La Provvidenza

by Seneca

Opera del Seneca tardo, il trattato sulla provvidenza affronta il tema del male nel mondo in relazione alla volontà divina: il vero male è quello morale, estraneo per definizione all’uomo giusto; i mali fisici invece sono mandati all’uomo per saggiarne la resistenza ed esaltarne la forza interiore. Dipenderà dunque dall’individuo e dalla sua tempra accogliere gli eventi privilegiando quanto di positivo o negativo è in essi contenuto. In questa edizione riveduta e aggiornata, l’introduzione di Alfonso Traina ripercorre il problema della giustizia divina dall’antichità ebraica a quella classica, dal pensiero cristiano a Kant; il saggio di Ivano Dionigi studia i rapporti tra la teodicea senecana e quelle di Crisippo e sant’Agostino.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Classics, Roman

132 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 64

About the author

Lucius Annaeus Seneca (often known simply as Seneca or Seneca the Younger); ca. 4 BC – 65 AD) was a Roman Stoic philosopher, statesman, and dramatist of the Silver Age of Latin literature. He was tutor and later advisor to emperor Nero, who later forced him to commit suicide for alleged complicity in the Pisonian conspiracy to have him assassinated.

Reviews

[FelixTheMonarchist]

My review only applies to the work and not to the translation because Im not sure whether it was translated by the same person.

I think catholics can learn a lot from Seneca even though he isn't catholic. Many of his thoughts when combined with catholic philosophy and theology can help you lead a more devout life. They can help you put a greater emphasis on God in your mind.

Main ideas:
Seneca argues that nothing bad can happen to a good man because he all adversity is just an opportunity to act virtuously.

Just like the general gives his best soliders the hardest tasks so do the Gods(which we as catholics can interpret very well to our own way of thinking) give the best men the hardest live so that they can show others how to deal with it.

We shouldn't be worried even by death because the Gods (the one true God when applied to catholic thought) gave us life and thus have every right to take it back at anytime and we should be happy do give it back when they want it. Nothing this is freely given can be robbed from you.

Nothing bad can happen to someone someone can only do bad things.

[Murat Dural]

Roma İmparatorluğu'nun tam da kırılma döneminde yaşayan filozof, yazar inanılmaz bir düşünsel yaklaşımın öncülerinden olmuş. Bu kısa ama çoğu cümlesinin altını çizdiğim eser hakikaten görülmeli, okunmalı. Yaşam hikayesi, Ceaser, Augustus ve ardıl imparatorların git gelli devrinde savrulan bir yaprak gibi. Oldukça kıs olan eser diğer antik kaynaklara oranla daha derli toplu, akışkan kalmış. Değerli hocam Çiğdem Dürüşken'in de emeğini takdir etmek, övmek lazım. Emekleri yadsınamaz.

[Selin]

Tanrısal öngörü toplamda 30 sayfalık bir kitap ancak yan sayfalara kitabın orjinalini koyarak sayfa sayısını arttırmaya çalışmışlar, bence gereksiz olmuş. Kitabın konusuysa bir hayli değişik. Seneca acı çeken insanların Tanrı tarafından seçilmiş olduklarını ve bunların iyi insanlar olduklarını anlatmaya çalışmış. Yoksulluk, hastalık, çocukların ölümü iyi insanların başına gelir sadece diyor. Zenginlik ve refah içerisinde yaşayan insanlarınsa boş bir mutlulukla beyinlerinin kapatıldığını en küçük bir olumsuzluk yaşadıklarında bu olumsuzluk karşısında ne yapacaklarını bilemeyen, gerçek zavallılar olarak tanımlıyor. Çok değişik bir bakış açısı. Stoacı yaklaşım, kader ve talihi insan doğduğu andan itibaren bellidir diyor, yani bir insanın ne yaşayacağı en başından belli diyor. Bu noktada aklıma takılan bir soru var. O halde bir insan doğarken iyi ya da kötü biri olup olmayacağı belli. Peki bu ayrım neye göre yapılıyor? Diyelim ki gerçekten de sadece iyi olan insanlar bu hayatta acı çekip güçleniyor ve bu acılar aslında onlar için faydalı. Peki bu iyi insanlar neden iyiler? Doğduklarında mı iyilerdi? Bense insan yaşadığı olaylar sonucunda aldığı kararlardan dolayı iyi ya da kötü olmayı belirliyorlar diye düşünüyordum. Doğuştan değil, sonradan kişilik oluşuyor bana göre. Değişik bir kitap, felsefik kitaplar okumaktan hoşlananlara tavsiye ederim, şimdiden iyi okumalar :)

[Simone Abbafati]

