Skip to main content

Even weak passions can be very damaging

    "A crowd of emotions, even moderate ones, is more powerful than any single emotion would be, even at full force. He feels a desire for money, but a moderate desire; ambition, but not burning ambition; anger, but not unrelenting anger; restlessness, but not too nervous and uneasy a restlessness; lust, but not frenzied lust. It would be easier to deal with someone who had a single thoroughgoing fault than with one who has every fault, even though he has them in lesser degree. Besides, the degree of emotion makes no difference: regardless of degree, it knows nothing of obedience and heeds no advice. No animal, whether wild or tame and gentle, is swayed by reasoned argument: their nature is deaf to persuasion. In the same way, even the smallest emotions heed us not, hear us not. Lions and tigers never shed their savage nature: they may seem tame at times, but when you least expect it, their latent savagery is kindled again. We can never trust that our faults have been subdued."

    - Seneca, Letters 85.6-8

    What interests me in the passage posted here is how Seneca insists that even weak negative emotions can be very damaging - and, of course, even more so if it is a swarm of weak, negative emotions. Most of us are likely to think that we are pretty well off if we are not very angry persons or very depressed persons or very greedy persons etc etc - but Seneca is trying to show us that most of us are living lives with huge room for improvement. In fact, it would be fair to say that a major goal for Seneca is to try to wake us from our tendency to not just accept our flaws but to embrace them and, in some cases, even pride ourselves in them.

    The only known bust that actually portrays Seneca is in Neues Museum in Berlin. Photo: Jannik Lindquist
    The only known bust that actually portrays Seneca is in Neues Museum in Berlin. Photo: Jannik Lindquist


    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