John Vespasian

Frankly, I trust proven competent historical figures far more than I trust today’s gurus on self-development. Before adopting any advice, I want to see that it has worked for different people across the centuries. I want to see lots of evidence in favour. #seneca (4 BC – 65 AD) gained significant insights about #timemanagement and his followers have applied those insights with good success. I’m talking about twenty centuries of experience, not about a flash in the pan. That’s why I think that we should pay attention to what Seneca said about time management. I am going to summarise Seneca’s recommendations in this area, in a way that they are formulated in universal, perennial terms. I hope that readers can find them useful to some extent. Seneca warned us repeatedly against being too busy. On the one hand, he meant that we should not pursue contradictory goals. If we try to go north and south at the same time, we are not going to make a lot of progress. On the other hand, Seneca called for an effective, rational employment of resources. For instance, individuals in #ancientrome had to economise on paper (papyrus) because it entailed considerable costs and was not readily available. That’s one of the reasons why Ancient Rome generated a relatively small number of authors. For most of the population, it was unaffordable to purchase papyrus or equivalent materials for writing. Nowadays, paper is cheap, but other #resources remain very expensive. I mean housing and parking spaces in city centres, biological and organic food that is not locally produced, study fees in leading universities, just to name a few examples. For the individual, time remains the most scarce, expensive resource because it cannot be replenished. When our lifespan is over, we cannot extend it at any price. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/senecas-advice-on-time-management/

Despite his remarkable philosophical and literary skills, the Roman author #seneca (4 BC-65 AD) made grievous mistakes in his approach to #timemanagement . I find it important to look at his mistakes because many people keep making those more than twenty centuries after Seneca’s death. What’s the underlying problem in Seneca’s errors about time management? The lack of an integrated view of human action, purpose and motivation. Seneca gained some valid #insights on the subject, but failed to get the complete picture. I find it easier to explain Seneca’s mistakes by comparing his ideas about time management with those of #aristotle (384-322 BC), especially with the Aristotelian concept of happiness in the “Nicomachean Ethics” and “Eudemian Ethics.” When Seneca recommends to focus on life’s essential goals, discard distractions and conduct ourselves according to reason, he is giving sensible advice, but at the same time, he is raising new questions. What did Seneca mean by “life’s essential goals”? How did he tell distractions apart from essential activities? How did he define “living according to reason”? If we deepen ourselves into Seneca’s works, we can find his answers to those questions, but the answers will again employ poorly defined terms, for which we’ll have to undertake a new inquiry. Indeed, it would be a never-ending story to put together in a comprehensive manner Seneca’s views on time management. It is the opposite of Aristotle because, instead of giving pearls of isolated wisdom, Aristotle gave us integrated principles. In contrast to Seneca, Aristotle clearly defined the #purpose of human life, namely, happiness. He also identified the path to happiness, namely, #personaldevelopment , focused steady work and virtue. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/senecas-errors-about-time-management/

When it comes to happiness, I can summarise the ideas of #seneca (4 BC-65 AD) in a few words: On this subject, Seneca knew little, learned nothing, and could not care less. In fact, only his essay “On the Happy Life” revolves primarily around this goal, and the means to attain it. Am I being too harsh with Seneca and #stoicism in general? I don’t think so, but I am going to put forward my arguments, so that readers can decide for themselves. However, before starting my analysis of Seneca’s insights on happiness, I must get the question of historical #perspective out of the way: In Ancient Rome, during Seneca’s lifetime, did people define #happiness in a manner different to ours? Would they have been puzzled by our relentless search for happiness? Certainly not, because today’s definition of happiness comes from #aristotle (384-322 BC), in particular from his “Eudemian Ethics” and “Nicomachean Ethics.” Seneca lived almost four hundred years after Aristotle, and must have been conversant with Aristotelian ideas such as the link between virtue, personal development, and happiness. The Aristotelian concept of “human flourishing” or “human thriving” is widely employed nowadays by psychologists and sociologists. Seneca did not have access to today’s vast body of knowledge on #personaldevelopment , but he couldn’t ignore the insights that #aristotle had gained. Thus, I want to reaffirm that an Ancient Roman’s definition of happiness would not have been far from ours, even if he was living in a world of primitive technology, low productivity, and exacerbated violence. Seneca almost never employed the Aristotelian definition of happiness. Instead, he went in the opposite direction and used a twisted definition. To make things worse, he never admitted openly that he had changed the definition. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/seneca-on-happiness/

