John Vespasian

I view Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) as one of the most realistic philosophers in history. He was remarkably talented at analysing problems, reviewing possible solutions, discarding the unworkable, and selecting the most promising amongst the rest. Let me underline the step “discarding the unworkable.” It is something that most philosophers forget to do. They will fall in love with their favourite plan and keep defending it long after it has become obvious that it cannot possibly work. Plato (427-347 BC) did so in his work “Republic,” where he put forward that totalitarianism under the rule of philosopher-kings is the best political regime. History has proven Plato wrong a thousand times. His ideas about politics are atrocious. In fact, he could have avoided his errors if he had analysed the history before his time. By then, it was already clear that totalitarianism always ends in bloodshed and misery. Montaigne did not get everything right, but at least, he kept dire mistakes at bay. Compared to Plato, Augustine, or Thomas Aquinas, he was far ahead of the game. Why? Because he had a much wider experience of life. Montaigne was particularly adverse to proposing abrasive, harsh social changes even when they seemed advantageous. His extensive experience of the world had made him distrust things that look too good to be true. The deep study of the biographies written by Plutarch (46-120 AD) had made Montaigne suspicious of drastic changes. I agree with him that very rarely does history deliver successful examples of radical changes. More often than not, those lead to unintended consequences that prove worse than the problem. Montaigne had learned the lesson the hard way in his own life. Let me recall a few instances that made him distrust harsh changes, harsh decisions, and harsh actions in general. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaignes-biography-tradition-versus-change/

When I analyse the biography of great individuals, I always focus on one question: What did they do to become great? My objective is to figure out exactly what they did differently than everybody else. The difference is what counts. Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) made it particularly clear that he wanted to differentiate himself from his peers. His vast literary achievements are not the result of luck. His philosophy is not the outcome of random circumstances, but of persistence and determination. I view Montaigne as a master in the art of living because of his unusually high productivity. Even with a busy professional life as a lawyer in Bordeaux, he read extensively and raised a family. Montaigne even found the time to travel abroad (Germany, Italy) for a year, and later occupied public office for four years. All those activities did not prevent him from becoming highly productive as an author. I’m going to summarise Montaigne’s art of living, especially the lessons that we can put into practice here and now. Montaigne limited the number of activities or tasks that he undertook. During his studies at the College de Guyenne, he did not spread himself too thin. Most of his study subjects revolved around Latin language, Latin authors, the basics of ancient Greek, history, philosophy, and arithmetic. Montaigne graduated at thirteen and enrolled in Law school, where he completed his legal studies in three years. He started working at sixteen as a legal apprentice, and five years later, he had qualified to practise as a lawyer. If Montaigne had consumed large amounts of entertainment or practised sports daily, he would have delayed his career by a long stretch. If we want to achieve important goals, the first we need to do is to focus, just as Montaigne had done. Over time, Montaigne grew extraordinarily self-reliant. I must underline that his self-confident mentality was as unusual in the sixteenth century as it is today. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaigne-and-the-art-of-living/

In our century, the protection of privacy has acquired crucial importance. I cannot even count the number of celebrities that have seen their life disrupted because a journalist has intruded in their privacy. Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) was aware of the dangers associated with popularity. He also knew the financial advantages that one can draw from it, but after careful reflection, he opted for a quiet lifestyle in the countryside. I find Montaigne’s choice remarkable because it entailed a series of drastic changes; he had lived for decades in a sizeable city, pursued a demanding career, and interacted with hundreds of people; why did he choose to leave behind his professional ambitions? There is a key philosophical lesson in Montaigne’s decision to embrace a quiet lifestyle, a lesson that has become very hard to learn in our century of social media around the clock. Even for Montaigne, it took a while to analyse his own thoughts and record his arguments in writing. Montaigne conveyed his reflections in his essay titled “Not to Communicate a Man’s Honour.” Actually, the essay has little to do with honour and very much to do with lifestyle choices. I would have given it a different title, for instance, “Why we should remain discreet about our own achievements” or “Why it is wise not to blow our own trumpet.” Montaigne employs the term “honour” as a synonym for our professional and ethical reputation. In sixteenth-century France and in the rest of Europe, an impeccable reputation was crucial particularly in commerce and banking. The question raised by Montaigne is whether we should do our best to enhance our reputation. How much effort should we devote to responding to attacks against our honour? Should we seize every opportunity to increase our popularity? Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaignes-art-of-living-quietly/

The biographies of great individuals teach us many lessons, but I am always seeking the common thread between them. In the case of Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592), it requires some work to figure out the key lesson. Montaigne’s essay titled “On the inequality amongst us” is conveying the key lesson from his life, namely, that we should accept without complaints the fact that each person is different, and that all attempts to homogenise people are doomed to fail. Individuals are unequal in intelligence, agility, beauty, skills and personal interests, just to mention a few aspects. Luckily, Montaigne accepted inequality as a fact early in life and spared himself lots of trouble. In sixteenth-century France, the monarch deployed massive efforts to homogenise the ideas in the country, but his attempts proved a dismal failure. In fact, he achieved exactly the contrary. Instead of having all citizens share the same ideals, he destroyed social harmony. Instead of having everybody accept the same beliefs, he only generated discrimination, hatred and war. Montaigne did not praise enough the wisdom of adopting a realistic stance. Not only is it a fact that individuals are all unequal, but that life rarely delivers perfect justice or fairness. We all know of people who, in their profession or business, have profited from personal connections. It is certainly unfair, but I wouldn’t waste a minute worrying about those situations. Montaigne commends self-made individuals like Spartacus (1st century BC) that rise to positions of leadership, and has no good words for incompetent aristocrats like the Ancient Roman senator and consul Claudius Pulcher. While Spartacus led a revolt that defeated Roman armies on two occasions, Claudius Pulcher ordered a foolish attack which exposed the flanks of his ships. As a result, he lost seventy-five per cent of the Roman military fleet. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaignes-key-lesson-on-the-art-of-living/

Instead of endless abstract discussions, I prefer philosophers to cut to the chase and give me an example of their theories. If the example is convincing, I may explore their theories further. On the other hand, if the example doesn’t make sense, I will no longer care what that philosopher claims to know. If a plan cannot be put into practice, I don’t want to waste time studying the details. Seneca came up with excellent, deep insights in many areas, but from time to time, he got completely lost. In particular, his views on human nature rest on assumptions that contradict our daily experience. In his 82nd Letter to Lucilius, Seneca mentions Socrates (470-399 BC) as an example of wisdom. Seneca emphasised that Socrates had devoted his life to acquiring knowledge, which he viewed as more valuable than wealth and popularity. Seneca expresses appreciation for Socrates, although not in every aspect. I believe that he regarded Socrates as an example to be imitated in some areas, as the embodiment of wisdom. The 83rd Letter to Lucilius also mentions Socrates. Nevertheless, I have a problem with Seneca’s appreciation for Socrates. The attention that he bestows on Socrates seems to me gratuitous, perfunctory and exaggerated. If Seneca had limited his references to Socrates’ ability to come up with pertinent questions, I would have seconded his words, but I disagree with Seneca’s portrayal of Socrates as an example of wisdom. Socrates is not an example to imitate, unless one is socially insensitive and suicidal. On the hand, he did not build anything tangible; he didn’t write any books, build a business or perform any remarkable feats. He simply talked and talked. On the other hand, he made numerous enemies, got himself into unnecessary trouble, and proved incapable of extricating himself from the whole mess. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/what-seneca-got-wrong-about-human-nature/

In his Letters to Lucilius and essays, Seneca gave a detailed recipe for personal fulfilment. His insights can be applied still today. I am going to summarize them in the next paragraphs. When necessary, I am adapting Seneca’s ideas to our century. The search for personal fulfilment is a lifetime mission. It is not a quick fix that will take us to a plateau of permanent, uninterrupted happiness. Even with the best of luck, each person has to face adversity from time to time. It is unrealistic to believe that we can isolate ourselves from pain and suffering. The purpose of philosophy is to help us see the big picture, that is, the picture of one’s lifetime achievement and happiness. We should not get stuck on temporary problems, even if we are experiencing vast disruption and annoyance. One generation after Seneca, another Stoic philosopher built a powerful intellectual edifice around this principle. I’m talking about Epictetus (55-135 AD), who embodies the idea of steady self-improvement. Seneca had aristocratic origins and adopted the principles of Stoicism after long study and reflection. In contrast, Epictetus had been born a slave in Hierapolis. Through assiduous study, he acquired valuable skills, earned respect, became a freeman, and eventually a famous philosopher. Epictetus had more than sufficient grounds for complaint. I can hardly imagine a worse situation than being born a slave in Ancient Greece or Rome. Nonetheless, Epictetus made the best of the situation, created new opportunities and moved forward. Like Seneca, Epictetus regarded self-improvement as a goal for a lifetime, not an isolated task. He kept improving his skills and acquiring knowledge all his life, travelling and teaching. It is an example we should remember when we face adversity or opposition. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/seneca-on-personal-fulfilment/

