One Answer

  1. And what is the conflict, if you look at it this way? The “case” you have in mind-namely, Seneca's suicide-was ordered by Nero. That is, Seneca has completely accepted his fate, although he could have left, as many people in such a situation would have done.�

    Similarly, by the way, with Socrates-it is known from Plato that it seems that he was offered to escape from prison and avoid execution. But he refused and explained that, simplifying, ” The law is above me – if I run away now, I will betray what I taught.” It's not exactly self-killing, but it's also accepting fate.

    Strictly speaking, though, the Stoics didn't approve of suicide. But they didn't blame me either. The point is again in stoic ethics-where only virtue was considered an absolute value. Life was classified by the Stoics as” preferred but indifferent ” things.

    Thus, if suicide was contrary to virtue (for example, avoiding responsibility, cowardice in the face of great suffering, or other forms of cowardice), then it was accordingly blamed; if it contributed to virtue and was motivated by it, then it was commendable at the expense of it.

    PS / UPD.: in general, it is worth remembering that in Ancient Rome, suicide was not something so extraordinary for quite a long time. And noble patricians with their wives fell to the swords without any orders only in this way, to the envy of various samurai later – and this was especially not frowned upon by society. That is, the cultural context also plays a role here, philosophy does not exist in a vacuum.

Leave a Reply