Although #seneca (4 BC-65 AD) never developed a solidly integrated #philosophy of happiness, he did gain some insights that we can apply today. Those #insights are based on #commonsense and have been proven true by the experience of twenty one centuries. Seneca noted that low-key, down-to-earth individuals tend to be happier than ultra-ambitious, bombastic, aggressive ones. He underlined this point in his 67th Letter to Lucilius. His recommendation of #equanimity brings to our attention a major component of happiness. When Seneca mentions that Marcus Porcius Cato Uticensis (95-46 BC) used to increase his stamina by walking barefoot in the snow, we should not take the recommendation literally. The anecdote should not prompt us to walk barefoot in the snow, but to accept that life is occasionally going to deliver us a bad hand. If we keep our expectations down-to-earth, we’ll react faster and more effectively. Let me nonetheless emphasise that coping effectively with adversity isn’t a synonym for happiness. It is a prerequisite, not a synonym. Seneca is not saying that Cato enjoyed walking on the snow barefoot, but that Cato would not complain if he had to do so for a little while due to adverse circumstances. Seneca gives numerous examples of individuals who made the best of their lives by adopting a down-to-earth attitude; one of my favourite examples is the Roman military officer Gaius Fabricius Luscinus, a contemporary of #zeno of Citium. We can find Fabricius’ example in Seneca’s 73rd Letter to Lucilius. Fabricius had adopted a #frugal lifestyle, eating simple food that he could cook himself. His low-key lifestyle had enabled him to withstand political pressures and refuse bribes. Despite those difficulties, he kept trudging ahead undisturbed. A lesser man would have broken down under the pressure or succumbed to the temptations. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/senecas-best-advice-on-happiness/

Arthur #schopenhauer (1788-1860) had no problem accepting that he was eccentric. In fact, he considered it a privilege to be categorised as an eccentric. He considered it a confirmation of the originality of his ideas. Schopenhauer’s key contribution to #philosophy is the theory of the will, that is, the belief that the will (“life force”) exerts a strong influence on all living creatures. The will drives them at the same time towards survival, reproduction and pleasure, but without any consideration of cost and long-term consequences. By creating the theory of the will, Schopenhauer set himself apart from other philosophers, especially from #immanuelkant (1724-1804) and Friedrich #hegel (1770-1831). Kant and Hegel had placed philosophy on an idealistic path by focusing on #epistemology and proposing vague abstractions for defining morality. Schopenhauer rebelled against those vague abstractions that have no connection to reality; he simply pointed out that Kant’s “categorical imperative” and Hegel’s “absolute spirit” generate #confusion and fail to supply practical guidance for deciding on everyday matters. With the theory of the will, Schopenhauer placed happiness once again in the centre of philosophy; reflections on theory of knowledge (“epistemology”), history and society are important but should lead to practical recommendations. Otherwise, what is the point of philosophy? In this respect, Schopenhauer went much further than prior moralists such as Seneca (4-65 AD), which had called for #selfdiscipline , #equanimity and prudence. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/happiness-and-schopenhauers-philosophy-of-life/