High productivity depends on quality-consciousness. There is simply no other way to sell sizeable amounts of products and services at a profit. If we do not deliver quality, customers are going to complain, and we will have to devote our resources to satisfying those complaints. Thus if we want to achieve our goals in business and private activities, we need to pay attention to every step of the process. By carrying out every step correctly, we can move steadily in the right direction, without having to go back to correct errors. Was Seneca the first philosopher in history to focus on the process, instead of focusing only on the results? Not really, but he emphasised that it is better to practise virtue and hope for the best, than to achieve goals by employing tortious methods. In doing so, Seneca was slightly decoupling morality from success, against the Aristotelian tradition. In the “Nicomachean Ethics” and “Eudemian Ethics,” Aristotle (384-322 BC) had set up an ethical framework in which virtues constitute the method for attaining success and happiness. Virtues constituted a means to an end. Aristotelian ethics are supposed to deliver beneficial results to their practitioners, that is, assuming that they are practised consistently for long. Seneca showed reluctance in promising beneficial results, if only because he lived in more uncertain times than Aristotle. In his 35th Letter to Lucilius, Seneca portrays virtue as the optimal method for guiding our life, even in a context of uncertainty. Even if we end up perishing due to some external event that is outside our control, argued Seneca, we will still lead a better life if we practise virtue. Why? Because our decisions, actions, and results will be superior to those obtained through whim or randomness. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/senecas-advice-on-personal-fulfilment/

Compared to Ancient Greece and Rome, people nowadays can easily choose to be as lonely or as gregarious as they wish. Our ability to give shape to our lifestyle is much larger than in the times of Aristotle (384-322 BC) or Seneca. However, the benefits that we can draw from solitude have not changed through the centuries. I find Seneca’s observations in this respect particularly insightful. In his own life, Seneca went through periods of solitude and periods of gregariousness. Those periods were long, protracted, and overwhelming, in the sense that they were driven by forces over which Seneca had little control. We can benefit from Seneca’s sharp observations and advice because he made the effort to put them in writing. His essay “On the Happy Life” contains reflections on daily habits that contribute to our peace of mind. It does not refer to solitude, which is a theme handled in some Letters to Lucilius. Seneca regarded solitude as beneficial if we use it to raise our serenity and self-reliance. To a great extent, he affirmed, happiness is equivalent to self-sufficiency. If we learn to enjoy life on our own, without depending on other people for support or comfort, we’ll be able to experience joy every day. If we have friendly, loving individuals around us and they make our lives pleasant, great. If not, we’ll be able to enjoy our days anyway. In his 98th Letter to Lucilius, Seneca defines a happy person as someone who is not anxious about the future. Solitude, if we employ it wisely, allows us to increase our self-sufficiency and serenity, removing all worry, preoccupation and anxiety. As a practical illustration, Seneca points to the philosopher Stilbo, a contemporary of Aristotle. He recounts that Stilbo had grown immensely self-sufficient and serene through reflection. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/seneca-on-finding-joy-in-solitude/

I am always puzzled when I see historians or philosophers put forward theories for which the evidence is rather thin. Even if they write a treatise about their theory, readers will ask to see the evidence, the facts, the clues. Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) produced a compelling collection of essays, but historians have exaggerated his impact on early modern philosophy; their arguments are so far-fetched that I regard them as self-refuting. Why do I contest Montaigne’s philosophical impact? I do so because Montaigne did not consider himself a philosopher. He never undertook a serious study of metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics and aesthetics. Nor did he never build a system of thought worthy of that name. Take for instance Montaigne’s essay titled “On the custom of wearing clothes.” When Montaigne wrote this piece, he was in his early forties, living quietly in the countryside. Day after day, he retired to the tower of his castle to read and write, and kept churning out one essay after another. Historians sustain that Montaigne wrote “On the Custom of Wearing Clothes” to present and endorse cultural relativism. In their eyes, Montaigne was asking us to refrain from judging our culture because, across history, people have been wearing different types of attire in different countries or occasions. According to this theory, Montaigne’s cultural relativism is the originator or contributor to the relativism deployed in the eighteenth century by the likes of Montesquieu (1689-1755) and Voltaire (1694-1778). Philosophically, Montaigne’s arguments are so anaemic that they should not even count as philosophy. When he criticises sixteenth-century women for wearing impractical clothes, I am convinced that he would have said the same if he had attended a fashion show in our century. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/why-montaigne-had-no-impact-on-early-modern-philosophy/

Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) had zero impact on early modern philosophy because his great merit was to look to the past, not to the future. As a result, Montaigne developed a new, fresh, truly modern mentality that put him decades ahead of his literary peers. When Montaigne looked at history, mostly antique history, he picked up ideas and facts that he found useful. He was very familiar with the doctrines of Pyrrho (360-270 BC) and Sextus Empiricus (160-210 AD), but adopted only a mild version of their scepticism. Montaigne’s modern mentality is the key to his influence in all areas of culture, but not primarily on philosophy. He did not even join the debates in philosophical circles because his main concern was happiness, not certainty or truth. Two generations later, Rene Descartes (1596-1650) would write his famous “Discourse on the Method” and his “Meditations on First Philosophy.” In the meantime, Montaigne had opted for remaining oblivious to the debate. Why did Montaigne ignore mainstream philosophical books and debates? Because his interest in philosophy was primarily instrumental, not fundamental. His modern mentality shows in his practical approach. He steered away from theoretical issues like most individuals do nowadays. Similarly, Montaigne’s modern mentality shows in his focus on first-hand experience. He wanted to draw conclusions first-hand, without distortions and inaccuracies introduced by third parties. Montaigne’s use of the first person is neither a literary nor a philosophical invention, but his tone is indisputably modern. It breaks with the timidity of prior authors, who had seldom used the first person to acknowledge their errors, fears, inadequacies and frustration. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaignes-impact-on-early-modern-philosophy/

When asked about someone’s contribution to philosophy, I reply by giving a list of his innovations. I want to underline the new concepts that he brought forth, the intellectual connections that nobody else had made until that point. In the case of Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592), I couldn’t point to any innovation. He didn’t put forward any new concept nor did he make any new intellectual connection. Thus, I don’t share the view that he contributed to early modern philosophy. Montaigne is an extraordinary author in many aspects, great in erudition and wisdom, but not a philosophical innovator. If anything, he looked at the past more than he was looking at the future. He had drawn his more enlightened ideas from antiquity in the formulations given by Seneca (4 BC-65 AD), Plutarch (46-120 AD) or Aristotle (384-322 BC). Even his theological views draw more from medievalism than from modernity. Nevertheless, Montaigne surpassed all his predecessors in a singular area: his passion from balance and perspective; no one in prior centuries had devoted so vast efforts to looking at both sides of every issue. I regard Montaigne in this respect as astonishingly modern, but more in terms of personal development than of philosophy. In order to prove my point, I’m going to refer to the only work of Montaigne that pre-existed his compiled essays, but that he published as one of them, no doubt because he was immensely proud of its contents. Montaigne had written the “Apology for Raymond Sebond” years before he decided to abandon his legal career to relocate to the countryside and devote himself to research and writing. In the “Apology for Raymond Sebond,” we find that Montaigne’s personal philosophy had already congealed. It was not a rectilinear, symmetrical intellectual construction, but did the job beautifully. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaignes-contribution-to-early-modern-philosophy/

In assessing cultural influences, I find it more conclusive to look at philosophical values than at anecdotes and artifices of style. Thinkers leave behind ethical systems to live by, and the very best of those thinkers build intellectual systems to support their values. Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) belongs to the group that left behind ethical guidelines, practical and tangible, but roving and disorderly. Why? Because he cared for finding the path to happiness, but not for the implicit metaphysics, epistemology, politics and aesthetics. Due to his philosophical limitations, Montaigne has exerted a narrow influence on French literature and cultural identity. It would be an exaggeration to claim a vast influence from ideas, values and behavioural models that we can barely characterise. I am not underrating Montaigne’s work. My goal is to place it in the right context, so that we can benefit from its wisdom. I would see little benefit in going on philosophical tangents that are only thinly related to Montaigne’s purpose and logic. Let us take for instance Montaigne’s essay “On three good women.” Montaigne was in his mid-forties when he wrote this essay. His philosophical views were finalised and complete. In the ensuing decade, they would not evolve one inch. Montaigne’s purpose in this essay is straightforward. He just wants to illustrate virtuous behaviour by using three prominent historical anecdotes. Before speaking of Montaigne’s influence on French literature and cultural identity, let us pass review to those three examples. First, the widow of Ephesus. Her story was immortalised by Petronius (27-66 AD) in his “Satyricon.” Petronius tells us that, when her husband died, she felt such profound grief that she vowed to lock herself in his tomb and starve to death. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaignes-impact-on-french-literature-and-cultural-identity/

Few philosophers in history have analysed the advantages, disadvantages, and consequences of solitude. Seneca is one of those few. I regard his observations and advice in this area as particularly worthy. Seneca wrote the essay “On the Tranquillity of the Soul” precisely to explain how to achieve peace of mind. Solitude is one of his prescriptions, but we must first grasp how to benefit from it. We must first learn to employ solitude to increase our self-reliance and self-confidence. Modern readers may find the format of “On the Tranquillity of the Soul” somewhat annoying. It’s a philosophical essay, but Seneca wrote some parts of it in quasi-dialogue format. Those resemble a conversation he had held with his friend Serenus. Why did Seneca employ partly a quasi-dialogue format? Because it was fashionable at that time and easier to write. I regard Seneca’s choice as generally sound. On the one hand, Seneca was imitating the dialogue format employed by Plato (427-347 BC). Although his style is more concrete and less poetic than Plato’s, Seneca cannot escape the artificiality that ensues from imaginary conversations. I find, however, that the fact that Seneca chose to name his conversation partner “Serenus” renders their exchanges on the subject of serenity somewhat artificial. On the other hand, the dialogue format enabled Seneca to put his ideas in writing fairly quickly. He didn’t need to devise a careful, structured progression of consistent arguments. Seneca addressed one point after another, rather disorderly and repetitively, like in real-life conversations. The result is not philosophical clockwork, but covers the subject well enough. In the essay, Serenus complains about anxiety and worry like people nowadays often complain. He describes himself as disoriented and unable to make decisions. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/why-seneca-praised-solitude/

