John Vespasian

Arthur #schopenhauer (1788–1860) was deeply familiar with Eastern philosophy, in particular #buddhism and #hinduism . He held in high regard the Eastern approach to stress reduction by reducing one’s emotional engagement. In Schopenhauer’s books, you won’t find a call for “nirvana” and other Eastern philosophical concepts. Nonetheless, he put forward recommendations that are similar to “nirvana.” There’s no doubt that Schopenhauer deployed great efforts to draw the best ideas from Buddhism and Hinduism, and turned them into practical advice. In contrast to Buddhism and Hinduism, Schopenhauer didn’t recommend the suppression of desires. He came up with mild, soft advice that everybody can implement without giving up all his dreams and daily comforts. Schopenhauer presented his advice primarily in “The world as will and representation” (1818) and in his essay collection “Parerga and Paralipomena” (1851). Amongst other strategies, he favoured self-awareness, #prudence and foresight, keeping a margin of safety, self-reliance and risk diversification. In this context, we must ask why he focused on Buddhism and Hinduism instead of #taoism . What made him prefer the ideas from Indian philosophers to those developed by Chinese Taoists? The answer to this question is crucial to understanding what Schopenhauer stood for. His theory of the will (“life force”) is telling us that the will is driving the thoughts and actions of all living creatures, but that the will is not omnipotent. In “The world as will and representation,” Schopenhauer is describing in detail the dire influence of the will, but he is also offering hope. Human beings can adopt protective measures to stay rational and minimise the distortions caused by the will. His theory of the will contemplates a narrow width in which humans can adopt countermeasures. People are not defenceless puppets driven by the all-powerful will. That’s the essential message from the books written by Schopenhauer: despite all constraints, you can still influence events and increase your happiness. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauers-philosophy-of-life-compared-with-taoism/

In his works, Arthur #schopenhauer (1788–1860) pointed out that #love #relationships often fail because people will initially idealise their beloved, and experience disappointment when they realise that their expectations do not match reality. Schopenhauer presented those views in “The world as will and representation” (1818) and in “Parerga and Paralipomena” (1851). He warned readers against seeking short-term pleasure without assessing the cost and risks involved. According to Schopenhauer, the whole cosmos is driven by the will (“life force”), which prompts living creatures to secure their survival and reproduction, and seek short-term pleasure. In his warning against delusion, Schopenhauer describes all problems accurately, but fails to provide solutions; he warns us against blind love, but fails to outline workable alternatives. The search for better answers must start with the definition of love. Schopenhauer describes love as “intense attraction” in a rather simplistic way. In doing so, he overlooks five hundred years of literary and psychological exploration. Schopenhauer lacks a nuanced view of love relationships. He could have grasped those nuances by reading the works of Francesco Petrarca (1304-1374) or Petrarch, the first poet who explored the complexities of love. In contrast to Schopenhauer’s oversimplification, Petrarch idealised #romantic relationships. His poems reflect the period between the Middle Ages and the #renaissance , a period when knights, aristocratic ladies and troubadours still played a major role. While Schopenhauer regarded all idealised love as delusion, Petrarch wrote sonnets about Laura, a mysterious woman that appears unattainable to him. Instead of referring to the will and instinctual forces, Petrarch wrote about beauty, gentle hearts, and eternal affection between kindred souls. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/idealism-in-schopenhauers-views-on-love-and-relationships/

