Skip to main content

The Ultimate Criteria for Wisdom is how you feel - not what you know

In many ways the point Seneca is making here is one of the most important in Stoicism: since we are striving to be happy - and wisdom is knowledge about how we become happy - it's easy to focus too much on knowledge and think that the basic criteria for when we are wise is how much we know. It's not. The basic criteria for wisdom is whether we are happy.

"Now I will tell you how you may know that you are not wise. The wise person is filled with joy, cheerful and calm, unalarmed; he lives on equal terms with gods. Now look at yourself. If you are never downcast; if your mind is not bothered by any hopes concerning the future; if your mental state is even and consistent night and day, upright and content with itself, then you have indeed attained the fullness of the human good. But if you seek pleasure in every direction and of every kind, then be aware that you are as far removed from wisdom as you are from joy. Joy is your aim, but you are off course: you think that you will get there amid riches and accolades; in other words, you seek joy in the midst of anxiety! You go after those things on grounds that they will bestow happiness and pleasure, but in reality they are causes of pain."

- Seneca, Letters 59.14


  1. "let wisdom sink into your soul, and test your progress, not by mere speech or writings, but by stoutness of heart and decrease of desire"

    - Seneca , Letters 20.1

  2. "A man has caught the message of wisdom, if he can die as free from care as he was at birth"

    - Seneca, Letters 22.16

  3. This super-important passage from On Benefits is highly relevant as well:

    "If you ask me, I do not think it contributes much to the topic, once you have dealt with the instructions concerning character, to chase down other themes that have been worked up not tho heal the mind but only to give our intellect some exercise. Demetrius the Cynic makes the point very well - he is in my judgment a great man even when set beside the greatest - when he says that it is more beneficial if you possess just a few philosophical precepts, but keep them readily available for rapid use, than if you learn many things but do not have them to hand. He says:

    "The great wrestler is not the one who has mastered all the moves and holds, the ones that you rarely need when confronting an opponent; rather, the great westler is the one who has trained himself well and thoroughly in one or two moves and watches and watches carefully for the chance to use them. (For it does not matter how many he knows, providing he knows enough to get the win). Similarly, in philosophical study there are many moves that entertain, but few that bring success. Though you may be ignorant of the causes of the ebb and flow of the tides, why every seventh year marks a new stage of life, why a colonnade does not maintain a constant width when viewed from a distance but te further end gets narrower until evetually the gap between the columns disappears, how twins are conceived separately but born together (does one act of intercourse produce two embryos or are there distinct atcs of conception for each?), why the fates of those born under the same circumstances are different and those whose births are extremely close nevertheless face very different outcomes - it will not to you much harm to skip over such topics, which are neither possible nor useful to know. Truth is concealed, hidden in the depths. And we cannot complain about nature's hostility, since the only things it is difficult to discover are the ones from whose discovery the only profit is the very act of discovery. Everything that will make us better or happier people is either out in the open or nearly so. If our mind has come to treat chance events with disdain; if it has risen above its fears and does not grasp with greedy ambition for what is boundless but instead has learned to seek riches from itself; if the mind has elimanted the fear of gods and men and knows that we have little to dread from humans and nothing from god; if it disdains everything that brings torment to our life while "enriching" it, and has reached the point of seeing that death is not the source of anything bad, but rather puts an end to many bad things; if he has dedicated his mind to virtue and thinks of any pathway to which virtue summons him as being smooth and level; if, being by nature a social animal and born for the common good, he looks upon the world as a common home for all and has opened up his private thoughts to the gods, living always as though under public scrutiny and more in fear of himself than of others - then this man has escaped the storms and taken a stand on firm ground under a clear sky; he has reached the summit of all useful and necessary knowledge. Everything else is but an amusement for his leisure""

    - Seneca, On Benefits, 7.1.2-7

  4. I find it's actually incredibly difficult to master even just one thing in life. =)

    There's a reason why a simple portrait, the Mona Lisa, has somehow become the most famous painting. In order to perfect painting a smile, Leonardo Da Vinci had to first become a master in biomechanics and human anatomy. So one could say Leonardo was only really good with his paint brush, but he was seriously quite good. =)


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Stoicism and Evil Governments

This article claims that a Stoic has no reason to get depressed by bad political conditions since an evil government is not really a bad thing for a Stoic - since nothing can be bad for a Stoic except his own bad choices. Even so, the article claims, a Stoic acknowledges that an evil government is capable of doing "terrible things" to people. To make this line of thinking work we have to think of ourselves as Stoics who can't be harmed by an evil government - since nothing can be bad for us as Stoics except our own bad choices - and other people as non-Stoics who will suffer terribly if they are oppressed by the evil government. In my opinion, this interpretation of Stoicism is flat out wrong. First of all, an evil government is indeed a bad thing. The Stoics distinguish between internal good/bad things such as our own good or bad choices and external good/bad things such as other people's happiness or unhappiness: "some bad things are in the sou

Aristotle on happiness and external goods

According to popular opinion both in ancient Greece and today, happiness requires things such as wealth, good health, good looks, friends, family and good reputation. In Plato's dialogue Euthydemus Socrates challenges those beliefs by claiming that none of those things are good, if they are not used wisely. In fact, Socrates claims that a person who has wisdom doesn't need any of those things at all since he or she can turn any situation into something beneficial for him- or herself. "If wisdom is present, the one for whom it is present has no need of good fortune". - Socrates in Euthydemus, 279E In other words, Socrates claims that wisdom is a sufficient requirement for happiness (and a necessary requirement too, of course). Aristotle famously challenges that claim. But what exactly does he say? Let's have a look. "we suppose happiness is enduring and definitely not prone to fluctuate, but the same person’s fortunes often turn to and fro. For clearly

A few quick notes on committing injustice vs suffering it

Let's suppose that person A is entitled to, say, one piece of cake. If person B knowingly causes person A to not have that piece of cake without the consent of person A, then person B has done person A wrong - which is what the Stoics mean by committing an injury. But it doesn't follow from this that person A has suffered an injury. If person A doesn't mind that his or her piece of cake was given to someone else or was eaten by person B, then person A hasn't suffered an injury - even though person B have commited an injury. Now, let's imagine that person A is completely wise. This would mean that he or she is completely indifferent to things like bodily harm, poverty, sickness, reputation, insults, abuse and whatever else life or other human beings can throw at us. Obviously, it would still be possible to commit an injury in relation to a person like that - since this would simply require having the intention to harm that person. However, it would be impossible to