There is a perfect recipe for never getting angry or annoyed. If we stop caring and become indifferent, we won’t experience irritation when things don’t go our way. The problem with this recipe is that it will also destroy our motivation for achieving success and happiness. Seneca reflected extensively about the cause of anger and irritation. He viewed those as the root of evil and violence in general. He wrote that, if we steer away from anger and keep a cool head, we will do ourselves a great favour. In his essay “On Anger,” Seneca characterised anger as a form of mental illness. He was referring to hot, explosive ire. I would not put minor feelings of irritation in the same category. Seneca condemned all sorts of irrational anger, irrespective of reasons or context. He did not differentiate between the anger felt by a drunken fool or an irrational bully. Irrational is simply irrational. All his examples though portray evil people, not those who have been wronged. I understand why Seneca concentrated on the former. In his lifetime, he must have witnessed a great deal of injustices, but rarely seen any real chance of remedying them. When Seneca categorises anger as temporary insanity, he could have referred to King Cambyses II of Persia (558-522 BC), who got enraged while he was drunk and killed a boy for no reason. Similarly, he could have recalled how Alexander the Great (356-323 BC) became extremely angry because he had been criticised by one of his best generals. Alexander reacted by killing the man on the spot, even if the criticism had been sound and well-intended. I would have used those two cases to illustrate Seneca’s categorisation of temporary insanity, precisely because they do not typify everyday angry reactions. Seneca maintained the view that anger is irrational and superfluous, and that we should eradicate it completely, but I find his argument weak and unrealistic. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/senecas-quotes-about-anger/

The question assumes that people are still reading books in our century, instead of watching movies, playing video-games, or practising sports. Indeed, a percentage of the population still enjoys reading. Those are the only ones who purchase books. Thus, the question is wrongly formulated. Instead of asking why we should read Seneca today, I should have asked why we should read Seneca’s books instead of books by other authors. My answer entails two aspects. First, Seneca is giving a detailed, practical exposition of the Stoic philosophy, which can prove very beneficial to our life. Second, because Seneca wisely avoided mistakes made by other Stoics philosophers. Let me explain these two aspects by means of an example. I am going to compare Seneca with Aulus Persius Flaccus (34-62 AD), a Stoic poet, to illustrate the uniqueness of Seneca’s exposition of Stoicism. In contrast to Persius and the other Stoics engaging in social criticism, Seneca regarded philosophy as an individual recipe. He wanted to provide a formula for happiness for himself and his readers, irrespective of the overall state of society. Seneca was conscious of his unique perspective in this area. He wrote extensively, but never bothered to give prescriptions for a perfect world. He knew that individuals will always have to face challenges, and wanted to develop a solid philosophy to cope with those. Persius held a different view, one shared by many Stoics in Ancient Rome. He took upon himself the task of criticising the severe problems of society, but declared himself incapable of solving them. As a result, he fell into passivity and resignation. Seneca’s philosophy is proactive and prompts us to develop good intellectual and physical habits. The purpose of his ideas is to heal spiritual wounds and strengthen the mind. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/why-read-seneca-today/

Few people read books written a hundred years ago. Even fewer show interest in books written two thousand years ago. I am one of those exceptions, one of the few who regularly devotes time to reading Seneca. I love reading Seneca’s essays and his Letters to Lucilius because they deliver one important benefit: They prompt me to reassess my priorities. Seneca’s insights give me the strength to quit unpromising projects, concentrate on the key objectives, and use my time more productively. In his 5th and 20th Letters to Lucilius, Seneca presented the principle of moderation, and explained its universal, perennial interest. It doesn’t matter where we live, which profession we practise, or how old we are. We can all benefit from embracing moderation in thinking and action, argued Seneca. Thanks to his moderate policies, the Roman Emperor Augustus (63 BC-14 AD) achieved prosperity and stability. His successors abandoned his policies and almost ruined the Empire. Moderation enables us to employ our energies wisely. If we steer away from high-risk projects and extreme emotions, we’ll maintain our capacity to think clearly and work effectively. For Seneca, moderation constitutes the pillar of wisdom. In the 48th Letter to Lucilius, he warns us against blind passions. I find the lesson harder to practise than to grasp intellectually. When someone experiences success, he will face strong and frequent temptations to abandon moderation. He will see right away the advantages of immoderate action, but the drawbacks might remain hidden. Even well-educated persons can fall prey to the enticements of immoderate action. The Macedonian prince Alexander (356-323 BC), educated by Aristotle, first grew into a well-balanced youth, but changed when his father died. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/the-main-benefit-from-reading-seneca-today/

Before devoting time to reading a classical work, it is fair to ask about its relevance today. Why should I devote my energy to reading a classic? What lessons can I possibly learn from an author who lived centuries ago? Michel de #montaigne (1533-1592) is one of the few classics that passes this test with flying colours. What is the relevance level of his works today? My answer is: hundred per cent; each time that I re-read his essays, I learn new things; I mean useful, #practical things, not empty speculations. I would rather prove my case by means of an example. For this purpose, I’m going to refer to Montaigne’s essay “Various events of the same counsel.” The contemporary translation of the title is “On applying the same principle to various cases.” Montaigne’s goal is to elucidate the best method for making decisions. He was well aware that most individuals lack a fixed method for making decisions. Sometimes, they think things through and choose the safest course of action. Other times, they trust their feelings. On other occasions, they follow someone else’s advice, or simply imitate what other people are doing. Montaigne lived in the sixteenth century, but the question in his essay is perfectly applicable today. What is the best #method for making decisions? Should we stick to principles, or adopt a pragmatic, case-by-case approach? Let me underline that, when Montaigne wrote this essay, he was primarily writing for himself. He wanted to find an answer to this question because he considered it important for his own happiness. If I can make better decisions, he reasoned, I’ll avoid errors and obtain better results. Can I employ the same principle each time and reach the correct decision, or is it unrealistic to expect #principles to work on every occasion? Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaignes-relevance-today/

Until recently, society used to hold old individuals in high regard. It was recognised that wisdom comes from experience, and that learning from other people’s mistakes is more practical than making our own. Michel de #montaigne (1533-1592) made it his life’s mission to compile the wisdom of the past. He devoted twenty years of his life to writing essays, condensing the wisdom of #aristotle (384-322 BC), #seneca (4 BC-65 AD), and other ancient Greek and Roman sources. It is fair to ask whether the lessons from ancient authors are still relevant today. In fact, people had asked the same question in the sixteenth century, when Montaigne was researching and writing his essays. Montaigne had not failed to ask himself this question, but he was very particular in the way he looked for answers. Since he had fallen prey to delusions all too often, he always wanted to consider both sides of any issue. Even if he felt pretty certain of the answer, he would still go through the arguments that contradicted his views. He enjoyed playing devil’s advocate against himself and wouldn’t proclaim victory until he had disarmed his intellectual opponents. “The aim of life is to live happily and serenely,” Montaigne wrote, but this is only possible if we are aware of what we are doing. Like Aristotle in his “Nicomachean Ethics,” Montaigne regarded happiness as the goal, and philosophy as the path. Montaigne considered wisdom as the shortcut to happiness, in particular the wisdom from ancient sources and old people. In his essay “On experience,” he reaffirms the importance of learning from our personal #history and from history in general. “We learned best through trial and error,” noted Montaigne, “because that’s the natural way to learn.” He recalls that it took him some falls to learn horse-riding, but as he progressed, the falls became rarer. He eventually grew skilful enough to ride without thinking. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/the-one-reason-why-michel-de-montaigne-remains-relevant-today/

The process of philosophical development is similar to the process of learning to walk after you have suffered an injury. It takes lots of training for your muscles to work properly and in a coordinated manner. The learning process can prove tough, but works fine if you are willing to put in the hours; there are ways to accelerate and shorten the process, and from those ways, the most effective is the comparison of concepts between various philosophers. Comparisons will help you understand aspects that you had not considered before. It will sharpen and speed up your mind to an extent that you had so far regarded as impossible. In the case of #aristotle ’s theory of the soul, there is no better teaching method than comparing it to Plato’s theory of the soul. #plato , who had been a student of #socrates , taught in his school that the soul is immortal and that it preexists before entering the body. Plato further taught that the soul is on a quest for truth and knowledge, which it can acquire by remembering eternal truths encountered before birth. Plato named those eternal truths or perfect abstractions “Forms.” When Christianity began to spread in the earlier years of the Roman Empire, the soul played a central role similar to the one it had played in Plato’s philosophy. Christianity teaches that the soul is created by God and that is thus immortal. It regards the soul as the seat of all moral responsibility and teaches that the soul survives physical death. After death, the qualities acquired by the soul will lead to its salvation or punishment. Similarly, Islam regards the #soul as a person’s inner essence that will be judged in the afterlife. Depending on the qualities of the soul, a person will ascend to paradise or rot in hell. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/happiness-and-aristotles-theory-of-the-soul/

