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. 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. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/what-seneca-got-wrong-about-human-nature/