Classics and the Western Canon discussion
This topic is about
Letters on Ethics
Interim Readings
>
Seneca - Selected Letters to Lucilius
Letter 7: On CrowdsSeneca warns that being surrounded by many people can subtly influence for the worse. He compares it to someone recovering from an illness; if they go out, they risk a relapse into bad habits. He personally admits:
Never do I return home with the character I had when I left; always there is something I had settled before that is now stirred up again, something I had gotten rid of that has returned.Seneca claims that even the strongest individuals he knew of, Socrates, Cato, and Laelius, can have their virtue eroded by constant exposure to negative influences and brought down by crowds. What chance do w have?
Seneca describes the brutality of the gladiatorial games, where people take pleasure in watching others suffer. He condemns the audience, not just the fighters, and delivers this striking challenge to the morality of being a spectator:
What did you do, poor fellow, to make you deserve to watch?He also claims that those who indulge in such entertainment are teaching themselves to be cruel, even if they do not realize it.
Seneca warns that indulging in cruel entertainment unknowingly fosters cruelty in oneself. Is it fair to say that modern media, especially content driven by outrage or division, can shape perceptions over time. Studies suggest that repeated exposure to partisan narratives may increase hostility toward opposing views. The risk, as Seneca sees it, isn’t just in what is consumed, but in how it conditions the mind. While we thankfully no longer have gladiatorial games to attend, what are any modern parallels? Can we metaphorically apply the old saying, you are what you eat? To what extent does what we consume shape us?
Letter 7: On CrowdsSo what is Seneca's advice?
Seneca warms against the two extremist attitudes towards negative influences of crowds or even certain individuals. Some feel they must ...either imitate them or detest them.. If one chooses to imitate the bad influence one will lose their own values and become just another part of the problem. If chooses to detest them, becomes isolated, bitter, and risks arrogance or misanthropy.
Instead, Seneca advises avoiding the crowd by cultivating meaningful, virtuous relationships that foster mutual growth and improvement.
Seneca also reminds of of 3 sayings he finds helpful here.
- Democritus conveys that a deep conversation with one thoughtful person is just as valuable as speaking to a whole crowd.
- An unknown artist conveys that a work of art or a piece of wisdom is still worthwhile, even if no one sees it.
- Epicurus conveys that true wisdom is best shared in meaningful exchanges, not mass appeal.
Seneca’s conclusion: Direct your goods inward. Don’t chase public approval; focus on genuine self-improvement.
Letter 7Discussion Questions
1. Social Influence: Seneca warns that we absorb the habits of those around us. Do you find yourself acting differently based on the company you keep? How do you guard against negative influences?
2. Modern Entertainment: Seneca condemns the gladiatorial games as corrupting. What modern forms of entertainment and mass media encourage cruelty or desensitization? How can we resist their influence?
3. Engagement vs. Withdrawal: Seneca suggests retreating from the crowd to protect one’s character. How do we balance self-preservation with the Stoic idea of participating in the world?
4. Validation: Seneca warns against seeking the approval of the masses. In an age of social media and mass visibility, how can we apply his advice without becoming completely isolated? (view spoiler)
5. The Value of Learning: If wisdom or art is worthwhile even if no one else sees it, what motivates us to learn or create? Is understanding for oneself enough, or should it be shared?
Is Seneca’s warning about the crowd is as relevant today as it was in his time? Looking forward to hearing your thoughts!
This was a very interesting read. Seneca paints quite a dark picture of the gladiatorial contests between condemned criminals and the reactions of the Roman crowds. It reminds me of the crowds that used to gather to watch public hangings in this country before the practice was stopped. While I agree with him that being in a crowd can amplify one’s emotions and reactions and even negatively influence behavior, is it always bad? Should philosophers not mingle in public? I think of Socrates buttonholing people in the Athenian agora, and I’m not so sure.
Seneca claims that consorting with a crowd is harmful and that exposure to violence damages one’s character. It's interesting that this was being said nearly 2,000 years ago and we are still debating the subject today.On the one hand, there are those who claim young people's exposure to violent video games, for example, desensitizes them to violence. And there are others who claim it has no impact on them at all.
I agree up to a point that consorting with a crowd is harmful because people behave in a crowd differently than they would if they were on their own. One tends to go along with mob rule because it gives one a measure of anonymity. Individuals lost in the crowd can be capable of behaving in ways they would never consider behaving if they were alone.
On the other hand, being in a crowd does provide a measure of protection because of the anonymity. I am thinking specifically of people who demonstrate against authoritarian rule. A lone demonstrator is an easy target. But a crowd of people in the hundreds or thousands demonstrating against oppressive rule is not so easy to suppress.
It’s worth noting that Lucilius, the intended recipient of these letters, is thought to have been at an early point in his philosophical journey. Seneca’s advice here may lean toward caution, offering a protective approach suited for someone still developing their Stoic mindset.Stoic Engagement vs. Withdrawal
Stoics do not reject public life entirely. Marcus Aurelius engaged in governing Rome. Cato actively opposed corruption. Even Seneca himself was involved in politics, though reluctantly. The key distinction is:
a. If engagement strengthens virtue, pursue it.
b. If engagement leads to corruption, step back.
For Lucilius, the best course (for now) is strategic withdrawal—avoiding environments where the wrong habits might take hold, while seeking out people and situations that reinforce wisdom and virtue. This is not about hiding from life, but about choosing one's influences wisely.