#aristotle ’s views on politics and #governance can be summed up in a few sentences: depending on the number of rulers (one, a few, everybody), political systems for the #commongood can be classified into monarchies, aristocracies, and polities. When rulers abuse their power, those three systems shall be named tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy. In order to prevent abuse of power, Aristotle advised to distribute power amongst the monarch, the aristocracy, and the people. The two paragraphs above summarise the very best Ancient Greek ideas in the area of politics and governance. Those ideas have exerted influence on Western #civilisation for hundreds of years. Still today, they continue to shape our views on how to govern society. Aristotle’s ideas have undergone attacks from many fronts, but before presenting those attacks, it is important to mention that Aristotle’s ideas constitute an elaboration of the criticisms against democracy raised by his predecessor #socrates (469-399 BC). Socrates never wrote any treatises, but we know of his ideas on politics and government through the writings of #plato (428-348 BC) and Xenophon (435-354 BC). Socrates was a sharp critic of Athenian democracy. He expected governance and politics to be guided by knowledge, wisdom, and moral virtue. Reality proved deeply disappointing because Athenian democracy was often guided by foolishness and emotions of all sorts. He was critical of Athenian democracy because it relied too much on rhetoric. Minorities suffered from the prejudice and mistakes of the majority, and the system did not offer them any possibility of redress. Socrates was against majority rule (democracy) because it only takes one skilful speaker to manipulate people’s emotions and make citizens vote against the common good. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/critics-of-aristotles-views-on-politics-and-governance/

In the next paragraphs, I am going to summarise the advice from #seneca about dealing with failure. He devoted a couple of decades to compiling his advice, not only from his personal experience, but also from other notable persons in the early Roman Empire. Seneca called for keeping adequate margins of error. I mean having a backup plan or sufficient resources to keep us above water even if the worst possible risks materialise. There is no need to become a paranoiac. It’s enough if we make a fair #assessment of the risks, and cover the most likely and lethal. History shows us, for instance, how the Roman general Pompey (106-48 BC) had painted himself into a corner. After burning all the bridges, he bet his future on one card at the Battle of Pharsalus. When Pompey lost the battle, he had nowhere safe to go, and was pushed into suicide shortly after. He would have fared better if he had devised a plan B, or if he had covered his risks in some way, avoiding total disaster. I miss in Seneca consistent explanations about how to keep reasonable margins of error in life. He should have analysed examples such as Pompey, showing that they had made a mistake. I also consider that #socrates (470-399 BC) had made the same mistake. Pompey had been foolish to bet his life on one card, but if we examine Socrates’ trial, we find exactly the same pattern. It didn’t make any sense for Socrates to let himself be spuriously accused and prosecuted. Socrates should have left #athens at an earlier stage. As soon as he learned that his enemies were plotting to accuse him, he should have left Athens and never returned again. There was no need for Socrates to play a game in which he could only lose, a game in which he had no backup plan and no resources for an #emergency exit. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/what-seneca-taught-about-dealing-with-failure/

Most philosophers get it wrong about revenge, and #seneca was no exception. In his essays titled “On Anger” and “On Clemency,” he recommended to forget #injury and insult, and abandon the #idea of revenge. Seneca gave extensive #arguments against revenge when conceived as warlike. He said that, if we seek revenge, we’ll become “slaves to our passions.” He categorised revengeful individuals as irrational, short-sighted, and self-destructive. His essay “On Anger” shows the problems generated by revenge, which I would categorise as an #emotional plague that has inflicted vast damage in history. Seneca calls for letting go of revengeful attempts and thoughts. Was Seneca right in his admonitions? His condemnation of revenge is similar to the Christian doctrine. We can regard him as a precursor or fellow traveller of Christianity in this respect. I must however dissent on this matter. I don’t share Seneca’s recommendations in this area because his arguments are weak. In his argumentation, he tells us many stories, but those remain unconvincing. For instance, in his essay “On Clemency,” Seneca praises Julius #caesar (100-44 BC) for pardoning his enemies instead of taking revenge. Caesar did indeed pardon many opponents, including Brutus and Cassius. However, those two later plotted against him and ended up assassinating him. Seneca’s praise for Caesar's magnanimity does not match the course of events. It seems obvious that Caesar should have taken revenge, however mild, to prevent his opponents from plotting against him in the future. His magnanimity did him in, one could argue. I wonder why Seneca did not recount the story of Licinius in this respect. If we trust the traditional version of the story, the poet Licinius had insulted Emperor #augustus (63 BC- 14 AD) and feared being punished with exile or worse. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/senecas-thoughts-on-revenge/

Let us beware of people who preach passivity because they might be trying to slow us down. If they have already taken advantage of the situation, they might be preaching resignation to prevent their victims from taking action. Seneca condemned revenge, but did his idea of revenge also include creative, peaceful solutions? When he wrote about revenge, he meant bitterness, aggression and chaos. I tend to think that his conception was aggressive and warlike. If we give revenge a narrow definition, it is no wonder that #seneca was against it. I’m also against it and I assume that my readers will also be against it. However, we can give revenge an alternative definition, one that includes peaceful, clever, constructive action to redress the grievances. I want to emphasise the peaceful character of this approach. If someone has suffered damage, he should not just remain passive. Instead, he should review the alternatives, look for a creative, peaceful solution, and implement it without delay. Seneca’s calls for passivity and resignation are misguided. I share his condemnation of aggressiveness, but there is a broad range of possibilities that he never explored. One can conceive revenge as peaceful, #creative action to bring back #balance and fairness. In his 89th Letter to Lucilius, Seneca employs other narrow definitions that are also false. He mentions Crates of Thebes, a Cynic philosopher, who criticised formal logic because it does not teach us how to live. Crates was actually criticising #aristotle (384-322 BC), who had written his treatises on logic one generation earlier. The conception of #logic employed by Crates is too narrow, because it ignores the connection between logic and ethics. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/was-seneca-wrong-about-revenge/

#forgiveness has become the universal recipe for betrayal, at least theoretically. Moral leaders tell their flock to forget what they have suffered, purify their hearts, and move on with their lives. In the early Roman Empire, #seneca was the most notable #philosopher to preach forgiveness as a recipe for dealing with betrayal. His recommendations are close to those formulated by Christianity. Actually, I should categorise Seneca’s recommendations as “how to cope with betrayal,” not “how to deal with betrayal.” I consider the verb “coping” more suitable for defining Seneca’s ideas because they aim solely at consoling the victim. Seneca fails to identify the root cause for the problem. He is exhorting readers to forget the injustices they have suffered, so that they are not consumed by rage and bitterness. I cannot endorse Seneca’s #recommendations in this respect because they are deeply irrational. How does Seneca expect to solve problems if he does not address them? If the traitor is not charged and prosecuted, will he not perpetrate his crime again and again? Consider for instance the case of Emperor Nero (37-68 AD) and his multiple treasons, abuses and human rights violations. I am going to enumerate just a few, to give readers an idea of the extent of his crimes. Nero’s most despicable betrayal is the one he perpetrated against general Gnaeus Domitius Corbulo (7-67 AD), who had earned an impeccable reputation for his engineering talents and for his courage. Corbulo had led Roman troops into successful campaigns in Germany and Armenia. During those wars, he had ordered the construction of water canals and military forts, and left troops behind to prevent those provinces from rebelling. When Corbulo returned to Rome, people had expected Nero to award him the highest honours. Why did Nero instead? He ordered Corbulo to commit suicide. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/seneca-on-dealing-with-betrayal/

Even the smartest, most enlightened humans are doomed to suffer from envy and jealousy. #seneca analysed the problem and came up with an imperfect solution. He spent considerable time reflecting about this matter, but his deficient logic prevented him from seeing the truth. I consider it important to study Seneca’s #philosophy on this issue, and see where he went wrong exactly. Understanding his error is a prerequisite for finding the correct solution, one that works in real life. Why did Seneca oppose envy and jealousy? He spelled out his reasons in his Letters to Lucilius. The problem with envy and jealousy, explained Seneca, is that they generate “double suffering.” In the first place, the victims suffer because of their failures, setbacks and unfulfilled desires. Secondly, victims will render their #emotional #suffering more acute by comparing themselves with successful people. Victims of envy and jealousy feel doubly mistreated by life. Not only have they failed to achieve their goals, but on top of that, they must witness how other people, often less deserving, appear to have been blessed by luck. Seneca analysed the problem and blamed it on the victims, that is, on their unfulfilled desires. Envy and #jealousy wouldn’t exist, he reasoned, if people felt content with their station in life. Let’s ponder Seneca’s conclusion for a second. If people did not look beyond their nose, they would not see possibilities for #improvement and would not feel envious of others, deservedly or not. They would not feel the emotional pain of defeat, inferiority and discontent. They wouldn’t regard other people’s success as unfair because they would remain unaware of what’s going on in the world. Even #alexanderthegreat (356-323 BC) had suffered from unfulfilled desires, argues Seneca in his 9th Letter to Lucilius. I find this argument particularly spurious, but let’s take it at face value, so that we can assess Seneca’s logic. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/seneca-on-overcoming-envy-and-jealousy/

