[rtl49]

At the risk of talking out of my depth, to me it seems very nearly a cliche in criticism to hone in on a person's inconsistencies in order to unveil him or her as a hypocrite.

It ought to be well understood that human beings are not perfectly consistent animals. We struggle to maintain an unchanging public image through the course of a continuously and inevitably changing experience. If we had to live up always to our highest ideals in order to advise others on the best course of life, none of us would ever be situated to recommend a framework for living. In Seneca's case, a school of philosophy would today be without many of its best-known works.

Incidentally, I think the fact of our inconsistency is a strong argument in favor of protecting privacy. Most of us have unrealistic and irrational expectations of consistency for others. The only way to maintain a sense of peace under these circumstances is to maintain the freedom to say one thing and do another, at least some of the time. A world without privacy might well be one in which we are all subject to the sort of treatment Seneca has received from this article's writer.

[DoctorZeus]

I generally agree - we do want to give people space to privately struggle to reach their professed ideals without risk of public humiliation. But surely that must be balanced with some expectation that a person's actions not be in blatant, large-scale contradiction with those ideals. And if you're at the point where you're preaching asceticism while causing political revolts with your financial excesses, perhaps you've crossed that line.

[rtl49]

I think much of the dissonance we experience when evaluating Seneca's life comes from our separation from his time period. Concerning the particular issue you mention, possibly contributing to rebellion in Britannia by calling for debts to be paid, I can't say I think it reflects a blatant divergence from his professed ideals in itself. (Truthfully, I'm not knowledgeable enough about the rebellion to take a strong stance.) It could be that he called in the debts not expecting the outcome, but once the rebellion started, it was important that it be opposed forcefully in order to avoid establishing precedent. It isn't as though Seneca was living as Caligula did.

In any case, my point is primarily about the focus of the article. It's fine to examine contradictions in a notable person's life, but too few acknowledge that we all have them, and this seems especially true among literary critics. In general, I think people take charges of "hypocrisy" too seriously.

[sridca]

If something, such as stoicism, does not work consistently what is its measure of success?

[eivarv]

Whether or not Seneca behaved consistently with the ideals of stoicism doesn't really say anything about how well stoicism "works" [0].

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

[sridca]

Let me rephrase the question such that evasions via Tu quoque are rendered impossible: is there a known case (as in, a person) where Stoicism does work consistently? And if there is no such case (as in, no such person) where Stoicism works consistently - what is its measure of success?

[eivarv]

First: What do you mean when you talk about Stoicism working - What do you think is the goal of Stoicism?

Second: This criticism is applicable to just about anything; does capitalism not "work" since just about any implementation has aspects that can be considered flawed?

You cannot generalize about an idea from people's failures to be consistent with their professed belief in it (other than perhaps that it appears to be difficult to act according to it in a consistent manner).

In the case of Seneca, it is also difficult to say whether he attempted to apply Stoicism 100%, how good his attempts were ("objectively"), or whether it is even possible at all.

[sridca]

> First: What do you mean when you talk about Stoicism working - What do you think is the goal of Stoicism?

As the goal of Stoicism is maintaining happiness -- and I'm referring to living in peace and harmony 24x7 -- via virtue, then it is said to "work" if it can achieve the said goal 24x7.

> Second: This criticism is applicable to just about anything; does capitalism not "work" since just about any implementation has aspects that can be considered flawed?

Irrelevant. One is a complex social phenomena; the other is pertaining to human psychology with specific goals. I could as well pick an example from the other end of the spectrum (of simplicity): eating less, for instance, leads to weight loss (or maintaining weight) - and this can be consistently demonstrated ... hence eating less "works".

> You cannot generalize about an idea from people's failures to be consistent with their professed belief in it (other than perhaps that it appears to be difficult to act according to it in a consistent manner).

I wasn't generalizing anything, and an idea/ belief is not necessarily a fact. The idea/ belief of the stoics is that virtue is sufficient for happiness. There is no doubt, in the mind of stoics, that virtue always leads to happiness (no exceptions). And it of course "appears to be difficult" - because virtue, being a higher-level cognitive function based on morality ("thou shalt remain calm" for instance), cannot consistently override the core emotions (wherein lies sorrow and malice), as humans all throughout the centuries have demonstrated time and again.

> In the case of Seneca, it is also difficult to say whether he attempted to apply Stoicism 100%, how good his attempts were ("objectively"), or whether it is even possible at all.

I doubt it is even possible at all (see above paragraph). Hence my "if it doesn't work, what is its measure of success?" question. If success that one is striving towards is ill-defined, one is probably fooling oneself.

[sridca]

Shouldn't the offended stoics (who down-voted my above comment asking a reasonable question) be practicing their own philosophy by remaining stoic (neither up-voting nor down-voting)? tongue-in-cheek.