In the life of Arthur #schopenhauer (1788-1860), I’ve named the last two decades “the illustrious years.” During those two decades, Schopenhauer enjoyed the status of a minor celebrity in German-speaking territories. Schopenhauer published “The art of debate” (sometimes translated as “The art of controversy”) in 1839. He had turned fifty-one and was continuing with his strategy of publishing as many short books and essays as possible. The more titles he published, the more attention he attracted from reviewers, and the higher the chances of having one title become a best seller. I find “The art of debate” a demeaning book for a #thinker of #genius such as Schopenhauer. The book outlines argumentation lines, such as the “ad hominem” fallacy, that is, the strategy of attacking an idea by attacking the person defending it. “The art of debate” does not contain any #philosophical or #rhetorical innovation. All argumentation lines presented in the book were already known in Ancient Greece and Rome. For a great mind like Schopenhauer’s, it was a waste of time to write such a book. Nonetheless, “The art of debate” sold well and quickly grew into Schopenhauer’s best-selling book. It has been regularly re-published and can still be found in bookshops today. Sadly, the other books by Schopenhauer are much more difficult to find. Schopenhauer gave dozens of lectures, presenting his book “The art of debate.” People applauded and purchased the book, while Schopenhauer enjoyed the sweetness of popularity. However, Schopenhauer could not fail to realise that he was playing a foolish game. He was giving dumbed-down rhetoric lessons instead of spreading his innovative philosophy. He was catering to people who did not care about his ideas. It took Schopenhauer two and a half years to admit that he was wasting his time. Eventually, in 1842, he began to work on a more ambitious book. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauers-biography-the-illustrious-years/

Even for a genius like Arthur #schopenhauer (1788-1860), it’s far from self-evident to define success; the feeling of #achievement will wane fairly quickly if people are admiring you for reasons that have little to do with your life’s purpose. Schopenhauer started to experience #success in 1830. He was already forty-two years old and had spent decades in obscurity, despite his remarkable work. As of 1830, universities and other institutions started to invite Schopenhauer to give lectures, and journalists published some favourable articles about him. The articles did not clearly describe his #philosophy , but at least, they made people curious. Unfortunately, the truth is that, by 1830, only a few hundred people had read Schopenhauer’s masterpiece. I am referring to his book “The world as will and representation.” Schopenhauer had first published “The world as will and representation” in 1818, and revised and expanded it in 1828. He had mailed dozens of copies of the book to newspapers and magazines, asking them to review it, but few had done so. The demand for his lectures had convinced Schopenhauer that people were interested in his philosophy. He should have asked himself why they were not buying his books, but I guess that he was too proud to face the facts. If he had asked himself that question, he would have come to the realisation that people attended his lectures because they viewed him as a rarity. They felt attracted by the novelty effect, not because of a genuine interest in Schopenhauer’s ideas. Schopenhauer concentrated on pursuing success and tried to figure out how to get people to read his books. He concluded that the size of his work “The world as will and representation” was too intimidating. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauers-biography-disappointing-success/

The struggling decade in the life of Arthur #schopenhauer (1788-1860) encompasses the period between 1817 and 1827, that is, the year he had devoted to writing “The world as will and representation” and the ensuing nine years. Schopenhauer had very #optimistic #expectations for his work “The world as will and representation” and did not hesitate to pay for its publication. In the early nineteenth century, we are talking about a substantial investment. In contrast to today’s electronic editing, the publication of a book in 1818 entailed vast amounts of typesetting done by hand and the correction of mistakes detected during proofreading. It was a cumbersome, time-consuming process. On top of that, one had to pay for the printing and binding costs. Even if the initial run amounted to five hundred copies, I estimate that, all in all, Schopenhauer must have disbursed the equivalent of the price of a large motorcycle. After receiving the books from the printer, he mailed a few dozen to reviewers in newspapers and magazines. He awaited an #enthusiastic response, but was met with total indifference. The lack of response #disappointed Schopenhauer, but didn’t affect his self-confidence. He immediately began to plan a new book, expanding the ideas outlined in “The world as will and representation.” Schopenhauer undertook in the years 1821 and 1822 a long journey across France, Switzerland, and Italy. While travelling, he took copious notes that he intended to use in his next books. In 1823, Schopenhauer turned thirty-five. He settled down in Dresden and wrote the essay “On vision and colours.” It is a treatise on the nature of perception and aesthetics, excellently written, but adding little to Schopenhauer’s overall philosophy. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauers-biography-the-struggling-decade/