People frequently ask me what is the point of studying philosophy? My answer is always short. A few words suffice. The point of studying philosophy is learning to see. Once you get familiar with key #philosophical doctrines, such as those put forward by Aristotle, you will understand the world better and make better decisions. A good example of “learning to see” is the theory of the soul. The concept of the soul (“anima” in Latin) has been a central theme in #philosophy and theology throughout history. When people ask about the soul, they want to address key aspects of what it means to be human and what differentiates humans from dogs, cats, monkeys, and other animals. Humans have a soul. Animals and plants do not, or at least, not fully. Aristotle did not invent the concept of the soul. The concept was already existing in older cultures such as those of ancient Egyptians and Hinduism. In those cultures, people believed that the #soul was the animating energy or force behind life, also including human life. For the ancient Egyptians and Hindus, the soul involved ideas of immortality, reincarnation, and the soul’s journey after death. Ancient Egyptians practised mummification of corpses to safeguard their soul in the afterlife. The #mummy was meant to give the soul a physical place of residence, so to speak. In ancient Greece, a century before Aristotle, #pythagoras put forward that the soul was immortal and could migrate from one body to another. In this regard, Pythagoras was imitating the philosophy of Hinduism. #aristotle devoted a full book to the concept of the soul. The Latin title of this work is “De Anima,” which means “About the Soul). Aristotle wrote this book when he was still a student of Plato’s or shortly after leaving Plato’s school. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/aristotles-theory-of-the-soul/

It is naive to believe that history advances only in a single direction. If that was the case, people wouldn’t repeat #mistakes made in the past. If that was the case, knowledge would grow with each generation and lessons would never be forgotten. Unfortunately, historical and #philosophical lessons are often forgotten. #aristotle came up with the two key ideas of balanced governance, but history has done everything possible to wipe them out from people’s memory. Aristotle’s first principle of governance is that rulers should work for the common good. He didn’t exclude any government form as long as the ruler keeps the #commongood as the top priority. If this condition was fulfilled, Aristotle had no fundamental problem with monarchy, the rule by one person, with aristocracy, the rule by a few persons, or with polity or democracy, the rule by every citizen. This lesson seems easy and self-evident enough, so that it is never forgotten, right? You could not counter Aristotle’s advice credibly, right? Actually not. In the mid-eighteenth century, the writings of Jean-Jacques #rousseau (1712-1778) created a vast confusion about the purpose of governance. Rousseau expressed his views on politics and government in his two works “The Social Contract” and “Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men.” Like other eighteenth-century thinkers, he justified governance by means of a fictional social contract. According to this doctrine, humans had been inherently good when living in a state of nature, but then grew corrupted by #civilisation and society. Rousseau argued that the legitimacy of government should rest on a social contract that reconciles individual freedoms with the needs of the collective. In this way, Rousseau focused on the mechanics of governance and completely forgot about Aristotle’s requirement of the common good Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/the-two-keys-in-aristotles-views-on-politics-and-governance/

If you contest a principle, it follows that you are contesting its consequences. If you disagree with Aristotle’s #metaphysics (the #principles of identity and causality), you’ll inevitably have to reject his theory of justice. According to Aristotle, justice is a #virtue (habitual practice) consisting of giving to each person his due. His definition rests on the principle of identity (that a man possesses moral and physical characteristics that define him) and causality (that he will behave according to those characteristics). If you accept Aristotle’s principles of identity and causality, it makes sense to give everyone his due because you are relying on causality. If the person has earned his wealth and reputation, it is just that those are protected. On the contrary, if he attempts to rob or harm someone else’s, it is fair that he is punished. The critique against #aristotle 's theory of justice constitutes a critique of his metaphysics. It represents a rejection of identity and causality. People who reject Aristotle’s definition of #justice are in fact saying that persons don’t build their own #character (no identity) and that, as a result, it is impossible or pointless to determine who has earned what (no causality). After Aristotle’s death in 322 BC, the next generation began to question the principles of identity and causality, and rejected Aristotle’s concept of justice. #epicurus (341-271 BC) completely distorted Aristotle’s idea of justice. Instead of viewing it as a major virtue, Epicurus did not even consider it worth pursuing. He talked extensively of pursuing #serenity and happiness, but defined them in a vacuum. He regarded them as individual experiences detached from morality, causality, or justice. Epicurus considered justice a tool (legal procedure) with the sole purpose of preventing and settling conflicts in society. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/critique-of-aristotles-theory-of-justice/

When Arthur #schopenhauer (1788-1860) began to question mainstream philosophical ideas, he expected heavy #opposition and criticism. In this respect, he was not disappointed. Almost all twentieth-century thinkers have opposed Schopenhauer and his theory of the will. Hefty opposition was no surprise to Schopenhauer precisely because he had presented his ideas as improvements on those of #immanuelkant (1724-1804), Friedrich #hegel (1770-1831), and other philosophers. Schopenhauer held Kant in high esteem, but despised Hegel profoundly. He considered Hegel a charlatan. When Hegel died due to an epidemic in Berlin, Schopenhauer was jubilant. He only lamented that Hegel had not died earlier, so that the world would have been spared his stupid ideas. At the start of the epidemic, both Hegel and Schopenhauer had been living in Berlin. While Hegel had remained in #berlin and succumbed to the epidemic, Schopenhauer had relocated to #frankfurt at the first sign of danger. As it was typical of him and his philosophy, Schopenhauer had steered away from excessive risks. When he had first read the news about the epidemic, he did not know its true severity, but immediately decided to relocate. Let the fools #risk their lives, if they wish, Schopenhauer had concluded; let people play with fire if they find it amusing, but you should not risk your life or your health in those games. Schopenhauer had quickly taken the right decision because he was relying on a correct philosophy. Hegel had committed a lethal error because he was relying on wrong ideas. Whether you adopt Schopenhauer’s theory of #knowledge or not can have serious consequences. In critical situations, it is a question of life-or-death to make good choices. In the face of severe danger, improvisation, #wishfulthinking and self-delusion may cause severe harm; they can push you in the wrong direction and lead you to quasi-suicidal behaviour. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/opposition-to-schopenhauers-theory-of-knowledge/

While most nineteenth-century #philosophers focused their efforts on epistemology and social ethics, Arthur #schopenhauer (1788–1860) stands alone in his concern for individual well- being and happiness. He rejected the trend set by Kant, Fichte and #hegel because he could not see any practical application. Those three thinkers are categorised in #philosophy books as “idealistic,” but I think that it’s more accurate to call them “otherworldly.” Kant’s theory of the categorical imperative is useless in real life. Nobody can take decisions at a reasonable speed if every time he has to check if the underlying principles are universal, eternal and categorical. Kant’s proposal was nonsense. Similarly, Fichte’s concept of a “metaphysical ego” is just a delusion. No supernatural consciousness is driving nations in a particular direction. No metaphysical force prompts people to make the right decision every time. Fichte was totally wrong. Hegel is possibly the worst of them all because he worked so hard to undermine Aristotelian traditions. His writings built a pandemonium of pseudo-concepts. His theory of the absolute spirit driving history forward has no bearing in reality. Schopenhauer held idealist thinkers at a prudent distance. In his works “About the fourfold root of the principle of sufficient reason”(1814), “The world as will and representation” (1818), and “Parerga and Paralipomena” (1851), he proposed practical steps to increase #selfawareness and steer away from problems. Let us pass review to Schopenhauer’s key recommendations on human happiness. Schopenhauer advised and practised #selfdiscipline as a way of life. He made the effort to develop beneficial habits, and practised them day after day, making no exceptions. In this respect, Schopenhauer was following Seneca’s prescription. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/analysis-of-schopenhauers-philosophy-of-happiness/

I can summarise in one sentence the #philosophy of life put forward by Arthur #schopenhauer (1788–1860); my summary is the following: “Unless you make steady efforts to improve and protect yourself, chances are that bad luck will wipe you out.” Mainstream philosophers call Schopenhauer a #pessimist and consider his work uninteresting. They argue that Schopenhauer had little concern for social issues and that, for that reason, his ideas are unsuited for today’s world. I would argue that the opposite is true. If you devote time to studying Schopenhauer, you will learn to appreciate the finesse and soundness of his analysis. His works provide insights that are not available elsewhere, and are #intellectually stimulating. Besides, Schopenhauer was an excellent, polished writer. In his books, you’ll find a seamless compilation of wisdom drawn from Christianity, #buddhism and Hinduism. Very few philosophers in #history are as practically oriented as Schopenhauer. He really disliked wasting his own time and the time of his readers. In his books, he aims at providing valid and timely advice to solve the reader’s problems. Schopenhauer based his philosophy of life on a simple idea, namely, the existence of a life force (“the will”) that drives all living entities towards survival, reproduction and the pursuit of short-term pleasure. The theory of the will is presented in Schopenhauer’s books “About the fourfold root of the principle of sufficient reason” (1814) and “The world as will and representation” (1818). His description of the will is very graphic. He calls it “blind and insatiable” to indicate the impossibility to satisfy people in search of short-term pleasures. They are like a dog chasing its own tail. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauers-philosophy-of-life/

Every artwork entails magnification. It blows some aspects of reality out of proportion to underline their significance from the creator’s viewpoint. Other aspects are minimised, ignored, distorted or blurred. #seneca was a playwright before becoming a #stoic philosopher. It is enlightening to study his plays because they announce the principles of Stoicism, magnify its powerful insights, and attempt to cover up its deficiencies. The plays written by Seneca fall in the category “tragedies” and, to a great extent, they recreate historical or religious tales from Ancient Greece. In the first century of our era, educated Romans were familiar with those tales although few of them could actually read Greek. Seneca was in his last decades (the precise date is uncertain) when he wrote his play “Medea,” the story of a married woman betrayed by her husband, Jason. When he goes away with his new love, #medea takes revenge by killing their two sons. At the end of the play, Medea escapes, leaving behind Jason to suffer for the loss. Her physical escape doesn’t mean that she doesn’t suffer herself. Emotionally, she experiences even more pain than Jason because she had committed double infanticide. “Medea” condemns exaggerated emotions by showing their destructive power. In his #philosophical works, Seneca will do exactly the same: He will condemn all kinds of feelings, calling for moderation or resignation. According to Stoicism, Medea should have quietly accepted her abandonment by Jason. She should have regarded her fate as inevitable, as a dictate of destiny, and focused her efforts on rebuilding her life without Jason. However, I must disagree with the Stoic interpretation of the story. Indeed, Medea should not have killed her children, but the #ultimate cause of her suffering had been her decision to marry Jason. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/philosophical-lessons-from-senecas-tragedies/

