Seneca,

Ah, well it seems you and I have come to the same conclusion regarding Plato’s causes.  The fact that theology, since this is what we’re discussing in this letter, is a core part of our school’s philosophy is an unpleasant truth for some.

Whether it can be dispensed with entirely, or replaced, is not as important to me as whether it ought to be.  I have a paper I’ve been writing as an aid to my study of Stoic theology, and I’ve taken liberally from your Letters and Essays, Seneca, in documenting the Stoic position.

Farewell.

Part of Michel Daw’s Reading Plan of Seneca’s Letters.

Seneca,

I quite like the Stoic position of a unitary material with two aspects:  πνεῦμα and matter.  The enlivening Logos, the organizing principle of the universe is a beautiful idea.  I do not as much like Plato’s five-part division of causes, as you’ve presented it.  Certainly, it is true that without the various things which he labels causes, the existent things … wouldn’t.  But, that doesn’t make them causes per se.

I may be re-inventing the wheel, here.  But…

From a Stoic perspective, I would challenge the Platonic doctrine and make this change:  There is one cause:  ὁ λόγος.  Full stop. 

But the observations of Plato as to the nature of things which exist is worthy of note.  I would propose to call those “constituents,”  not causes.  The existence of things which depend on constituent bodies would then be co-fated in a Chrysippean sense.  Without the timely presence of the co-fated things, existing bodies, simply put, wouldn’t.

This incorporates a keen observation of nature of behalf of Plato, and incorporates it in a Stoic appropriate way.

I’m looking forward to the rest of your letter tomorrow.

Farewell.

Part of Michel Daw’s Reading Plan of Seneca’s Letters.

Seneca,

This is an interesting section:

“The cures for the spirit also have been discovered by the ancients; but it is our task to learn the method and the time of treatment. 9 Our predecessors have worked much improvement, but have not worked out the problem. They deserve respect, however, and should be worshipped with a divine ritual. Why should I not keep statues of great men to kindle my enthusiasm, and celebrate their birthdays? Why should I not continually greet them with respect and honour? The reverence which I owe to my own teachers I owe in like measure to those teachers of the human race, the source from which the beginnings of such great blessings have flowed.”

It’s not always clear to me when you are engaging in figurative language versus telling us what you actually do.  I suspect, however, that here at least, you mean what you say and say what you mean.

I also suspect that the apotheosis of teachers which is intimated here would be distasteful to many these days.  The god-like nature of Sages seem well established, if only because most folks believe it to be an unattainable state.

Did Zeno and the folks of the early Stoa believe themselves to be Sages?  I think that answer is yes, despite the middle and late Stoa’s stepping away from that title.

It seems, though, that you, Seneca, are harkening back to that early Stoic doctrine of the pseudo-apotheosis of the Sage in treating your teachers in this way.

Farewell.

Part of Michel Daw’s Reading Plan of Seneca’s Letters.

Seneca,

Grief is a funny thing, I’ve paraphrased the sentiments in your letter as “Grieve as long as you need to, and not a moment longer.”

Farewell.

Part of Michel Daw’s Reading Plan of Seneca’s Letters.