Seneca was a Stoic.<p>But being a Stoic has little to do with the standard cliche of suppressing your emotions.<p>It is a philosophy that emphasises a rational response to nature, your own and that of the universe. "Follow nature" is a common Stoic saying - unconditionally accept that which is the case and do not disturb yourself with emotional upheavals about that which one can do nothing.<p>The French philosopher Pierre Hadot summarised the four features that constitute the universal Stoic attitude in his book "Philosophy as a way of life".<p>These are:<p>- We are part of of a Cosmic Whole, made up of the totality of the universe and the totality of all human beings<p>- There is nothing evil in nature. The only evil is moral evil in humans. Realising this makes a person serene and free, the only thing that counts is the purity of your own conscience.<p>- The belief in the absolute value of the human person<p>- The concentration on the present moment through training and spiritual exercises. Through the present moment we have access to the entire cosmos.<p>Much of modern cognitive psychology owes it roots to the work of the Stoic philosopher Epictitus. Much of our beliefs about human rights, the basic ethical doctrines of Christianity and our notions of healthy psychological self sufficiency all come from the Stoics.<p>And yes, I am a fan :)
<i>Ars longa, vita brevis</i> - originally from the Greek (Hippocrates), where the original read in full (as translated into English):<p>"Life is short, art long, opportunity fleeting, experiment fallible, judgment difficult."<p>The original Greek of this is a sublimely succinct rendering of wonderfully expressed aphorisms. It is found here (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ars_longa,_vita_brevis" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ars_longa,_vita_brevis</a>) along with a pretty good explanation of what it all means in the original.<p>Of course, the underlying philosophical issue concerns man's standing as what has been called a "cosmic orphan" in the universe, i.e., the one creature acutely aware of its own mortality even while striving and dreaming to make something out of life while it exists. The Stoics, like Seneca, essentially said that we are wise when we make the most of what we have, whatever its temporal duration.
I wonder who Seneca thought was carefully arranging the universe so that everyone would had enough time if only they had used it properly. They didn't have monotheism back then, did they? Or maybe Seneca was just naturally the sort of person who rationalized things easily, and imagined a fairer universe without anyone in particular making it fair.<p>Anyway, props to the people Seneca was disagreeing with, who managed to be more honest with themselves about the unfairness of the universe and how easily it could have been improved than Seneca and many other modern rationalizers.<p><a href="http://yudkowsky.net/singularity/simplified" rel="nofollow">http://yudkowsky.net/singularity/simplified</a><p><a href="http://lesswrong.com/lw/uk/beyond_the_reach_of_god/" rel="nofollow">http://lesswrong.com/lw/uk/beyond_the_reach_of_god/</a>
The words, even fine words, of men set to rationalize the span of years they knew they had are no longer relevant in this day and age. The difference between Seneca and us is that we can toil to turn money into additional years of life. Scientific research and medicine.<p>Of course, given that we are on the cusp of this new era of longevity science, rejuvenation of the old, and greatly enhanced life spans, we look around and see only the past. It takes a bold, one might even say entrepreneurial, soul to recognize what might soon be, were people to put their shoulder to the wheel.
From Chapter VII:<p>"Everyone hurries his life on and suffers from a yearning for the future and a weariness of the present. But he who bestows all of his time on his own needs, who plans out every day as if it were his last, neither longs for nor fears the morrow."<p>This is the gist of the essay. I don't know, I find it terribly vague and subjective. Seneca defines 'waste' as not living in the present and doing things for others as opposed to, for yourself. Is there a right or wrong way to live? I'm not so sure. I think you should live the way you want, complain about the shortness of life, be idle, do nothing, if that's what you really want to do. The only restriction is not to impose on anyone else's quality of life or right to live the way they want. I would argue Seneca is trying to impose, as am I.