Perhaps the other approach is strategic engagement, i.e, choose your battles wisely.
1. When society is open to reason, engage. Socrates, despite Athens' flaws, still found willing minds to debate in the agora.
2. When the mob is beyond reason, step back. Seneca saw Rome’s decline and knew that certain battles were unwinnable.
3. When truth is under siege, fight. Silence is complicity, and some crowds must be confronted head-on.
So should philosophers mingle in public? It ultimately depend on the public. If it is an agora, engage. If it is the Colosseum, perhaps it is best to walk away.
Letter 2: On Discursiveness in ReadingSeneca warns against scattered and unfocused reading, or what we might call intellectual grazing. He criticizes the habit of jumping from book to book without deeply engaging, arguing that true wisdom comes from mastery, not mere exposure. He advises Lucilius to choose a few authors and absorb their ideas fully, rather than rushing through many without reflection.
Seneca emphasizes depth over breadth, urging readers to engage with philosophy as something to be lived, not just skimmed for entertainment or status.
Discussion Questions
1. What is the purpose of reading? Is reading a means to wisdom, or can it become a distraction in itself?
2. How does this apply to modern reading habits? In an age of endless content: social media, news feeds, audiobooks, and podcasts. Are we truly learning, or just consuming?
3. Is it better to read widely or deeply? Seneca favors depth over variety, but can breadth also have value? When is each approach useful?
4. Are there books worth re-reading? Seneca suggests returning to great works repeatedly to fully absorb them. Which books (or authors) do you think are worth revisiting, and why?
5. How can we apply this advice today? If someone wanted to follow Seneca’s guidance, how should they structure their reading? What does “reading well” look like in practice? Or is Seneca underestimating the human capacity for reading widely and deeply?
Seneca challenges us to approach reading intentionality and depth. His advice is not to read less, but to read better. How does this idea resonate with your own reading habits?
Do we ever cross even into the other camp?*
5 This is what I do as well, seizing on some item from among several things I have read. Today it is this, which I found in Epicurus—for it is my custom to cross even into the other camp, not as a deserter but as a spy: Cheerful poverty is an honorable thing.And then goes on to praise the quote.
*(view spoiler)
There's a lot of seeking the approval of crowds on the internet.
Roger wrote: "There's a lot of seeking the approval of crowds on the internet."Seneca would likely advise those approval seekers as he does Lucilius at the end of the letter:
12 Take these words to heart, dear Lucilius, so that you may think little of the pleasure that comes from the acclaim of the many. Many people do praise you: does it give you reason to be satisfied with yourself if you are one whom many people can understand? Direct your goods inward.But is this really the best advice? In Seneca’s time, approval-seeking was about status and influence—today, it’s also monetized. When validation translates directly into income, does that make detachment more difficult? Or even more necessary?
I wonder how Seneca would respond to the saying attributed to Andy Warhol: In the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes
RE: Letter 2 On ReadingSeneca advises:
Obtain each day some aid against poverty, something against death, and likewise against other calamities. And when you have moved rapidly through many topics, select one to ponder that day and digest.With this in mind, did you find it helpful to thoroughly take in only one of Seneca’s letters per day, absorbing its lessons deeply? Or did you run ahead and read all five (or more) for the week? If so, did that change the way you processed or retained his wisdom?😊
Letter on Discursive ReadingI’m reading one letter a day versus reading them all at once, which is a strategy based more on how much time I have available to read and comment right now instead of a philosophic reading strategy.
I disagree with Seneca’s assertion that deep reading is always better. For example, to get an overview of a subject, a survey type course is very useful. Of course, one doesn’t get an in-depth understanding of the field, but just like a quick city tour can give you a sense of the geography of a new place, a survey course can show you the major landmarks and where you want to spend more time.
I’m getting a sense that Seneca was a bit of an introvert.
I did really like his idea about picking something every day to thoroughly digest. It seems like a useful habit to think deeply about one topic every day and add to one’s mental store of fortifying thoughts. Or one’s store of beautiful things like a line of poetry.
” Each day acquire something that will fortify you against poverty, against death, indeed against other misfortunes as well; and after you have run over many thoughts, select one to be thoroughly digested that day. 5. This is my own custom; from the many things which I have read, I claim some one part for myself.
Like Susan, I'm reading one letter a day because of time contstraints.Seneca wrote: "So you should always read standard authors; and when you crave a change, fall back upon those whom you read before."
If you continue reading and re-reading the same books over again, how are you going to broaden your horizons? Surely one of the purposes of reading is to expand one's thinking; to get out of one's comfort zone; to gain greater understanding of what it means to be human; to walk through someone else's moccasins for a while and see the world through their set of lenses. And to do that, you have to read books by different authors.
I have no issue with reading a book I have read before. I do that a lot with works I consider classics. But time has to elapse--preferably years--before I embark on a re-reading. For example, I try to make it a point to read Don Quixote once every ten years for the simple reason that I am not the same person I was ten years ago, so I get something different from it with each reading. Aspects of the novel stand out for me that I had overlooked in previous readings. It speaks to me in new and exciting ways because I am not reading it with the same thoughts, ideas, perspectives, concerns, etc. etc. I had ten years ago.
I have no objection to re-reading a book, but I wouldn't do it because "I crave a change." I do it because a classic will resonate with me in different ways the older I get.
