Seneca 8-19 vs. Hannah Arendt
Having read Seneca and Arendt’s works, I started to think about my own vision of life and how people should live it. People reach happiness in their unique and unusual ways, and things or methods appropriate for one person are entirely wrong for another. That is why there are vigorous debates on how people should act to be satisfied and fulfill their needs. I should say that I rather agree with Seneca and his vision of life. The ancient philosopher assumed that every person should obtain as much happiness as it is possible, facing all difficulties and living in his/her own unique way. This idea reflects my motto, as I am sure that people are responsible for their lives and happiness.
Main body
I believe that one of the main advantages of this position is its optimistic character. It does not deny the fact that every human being has to overcome many challenges and face multiple problems. This path can be stressful and disappointing, and a person will suffer from stressors or other issues many times in his/her life. However, human beings evolve in conflicts, they are an integral part of society and interaction between individuals.
Under these conditions, it is fundamental not to give up and move further, trying to enjoy all positive moments and obtain as much happiness as it is possible. I think that this idea can help people to handle any challenge and cope with depression or negative moods.
From my own experience, I can say that there are many situations when positive thinking is the key to success and becoming happy. At the same time, overthinking and spending too much time in hesitations and attempts to analyze the situation, understand its peculiarities, and all things that make us happy or unhappy are dangerous for persons. It can result in wasting many resources because of the fear of action or the future, which might have dramatic consequences and precondition the critical deterioration of the quality of life.
Instead, it is much better to accept the situation, its problematic character, and all negative moments, and move further, keeping in mind things that make us happy. I believe that this mode of thinking is more optimistic and can help us to enjoy our achievements avoiding unnecessary sophistication and attempts to look for the source of our suffering.
In this regard, Seneca’s vision of thinking is closer to me. Our mind is a perfect tool that can make us happier, and every person should try to become wiser and evolve. At the same time, it is useless and even dangerous to employ this precious tool for unnecessary analysis of different situations and spend time trying to find some rare things that can make us happy. In my belief, it is much better to avoid overthinking, be ready to accept any situation, and realize the fact that regardless of all problems and challenges, human beings are born to be happy as it is one of the main aims of our existence.
Seneca 20-27 vs. Cohen
In their works, Seneca and Cohen touch upon an essential question of whether people should act in accordance with their visions and preaching. Both philosophers try to justify their positions and explain motifs for specific actions; however, in this dispute, I would rather accept Seneca’s perspective on the problem. He is sure that any individual should practice what he/she preaches and avoid unnecessary accusations or condemnations if others act inappropriately or unwisely. This idea meets my own expectations from the people who surround me. I am sure that the only important thing is your own vision and ideas that make you move forward. You can promote them and try to explain their importance to other people, but you cannot expect that they would follow your advice as it is a personal choice of every individual.
Moreover, analyzing the positions of both thinkers, I should say that Cohen starts to contradict himself in his arguments. Emphasizing the fact that his manner of thinking differs from some traditional paradigms, he, at the same time, does not act in this way and engages in criticism of the society and political systems that do not meet his requirements for effectiveness. In such a way, there is a certain logical fallacy in Cohen’s arguments that makes them weaker, especially if to compare them with Seneca’s ones. For this reason, I am an admirer of a Roman philosopher who explains his vision of actions in letters to Lucilius and emphasizes the need for work that comes from your motifs.
Another important idea that is attractive to me is the non-allowability of so-called half-measures. Seneca emphasizes the belief that people should either start doing things they preach or remain inactive as they are not ready. There are no tries as they can destroy results and signalize the weakness of our position. It means that people should do their best and devote their efforts to achieve or promote things that are really important to them.
Otherwise, any process is not worth starting. From my personal experience, I should say that this rule works today, and beneficial outcomes can be attained only if people are ready to act, to struggle, to move forward, and devote all resources they have to a certain activity. It can also be taken as a useful guide for individuals who hesitate as there is no need for actions if one presupposes the possibility of numerous tries or attempts.
Conclusion
Altogether, both Cohen and Seneca speak about critically important issues that motivate people to move and achieve some changes. However, the Roman philosopher sounds more convincing because of the absence of severe flaws in his arguments. I agree with the idea that preaching should be followed by actions, no matter what other people do. The only person who can introduce some change is you, and there is no reason for condemning other individuals for their unwise actions. This paradigm is justified in Seneca’s letters, and it is similar to my own beliefs regarding the nature of activities.