Paste your text inIntroduction
‘Cogito Ergo Sum’
– Descartes
‘I think, therefore I am’ ‘ arguably the most renowned philosophical term known to man. Scholars, intellects and the uneducated alike struggle to comprehend what Descartes fully meant by this quote. Admittedly, philosophy is not an easy subject to understand, as it is open to perception and personal interpretation. This paper will present a critical analysis of Stoic Philosophy from an epistemological stance, with particular focus on Lucius Annaeus Seneca and his contributions to the philosophical wealth of knowledge and teachings. It will take into consideration the cultural context of the era and explore the possibility that Seneca’s teachings may have been influenced by Christianity. The paper will conclude with the writer examining Seneca’s input on the philosophical influence on modern psychotherapy and will compare and contrast his work, with that of Albert Ellis, Aaron Beck and William Glasser.
Section 1 ‘ What is Philosophy? (807)
The Discipline of Thinking About Thinking
Philosophy is a timeless subject. With issues of interest in the present day being discussed since time immemorial, it is interesting to note that the topics of conversation today have reverberated since the time of the ancient Greeks and quintessentially, man’s condition in the universe remains as uncertain today as it did two thousand years ago. While philosophical discussions have taken place in different social constraints, over numerous different decades, spanning through the centuries ‘ it is important to note that philosophy is a product of the society in which it is discussed. The core fundamentals of a philosophical belief system will be tackled and adhered to from a myriad of different perspectives. A person’s personal philosophical base is intrinsically linked to their cultural, social and ethnic background, yet is as unique to them as their personal DNA.
Philosophy can be defined as the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. Wolman (1985, pg. 5) states ‘It has been adequately proved that formal or philosophical disciplines are not superior to empirical sciences … Yet empirical sciences look for guidance to the philosophers of science because they analyse the tools other sciences use.’ Wittgenstein (1980, p77) impresses upon us that ‘the object of philosophy is the logical clarification of thoughts. Philosophy is not a theory, but an activity. The theory of knowledge is the philosophy of psychology.’ With this premise of philosophy being an activity and not a theory, the author was faced with a reflexive question; Who Am I and What Do I Stand For? While accepting that philosophy is a way to rationally and critically think about her systematic approach to the world, the justification of this belief and look at how she conducts her life because of same, this was not an easy introverted view to ponder. As a Christian woman, the writer’s core philosophy in life is biblically rooted in Matthew 7:12 ‘So in everything you do, do unto others as you would have them do onto you.’ And in order to fully understand what her personal philosophy is, and whether she actually adhered to the philosophy in which she claims to stand by, the author found herself questioning her core belief system and the actions that drove it. Upon learning that Seneca stated ‘religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful’ the writer sought solace from scripture and read Luke 6:27-42;
But I say to you who are listening: Love your enemies. Do good to those who hate you. 28 Bless those who curse you, and pray for those who insult you. 29 If someone strikes you on the cheek, offer him the other one as well, and if someone takes your coat, don’t keep back your shirt, either. 30 Keep on giving to everyone who asks you for something, and if anyone takes what is yours, do not insist on getting it back.31 Whatever you want people to do for you, do the same for them
Upon further introspective examination, the writer reflected how easy it was for her to stand firm in her philosophical stance, which were grounded in her biblical and spiritual beliefs, as she was a white, heterosexual, married female. This led her to question how her belief system may be very difficult for others to adhere to or to adopt. Clarkeson (2003, p.165) informs us that the ‘epistemological domain of values, norms and ethics co-exists with that of the factual rational epistemological domain of human discourse. These domains are not the same and cannot be judged by the same criteria of ‘truth’.’ For example, biblically speaking it may be very difficult for a gay man in today’s society to ‘do unto others as you would have them to onto you’, especially if he was on the receiving end of homophobic hate, being spewed from ‘Fire and Brimstone’ type extreme fundamentalist Christians who purport to carry out God’s work, by spewing vile condemnation of the fires of hell upon homosexuals.