Vi è mai capitato di chiedervi “ma perché tutte a me?” di fronte all’ennesima disgrazia o difficoltà ingiustificata che è piombata su di voi nella vostra vita? Ecco, Seneca prova a rispondervi con questo trattato. In particolare, il filosofo sembra chiedersi: come mai in presenza di un ordine provvidenziale giusto e perfetto che regola questo mondo, anche le persone buone siano affette da sventure? Qual è la loro funzione? Stabilito che l’ordine perfetto dell’universo non può essere casuale ma regolato da una ragione divina, Seneca ci dice che la condizione umana di ciascuno di noi è regolata dalla Fortuna (intesa dai Romani come la sorte o il destino): chi volesse inutilmente sottrarsi al proprio destino, accecato da desideri e passioni contrarie al suo avverarsi, è uno stolto; è invece da saggio seguirlo e sostenerlo. I mali che possono quindi capitare alle persone buone, come le sventure, le calamità, gli avvenimenti dolorosi, sono per loro sia come una palestra, un rafforzamento delle loro virtù, sia come un'occasione per dimostrare e manifestare a tutti gli altri le proprie virtù, che altrimenti rimarrebbero inespresse. Perciò la persona buona, anziché cercare di respingere i mali che gli capitano, li deve accettare volentieri.

[Sari]

if great suffering gives great glory, reading this should have given me very great glory indees

[Simon]

Seneca said "God gives his strongest soldiers the hardest battles" and he was referring to having to haul his smelly bum out of bed with great effort so his slaves could carry him around all day

[O]

Main idea: Troubles that befall good men only appear to be misfortunes; good men consider their troubles to be blessings because they allow them to test their own strength and to have something to overcome. Bad men are those who live for pleasure. Although they grasp for ever greater enjoyments, they are struck by discontent because deep down they know they are fleeing from their troubles. They become sick from their overindulgence in wine, women, food and other pleasures. To a good man the greatest misfortune is that of not meeting any challenges; without adversity his strength and virtue will wither away.

[Fatih Kutan]

Beklentisiz başladığım Seneca'nın Tanrısal Öngörü'sü, bir başyapıtla tanışmamı sağladı. Çiğdem Dürüşken'in kitabın girişinde yer alan yazısı ise Stoacıların temel kavramlarına giriş için birebir.

[Alex]

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.

[Giuseppe]

LIBERAZIONE!
Di per sé l'opera non è male, anzi, tenendo conto delle tante sottigliezze grammaticali (ad esempio, utilizzo di avverbi, termini o altro che rimandino al dualismo interno/esterno) che solo una lettura in lingua può dare, essa acquisisce uno spessore tutto nuovo.
Peccato che Seneca mi stia alquanto antipatico. A livelli di antipatia e di ipocrisia se la gioca tranquillamente con Cicerone.
Comunque, in generale il De providentia è riassumibile in "è un grosso pippone mentale sul perché agli uomini buoni capitino cose brutte", con una combo niente male di "perché ti lamenti della vita, quando puoi tranquillamente suicidarti?".
Ok, ho semplificato, se non addirittura cancellato, in una frase secoli di tradizione e speculazione filosofica, ma grossomodo il succo è quello.
Non so, il DP è un girare e rigirare attorno allo stesso tema (gli "aliqua incommoda" e la "providentia"), declinato in maniera differente e con argomentazioni a favore piuttosto discutibili (e spesso tautologiche).

[Realini Ionescu]

On Providence by Seneca, one of the greatest thinkers of humanity, the Stoic doctrine could help save humanity, by exposing consumerism, promoting a balanced lifestyle, one that will concentrate less on cravings, and more on ‘wish for what you already have’…Seneca was one of the wealthiest men of antiquity, and critics blame him for that, on the other hand, he knew about richness and was not just envious, or speculating on issues he was unfamiliar with, he was also a favorite of the Gods, hence could write about Providence http://realini.blogspot.com/2022/03/o...

10 out of 10





The Stoics are wrongly considered constipated, pompous men who promote abstinence, something so passé and uncool in the age of paramount consumerism, when we are told by economists that we need to keep shopping and spending, or else the jobs will disappear – there is the threat of AI, explained by Yuval Harari http://realini.blogspot.com/2022/07/2... in the latest issue of The Economist, where he writes about the fact that ‘AI has hacked into our operating system, and we can except their storytelling to bring out new religions, conspiracy theories, maybe the re-election of the ultimate ghoul, Trump – and economies will tumble, like in 2008…



There is a lot to say about that, and it is one of the crucial, existential questions of the age, how to keep a Stoic attitude, refraining from excess, but at the same time keep the factories humming, is humans in emerging economies would have the same level of spending as those in rich countries, the we would need a few more planets to cope, to furnish all that furniture, smart phones, cars and more material things – the Dalai Lama, maybe this one, embroiled in a stupid talk with a child, telling the boy to ‘suck his tongue’, or maybe another one entered a hypermarket and said ‘wow, so many things I do not need’

Seneca takes on from the start the idea that ‘good people should have the benefits, luck good life’ if we talk about providence, something we could find in the works of CS Lewis http://realini.blogspot.com/2016/08/t... and other luminaries, the problem of Pain and the misfortune of so many innocents, children and sick people, how could that be when we have the almighty god, or gods for Seneca, who must react, they are also omniscient



The answer to this serious problem is that we have Free Will, instead of creating a lame world, one in which we act like machines, everything is prefect in this mechanism, but also infinitely boring, God or the Gods have made an universe where we are free to act according to the principles of ethics, morality, religion, or against them…the example that keeps me furious and letting steam off in those pages is that of the invasion of Ukraine, one despot is inflicting pain and destruction, together with his acolytes.