#patience and #endurance have become the archetypal #virtues of those who claim to be enlightened. When the situation gets from bad to worse, they are the first to recommend resignation, acceptance and passivity. #seneca is to blame for originating the passive #mentality that will accept anything, even the most outrageous abuses. That’s the mentality of inner serenity amidst turbulence and decay. Even in the face of severe setbacks, Seneca’s followers will look away while repeating to themselves beautiful mantras. All their energy will be focused inwards, making them indifferent to #misery and pain. That’s the doctrine Seneca was preaching. In his essay “On the Shortness of Life,” Seneca advises us to concentrate on what’s important, so that we can draw the most #happiness from life. He argues that “the human #lifespan is long enough if we do not waste it on secondary matters.” I have translated Seneca’s Latin text by “secondary matters” instead of “short-term pleasures” or “fleeting interests” because I find “secondary matters” closer to Seneca’s original intent. Seneca was recommending us to stop chasing shiny objects, so that we can concentrate our energies and resources on major achievements. I endorse this insight, but how does it correlate with Seneca’s exhortation to be patient in the face of adversity? The contradiction is obvious, and I can only wonder why it has been ignored in commentaries about Seneca’s philosophy. I really fail to understand how Stoic thinkers can simultaneously favour activity and passivity, initiative and resignation, clarity and blindness. In order to make sense of Seneca’s ideas about patience, we need the “Nicomachean Ethics” and “Eudemian Ethics” written by Aristotle (384-322 BC). Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/seneca-and-the-art-of-patience/

#stoicism is often presented as a purely reactive philosophy. Its role is to toughen the soul for enduring setbacks, adversity, and eventually death; and its goal is the reduction of emotional pain, devoting little energy to solving the root problems. #seneca was the most prolific Stoic author in #ancientrome , but his recommendations are far more dynamic than those made by previous Stoic thinkers such as #zeno of Citium (334-262 BC). I would define their difference as follows: Where Zeno had advised to retreat and quit, Seneca called for firmness, serenity, and recovery to the maximum possible extent. Zeno viewed every battle as lost in advance. His philosophy aims at consoling the victim for the incurred losses, telling him that it could have been worse, and that his #suffering is not so relevant anyway because we are all going to die some day. In times of trouble, Zeno prepared himself to deal with the worst case. His efforts were primarily devoted to #psychological counselling. He employed grandiose words, but did very little in terms of practical action. Essentially, it was all talk. In contrast, Seneca will consider a battle lost only when the situation is truly hopeless, that is, when there is absolutely no objective chance of turning the situation around; life is already hard enough to give up what we have without resistance. Seneca’s 18th Letter to Lucilius presents the idea of Stoicism as a springing board to better things; the purpose of #philosophy is preparation, not consolation; it’s all about using adversity for growing stronger and achieving happiness in the future. In the 5th Letter to Lucilius, Seneca recounts that Socrates (470-399 BC) had adopted an inexpensive lifestyle by eating simple meals, wearing simple clothes and walking barefoot. At first sight, it seems that Socrates had embraced poverty and discomfort out of religious conviction, but Seneca corrects that impression by telling us that #socrates had a goal in mind. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/the-practice-of-senecas-art-of-patience/

The concept of #stress in our century is dramatically different from the concepts in prior centuries. People in the Middle Ages or in Ancient Rome wouldn’t have understood our concerns for issues such as noise pollution and work overload. Seneca wrote extensively about #worries and preoccupations, but those would involve life-or-death threats. I am referring to people worrying about not having enough food to eat tomorrow, or being killed in an upcoming battle. Nonetheless, Seneca’s insights on this matter have perennial value. Few philosophers in history had devoted so much effort to understanding the cause of preoccupations and anxiety, and devising methods to combat them effectively. In his 53rd Letter to Lucilius, #seneca mentions the aristocrat Gaius Cilnius Maecenas (70-8 BC) and his preoccupation with death. Maecenas was constantly consulting physicians about how to prevent #sickness and prolong his lifespan. Nevertheless, Maecenas passed away at sixty-two, which is a normal lifespan for wealthy individuals in #ancientrome . If Maecenas had lived in our century, he might have received better advice and lived a few decades more. Seneca considered that, due to his acute concern with death, Maecenas had wasted precious time. Maecenas had devoted a large chunk of the present to worrying about the future, but in the end, he had not drawn any benefit. I must question Seneca’s argument at this point because we don’t really know if Maecenas had drawn any benefit. The fact that he passed away at sixty-two does not mean that his efforts had proven fruitless. We do not know if Maecenas would have lived a shorter life if he had not consulted those physicians. Or maybe his lifespan would have been the same, but the physicians had enabled him to stay healthy and avoid debilitating sickness until the end. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/seneca-on-overcoming-stress/

The reasons why #philosophy books trace the inception of existentialism to Arthur #schopenhauer (1788–1860) are rather weak. Nonetheless, they have attained the status of mainstream opinion and deserve a robust refutation. I am going to address the arguments given in philosophy books and refute them one by one. My objective is to bring new light to a question that has been wrongly declared settled. Schopenhauer himself never declared himself to be an existentialist, not anything close to that term. You will not find such a concept in his works. Neither “On the fourfold root of the principle of sufficient reason”(1814), “The world as will and representation” (1818), or “Parerga and Paralipomena” (1851) contain any statements in favour of existentialist philosophy. Schopenhauer came up with a clear #philosophy to explain how the world works. His ground-braking theory of the will (“life force”) as a cosmological engine does explain events in the past and in the present. In contrast to existentialists, Schopenhauer rejected ideas of #randomness and lack of meaning. He acknowledged the major role played by the will in human decisions, but supplied advice to help his readers make the best of their lives. Even when confronted with setbacks, Schopenhauer never characterised human life as absurd. He never fell into the #nihilism of existentialists such as Albert #camus (1913-1960) or Jean-Paul #sartre (1905-1980). Although philosophy books label Schopenhauer a precursor of #existential anxiety, the truth is that you will not find traces of existential despair in Schopenhauer’s works. Indeed, he was realistic in stating that many goals cannot be achieved because life is too short or resources insufficient. Yet, his goal was not to preach nihilism, but to help his readers focus their energies in areas that can generate more happiness. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauer-and-existentialism/

The question of how you know what you know is far from trivial. #epistemology is the branch of #philosophy dealing with this question. Arthur #schopenhauer (1788–1860) came up with a unique answer that has influenced later thinkers. In his early years, Schopenhauer had declared allegiance to the epistemological doctrines of #immanuelkant (1724-1804). I am referring to the theory of concept formation presented by Kant in his book “Critique of pure reason” (1781). In 1808, Schopenhauer published his PhD dissertation “On the fourfold root of the principle of sufficient reason,” stating his overall allegiance to Kant’s epistemology. However, there is one point where he had not endorsed Kant. On that point, Schopenhauer claimed that he was improving Kant’s epistemology, although in reality, he was nullifying one of the pillars of Kant’s “Critique of pure reason.” What was the point of discord between Schopenhauer and Kant? What drove Schopenhauer to build a new philosophical system almost from scratch? Schopenhauer diverged from Kant on the nature of “things-in-themselves” or “noumena.” Those Kantian terms refer to the ultimate #reality behind appearances. Kant had employed the word “noumena” to refer to truths, ideas, concepts and principles that aren’t directly derived from perception. For instance, Kant had argued that #ethical truths cannot be derived from perception. In his “Critique of pure reason,” Kant had categorised ethical principles as “noumena” outside of human knowledge. In “Critique of Practical Reason” (1788), Kant had softened his position. This time, he had theorised that ethical #principles could be inferred from “universal imperatives,” but his formula for arriving at “universal imperatives” is primarily subjective. In contrast, Schopenhauer affirmed that humans can acquire knowledge in all areas, provided that they take the will (“life force”) into account. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauer-and-knowledge/

The life and works of Arthur #schopenhauer (1788-1860) are giving us crucial insights on how to achieve happiness. To this end, he devoted years to studying Western and Eastern thinkers and compiling their best recommendations. Then he put them into practice and recorded what works and what doesn’t. Schopenhauer regarded the achievement of #happiness as a sequence of steps. The very first step consists of steering away from disaster. You absolutely want to avoid mistakes that cause severe harm to yourself and other people. How do you prevent or minimise large mistakes? By getting familiar with the theory of the will (“life force”) and adopting countermeasures to protect yourself. According to Schopenhauer, the will constitutes the largest obstacle to human happiness. Why? Because it prompts people to take short-sighted actions in the pursuit of pleasure. Thereby they expose themselves to high risks and forfeit their chances of a solid future. #schopenhauer outlined his philosophy in two books: “About the fourfold root of the principle of sufficient reason” (1814) and “The world as will and representation” (1818). In his later essays “Parerga and Paralipomena” (1851), he provides advice based on his philosophy. The theory of the will is Schopenhauer’s key contribution to the history of philosophy; he sustained that the will prevents us from attaining #happiness because it drives us to chase one goal after another, endlessly and without limit. It pushes us forward without paying attention to risks, costs and feasibility. The very first step to happiness, argued Schopenhauer, is to take control of your life. Don’t allow the will to push you in the wrong direction. Don’t allow it to drive you always further and further, until you eventually drop dead from exhaustion. According to Schopenhauer, we can increase our chances of happiness if we avoid excessive risk, exercise #selfdiscipline and make rational decisions. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauer-on-happiness/

