Letter 70: On the Proper Time to Slip the Cable (part I)
Source:
https://ethicsofsuicide.lib.utah.edu/category/author/seneca/ (3d paragraph including the Virgil quote)
The following text consists of passages quoted from the letter (in italics) with my commentary. I only offer my opinion as to what Seneca meant: I do not claim to be an expert on this and neither should any of this be construed as advice in any way, shape or form. Feel free to give your own interpretation and disagree with me. Civil discussion is the way to better understanding and learning.
Using a passage by Virgil as an illustration Seneca remarks that while death will come for us all some get there (much) sooner than others. Life is highly uncertain and fate fickle. This is an indication that we could quite easily end up in a situation that is highly undesirable.
"To such a life, as you are aware, one should not always cling. For mere living is not a good, but living well."
It is not the quantity (x amount of years, months, days) that matter but the quality of life. What then is 'quality' in this context?
"Accordingly, the wise man will live as long as he ought, not as long as he can. He will mark in what place, with whom, and how he is to conduct his existence, and what he is about to do. He always reflects concerning the quality, and not the quantity, of his life."
The quality of life consists of how one lives (including one's residence), what company one keeps and what is (still) achievable/meaningful activity.
If those things are not present/not achievable and calamities befall him he frees himself:
"As soon as there are many events in his life that give him trouble and disturb his peace of mind, he sets himself free."
He mentions 'many events': to me this means that it's not enough for one or only a few things to have gone/go wrong in one's life. Presumably 'events' means irreversible events: throwing one's life away over things that can be rectified or that may in the course of time lose their importance would not be very wise.
The main condition here is that one's peace of mind is disturbed/affected (which would require a severe, irreversible disruption of one's life): a true stoic would be fairly indifferent to (most) external events so in my opinion this does not mean whenever we hit a rough patch or face difficulties we ought to off ourselves and if we steel our spirit there is not a lot that we cannot bear with equanimity (peace of mind).
" And this privilege is his, not only when the crisis is upon him, but as soon as Fortune seems to be playing him false; then he looks about carefully and sees whether he ought, or ought not, to end his life on that account."
We do not have to wait for the last possible time to free ourselves but as soon as it becomes clear the situation is unsalvageable and Fortune has proven too mighty it might be wise to end it there.
The key here is a making a rational, reasoned decision: "he looks about carefully..." meaning he considers all his options and the facts of the matter.
In my opinion this would entail discussing the matter with friends one can trust (family as well if that's possible) as was the custom with the Romans. This enables one to hear different points of view and ensure one's thought process is reasonable and logical. The next letter (77) depicts exactly such a situation: a man who is gravely ill (though not terminally so) asks his friends to counsel him on whether or not it'd be wise to keep on living.
"He holds that it makes no difference to him whether his taking-off be natural or self-inflicted, whether it comes later or earlier."
Objectively speaking it does no matter how one died exactly
once one is dead. The same with how long one lived: does it matter to the dead whether they lived a 100 years or any lesser number?
Clearly the stoics were not superstitious (as for example Socrates was as he required a sign from the gods) and did not believe in a religious prohibition of voluntary death. In one letter Seneca even says it's not use to pray to the gods to change the outcome since their decrees are fixed for eternity and everything in nature heads to the same exit.
This reminds of Epicurus' notion of the gods who are so far removed from human affairs they simply do not interfere in them and it's useless to fear them.
"He does not regard it with fear, as if it were a great loss; for no man can lose very much when but a driblet remains."
In the above mentioned context of quality above quantity this makes a lot of sense: if one's quality of life is very low (persistently so) what life truly remains? In the context of someone who is dying of a physical illness: does it really matter to live just a little while longer? It's clear Seneca would disagree.
"It is not a question of dying earlier or later, but of dying well or ill. And dying well means escape from the danger of living ill."
Again it does not really matter how long we live, i.e. when we die exactly. A well-reasoned, rational suicide ensures protection against an ill life, simply because it makes it impossible. This implies the belief that death is no harm to us and on the contrary makes us forever immune to suffering and the blow of fate.
Again this isn't a blanket justification of suicide under any conditions or circumstances: one ought to make sure the only other alternative to suicide is an ill life. To rush to one's death prematurely or under the influence of the passions (let alone drugs or alcohol) is not what Seneca meant by "dying well means escape from the danger of living ill."
I welcome your comments. Seneca's arguments and counsel here should be read in the context of his other writings on the subject lest one risk a one-sided interpretation. Preferably also in contrast with other writers and with a working knowledge of stoic ethics in general.
In my opinion his counsel is only applicable to those who are willing and able to reflect deeply on the matter at hand (the ethics of voluntary death) and one's own, unique circumstances. It should not be used as an excuse for bad, rash decisions.
I would refer anyone who made it this far to
@GoodPersonEffed's earlier post on the stoic framework on when suicide is appropriat: .
As a general introduction to the subject that's available online I recommend the article by professor Cholbi, an authority on the philosophy of suicide, in the Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/suicide/.
Unfortunately it's not a very good source on the specifics of stoic ethics on suicide but it does offer a broader view of the subject.
"In contrast, the Stoics held that whenever the means to living a naturally flourishing life are not available to us, suicide may be justified, regardless of the character or virtue of the individual in question. Our natures require certain "natural advantages" (e.g., physical health) in order for us to be happy, and a wise person who recognizes that such advantages may be lacking in her life sees that ending her life neither enhances nor diminishes her moral virtue.
When a man's circumstances contain a preponderance of things in accordance with nature, it is appropriate for him to remain alive; when he possesses or sees in prospect a majority of the contrary things, it is appropriate for him to depart from life…. Even for the foolish, who are also miserable, it is appropriate for them to remain alive if they possess a predominance of those things which we pronounce to be in accordance with nature (Cicero, III, 60–61).