How could God or the Gods allow for that…Ricky Gervais is just one of the many (indeed, the numbers of atheists are rising, while the faithful are fewer and fewer) who take down religion, he does it with panache wand humor, in one of his shows he looks at the flood, Noah and the myriad animals that have been paired (according to the holy texts) to get on the ark, and we are invited to think how huge that vessel must have been http://realini.blogspot.com/2015/02/g...



Evidently, we are not to take such things literally – Karen Armstrong http://realini.blogspot.com/2016/08/t... is the ultimate expert on religion and explains in her books that at the time when the holy texts have been written, people were telling stories, they transmitted myths, we are not to take everything ad literam, on the contrary, in fact, the ones that do much more damage to faith are the creationists, those who insist that the planet is only a few thousand years old (whatever the scripture says) and all else is word for word fact, not metaphor

Stoics believed in fate, which could well be their shortcoming, for nobody is perfect, though some aspire, long for perfection – we find from the psychology classic The Paradox of Choice http://realini.blogspot.com/2015/07/t... by Barry Schwartz the difference between Maximizers and Satisfizers, we need to be the latter, and not the former…



There are people who want perfection and thus are never satisfied, when one is satisfied with very good, one has the secret…Stoics invited us to ‘wish for what we already have and be grateful, as we see here http://realini.blogspot.com/2020/08/s... in the Stoic Approach to Modern life

Another splendid work is The How of Happiness http://realini.blogspot.com/2014/07/t... by Sonja Lyubomirsky where” Happiness Activity No 1is Expressing Gratitude –counting your blessings for what you have either to a close other or privately, maybe in a journal, conveying gratitude to one or more individuals you haven’t properly thanked” so we have a path to happiness





Now for a question, and invitation – maybe you have a good idea on how we could make more than a million dollars with this http://realini.blogspot.com/2022/02/u... – as it is, this is a unique technique, which we could promote, sell, open the Oscars show with or something and then make lots of money together, if you have the how, I have the product, I just do not know how to get the befits from it, other than the exercise per se



As for my role in the Revolution that killed Ceausescu, a smaller Mao, there it is http://realini.blogspot.com/2022/03/r...

[Cristina - Athenae Noctua]

Perché alle persone buone capitano cose brutte? Non è forse un interrogativo che assilla tutti noi e che ci porta ad imprecare di fronte ad immani tragedie che accadono a persone corrette, oneste, affettuose? Nel De providentia Seneca offre una risposta a questa domanda, proponendo un pensiero che è stato accolto dalla morale cattolica e che è arrivato fino a Manzoni, per continuare ad esercitare una certa influenza anche nella visione religiosa odierna o in forme di fatalismo laico.
http://athenaenoctua2013.blogspot.it/...

[Nilgün]

coming soon!

[Batuhan]

Akıcı, kolay okunabilir ve kısa olan; Seneca'nın Stoa felsefesinin bize ne olduğunu görmemize yardımcı olan güzel bir eser.

Bu eserinde Seneca, basitçe açıklamak gerekirse insanın başına gelen, dert olarak düşündüğü olayların aslında kişinin yararına olduğunu, onu güçlendirdiğini ve gelecekteki zorluklara kolayca göğüs gerebilecek şekilde eğittiğini söyler. Tanrı/Tanrılar seçtikleri iyi kişileri zorluklarla eğitir ve güçlendirir der. Tanrı/Tanrılar aynı çocuğunu geleceğe hazırlamak için katı, soğukkanlı ve ileri görüşlü bir babaya benzer. Çocuğunun zorluklarla mücadele edebilmesi için onu eğitir. Ve bu mücadeleyi izlemeyi herkes gibi Tanrı/Tanrılarda izlemeyi çok sever. Seneca şunu der; "Kim bir aslan ile çarpışan kişinin mücadelesini büyük bir coşkuyla izlemekten geri durabilir ki?"

Seneca, zorlukların neden kötü insanların değilde iyi insanların başına geldiği konusuna da açıklık getirir. Kader kendine rakip olarak gördükleriyle mücadele ettiğini, zayıf ruhları dikkate bile almadığı söyleyerek bu durumu açıklar. Başına felaket gelmemiş insan en küçük zorlukta eğilip bükülür. Demetrius'tan bir alıntı yaparak " başına hiç bir felaket gelmemiş insandan daha şanssızı yok." sözüyle düşüncelerini özetler.

