 The work that we're dealing with today on the happy life, as I said, it's addressed to his brother Gallio similar to how Cicero's works are addressed to Brutus and so forth They are also in dialogue form, but not nearly as Explicit and clear of a dialogue form with here's the setting here's the date on which we did it Here's the characters that were there and then we try to tie those characters very tightly to The speeches that are given here. We have a much more subtle dialogue form. You might even think it's not really a dialogue so We we have this voice that comes in and gives Objections, but it's not exactly clear if those objections are supposed to be what his brother is saying in response Or if these are general one might say and you might very well write a treatise where you lay out various doctrines and then you consider objections to it and we wouldn't really think of that as being a Dialogue but we do call these works dialogues Because there is this voice that comes in and issues objections and then he responds to it Also, there is a mixture of stoicism and epicureanism in this work. How do you mix? Stoicism and epicureanism they can't be mixed in a glass like gin and tonic can be mixed So how can they be mixed aren't these mutually exclusive? Philosophies that contradict each other on every point from the primary initial impulse that we're supposed to all have To the final end of what all of our actions are supposed to aim at There is also an important element in this work of an apology for his own Life somebody's throwing in his teeth the argument that you say you're a stoic philosopher You say you despise wealth yet. You're the richest guy in the world. You say that you That you despise power yet. You are the most powerful politician in the world and so he Seneca tries to Explain that and give an apology for his riches an apology for his power an apology for how you say that you don't care anything about luxuries and yet I was at a party the other day where you had beautiful Looking attendance that were serving alcoholic drinks Cooled by ice brought down from the tops of mountains and so forth in golden vessels Right next to silverware carefully set out on a very Luxurious table and yet you don't care about Luxuries and you think you despise all of these things and you think that the cynics are really the way to get to Virtue how does all of this? How do your actual? How's your actual behavior fit with your? philosophical views So here's the parts I want to focus on a claim that he makes early on about his relation to Stoicism the definitions that he gives of happiness the arguments that he makes against pursuing pleasure which are Appeared to be generic arguments against pursuing pleasure that would apply equal Equally to an era stippin kind of hedonism and an epicureanism kind of hedonism But ought one to make generic arguments to those his views on luxuries and the account of his own arguments about wealth and also his approval of epicureanism and how all that works together So the first Point that I want to call your attention to is what he says about Stoicism Here's the quote it's in section 3 I'll pass over without comment the opinions of other thinkers It would be a tedious business to number and refute all of them and ask you to listen to my own But when I say my own I don't find myself to one particular Member of the stoic elite I am entitled to hold an opinion and so all and so I shall follow one Individual I will invite some other one to divide the question perhaps also when I've been Summoned to speak after all the rest I'll shall not attack a single one of the opinions put forward by my predecessors And I will say I have this further observation to make Now that neither says yes, I'm a card carrying stoic nor I'm not a stoic In fact, it says I'm a stoic But I don't I'm not associated with the one particular person in stoicism as we've seen Stoicism is a big philosophy with the long history and you could be more of a Chrysippus kind of stoic or you could be more like Clan these or you could be more like Xeno or you could be more like one of the Roman stoics that Cicero talks about and what he says here is not that I won't be a stoic But that I won't follow one particular kind of stoicism and I'll have my own Voice about this, but now when we look at the definitions that he gives of happiness It does look pretty much like mainstream Stoicism, so here's the first definition he gives this is still in section three As is agreed among all stoics nature is the guide I choose Wisdom lies in not wandering from nature's path and in molding oneself According to the law an example of nature Accordingly the happy life is one that is in harmony with its own nature and The only way it can be achieved is if first the mind is sound and Constantly in possession of its sanity and secondly if it's brave and vigorous and in addition capable capable of the noblest endurance adapting to every new situation attentive to the body and all that affects it but not in an anxious way and finally if it concerns itself with all the things that enhance life Without showing undue respect for any one of them taking advantage of fortunes gifts, but not becoming their slave So making some points about selection and use of in different things like things that come by way of Fortune So he gives that definition of happiness and yes, it looks like one Way fairly mainstream way to interpret the imperative to live in accordance with nature So those of you working on that problem. What do they mean by living in accordance with nature? Here's one kind of answer that we get to that But then he goes on in section four to give several other definitions of happiness Two three four five different definitions of happiness It will be the same thing if I say the highest good as a mind that despises the operations of chance rejoicing in virtue or Here again Here's another attempt the power of the mind resides in being Unconquerable Experienced in life calm in action possessed of much kindness and concern for those with whom it has dealings or again We might offer the following definition that of calling that man happy who recognizes no good and evil apart from a good and evil mind Who holds honor dear and is content with virtue? Who's not the sort of person to let workings of chance go to his head or crush his spirit? Who does not recognize any good greater than the one he alone can confer upon himself and who will find? true pleasure in despising pleasures Okay, so notice various elements of these definitions because They will come back again crucially when he's Apologizing for his own way of life for example when he's apologizing about the fact that he's the richest guy in the world He might come back to this part of the first definition towards the end where he says something about Not paying any undue respect for any of them, but taking advantage of fortunes gifts not becoming their slaves So maybe what he's doing is the richest guy is hey, it's not my fault. I'm the richest guy This just sort of happened to me and I'm taking advantage of fortunes gifts I'm not a slave to them