Skip to main content

How to win people over to virtue: Socrates vs Seneca

"To give a benefit is a social act that wins someone over."

- Seneca, On Benefits 5.11.5

One of the things I find extremely interesting about Seneca's thoughts on "winning someone over" is how radical an improvement it is to Socrates' ideas (as he is portrayed by Plato). As Socrates sees things, a wise person should try to persuade as many people as possible to become as wise as possible - by engaging in critical, philosophical discussion with them. Winning people over is done by challenging their assumptions vigorously and making good philosophers out of them. A major goal with this activity is to contribute to the best possible society since a society consisting of critical thinkers who have thought a lot about what is good for human beings - and tested their ideas in extensive critical debate with each other - will be the best society. Interestingly - and tellingly - Plato seemed to deeply doubt that it is possible to teach people virtue at all. Either they already have it and, so, don't need to have it taught to them or they don't have it and, so, can't be taught. 

As Seneca sees things, however, people can be won over to philosophy and wisdom by much simpler acts of kindness. Helping a man repairing his house, for example, is probably a better way to promote virtue and wisdom than to force him to give reasons for his beliefs about happiness and the good life. If that man gets more faith in virtue and wisdom - in short: in humanity - by us helping him we have done the best possible deed and made the brotherhood of man a little stronger.

Witness the following quote from Seneca as well. Although it confusingly talks about the living voice and conversation in the first line, the basic point is that virtue is better taught by example than by talk:

"the living voice and conversation will do you more good than the text. You must come to witness the real thing, first because men trust their eyes more than their ears; next, because the approach through recommendations is long, but that of examples is short and effective. Cleanthes would not have reproduced Zeno’s thought if he had only heard him. He shared in Zeno’s life and saw his private actions, he watched him to see whether he lived according to his own code. Plato and Aristotle and the whole crowd of philosophers each following his different path derived more from Socrates’ behaviour than his words. It was not Epicurus’ teaching but his company that made Metrodorus and Hermarchus and Polyaenus into great men."

- Seneca, Letters 6.5-6

Plato's Academy - mosaic fromt the villa of T. Siminus Stephans in Pompeii. 


  1. The quotes above are from the excellent editions of Seneca's "On Benefits" (translated by Miriam Griffin and Brad inwood) and "Letters on Ethics" (translated by Margaret Graver and A. A. Long) from Chicago University Press.


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