Kitap ayrıca birçok tarihi şahsı da içinde barındırır ve Seneca bunları düşüncelerini desteklemek için kullanır ve onları yüceltir. Bu şahısların ortak özellikleri mücadeleye karşı yılmamaları, sorunlar karşısında soğukkanlı olmaları ve hatta değil düşmanından bağışlanma dilemek, ölüm dilemeyi bile reddeden, şartlar gerektirirse kendi canını kendi alan kişilerdir. Gerekirse ellerini ateşe basarlar, sürgüne giderler veya öldürüleceklerini bilseler bile verdikleri sözden dolayı düşmanın yanına geri dönerler ama mücadeleyi bırakmazlar ve sözlerinden dönmezler. Bu insanlar en yüce mutluluğa ulaşmıştır. Çünkü aynı göçebeler gibi soğuk rüzgarlarla, yakıcı güneşle, vahşi hayvanlarla ve bataklıklarla mücadele ederler; yiyecek ve içecek sıkıntısı çekerler ve yarın nerede konaklayacakları belli dahi değildir. Bu insanlar en başta zorluklar karşısında zorlanabilir lakin aynı ağaç kökü gibi sarsıldıkça toprağı daha iyi tutarlar ve zamanla korkularını yenerler, hatta bu artık onlar için bir zevk haline gelir. İşte Seneca bundan dolayı en yüce mutluluğa ulaştıkları söyler.

Gelelim şahsen sıkıntılı bulduğum birkaç noktaya. Seneca zorluklara şaşıranlara karşı şu tarz bir örnek veriyor: "iyi insanlar oğullarını yitiriyor; neden olmasın, bazen kendileri öldürmüyor mu?" Yani bana kalırsa bu saçma bir örnek ve ikisi arasındaki bağ zayıf. Sanki Seneca karşısındakini avutuyormuş gibime geliyor yer yer. Ayrica Seneca her ne kadar zorlukları, mücadeleyi, başa gelen zahmetleri sürekli olarak övse de kendisi döneminde büyük bir servete sahipti. Filozoflara yakışmayan yaşam tarzının yanında düşüncelerinin çelişmesi, hakkında dedikoduların çıkmasına neden olmuştu. Ben Seneca'yı bu kitapta, Allah'ın din konusunda para almayı yasakladığı halde, tv kanallarında yüzbinlerce lira alıp millete fakirliği normalleştiren, aza tamah etmeyi öğütleyen, inancının emirini görmezden gelen hocalara benzettim. Tabi kişilerin yaptıkları kavramları bağlamaz ama ister istemez Seneca Stoa düşüncesine az çok zarar vermiştir.

Özetle, okunması kişiye yarar sağlayabilir. Zaten kısa bir kitap ama güzel bir kitap olsa bile Seneca'nın düşüncelerini okurken hemen kabul etmemenizi ve üzerinde biraz düşünmenizi tavsiye ederim.

[Cristina]

~letto&tradotto~

[Keith]

Three stars. Seneca's Of Providence, written sometime between 41 and 65 AD, probably addressed to his friend Lucilius, is a short philosophical essay addressing one of the oldest questions in theology: if a benevolent God exists and governs the universe, why do bad things happen to good people? It is an effective piece of Stoic argument, concise and well-written, and I find genuine wisdom in it despite rejecting its theological foundations entirely.

The Argument

Seneca's answer to the problem of suffering is essentially this: adversity is not punishment but training. A God who loves virtuous people as a father loves his children does not protect them from hardship: he subjects them to it deliberately, because hardship is what builds genuine strength of character. As he writes: "God has the same purpose as the wise man, that is, to prove that the things which the herd covets and dreads are neither good nor bad in themselves."

The essay's most quoted passage is the observation attributed to Demetrius: "No one seems to me more unhappy than the man whom no misfortune has ever befallen." Seneca elaborates: "I think you unhappy because you never have been unhappy: you have passed through your life without meeting an antagonist: no one will know your powers, not even you yourself."

The athletic metaphor runs throughout the essay. Fortune is like a wrestling partner who strengthens us precisely by resisting us: "a gladiator deems it a disgrace to be matched with an inferior, and knows that to win without danger is to win without glory." And: "fire tries gold, misfortune tries brave men."

The conclusion draws on the Stoic concept of providence and determinism: "I am constrained to nothing, I suffer nothing against my will, nor am I God's slave, but his willing follower, and so much the more because I know that everything is ordained and proceeds according to a law that endures forever. The fates guide us, and the length of every man's days is decided at the first hour of his birth: every cause depends upon some earlier cause: one long chain of destiny decides all things, public or private."

The Theological Caveat

I reject this theology entirely. Like Marcus Aurelius and Epictetus (whose works I have reviewed this year in Robin Waterfield's translation), Seneca grounds his practical wisdom in a metaphysical framework I do not share. The Stoics believed in a providential God who is the embodiment of Reason and who has arranged the universe for our benefit. I am a materialist and an atheist. There is no divine plan. The fates do not guide us. Suffering is not assigned to us by a loving father-God who knows what we can bear. As I discuss at length in my review of Bart D. Ehrman’s God’s Problem, the problem of suffering, especially the inherent cruelty of the animal world, makes it difficult for me to believe in an all-loving and all-knowing deity at the heart of creation. I don’t see rationality/reason in the natural world or in the larger Universe.

And yet, as with Epictetus, I find that the practical argument survives the removal of its theological scaffolding. The claim that adversity can build strength does not require a God to be true. It requires only that human beings have the capacity to grow through struggle, which is empirically well-supported.