Sigmund #freud (1856–1939) did not acknowledge at every opportunity an intellectual debt towards Arthur #schopenhauer (1788–1860) because he claimed to have created the theory of the #unconscious or theory of #instincts as a driving force of human psychology. However, anyone familiar with Freud’s and Schopenhauer’s ideas cannot possibly fail to notice the close similarity between Freud’s theory of the unconscious and Schopenhauer’s ideas, in particular, the theory of the will (“life force”). Let us examine in detail how Freud’s work relies on a view of human life very similar to Schopenhauer’s. Freud published in 1914 his essay “On narcissism” in which he argues that a certain level of self-respect is necessary for a #healthy personality. The problem arises when the individual is pushing his desires (conscious or unconscious) beyond what is socially acceptable. Schopenhauer’s influence is already visible at this stage. In “The world as will and representation” (1818), Schopenhauer had pointed out that the will (“life force” or “primary energy”) is often prompting humans to foolish behaviour. Narcissism is just one example of the aberrant influence of the will, although Schopenhauer did not pick up this clue. He regarded the will as a strong, irrational force that disrupts how people behave, but did not go into psychological details. If one follows Schopenhauer’s logic, mental disturbance can be attributed to the dire influence of the will. Schopenhauer did mention #emotional suffering but failed to categorise the mental distortions (stress, anxiety, panic, narcissism, and others). As time goes by, Freud’s publications resemble more closely to Schopenhauer’s theory of the will but not consistently. When Freud deviates from Schopenhauer’s #philosophy , he comes up with ideas that make no sense. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauers-influence-on-freud/

The ethics system proposed by Arthur #schopenhauer (1788-1860) is similar to Ancient #stoicism in some aspects, but offers more complex explanations on the workings of nature, society, and human motivation. Schopenhauer theorised that life is fundamentally marked by the influence of the will (“life force”) which will generate a large amount of suffering and dissatisfaction if you fail to take countermeasures. The theory of the will was put forward by Schopenhauer in his work “The world as will and representation” (1818); people are subjected to the influence of the will, driven to ensure their survival, reproduction, and seek short-term pleasure. According to Schopenhauer, the will is prompting humans to continual struggle. It generates more and more #desires that cannot all be satisfied. The way to #happiness entails two steps. First, you should grow self-aware of the influence of the will. This means, paying attention to your motivation, goals and desires, see if they make sense, and assess their costs. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauer-on-ethics/

What are the characteristics of the #philosophy of the self developed by Arthur #schopenhauer (1788-1860)? Which are the differences between his ideas and those of other philosophers? Schopenhauer outlined his philosophy in “The world as will and representation,” a book published in 1818. The book puts forward the “theory of the will” as an explanation for the cosmos, society, and human nature. According to this theory, the will (“life force”) is driving all living creatures to ensure their own survival, reproduction, and to seek short-time pleasure. To a large extent, the concept of #instincts in Sigmund #freud (1856-1939) corresponds to Schopenhauer’s theory of the will. In Freud’s books, instincts are also defined as unconscious and primordial forces driving animals and humans. The will shapes the human self, but it’s not the only element at play. The self entails individual aspects that are enhanced by #selfawareness and thinking, and weakened by passivity, blind conformity, and ignorance. According to Schopenhauer, the will is insatiable, relentless, short-sighted and often destructive, but the human self doesn’t need to fall prey to those influences. Schopenhauer views the self as the individual expression of the will, but accentuating any individual aspects requires a substantial effort. The less personal effort, the stronger the grip of the will on the concerned person. If there is no effort on the part of the individual, the will is going to take full control. Self-awareness is the starting point for enhancing the self. If you grow aware of the will, you can adopt countermeasures to protect yourself, reduce risk, and increase your happiness. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauers-views-on-the-self/

There is fierce opposition to the #philosophy of #education put forward by Arthur #schopenhauer (1788-1860). The opposition goes beyond little details. It’s essential, fundamental, ferocious, and relentless. Schopenhauer created his own antagonists from the moment that he diverged from the doctrines of #plato (429-347 BC). You can find those doctrines in Plato’s book “The Republic.” Plato employed grandiloquent terms for describing his ideas about education. He spoke about a “just, harmonious society,” but in practice, he was proposing a totalitarian, oppressive and tyrannical education system. According to Plato, the purpose of education is to construct a society ruled by philosophers like himself, who impose their views on everyone else by means of hired warriors. What gives philosophers the right to rule? Plato affirms that they have access to secret knowledge (“the world of forms”). It is abstract #knowledge that nobody else can access or grasp. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/opposition-to-schopenhauers-philosophy-of-education/

