John Vespasian

How Schopenhauer got rid of anxiety

Five areas in which humans are much better than AI

The genius of Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) also shows in his unique idea of justice. On the one hand, he regarded it as highly desirable in society. Civilization cannot exist without a consistent protection of life, liberty and property.On the other hand, Schopenhauer acknowledged that human life inevitably entails injustice; sometimes injustices are caused by errors and mistakes; on other occasions, injustice is caused by sheer bad luck that deprives a person of his health, property, or livelihood.In the latter cases, lamentations help very little. There is no mechanism to remedy all injustices in the world. Even with the best intentions, projects will sometimes fail, relationships break up, and accidents occur.Schopenhauer praised empathy and compassion as essential virtues to diminish suffering when injustices occur. You’ll find those recommendations in his key book “The world as will and representation” (1818) and in his “Aphorisms of life’s wisdom” (1851).https://johnvespasian.com/analysis-of-schopenhauers-idea-of-justice/

In the philosophy of Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860), we find a unique combination of realism and empathy. His books show that Schopenhauer was fully conscious of the advantages of industrial societies. They offer individuals far more chances than agrarian, immobile, medieval structures.At the same time, Schopenhauer was aware that perfection cannot be expected from any justice system. Judges and juries make mistakes, and corruption and incompetence play a role in some cases.Even with hard work and the best intentions, you may prove extraordinarily unlucky, suffer a random accident, and lose your savings and your health. Indeed, justice isn’t guaranteed but we should remain grateful for the opportunities offered by modern society.https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauer-and-the-idea-of-justice/

According to most philosophy books, Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) was profoundly pessimistic. However, when you look into the details of his life and his works, you will see that the truth goes in the opposite direction.Historians tell us that Schopenhauer was confronted with a series of personal tragedies that rendered him pessimistic, but is this really true?Indeed, his father passed away when Arthur Schopenhauer was just seventeen. That’s an early death by any standards, but not an unheard tragedy.Let us not forget that Schopenhauer received from his father an inheritance that enabled him to live without ever working. I do not know many people that are placed in such a favourable financial situation when they are just seventeen.I am sure that Arthur Schopenhauer would have preferred that his father lived for another three decades, but that’s life. It gives you good cards and bad cards, and demands you to play the game right away. There is not much point in complaining.One thing is sure when speaking about Schopenhauer. He is not someone that had to face terrible financial struggles. I don’t know why some biographers would invent such nonsense. The truth is that Schopenhauer inherited a sizeable share package in his father’s company. The shares threw an annual dividend that is equivalent to forty thousand USD in today’s terms.https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauers-pessimism-what-it-is-and-what-its-not/

The philosophy of Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) places history on a secondary plane. Schopenhauer didn’t give history a central role because he did not consider that humanity should achieve any goal beyond the happiness of the individual.Schopenhauer believed that an eternal life force (“the will”) drives all creatures towards self-preservation and reproduction, but the influence of the will doesn’t mean that society must go in a particular direction.According to Schopenhauer, the events in the world are a perpetual manifestation of the will, but the results are not easy to foresee. The will can lead to pleasure and happiness, but also to conflict, suffering, and pointless pursuit of power.For this reason, Schopenhauer rejected the notion of linear progress in history. History can meander from good to worse, and then back to excellent. It is not leading to a particular goal, destination or achievement. It’s the result of the actions of large numbers of people, each pursuing his own happiness.https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauer-and-the-philosophy-of-history/

The reflections of Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) are to be found in his work “The world as will and representation.” I consider equally interesting the observations contained in his “Aphorisms on the art of living,” published in 1851.In contrast to Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831), Schopenhauer is not a philosopher of history. He didn’t develop an all-inclusive vision of history nor theorised about the end of times.He did not regard the course of history as one unequivocal path pointing into a single direction. There is no single destiny where humanity is headed. History is made by people’s choices every single day.The will (which I translate as “life force”) influences how a man or woman makes decisions; however, the will is not pushing people right or left. It is not exercising overwhelming power to the extent that each person can say “I could not help it.”Schopenhauer declines presenting history as an imposition of destiny. Conversely, he underlines the importance of how a human being behaves over time. Life is essentially temporary. Every success and possession is naturally limited.https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauer-and-the-philosophy-of-time/

Happy people do not waste their time telling the world how happy they are, and Taoists are not an exception. Neither Lao-Tzu, Yang-Tzu or Chuang-Tzu made any effort to gain adepts to their philosophy. They simply wrote down or dictated their insights, making them available.If you want to adopt their ideas, or some of them, great; and if you don’t, it is also great. Taoists don’t fundamentally care if the rest of humanity goes another way. They acknowledge each person’s freedom to choose his own path, and they respect it.Why is the Taoist approach to happiness so intriguing? Why are people curious about the Tao Te Ching, considering that it was written in the 6th century BC?Because of the serenity that Taoists exude. Because they are able to stay calm in situations where everybody else is falling prey to panic. Because people want to learn to stay effective in the face of setbacks and social pressure.Taoist happiness is based on effective energy utilisation. For other cultures, this concept is difficult to understand because of their emphasis on doing something at all costs. When they pick up a goal, they assume that continued action is the best method for achieving it. In contrast, Taoists consider doing and not doing equally important.https://johnvespasian.com/the-taoist-approach-to-happiness/

It was not long ago that universal history used to be part of the curriculum in secondary schools. A solid understanding of the key historical periods, their ideas and leading figures was a precondition for graduation.Students were required to grasp the historical sequence that began with Ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt, Ancient Greece and Rome, the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, and so forth.On the one hand, the study of history helps us place things in perspective, and on the other hand, it enables us to prevent repeating the mistakes made in the past. I regard it as naive to want to grasp the lessons from history without having gained a solid overview of the timeline.Without historical perspective, nobody can understand the events taking place today, and without understanding, it is not possible to choose the correct course of action; no wonder that, in view of the diminishing knowledge of history, people keep repeating the same mistakes.Each historical period is dominated by a particular doctrine or philosophy. It also encompasses a concept of happiness that drives people to act in a certain way. That explains why people in Ancient Greece undertook bold commercial expeditions, and people in the Middle Ages rarely ventured out of their village.https://johnvespasian.com/the-taoist-path-to-happiness/

The desire to get something for nothing is a constant in all cultures and historical periods. To a large extent, mythology is derived from this desire. People make themselves believe that, if they perform a magical ritual, some divinity will assist them in getting something for nothing. When approaching Taoism for the first time, beginners are in danger of falling prey to the delusion of getting something for nothing. Why? Because, although Lao-Tzu emphasised not doing as a key element of his philosophy, Taoists seem to lead remarkably effective lifestyles. To prevent misunderstandings, this paradox requires strong warnings from my side. I do not want readers to regard Taoism as a form of magic that can deliver magnificent results without any thinking, learning or action. Chapter 48 of the Tao Te Ching stands at the root of all false hopes created by Taoism. It calls for reducing the scope of our action, day by day, until very little or nothing is left. Similarly, it praises non-action as the supreme form of action and ends by saying that we can achieve our goals by doing nothing. No wonder that, if beginners take those words literally, they feel entitled to expect wonders without effort. Did Lao-Tzu not promise that we can get whatever we want without having to study, make plans, and implement every step carefully? In fact, that’s not what the Tao Te Ching means. Lao-Tzu’s words need to be interpreted by placing them in context. They should not be taken literally, as thought they were prophesies. I cannot warn people enough against taking Taoist quotes out of context. https://johnvespasian.com/warnings-about-the-taoist-idea-of-happiness/

