The paradox of Seneca
I'm slowly making my way through Emily Wilson's Seneca: A Life and I was struck by this: Seneca practised Stoicism which was indifferent to wealth, and yet he was not above extracting large profits from his business ventures, even at the expense of others.
He is one of the foremost Stoic figures we have, and yet he also acted in ways contrary to Stoic beliefs.
Does that make him a hypocrite? (I think many in this day and age might say so.) Or does it make him a person of paradoxes, in the same way that many of us are?
Is a moral ideal still worth striving for, even if you don't reach it? Or especially because you might never reach it?
Questions, questions.
I don't have an answer to this.