Stoicism tends to make a deeper impression on individuals who enjoy solitude, or at least, who don’t dislike it. The reason is not difficult to fathom. Solitude begets #thoughtfulness , which then begets a drive for #selfimprovement . Seneca was conscious of this fact. In his 7th Letter to Lucilius, #seneca advises that, without a fair measure of #solitude , it is difficult to focus on what really counts in life. In contrast, if we are surrounded by crowds and noise all the time, chances are that we’ll align our behaviour with our peers. Gregarious people tend to succumb to social pressure far more readily than loners do. The warning against exaggerated gregariousness is one the key insights from Seneca’s #philosophy . He had nothing against socialising, especially with friends and family, but only to a reasonable extent. Why did #seneca call for setting limits to gregariousness? Because it can become too much of a good thing. If we engage in exaggerated socialising, Seneca explained, we run the risk of undermining our moral autonomy. In his 7th Letter to Lucilius, Seneca enunciated this principle negatively and positively, providing us examples of what to avoid and what to do. Those examples will still resonate with today’s readers. Seneca’s negative formulation is warning readers against the worry and anxiety ensuing from adopting other people’s values without having thought them through. Don’t adopt the ideas of the loud, thoughtless crowd, wrote Seneca, because erroneous ideas might lead to catastrophe. In his positive formulation, Seneca praises self-reliance and non-conformity, not as acts of blind rebellion, but as signs of reason. The important thing, explained Seneca, is to align our actions with reason, even doing so places us in a minority. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/key-senecas-insights-to-implement-today/

Philosophers are all too eager to speak about the benefits of their #ideals , but will seldom mention the drawbacks. I’m afraid that it is up to the readers to figure out the problems and adopt countermeasures. Seneca came up with essential insights about #stoicism and the good life, but also made some dire mistakes. I encourage readers to study his #philosophy carefully, as though it was marked with the notice “Warning: Potential danger.” The fact that #seneca was forced to commit suicide should serve as a warning of severe danger. Considering that Seneca ended up killing himself, it is fair to question the soundness of his philosophy. If Seneca was so clever, why did he end up so badly? If his philosophy was so effective, how come that he killed himself? If Stoicism enables people to find happiness, how come that its cultural influence has diminished? Seneca should have addressed these questions because, by the time he started to write, Stoic philosophy was already three hundred years old. The ideas of #zeno of Citium (334-262 BC) and Cleanthes (330-230 BC) had been put into practice by many generations. Seneca could examine a vast body of philosophical knowledge, and reach accurate conclusions. In his Letters to Lucilius, Seneca deployed serious efforts to examine the practical implications of Stoic philosophy. For a decade, until his fifty-fifth birthday approximately, he lived as he preached and did well. Later on, he went astray and suffered the consequences. Seneca was right in many of his recommendations; when he told us to devote our leisure time to #personalgrowth , he was giving us good advice. In his 79th Letter to Lucilius, he warned us against “empty amusements” twenty centuries before video-games and soap operas. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/senecas-warning-against-stoicism/

In history, #stoicism was the first #philosophy that regarded #resilience as a crucial virtue. Every Stoic principle rests on the assumption that resilience delivers important benefits. Why did Stoic philosophers place resilience at the centre of their ethics? Because their #pessimistic expectations had led them to view conflict, #setbacks and poverty as normal events. Stoics expect life to get from bad to worse, with little hope of turning things around. They consider resilience as a major virtue because it enables people to survive, to keep trudging forward in the face of pain and misery. In fact, one could regard the strengthening of one’s soul as the central #purpose of Stoicism. Seneca took over this principle from earlier Stoic philosophers and magnified it. His advice for becoming psychologically strong fills each page of his essays such as “On the Shortness of Life” and of his Letters to Lucilius. Does resilience guarantee #happiness ? No, it does not, but it constitutes a prerequisite of happiness. It enables individuals to deal with negative events without growing discouraged. In his 78th Letter to Lucilius, Seneca explains that resilience plays a crucial role in human happiness. From the 78th Letter, I draw the conclusion that, if we acquire this #virtue , we’ll never stop smiling at life, even when confronted with #adversity . Seneca did not become a Stoic overnight. In his early teens, he had familiarised himself with the ideas of #zeno of Citium (334-262 BC) and Cleanthes (330-230 BC). He was relatively well versed on the #principles of Stoicism, at least in theory. His resilience only developed when he was confronted with severe adversity. I am referring to the pulmonary condition that he faced in his twenties, and the exile he had to endure on the island of #corsica shortly upon his forty-fifth birthday. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/seneca-on-resilience/