In contrast to other philosophies or religions, Taoists do not regard happiness as a goal. Why? Because they view happiness as a side effect of leading a virtuous life, not as a goal in itself.Neither Lao-Tzu, Yang-Tzu or Chuang-Tzu employed the term “the pursuit of happiness” in their writings. They would have found such formulation incomprehensible.The fact that Taoists do not pursue happiness does not mean that they do not consider it important. On the contrary, every piece of advice given by Taoist masters aims, indirectly, to the achievement of happiness.However, I must underline the word “indirect.” All ancient Chinese Taoist texts refrain from promising happiness. Their avowed objective is the alignment of one’s actions with the Tao under the assumption that such an alignment will automatically lead to happiness.In his works “Nicomachean Ethics” and “Eudemian Ethics,” Aristotle (384-322 BC) ended up designing a path to happiness based on the same intellectual equation.If we do what’s needed, ethically and strategically, we’ll get to a point where happiness is automatically achieved, Aristotle argued. Lao-Tzu would have agreed with Aristotle’s formula, but not with its implementation. Why not? Because the concept of virtue in Aristotle does not match the Tao Te Ching.https://johnvespasian.com/why-taoists-do-not-pursue-happiness-directly/

Today’s mainstream philosophy constitutes the opposite of the Taoist idea of happiness. Why? Because today’s dominant beliefs are hardly reconcilable with the Tao, as depicted in the Tao Te Ching.What do I mean when I say “today’s dominant beliefs”? On the one hand, the idea that everything is relative, that there are no universal moral prescriptions, and that nobody can reliably forecast the long-term effects of one’s decisions.On the other hand, the belief that we should set objectives for ourselves and pursue them relentlessly, day after day. This belief goes hand in hand with making detailed plans, so that we can carry them out and constantly measure our progress.Not everybody subscribes to the beliefs that I have outlined, but many people do, and few will find them questionable, false or ethically wrong. I am not aware of statistical measurements proving the prevalence of these beliefs, but I see them at work in my daily experience.Why do Taoists oppose those ideas? Is it because Lao-Tzu, Yang-Tzu and Chuang-Tzu lived in Ancient China, and proved unable to come up with better ideas? Is it because the Tao Te Ching is unsuitable for living in an industrial civilisation?No, the responses to those questions relate to human nature, which hasn’t changed since the times of Lao-Tzu. Today’s idea of happiness is incompatible with Taoism because it assumes a fundamental change in human nature due to industrialisation.https://johnvespasian.com/why-taoists-do-not-pursue-happiness-directly/

Despite his sound reasoning and accurate writing, Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) didn’t succeed in making his ideas on freedom popular. In particular, his theory of the will wasn’t taken seriously by other philosophers and fell into oblivion at the beginning of the twentieth century.According to Schopenhauer, civilised society should grant legal protection to life, liberty and property. However, laws do not have the power to remove biological limits on freedom. I’m referring to the limits imposed by the will (“life force”) and by the human lifespan.In his work “The world as will and representation”(1818), Schopenhauer exposed at length the deep influence of the will on human freedom. The will prompts people towards pleasure, reproduction, wealth accumulation and success, generating one desire upon another.The will drives people to seek more and more, without ever achieving fulfilment. Schopenhauer observed the pattern repeat itself a million times. Thus, he acknowledged the influence of the will as a fact of life to be taken into account.Schopenhauer outlined his philosophy of freedom not only in his major works, but also in the brief essays contained in his “Parerga and Paralipomena” (1851). Those essays give precise strategies to minimise the negative influence of the will. They can help readers keep trouble at bay and maximise happiness.https://johnvespasian.com/critique-of-schopenhauers-ideas-on-freedom/

The idea of freedom in Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) is linked to his philosophy of the will. He outlined his concept of the will in his major works “About the fourfold root of the principle of sufficient reason” (1808) and “The world as will and representation” (1818).According to Schopenhauer, the will (which I translate as “life force”) is the underlying force driving all human actions, goals and desires.Schopenhauer defined the will as an insatiable and irrational force that drives human beings towards reproduction and other goals such as success, fame, and wealth accumulation.From this perspective, individual freedom is influenced by the relentless demands of the will. Humans are pushed to seek the satisfaction of endless desires, leading to inevitable failure and frustration.https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauer-and-freedom/

I’m going to point to several examples to illustrate the views of Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) on the nature of human existence. The examples are drawn from famous literary works depicting challenging situations that put Schopenhauer’s advice to the test.Before starting with the examples, let me summarise in four paragraphs Schopenhauer’s views on the nature of existence.First, living creatures are driven by the will, which I translate as “life force” or “primal energy;” the will drives them towards reproduction and survival. The will generates one desire after another. Some of them can be fulfilled, others not.Second, the influence of the will can have disastrous effects on humans because it drives them towards decisions that fulfil short-term desires but without considering the costs, risks, and liabilities. These aspects are presented in Schopenhauer’s book “About the fourfold root of the principle of sufficient reason,” published in 1814.Third, unless you adopt countermeasures, you are likely to succumb to the influence of the will and pay a high price. Your career, finances, reputation and health are at risk. It is in your interest to stay alert and steer away from questionable choices. These aspects are outlined in Schopenhauer’s book “The world as will and representation” (1818).Fourth, human beings can adopt countermeasures to reduce the negative influence of the will, avoid suffering and increase happiness. The measures involve self-discipline, risk reduction and keeping a margin of safety. The countermeasures are found in Schopenhauer’s book “Parerga and Paralipomena” (1851).https://johnvespasian.com/examples-of-schopenhauers-views-on-the-nature-of-existence/

The stunning accuracy of the intuitions and insights gained by Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) becomes apparent when we compare him with other philosophers. Many have attacked Schopenhauer’s views on the nature of existence but the attacks have only served to reinforce his positions.You cannot dismiss Schopenhauer by saying that he was too pessimistic or nihilistic. Why not? Because, when you analyse the details, you will see that his observations match reality. For better or for worse, he was objective and precise.Schopenhauer’s views on the nature of existence rest on his theory of the will, the life force that drives all living creatures. The will awakens endless desires in us, and if you do not know how to counteract it, you are likely to make dire mistakes.His work “Parerga and Paripomena” (1851) gives valuable advice to minimise suffering and secure happiness. You cannot categorise as pessimistic a philosopher who identifies risks and outlines effective countermeasures.https://johnvespasian.com/impact-of-schopenhauers-views-on-the-nature-of-existence/

The concept of the will (which I translate as “life force” or “primal energy”) plays the key role in the philosophy of Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860). He argued that a blind, irrational, overwhelming force drives all creatures to reproduce, sustain their own lives, and improve their situation.According to Schopenhauer, the will is exerting relentless pressure on humans, prompting them to pursue objectives that are often impossible to achieve. The inevitable result is failure, setbacks and disappointments.Schopenhauer objected to the optimistic ideals of thinkers such as Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831). He objected to the theory that history is driven to the realisation of a particular goal, let alone, the realisation of a perfect society.https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauers-views-on-the-nature-of-existence/

I prefer to solve problems in one go if possible, but this will prove impossible on many occasions. Why? Because of lack of information, resources or self-discipline. On many occasions, I will discover too late that problems are more complex, serious, and wide-ranging than originally estimated.Lao-Tzu must have come to the same conclusion when he wrote the Tao Te Ching because, in Chapter 48, he enunciated that principle of daily learning and practice of the non-action principle.The more we know, the more precisely we can identify what to let go. It is an iterative process in which we learn as we go. I regard it as unrealistic, for most problems, to come up with the perfect solution at the beginning.Unless you are very familiar with the problem at hand, you won’t grasp its full scope in a first approximation. Even in the unlikely case that you do, chances are that you will not be able to forecast the side effects and indirect costs of each solution. As a result, you may need to go through a few iterations until you get the problem solved.Chapter 48 exhorts us to gain knowledge each day, and then use the knowledge to discard the unnecessary in our lives. The term “unnecessary” should be given a broad interpretation. It’s meant to encompass the redundant, the inconsistent, the broken and the ineffective elements in our lifestyle.When discussing the need for iterations, the psychological and motivational elements are rarely mentioned, but they play a central role. They explain why, even if we exert large efforts, we will still need several iterations to solve our problems.Everybody would like to possess sufficient self-discipline to turn his life around, but in practice, few people do. One thing is to know that we should improve our nutrition and do sports more often; another thing is to be able to modify our lifestyle overnight.https://johnvespasian.com/why-taoist-non-action-requires-iterations/