Posttraumatic Growth: The Modern Research Confirms Seneca

The concept of posttraumatic growth (PTG) was developed by psychologists Richard Tedeschi and Lawrence Calhoun in the mid-1990s. PTG is defined as "positive psychological change experienced as a result of the struggle with highly challenging life circumstances." It is manifested in increased appreciation for life, more meaningful interpersonal relationships, increased sense of personal strength, changed priorities, and a richer existential and spiritual life. Importantly, PTG is not an alternative to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) but a parallel process — the same struggle that can produce lasting psychological damage can also produce genuine growth. Both outcomes are real.

Seneca was describing this phenomenon two thousand years before Tedeschi and Calhoun named it. His athletes who grow stronger through contest, his soldiers who become veterans by surviving wounds, his trees whose roots go deeper because the wind forces them to — these are all observations about what we now call PTG. He was right about the phenomenon even if his explanation for it (divine providence) was wrong.

As a psychotherapist, I make a version of this argument with patients regularly. Adversity does not only weaken us. It can make us better people, more resilient, more empathetic, more appreciative of what we have. The therapeutic task is not to eliminate suffering — which is impossible — but to help people find meaning in it and grow through it. Viktor Frankl, who survived the Nazi concentration camps and went on to develop logotherapy, made a similar argument from a very different starting point. Seneca would have recognized his conclusions.

Matthew McConaughey and the Stoic Response to a Hard Childhood

Reading Of Providence this week, I kept thinking about actor Matthew McConaughey's memoir Greenlights . McConaughey had a genuinely harsh childhood (experiences that could easily be classified as abuse and neglect) but he consistently refuses to label his upbringing as trauma. He frames his difficult experiences as things that made him who he is, obstacles that turned out to be the path rather than impediments to it.

I doubt McConaughey has ever seriously studied Stoicism. But his response to his own history is fundamentally Stoic: a refusal to cast himself as a victim of his circumstances, an insistence on finding the growth in the difficulty, a conviction that adversity is part of what made him capable of the life he has lived. Seneca would have approved. He would probably have found McConaughey's instincts philosophically sound even without the philosophical framework.

This is not the same as dismissing genuine suffering or blaming victims for their own misfortune. Seneca is careful about this: he is not arguing that adversity is always welcome or that we should seek it out. He is arguing that we have more capacity to bear and grow from difficulty than we typically believe, and that a person who has never faced genuine hardship has never fully discovered what they are capable of.

The Limitations

Three stars because Of Providence is effective but somewhat lacking. At roughly twenty pages it is more a philosophical sketch than a developed argument. The treatment of the problem of evil is more rhetorical than rigorous: Seneca is essentially saying that God is like a stern but loving father, which is a comforting analogy but not a philosophical proof. I daresay that there is evil in the world that is not compatible with an all-powerful deity centered around Reason. The essay also presents the ancient Stoic examples such as Cato, Regulus, Socrates, and Fabricius as illustrations of virtuous endurance, but these examples are so remote from contemporary experience that they require historical context most readers will not have.

The Aubrey Stewart translation, published in 1900 and freely available at Wikisource, is readable and quite quotable — more fluid than some public domain translations of classical texts. It suits Seneca's rhetorical style, which is pointed and aphoristic rather than systematic.

Verdict

Three stars. Short, effective, and worth an hour of your time, especially if you are reading it alongside the Epictetus texts, as I did this year. The theological argument will not persuade anyone who does not already share the Stoic metaphysics. But the practical argument, that adversity builds character, that a life untested by difficulty has not discovered its own capacities, that the willingness to endure suffering is itself a form of freedom, is independently valuable. Strip away the providential God and you are left with observations that two thousand years of human experience, and now clinical research on posttraumatic growth, have consistently confirmed.

[image error]
[Image: Page from the 1594 edition, published by Jean Le Preux]

Citations:

Seneca, L. A. (1900). Of providence (A. Stewart, Trans.). George Bell and Sons. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Of_Pro... (Original work written c. 41–65 AD)

Seneca, L. A. (2022). Of providence, in The definitive Stoicism collection (Anonymous, Trans.) [audiobook]. Wholesome Words LLC. https://www.audible.com/pd/The-Defini... (Original work written c. 41–65 AD)

Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (1996). The posttraumatic growth inventory: Measuring the positive legacy of trauma. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 9(3), 455–471. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02103658

Title: Of Providence
Author(s): Seneca (c. 4 BC–65 AD), Aubrey Stewart (1900 Translation)
Year: c. 41–65 AD
Genre: Nonfiction — Philosophy: Stoicism, Theology
Page count: 20 pages
Date(s) read: 8/31/26–9/1/26
Book 174 in 2026

[imdb˚₊‧]

4.25/5

«Je te juge malheureux de n’avoir jamais été malheureux : tu as passé ta vie sans adversaire ; personne ne saura ce que tu aurais pu faire, pas même toi.»

Beaucoup plus facile à suivre que ce que je pensais. J’ai souvent eu du mal avec la philosophie (matière que je trouve parfois complexe et hermétique) mais j’ai trouvé ce livre agréable à lire.

