Inconsistencies in Seneca’s art of living

Despite the overall soundness of his ideas, Seneca incurred important inconsistencies. His wisdom or “art of living” needs rectifications to avoid potentially lethal risks. Let us point out those inconsistencies and see how to address them.Three centuries before Seneca, Cleanthes had enunciated a crucial tenet of Stoicism: “People who conform to the dictates of their circumstances tend to do better in life than those who are reluctant.”In order to adapt the original text to modern language, I have translated “fate” by “the dictates of their circumstances.” When Cleanthes used the word “fate,” he was not referring to divine predestination. He just meant “inevitable, inescapable or unavoidable.”His statement entails an inconsistency that runs across the whole Stoic philosophy. The problem arises from the concept of “willing individual.” Cleanthes meant individuals who align their thoughts and actions with fate.He used the word “fate” to underline that those constraints and circumstances cannot be modified. He was taking for granted that individuals cannot steer their life in their chosen direction, and that obstacles and setbacks should be accepted.Cleanthes had overlooked that the terms “willing” and “fate” are incompatible because a willing person has reviewed his options and made a choice, but if there are no options, it is meaningless to speak of “choice” and “willingness.”Immanuel Kant considered freedom of choice a precondition for morality. In his book, “Critique of Practical Reason” published in 1788, he declared it pointless to establish ethical rules for circumstances that do not offer a choice.Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/inconsistencies-in-senecas-art-of-living/