Once upon a time, a middle-aged executive was facing such severe problems that he decided to visit a Taoist hermit and ask for advice. The trip consumed one and half days because of the poor infrastructure in the area where the hermit lived.The local airport had few connections and featured a rental car office that closed at 7pm. The executive’s flight landed far later than planned, preventing him from picking up the car he had booked.Undeterred, he called up a taxi, was told that he would have to wait for an hour, and said yes. When the taxi finally arrived, the executive instructed the driver to take him to the hermit’s home.“No problem,” said the driver. “I know where it is. I’ve been there many times.”“How come?” inquired the executive. “I thought that he was a hermit.”“Well, if he is, he didn’t tell me,” replied the driver.Despite the late arrival, the hermit came out of his home as soon as the taxi came to a standstill.“Welcome,” said the hermit joyfully, opening the taxi’s door while the executive was paying the driver. “We have kept your dinner warm.”Upon entering the house, the executive was greeted by the hermit’s wife, led to the dining room, and treated to a delicious dinner, accompanied by conversation about the local cuisine.“I did not know that you had a wife,” said the executive.“We got married two months ago,” answered the hermit.The executive wondered whether the hermit’s marital status was compatible with someone being called a hermit, but opted for keeping the question to himself.After a good night’s sleep and a hearty breakfast, the hermit and the executive sat down on easy chairs on the veranda. The sight of the surrounding mountains was breathtaking.“I need your help,” said the executive right away. “A friend of yours recommended me to come here.”“I know. He told me. I will do my best to help you.”“I have so many problems that I do not even know where to start.”https://johnvespasian.com/non-action-as-an-enabling-factor/

People nowadays often complain that life is too complicated and stressful. There are too many electronic systems to be used and they are constantly being changed; and there are too many requirements for doing everyday tasks, and those requirements are constantly being modified.No wonder that many admire the Taoist serenity and want to follow the advice in Chapter 44 of the Tao Te Ching, namely, to avoid the traps of the world, to stay within their own range of action, and enjoy every moment of their lives.However, unless they take it seriously, I fear that their wish for serenity is not going to be fulfilled. Why? Because it takes sustained effort to avoid the traps of the world and stay within one’s range of action.For starters, we need to learn to detect the traps of the world before we fall into them. How can we increase our capacity to detect those traps? How can we increase our sensitivity in this area? As proven by the daily news, that’s easier said than done.Excessive food and alcohol consumption, imprudent driving and drug abuse are omnipresent. Aggressive and inconsiderate behaviour can be observed all over the place; and far too many people display an abusive, solipsistic attitude.FeasibilityI would not give any credence to individuals claiming that it is impossible to behave ethically in today’s world. They affirm that they would be able to behave ethically if they lived in a simple society like Ancient China, but that they cannot do it in today’s context.Their statements of potential virtue are equivalent to desires of potential purity after having voluntarily besmirched oneself. Such statements are as useless as checks issued by a bankrupt saving bank. If you try to cash those checks, they’ll never clear.Happiness and virtue signalling are incompatible. The more virtue signalling is done, the less happiness will ensue. Energy can be spent on beneficial or detrimental activities, but not on both at the same time. This simple truth stands uncontested.https://johnvespasian.com/how-taoist-non-action-furthers-happiness/

To affirm or imply that “more is less” has distinct Orwellian connotations. I wonder if anyone can seriously argue that more is less, or that less is more, in any area of life. Even pre-school children can figure out that more ice cream is preferable to less ice cream, and more cookies preferable to fewer cookies.In philosophy, some modern gurus try to get away with anti-mathematical statements, but their arguments are normally met with intense scepticism. For the average person, it is obvious that more is more and less is less, and no amount of verbal mystification will make them think otherwise.In the West, Taoism is sometimes presented as the doctrine that maintains that less is more. I can only assume that such a distorted characterization aims at making Taoists look foolish.Did Lao-Tzu actually say that less is more? No, not in those exact terms, but he viewed the non-action principle as a crucial element of his philosophy. The non-action principle does not say that less is more, but that a narrow focus leads to far better results.In terms of my prior example, Lao-Tzu did not say that less ice cream is better than more ice cream, but that we can make more ice cream with less effort if we stop doing other things at the same time.Dead weightWhen it comes to attaining happiness, the Taoist non-action principle plays a decisive role. It prompts us to define priorities clearly, drop secondary issues, and focus our efforts on the key steps.Yang-Tzu and Chuang-Tzu used the non-action principle in many of their stories to illustrate the need of letting go of dead weight; they never said that less is more, but that we should let go of unpromising projects and do only what works.https://johnvespasian.com/happiness-and-the-taoist-non-action-principle/

Michel de Montaigne’s biography (5 of 5): joy until the last minutehttps://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaignes-biography-5-of-5-joy-until-the-last-minute/

Michel de Montaigne’s biography (4 of 5): the pinnacle yearshttps://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaignes-biography-the-pinnacle-years/

Michel de Montaigne’s biography (3 of 5): dealing with chronic illnesshttps://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaignes-biography-dealing-with-chronic-illness/

Michel de Montaigne’s biography (2 of 5) his momentous decisionhttps://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaignes-biography-his-momentous-decision/

Michel de Montaigne's biography, part 1 of 5, his early yearshttps://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaignes-biography-his-early-years/

I didn’t become a hardcore realist because life became harder.I became one because two philosophers forced me to question almost everything I believed.Their names are Kant and Schopenhauer.For years, I believed the world worked the way I had been told.And I did what I had been told to do.Work hard.Be kind.Stay positive.Expecting that, eventually, everything will work out.But life started testing those beliefs.Again and again.At first, I thought that reality was broken.Then I realised that my expectations were broken.That’s where Kant enters the story.Kant argued that we never experience reality exactly as it is.That our minds don’t simply observe the world—that they shape the way we perceive it.That idea fascinated me.It made me realise that what we call “reality” is always filtered through our own minds.But then I read Schopenhauer.Schopenhauer accepted Kant’s insight, yet he asked a more practical question.Even if our understanding is limited, how can we thrive anyway?That question changed my life.Schopenhauer encouraged me to focus on practical solutions.And the more I did, the more I noticed uncomfortable patterns.People don’t always reward honesty.Hard work doesn’t always lead to success.Logic doesn’t always defeat emotion.Fairness isn’t built into reality.Schopenhauer wasn’t surprised by any of this.He believed human beings are seldom driven by pure reason.The more I watched people, the stronger I believed Schopenhauer was right.Then I found myself returning to Kant.If Kant was right that our minds filter reality, then I had to ask another question.How many of my disappointments came from reality itself……and how many came from stories I keep telling myself?That realisation hit me hard.Maybe reality wasn’t constantly letting me down.Maybe my expectations were.Schopenhauer would smile at my conclusion.He believed much of our suffering comes from wishful thinking.The moment I stopped arguing with reality, life became much easier.And I focused on finding the patterns that lead to success and happiness.That’s probably the biggest lesson Schopenhauer taught me.Reality reveals itself through patterns that are seldom obvious.And Kant taught me something equally important.Before judging the world, I should first check my own beliefs.Together, Kant and Schopenhauer changed the way I think.Kant made me question what I know.And Schopenhauer made me realistic about the world.That combination transformed the way I make decisions.I’ve learned to judge people by what they do repeatedly.Actions reveal patterns and patterns reveal the truth.Ironically, the more I embraced Schopenhauer’s ideas, the more optimistic I became.Not because I expect life to be fair.But because I stopped expecting achievements to be quick and easy.The better I understand reality, the more effective I become.Kant led me to question my assumptions.And Schopenhauer taught me to face reality.And that’s how I became a hardcore realist.If you are interested in applying rational ideas in all sorts of situations, I recommend my book “The 10 Principles of Rational Living.”https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauer-how-i-became-a-hardcore-realist/

