Stoicism: Was Seneca a Hypocrite?

Stoic philosopher Seneca was notoriously rich. Yet, in his writings, he never has a good word to say about luxury or riches. This tension between word and deed has been noticed even in Seneca's own time, when Martial gave the philosopher the mocking nickname "Seneca Praedives", or "Super-rich Seneca". In this video we explore a few ways to deal with this accusation of hypocrisy. We take a look at Nicholas Nassim Taleb's chapter on Seneca in his landmark work "Antifragile", as well as Seneca's own defense. Of course, there is an overarching question to be answered too - should we even care about hypocrisy in philosophers? Is it ethical to judge their writings by their deeds?

[a.wenger]

This comparison between the ideas of individual philosophers and their biographies makes for very interesting content! I would love to see more on other Ancient Greek philosophers like Xenophon, Protagoras, or Heraclitis!

[murilopreto]

The quality of your videos is always astounding!! Very good job, keep up!!

[divinepiccolo]

Somehow I think it's impossible to be indifferent to wealth if you have it. It sounds good in theory but highly improbable in practice.

[crazybull]

I can see where all of these arguments are coming from. However, one thing remains unclear for me. I'm not sure how can one "be indifferent" towards something, but yet "prefer" it at the same time? Doesn't "to prefer" mean *_to want_* to have one thing more than the other? Isn't that quite the opposite from being "indifferent", this valuing of poverty higher than the value of wealth despite them being "indifferent things" by themselves which are outside our control?

The way I understand this, he might not have needed it, he probably would have survived both physically and mentally were he to become a poor man - I can accept that. However, I am not convinced he would have been "equally happy" (as if happiness is a measurable phenomena in the first place!), because I believe that _preferring_ something automatically means you are more _attached_ towards something than to another thing, no matter how weak that attachment may have been. Thus, losing it would still have had an effect, no matter how honest Seneca was in his defense.

[leniepenie]

I think it is comparable with people calling Eckart Tolle a hypocrite for driving a expensive Jaguar, you can still enjoy nice things without getting attached to them. But on the other hand I have never heard Tolle talk about the virtues of being poor.

[sawjjz]

I agree with Schoupenhaurs stance, kinda foolish to have ideas be limited to a persons circumstance

[michaelwenzl]

He lived for years in exile on a lonely island without any luxury - I think it is save to say that if he was able to be happy there he was not a hypocrite.

[stasiu]

I've read Seneca and I must say the amount of contradictions in his own teachings and his own behaviour is astonishing. Yet it showed me that no matter how great of a person you are, you're still a hypocrite to a certain degree.

[moshefabrikant]

Practice anti materialism even if you have materialism
8:15
Live in harmony with nature

[garryjones]

Great material my friend. Looking forward to your growth

[satnamo]

Sweet are das words of those who practice what they preach.

[kangakid]

If a mans words truly belong to him it is proven by his practise of them. (Seneca letter). His literary works are astounding and so inspirational. He gives his knowledge to us free and yet we question his greed. Tell me someone that is not a hypocrite that is a man. Yet the wealth of his teaching are here for us all. Look how he died, that is enough for me to prove the salt of his worth as a teacher.

[delilah]

As can be seen with many rich people today :)

[blaeckingceorl]

Honestly, I don't think this discutio could take us anywhere. Being rich or poor won't make anyone a saint nor a sinner. Why would this matter?

[horaceopoku]

I don't think you can be a proper stoic with vast wealth!!

[DeadEndFrog]

He would have been a hypocritical cynic, while as a stoic, hes simply that, a stoic.
Does that mean a stoic is simply a hypocritical cynic? ;^)

[Domas]

You cannot take his arguments out of the context, since the philosophy (or language itself) doesn't exist in a vacuum. Seneca's writings was viable only because of his luxuriousness; the poor man wouldn't be reaching the "embrace of nature" before trying to keep with better material conditions. So to be saying, Seneca wasn't a hypocrite - he was a flat philosopher.

[julius]

You are Dutch aren't you? Like your vids

[singlespeedsoulja]

What's next. Is drinking water bad?

[icedancer]

Personally, i don’t think ambition is a bad thing. To much of a good thing is always bad but Seneca wanted to be remembered so he is. In the end, he did the right thing and died honorably. The wealth however...the obscene wealth...