Susan wrote: "I’m getting a sense that Seneca was a bit of an introvert."That’s an interesting observation! Seneca does sound like an introvert in his preference for solitude, deep reflection, and avoiding external corrupting influences. But it is an interesting fact that he was a very public figure: an advisor to Nero, a senator, and a key political player in Rome. Maybe his preference for retreat wasn’t about introversion as we think of it today, but rather a Stoic necessity and attitude to maintain his integrity and inner peace while navigating public life?
What do you think? Was he a reluctant politician, or was his Stoicism a tool to survive in a dangerous political world?
Letter 5: Our Inward and outward lives, or The Philosopher’s MeanSeneca’s Letter 5 cautions against both indulgence and extreme asceticism, advocating for a balanced life—neither ostentatiously simple nor excessively luxurious. He warns that adopting the outward signs of philosophy: rough clothes, unkempt hair, rejection of comforts, can become more about performance than true wisdom.
Within, let us be completely different, but let the face we show to the world be like other people’s. 3 Our clothes should not be fine, but neither should they be filthy...A true philosopher should be indifferent to wealth, neither seeking it nor fearing its loss. Some wear poverty like a badge of honor, while others are enslaved by their riches—both, Seneca suggests, are unstable.
Is Seneca warning us of virtue signaling, the temptation to play the philosopher rather than embody philosophy? The real test is whether we remain the same person, in wealth or poverty; comfort or hardship.
If virtue is internal, what does a life lived in balance look like?
More on Letter 5When I first read Seneca’s advice in Letter 5 to avoid both excessive luxury and extreme austerity, it reminded me of Aristotle’s Golden Mean, which teaches that virtue lies at the most appropriate point for the situation between two extremes. Aristotle would agree that rejecting wealth entirely is as unwise as being consumed by it.
However, there is a significant difference. Aristotle sees external goods as necessary for flourishing, while Seneca sees them as indifferent.
For Aristotle, a good life, eudaimonia requires not just virtue but also a certain degree of health, wealth, and social standing. Poverty, misfortune, or suffering can hinder flourishing because human beings are partly shaped by their circumstances. The Golden Mean helps guide how we use wealth, power, and pleasures responsibly, not rejecting them outright, but ensuring they do not lead to vice.
Seneca, as a Stoic, is claiming virtue alone is sufficient for happiness. External goods like wealth, comfort, and status do not matter in themselves, it is our attitude toward them that counts. A Stoic should be able to thrive whether rich or poor, honored or disgraced. The goal is not moderation in indulgence, but rather indifference to both indulgence and deprivation. (view spoiler)
Where Aristotle refines how we engage with wealth, Seneca challenges whether we should care about it at all. The true philosopher, he insists, remains the same in a palace or in rags.
David wrote: ". Maybe his preference for retreat wasn’t about introversion as we think of it today, but rather a Stoic necessity and attitude to maintain his integrity and inner peace while navigating public life?What do you think? Was he a reluctant politician, or was his Stoicism a tool to survive in a dangerous political world?"
I don’t know. He does express a preference for quiet study in these first two letters. From what you say, it may not have been an “either or” choice for him
As usual, the The frequency illusion (also known as the Baader–Meinhof phenomenon) kicks in and I start catching external things relating to whatever we are reading. Either that, or I am host to too many Google cookies.I saw the article below and post it here for your consideration.
Seneca Was a Man, Not a Sage
Should we trust Seneca as a serious source for Stoic insight and inspiration, despite his questionable reputation?
https://medium.com/pocketstoic/seneca...
Massimo Pigliucci, Professor of Philosophy at CUNY-City College who has written several books on Stoicism.
David wrote: "Letter 73. Engagement vs. Withdrawal: Seneca suggests retreating from the crowd to protect one’s character. How do we balance self-preservation with the Stoic idea of participating in the world?."
Retreating from the world sounds like a good option for those with a weak sense of self. Modern existentialism has a lot to say about the "levelling" effects of social groups and how this leads to living an inauthentic life, a life that is not true to oneself because the person does not have a strong sense of self to begin with. Someone like this is easily molded, like a child, because they do not yet have moral principles by which they live. But a lot of people never develop their own principles and just adopt the prevailing opinions of those around them. On the other hand, where do principles come from, and doesn't one need to associate with people to acquire them in the first place?
I'm surprised that he says that even Socrates and Cato "might have been" affected in this way. This seems demonstrably untrue. Maybe he was saying some of these things for Lucilius' sake?
Thomas wrote: "I'm surprised that he says that even Socrates and Cato "might have been" affected in this way. This seems demonstrably untrue. Maybe he was saying some of these things for Lucilius' sake? "I agree that much was for Lucilius' benefit.
It is also my understanding that Seneca's argument is not that Socrates and Cato were corrupted by the crowd, but that they were not untouched by it either. The crowd did reach them, whether through opposition, suffering, or forcing them into conflict.
Socrates was condemned to death by the Athenian jury, a decision shaped by mob mentality and public misunderstanding of philosophy.
Cato resisted Caesar and the decline of the Republic, but in the end, he was powerless against the overwhelming force of Rome’s corruption and took his own life.
LETTER 9: ON PHILOSOPHY AND FRIENDSHIPIn Letter 9, Seneca explores the balance between self-sufficiency and the value of friendship. He responds to Epicurus’ critique of philosophers who claim that the wise person does not need friends.