I am sceptical of remedies that cure all types of sickness; and when it comes to #philosophy , I’m sceptical of prescriptions that can assuage profound suffering. In the case of #seneca , #resilience was the universal prescription. What did Seneca get wrong about resilience? Is it not true that resilience can help anyone deal with #setbacks and reduce suffering? If thousands of individuals have embraced resilience across the centuries, how do I dare criticise its #effectiveness ? Indeed, many positive things can be said about resilience. It can help people deal with illness, #disappointment and setbacks, but my point is that resilience is not enough. I must clarify that the fact that Seneca placed resilience at the centre of his philosophy does not mean that life is a valley of tears. It does not mean that we cannot achieve #happiness nor that all joyful experiences will inevitably end up in disaster. In his 100th Letter to Lucilius, Seneca affirms that the goal of philosophy is to prepare us for #poverty , suffering and death, but we should not interpret it as Seneca saying that he did not expect life to offer #joy and happiness. Seneca’s emphasis on resilience is consistent with his views of the universe. If all we could expect is misery, it makes sense to train ourselves to cope with misery. If all we could hope for is to suffer and die, it makes sense to regard philosophy as a form of #consolation . From reading Seneca, I come to a #balanced assessment of reality. If we look around, we can see negative elements, but also plenty of #opportunities for improvement. It’s obvious that individuals who pursue #ambitiousgoals and work hard, are likely to build a better life for themselves than those who spend their days complaining and doing nothing. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/what-seneca-got-wrong-about-resilience/

#aristotle (384-322 BC) believed that #ethics have a clear, definite purpose. He defined ethics as the science of achieving eudaimonia, which means “a happy, thriving, flourishing life.” He argued that human beings can only achieve #happiness by living a life of virtue. Unfortunately, in some cases, he wrongly identified virtue with the “golden mean,” a middle-of-the-road attitude between two evils. In general terms, Aristotle’s ethics promote the #virtues of #courage , #temperance , and justice. Aristotle taught that, only by cultivating those virtues, we can achieve #harmony and #joy in a sustained manner. Aristotle presented his views on ethics primarily in two of his works. They carry the titles “Nicomachean Ethics” and “Eudemian Ethics.” Aristotle’s ethical theory is often referred to as virtue ethics because it focuses on behaviour patterns. It all revolves around having good habits and not deviating from them, especially in periods of crisis. If you stick to your good habits, they’ll lead you to #success and happiness. In contrast, other ethical systems focus on prescriptions that are coupled to various rewards and punishments. Whether you earn rewards or punishments will depend on your adherence level to the rules. Christianity is a prime example of a consequential ethical system, but beware that I am using the term “consequential” to mean “ethical precepts associated with consequences.” In this context, I’m not employing the term “consequential” to mean “of high importance.” Thus, consequential ethical systems are driven by carrots and sticks. They promise you that you will go to heaven if you comply with their rules, and at the same time, they threaten you with eternal #damnation in hell if you disobey. Most consequential ethical systems take their precepts from divine revelation. God instructs human beings how to behave, and promises rewards to the obedient, and punishment to those that refuse to comply. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/aristotles-views-on-ethics-virtue-and-happiness/

