For there are many of our toga-clad citizens to whom peace brings more trouble than war. Or do those, think you, owe as much as we do for the peace they enjoy, who spend it in drunkenness, or in lust, or in other vices which it were worth even a war to interrupt?
No, not unless you think that the wise man is so unfair as to believe that as an individual he owes nothing in return for the advantages which he enjoys with all the rest. I owe a great debt to the sun and to the moon; and yet they do not rise for me alone. I am personally beholden to the seasons and to the god who controls them, although in no respect have they been apportioned for my benefit.
The foolish greed of mortals makes a distinction between possession and ownership, and believes that it has ownership in nothing in which the general public has a share. But our philosopher considers nothing more truly his own than that which he shares in partnership with all mankind. For these things would not be common property, as indeed they are, unless every individual had his quota; even a joint interest based upon the slightest share makes one a partner.
Again, the great and true goods are not divided in such a manner that each has but a slight interest; they belong in their entirety to each individual. At a distribution of grain men receive only the amount that has been promised to each person; the banquet and the meat-dole, or all else that a man can carry away with him, are divided into parts.
These goods, however, are indivisible—I mean peace and liberty—and they belong in their entirety to all men just as much as they belong to each individual.
No, not unless you think that the wise man is so unfair as to believe that as an individual he owes nothing in return for the advantages which he enjoys with all the rest. I owe a great debt to the sun and to the moon; and yet they do not rise for me alone. I am personally beholden to the seasons and to the god who controls them, although in no respect have they been apportioned for my benefit.
The foolish greed of mortals makes a distinction between possession and ownership, and believes that it has ownership in nothing in which the general public has a share. But our philosopher considers nothing more truly his own than that which he shares in partnership with all mankind. For these things would not be common property, as indeed they are, unless every individual had his quota; even a joint interest based upon the slightest share makes one a partner.
Again, the great and true goods are not divided in such a manner that each has but a slight interest; they belong in their entirety to each individual. At a distribution of grain men receive only the amount that has been promised to each person; the banquet and the meat-dole, or all else that a man can carry away with him, are divided into parts.
These goods, however, are indivisible—I mean peace and liberty—and they belong in their entirety to all men just as much as they belong to each individual.
—from Seneca, Moral Letters 73
Once a king gives me liberty, what am I going to do with it?
If you tell me that we are now too enlightened to have kings, I will only suggest that any worldly authority, by whatever name is fashionable at the moment, assumes the power to permit or to restrict our external circumstances, and therefore either inspires or hampers our personal decision to embrace the good. Does the ruler wish us to be ourselves, or to merely be an extension of himself?
When I am offered the room to live in security, which should never be taken for granted, I may choose to flourish or to flounder. On the one hand is the temptation of idleness and gratification, and on the other hand is the challenge of improving my character: the former wallows in lust, the latter rises to love.
Observe the fellow who thinks himself fortunate for his many creature comforts, and contrast him with the philosopher, who is grateful for simply having a mastery over his own heart and mind—the difference is like night and day.
Virtue is always bound together with solidarity, such that I can now also see how some will insist only upon themselves, while others will understand why no one has an exclusive right to any blessing. If it is something good, we all possess it, and no one man can claim ownership at the expense of another.
Nor is it that each is limited to a separate portion, whether larger or smaller, since the benefit is shared in common. Before I confuse this with some form of Marxism, let me recall that we are speaking of a moral dignity, not of the means of material production. Whatever our preferences, it matters far less who has control over the finances, and far more who has established a priceless peace of mind.
As an introvert, I never much enjoyed that Thanksgiving tradition of being artificially forced to announce what we are all grateful for, though if it must be practiced, I can still learn much from how a person responds. Beyond any concerns about sincerity, distinguish between a shallow list of conveniences and an absolute reverence for Providence.
Once a king gives me liberty, what am I going to do with it?
If you tell me that we are now too enlightened to have kings, I will only suggest that any worldly authority, by whatever name is fashionable at the moment, assumes the power to permit or to restrict our external circumstances, and therefore either inspires or hampers our personal decision to embrace the good. Does the ruler wish us to be ourselves, or to merely be an extension of himself?
When I am offered the room to live in security, which should never be taken for granted, I may choose to flourish or to flounder. On the one hand is the temptation of idleness and gratification, and on the other hand is the challenge of improving my character: the former wallows in lust, the latter rises to love.
Observe the fellow who thinks himself fortunate for his many creature comforts, and contrast him with the philosopher, who is grateful for simply having a mastery over his own heart and mind—the difference is like night and day.
Virtue is always bound together with solidarity, such that I can now also see how some will insist only upon themselves, while others will understand why no one has an exclusive right to any blessing. If it is something good, we all possess it, and no one man can claim ownership at the expense of another.
Nor is it that each is limited to a separate portion, whether larger or smaller, since the benefit is shared in common. Before I confuse this with some form of Marxism, let me recall that we are speaking of a moral dignity, not of the means of material production. Whatever our preferences, it matters far less who has control over the finances, and far more who has established a priceless peace of mind.
As an introvert, I never much enjoyed that Thanksgiving tradition of being artificially forced to announce what we are all grateful for, though if it must be practiced, I can still learn much from how a person responds. Beyond any concerns about sincerity, distinguish between a shallow list of conveniences and an absolute reverence for Providence.
—Reflection written in 9/2013
IMAGE: Henryk Siemiradzki, Roman Orgy at Caesar's Time (1872)
No comments:
Post a Comment