For the longest time, I thought I needed more information.Another book.Another podcast.Another productivity system.I kept searching because I believed clarity was something I would eventually stumble upon if I just learned enough.But the opposite happened.The more information I collected, the more overwhelmed I became.No wonder that many other people also feel overwhelmed.We live in a world where we’re constantly told to consume more.More advice.More opinions.More courses that promise to change our lives.But after a while, we realise that we cannot put all those inputs together.That’s exactly where I found myself.Then I came across an idea from Aristotle that completely changed the way I think.It’s called syllogism.The name sounds complicated, but the idea is fairly simple.A syllogism is a chain of reasoning.It starts with a general observation.Then you add a specific fact.And the conclusion follows naturally.For example, take the general observation: All humans are mortal.Then we add a specific fact: Socrates is a human.Therefore, we conclude that Socrates is mortal.The conclusion is not just a guess.It is not just an opinion.It is a solid truth that follows from the premises.When I understood that, I started asking myself some difficult questions.Why was I not making all my decisions this way?Why was I not using logic to give shape to my life?Instead, I was using emotions and pretending they were logical.My emotions prevented me from thinking logically —- they made me turn in circles.As a result, I failed to seize opportunities that made me uncomfortable.And then I told myself that the circumstances were not auspicious.Do you see what was happening?I was not thinking logically — I was not using syllogisms.I was allowing my emotions to control me, pretending that were logicalMany people do this all the time.They mistake their emotions for evidence.So I decided to change my approach.Whenever I faced an obstacle, I stopped asking, “How do I feel?”And I started to ask “What do I have to do to solve this problem?”Then I built a syllogism.Like every worthwhile skill, syllogisms require practice.And since I wanted to master the skill,I started to practise consistently.Sometimes I did not like the conclusion that came from thinking logically.But I pushed myself to accept what is true.And that proved incredibly beneficial for my effectiveness.Because I no longer had to wait for the right emotions.I only had to ask whether my conclusion was logical or not.Over time, I noticed something else.Whenever I felt confused, the problem was not in my logic.The problem was in one of the premises, or in both of them.The problem is that I had accepted wrong assumptions.For instance, I had wrongly assumed that success must happen quickly.And that failure means that the game is over.And that everyone else is doing great.Once I challenged those assumptions, my conclusions also changed.That’s when I realised something I’ll never forget.Clarity is about starting with better premises.That’s what Aristotle understood more than two thousand years ago.If we start with true facts, then our conclusions will be true.That’s why, whenever I feel stuck, I check my premises.For instance, what do I believe to be correct that it isn’t?Or what do I believe to be true that it isn’t?And when I find the mistake, I correct it and draw the right conclusion.When I use Aristotelian logic, my conclusions become clear.And my actions become more effective.That’s how I found total clarity thanks to Aristotle.If you are interested in applying rational ideas in all sorts of situations, I recommend my book “The 10 Principles of Rational Living.”https://johnvespasian.com/aristotle-how-i-got-total-clarity/

What is the key to a fuller, happier, and more meaningful life?That’s the question Arthur Schopenhauer asked.While other philosophers focused on changing the world, Schopenhauer focused on something even more important: understanding human nature.He believed that once we understand what truly drives us, we can make wiser choices.We can enjoy life more deeply.We can avoid wasting our time chasing things that never satisfy us.At the heart of his philosophy is a powerful idea.Beneath all our thoughts lies a universal energy he called the Will.It is the energy that pushes us to grow, explore, create, love, achieve, and continually seek something better.It is the engine behind every human ambition.The problem is that this force never stands still.As soon as we reach one goal, it encourages us to pursue another.First, we just want to graduate.Then we want the perfect career.Then we want greater recognition.Then we want to buy something we’ve wanted for years…But soon, something newer catches our attention.Schopenhauer teaches us that there is nothing unusual about this.It is simply part of being human.And once we recognise this pattern, something remarkable happens.We can decide to stop chasing the next achievement, the next purchase, or the next milestone.And instead, we can focus on enjoying the journey itself.This is one of Schopenhauer’s greatest lessons.Life becomes richer when we appreciate what we already have.Schopenhauer also reminds us that we don’t have to react to every impulse that enters our minds.Every day we experience some measure of frustration, fear or ambition.But we don’t have to let those emotions decide our next move.The more aware we become of our inner world, the more freedom we gain.Instead of acting automatically, we begin choosing deliberately.That simple shift can help us build the kind of life we genuinely want.Schopenhauer believed that human thriving comes from mastering ourselves.And perhaps his most inspiring lesson is this:A meaningful life is not measured by how much we crave.It is measured by how deeply we experience what we do and what we have.He encouraged us to slow down and appreciate beauty.To lose ourselves in great music, literature, and art.To spend time reflecting instead of constantly rushing.And cultivate compassion, because understanding others helps us understand ourselves.Quiet moments allow us to step outside the race and reconnect with what truly matters.Ironically, when we stop chasing happiness, we begin discovering it in the present.Today, Schopenhauer’s philosophy feels more relevant than ever.In a world that constantly tells us to do more, he reminds us that happiness starts with self-understanding.When we understand our desires, we become wiser and more focused.We can still dream, achieve, and grow.But we no longer need to chase our next goal.Perhaps that is Schopenhauer’s greatest lesson:The fullest life is the one in which we truly understand ourselves.And that’s what enables us to enjoy every step of the journey.If you are interested in applying rational ideas in all sorts of situations, I recommend my book “The 10 Principles of Rational Living.”https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauers-philosophy-in-three-and-a-half-minutes/

What if I told you I found the answer to self-improvement… from someone who lived over 23 centuries ago?Not through a morning routine.Not through productivity hacks.Not through manifestation.Not through positive thinking.Aristotle completely changed the way I think about becoming more effective.The biggest lesson I learned is this:I don’t need to become successful at first.I just need to become the kind of person who naturally creates success.For a long time, I thought that success and happiness was something I’d eventually find.But Aristotle saw it differently.He believed that success and happiness are not something we stumble upon.They are the result of living effectively.Every decision I make is shaping the person I’m becoming.When I keep a promise to myself, that’s a step forward.When I choose to exercise instead of making excuses, that’s another step forward.When I create something meaningful, that’s another step forward.My character is simply the sum of those steps.The insight that really changed me is this:I don’t become successful and happy by waiting until the circumstances are perfect.I become successful and happy by doing what needs to be done, day by day, even when it’s difficult.The same is true for any sort of goal in life.For good health.For financial independence.For having great friends.These aren’t qualities I was born with.They’re the results of little steps taken day by day.It’s like learning to ride a bicycle.At first, every movement takes conscious effort.Eventually, it becomes second nature.Aristotle believed character develops the same way.So whenever I feel tempted to complain, I always ask myself one simple question:“What kind of person am I becoming little by little?”If I want to be healthier, am I choosing the right kind of meals?If I want to be more creative, am I practising my skills every day?If I want to get more things done, am I working effectively?I’ve realised I don’t need to look for miracle solutions.All I need to do is to take one step at a time, day by day.Aristotle also taught me that reason should guide my life—not my impulses.My emotions are real and I listen to them, but my reason remains in charge.That’s the difference between drifting and intentionally shaping my life.Whenever I catch myself waiting until things are perfect, I remember Aristotle.We don’t become more effective because of one decision.We become more effective because of hundreds of small steps we take, day after day.Over time, those steps become my character, and my character shapes my future.If you are interested in applying rational ideas in all sorts of situations, I recommend my book “The 10 Principles of Rational Living.”https://johnvespasian.com/how-i-put-aristotles-ideas-into-practice/