You can learn a lot from reading #philosophy books, but you will acquire practical wisdom much faster by studying the life of philosophers. By looking at what they actually did, you will draw more accurate conclusions than by looking at what they said. #aristotle (384-322 BC) is no exception in this respect. His books about metaphysics and logic are impressive, but we can draw practical lessons more directly by looking at his life. It’s a simple, straightforward manner to see philosophy in action. In 384 BC, Aristotle was born in Stagira, a small city on the northern coast of the #aegeansea . Aristotle’s father (his name was Nicomachus) was the personal physician to King Amyntas of #macedonia . Thanks to his elevated position, Nicomachus gave Aristotle the best upbringing available. The efforts bore fruit fairly soon because Aristotle possessed an insatiable #curiosity . He wanted to learn all kinds of things even before he could comprehend the benefits of pursuing #knowledge and truth . His interests covered abstract subjects and concrete applications. In particular, he spent hours on end studying the local flora and fauna. Upon turning seventeen, Aristotle travelled to Athens with the goal of enrolling in Plato’s Academy, which possessed the best reputation amongst all schools. At that time, Athens’ philosophical discourse was dominated by Plato (428-349 BC) and #socrates (469-388 BC), but despite his admiration for them, the young Aristotle began to develop his own philosophy. In the Academy, Aristotle listened to #plato speak about ideal forms (abstractions), but little by little, he complemented them with #empirical observation. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/aristotles-pursuit-of-knowledge-and-truth/

#aristotle presented his political #philosophy in his works “Politics” and “Nicomachean Ethics.” He believed that #humans are political by nature. By “political,” he meant that humans prefer living in #communities to enhance the enjoyment of life. In his work “Politics,” Aristotle described different forms of government and compared their advantages and disadvantages. His classification of government forms is based on whether the rule is exercised for the common good or for rulers’ benefit. Aristotle identified the following six forms of government: monarchy (rule by one person), aristocracy (rule by the few), polity (rule by the citizens), tyranny (corrupt rule by one), oligarchy (corrupt rule by the few), and false democracy (corrupt rule by the many). He categorised the last three on the list as undesirable because they did not further the #commongood . According to Aristotle, monarchy, aristocracy and polity are preferable because they favour the common good, although he fails to explain how to differentiate in advance between good and corrupt governments. For instance, how will you ascertain in advance that a new king is going to become a tyrant instead of a good monarch? Aristotle described monarchy as a government form where a virtuous ruler is guided by wisdom and benevolence. He uses the same #logic to define aristocracy as a form of government where virtuous elites govern for the common good. In his third government form, the polity, the citizens rule themselves with the goal of enhancing their common welfare. I regard Aristotle’s definitions as equivocal and naïve. There is no way to determine in advance whether the governing elites will govern for the common good or for their own interest. It is equally impossible to predict whether self-ruling citizens will make sound or #foolish decisions. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/aristotles-views-on-politics-and-governance/

#aristotle presented his theory of #justice in “Nicomachean Ethics.” He distinguished between two types of justice. On the one hand, distributive justice, and on the other hand, reparation or rectification justice. Distributive justice deals with the distribution of tangible goods or jobs, and intangible honours. The purpose of this type of justice is to ensure that each person receives what he has earned (“what he deserves”). Aristotle was rather vague about the criteria for distribution, or about the person who has to perform the distribution. Is distributive justice based on merit (“earned”) or is it based on personal needs? If it is the latter, why is it just to take away from person A (who has earned it) and give it to person B (who has not earned it)? This crucial question remains unanswered in “Nicomachean Ethics” and in other works by Aristotle. He does mention that distributive justice should be carried out with “proportionality” but fails to indicate the parameters for such proportionality. The second type of justice aims at performing reparations or rectifications. Its purpose is to make amends or rectify wrongs and settle disputes. The result of this type of justice is that the guilty party shall pay #compensation to the injured party; or that the guilty party shall be punished for the committed crime. In practice, this second type of justice is what concerns civil and criminal courts. In their practice, they impose punishments or condemn the defendant to pay compensation. The purpose of civil and criminal legal actions is to balance the scales. If someone has been wronged, justice shall deliver reparation to restore the balance. Unfortunately, Aristotle employed in his ethical framework the concept of the #goldenmean , a middle-of-the-road point that is in practice impossible to find. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/aristotles-theory-of-justice/