Seneca claims many things in this letter, including
1. He compares a person thriving despite losing body parts to a person thriving despite losing friends. Is this a fair comparison?
2. Seneca claims the process of forming friendships is more enjoyable than merely having them by comparing the idea to an artist enjoys painting more than admiring a finished work. I have trouble agreeing to this one, is there perhaps a dependency on age regarding this claim?
My main takeaways are these:
1. Self-sufficiency and Friendship Can Coexist: The wise person does not *need* friends to be happy, but desires them to practice virtue and companionship. Friendships enrich life but are not essential for inner peace.
2. Friendship Should Not Be Based on Utility: Relationships built on mutual benefit are fragile and often dissolve when no longer convenient. True friendship is rooted in mutual respect and virtue.
10 “Why make a friend?” To have someone I can die for, someone I can accompany into exile, someone whose life I can save, even by laying down my own.3. Happiness Comes from Within: External factors, including friendships, do not determine happiness. A sound and upright mind is the key to a good life, regardless of circumstances.
I think Seneca summarizes his meaning best with this line:
The wise person is self-sufficient as concerns living a good life, but not as concerns living in general. For the latter, there are many things he requires; for the former, only a sound and upright mind that rises superior to fortune.
Letter 9: Things To Consider1. What about loneliness, and why is it so consistently tossed out as being dangerously detrimental to our mental health? Is it more necessary then Seneca seems to think it is, or are people in general not self-sufficent enough? Is there something perhaps better between the extremes of self-sufficency and loneliness, or is this where the nuances of context, living a good live vs. living in general come into play?
2. Do you agree with Seneca’s idea that friendship should be pursued for its own sake, rather than out of some need; are some needs more legitimate than others? How does this compare to modern views on relationships?
3. Is there a distinction between being self-sufficient for a good life versus being self-sufficient for mere existence? Can we fully separate the two?
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts!
Letter 9: Hecaton says.Seneca writes: that Hecaton says,
I will show you a love charm without drugs, without herbs, without any witch’s incantation: love, if you would be loved.Does this really work? Is this a necessary or sufficient condition?
In Letter 9, Seneca writes, "The wise man needs hands, eyes, and many things that are necessary for his daily use; but he is in want of nothing. For want implies a necessity, and nothing is necessary to the wise man." He wants to distinguish between "need" and "want," but he seems to be tying himself in knots. Are hands, eyes, etc. necessary to the wise man or not?
Roger wrote: "Are hands, eyes, etc. necessary to the wise man or not?"No. Hands, eyes, etc., are necessary (useful) for practical living, but they are not necessary, i.e., we are not in want of them, for achieving a good life or inner peace.
Seneca is drawing on the first pillar of Stoicism, known as the dichotomy of control, to distinguish between external things that are not under our complete control that are of practical use, or necessary, for functioning in the world versus things that are under our complete control that are essential for happiness.
Of all existing things some are in our power, and others are not in our power. In our power are thought, impulse, will to get and will to avoid, and, in a word, everything which is our own doing. Things not in our power include the body, property, reputation, office, and, in a word, everything which is not our own doing. Epictetus, Enchiridion, 1Practical Needs (Externals not in our complete control): Hands, eyes, and other physical necessities from a biological and practical standpoint, they are "necessary."
No Essential Wants for Happiness (Things in our complete control): Seneca is suggesting that happiness comes from virtue, living in accordance with reason and nature, not from external circumstances or physical conditions.
A little contrast with Aristotle's views may help here:
Definition of Happiness:
Aristotle: Flourishing (eudaimonia) includes virtue + external well-being
Stoics: Virtue alone is sufficient for happiness
External Goods
Aristotle: Contribute to well being; if lacking, can make eudaimonia difficult if not impossible.
Stoics: Does not affect happiness if one is virtuous
David wrote: "Roger wrote: "Are hands, eyes, etc. necessary to the wise man or not?"No. Hands, eyes, etc., are necessary (useful) for practical living, but they are not necessary, i.e., we are not in want of t..."
Will the wise man be happy if he can't function in the world?
Letter 104 — On Care of Health and Peace of MindSeneca explores the care of body and mind, offering insights on personal health, the influence of environment, and the pursuit of inner peace. He begins by describing his retreat to the country to shake off a fever.
He argues that it is a moral duty to live not as long as we desire, but as long as we ought, especially for the well-being of those we love.
Seneca then warns that a restless or unsettled mind will find distractions no matter where it goes and suggests that if we carry our troubles with us, no journey will offer relief.
104.7. . .We are told that Socrates gave the following response to someone who complained that travel had done him no good: “It serves you right—you’ve been traveling with yourself!"Seneca then shifts to the roots of our inner turmoil. He argues that valuing wealth, status, or fearing death inevitably leads to distress. Even in safety, an anxious mind finds reasons to fear.
Seneca asserts that travel alone does not cure these inner faults and claims that true peace comes from curing our deeper issues like our desires, temper or fear through philosophical reflection and self-reform, not from a mere change of scenery.
Virtuous examples to emulate are provided: Cato, Laelius, Socrates, and Zeno, who embody courage, integrity, and resilience. Socrates, despite facing war, tyranny, and an unjust death sentence, remained steadfast. Cato, similarly, stood unshaken amidst Rome’s political chaos, demonstrating that true virtue remains consistent, regardless of external circumstances.
