Letters From A Stoic, Seneca:

What began as a highly influential and respected philosophy, stoicism has become a journalistic buzzword and TikTok fad; frequently used as tool for traditional-cum-toxic masculinities informed by Andrew Tate et al [see Piers Morgan referencing it here 4 years ago].

Campbell’s (1969 [2004]) collection of Letters From A Stoic is one of the most prominent books on the topic, partially due to its widespread availability and readability. It presents the reader with a number of [basically] ‘life lessons’, moral judgements and patterns of behaviour.

Prior to reading the book, I was aware of the various philosophical issues surrounding stoicism as a doctrine itself; inclusive of, but not wholly applicable to, the teaching expressed by Seneca in his letters. Fundamentally, stoicism endorses determinism, meaning that any ‘advice’ is irrelevant to the reader as they cannot change their behaviour anyway.

Chrysippus tried to overcome this, stating that if an action is derived from within us then we have agency over it… fallacy. He later synthesised understandings of ‘fate’ which render all internal causes as resulting from deterministic chains of external actions… contradiction.

I’ve always believed in free will; for no other reasons apart from “What’s the point otherwise?”. Life is really fucking boring without believing that. Therefore, the teachings and advice presented in the book are relevant to my life. And I do wish I read the book sooner.

I’ll include some quotes below, but the real argument of this article comes later. I didn’t agree with a lot of what was said in the book, but it did make me think.

---

“A multitude of books only gets in one’s way. So if you are unable to read all the books in your possession, you have enough when you have all the books you are able to read”

Pretty funny for me, got loads I haven’t read. Point obviously isn’t about books, Seneca is promoting completion of tasks in full; something he goes into later in the letter. Did think this letter was addressed to me though.

“What progress have I made? I am beginning to become my own friend. That is progress indeed.”

This is important, and something I need to work on… everyone needs to work on. Good question though, how much do you like yourself? What progress am I making to being my own friend?

“Associate with people who are likely to improve you…but the fact is, not one of them is really capable of understanding you”

First bit I don’t necessarily agree with: the notion that you need to push your friends to be getting better is not true and not realistic. If that’s your main goal in friendship, then you’re: a) not any fun & b) probably not a proper friend. But the second bit, I do agree with: at times, no one cares about you or fully understands you. You only have yourself in the end, don’t forget that.

“If you wish to be loved, love”

True story.

“I have lost nothing. All my possessions…are with me”

Completely Westernised and elitist comment. Good luck champ with your mental solidarity when you’ve got no water or shelter.

“Where is the glory in mere capacity? When the victory rests with you, when all the company lie prostate around you, slumbering or vomiting, declining all your calls for another toast, when you find yourself the only person at the party on your feet, when your might prowess has enabled you to beat all comers and no one has proved able to match your intake, a barrel is none the less to beat you”

Seneca clearly not a boozer. Had to disagree with this one. Although there is an argument for the real champion is who can get up and do the same again tomorrow. It’s certainly not me.

---

I took a lot away from the book: some funny things, others thinking points and a few contentions and criticisms. It was enjoyable. And I think, to some degree, it has made me a better person; even if I’ve only reconciled with myself. Emerson asking me to “make my own bible” is true here, I’ve selected the letters and excerpts which apply to me, disregarded the rest, and internalised them.

But the book is a bible. It contains the same, fairly basic, moral advice that the Holy Bible, Torah, Quran and Tripitaka provide without a necessary form of G-d. However, Seneca and his writings specifically are different. They are timeless: timelessly written and timelessly moral.

Many other holy texts have not aged well, written in ignorance of socio-cultural change and scientific developments. Seneca’s moral judgements ring true to this day, incredibly forward thinking, cosmopolitan, tolerant and liberal. One example is Seneca’s continued aversion to the gladiatorial coliseum, a staple of Roman life at the time. At some points, I feel this is because Seneca is not making any outlandish claims, as a lot of the advice given is fairly basic. Similarly, the book is a Penguin published translation. Campbell would therefore exclude the more regressive writings to curate his own copy, relational to contemporary society.

Such as with translation too. Campbell’s understanding is inherently opinionated and subjective. He recognises this in a nice reflexive pre-face to the book, which I thought was a nice touch given my social science background. When translating from Latin, “it is hardly possible, for instance, to reproduce the compression of such as sentence as ‘Habere eripitur, habuisse numquam’ or ‘Magis quis veneris quam quo interest’”, whatever those sentences mean. Whilst I don’t have the same passion or understanding for Latin as Campbell, I can see how the complexity of any sentence can be lost when translating into English; especially from Latin. Nevertheless, the writings are unbelievable to read. They honestly could have been written yesterday.

My final point is about Seneca himself. Does he employ all the advice he gives out? Definitely not. Evidentially not: he professes teachings about possessions and money, but similarly mugged off the Roman Empire for money. And shagged someone’s wife. Not very moral. Seneca is like me: do as I say, not say as I do… or fac sicut dico non sicut ego. But the point is, it’s unrealistic. I have no doubt Seneca was a great man. And as he was troubled for years by poor health, he definitely was a very stoic man to overcome his physical issues. But he wasn’t always the most moral man.

That’s why, in my opinion, the right-wing speakers on todays social media have picked up on the doctrine. It’s a fluid, malleable philosophy that can be applied to all manner of situations. Anyone can understand and preach stoicism. But actually being a stoic, is a much harder feat.