For a Christian woman who reveres Jesus and unreservedly and unashamedly believes Him when He says ‘I am the way and the truth and the life’ (John 14:6), it is important for the critical analysis of the paper for her to put her belief system aside and to look, from a philosophical lens, that there is a huge danger in seeing ‘truth’ as ‘certainty.’ Cooper & McLeod (2011, pg. 14) inform us that ‘pluralism refers to the belief that any significant question can be answered in a variety of legitimate ways’ (Rescher, 1993). It signals a preference for diversity over uniformity, multiplicity over unicity (McLellan, 1995) and pragmatism over idealism (James, 1996).’ In other words, there is no one single truth.
Section 2 ‘ Seneca: The Stoic Philosopher
‘A gem cannot be polished without friction, nor a man perfected without trials’
– Seneca
In his paper, Martin (2016, pg. 101) suggests that masculinity is understood from a social constructionist perspective via a concept of hegemonic masculinity. He cites Paechter (2003, p.69) as stating that there is not a singular masculinity but a ‘multiplicity of masculinities, inhabited and enacted variously by different people and by the same people at different times.’ Furthermore, Marilyn (1990, pg. 449) contends that ‘intense moral suffering is occasioned by the painful discrepancy between the behaviour of the outer object (or one’s own outer self) and one’s own inner knowledge of the truth.’ The writer believes that in order to fully equip ourselves with the understanding of the above statements, is to equate them to the stoic philosophical base camp from which they rose. Stoicism is an ancient Greek philosophy which teaches the development of self-control and fortitude as a means of overcoming destructive emotions. Stoics philosophers educated us that emotions resulted in mistakes and poor judgement in making decisions. They taught that they were destructive, owing to the dynamic relationship between cosmic determinism and human freedom, and their belief is that it is virtuous to maintain a ‘prohairesis’ that is in concurrence with nature. The Stoics elaborated a detailed taxonomy of virtue, dividing virtue into four main types: wisdom, justice, courage, and moderation. To be considered to be ‘stoic’ one must appear to be is calm and almost devoid of emotion. When one is stoic, they appear to accept whatever is happening. Corey (2001, p. 298) quotes Epictetus as saying ‘people are disturbed not by things, but by the view which they take of them’ (as cited in Ellis, 1995).
Section 2.1 ‘ Seneca’s Philosophical Contribution
Section 2.2 ‘ Seneca influenced by Christianity?
‘No man is free who is a slave to the flesh’
– Seneca
Even though the germ of stoicism was derived from the East, it’s systematic development and successes were attained by transplantation into a Western soil. In this respect, its career as it travelled westward, presents a rough but instructive parallel to the progress of the Christian Church. The author was struck by the symmetrical time line of the birth of Seneca and Jesus of Nazareth. Both men were born circa 4-6BC and died within an approximate 30-35 year difference of each other, both died by rituals of Roman barbarism. Jesus was crucified by Pontius Pilate under the rule of Tiberius. Seneca educated, and was an advisor to, Tiberius’ son, Caesar Nero. Hooper & Swartz (1991, pg. 59) inform us of Seneca’s firm stoic belief in that ‘the power of reason to triumph over evil’. They explain that the ‘stoics had many names for God, and Reason, was in fact, the most commonly one used.’ The tragic irony was that Seneca foretold the method of his own demise when he wrote ‘the mere vision and semblance of virtue impel certain men to a self-imposed death’ as Nero then forced Seneca to ‘self-impose’ his own death and to commit suicide. The scene is depicted in the 1773 artwork of Jacques-Louis David entitled ‘Death of Seneca’. After he cut his veins in an attempt to bleed to death proved fruitless, Du Button (2000, pg. 65) advises us that Seneca, who ‘had long considered Socrates, the exemplar of how one might, through philosophy, rise above external circumstance’ and had asked his doctor to prepare a cup of Hemlock, in echoes of Socrates death 464 years earlier. Unfortunately, a dual attempt to poison himself also ended with death alluding him, before being placed in a vapour bath and slowly being suffocated to death. Du Button further explains that ‘through his death, Seneca had helped to create an enduring association, together with other Stoic thinkers between the very word ‘philosophical’ and a temperate, self-possessed approach to disaster.’