Aristotle’s views on the natural world established the basis of scientific thought and civilisation. Aristotle’s #philosophy is relying on experience, observation, and logical reasoning. His approach to natural philosophy consists of studying the cosmos and nature through careful observation and analysis. His three foundational works in this area are “ #metaphysics ,” “Physics” and “On the Heavens.” In “Metaphysics,” #aristotle introduced his theory of the four causes. This theory creates a framework for understanding how nature works. According to the four-cause theory, all entities in the world can be analysed by identifying their material cause (what they are made of), formal cause (their structure or shape), efficient cause (what brings them into existence) and final cause (their #purpose of goal). By applying observation and the four-cause theory, Aristotle established a classification of objects and animals. In his work titled “History of Animals,” he categorised animals according to their mode of reproduction and whether they possess blood. Aristotle’s most innovative analysis tool is the final cause or the study of purpose (in Greek “telos”). Thus, the science that studies purpose is called “teleology.” According to Aristotle, everything in nature has a purpose or final cause. He considered the world governed by a natural force that drives each entity towards its purpose. At the same time, Aristotle rejected the idea of emptiness or void in the universe. He believed that nature abhors vacuum in the sense that it will immediately fill any empty space. Even a barren field will soon be covered by weeds or other plants. Aristotle regarded empirical, systematic observation as the best method for drawing accurate conclusions. In this way, he established the empirical approach underlying science. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/aristotles-views-on-natural-philosophy/

You can accurately predict a person’s future if you know his goals and the intensity of his #motivation . #aristotle , one of the three most influential philosophers in history, introduced the concept of teleology , a framework that examines the objectives of #humanaction . “Teleology” is derived from the Greek word “telos,” which means end, purpose, motivation or intent. Aristotle’s teleology postulates that every action in nature has a specific purpose. In Aristotle’s words, such a #purpose is called “final cause.” Aristotle believed that teleological considerations apply to living creatures and, to a lesser extent, to natural phenomena. It is a concept that applies to human development, animal actions and natural events such as storms, rain or floods. According to Aristotle, all entities strive to fulfill their goals and inherent purposes. For animals, those goals will be simple desires such as food, sex and shelter. For human beings, there are many different ranges of #objectives and #motivation levels. In the pursuit of purpose, Aristotle sees the seeds for growth and development. His perspective of the final cause has vastly influenced #philosophy , science, biology, and #psychology . When it comes to living beings, Aristotle’s teleological view can be most notably applied to biology. He argued that each organism has a distinct “telos” or #purpose which guides its life. For instance, the telos of a tree is to grow, reproduce, and maintain its existence. In contrast, the telos of humans, said Aristotle, is to attain happiness (“eudaimonia” in Greek). The achievement of #happiness requires human flourishing, #virtue , and sustained motivation. It does not happen by chance. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/aristotles-concept-of-teleology/

Arthur #schopenhauer (1788-1860) did not believe that real-life #problems can be solved through psychological tricks. The purpose of #philosophy is to understand the world, so that one can take real action to solve real problems. Although Schopenhauer made contributions to #psychology , his focus was on philosophy. He never lost sight of his primary goal, namely, to identify the principles driving the cosmos in general, and #humannature in particular. In his book “The world as will and representation” (1918), Schopenhauer argued that living entities are driven by a blind, #irrational force that he called “the will.” The theory of the will (“life force”) maintains that humans are driven to ensure survival, reproduction and seek short-term #pleasure without thinking of the cost or the consequences. The will can be counteracted through prudence, #foresight , and #riskreduction , but those measures require steady dedication. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauer-on-psychology/