“Why do we have to learn this? We’ll never use it.”Most of us have asked that question at some point.When we’re sitting in a classroom, studying history, literature, philosophy, or a language we don’t think we’ll ever speak, it can feel like a waste of time.We want practical skills.We want something we can use immediately.And it’s easy to believe that everything else is just useless information.But here’s something worth considering: the knowledge that seems the least useful today often becomes the most valuable tomorrow.Take Montaigne.As a child in sixteenth-century France, he received an unusual education.His father believed that learning should shape the mind, not simply prepare someone for a profession.Instead of focusing only on practical training, he surrounded his son with books, ideas, languages, history, and philosophy.He even arranged for Latin to become his first language, immersing him in the wisdom of the ancient world from an early age.To many people, that probably looked impractical.There were no guarantees that such an education would lead to wealth or success.There were no obvious career advantages.It would have been easy to dismiss it as time wasted.But something remarkable happened.As the years passed, all those different subjects came together.History gave Montaigne perspective.Literature deepened his empathy.Philosophy taught him careful thinking.Rhetoric strengthened his communication.Each discipline reinforced the others.They became more powerful together than they could ever have been alone.The same is true for us.General education doesn’t simply fill our heads with facts.It teaches us to think.We begin to notice patterns that other people overlook.We learn to connect ideas.We become better at solving problems.The greatest breakthroughs come from connecting ideas.That’s why it matters to have a general education.Because we never know which idea will become the missing piece.Montaigne didn’t become influential because he memorised facts.He became influential because he learned to think independently.A solid general education was the foundation of his success.Today, we live in a world that rewards immediate results.If something doesn’t seem useful right away, we’re tempted to dismiss it.We constantly ask ourselves, “How will this help us right now?”But the most valuable knowledge might not reveal its value overnight.It grows little by little.One idea leads us to another idea.One lesson from history helps us understand today’s problems.One philosophy class improves our decisions.Each lesson may seem insignificant on its own.But together, they help us understand the world.So the next time we’re tempted to say, “This is useless,” let’s remember this:We are building our minds.We are learning to think sharp.And the broader our minds become, the more opportunities we will see that other people fail to notice.That is the purpose of a general education.And that’s a great lesson to learn from Montaigne.If you are interested in applying rational ideas in all sorts of situations, I recommend my book “The 10 Principles of Rational Living.”https://johnvespasian.com/montaigne-why-i-love-useless-knowledge/

What if the biggest obstacle in our lives isn’t a lack of talent…Or lack of intelligence…Or lack of opportunity…What if it’s something much quieter…Passivity.I main, not making a decision.Not trying to get things done because of fear of failing.Just… doing nothing.There are wonderful excuses for passivity.Waiting for the perfect moment.Waiting until we feel confident.Waiting until we know enough.Waiting until we’re finally ready.The philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer believed that much of human behaviour is not driven by conscious reason.Instead, we’re pushed by deeper forces that operate beneath our awareness.We like to think we’re making rational choices, but often, our minds are simply protecting us from discomfort.That’s why passivity feels logical.That’s why overthinking feels productive.That’s why delaying action feels responsible.Our brains are incredibly good at inventing reasons to do nothing.We tell ourselves that: “We need more research.”Or that “We will start next week.”Or that “The timing is not right.”The excuses sound plausible because they keep us comfortable.But, as Schopenhauer argued, comfort has a price.Most of us do not get stuck in life because we make one catastrophic mistake.We get stuck because we avoid the actions that could change everything.Think about it.How many books never get written.How many businesses never get started.How many conversations never happen.Just because we remain passive.We often imagine that successful people have confidence before they act.But confidence tends to come after taking action.Even when people do not feel completely ready to launch a business.Or to publish their first video.Or to seize the opportunity that could change their lives.But they do it anyway.Readiness is often an illusion.Action creates clarity.Action creates momentum.Action creates confidence.Schopenhauer recognised that many people drift through life, pulled by habit instead of purpose.We tend to choose the familiar over the meaningful, even if we know that the familiar is holding us back.And that’s exactly why passivity is so dangerous.Because it feels safe.It feels comfortable.It whispers, “We can always do it tomorrow.”Until tomorrow becomes next month.Then next year.Or some day that will never come.Passivity compounds.But so does action.One email.One workout.One conversation.One video.One decision can change our lives.The people who change their lives are not necessarily the most talented.They are the ones who overcome passivity.Because passivity is the real bottleneck.But the solution is easy.All we need to do is to take one imperfect step.And then another.And another.If you are interested in applying rational ideas in all sorts of situations, I recommend my book “The 10 Principles of Rational Living.”https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauer-passivity-is-the-bottleneck/

I learned to get things done faster…But the surprising part is that I didn’t do it by adding more hours to my day.I didn’t wake up earlier.I didn’t try to multitask.I didn’t use complicated productivity systems.What I did is to change the way I think.For a long time, whenever I faced difficult problems, I made the same mistake.I looked at all the issues at once.I would think:“How am I going to solve all of these problems?”“How long is this going to take me?””Where do I even start?”And the bigger the problem I faced, the slower I became.Then I discovered the ideas of Michel de Montaigne, a writer and thinker from over 400 years ago.What fascinated me was that Montaigne had a completely different approach to solving problems.He didn’t try to find quick answers.He just tried to understand things sequentially, one aspect at a time.And I realised that this was the reason I was wasting so much time.I was not struggling because of lack of effort.I was struggling because I was addressing too many issues at the same time.The first thing I learned from Montaigne was to focus on the most threatening aspect of the problem.Instead of asking:“How do I fix all my problems?”I started asking:“What is the specific issue I need to solve right now?”I stopped looking at the woods and focused on the tree next to me.If I was facing super complex problems, I didn’t think about everything I needed to do.I just asked:“What is the action that will address the most severe threat?”In this way, I can focus on doing just one thing.One email.One decision.One conversation.One small improvement.And something interesting happened.The big issues that felt overwhelming started becoming manageable.I learned that progress comes from solving small aspects of the problem, one at a time.The second thing I learned was to identify the most threatening aspect of problems.Before, I naturally looked to solve the aspect that I found most annoying.But Montaigne showed me the value of challenging myself.So I started asking:“What if my assumption is wrong?”“What aspects of the picture am I missing?”“What aspects are the most threatening?”This changed the way I solve problems.When I challenge myself, I identify the critical aspects of problems much faster.I avoid wasting time.And I get things done much faster.The third thing I learned was that better questions get things done faster.I used to ask questions like:“Why is this happening to me?”“Why is this so difficult?”“Why can’t I get this done?”But those questions kept me stuck.Now I ask:“What is the next step?”“What do I have to do exactly?”Those questions change my mindset.They move me from frustration to action.And that is the biggest lesson I learned from Montaigne.Getting things done faster is not simply about speed.It is about thinking clearly.When I ask better questions, I find better solutions.When I break big challenges into smaller steps, I make progress faster.High productivity is not about doing more things.It is about doing the right things in the right order.So now, whenever I feel overwhelmed, I remember this:Don’t fight the entire battle at once.Understand the problem.Break it down.Ask better questions.Because the fastest way forward is thinking better.If you are interested in applying rational ideas in all sorts of situations, I recommend my book “The 10 Principles of Rational Living.”https://johnvespasian.com/montaigne-i-learned-to-get-things-done-faster/