Seneca concludes by advocating for the rejection of pleasures and wealth, which render us dependent and weak. True liberty, he insists, requires valuing virtue over material comforts.
Letter 104 Discussion Questions:1. How does Seneca’s view on the influence of environment in Letter 104 compare with his warnings about crowds in Letter 7 on crowds?
2. @Thomas, who touched on the subject earlier: What of the apparent contradiction between Letter 7 on crowds and Letter 104? In Letter 7, he speaks to the potential for corruption even in the strongest individuals, and in Letter 104 he celebrates those same individuals who maintained their integrity despite the overwhelming odds.
3. Do you find his argument convincing that we should live not just for ourselves but for the sake of our loved ones? How does this align or conflict with Stoic ideals of self-sufficiency and friendship we read in letter 9 on friendship?
Roger wrote: "Will the wise man be happy if he can't function in the world?"If someone loses the ability to function in the conventional sense but still maintains their values, virtue, and inner peace, would we declare they are not capable of being happy?
I did find a study in which out of 231 individuals with spinal cord injury, more than half (58.4%) reported being happy all or most of the time. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles...
Do people who are physically capable but morally corrupt or deeply anxious happier than those who have physical limitations but live according to their values?
If happiness comes from living in accordance with virtue and reason, as Seneca suggests, then isn’t it possible that a wise person can still achieve happiness even if they can't function in the way society expects?
David wrote: "Roger wrote: "Will the wise man be happy if he can't function in the world?"If someone loses the ability to function in the conventional sense but still maintains their values, virtue, and inner ..."
I can buy the idea that a wise man will be happier than the other kind if deprived of a hand, eye, etc. But all things being equal, wouldn't he be happier yet if he wasn't disabled?
Susanna wrote: "David wrote: "I did find a study in which out of 231 individuals with spinal cord injury, more than half (58.4%) reported being happy all or most of the time. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles...."I've heard the same thing of lottery winners. After a burst of elation, they typically regress to their normal happiness.
Letter 9Roger wrote: "Susanna wrote: "David wrote: "I did find a study in which out of 231 individuals with spinal cord injury, more than half (58.4%) reported being happy all or most of the time. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.n..."
It appears Socrates' comment in Letter 104 — On Care of Health and Peace of Mind. . .
It serves you right—you’ve been traveling with yourself!. . .may apply to more than just traveling, but to any state or change to one's circumstances, whether one is traveling and being in different locations, lost a hand or eyesight, or won the lottery, one is still traveling with oneself.
But the question at hand is, Are these externals worthless or aren’t they? The key to understand here is that the Stoic tries to separate the concept of ultimate well-being from preferable conditions.
There seems to be merit in integrating both the Stoic and Aristotelian views. We might say that while virtue alone can secure a baseline of contentment allowing one to handle adversity with grace, certain external circumstances (e.g., stable health, supportive community) can enrich and expand what we typically call “flourishing.”
I suppose that people 200 years ago were about as happy on average as they are today, even though they lacked things we would be miserable without, such as indoor plumbing. They didn't know they were suffering. They thought that was just how life was. I suppose our wise man today, if deprived of his flush toilet, would accept it philosophically and remain just as happy. But he would sure get one installed if he possibly could. Why would he do so, if not to make himself happy?
Roger wrote: "I suppose that people 200 years ago were about as happy on average as they are today, even though they lacked things we would be miserable without, such as indoor plumbing. They didn't know they we..."Stay tuned for Letter 18 coming up in Week 2. Stoics actually practice for enduring hardships.
"Now there are two kinds of [Stoic] training, one which is appropriate for the soul alone, and the other which is common to both soul and body. We use the training common to both when we discipline ourselves to cold, heat, thirst, hunger, meager rations, hard beds, avoidance of pleasures, and patience under suffering. For by these things and others like them the body is strengthened and becomes capable of enduring hardship, sturdy and ready for any task; the soul too is strengthened since it is trained for courage by patience under hardship and for self-control by abstinence from pleasures.” Musonius Rufus, Lectures, 6
Speaking of Week 2, here it is.Week 2 - Feb 4 - 11
Letter 12: On Old Age
Letter 18: On Festivals and Fasting
Letter 47: On Master and Slave
Letter 1: On Saving Time
Letter 16: Philosophy as the Guide of Life.
Same Links as week 1 for free online resources:
- https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Moral_...
- https://www.lettersfromastoic.net/arc...
Susanna wrote: "Abraham Lincoln said that "most folks are as happy as they make up their minds to be."It is doubtful that Abraham Lincoln actually said that,(view spoiler) but it does capture a Stoic idea.
“People are troubled not by things but by their judgments about things.If one believes his own happiness or misery depends on matters beyond his control, external things like, fickle Fortune, the thoughts of others, the whims of fate, then one surrenders one's peace. But if one recognizes that his thoughts and choices form the basis of how one experiences life, he discovers an internal source of freedom.
Epictetus. The Complete Works: Handbook, Discourses, & Fragments (Handbook 5a). The University of Chicago Press. Kindle Edition.
Susanna wrote: "Roger wrote: "But he would sure get one installed if he possibly could. Why would he do so, if not to make himself happy."Or to keep up with the Joneses."
I don't care what the Joneses do, as long as they stay downwind. I'm getting a flush toilet.
