Seneca’s ideas on the nature of fate

The concept of determinism was unknown to ancient Greek and Roman philosophers because they regarded the universe as a combination of forces. Gods could influence our lives, but we can request the succour of other divinities. Our future is not written in stone. Seneca lived in a polytheistic environment in which Roman deities embodied concepts taken from Greece or Egypt. Humans find themselves on the receiving end of divine forces, but those are contradictory, inconstant and chaotic. After some initial hesitations, Seneca embraced the ideas of Stoicism, as they had been coined by Zeno of Citium (334-262 BC) and Cleanthes (330-230 BC). However, he regarded them as a starting point, not as a closed universe. Little by little, Seneca purified and filtered the Stoic ideals, until, in some areas, they became unrecognisable. I’m referring specifically to the concept of fate, which Seneca linked to luck, rationality and individual responsibility. In his essay “On Providence,” he called readers to accept the inevitable hassles of life, learn from experience and take an active role in shaping their own lives. In contrast to Zeno and Cleanthes, Seneca viewed “fate” as the outcome of conflicting forces that are strengthened or tempered by our decisions. Seneca didn’t equate “fate” with “doom” because he viewed all events as learning experiences. Today’s adversity, he noted, can help us build a better future and prevent future problems. It can literally “save our life,” in the future says Seneca, even if it proves painful in the short term. By “fate,” Seneca referred to the elements in life that prove dominant and irresistible, like storms on the open sea. Wisdom (practical philosophy) helps us steer away from storms before they arrive, but if we are caught in a storm, we shouldn’t waste time complaining. It is better to use our energies productively. Seneca encourages readers to ascertain when “fate” is really irresistible and when it isn’t. When circumstances prompt us to make difficult decisions, it isn’t “fate” if we decide to stay loyal to our values instead of relinquishing them. Instead of misrepresenting the facts, Publius Rutilius Rufus (158-78 BC) had opted to go into exile. He could have lied and prevaricated, blaming his misconduct on “fate,” but he would have lost his peace of mind. Similarly, the Roman officer Gaius Mucius Scaevola, could have begged for mercy after being captured by Lars Porsenna, the king of Clusium. Scaevola could have fallen prey to fear and blamed his mental breakdown on “fate,” but chose instead to give an extraordinary proof of valour. Seneca explains that, due to their moral rectitude, Rutilius and Scaevola had triumphed over “fate.” They had made the right decisions by strengthening their souls, not by falling apart emotionally and letting “fate” take over their lives. Wise individuals view difficulties and adversity as character tests, not as final determinations. “Fate” may force them to lose ground temporarily, but the ground can be regained. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/senecas-ideas-on-the-nature-of-fate/