We like to believe we are rational beings.We tell ourselves that we analyse, choose, and control our lives through conscious decisions.But what if this belief is one of our greatest illusions?The philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer challenged this comfortable idea centuries ago.Schopenhauer argued that beneath our thoughts and explanations exists a deeper force—a hidden Will that influences our desires, actions, and choices before we even become aware of them.We often believe we are the authors of our decisions.But how many times do we act on an impulse and only afterward create a logical explanation for why we did it?We call it “intuition.” We call it “following our feelings.” We call it “being ourselves.”But sometimes these are simply unconscious forces controlling us while we convince ourselves we are in charge.We reach for distractions without thinking.We chase approval from people we barely know.We buy things we do not need.We defend opinions we never truly examined.And then we proudly claim that we are acting freely.Schopenhauer’s uncomfortable message is that much of what we do may be the result of impulses pushing us from behind the scenes.If we want to massively improve our decisions, we must stop blindly trusting every thought and every feeling that appears in our minds.Our first impulse is not always wisdom.Before we act, we need to ask a more powerful question: “Why do we want this?”Are we choosing from strength or from fear?Are we pursuing something meaningful or trying to escape discomfort?Are we following our values or are we influenced by someone else’s?That small moment of awareness creates a gap between impulse and action.And inside that gap, we discover the possibility of massive improvement.Schopenhauer did not teach us that we are powerless.He showed us that self-knowledge is the beginning of self-development.We cannot improve what we refuse to acknowledge.The biggest obstacle to better decisions is not a lack of intelligence.It is our belief that we already understand ourselves completely.When we become aware of the hidden forces influencing us, we stop being passengers in our own lives.We begin making better decisions.Schopenhauer’s greatest lesson is this: before we try to control the world around us, we must first understand the invisible forces controlling us from within.To put this into practice, we can follow three simple steps:Step one: Make a pause before important decisions.Instead of reacting immediately, let us give ourselves time to observe our emotions, impulses, and hidden motivations.A few seconds of reflection can prevent years of regret.Step two: Question the desire behind the decision.Before asking, “How can we get what we want?” we should ask, “Why do we want it?”Understanding the source of our desires allows us to separate rational goals from worthless cravings.Step three: Make decisions based on principles, not impulses.We should decide by answering the question: What type of person do we want to become?We should think long term, not according to the emotion of the moment.By practising these three steps, we can make far better decisions and move forward decisively in our own lives.If you are interested in applying rational ideas in all sorts of situations, I recommend my book “The 10 Principles of Rational Living.”https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauer-how-to-massively-improve-our-decisions/

Everyone tells us, ‘Follow your heart.’ But what if our heart is actually leading us in the wrong direction?The philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer believed that blindly following our desires was one of the biggest mistakes we could make.He said that there is a hidden force inside all of us—a constant drive he called the ‘will.’The will pushes us to chase desirable things: success, love, status, comfort, and recognition.But here’s the problem: the will doesn’t care about the truth. It only cares about short-term pleasure.And because of that, we can start bending reality to match our desires.When we really want something, we look for signs that prove we’re right.We ignore all sorts of warnings.We convince ourselves that our dream is realistic—even when the facts tell us otherwise.Schopenhauer’s warning was simple: what feels right isn’t always what is true.Sometimes we have to admit that the goal we’re chasing is detrimental for us at that point.Sometimes we have to walk away from a situation that is draining us.Sometimes the hardest truth is the one that helps us grow.Schopenhauer’s solution was not to stop dreaming or become negative. It was to become more aware of ourselves.We need to slow down, question our impulses, look at the evidence, and ask: ‘Do we want this because it’s meaningful—or because we’re being controlled by unreasonable desires?’For Schopenhauer, the key to thriving in life comes from making rational decisions.Because the person who follows every impulse isn’t free.Automatic reactions are being controlled by every feeling, craving, and temporary desire that appears.A better life doesn’t come from chasing everything we want.It comes from learning which desires deserve our attention—and which ones we should better let go for the moment.If you are interested in applying rational ideas in all sorts of situations, I recommend my book “The 10 Principles of Rational Living.”https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauer-do-not-follow-your-heart/

Aristotle’s theory of the four causes seems at first sight very easy to understand, but if you dig into the details, you will see its epochal consequences. It changed human mentality, and in doing so, it changed the course of history. The four causes, and in particular the final cause, can dramatically change your life for the better.Aristotle adopted a systematic approach to studying the world. His theory of the four causes entails that, if you want to fully understand something, you should consider four distinct causes.First, a material cause that pertains to the material substance that makes up an item or creature. For example, the material cause of a woolen suit is wool.Second, a formal cause that relates to the object’s shape or structure. In the case of the woolen suit, the formal cause consists of a vest and a pair of pants. Their shape constitutes a suit, not a scarf, a raincoat, a shirt, or an overall.Third, an efficient cause that is concerned with the agent or force responsible for making the object. It replies to the question “What brought the object into existence?” In the context of the suit, the efficient cause is the tailor who made it.https://johnvespasian.com/aristotles-theory-of-the-four-causes/Fourth, a final cause that deals with the purpose. It answers the question, “Why does the object exist?” In the case of the suit, the final cause is to allow me to wear the suit for work, formal dinners, and other such occasions.The theory of the four causes seems simple enough as a tool for analyzing reality, but as we’ll see now, it gets exceedingly complicated when it is coupled to social and political events. It is not exaggerated to affirm that Aristotle’s theory of causation has driven the intellectual discourse for twenty-five centuries.https://johnvespasian.com/aristotles-theory-of-the-four-causes/

Everyone wants better performance.That’s why people buy new apps.Read productivity books.Or consume energy drinks.But the biggest performance upgrade we’ll ever get is completely free.Almost nobody uses it.Seneca figured it out 2,000 years ago.Here’s the upgrade.Let us stop believing every thought we have.Just because our mind says we are failing…doesn’t make it true.Just because we are upset…doesn’t mean that we should be emotionally paralysed.Just because we are afraid…doesn’t mean that the danger is real.We are seldom limited by unassailable obstacles.We are mostly limited by our exaggerated emotions.That’s the real obstacle to better performance.Here’s what Seneca did differently.Whenever something happened, he asked one question:What do I have to do exactly to improve my situation?The obstacle is not the economy as a whole.Nor our personal history.Not other people’s opinions.The real obstacle to better performance is our own beliefs.But the moment we stop our exaggerated emotions,…we get all our energy back.That’s a performance upgrade no supplement can give us.And here’s the controversial part.We are probably avoiding the very things that would make us better.Reaching out and making new friends.Starting new projects.Going through the learning curve and experiencing temporary failure.These aren’t real obstacles.They’re the necessary steps to improve our performance.The people who achieve a high performance are persistent.They have trained themselves to cool down their emotions and stay rational.That’s why Seneca’s advice beats most modern self-help.Seneca wasn’t trying to make life easier.He was trying to make us stronger.And stronger people perform better—in business, in relationships, and under pressure.This is the recipe for a free performance upgradeThe only price to pay is giving up our exaggerated emotions and our excuses.If you are interested in applying rational ideas in all sorts of situations, I recommend my book “The 10 Principles of Rational Living.”https://johnvespasian.com/seneca-how-to-get-a-free-performance-upgrade/