Roger, maybe I'm just tired because I didn't get much sleep last night. But your last comment had me laughing so hard, tears were streaming down my face :)
Susanna wrote: "Ha, Roger. I just finished This is Happiness by Niall Williams, a recent novel about when "the electric" first came to Ireland. There were a few families who turned down the offer of electricity."I bet their kids got it.
Susanna wrote: "Ha, Roger. I just finished This is Happiness by Niall Williams, a recent novel about when "the electric" first came to Ireland. There were a few families who turned down the offer of electricity."Thanks, this was a fun exercise:
They may have refused stoically in the following ways.
1. On Crowds (Letter 7): The families’ choice to decline electricity may be adherance to Seneca’s advice to avoid the corrupting influence of the crowd. It suggests a vigilance against adopting new trends simply because society rushes to them.
2. On Discursiveness in Reading (Letter 2): Their refusal might reflect a desire to remain focused, not scatter themselves among new novelties.
3. On the Philosopher’s Mean (Letter 5): They pursue a measured lifestyle, suspicious of extremes, seeking to remain in the comfortable middle ground.
4. On Philosophy and Friendship (Letter 9): Their communal choice, shaped by shared values, aligns with the notion of philosophical fellowship fostering a singular mode of life.
5. On Care of the Self (Letter 104): They aim to preserve their moral core by resisting what they see as potential distraction from the pursuit of virtue.
On the other hand, they were not acting Stoically:
1. If they refused out of stubborn pride or contrarianism. Exercise of liberty should be grounded in reasoned virtue, not obstinate refusal.
2. If they refused out of fear or suspicion of change. Stoicism advises courage and reason, not letting fear of novelty direct one's action.
3. If they refused out of unexamined tradition. The wise weigh old ways by reason rather than reflex.
4. If they refused for superstitious or dogmatic resistance. Stoics seek truth in rational inquiry, not in blind adherence or dread.
On a side note. my mom always spoke very enthusiastically about the The Rural Electrification Act of 1936 and how her farm was one of the last to get hooked up before there was a pause due to the start of WWII. She said it was better than Christmas, New Years, and the Fourth of July all rolled into one. She was about 6 or 7 years old at the time.
David wrote: "Susanna wrote: "Ha, Roger. I just finished This is Happiness by Niall Williams, a recent novel about when "the electric" first came to Ireland. There were a few families who turned down the offer o..."I bet some of them just felt they were doing fine as they were and didn't want to have to figure out some newfangled and possibly dangerous bit of technology. I felt that way whenever the IT Dept came in and told me it was time to get a new desk computer.
Roger wrote: "David wrote: "Susanna wrote: "Ha, Roger. I just finished This is Happiness by Niall Williams, a recent novel about when "the electric" first came to Ireland. There were a few families who turned do..."They were right to be suspectful of it. Many victorians died because of ignorance of how electricity works. Even now many people didn't know a lot about it, just imagine then.
Letter 12 - Visiting a Childhood Home, or, On Old AgeSeneca reflects on his advancing years during a visit to his country home. He notices the decay in the house he built, the aging trees he planted, and an old man who was once his playmate. Initially frustrated, Seneca advises Lucilius to cherish the realities of aging. He compares old age to fruit at its sweetest just before it spoils, boyhood is its most charming near it end, and that final sip of wine that tips one into drunkenness.
The most pleasurable time of life is on the downhill side, but before the drop-off. Even the time that stands at the very brink has its own pleasures, I believe. Or if not, then it has this instead: one no longer feels the need of any. How sweet it is to have worn out one’s desires and left them behind!This reminds me of the "mad masters" of desire that Cephalus shared with Socrates in Plato’s Republic:
...for old age brings peace and freedom from all such things. When the appetites relax and cease to importune us. . .and we escape from many mad masters.Seneca also addresses the fear of death, insisting it should be faced by both young and old, as no one knows when their time will come. He concludes:
*Plato, Republic I.329.c-d, Hackett Publishing Company.
Every day, then, should be treated as though it were bringing up the rear, as though it were the consummation and fulfillment of one’s life.Seneca proposes a daily "Celebration of Life" at day's end, adding:
If God gives us a tomorrow, let us be glad to receive it. The happiest person, the most untroubled possessor of himself, is the one who awaits the morrow without anxiety. Anyone who has said, 'I have done living,' rises profitably each morning, having gained one more day.As if this are not enough lessons for Lucilius, Seneca closes with a quote from Epicurus:
It is wrong to live under constraint; but no man is constrained to live under constraint.Seneca preemptively defends his use of Epicurus by asserting that the best sayings are common property, and the truth belongs to all, regardless of its source.
What does Seneca mean by this saying from Epicurus? You are either constrained or you are not constrained, right? How does it relate to the rest of the letter? Does it tie into his reflections on aging and daily living, or does it introduce a separate idea about freedom?
Susanna wrote: "David wrote: "Thanks, this was a fun exercise."Yes, it was.
It is pretty amazing that some people had all this stuff figured out so long ago and that it is still relatable and applicable.
Letter 18: On Festivals and Fasting or, The Saturnalia FestivalIn the first 4 sections, Seneca warns of the excesses of Saturnalia. On whether to join the festivities or not. He gives the advice of moderation, one should neither blindly conform to excess nor isolate oneself completely. True wisdom lies in participating in society without losing oneself to excess. Is this consistent with his letter on crowds?