S’il est difficile d’adhérer à la pensée stoïcienne “traditionnelle”, celle de Sénèque apparaît plus “convaincante”, surtout lorsqu’elle est illustrée par des exemples tirés de l’histoire ou de la mythologie.

Je pense avoir préféré la structure et l’écriture de la première partie du livre (De la providence). J’ai moins aimé/compris les lettres 72 et 73 mais mon avis reste celui d’une novice :).

[Don Fumalibros]

Una barbaridad. Me encanta el escenario ontológico que tiene Séneca durante este tratado moral. Sin duda es increíble como su discurso estoico refleja una ética semejante a la dada por Jesucristo, curiosamente siendo solo 4 mayor el griego que el judío.

Me parece una burrada la concepción que tiene sobre Dios y sobre su relación ontológica y moral con el hombre. El nivel de profundidad y densidad es apabullante, llegando en ciertos momentos a generarme reacciones increíbles propias de una obra moral ideal para cualquiera que siga unos ideales propios del cristianismo.

Esta obra senequiana ha superado gratamente mis espectativas, con frases que penetran lo más profundo del alma. 10/10.

[Alp]

"Tanrının varlığıyla ilgili herhangi bir şüphesi olmayan Lucilius'un anlayamadığı bir konu vardır: 'Tanrısal öngörü olduğu halde iyi insanların başına bir takım felaketlerin gelmesinin nedeni nedir?' Altı bölümden oluşan De Providentia, Lucilius'un yakınma niteliğindeki bu sorusuna Seneca'nın Stoa felsefesinin ahlak öğretisi ışığı altında, tanrı ile insan arasındaki ilişkileri çeşitli yönlerden ele aldığı ve roma tarihinden seçtiği örneklerle zenginleştirdiği yanıttan oluşmaktadır."
-Kitaptan

[Mohammad]

Misfortune is virtue's opportunity.

[João Panizzutti]

This is Seneca best work. It’s amazing. Lindy and it changed the way i see the word. Below are my personal notes and connections

[[Seneca The Younger]]
Seneca receives a letter from Lucius asking why “bad things” happen to good men. This is his answer.

First, he says everything in nature serves a purpose, like how the moon influences ocean tides. Everything happens for a specific reason.

Fortune only chooses men strong enough to be challenged. For weak men, fortune gives pleasures and easy things that look “good.” The strong ones who can challenge fortune receive the hard tests.

Seneca says a good man without challenges can never show his will and virtues. A good man who didn’t face big challenges isn’t happy. The gladiator shows his scars with pride, preferring to be challenged by the strongest opponents, not the weakest.

Would people who faced the biggest challenges switch that for a life of pleasures and “good” (which is bad in disguise)? No. They take pride in their achievements.

The good man went through all the uphills and downhills, faced the challenges. It’s not about the challenges themselves but how he reacts to them. Someone can only show virtue if life brings challenges. A calm sea doesn’t make a navigator strong.

Those who never faced challenges will be completely broken when one eventually comes. They’ll be weak, like something [[Antifragile]] without adversity it breaks easily. For example, a fat man’s bones (lots of pleasure, no challenges) break easier than a muscular man’s bones (lots of challenges).

Good fortune can make a man weak and susceptible to future challenges. Hard challenges make him tough and prepared for anything.

Life gives us the option of leaving at any moment—we can always kill ourselves and be done. Because of that, nothing is really bad or good. We can leave at any moment.

The strongest man puts all his energy into actions against adversities instead of complaining about them. He sees them as an enemy boxer in a boxing ring making him strong and good for him. The weak chase false pleasures and never get enough out of life.

The mom always wants the kid to avoid life challenges and go for the good life, while the dad wants the opposite he wants life to teach his son lessons and for his son to suffer to become a good man. Fortune is like the dad, making the good man stronger by supplying him with endless challenges.

# Connections

[[Skin in the Game First Reread]] - We like heroes, people who sacrifice themselves for the greater good and others. That’s where virtue comes from suffering through challenges.

[[Naval Ravikant]] - When we look back at our lives, the moments we’re most proud of are the hardest ones we struggled for.

[[David-Goggins]] - “I don’t miss anything in my life, I found happiness in the grind.”

# On My Own Life

Sometimes I complain about challenges in the moment like today [[2025-07-09]], but then I realize it’s good—it teaches me something. It makes me happier. When I was only embracing pleasure, I wasn’t happy and was bad toward others. But when I started putting myself into hard times and challenges, I started growing and being good to others.

The events that made me improve the most were the failures and challenges I faced.

[Angela Ferr]

-Why do bad things happen to good people?-

Seneca shows us a Stoic way of answering this question. In a nutshell, Seneca is basically saying "What does not kill you makes you stronger."


I love the mindset he paints for us that when we go through misfortunes, we must not think of it as a pity but instead as if we are in a gym and we are working out and strengthening our bodies for a fight or a tournament...but in this case the gym is for strengthening our souls. Seneca says it's not the ones who have misfortunes fall on their lap to feel sorry for, it's the ones that live in utter wealth and pampering to feel sorry for because when misfortune hits them (as it will because the wheel of fortune works that way), they will be weak and suffer the strongest. It's similar to any tree or plant: the ones in the perfectly conditioned greenhouses cannot survive one day of direct sunlight or one windy storm...but the ones that lived in the wild and in the elements are weathered for the storm and ready for it, thus they suffer the least damage.