I regard his university years in Berlin as crucial in shaping the extraordinary self-reliance of Arthur #schopenhauer (1788-1860). He had just turned sixteen when he transferred to the University of Berlin and immersed himself in the writings of Immanuel Kant. Most sixteen-year old university students feel intimidated or at least impressed by professors. The large gap in experience, #wisdom and authority creates an atmosphere of blind respect; it normally takes years for students to shape their own ideas, and dare contradict or criticise their professors. Schopenhauer walked the path from admiration to criticism of his professors at an amazing speed. At the beginning, he felt fascinated by Kant’s abstruse ideas (”transcendental idealism”) about #metaphysics and epistemology, but it didn’t take long for Schopenhauer to poke holes in Kant’s philosophy. As a student at the University of Berlin, Schopenhauer went to #philosophy lectures given by Johann Gottlieb #fichte (1762-1814) focusing on the metaphysical ego of the German people. Fichte’s lectures were extremely popular, but Schopenhauer found them nonsensical. He viewed Fichte’s arguments for the existence of a metaphysical German ego as inventions lacking evidence and consistency. In a word, Schopenhauer considered Fichte’s ideas worthless. In contrast to his former quiet life at the Gymnasium and at the University of Göttingen, Schopenhauer had an active social life in Berlin. He attended a large number of lectures, not only in philosophy, and participated in seminars and debates. His transfer from University of Göttingen to the University of Berlin meant that he had definitively quit medicine to focus on philosophy. He had convinced his mother to continue her financial support, but she was unhappy with the situation. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauers-biography-the-path-to-the-theory-of-the-will/

I regard the biography of Arthur #schopenhauer (1788-1860) as worth studying because it provides a wonderful illustration of Schopenhauer’s ideas; he practised what he preached at each opportunity and published extensive notes about his thoughts. Schopenhauer is one of the best German-language thinkers and essayists, but he was born in Danzig, which is nowadays called Gdansk and belongs to Poland. His parents were both hard-working and successful, each of them in their own way. His mother was named Johanna. By the time Arthur Schopenhauer was still a teenager, she had already attained best-seller status with her romantic novels. Nevertheless, the largest share of the family income came from Arthur Schopenhauer’s father. His full name was Heinrich Floris Schopenhauer and had attained remarkable #success in an import-export business in which he was a partner. The family wealth enabled Arthur Schopenhauer to benefit from an excellent education, but life didn’t spare him a massive #setback in his infancy. When he was five years old, his father died unexpectedly. Joanna Schopenhauer could not make up for the lost father, but devoted vast resources to Arthur’s education. She hired teachers to tutor Arthur at home in languages (German, French and English), music, and other subjects. For what concerns primary education, Arthur was primarily home schooled. In 1797, Arthur began attending the Gymnasium, that is, the secondary #education in preparation for the university. He was only nine-years old when he enrolled in the Gymnasium. That is very young for today’s standards, but was not unusual in the eighteenth century. Schopenhauer’s biographers note that he was a loner at the Gymnasium. In his work “Parerga and Paralipomena,” we find Schopenhauer’s own explanation for his loneliness. He felt that he was more intelligent and sophisticated than his peers. It was difficult for him to enjoy their jokes, games and sports. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/the-first-turning-point-in-schopenhauers-biography/