Roman historian, Tactius advises in his Annals (XV.44) that ‘Nero set up as the culprits and punished with the utmost refinement of cruelty a class hated for their abominations, who are commonly called Christians. Christus, from whom their name is derived, was executed at the hands of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius,’ so it appeared highly unlikely that Seneca was not aware of the plight of Jesus during his own lifetime. With this information in mind, the writer became curious as to whether Seneca’s stoic philosophy could have been influenced by the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and furthermore, whether this historical event could have, willingly or unwillingly, indoctrinated a Christian ethos to his teachings. Her research into this would indicate that Seneca had received some information about the founder of Christianity. This may be inferred from the allusion in one of his tragedies to an unnamed individual who had aspired to royalty, but in its place was condemned to suffer a cruel death upon the cross. The unknown author of ‘The Gospel According to Seneca’ advises us that Seneca encountered, in the trial of Jesus, ‘a subject worthy of his aspirations as a philosopher and dramatist.’ We are informed that his action towards it was strictly within the ‘conventions of the ancient theatre, since it corresponded point by point with the original cultic tragedy of Dionysus, which every subsequent tragedy tried to emulate:’ The script was formulated as follows:
1. The hero is defeated in a struggle.
2. He is killed in a sacrificial ritual.
3. A messenger arrives, announcing his fate, and the chorus responds with its lamentations.
4. The body is brought onto the stage and is buried.
5. There follows a recognition that the hero is not truly dead but has gained immortality. He appears to men as a god, and mourning turns into a joyful celebration.
Interestingly, Lightfoot (1892, pg. 250) advises us that St. Jerome wrote that the ‘Christianity of Seneca seemed to be established on a sounder base than mere critical inference.’ Furthermore, he signifies that ‘a correspondence purporting to have passed between the heathen philosopher and the Apostle of the Gentiles.’ It is alleged that 14 epistles exist between St. Paul and Seneca. While debate over authenticity continues, Chance (2017) advises that ‘the letters were well-known in the medieval world and were deemed authentic until the Renaissance period, as they were often transmitted along with genuine works of Seneca.’ Living in a sybaritic world during exceptionally hedonistic times, it is not surprising that Seneca warned his peers about being a ‘slave to the flesh.’ St Paul warns us via his New Testament passage in Galatians 5:19-21, that ‘the acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like.’ Mitchell (2010) advises that Seneca identifies the source of Paul’s truth as ‘the Holy Spirit which is in you and above you.’ It can be argued that, if Seneca has identified the Holy Spirit as a source of Divinity, that he possibly accepted the doctrine and theological teachings of the Christian faith as it purports to the Holy Trinity of The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit. Interestingly, Cantor (2001, pg. 783) informs us that in the biblical sense "God is Spirit" and this has been the foundation of the development of the Christian doctrine. The biblical concept of spirit (pneuma), however, has its origin in referring to "air in movement," as in breath or storm. He contends that ‘the similar concept of pneuma in Stoic philosophy has become the immediate precursor of the field concept in modern physics, so that the conclusion is suggested that God is spirit as something like a field of force rather than as intellect.’
If this is the case, the writer further suggests that Seneca possibly heard the word of Jesus Christ, when He commanded "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another’ (John 13:34) and of St Paul in Colossians 3:13 ‘bear with each other and forgive one another if any of you has a grievance against someone. Forgive as the Lord forgave you.’ Moreover, the writer would be as bold as to propose that Seneca tried to impart the wisdom of Christianity on Nero when he wrote ‘I have determined to write a book upon clemency, Nero Caesar, in order that I may as it were serve as a mirror to you, and let you see yourself ‘ it is worth your while to consider and investigate a good conscience from every point of view, and afterwards to cast your eyes upon this enormous mass of mankind ‘ quarrelsome, factious, and passionate as they are.’ The irony being that the ideological thought of clemency didn’t ferment in the soul of Nero, who, as aforementioned, forced Seneca to commit suicide.
here…