Arthur #schopenhauer (1788-1860) would have been amused to see philosophers like Jean-Paul #sartre (1905-1980) theorise about #anxiety and personal authenticity. Sartre didn’t regard as self-evident that individuals are aware of their freedom and the need to make constant choices. In contrast to Sartre and other existentialists, Schopenhauer considered self-evident that #happiness is the #purpose of life; he had taken that idea from #aristotle (384-322 BC) and viewed it as obviously true. Schopenhauer didn’t spend a minute worrying about anxiety and personal authenticity because he viewed them as non-issues in the quest for personal happiness. He considered it healthy, reasonable and proper that people want to improve their lives. The objective of #philosophy is to help individuals make better choices and attain happiness, not to worry about non-issues. This point marks a major difference between Schopenhauer and existentialism. Existentialism is the product of a particular historical period that drove the world into collective trauma. It started at the end of World War I and reached its apex after World War II. People were facing massive physical destruction and couldn’t come up with any justification other than absurdity. If existentialism was a philosophical response to feelings of absurdity, I must first point out that the concept of #absurdity in life was foreign to Schopenhauer. It does not appear even once in his writings, in the sense employed by existentialism. Schopenhauer’s main works “About the fourfold root of the principle of sufficient reason” (1814), “The world as will and representation” (1818) and “Parerga and Paralipomena” (1851) acknowledge that life can be harsh at times, but not absurd. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/the-key-difference-between-schopenhauer-and-existentialism/

Although his lifestyle was unpretentious, modesty was not a characteristic of Arthur #schopenhauer (1788–1860). He did not hide that he regarded himself as a genius. He considered other philosophers, with few exceptions, as misguided fools. Why did Schopenhauer consider himself a genius? Surely not because of his productivity. In terms of output, he was not extraordinarily prolific, especially if compared with #plato and Aristotle. Schopenhauer only wrote three sizeable books: “About the fourfold root of the principle of sufficient reason” (1814), “The world as will and representation” (1818), and “Parerga and Paralipomena” (1851). He also wrote a few minor works, but I know many intellectuals far more prolific than Schopenhauer. His claim to genius rests on the quality of his #philosophical insights, not on the size of his literary output. Talented people, he said, can achieve targets that no one else can hit, but only geniuses can hit targets that no one else can conceive. Schopenhauer placed himself amongst the geniuses because of the depth of his insights. His theory of the will (“life force”) is based on widely observable facts, but nobody so far had put them together and drawn #universal conclusions. His #philosophy of life rests on the idea that the will drives all living creatures, relentlessly and inexorably, towards survival, reproduction, and the search for short-term pleasure. The idea is straightforward, but the consequences are earth-shattering. First of all, Schopenhauer contested the belief that everyone is seeking to further his own self-interest. That’s obviously not true, argued Schopenhauer, because history offers innumerable examples of individuals who make foolish #decisions and harm themselves. Think for instance of overweight individuals. Do you think that they have never heard that excessive weight is unhealthy? Of course they have. Of course they know the truth. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/analysis-of-schopenhauers-philosophy-of-life/

The ideas of Arthur Schopenhauer (1788–1860) on love and relationships contain fundamental mistakes. Schopenhauer did not devote sufficient attention to these matters. As a result, his observations and conclusions leave a lot to be desired. His conception of love and relationships is instinctual. They are driven by the will (“life force”), argues Schopenhauer, and this explains why people behave erratically when they fall in love. The will prompts them to pursue the beloved at any cost, and without thinking of the long-term consequences. Schopenhauer drew the wrong conclusion and rated all #love #relationships as doomed. He assumed that the dire influence of the will could not be counteracted and corrected, while in other areas, he had devised sound strategies to address exactly those same problems. A strong refutation of Schopenhauer’s romantic pessimism can be found in the works of the Ancient Roman author #ovid (43 BC–17 AD). His work “The art of love” addresses all the issues identified by #schopenhauer and offers proven solutions. Schopenhauer regarded it as very difficult to build lasting love relationships. He claimed to have witnessed first-hand the natural deterioration of relationships when the infatuation goes away. His views of #marriage were equally negative. Ovid’s approach to love was the exact opposite. He viewed relationships with a sense of joy, playfulness and celebration. It wasn’t a chore to court the beloved, but a wonderful challenge. Setbacks are not bitter, Ovid argued, as long as we regard them as learning experiences. In the area of love, Schopenhauer had lost his #philosophical objectivity due to his bad experience with Caroline Richter. It’s widely known that their relationships ended bitterly, leaving an unpleasant aftermath. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/refutation-of-schopenhauers-views-on-love-and-relationships/

More than two thousand years have passed since Seneca first defined his methods for overcoming anxiety, worry and other negative emotions. The context has changed, but his examples and recommendations remain valid. I am going to summarise those methods, sometimes quoting Seneca’s precise words and examples, and other times, putting the method in the context of our century. For the sake of clarity, when I present Seneca’s insights, I’m going to use modern terminology. #seneca didn’t employ words such as “stress” or “desensitisation,” but that’s how people call those concepts nowadays. Seneca’s first method is desensitisation. If we jump into a cold-water swimming pool, we will find it highly unpleasant in the winter, but we might get used to it little by little. We could try first with semi-cold water and increase the difficulty slowly until we achieve our goal. In his 53rd Letter to Lucilius, Seneca encourages readers to “become accustomed to difficulties” as a method for increasing their resilience. If we get used little by little to handle anxiety effectively, we will grow able to keep a cool head in difficult situations. Desensitisation may be physical, emotional, financial, etc. It entails becoming accustomed to discomfort, so that we become able to tolerate certain levels of #risk or preoccupation. I would describe desensitisation as a physical, emotional or financial learning curve. The purpose of desensitisation is to draw more joy from life by making ourselves more resilient. If we push our limits, we can do things better and faster due to our increased resilience. Seneca affirms in his 53rd Letter to Lucilius that we should fear wasting our life more than we fear death. Desensitisation can help us make the best of each day. Seneca recommends us to stop thinking about unlikely catastrophes. In his 13th Letter to Lucilius, he remarks that we tend to create lots of unnecessary #suffering for ourselves due to our exaggerated fears. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/senecas-methods-for-overcoming-stress/

For the most part, ancient techniques have become obsolete. We no longer use horses and triremes as our principal means of transportation. Neither do we build houses and roads according to the methods employed in Ancient Greece and Rome. However, we can still rely on anti-worry methods conceived by Seneca. Why have they remained effective? Because human nature has not changed since Ancient Rome. The changes in technology have raised our living standards, but many individuals still suffer from worry, preoccupation and other negative emotions. The passage of the centuries has rendered human existence easier, but has not diminished the percentage of the population that is affected by anxiety. #seneca held unorthodox views about worry and anxiety. He regarded those #emotional phenomena as problematic, but didn’t recommend running away from hardship. Instead, he devoted his efforts to severing the connection between hardship and negative emotions. In his 78th Letter to Lucilius, Seneca noted that #hardship can prove helpful if we allow it to #strengthen our mind. Even when we are not to blame for the hardship, it can still prove useful in the future. It can still render us stronger and more resilient. Seneca’s conception of hardship was different from ours. In Ancient Greece and Rome, it meant extreme physical privation or poverty. The concept would also encompass life-and-death threats such as war, shipwreck and severe illness. Training was Seneca’s preferred anti-worry method; he held the view that, if we train ourselves to become tougher, we will not fall prey to despair if bad turns to worse. If we get used to a modest lifestyle, we will not grow depressed if our revenue is sharply reduced. Seneca had followed this practice and attained good results. For instance, after his fiftieth birthday, he adopted the habit of walking barefoot and eating simple, inexpensive food. Those privations, he argued, had rendered his body and mind stronger and more resilient. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/why-senecas-anti-stress-methods-still-work-today/

I have often observed that insouciant people seldom suffer from worry. They go about their business without thinking long of the consequences, accept setbacks philosophically, and keep trudging ahead despite criticism and opposition. #seneca did not regard insouciance as a valid philosophical stance because it reduces humans to a perceptual level. It makes humans prone to accidents of all sorts because they have not taken basic precautions. Dogs and cats do not worry about the future because they lack the intellectual capacity to think long term, but who wants to expose himself to unnecessary risks? Who wants to live like a dog or cat, vulnerable to changes in circumstances? Who wants to be unable to make #meaningful progress? Don’t we all want to improve our lives and build a better future for ourselves? Insouciance does not work for humans even if it’s portrayed as a winning strategy in some fictional stories. In reality, our success depends on our willingness to think and act rationally. In his 13th Letter to Lucilius, Seneca underlined that human rationality goes hand in hand with human morality. If we think, we must pass judgement, and if we pass judgement, we cannot regard evil behaviour as acceptable. #consistency is the key to reducing #fear and anxiety, argued Seneca, in the sense that it enables us to align our actions with the universe. It helps us make decisions according to orderly, #universal principles. The 11th Letter to Lucilius praises natural #ethical reactions. I am referring for instance to blushing. When someone feels that he has done something wrong, there is the tendency to blush in public because he realises that other people are going to pass a negative judgement on him. Seneca considered those physical reactions as genuine and moral, and drew on support from #socrates (470-399 BC) and Cato the Younger (95-46 BC), who had held similar views. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/senecas-key-insight-for-overcoming-stress/