Hence, not only may concerns related to one's obligations to others justify suicide, but one's own private good is relevant too."
He does mention the main point I have discussed here: Seneca's position on what it means to live well (quality over quantity) which in turn is vital with regard to the topic of suicide.
Excellent post. I enjoyed reading it, and it expanded and enhanced my knowledge.
I have nothing to argue against.
I have two things to contribute.
First, I would expand a little on ill health with two comments:
1. Ill health was indeed a Stoic rational reason for withdrawing from the party of life, that is, that provisions for the party have been spoiled. One's soul can no longer use the tool of the body.
2. Virtue was, to the Stoics, the only good, and anything that prohibited the Stoic from being able to act virtuously was not only cause to consider withdrawing from life, but to some Stoics, demanded it. (See the article "Seneca and the Stoic View of Suicide" by William Englert. It's a free PDF, but I can't link it.) Therefore, one may also consider if ill health would cause one to act against their will, to act with virtue. For instance, is the pain so great that one would do unvirtuous things under its influence? Would it cause one to assault another? Would it lead to madness, which is a loss of control and another of the five rational reasons for withdrawing from the party? I'm not saying that if one gets ill and can't control themselves then that's it, kill yourself. But if it is a long-term, unbearable, perhaps even degenerative illness, then it is, in my opinion, rational to consider suicide, and I think many who have not experienced such illness can comprehend why someone would consider the relief of suicide. The Stoics honored someone who could maintain their reason and a measure of equanimity even in the worst of circumstances, such as the death of a child or illness:
"From Apollonius I learned freedom of will and undeviating steadiness of purpose; and to look to nothing else, not even for a moment, except to reason; and to be always the same, in sharp pains, on the occasion of the loss of a child, and in long illness..."
(Marcus Aurelius, Meditations book I, in which he did the Stoic exercise of listing all of the people who had positive influences on his life and why)
My second contribution is to, as
@Jean Améry suggested, bring other philosophies into the discussion to enhance it.
I have often noticed there are many similarities between foundational Buddhist philosophy (before the founding of any schools such as Mahayana, Tibetan, etc.) and Stoicism. In fact, Buddhist philosophy was brought to Greece by a Greek who had learned it in his Asian travels. It has been linked to some Greek philosophy, but not directly to Stoicism.
One similarity I've found relates to the Stoic perspective of externals beyond one's control that are neither good nor evil, but only viewed as such by preference or opinion. In Buddhism, this is addressed by suffering and attachment -- one suffers because of attachment to pleasure, to views, to things, etc. Stoicism cautioned against being too strongly influenced by any external, including praise, fear, comfort, physical health, as these are all temporary and subject to change, just as the Buddha's foundational teachings include that suffering is caused by attachment to things that are impermanent, subject to change, and bound up in suffering. Pleasure and pain are but two sides of the same coin, bound up in, or perhaps centered and joined by suffering -- either being away from it, or too much in it, yet always there, always at play, always an influence.
Another similarity is in equanimity/eudamonia, and both have relate to the attainment of freedom. While Buddhists seek the ultimate release from samsara (the neverending cycles of suffering and rebirth) via enlightenment and freedom from rebirth into the conditionless, Nirvana, they also had the tool of equanimity to manage, while in the condition of life, suffering due to being in, or being influenced by, extreme states. In both philosophies, extreme states have too much influence over actions and can take control; for the Stoic, they are called the passions, and can lead one away from rationality and virtue. In comparison to Buddhists, the Stoics sought the condition of eudaimonia, happiness that is a result of balance, neither too happy nor too sad, allowing one to be able to flow through life more easily and contentedly in spite of external conditions, even if one were a slave, and, if one were an emperor, to not become a tyrant.
To bring it back to freedom, as we've seen in other comments on this thread, the Stoics considered death to be the ultimate liberation and freedom from life and all of its imposing and enslaving conditions. Contemplation of death made things more bearable, and when reason dictated that, as
@Jean Améry stated and cited, fortune had turned against one, such that they could no longer practice virtue or have a reasonable amount of quality of life, then death via suicide led to freedom. Sometimes a Stoic would come to recognize that no matter how they viewed a situation, if they could not maintain any equanimity, and if they could not practice virtue, then it was best to withdraw.
As I said earlier in this thread, to the Stoic, the only true good was virtue. To me, then, it follows that to be prevented from practicing virtue would be evil. Perhaps an illness would not do that, perhaps it would. But madness could cause it, as well as tyrants, and as well as poverty, because, in the case of the latter, one would potentially resort to stealing food or other physical necessities, or even murder to obtain them. (In fact, Gautama Buddha recognized that poverty could cause one to break the Five Precepts, and urged rulers to improve conditions so that those in poor conditions would not have to resort to acts that harmed others, and in fact may go against their ethics against doing so, in order to survive.)
With regard to virtue being the only good:
"The key to transforming oneself into the Stoic
sophos (wise person) is to learn what is 'in one's power', and this is 'the correct use of impressions' (
phantasiai), which in outline involves not judging as good or bad anything that appears to one. For the only thing that is good is acting virtuously (that is, motivated by virtue), and the only thing that is bad is the opposite, acting viciously (that is, motivated by vice)."
(Epictetus entry in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
https://www.iep.utm.edu/epictetu/)
A quick note of interest. Seneca said there was no point in praying, as the gods had already set everything in motion. They were uninvolved. Gautama Buddha said that gods exist, but that they are uninvolved with human experience and with what happens on earth. (Yet at the time of his enlightenment, he said a deity, who he had also been in a previous incarnation, approached him and convinced him to spread his teachings because there were some who were ready and could comprehend them. Sometimes Guatama contradicted himself, this was not the only time.) Just noting another similarity between the two philosophies.