Living without regret is a crucial element of happiness, but it is easier said than done. Seneca devoted many pages to this subject because he was aware of the difficulty. It’s far from self-evident to let go of past mistakes, #setbacks and defeats. #seneca devoted his essay “On Clemence” to praising the benefits of leniency and #forgiveness towards other people, but failed to point out the importance of exercising those virtues also towards ourselves. Although “On Clemence” does not deal primarily with living without regret, it advises Emperor Nero (37-68 AD) to show clemency towards his enemies, explaining that clemency will also benefit its practitioner. It will reconcile him with the world and help him understand the #weakness of human nature. Seneca recommends Nero to govern the Roman Empire “in a firm, but gentle manner.” Fair enough, but how many people are able to govern themselves “in a firm, but gentle manner.” I have witnessed too many cases of individuals going to one or the other extreme. Either they apply excessive firmness and flagellate themselves psychologically for their errors, or they apply excessive leniency and abandon all ethical standards. Seneca correctly regarded excessive severity and excessive leniency as inhibitors of happiness. Gaius Julius Caesar (100-44 BC) exercised leniency on many occasions, but did it serve him well? Arguably not, since he was eventually murdered by beneficiaries of his past leniency. Caesar may have exercised leniency because he wanted to live without regret; he had already bought into the doctrine that Seneca would preach one generation later, namely, that it’s fine to err on the side of forgiveness. Seneca’s formula for living without regret requires careful calibration. If we go overboard on the side of leniency, we will fall prey to untamed passions; and if we go overboard on the side of severity, we’ll be harmed by #psychological or physical revenge. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/seneca-on-living-without-regrets/

I have a simple way to assess the soundness of #philosophers and gurus. I just need to ask them one question: What is your formula for happiness? If they fail to give a convincing answer, I will immediately lose any interest in their doctrines. #seneca placed #peaceofmind at the centre of his philosophy. He considered serenity a top priority because it makes human beings immune to setbacks and disappointments. If we can achieve happiness, that’s great, but Seneca chose to focus on the worst case. In his lifetime, he had witnessed too much violence, arbitrariness and abuse. He knew that anyone, without any fault of his own, could be affected by disaster. It is easy to stay happy when things are going our way, but can we remain #balanced and effective in times of crisis? Can we keep a cool head when things are falling apart? Seneca’s formula for #happiness can be summarised in four words, namely: use your time optimally. In other words, if we make the best of each moment, we will automatically achieve the highest possible level of happiness. I find Seneca’s formula remarkably insightful because, in just a few words, it is condensing crucial teachings of ethics, psychology, ethics, epistemology and history. We can even put his formula to work in the field of business and investments. Seneca’s philosophical works, that is, his Letters to Lucilius and his essays, revolve around time management. What is the best course of action in times of crises? How should we react to failure and defeat? What habits should we embrace? In the 50th Letter to Lucilius, Seneca applies this principle to irritating situations. He asks himself, how should we deal with events and people that make us angry? Seneca gives a straightforward answer: refrain from harsh, automatic reactions because they will only make things worse. Instead, we should do something that helps us calm down and organise our thoughts. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/senecas-simple-formula-for-happiness/

I find it unfortunate that most people will only inquire about the #meaningoflife when they are out of time. After making all sorts of mistakes and finding oneself in lethal danger, it doesn’t make a lot of difference whether you know the meaning of life. When the time is over, it is too late for thoughtfulness. #seneca didn’t wait until the last minute to ask about the meaning of life. In fact, he did something worse: He pretended that the last minute had arrived and then rationalised that acceptance is the equivalent of wisdom. Let me illustrate Seneca’s philosophy with an example from the 14th century: John VI Kantakouzenos, a Byzantine emperor. During his period as emperor, his interest in #philosophy did not go beyond reciting the pieties of the Orthodox Church. He was too busy enjoying his power and his lavish lifestyle. Eventually, his rule came abruptly to an end in 1347, when he was forced to abdicate in favour of John V Palaiologos. The #lifeexpectancy of deposed Byzantine emperors was very short. Normally, they were executed right away by the new emperor, or blinded and maimed, left to die slowly in darkness. When John VI Kantakouzenos saw that his life was about to end, he made a proposal to the new emperor. Instead of being executed, John VI Kantakouzenos declared his willingness to become a monk and retire to a secluded monastery for the rest of his life. The new emperor hesitated before accepting the proposal. If he allowed John VI Kantakouzenos to stay alive, he might face a revolt later on. It would not be the first time for a Byzantine emperor to return from exile and kill his successor. However, after giving some thought to the matter, the new emperor accepted the proposal from John VI Kantakouzenos. The only prerequisite was that John VI Kantakouzenos would have to make a solemn promise to stay in the monastery for the rest of his life, and never again engage in politics. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/seneca-on-the-meaning-of-life/