What if I told you the biggest obstacle to personal growth… is pushing too hard for personal growth?Sounds backwards, right?But that’s exactly what the 16th-century philosopher Michel de Montaigne figured out.Most people think that personal growth means endless introspection. Journaling for hours. Analysing every emotion. Constantly asking, “Who am I?”Montaigne thought that approach misses the point.His idea was surprisingly simple: we don’t discover ourselves by staring inward. We discover ourselves by expressing ourselves.When we write down our thoughts. When we have real conversations. When we travel, read books, or create something.The moment we put our ideas into the world, we start seeing who we really are.Even our friendships become mirrors of our souls.The right people don’t just support us—they reveal our values and parts of our souls that we cannot see on our own.But Montaigne also warned about something that feels incredibly modern.If we are constantly surrounded by noise, opinions and random socialising, we will struggle to hear our own thoughts.That’s why he believed that regular periods of solitude are a necessity, not a luxury.Montaigne did not mean disappearing from the world forever.He meant creating enough silence to figure out which ideas are actually ours… and which we have borrowed from everyone else.Later thinkers like Emerson explained that regular periods of solitude can help us find our inner voice.But solitude is not enough for personal growth.So what’s the missing piece?According to Montaigne, personal growth does not come from solitude and reflection alone.It comes from building real skills.Learning. Practising. Testing our ideas against reality.Because we don’t become wiser only by thinking.We become wiser by thinking… and then doing.The real path to personal growth requires regular periods of solitude and then plenty of real-world practice.Personal growth comes from expressing ourselves, learning relentlessly, and letting reality teach us we you are.If you are interested in applying rational ideas in all sorts of situations, I recommend my book “The 10 Principles of Rational Living.”https://johnvespasian.com/montaigne-the-shortest-path-to-personal-growth/

We have all been told that Arthur Schopenhauer was the most pessimistic philosopher in history.But I think that’s wrong.In fact, I think most people who call him a pessimist have not understood what he was saying.Here’s the real question.If a glass is only 20% full, is saying “it’s almost empty” pessimistic?Or is it simply true?We have reached a point where stating uncomfortable facts is often dismissed as “being negative.”But reality doesn’t become more pleasant just because we refuse to acknowledge it.That was Schopenhauer’s point.He wasn’t trying to convince us to give up our dreams.He was just arguing that exaggerated optimism is one of the biggest causes of human suffering.Think about it.If we expect life to always be fair, we will be outraged when it isn’t.If we expect constant happiness, we will think something is wrong every time we struggle.If we expect success to come naturally, failure will feel like a massive injustice.But if we understand from the beginning that setbacks, disappointment, and suffering are normal parts of life, they lose their power over us.That’s not pessimism.That’s preparation.Ironically, modern culture encourages the exact opposite.We are constantly told to stay positive, manifest success, and believe that everything will work out.Then we are confronted with reality.And instead of questioning our exaggerated expectations, we blame reality itself.Schopenhauer would have said that reality is not the problem.The problem is the fantasy we were sold.And here’s the part that almost nobody mentions.After explaining why suffering exists, Schopenhauer devoted years to writing about how to live a good life despite it.He recommended self-discipline, meaningful work, empathy, compassion, and artistic contemplation.Does that sound like the philosophy of someone who has given up?Or does it sound like someone who wanted us to stop lying to ourselves, so that we can build a better life?Maybe Schopenhauer wasn’t history’s greatest pessimist.Maybe he was one of history’s greatest realists.And maybe a sober, realistic attitude is the greatest gift that we can give ourselves.If you are interested in applying rational ideas in all sorts of situations, I recommend my book “The 10 principles of rational living.”https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauer-do-not-confuse-realism-with-pessimism/

How do we stop making the same mistakes twice?I used to think that the answer was simple, that all it takes is to have more discipline and try harder.But that didn’t work.Then I came across Schopenhauer, and he said something that changed how I see things.He said that human beings cannot be fully rational.To a great extent, we are driven by an intangible force pushing us toward short-term pleasure and comfort.Schopenhauer called this force “the Will” and Sigmund Freud called it “instincts.”And when I look at my own life, it’s obvious that they are at play.Schopenhauer discovered that we don’t repeat mistakes because we forget that they are mistakes.We repeat them because the same drive shows up at the critical moment… and we follow it.That’s why we know that some things are bad for us, such as procrastination, but we still do them anyway.According to Schopenhauer, it’s not a knowledge problem.It’s a pattern problem.Schopenhauer’s point was not that we are powerless.It’s that we are influenced far more than we like to admit.The Will or the instincts do not ask for permission—they just push.And most of the time, we confuse that push with our conscious decisions.But here’s where it gets interesting.According to Schopenhauer, the solution is not to fight harder against ourselves.The solution is to recognize the pattern before it fully takes over.Once we notice that “this is that same impulse again,” something shifts.The urge doesn’t disappear, but it weakens.Because now we are feeling it and observing it.In that moment of awareness, that’s where we actually get a choice.That moment creates enough space to avoid repeating the same mistakes.Thus, our goal should not be “we are never going to fail again.”But to recognize the pattern early enough so that we can interrupt it.https://johnvespasian.com/how-we-stop-making-the-same-mistakes-twice/

The most dangerous idea in modern culture would sound completely insane to Aristotle.I am talking about the idea that you can be anything you want.Aristotle regarded the idea of random potential as nonsense.Over 2,300 years ago, Aristotle asked a question that still divides people today:Does everything have a true nature?He believed the answer was yes.An acorn becomes an oak, not an apple tree.A lion acts like a lion, not like a rabbit.And what about humans?According to Aristotle, we are not made of malleable clay.We all have built-in potentials and strengths, but those are different for each person.That’s why Aristotle rejected the idea that each person can become literally anything.To him, the key to thriving in life means becoming what you’re best suited to become.It is not about pursuing random improvements.But about discovering your highest potential.And here’s the uncomfortable part:If Aristotle is right, then most people are failing to reach their potential.They’re failing because, instead of cultivating their strengths, they’re trying to become someone they’re not.The question Aristotle leaves us with is the following:Are you trying to imitate someone else?Or are you creating the best version of yourself?If you are interested in applying rational ideas in all sorts of situations, I recommend my book “The 10 principles of rational living.”https://johnvespasian.com/the-most-dangerous-idea-in-modern-culture/

The biggest lie you tell yourself every day is that you’re thinking rationally, but in reality, you are not as logical as you think.Arthur Schopenhauer, one of history’s most crucial thinkers, argued that most of our decisions are not driven by logic.They are driven by something that he called “the ‘Will”, an irrational force pushing our desires, emotions, and impulses.Think about it.Did you ever buy something you didn’t need?Have you ever stayed in a bad relationship?Or have you ever ignored obvious red flags and allowed problems to grow?According to Schopenhauer, your mind wasn’t leading you. Your desires were. And then your brain created a story to justify your bad decisions afterward.Schopenhauer believed that truth is uncomfortable because it forces us to see reality as it is, not as we would like it to be.Sometimes, people do not want to see the truth because reality clashes with their wishes.What is Schopenhauer’s solution?Stop chasing every desire.Question your motives.And when something feels true, ask yourself:Do I believe this because it’s reality, or because I just want it to be true?Schopenhauer said that finding the truth is not about feeling good.It is about pushing ourselves to see clearly.Truth sometimes hurts, but delusion will cost us much more.If you are interested in applying rational ideas in all sorts of situations, I recommend my book “The 10 Principles of Rational Living”https://johnvespasian.com/the-biggest-lie-you-tell-yourself-every-day/