and if I lost all of my fortunes I would still be just as happy as a stoic but in that sense it just so happens that I've got them I've got to make the right kind of use of them or Yes, I'm concerned about pleasure and I engage in pleasures, but the true pleasure for me is despising pleasures Again going on in this paragraph. It's also possible You should wish to take a wider view of happiness to transfer the same notion to other different forms of expression without Impairing or detracting from its meaning for what prevents us from saying that the happy life is to have a mind that is Independent elevated fearless and unshakable a mind that exists beyond the reach of fear and of Desire that regards honor is the only good and infamy is the only evil and everything else a trivial collection of things Which come and go neither subtracting anything from the happy life nor adding anything to it and do not Increase or diminish the highest good. It's inevitable that a man with such a grounding whether he wills it or not will be Accompanied by a continuous cheerfulness and profound happiness that comes from deep inside of him Since he is one who takes pleasure in his own resources and wishes for no joys other No joys greater than those of his own heart Okay, so progressively Defining and redefining happiness in a way that it sounds like You know an undergraduate reading this set of paragraphs may have just thought yeah Yeah, you're saying a bunch of stuff about virtue and it sounds like stoic boilerplate stuff But if you break this down and analyze what he's saying He's got quite different notions and different approaches to happiness in here. Yeah If one is thinking happy life Should not go after the majority of people because The herd we should not follow put a step on them on the same place that they heard it for you Right, so we should have our own our own perception. Yes judgment individual judgment Then here on the third paragraph fifth line. He talks about honor In my opinion on it doesn't make sense without the approval of them of the majority of people They say without the approval of public opinion, right first he denies the judgment of public Then he goes and then says that okay honor is there Yes, okay good point. So that's exactly what I'm getting at that is a fairly problematic thing What is honor honor might require? Approval of other people if I'm concerned about the approval of other people then I'm exposing myself to Fortune because if they change their mind about me Or if they all disapprove of what I'm doing even if it's the right thing from some other perspective then I Lose honor. So how exactly is honor to be? Incorporated into here isn't it a matter of indifference Shouldn't it be a matter of indifference perhaps preferred indifference But is he not elevating it here to some kind of constituent or component of happiness so that it has a Role that it ought not to have that is that is a kind of question We ought to ask about these definitions that he gives of happiness Now the next thing I want to look at is we get some kind of epicurean objections here Where an epicurean comes in and says no wait, but you're on you're you're Undermining the value of pleasure and isn't it important to bring pleasure in and then he engages in some boiler boilerplate like Responses to know virtues greater than pleasure and we shouldn't even try to combine pursuit of virtue and pleasure and then there's a kind of again a kind of Dialogic reply from an anonymous voice saying no no we actually have this more sophisticated view about pleasure. What about that? And then in in section 12 he rants about what he essentially Characterizes as pseudo epicureanism. He says that you get these people who? Actually just use epicurean philosophy as a cover for Indulging in things so you find out that these I thought you were a dedicated philosophy student What are you doing at this kegger completely drunk out of your mind and so forth and they say oh well no I must I'm an epicurean philosopher. Let me tell you about this philosophy. It's dead dedicated to Pursuing pleasures. I'm actually got a really sophisticated view of pleasure is the only Goal of life and I can't imagine a happy life that is connected with things like drinking eating and and a wise philosopher named Epicurus said that okay, and so you get this kind of Using philosophy as a cover for indulgence, and he rails against that pseudo epicureanism, but in so doing a proves of a Kind of real and deep form of epicureanism saying this in section 13 My own view I shall state it though It may give offense to members of our school meaning the stoic school is that the teachings of Epicurus are holy and upright and if examined closely rigorous For his well-known doctrine of pleasure is reduced to small and slender Proportions and the rule that we prescribe for virtue. He prescribes for pleasure. He bids it obey nature, but little enough Luxury is enough to satisfy nature. So where does the truth lie? Whoever applies the term happiness to slothful Inactivity in the gratification of gluttony followed by that of lust is looking for a good Sponsor for his wicked conduct and when he comes along with that persuasive name. He's found attractive He pursues the pleasure that he's bought not the one that he's been taught and Once he begins to think his vices resemble his teacher's instruction He shows no fear or shame in indulging them But from that time on he actually revels in them in full view of men's eyes I will not then follow most of my school in saying that the sect of Epicurus teaches men to practice vice But I do say this it has a bad name. It is Disreputable, but without justification comes the beginning line of response So where does that leave us when there is a true? kind of Epicureanism that restricts pleasure within the bounds of what is connected with virtue and The overall argument that Seneca seems to be making is that we ought to be is that pleasure Will naturally be a result if we focus on pursuing virtue for the sake of virtue and not for the sake of pleasure Then we will get this tranquility Self-assurance and self-confidence that comes with being immune to what happens from fortune and that Tranquility is the most pleasant state that we can be in and that Epicureans are merely confused by thinking that we should pursue that kind of tranquility and that pleasure Directly and even Epicurean say a lot about how you can't be happy and you can't be successful if you Don't do virtue and they're right about that They just should they just shouldn't have been a little bit more careful in talking about what the actual End is but they should not be just thrown out completely because what they say is holy rigorous and correct in a way about getting to pleasure now of course I Think Seneca would have approved of us running out of time in Answering his this objection this long ranting objection Which he levels that himself you've probably heard components of it from other people But is himself trying to cope with this problem use you to say you despise power You're super powerful. You say you despise wealth. You are