It would be great if I could affirm that #seneca figured out the key to tranquillity. Unfortunately, this isn’t the case. He did deploy extensive efforts in this area, especially in his treatise “On the Tranquillity of the Mind,” but he failed to identify a valid formula for peace of mind. Nonetheless, I find it useful to analyse Seneca’s prescription in this area because the analysis will bring us close to the truth. By understanding Seneca’s errors, we can gain crucial insights into the best recipes for tranquillity. Seneca believed that, for humans, #tranquillity comes from within. He decoupled peace of mind from the circumstances, risks and setbacks experienced by individuals. He affirmed that humans can remain calm and equanimous even in the face of vast disasters. What proof did Seneca provide for his hypothesis? Only a series of anecdotes that demonstrate very little. For instance, in his treatise “On the Tranquillity of the Mind,” Seneca points out that the dictator Lucius Cornelius #sulla (138-78 BC) never found peace of mind in life, despite his enormous wealth and political power. I agree with the logic that Sulla’s inner #turmoil shows that wealth and power alone don’t guarantee tranquillity. It isn’t hard to tear Seneca’s argument apart because it lacks fundamental logic. Seneca would have been right to affirm that wealth and power don’t necessarily lead to tranquillity, but the inner turmoil of Sulla does not demonstrate that wealth, power, and other practical advantages are irrelevant for tranquillity. I am sure that Sulla would have enjoyed life much less if he had lacked wealth and power, or if he had suffered a defeat in his military campaigns. There is no logical basis to affirm that success, prosperity and good health are irrelevant for peace of mind. Seneca’s idea of tranquillity as a purely intellectual phenomenon is clearly in conflict with everybody’s experience of life. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/senecas-philosophy-of-tranquillity/

Aristotle’s understanding of human #flourishing and success, as presented in the “Nicomachean Ethics” and the “Eudemian Ethics,” can be summarized in three principles; those three key ideas are common to Plato, #taoism and Confucianism. The first principle is the need of knowledge to achieve self-actualisation, that is, to achieve one’s potential. The process of #selfactualisation actualisation or flourishing is essential to happiness, said Aristotle. You need to take action and pursue challenging goals; if you stay passive or fail to set goals for yourself, entropy will eat up your time and energies, and you’ll end up in despondency. The issue is that, before taking action, you’ll have to learn to think. #plato (429-347 BC) had arrived at this conclusion decades before #aristotle . In fact, Aristotle took this principle from Plato and integrated it in his theory of self-actualisation. In his dialogues “The Republic” and “Phaedo,” Plato stated that the goal of life is the pursuit of knowledge, which in his eyes, must be acquired from studying abstractions or “forms.” Aristotle acknowledged the role of #knowledge in leading an effective life, but did not regard learning as an end in itself. It’s important to acquire skills and expertise, but those constitute a means to an end. One should not confuse the tools with their purpose. Plato is placing a strong emphasis on learning, but fails to explain why. In contrast, Aristotle linked knowledge to effectiveness, which is a great help in achieving challenging goals and happiness. Plato had observed that most people ignore essential truths. They remain captive of delusions and pleasure-seeking, which prevent human flourishing and happiness. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/key-ideas-in-aristotles-understanding-of-human-flourishing-and-success/

