SELF-LOVE AND SELF- DECEPTION IN SENECA, THE STOIC A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES OF THE MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY BY AYTEN SURURI IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN THE DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY MARCH 2005 Approval of the Graduate School of Social Sciences _______________________ Prof. Dr. Sencer Ayata Director I certify that this thesis satisfies all the requirements as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. ________________________ Prof. Dr. Ahmet İnam Head of Department This is to certify that we have read this thesis and that in our opinion it is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. _________________________ _________________ Assist. Prof. Dr. Ş. Halil Turan Prof. Dr. Ahmet İnam Co-Supervisor Supervisor Examining Committee Members Prof. Dr. Ahmet İnam (METU, PHIL) _________________ Prof. Dr. Yasin Ceylan (METU, PHIL) _________________ Prof. Dr. Sabri Büyükdüvenci (AÜDTCF, FELS.) _________________ Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ş. Halil Turan (METU, PHIL) _________________ Assist. Prof. Dr. Ertu ğrul Turan (AÜDTCF, FELS.) _________________ I hereby declare that all information in this document has been obtained and presented in accordance with academic rules and ethical conduct. I also declare that, as required by these rules and conduct, I have fully cited and referenced all material and results that are not original to this work. Name, Surname: Ayten Sururi Signature: iii ABSTRACT SELF-LOVE AND SELF-DECEPTION IN SENECA, THE STOIC Sururi, Ayten Ph. D., Department of Philosophy Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Ahmet Inam Co-Supervisor: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ş. Halil Turan March 2005, 168 pages In this thesis, Seneca’s notion of self as self-love and the problem of self- deception are analyzed. In examining three types of self-love, –ignorant, progressing selves,–three models of self-deception are discussed. Self-deception is related to the problem of self-knowledge. I discuss the nature of self-love as self-esteem and self-preservation and self-shaping all of which are innate qualities and develop into more complex forms of knowing. Passions are concrete examples of the representations of deceived self; central to the overestimation of indifferents, the deceived self displays a pattern of reasoning that creates a paradox between what the self intends to do and what it actually appears or what the self wants to see himself as and what it actually is. In discussing various types of self-deception, it is argued that problem of deception can hardly be overcome practically even by education, although it is naturally possible. While the ignorant deceive themselves beyond their recognition, in the case of the educated selves, the tension between the knowledge of ignorance and the desire to be the person play an important role in self-deception. No one except the sage is free from self- deception. The thesis deals with the issue of self-knowing as a scarce possibility. Keywords: Seneca, self-deception, self-knowledge, Stoics, passions. iv ŐZ STOACI SENECA’ DA KEND İNİ SEVME VE KEND İNİ KANDIRMA Sururi, Ayten Ph. D., Felsefe B őlűmű Tez Y őneticisi: Prof. Dr. Ahmet Inam Ortak Tez Yőneticisi : Doc. Dr. Ş. Halil Turan Mart 2005, 168 sayfa Bu tez çalışmasında Seneca’daki kendini seven benlik kavramı ve kendini kandırma problemi analiz edilmi ştir. Durumunun farkında olmayan ve de iki tip eğitimli, toplam üç benlik tartı şmasında, üç tip kendini kandırma modeli tartı şılmı ştır. Benli ğin do ğasında kendine de ğer verme, kendini koruma ve kendini olmak istedi ği gibi şekillendirme őzellikleri oldu ğu iddia edilmi ştir. Duygular, kendini kand ιran benli ğin kendini gősterdi ği durumlar olarak ele alınmı ştır. Kendini bilme problemi, nesnelere yükledi ği de ğerleri bilmemesinden yola çıkarak, daha sonra usa vurma modelinde tartı şılmı ştır. Usa vurma modeli yapmak veya olmak istedi ği ile gerçekte ne oldu ğu arasindaki zıtlık űzerinde kurulmu ştur. Kendini kandiran benlik tiplemeleri tartı şmasında kendini kandırmanın a şılması do ğal olarak mümkün ama pratikte e ğitime ra ğmen bunun zor oldu ğu iddia idilir. Durumunun farkında olmayan benliklerin yanı sıra, eğitimlilerin kendini kandırmasının temelinde, durumunun farkındalı ğı ve a şmak isteme arzusu arasındakı gerilimden kaynaklanır. Bu tez çalı şması kendini bilmenin a şılması zor bir durum oldu ğunu savunur. Anahtar Sözcükler: Seneca, kendini kandırma, kendini bilme, Stoalar, duygular. v To all Lovers vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I owe special thanks to Prof. Dr Ahmet İnam for years of vigorous and insightful discussion about the issues in this thesis. I owe a special debt of gratitude to Assoc. Prof. Dr. Halil Turan for his valuable comments on the earlier drafts of this thesis. Also, I am much indebted to Prof. Dr. Sabri Büyükdüvenci, Prof. Dr. Yasin Ceylan and Asst. Prof. Dr. Ertu ğrul Turan for their contribution to the final draft of this work. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS PLAGIARISM…………………………………………………………………..iii ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………v ŐZ…………………………………………………………………………………v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS…………………………………………………… vi TABLE OF CONTENTS ……………………………………………………...vii CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………….1 2. AMOR SUI: SELF IN EMBRYONIC FORM. 2.1 Amor sui; self-perception and self preservation ……………………......14 2.2 Amor sui and the state of conciliari..……………………………………. 21 2.3 Towards the foundation of self as self-love ……………………………...24 3. NATURE OF SELF LOVE 3.1 Self-esteem and Self-Preservation...………………………………………31 3.2 Self-Knowing and Self –Love……………………………………………...39 3.3 Problem of Self-Deception ………………………………………………...42 4. SELF IN CONFLICT 4.1 Origin of Self-Deception………………………………………………...... 52 4.2 Reasoning in Passions: the craft of the deceived ………………………..60 4.3 The Pleasure and Pain of the Deceived …………………………………73 4.4 Passions: perverted form of self-preservation …………………………..80 4.5 Self-Love and Self-identification of the Deceived………………………...83 5. SELF-LOVE IN PROGRESSING SELVES 5.1 Norms of self-Knowing ……………………………………………………89 5.2 Self-love in progressing selves type II & III……………………………...94 5. 3 Nature of Reasoning and Irrationality…………………………………..100 5.4 Pleasure and Pain ………………………………………………………...106 5.5 Craft of the Progressing Selves…………………………………………. 107 6. PHILOSOPHICAL EDUCATION 6.1 A preliminary Word on Education ……………………………………...110 6.2 Education of the Child …………………………………………………...116 6.3 A view of the Knowledge of Self ………………………………………...117 6.4 Practical Education……………………………………………………….123 6.5 How the Sage Loves……………………………………………………....128 7. CONCLUSIONS 7.1 Human Nature: Reason and Self-Love …………………………………136 7.2 Seneca’s Stoicism …………………………………………………………139 7.3 A Word on the Structural Nature of self ……………………………….142 BIBLIOGRAPHY..............................................................................................143 APPENDICES…………………………………………………………………149 A. Original Texts……………………………………………………………...149 B. T űrkçe Őzet………………………………………………………………...160 CURRICULUM VITAE……………………………………………………...168 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION This thesis aims at a critical study of Seneca’s notion of self as self-love and the problem of self-deception. The issue of self-deception is discussed within a broader problem of self-knowledge, which is dealt with in the context of passion-reason dichotomy in writings of Seneca. As a preliminary to the presentation of the problem of self-deception and self-knowing I shall discuss what Seneca precisely means by self-love. The term self-love is not a novelty in the Ancient philosophical tradition. Plato 1 mentions self-love as a vicious state of soul. Later, it recurs in the context of friendship in Aristotle. 2 In the writings of Stoics of the Roman tradition, self-love is introduced as the Latin translation of the Greek ‘oikeionon’ by Cicero, 3 with its moral associations. ‘Oikeionon’ is an important concept in Stoic moral psychology; it is proposed both as a psychological faculty and an ethical norm by Chrysippus (280- 207 BC), head of the Old Stoa after Cleanthes (331-232 BC). The term won popularity among the forthcoming thinkers of the Stoic school of both early and late tradition. ‘Oikeionon’ is an innate propensity of self-interest, concerning the maintenance of the body and the bodily constitution which is commonly shared by all living beings in Nature. As a psychic faculty, it is structured on the instinctive inclination towards the useful and avoiding the opposite. As human beings by nature are social and rational beings, ‘oikeionon’ develops from the instinctive behaviors of the maintenance of existence to the total grasp of human telos which the Stoics claim as the chief Good, happiness and also the state of virtue. The famous motto, living in accordance with nature, becomes living a life in accordance with rational principles and also virtue. This is the point where oikeionon becomes also an ethical norm. The total grasp of human telos, is based on the understanding of rational principles, or to be more exact gaining access to 1 Plato, Laws , (731) 2 Nicomachean Ethics (1166.4 ) 3 Cicero De Finibus, (3.16.5) 1 their rational selves and live in accordance with these principles. This is, however, a rare case, reserved to the sage only. For the rest of humankind, ‘oikeinon’ is an excessive self-interest, which the Stoics discuss in the context of passions, ranging from greed, ambition, jealousy, lust, to anger and glory. For the Stoics in general passions are irrational disposition of the soul; their irrationality is primarily