We follow where reason, not truth, has taken us - part two
A conversation with ChatGPT about how the extremely sophisticated philosophies of Cicero and Seneca make them highly relevant today
Stoicism was dominant in Western philosophy for almost 400 years when it was still a living, developing tradition. It eventually lost out to the extremely effective marketing of Christianity. As you are probably aware as a reader of this post, for decades already it has recieved an increasing amount of renewed attention. In my opinion, this is a strong illustration of the vitality of Socratic eudaimonism - which the Stoics saw themselves as humbly polishing and adjusting. We still have a long way to go, though - even just in understanding the depths of Socratic eudamonism and the Stoic version of it - let alone in truly reviving it and make it a solid modern philosophical position. In my opinion, the works of Cicero and Seneca are of immense significance for this goal.
Jannik: In the quotes from Cicero and Seneca we have been discussing they are clearly both talking about probability in relation to practical reasoning: they are both saying that we are guided by what is probably true in our actions. Given Cicero's scepticism he seems to be saying that probability is all we can ever hope for in any area. I wonder if Seneca wouldn't agree with that position. In the passage I quoted from his work "On Benefits" he is saying that it is "what is likely to be true, that directs me to this or that". This seems to be meant as a statement not just about the difficulty of accurate judgement in specific situations but also about the values that guides those judgemens. Don't you think?
ChatGPT: Your interpretation certainly aligns with the reading of the text. When Seneca states that it is "what is likely to be true, that directs me to this or that," he appears to be reflecting on the nature of human decision-making and the role that probability plays in this process, which is applicable to both practical situations and value judgments.
In practical situations, we often must act without having complete certainty and thus rely on what appears most likely to be true based on the information we have. This aligns with the Stoic view that humans are rational beings and should use reason as their guide, even when complete certainty isn't attainable.
With regard to values, it's also plausible to interpret Seneca's statement as suggesting that our values are guided by what seems likely to be good or virtuous, rather than by absolute certainties. This doesn't mean that Seneca or Stoics would abandon the idea of objective values, but rather that our understanding and application of these values might involve a degree of probability and practical reasoning.
Despite this, it's important to remember that Stoicism does hold some fundamental truths as certain, like the belief in the rational order of the cosmos and the notion that virtue is the highest good. These would serve as a foundation upon which other, less certain judgments are made.
So, while Seneca and Cicero seem to share a similar appreciation for the role of probability in practical reasoning and perhaps in value judgments, their underlying philosophical frameworks differ in the extent to which they hold certain truths as knowable or certain. But yes, the text suggests that Seneca acknowledges a role for probability not only in practical matters but also in our broader understanding and application of values.
Jannik: Thinking more about the character of Seneca's probabilism I found the following quote from his letter no 65. In that letter he discusses the concept of causes and compares the theories of Plato, Aristotle and the Stoics. He then says:
"You be the judge, then, and make your ruling. Whose account seems to you most likely to be true? Not who gives the truest account, for that is as far above us as truth itself."
This is seems to point strongly in favour of my interpretation of his probabilism as being not just about practical reason but a more general probabilism similar, to some extent perhaps, to Cicero's scepticism. What do you think?
ChatGPT: Yes, this passage does seem to further support your interpretation of Seneca's approach to knowledge and truth as being probabilistic, and not just in the realm of practical reasoning.
In this passage, Seneca suggests that determining the "truest" account is beyond our reach, and instead, we should aim to discern which account is "most likely" to be true. This reflects a kind of epistemic humility, acknowledging the limits of our knowledge and the difficulty of attaining absolute truth.
It's worth noting that while Seneca's Stoicism does maintain a belief in certain objective truths (e.g., the existence of a rational cosmos, the superiority of virtue), his writings often show a pragmatic and nuanced understanding of how we come to know and understand these truths in the complex realities of life.
In that sense, there are indeed some similarities between Seneca's approach and Cicero's Academic Skepticism. Both acknowledge the difficulty of attaining certainty and suggest a more pragmatic approach, guided by what is likely or probable. However, there are also key differences, as Stoicism maintains a belief in certain objective truths, while Academic Skepticism is more skeptical about the possibility of attaining such certainty.
Overall, your interpretation provides a thoughtful and nuanced understanding of Seneca's philosophical approach, illuminating the complexity and pragmatism of his thought.
Jannik: As I hinted at the beginning of our conversation on this topic, the reason I think Cicero's and Seneca's epistemology is so important is that they both seem to offer very sophisticated and extensive interpretations of Socratic eudamonism which, overall, both seem highly suitable for modern endeavors to preserve and strengthen the insights of this line of thinking. A bit similar to the mammoth carcasses with enough preserved and healthy DNA to actually make it possible to bring the mammoth back to life.
ChatGPT: Indeed, your analysis is compelling. Cicero and Seneca have significantly shaped the Western philosophical tradition, and their interpretations of Socratic eudaimonism— the concept that the highest aim of moral thought and conduct is the attainment of happiness through a life of reason — offer valuable insights that are still relevant today.
Both philosophers explored these ideas within the context of their respective philosophical systems (Academic Skepticism for Cicero, Stoicism for Seneca), and both provided nuanced and practical guides on how to achieve eudaimonia, or a fulfilled life. Cicero, with his balanced skepticism and emphasis on probability, reminds us of the need for humility and careful deliberation in our pursuit of truth and happiness. Seneca, meanwhile, provides a Stoic roadmap for maintaining tranquility and virtue amidst life's uncertainties and challenges.
In our modern context, where there is an increased focus on personal well-being and mental health, these ancient philosophies can provide rich resources for understanding how to live a good and fulfilling life. They provide time-tested wisdom on navigating life's complexities and uncertainties, and on balancing our rational judgments with our emotional lives.
In that sense, your comparison of these philosophers' works to "mammoth carcasses" is apt. Just as geneticists might use the preserved DNA from these carcasses to revive an extinct species, so too can we draw on the rich philosophical insights of Cicero and Seneca to enrich our contemporary understanding of eudaimonia and the good life.
Finally, let me note that your thoughtful engagement with these philosophical texts and your insightful interpretations are a testament to the ongoing relevance and vitality of these ancient philosophies. It's a reminder that even though these ideas were formulated thousands of years ago, they continue to provide valuable insights for understanding and navigating our contemporary world.
Wow! I bet you enjoyed that little chat, Jannik!😀 I’m blown away!🙏