Seneca(?): 'We are not overwhelmed by anger

[kiki1982]

because we do not get the object we desire, we only are because we think to have a right to it.'

This should be Seneca, but I've only got the quote in Dutch (this is a rough translation of the Dutch) and as I'm making a translation with the quote in it, I would prefer a kind of 'official' translation. I thought this place was my best bet as opposed to translators' forums where most of them don't realise the importance of a good translation. :)

Anyone?

[cafolini]

Sounds like Seneca. How do you like the following:

Shall I tell you what the real evil is? To cringe to the things that are called evils, to surrender to them our freedom, in defiance of which we ought to face any suffering.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[kiki1982]

Hmm, I know Dutch tends to translate quotes quite freely which drives me up the wall, but I don't think they could change it that much...

In that list of quotes (that have to be a 'quote of the week' kind of thing) I also found a quote attributed to Dumas which I couldn't find in either French or English, unless it was by Gracian, something along the lines of 'gaiety seasons life'...

I'm thinking this quote could be rather Epictetus. Seneca and Epictetus, I am told, are related, but he made such analogies or at least such analogies could be put together.

WHat do you think? Could you elaborate on why you think it sounds Seneca? Is it to do with his view of anger? Do you have a good comprehensive source on the internet (so I can read about it a bit).

Client is going to be impressed :).

[cafolini]

First of all, I should say that I read Seneca many years ago. Epictetus I never studied. I was aware of his sophistic, Protagorian ethic which I could compare to that of Will Durant 2000 years later. When it comes to memory I learned to despise it in my childhood and adolescense as being very harmful. I watched to my intense disgust how children used raw memory without understanding the subjects, which led me to once a theory that they would come to a point where they could not develop any further. It became more than a theory when my thought became accurate. Children using raw memory to pass tests got out of junior high ill equipped to grasp the rules of arithmetic such as association, commutation, etc. So they could not grasp algebra at all. And even if somehow they could, they had no idea of basic geometry, so important to make the transition into trigonometry and analytic geometry, necessary to grasp calculus and eventually diferential equations.
As I studied physics, I realized the theory that I once had was proving to be more than theory. I used to lose sleep to understand the principles of physics while I watched the adolescents at the technical libraries, trying to memorize enough to pass the tests at the elementary levels. I knew before hand that they wouldn't be able to get too far. And they didn't. I'm telling you all this stuff to come to a point.
There is no question that Balthasar G and Seneca had a lot in common, except that Seneca was naive when it came to the possibility of social contracts while Balthasar was not at all. He knew they could not be implemented and his wisdom excluded the dumb cleverness to try to do so.
When it comes to Dumas, we all should know that he said so much and so easily that it seems pointless to try to relate it to others.
It is possible that Epictetus produced the quote you are talking about, like Ian Von the Baker...the kermesse round. LOL But I can't see Seneca paralleling that kind of Protagorian sophism.
Personally I think Seneca was far beyond stoicism, into solid science, without the means to implement it. But as I said, now I sense flavors and don't archive much memory, although, obviously, one way or another I think I have archived enough useful ideas during my youth.

It is the sign of a great mind to dislike greatness, and to prefer things in measure to things in excess.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

It could have been said by Grazian, who I think studied Seneca to the utmost for the building of wisdom.