He makes a compelling point about why luxury offers only surface-level happiness rather than true fulfillment: consider the people living north of the Roman Empire, where winters are long, skies are gray, and the weather is harsh and wet. If environmental luxury were essential to happiness, why did so many people settle—and thrive—there?

Misery, it turns out, is entirely relative. To someone accustomed to the warmth and sun of Rome or Athens, moving to a climate like that of Germany or the Netherlands might feel like a tragedy. But that isn't true suffering; it is simply an adjustment. Once you adapt, the hardship evaporates. Who, then, is genuinely happier? The pampered soul who cannot leave their sun-drenched bubble without experiencing culture shock, or the one hardened by gray skies and dark winters? The latter is ultimately freer—they can find joy almost anywhere because their happiness isn't dependent on comfort.
(I find this argument fascinating. Even today, 21st-century rankings of the happiest countries on Earth are consistently dominated by cold, gloomy northern nations—proving that his insight still holds true!)

Seneca has always been one to advocate living a simple life free of luxuries. I find truth in what he says, it's not easy to always follow (neither for Seneca himself), but it's a good point to remember, I believe.

Some nice quotes (in italian) from this short letter:

"La sventura è occasione di virtu"
"Sarebbe giusto chiamare infelice chi è snervato da un eccesso di prosperità, chi come in un mare immobile è prigioniero della bonaccia."
"A non curarsi della sofferenza l'animo giunge a forza di soffrire"
"Vedi a quale altezza deve salire la virtù: ti renderai conto che il suo andare non è senza rischi."

[Gianfranco Nerdi]

Un piccolo saggio nel quale Seneca tenta, seppure in maniera non molto soddisfacente, di rispondere alla domanda perché accadono disgrazie agli uomini buoni nonostante ci sia la provvidenza. Per Seneca, 1.) L'avversità è un esercizio di virtù: ad un uomo buono non può accadere nulla di male perché "i contrari non si mescolano mai"; Dio lo osserva, e trae piacere dall'osservarne la lotta contro elementi avversi. 2). L'avversità giova ai buoni ed a tutto il genere umano; la sorte si sceglie come degni antagonisti i più forti; molte persone sono diventate modelli a cui ispirarsi grazie all'avversità. 3). L'essere sempre felici è ignorare l'altra metà del mondo; per conoscere se stessi, è necessario mettersi alla prova. 4). Uno può comunque ammazzarsi, se le cose non gli stanno bene.
Ok, ma se così fosse, seguendo la stessa logica di Seneca, dovremmo tutti seguire l'esempio di Catone o di Muzio Scevola, e alla fine ciò diverrebbe la normalità, senza [più] realmente seguire o fornire alcuna utilità. No, personalmente trovo questo "eroismo" abbastanza inutile e non credo in nessun tipo di provvidenza; alla fine, ciò che noi consideriamo virtù sono tali solo perché viviamo su un pianeta non infinito con risorse non infinite e dove ne traiamo vantaggio, direttamente o indirettamente. E dire che uno può facilmente togliersi la vita è banalizzare il problema; non è certo così facile.
Resta comunque un opuscoletto da leggere almeno una volta nella vita, secondo me.

[Serhat]

yaşadığımız dünyanın, tanrının kontrolünde yönetilen bir sisteme tabi olduğun düşüncesi üzerinden; insan hayatındaki olayların da tanrı tarafından nasıl şekillendirildiğinden bahsediliyor.

aslında türkiye’de yaşayanlar kitapta paylaşılan fikirlere aşina diyebiliriz, çünkü seneca’nın yazdıkları islamiyetin görüşlerine yakın görüşlere sahip. her insanın kaderinin belli olması mesela, islamiyetle uyumlu bir görüş. ya da iyi insanların hayatlarında zorluk çekmesini düşünelim… islamda bu imtihan olarak bu kabul edilir. seneca da bunu tanrının iyi insanlara sağladığı bir lütuf olarak anlatıyor, çünkü bu zorlukların o insanları geliştireceğini ve güçlendireceğini söylüyor.

tabii ki insani özelliklere sahip bir tanrının olmadığına artık neredeyse eminiz. kader diye bir şey olmadığını biliyoruz. ancak yaşadığımız zorlukların bizi güçlendirdiğini kabul etmemize engel değil bütün bunlar. yazarın iki bin yıl önce günümüzdeki ortalama insan kadar bilgisinin olmasını beklememiz adil olmaz. zamanının şartlarında sunduğu fikirlerin şu anda geçerli olmaması, tamamiyle dışlanmaları gerektiği anlamına gelmemeli.

[mª]

«Há muito tempo que está estabelecido o que te há-de alegrar, o que te fará chorar, e, ainda que as vidas de cada um dos indivíduos pareçam muito diferentes entre si, em conjunto reduzem-se a isto: recebemos bens que perecem, somos perecíveis.»

