Realism and Seneca's advice to live in accordance with nature

It’s hypocritical to recommend poverty when one is wealthy, or to recommend passivity when one has displayed remarkable industriousness for decades. I am afraid that Seneca is to blame on both counts.Nonetheless, he did not mean to deceive his readers. He was sincere in his feelings, convinced that he was dispensing good advice. Indeed, Seneca had good intentions, but got it terribly wrong.I can only conclude that there is a fault in Seneca’s logic, even if he tried to teach a major lesson. Seneca made an error because, when confronted with an undesirable effect, he made a wild guess about its cause instead of investigating further.After having jumped to conclusions too quickly, Seneca closed his eyes to the fact that his ideas were unworkable. I can only regret that these have been relayed uncritically by people who trusted Seneca’s prestige more than their own perceptions.Seneca was elaborating on his central theme, that is, that we should live in accordance with nature. He rightly inferred that, by living in accordance with nature, we can attain better results and increase our happiness.The problem is that, when Seneca tried to define “living in accordance with nature,” he got close to the Platonic dualism that splits human beings into body and soul.Plato (427-347 BC) had built his metaphysics on the alleged preexistence of the soul, which joins the body at birth; and his epistemology on the alleged access of the soul to an intangible, eternal world of abstract ideas.In general, Stoics do not subscribe to Platonic dualism, but when Seneca wrote that “we shouldn’t be slaves to our own body,” is he not accepting Platonic dualism? Is he not viewing the soul as the human essence, and the body as an auxiliary?Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/realism-of-senecas-advice-to-live-in-accordance-with-nature/