Next, Seneca turns towards preparing for hardship through voluntarily practicing it declaring that testing the soul’s resilience by practicing deprivation strengthens the mind. Just as soldiers train in peace, one should prepare for hardship in good times. This practice should be taken seriously, and not just played at. Seneca claims the bendfit of living simply by choice is freeing because it removes the fear of loss.
Freedom is just another word for nothin' left to lose.Wealth should not dictate happiness. By rehearsing hardship, one removes fear and builds true independence. Seneca says its OK to possess wealth, but it should not be depended upon for happiness. Then Seneca takes a strange turn into a discussion about anger.
Kristofferson and Foster (circa 1969) (Joplin recording 1971)
Seneca provides yet another quote from Epicurus:
Anger byond bounds begets insanity.What is this sudden transition about; what does this talk about anger at the end have to do with the rest of the letter about participating in festivals and practicing hardship?
Letter 47: On Master and SlaveSeneca starts by praising Lucilius for treating his slaves well, reminding him of the fundamental humanity of slaves, and warns that mistreatment ultimately weakens the master’s authority by fostering resentment.
He also warns of the possibility of social role reversal, and tells us of a once-powerful master who found himself excluded from a former slave’s household, paying the price for his past arrogance.
Seneca encourages the ethical treatment of slaves pointing out that previous Roman generations had a more humane approach, calling masters “fathers of the household” and slaves “members of the household.” While he rejects the idea that all slaves should dine with their masters he suggests that some, based on their character, should be included as a form of moral encouragement. He also advises Lucilius to seek friendships among his slaves, as good potential can be found in unexpected places.
Then Seneca turns philosophical argues that real slavery is not about social status but about being ruled by desires, fears, and ambitions and claims many free men are actually slaves to their weaknesses and desires.
Then the letter turns to a discussion on the nature of respect and authority claiming that true masters should lead with wisdom and restraint, using words rather than physical punishment.
Seneca's closing reflection on character concluding that a good person forms sound judgments and adheres to them, whereas a bad person is fickle and changes impulsively.
What are the takeaways for a modern world in this letter on masters and slaves?
In this epoch of glass and light, where our lives are intertwined with the shimmering screens that beckon us from every corner, the ancient musings of Seneca find an eerie resonance in our contemporary existence. Letter 47, with its reflections upon the master and the slave, morphs into a lens through which we may examine our own relationship with the digital titans that dominate our daily lives. Here, the master is not a distant figure cloaked in authority but rather a palmed device, an omnipresent entity that has woven itself into the very fabric of our being.Imagine for a moment the sleek contours of your smartphone, a talisman of connectivity, glimmering under the flickering glow of artificial light. It rests innocuously in your palm, yet within its confines lies an entire universe: a cacophony of voices, curated images, endless feeds—each one pulling at you like a sailor’s knot tightening in a tempest. The promise of instant gratification sings sweetly, luring you into a dance of distraction and appetite, drawing you further away from your own self into a labyrinth of pixels and carefully constructed façades. You reach for it instinctively, your fingers grazing its surface, as if it were an extension of your very soul, and therein lies the paradox: this device, crafted to connect, ensnares in chains invisible yet unyielding.
Like the master of Seneca's discourse, your phone wields an insidious power, its grasp tightening as it shapes not only your attentions but your very perceptions of reality. The walls of your physical environment recede, replaced by a torrent of curated images and soundbites that chatter endlessly, holding you captive in a realm of synthetic stimuli. In this dance of domination, the master no longer wears a crown; it wears a guise of familiarity, promising connection yet delivering relentless urgency—a master that demands your attention, your time, your very essence.
The algorithms, those silent artisans of your experience, sculpt your desires and delineate the contours of your thoughts. Each notification becomes a whisper in the dark, a siren’s call that draws you from the richness of the present moment, inviting you to compare, to consume, to endlessly scroll through the pixelated lives of others. You become the modern-day slave, shackled not by iron chains but by your own choices, your relentless need for engagement, your fear of missing out. The irony lies in the illusion of freedom: for every tap on the screen, a fragment of your autonomy slips further away, absorbed into the endless maw of distraction.
As the day wanes and the shadows of evening stretch long across your room, you reflect on the myriad of experiences that swirl within you, each thought a fleeting visitor in this temple of modernity. You ponder Seneca’s wisdom, the beauty of solitude, the tranquility of surrendering to the stillness, and yet here you are, navigating through a gallery of updates and notifications, your thoughts captured in a whirlpool of likes and shares. The tension mounts—a quiet rebellion stirs within.
And yet, perhaps within this modern prison, there lies the seed of liberation: an awakening to the fact that the screen, while capable of binding you, can also serve as a portal to worlds unseen, a gathering place for voices that strive for connection, meaning, and authenticity. In recognition of your chains, you can choose to become the master of your fate, slowly discarding the shackles of compulsion, reclaiming those moments stolen in the gluttonous embrace of your device.
You begin to unfurl your awareness, to question what it means to engage meaningfully with the fragmentation of life that surrounds you. As dusk deepens, you may yet find solace in the wisdom of those ancient philosophers, illuminating a path toward conscious living, a deliberate selection of what you invite into your attention. Thus, in the dance of the master and the slave, you can reclaim the power to choose—to curate your existence beyond the glow of the screen, seeking not only connection but depth, not only stimulation but also stillness.