We tend to regard time management as a uniquely modern concept, but nothing could be further from the truth. The fact that our ancestors employed more primitive technology did not prevent them from pursuing personal effectiveness. #seneca was not an exception in this respect. After devoting years to philosophical research, he put his ideas down to paper, aiming at producing a large literary output. If we compare Seneca with #marcusaurelius (121-180 AD), we can appreciate a large difference in their literary output. I estimate that Seneca outproduced Marcus Aurelius by a factor of twenty, even if he possessed fewer material resources. Was Seneca a better philosopher than Marcus Aurelius? I do not think so; the difference in literary output arises from higher personal effectiveness, not from higher philosophical accuracy. When it comes to time management, Seneca demonstrated to be ahead of his contemporaries. His life and writings convey the keys to his personal effectiveness. Let us review those keys and see how we can put them into practice nowadays. Seneca devoted his essay “On the Shortness of Life” to the question of personal effectiveness. He acknowledged the limits of the human lifespan, but at the same time, he reassured his readers that the length of the human lifespan is more than sufficient to attain man’s natural purpose. I regard this insight as revolutionary for Seneca’s time. Even nowadays, few individuals are totally free of worry or anxiety. They have not grasped that the human lifespan is long enough to achieve its essential goals, and that we do not need to panic about mistakes, delays and failure. The praise for #calmness and #serenity appears in prior #stoic philosophers such #zeno of Citium (334-262 BC) and Cleanthes (330-230 BC), but Seneca was the first to point out that worry and anxiety are inefficient. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/seneca-on-time-management/

History provides excellent examples of the #philosophy put forward by Arthur #schopenhauer (1788–1860). I can point for instance to the life of #marcusaurelius (121-180 AD) who had favoured living in accordance with nature. Aurelius’ recipe for happiness is understanding the order of the universe and aligning our actions with it; however, when he talked about “the order of the universe,” he was assuming that the world is rational and that humans can grasp its laws. In contrast, Schopenhauer theorised that the universe is not necessarily orderly. His theory of the will (“life force”) points to a blind, eternal force as a driver of all living creatures. Thus, he was expecting the will to exert an irrational influence on the decisions and actions of humans. Despite his different conception of the universe, the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius constitutes a good practical example of Schopenhauer’s philosophy of life. Every aspect of Aurelius’ life matches Schopenhauer’s ethics. I’m referring to the #virtues of prudence, self-discipline, steadiness and clear-headiness. Marcus Aurelius expected the universe to be rational and, to a certain extent, comprehensible to our minds. Nonetheless, he acknowledged the inevitability of change, accepting that often we must face external events beyond our control. Schopenhauer placed great emphasis on self-reliance and on all elements that help humans build their self-confidence. The terminology used in Marcus Aurelius’ work “Meditations” does not exactly match Schopenhauer’s, but the meaning is similar. Instead of referring to self-reliance and self-confidence, the writings of Marcus Aurelius mention the “inner citadel” that he is recommending to build inside our soul. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/an-example-of-schopenhauers-philosophy-of-life/

The art of getting things done effectively and inexpensively underlies the philosophy of Arthur #schopenhauer (1788–1860). His theory of the will (“life force”) warns us against the lethal consequences of giving way to our instincts without looking at the cost and at the long-term consequences. How do you protect yourself against the negative influence of the will? Schopenhauer advised parsimony, self-reliance and self-awareness. Those habits can help us counteract the will and make better decisions. I wholeheartedly endorse Schopenhauer’s advice in this respect. His own life offers compelling illustrations about how to practise those habits. In addition to pointing to Schopenhauer’s lifestyle, I advise everybody to read the biography of #benjaminfranklin (1706-1790). You can read Franklin’s autobiography or any biography of his available on the market. The fact that Benjamin Franklin had been born eighty-two years earlier than Schopenhauer doesn’t prevent me from using Franklin as a vivid example of the lifestyle and ethics favoured by Schopenhauer. I’m talking about high personal effectiveness and everything that goes with it. Ask yourself which lifestyle and virtues help increase personal effectiveness? Schopenhauer provided solid answers: self-reliance, risk avoidance, prudence, maintaining a wide margin of safety, #awareness and alertness. You will find all those virtues in Franklin’s approach to #selfimprovement . He made a list of thirteen virtues (temperance, industry, humility, etc.) with the goal of improving his personal effectiveness. Franklin also devised a system for acquiring those virtues. I regard his system as excessively prescriptive, but many people have practised it successfully. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/effectiveness-in-schopenhauers-philosophy-of-life/

Arthur #schopenhauer (1788–1860) had unduly pessimistic, gloomy ideas on love and relationships. The study of his ideas in this respect serves an #educational purpose because it enables us to learn from Schopenhauer’s mistakes. Schopenhauer’s theory of the will (“life force”) underlies his views on love and relationships. This theory predicts that the will is constantly driving all living creatures towards survival, reproduction, and pleasure, without paying attention to the cost and risks involved. From this perspective, Schopenhauer viewed love as driven by the will, which he described as a blind, irrational force. His definition of #love is linked to the instinctual nature of the will. According to Schopenhauer, the expression “love is blind” should be replaced by “the will makes you blind and prompts you to make counterproductive choices.” Emotional #overdrive leads to infatuation, heartbreak, divorce, and harsh reactions. I categorise Schopenhauer’s view of #romantic love as highly sceptical. On most occasions, he argued, lovers are deluded by the will. They fool themselves into believing that love will bring them enduring satisfaction and happiness but endurance is rare. Schopenhauer described love as a turbulent, wild, unbridled desire for the possession of the beloved, often unrelated to the characteristics (personality, mentality, desires) of the beloved. When individuals fall under the spell of the will, they find it difficult to break free and make good decisions. Schopenhauer outlined this idea in his principal work “The world as will and representation,” published in 1818. According to Schopenhauer, love (“intense attraction”) does not have any other goal than the perpetuation of the species. It is totally and completely driven by the will, he argues. He does not consider any aspect other than instincts. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauers-views-on-love-and-relationships/

In terms of chronology, Arthur #schopenhauer (1788–1860) preceded #sigmundfreud (1856–1939) by two generations. The worlds they inhabited were different, but Freud’s psychological #insights rest upon the #philosophy developed by Schopenhauer. Schopenhauer outlined his philosophy in “The world as will and representation,” a book published in 1818. The theory of the will (“life force”) constitutes the backbone of his ideas. According to this theory, the will drives living creatures to ensure their survival and reproduction, and to seek short-term pleasure. Schopenhauer describes the will as blind, eternal, #feral and indefatigable. If you are not alert, the will is going to control your life and prompt you to behave irrationally. Self-awareness is crucial to perceive and counteract the influence of the will. Freud outlined his psychoanalytic theories in books such as “The interpretation of dreams” (1899) and “Psychopathology of everyday life” (1901). He sustained that mental disturbance can often be traced to conflicts between social demands, rationality, and instincts. His definition of instincts resembles Schopenhauer’s description of the will, as a strong and relentless life force. Despite the similarity between Schopenhauer’s theory of the will and Freud’s theory of instincts, there are major differences between their views of the world. The first difference is the #purpose of their work. Freud was a psychiatrist and Schopenhauer a philosopher. Freud aimed at curing mental disturbance, and Schopenhauer at understanding the world and finding a path to happiness. Difference in purpose means difference in scope, viewpoint, and interpretation. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauer-and-freud-similarities-and-differences/

In contrast to the fragmentary prescriptions often given by psychologists, Arthur #schopenhauer (1788-1860) aimed at one comprehensive explanation for the world, including all living creatures. In his work “The world as will and representation” (1818), he argues that the will (“life force”) prompts all living creatures to ensure their own survival and reproduction, seeking short-term #pleasure as well but without considering the costs and risks. According to Schopenhauer, human #motivation is heavily in the sphere of influence of the will. Humans are often prompted by the will to engage in harmful decisions and behaviour. It’s a pressure that every person must face. Nonetheless, there are solid ways to escape or minimise the influence of the will. Schopenhauer presented those strategies in his essays published as “Parerga and Paralipomena” in 1851. Unfortunately, contemporary psychologists have overlooked Schopenhauer’s insights. For instance, #williamjames (1842- 1910) adopted a so-called pragmatic approach to psychology, and deprived it of #philosophical depth. In his work “Principles of Psychology” (1890), James called for studying only observable phenomena and dismissing any general theory that cannot be experimentally confirmed. Such an approach precludes wide-ranging discussions; it narrows the field of vision to little theories about little phenomena. Indeed, James predicated #pragmatism in science. If a theory leads to good results, he argued, then it must be true. However, he failed to differentiate between #correlation and causality. Without general principles, it is not possible to interpret and explain complex phenomena. The fact that event B takes place after event A indicates correlation, but doesn’t mean that A has caused B. Schopenhauer exposed this logical error in his book “On the fourfold root of the principle of sufficient reason” that he had published in 1814. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/opponents-to-schopenhauers-views-on-psychology/