The largest successes and failures always start with a simple principle. I am referring to Aristotle’s principle of causality. If you understand it and adhere to it, you should do well in life. If you ignore its existence or fail to obey it, it will wipe you out. After Thomas #aquinas (1225–1274) had rediscovered every key principle of #aristotelian philosophy, one might expect later generations to observe those principles, right? Actually not. History is not linear. It often happens that key ideas are forgotten for decades or centuries. Individuals will let go of reason and embrace superstition under social pressure or due to outright stupidity. The truth can be long forgotten before it is again brought to light. Aristotle’s two major opponents are #immanuelkant (1724-1804) and Friedrich #hegel (1770-1831). Their attacks against Aristotle’s causality principle made human flourishing, thriving and success impossible. By attacking the root principle, Kant and Hegel discouraged a large part of their contemporaries from developing their #skills and talents. Kant and Hegel’s philosophical errors discouraged people from pursuing self-actualisation and happiness. Immanuel Kant is generally regarded as a pivotal figure of Enlightenment philosophy, but in reality, his ideas undermine a good part of the Aristotelian principles that enable civilisation. Aristotle had outlined clear steps for achieving eudaimonia, starting with the identification of goals, the cultivation of skills and virtue, and the application of one’s energies to productive work. The practice of Aristotelian virtues leads to tangible benefits such as success, wealth, friendship and health. The principle of causality plays in your favour if you obey it. It helps you if you help yourself. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/aristotles-understanding-of-human-flourishing-and-success-compared-to-kants/

#aristotle (384-322 BC) outlined his #philosophy of mind and consciousness in his work “Metaphysics.” For the first time in history, he proposed a universal method for analysing reality in all its aspects: the cosmos, nature, and human beings. To develop his views on mind and consciousness, he had to let go first of Plato’s theory of forms. #plato had taught in his Academy that, in addition to the present world, there exists one intangible world of pure abstractions, which he called “forms.” In the Platonic framework, the key function of the mind and consciousness is to access the #mythical world of forms. If you learn something, it means according to Plato that you’ve gained insight into the world of pure abstractions. Plato (428-348 BC) spent half a lifetime preaching about a world of forms that nobody could see. He attracted students to his Academy under the promise of helping them learn about the forms. He promised to open their minds and consciousness, but in reality, he was just feeding them mythical nonsense. Not only did Plato spread delusion, but he attacked anyone who dared to question his mysticism. In “The Republic,” he presents the allegory of the cave, which states that most people live in ignorance, like prisoners in a cave. From the real world outside the cave, they only perceive distorted shadows. Plato did not conceive of any good use of the human mind apart from accessing the world of forms. Every innovation and creation, every aspect of ethics, geometry or music comes from the world of pure abstractions. Aristotle put an end to Plato’s mysticism by separating mind and reality. Human beings can think and possess #consciousness that enables them to analyse reality. Knowledge is acquired by studying the material world, not by mystical contemplation Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/aristotles-philosophy-of-mind-and-consciousness/

Twenty-five centuries ago, #aristotle delineated a philosophy of mind and consciousness that has never been surpassed. His principles, outlined in his books “Categories,” “Metaphysics,” and “Physics,” have withstood the passage of time. His books were written mostly in the period 340-325 BC. The Aristotelian philosophy of mind and #consciousness can be condensed in three principles. Let’s enumerate them one by one. First, the definition of human beings as rational creatures. It differentiates Aristotle from his contemporaries Plato (428-347 BC), Zeno (334-262 BC) and #epicurus (341-270 BC). Those gave less weight to reason, and more to emotions and intuition. Second, the acknowledgement of the fact that each person, through his mind and decisions, gives shape to his own life. In his work “Nicomachean Ethics,” Aristotle said that “happiness depends on ourselves,” meaning that it depends on our actions, on our efforts. Third, the recognition that the #purpose of human life, and of thinking as a whole, is to achieve happiness. In “Nicomachean Ethics,” Aristotle said that “happiness is the meaning and goal of human life, the central objective of human existence.” Let us explore these three principles in detail. The definition of human beings as rational creatures is far from self-evident. In fact, countless philosophers in history have ignored or overlooked this fact. They’ve devised complex theories to explain how humans acquire knowledge, instead of simply acknowledging the fact that humans are rational. Chimpanzees, dolphins or elephants possess certain abilities that can be categorized as incipiently rational, but are severely limited, barely at the level of a human child. Only humans can acquire vast amounts of #knowledge and organize it logically. The German philosopher #immanuelkant (1724-1804) gives us a perfect illustration of what happens when you overlook an obvious fact. Here is a link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/the-three-principles-in-aristotles-philosophy-of-mind-and-consciousness/

