On the Universality of Philosophical Models
Today I was reading Seneca's letters and came upon this passage:
“Cling, therefore, to this sound and wholesome plan of life: indulge the body just so far as suffices for good health. It needs to be treated somewhat strictly to prevent it from being disobedient to the spirit. Your food should appease your hunger, your drink quench your thirst, your clothing keep out the cold, your house be a protection against inclement weather. It makes no difference whether it is built of turf or of variegated marble imported from another country: what you have to understand is that thatch makes a person just as good a roof as gold does. Spurn everything that is added on by way of decoration and display by unnecessary labour. Reflect that nothing merits admiration except the spirit, the impressiveness of which prevents it from being impressed by anything.”
This certainly sounds like good advice if unexamined. However, it begs the question: what place does this leave in the world for art or craftsmanship? Surely the master mason who crafts the aforementioned exotic marble edifice deserves to make a living off his work, right? How could he do so in a world full of stoics who indeed claim his mastery of his art is wholly useless?
This seems to suggest to me that moral and philosophical frameworks cannot be universal; they are chosen by the individual in order to live a life more like that which the individual desires.
This seems compatible with a pagan worldview as opposed to the unuversalist abrahamic religions which seek to impose the same moral framework on all humans.
What is permissible for Jove is not for the cattle.