Dear fellow searchers,
Seneca’s main argument in On Providence is to answer the long
sought question of theodicy. He goes on to state that the evil, through the
pain it causes, is used as a test from god to strengthen the righteous – “He
does not treat the good man like a toy, but tries him” (29). He goes on to
further bolster his point in saying that all adversity is for the good of the
man, “All adversity [a stalwart man] regards as exercise” (30). My argument is
that all pain is not for the better. We coexist with pain in a mutualistic and parasitic
relationship. We sometimes gain knowledge and power as a result from pain, but
at other times, pain causes irreparable harm to our bodies such as blindness.
We gain nothing from blindness. Our other senses may enhance, but as a whole,
the sense of sight is worth far more than what you could gain from minuscule
other sensory enhancements. Seneca also tries to demonstrate that pain makes
you better by using other notable people as examples, but by doing this, he
uses the logical fallacy of hypothesis contrary to fact. He states, “Because
the hand burned routed the king whom his hand armed could not” (34), referring
to Mucius’s burned hand. What stipulates that Mucius’s pain results in him
being the king he was? There is no
discernable truth to that fact, and there is no way possible to begin trying to
prove the fact. We cannot assume that all adversity brings out the good in man.
While you can specify that some hardship may help us in the end, we cannot
conclude that all hardship will improve the man in the end.
-Brad B.
Hello Search Class!
ReplyDeleteWhen I first read Seneca's remarks in his Stoic Philosophy, stating that suffering "readies [a man] for himself" (29), I was reminded of Scott Samuelson's speech on pain's fertile qualities for the soul; a person's suffering stretches a soul to make it deeper and at one with life. As I continued reading On Providence, however, I decided it was the other way around: Seneca believes that Providence chooses potentially great men, and forces them through suffering so that they may realize their full potential. Seneca states that terrors and calamities are "the privilege of the great man" (36), because they allow the great man to know exactly what he is capable of. Pain acts as an elaborate obstacle course through which great people must travel in order to understand their limits and strengths, and to continue growing stronger. The souls of great people become calloused, accustomed to hardship, and they become capable of living despite their grievances. Great people are not dependent on luck; it is their "good fortune not to need good fortune" (44). Providence picks out the great among humanity and bestows hardship upon them, so that they might rise above pain and become the best versions of themselves - as Seneca states simply, "disaster is virtue's opportunity" (37).
In Seneca’s passage on Moderation in Letter 5, he addressed the importance of a philosopher living a life of moderation. I found this philosophical reasoning for moderation to be impressively shallow. Seneca explains the necessity of moderation not as a mean to soul making but purely for its utility in maintaining a commendable appearance in the “common man’s” eyes. Through living a life of moderation, the philosopher rejects any extremism, denying themselves both luxury and affliction. The common man thus can look to the philosopher and feel that their life is reasonable and attainable. “Our endeavor must be to make our way of life better than the crowd’s, not contrary to it; else we shall turn from us and repel the people we wish to improve.” (P. 170) I felt that this passage ultimately was Seneca explaining how a philosopher can maintain successful relations with the public. When Seneca says, “Anyone who enters our home will admire us rather than our furniture” he is revealing the ultimate superficiality of his argument; his primary concern is what the public thinks when they interact with him, notably, on a very shallow level (P. 171). The bulk of the letter is concerned with how he, and other philosophers, are viewed in other peoples eyes. At no point does Seneca explain how a life of moderation is vital to humans as individuals, beyond its use in maintaining public relations. A possible explanation for this shallowness is that Seneca is attempting to protect himself and other philosophers from persecution of the state and to avoid a similar fate as Socrates. By living his proposed life of moderation, and avoiding extremes, the public as well as the state will not feel threatened by philosophers. However, isn’t the basis of Seneca’s Stoic philosophy to not fear dying a noble death?
ReplyDeleteIn Letter 3, Seneca talks about friendship. He says, "But if you think a man you do not trust as fully as yourself is a friend, you are grievously mistaken and do not understand the meaning of true friendship." I agree with Seneca. Many people have acquaintances and "friends", but true friendship should be someone that you can tell everything to and trust that they will keep it a secret. Seneca also says that before you think of someone as a friend, you must be skeptical of them: "After friendship there must be full trust, but before it, discretion." Before you go telling someone all of your secrets, you must know that they are trustworthy and and reliable. Seneca also speaks about the types of people that disclose all of their stories and secrets to anyone that will listen and those that tell no one anything. He says both of these are incorrect. Seneca asks these questions, "Why should I watch my words in the presence of my friend? Why should I not consider myself alone in his presence?" Everyone should have a friend that they can trust as much as they trust themselves, and based on everything that Seneca has said and the questions he asks, he understood the true meaning of friendship.
ReplyDelete