This is a sublime statement of the Stoic approach to the problem of suffering. It is an eternal complaint that bad things happen to good people while the greatest riches seem to be given to the worst of mankind. In response, Seneca urges the reader to see the value in suffering and to see the vanity in riches. In fact, he proclaims, “no evil, can befall a good man; opposites do not mingle.” The heroic man only sees evil in “sin and crime, evil counsel and schemes for greed, blind lust, and avarice,” and these evils God does reliably keep from men, if they are willing to accept the challenge. Good is in the will, not in the circumstance.
Seneca anticipates the criticism, that some evil is vastly too harsh to possibly result in any good. “'Is it' you ask, 'for their own good that men are driven into exile, reduced to want, that they bear to the grave wife or children that they suffer public disgrace, and are broken in health?” If you are surprised that these things are for any man's good, you must also be surprised that by means of surgery and cauterize and also by fasting and thirst the sick are sometimes made well”
In contrast, however, how can riches be bad? He compares the untroubled man to someone who has entered the Olympic games without any competitors. Can he be called fortunate, just because he won? His victory is guaranteed, but there was no challenge; there was no value to the win.
The most dangerous excess is good fortune. “It excites the brain, it evokes vain fancies in the mind, and clouds in deep fog the boundary between falsehood and truth...” Seneca claims that God gives riches to worthless men so that men may realize how worthless riches are. A man surrounded by luxury also simply grows more sensitive and weak, to the point where a breeze seems to be a great calamity.
He brings up examples of better people who are given more burdens. “Is it not unjust that brave men should take up arms, and stay all night in camp...while perverts and professional profligates rest secure within the city?...Is it not unjust that the noblest maidens should be aroused from sleep to perform sacrifices at night while others stained with sin enjoy the soundest slumber?...The senate is often kept in session the whole day long, though all the while every worthless fellow is either amusing himself...or lurking in an eating house”
The military analogy is a favorite of Seneca. “In the army the bravest men are assigned to the hazardous tasks; it is the picked soldier that a general sends to surprise the enemy by a night attack or to reconnoiter the road, or to dislodge a garrison. Not a man of these will say as he goes, “My commander has done me an ill turn” but instead “ he has paid me a complement”
I liked the prayer of Demetrius, “Immortal gods...do you wish to take my children? It was for you that I fathered them. Do you wish to take some member of my body? Take it No great thing am I offering you; very soon I shall leave the whole. Do you wish to take my life? Why not? I shall make no protest against your taking back what once you have. With my free consent you shall have whatever you may ask of me. What, then, is my trouble?”
The book ends with a contemplation of death, which should be approached with fearlessness. There is also the option of suicide left as an exit hatch. Previously the only suicides praised explicitly are that of Socrates, and Cato, men who thought they were giving up their lives for higher ideals, incidents which cannot be viewed as immoral because they sincerely believed they were still following reason, not the passions, even if I would argue their reasoning may have been flawed. And in light of Cato's assertion that God has armed men “to withstand them all [sufferings]”, taking ones life comes off as a vastly inferior choice than facing life patiently, perhaps only preferable to giving up ones life to debauchery, which is after all suicide on a vastly slower scale.