«Que é próprio de um homem bom? Oferecer-se ao destino. Grande consolo é ser arrebatado com o universo; o que quer que seja que nos obrigue a viver ou a morrer desta ou daquela maneira submete também os deuses à mesma necessidade. Um caminho que não volta para trás leva ao mesmo tempo as coisas humanas e divinas: este mesmo criador e regente de todas as coisas traçou certamente os destinos; mas segue-os, e obedece sempre, porque mandou uma única vez.»

«[F]ortaleci os vossos ânimos contra todas as coisas: suportai-as com firmeza. É nisto que podeis ser superiores a deus: ele está fora do sofrimento dos males; vós, acima do sofrimento. Desprezai a pobreza: ninguém vive tão pobre como quando nasceu. Desprezai a dor: ou é destruída ou destrói. Desprezai a morte: ou vos dá um fim ou apenas vos muda de lugar. Desprezai a Fortuna: não lhe dei nenhuma arma com que pudesse ferir a alma.»

[Vedat Hayri Adivar]

Evren tanrısal öngörüyle yönetilir...
Seneca’ya göre tanrı evrenden, doğadan ve üyesi bulunduğumuz bu büyük bütünden başka bir şey değildir. İnsan yeryüzünde ne yana baksa mutlaka tanrıyı hatırlatan mucizevi bir şey görür ve hisseder. Evrenin meydana gelişinde rastlantıyı reddeden Seneca, bu kadar mükemmel bir düzenin mutlaka bir koruyucusu olduğunu vurgular...
Tanrısal gücün sınırları bellidir. Tanrı insana ne yapabiliceğini göstermiştir, ama insana sağladıklarını değiştiremez. Oysa insan iradesi sayesinde aklını ön plana alıp tutkularından arınırsa ve kötü talihin saldırılarına azimli bir ruhla direnirse, bu talihi iyiye çevirebilir ve dolayısıyla talihin üstüne çıkabilir...
Tanrı insanlığın kurtuluşu için bireyi feda etmek zorundadır. Tek tek insanların başına geldiği görülen yıkımlar ve dehşet uyandırıcı sonlar, kaçınılması mümkün olmayan zorunluluğun işidir. İnsanların kötü yazgısı tanrıların onları sevmediği anlamına gelmez...
Tanrı iyi insanı keyif içinde yaşatmaz; onu sınar, sertleştirir, kendisi için hazırlar...

[Hiéroglyphe]

« Pour se connaître il faut s’être essayé ; à l’œuvre seulement on apprend ce qu’on pouvait faire. »

Difficile d'adhérer à cette démonstration qui mélange deux concepts pourtant éloignés. Sénèque en effet, pour justifier l'existence de la souffrance et de l'injustice dans le monde, associe les douleurs que s'impose -souvent de plein gré- un homme pour se fortifier, et les drames qu'il subit involontairement.

Autrement dit, puisqu'un grand guerrier osera affronter un ennemi puissant et en accepter les éventuelles blessures, prouvant ainsi sa valeur et son courage, alors quelqu'un perdant son enfant doit pour les mêmes raison accepter son sort et le voir comme une opportunité de prouver sa vertu.

La conclusion est donc, sans surprise, particulièrement chrétienne : « Votre bonheur est de n’avoir pas besoin du bonheur. »

Le style de Sénèque par contre est clair et efficace, ce qui rend le texte agréable à lire, même lorsque l'on est pas d'accord avec lui.

[Jose Lopez]

El mejor libro que he leído en ideas 1
Ame como ve la vida, literal fundo el “dios le da sus peores batallas a sus mejores guerreros”
“El fuego prueba al oro; la desgracia, a los más fuertes”
Tiene una visión muy padre sobre Dios, como lo empieza desde: (un poco machista, pero si le quitas los roles de género es PEAK) los padres mandan a sus hijos levantarse temprano para estudiar, no consienten que estén ociosos, las madres quieren tenerlos en su regazo, en la sombra y que nunca estén tristes. Dios tiene corazón de padre para los buenos y los ama fuertemente.
Ahorita ya empecé a leer de la vida bienaventurada y ame el inicio.
“Para ver qué es lo que hace la vida feliz, todos andan ciegos”

[M Eren Yasar]

Well u agree or nor with the idea of this text, Seneca s direct and emphasis filled style shows how a philosophical text must be written. I love his authorship.

He says bad things happen because you are chosen by destiny as its worthy opponent.

He makes lots of comparisons like

"Life forces us like a father because he just wants us to be better than everybody else. "

"Life expects many things from us like a teacher keeps expecting from his best student"

"God gives wealth, fame to bad people because he wants to reduce these concepts worth"

"extravagant happiness is the most dangerous thing"

"Good soliders attend hardest missions"

Etc.

[Aaron Michael]

“…no evil can befall a good man.” “Nature never permits good to be injured by good.” (Cf. Consolation of Philosophy—all fortune is good fortune)

“…the good man differs from a god in time alone, being his pupil and rival and true offspring, whom his glorious parent trains more severely than other men, insisting sternly on virtuous conduct…”