We could substantially increase our #performance if we learn to think like the greatest philosophers in history, but is it really possible? I consider it feasible to the extent that one is familiar with the corresponding #ideas and those are consistent. Aristotelian thinkers know the works of #aristotle (384-322 BC), have absorbed their principles, and put them into practice each day. Aristotelians take pride in their ability to think like Aristotle on a consistent basis. If we ask the same question to two Aristotelian thinkers, we will normally get the same answer. That’s because those people are employing the same Aristotelian #logic , which constitutes a consistent body of thought. Unfortunately, few thinkers are as consistent as Aristotle. If we take Plato (427-347 BC) for example, we will find that his ideas include mystical, supernatural elements. Plato never gave logical explanations for those elements. In view of Plato’s deficient logic, it would be hard to answer the question whether we can think like Plato. When it came to explaining how humans learn and reach conclusions, #plato was unable to give answers. Instead, he pointed to a supernatural “world of forms” that allegedly provides us the answers. When a #philosophical system is deficient, like Plato’s, it is pointless to ask if we can think like Plato. We could regurgitate Plato’s ideas about “the world of forms,” but those ideas make no sense and are worthless for drawing conclusions. I would not consider the regurgitation of deficient ideas as “thinking” in the proper sense. We could repeat Plato’s ideas as nauseam, but they won’t grow any clearer with use. Instead of thinking, we will be engaged in philosophical obfuscation. Seneca constitutes less of a challenge in this respect because he circumscribed his philosophy to the field of ethics. He didn’t write anything meaningful about metaphysics, epistemology, politics and aesthetics. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/how-to-think-like-seneca/

Before praising the advantages of a #philosophy , we should devote equal efforts to assessing its disadvantages. Few people enjoy looking at the #risks of projects because the outcome can prove depressing, but rational decision making requires us to look before we jump. Seneca was partially aware of the flaws in his philosophy, but failed to address them in his writings. By the time #seneca had committed himself to addressing those issues, it was too late. He had been already marked for death by #nero (37-68 AD), and then pushed to commit suicide. At first sight, it seems difficult to believe that there are risks in Seneca’s ideas, that is, in mainstream #stoicism . If those ideas have been frequently endorsed in #history , is it not safe to assume that they are true and beneficial? Besides, what could be possibly wrong in a philosophy that is promoting #peaceful cooperation, honesty and modesty. If we all followed Seneca’s recommendations, is it not true that the world would be a better place? Those are solid questions, but do not prove the correctness of Seneca’s ideas. The questions will elicit the answer that, yes, indeed, there are many ideas worse than Seneca’s and possibly, large numbers of people could benefit from reading his works. I don’t need to be convinced of those benefits. I regard them as incontrovertible, but incomplete facts. The problem is that a partial truth, when assumed to be whole, can inflict devastating damage. Let me give an unrelated example to show what I mean. If I am asked by a tourist “Can you swim from the mainland to the nearby island?”, I should give the complete answer. If I answer that “the water temperature is great this week,” I would be giving a partial truth. Indeed, the water is warm, but I am omitting to say that there are sharks in the area, and that it’s #dangerous to swim to the nearby island. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/the-dark-side-of-thinking-like-seneca/

The accuracy of a #philosophy does not depend on the length of the examples and explanations. Nonetheless, it does not hurt if the philosopher recounts anecdotes from #history , literature and his own life, and complements them with well-structured arguments. Seneca was a master in this respect. No other #stoic philosopher comes close to his literary achievements. In order to assess his contributions, we should compare him with his predecessors and with his intellectual heirs. In terms of accuracy, he surpassed his predecessors #zeno of Citium (334-262 BC) and Cleanthes (330-230 BC); and in terms of practicality, he remained ahead of later Stoics such as #marcusaurelius (121-180 AD) and #epictetus (55-135 AD). Seneca’s essays on life encompass his Letters to Lucilius on the one hand, and his essays on the other hand; the latter are similar to today’s essays, but the “essay” genre did not yet exist in the first century AD. Why are they sometimes called “dialogues”? Because they partly imitate the structure of Plato’s dialogues, in which a subject is debated by having different participants (persons such as #socrates ) make comments that present their viewpoint. Seneca’s five best known treatises or essays are titled “On the Shortness of Life,” “On the #happy Life,” “On #anger ,” “The #constancy of the Wise” and “On the #tranquillity of the Mind.” They revolve around avoiding destructive #emotions such as anger, and living effectively by cultivating virtue. For Seneca, virtue was equivalent to living in accordance with nature, which he believed to be driven by reason. I must however hasten to add that Seneca’s definition of #reason is different from Aristotle’s definition of rationality. For #aristotle , reason is a synonym for logic and common sense. In contrast, Seneca defined reason as a supernatural, perennial force that governs the universe. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/senecas-essays-on-life/