are passages where Seneca’s advice to lead a balanced life becomes outright questionable. I am referring to his exhortations to live in poverty.
Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/seneca-on-achieving-a-balanced-life/

Cooking recipes are hard to carry out perfectly the first time if the process is too complex. Even if the recipe is described in great detail, one must deal with variability in the ingredients in terms of quality and freshness, cooking temperature, etc.
Seneca gave philosophical recipes that are not any easier to carry out than haute-cuisine recipes. He did write down his recommendations with profuse detail, but we must nonetheless adapt those to our own circumstances.
In his 77th and 101st Letters to Lucilius, Seneca provides an important clue about how to achieve balance. He encourages us to look at life from the perspective of death, so that we can identify those things that are really important, and those that waste our time.
Seneca’s advice can help us acquire serenity, first of all. His writings do not speak about a balanced perspective, but if we get the numbers right, we would automatically strike the right balance. It all starts with our being realistic regarding our life expectancy.
We should not make an assumption that is too short because it would destroy our motivation to do anything productive. I would not expect a high motivation from people who believe that they have no future.
In the Middle Ages, especially in the ninth century, some people were convinced that the world was about to end. As a result, those people stopped labouring the fields, building new homes, and all other productive activities.
Seneca was trying to prevent individuals from adopting an exaggerated short-term attitude. Barring a strong reason, it is not rational to think that we are about to die, or that the world is about to end.
Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/senecas-recipe-for-achieving-a-balanced-life/

Seneca made some worthy recommendations about how to deal with pain and suffering. Unfortunately, he also dispensed plenty of irrational, harmful ones. It’s important to tell the difference between his good and bad advice.
For instance, Seneca offered solid advice for addressing pain and suffering when they are mental constructs, but does his method work in cases of physical pain? In his 13th Letter to Lucilius, he affirms that “we are more frequently afraid than hurt; and suffer more from our fears than from real injuries.”
I can only wonder if Seneca had forgotten all victims of the cruelty inflicted by emperors such as Nero (54-68 AD). We are talking about vast numbers of individuals being sent to exile or executed.
How could Seneca possibly argue that the suffering of those victims was predominantly a mental construct? Was their pain and anxiety a figment of their imagination? Did those people suffer just because of their negative thinking?
Seneca was wrong, but his error is not obvious. Through the centuries, many readers have taken him seriously and adopted his insights. They have confronted pain and suffering by telling themselves that those emotions are mostly imaginary.
They were convinced that Seneca was telling them the truth, but over time, they were forced to recognise reality. Their pain and suffering eventually became so acute that they could no longer be categorised as imaginary.
I would have asked Seneca to recheck if his philosophical recommendations have universal applicability. Human pain and suffering arise mostly from harmful situations, not from delusion or imagination.
Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/seneca-on-dealing-with-pain-and-suffering/