The books “Metaphysics” and “Nicomachean Ethics” were written or dictated by Aristotle around 330 BC. They condense his insight on the nature of reality and existence. The key idea in those works is the acknowledgement that #existence exists. That essential insight leads to grasping that the world is driven by causality, and that human beings can shape their own destiny. The acknowledgement that existence exists means that we do not need esoteric arguments to understand reality. It means that we do not need to resort to superstition to guide our lives. Prior philosophers had been reluctant to acknowledge the self-standing existence of the cosmos and of all tangible items. For example, #pythagoras (570-495 BC) had been a remarkable mathematician, but totally incapable of analysing facts without mystical explanations. He devoted large efforts to numerology, trying to find supernatural explanations in numbers. Until #aristotle , no one had developed a systematic approach for assessing facts and drawing conclusions. #anaxagoras (500-428 BC) and #democritus (460-370 BC) had developed theories about the particles that make the universe, but had not let go of mysticism completely. Aristotle’s recognition that “existence exists” establishes the foundation of objective, empirical research, independent of any mystical influences. Most importantly, Aristotle’s insight that “existence exists” refutes once and for all the “theory of the forms” developed by Plato (428-347 BC). To explain the nature of reality and existence, #plato argued that the physical world we perceive is a reflection of an ideal, mystical world of pure abstractions (which he called “forms”). Like all previous philosophers, Plato was unable to accept that “existence exists” and that you don’t need magical powers to analyse it and understand it. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/aristotles-key-insight-on-the-nature-of-reality-and-existence/

As soon as #aristotle passed away in 322 BC, the enormous importance of his contributions got lost for most people. Only a superficial knowledge of his #philosophy remained such as the concepts of potentiality and actuality. To the detriment of civilisation, the pillar of Aristotle’s ideas was rapidly undermined, lost and forgotten. I am talking about causality, a concept that plays a pivotal role in Aristotle’s views on the nature of reality and existence. “Nature does nothing in vain,” wrote Aristotle in his work titled “Physics.” He meant that every entity and creature can be analysed according to its constituent substance (material cause) and its shape (formal cause), which together define its identity, from which we can infer its purpose (final cause) and source of energy or movement (efficient cause). According to Aristotle, the whole universe, every entity and creature, are striving to attain their purpose. Nothing is taking place randomly. The whole world is self-propelling and creates its own motivation. From Aristotle’s standpoint, #causality is identity in motion. I must say however that causality doesn’t mean predestination. A man may have the goal of becoming wealthy, but this does not mean that his path is predetermined, nor that he will acquire all the #virtues and habits necessary to achieve his goal. Causality only means that a man can use his skills (his mind which has the capability to think rationally) to figure out ways to achieve his goal, and put in the effort required to complete the steps. Nonetheless, it doesn’t guarantee success nor that the goal will deliver perfect satisfaction. What causality does deliver is motivation, steadiness, focus, energy and hope. It helps you make the right decisions and stay away from distractions. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/the-role-of-causality-in-aristotles-views-on-the-nature-of-reality-and-existence/