So close the device, if only for a moment. Breathe in the air untainted by notifications, taste the quiet that hovers at the edges of your consciousness. For as long as you remain aware, conscious of the delicate balance between engagement and enslavement, you can steer your existence with intention, shaping your life not as a mere reflection of what the master—your device—wants to show you, but as a vivid tapestry woven from the threads of your own choosing.
This letter hit me hard, and David was the wielder of the hammer by posting his questions to us. Thank you for posting this and allowing me a space write me thoughts.
Black wrote: "In this epoch of glass and light. . ."There are many ways to respond to your post, but first and most appropriately: thank you for a well-thought-out philosophical reflection on one aspect of Seneca’s Letter 47: On Master and Slave.
Your meditation suggests several different masters: smartphones, the digital titans that control content, and the algorithms that shape our experiences at the cost of our time, attention, preferences and personal information. But there is hope in following Seneca’s advice, to flip this relationship; instead of being ruled by these forces, we can discipline ourselves to become masters of our digital lives.
Seneca addresses many of these digital aspects not just in Letter 47 but also in Letter 7: On Crowds and Letter 18: On Festivals and Fasting. These letters, in general, warn against becoming enslaved by external influences—whether the opinions of the crowd, the temptations of excess, or the distractions of spectacle. They advocate for self-mastery, urging us to find a middle path between imitating and hating the things that influence us.
1. Is the device truly the master, or are we complicit in this dynamic?
2. Does digital engagement necessarily lead to a loss of autonomy?
3. Does rejecting the device solve the problem?
4. What does it mean to reclaim agency?
5. Is the critique of digital culture overly romanticizing the past?
6. Is there an implicit contradiction? I.e., does the act of writing and sharing online contradict the concern? I'd like to think our goodreads group an exception to these issues.
Letter 47 is different. instead of only advice on mastering ourselves against so many "mad masters", it speaks more to the responsibilities of the master who holds power over others. Its lessons apply not only to digital self-mastery but to how we wield authority in many areas still relevant today. Seneca challenges us to exercise power with wisdom, recognizing: 1. The dignity of all humans
2. The ethical considerations of wielding power over others
3. The arbitrary nature of social status
4. The importance of fair treatment in work and society
5. The value of relationships across social divides
6. The rejection of arbitrary social distinctions (i.e., external status)
7. The necessity of tempering power with justice
The Responsibility of the Free
Seneca does not call for the abolition of slavery—something unthinkable in his time—but he does advocate for a humane and just way of treating those under one’s authority. In our modern world, where legal slavery is banned, we still have a responsibility to ensure that no one is dehumanized, mistreated, or treated merely as a means—whether in economic systems, digital landscapes, or social hierarchies.
Ultimately, freedom is not just a legal status, it is about how we treat others and whether we ourselves are free from destructive desires. And, as Seneca encourages in 47.21
One thing about good character is that it is content with itself and so persists over time. A bad one is fickle: it changes frequently, not for the better but just for the sake of changing.Perhaps the fickle nature side of that equation is is a subtle nod towards his own boss, Nero?
On a personal note, as a person recently tasked with taking on management duties, I have welcomed much parallel advice in my management training classes.
Classics and the Western Canon
Books mentioned in this topic
The Socratic Method: A Practitioner's Handbook (other topics)Don Quixote (other topics)
Letters on Ethics: To Lucilius (other topics)
For the next two weeks, this interim read will survey several selections from Letters on Ethics: To Lucilius by Seneca
Week 1 Jan. 29 - Feb 4
- Letter 7: On Crowds
- Letter 2: On Discursiveness in Reading
- Letter 5: On the Philosopher’s Mean
- Letter 9: On Philosophy and Friendship
- Letter 104: On Care of the Self
Week 2 Feb. 5 - Feb. 11
- Letter 12: On Old Age
- Letter 18: On Festivals and Fasting
- Letter 47: On Master and Slave
- Letter 1: On Saving Time
- Letter 16: Philosophy as the Guide of Life.
If you have a favorite letter, let us know and maybe we can include it.
Links to free online resources:
- https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Moral_...
- https://www.lettersfromastoic.net/arc...
*Note: Click on the letter number, then on the next page click on the title to read the entire letter.*
I will be reading from:
Seneca, Lucius Annaeus. Letters on Ethics: To Lucilius (The Complete Works of Lucius Annaeus Seneca) . University of Chicago Press. Translated with an introduction and commentary by Margaret Graver and A. A. Long
Why read these letters?
Seneca’s Letters on Ethics provided wisdom for navigating life’s challenges that is still relevant today. In this week’s selection, Seneca reflects on: the danger of losing oneself in the chaos of society, the importance of cultivating deep focus, finding balance between extremes, the transformative power of meaningful friendships, and the need to care for oneself with discipline and reflection.
These letters are practical and philosophical, offering insights that can help us live with greater clarity, resilience, and purpose. Each letter blends personal anecdotes with moral advice, making them accessible and profound.
As you read, consider if and how Seneca’s words resonate with your own life experiences. Do you agree or disagree with his advice? Which passages or ideas feel especially significant? How might you apply his advice in modern contexts? Let’s use this opportunity to learn from one another and deepen our understanding of Stoic philosophy.
Looking forward to your thoughts and reflections!