When taken out of context, philosophical statements can prove misleading; when poorly defined, they become dangerous; and the more frequently they are repeated, the more dangerous they become.Seneca (4 BC-65 AD) did his fair share of repeating poorly defined statements. The fact that he eschewed debates spared him uncomfortable questions.For instance, readers might have asked Seneca to clarify what he meant by “living in accordance with nature.” He loved to exhort everyone to “live in accordance with nature,” but his writings define “nature” rather fuzzily.What did Seneca mean exactly? Was he talking about nature in the sense of trees, sheep, and mosquitoes? Or did he actually mean “human nature” as defined by Aristotle (384-322 BC)?Seneca added to the mystification by using cryptic words. I am afraid that he only created confusion by advising people to “live in harmony with the logos.”The word “logos” is employed by Seneca interchangeably with “cosmic order” and “universal reason.” Those don’t match exactly the Aristotelian tradition, which had only used the term “logos” to mean “intellect, reason or logic.”The fact that Seneca had not built on Aristotle’s works should raise the alarm in the philosophically minded. To make it worse, Seneca performed his word transmutation implicitly, without ever stating his rationale for not following Aristotle.In the Letters to Lucilius, Seneca provides us an indirect definition of “logos.” He recommends respecting the “rational order.” It reminds me of Cleanthes’ advice to align our actions with “cosmic reason.”Cleanthes and Seneca dug up a deep trench between their concept of logos and the one used by Aristotle. The trench is as deep as an oceanic abyss and as wide as the Himalayas. If we fall into this trench, I fear that we might never see the sunshine again.Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/senecas-on-living-in-accordance-with-nature/

Like most ancient philosophers, Seneca used grandiloquent terms to spice up his writings. For instance, he employed the words “cosmos” and “natural order” to designate rather mundane events. Similarly, he used the word “logos” to mean “destiny.”Respect for the natural order is Seneca’s favourite theme. He regarded nature as all-encompassing, not just as wilderness or greenery. When he spoke about nature, he was also referring to human actions. I mean professional, family, political and sports activities, just to name a few.In his treatise “On the Happy Life,” Seneca outlines his recipe for happiness. As it was customary in ancient times, the treatise was addressed to a third person.“On the Happy Life” is not written as a dialogue, the genre preferred by Plato (427-347 BC) for philosophical writing. The advantage of dialogues as a genre is that they make it easy to present and compare contrasting views.I must, however, clarify that Plato’s works do not constitute “dialogues” as we define them today. When we watch movies or television shows, we expect their speech to sound vivid and spontaneous. If this is not the case, viewers will lose interest and categorise the movie or show as boring.Plato did not bother to render his “dialogues” spontaneous and vivid. It never crossed his mind that readers might rate his characters as artificial and their speech as construed.In fact, Plato had regarded artificiality and craftiness in literature as laudable. The objective of his “dialogues” was to get philosophical ideas across. He did not consider it relevant to create compelling characters and make their speech realistic.Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/feasibility-of-senecas-advice-to-live-in-accordance-with-nature/

It’s hypocritical to recommend poverty when one is wealthy, or to recommend passivity when one has displayed remarkable industriousness for decades. I am afraid that Seneca is to blame on both counts.Nonetheless, he did not mean to deceive his readers. He was sincere in his feelings, convinced that he was dispensing good advice. Indeed, Seneca had good intentions, but got it terribly wrong.I can only conclude that there is a fault in Seneca’s logic, even if he tried to teach a major lesson. Seneca made an error because, when confronted with an undesirable effect, he made a wild guess about its cause instead of investigating further.After having jumped to conclusions too quickly, Seneca closed his eyes to the fact that his ideas were unworkable. I can only regret that these have been relayed uncritically by people who trusted Seneca’s prestige more than their own perceptions.Seneca was elaborating on his central theme, that is, that we should live in accordance with nature. He rightly inferred that, by living in accordance with nature, we can attain better results and increase our happiness.The problem is that, when Seneca tried to define “living in accordance with nature,” he got close to the Platonic dualism that splits human beings into body and soul.Plato (427-347 BC) had built his metaphysics on the alleged preexistence of the soul, which joins the body at birth; and his epistemology on the alleged access of the soul to an intangible, eternal world of abstract ideas.In general, Stoics do not subscribe to Platonic dualism, but when Seneca wrote that “we shouldn’t be slaves to our own body,” is he not accepting Platonic dualism? Is he not viewing the soul as the human essence, and the body as an auxiliary?Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/realism-of-senecas-advice-to-live-in-accordance-with-nature/

The ancient Roman republican values can be illustrated by individuals like Cincinnatus or Scipio Africanus. Their actions embody valour, equanimity, and above all, productiveness.Cincinnatus (519-430 BC) was a farmer, but found himself appointed to lead the Roman army for a while. He did his best to win the war, and as soon as it was done, he went back to his farm and continued to work.Scipio Africanus (236-183 BC) did a great deal of travelling during his military campaigns, but travelling did not prevent him from using his spare time for reading and learning. He was known to be a learned man, and his good decisions reflect the depth of his knowledge.The old Roman republican spirit was still shaping Seneca’s views when he wrote his 88th Letter to Lucilius, emphasising a virtue drawn from Aristotle (384-322 BC). I am referring to the virtue of productiveness, which plays a major role in Aristotle’s “Nicomachean Ethics.”Seneca and Aristotle did not use the word “productiveness” because it wasn’t part of their vocabulary, but they used words that convey the same meaning.Aristotle would frequently employ “human flourishing” and “thriving” as synonyms for happiness, affirming that happiness entails the development of one’s talents and skills, and putting them into practice.Seneca did something similar in his 88th Letter to Lucilius, where he praises one’s ability to deliver an objectively valuable performance or work. That was a distinct statement in favour of market value or exchange value, which he considered the coin that drives human choices.For the sake of simplicity, I am going to employ the word “productiveness” in this discussion. It encompasses accurately the concepts used by Aristotle and Seneca in their writings.Seneca categorizes productiveness as virtuous, and places it much higher than unearned reputation coming from ancestry or family connections.Productiveness is the practical outcome of important virtues such as initiative, courage and persistence. These constitute the opposite of passivity, resignation and defeatism.Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/productiveness-and-senecas-advice-to-live-in-accordance-with-nature/

Historians seldom remark that exoticism or strangeness adds value to the advice of ancient philosophers. I mean exoticism and strangeness in the sense of “Verfremdung,” the concept coined by Bertolt Brecht (1898-1956) in his theatre theory.By “Verfremdung,” Brecht meant that acerbic criticism will meet less resistance if conveyed on stage through exotic stories and characters. The public will still get the message, but subtly and metaphorically. Otherwise, they would have rejected it.Seneca provided plenty of good advice, but I doubt that his ideas would be palatable without their exotic, strange flavour.Readers are receptive to Seneca’s prescriptions for a simple life because he lived more than two thousand years ago, in the times of ancient Rome. When placed in such an exotic, strange setting, an agrarian lifestyle looks appealing.I maintain that Seneca’s prescriptions benefit from the effects of “Verfremdung” because people today would not listen to them if dispensed by a peasant living in poverty.Seneca was himself extremely wealthy, but wrote profusely against wealth. His 25th Letter to Lucilius recounts that wealthy people tend to feel anxious because they fear losing their assets and being forced to live in poverty.The argument employed by Seneca is fallacious. Indeed, he may have known some wealthy people who lived in anxiety, but there are many who don’t.In fact, there is no objective argument to affirm that wealthy people have to feel anxious, worried or fearful. There are ways to protect one’s assets and keep anxiety at bay.I am referring to relocation, insurance, asset diversification, geographical diversification, just to name a few methods used in modern times to protect one’s assets. Seneca’s argument about anxiety doesn’t hold water.Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/seneca-on-living-simply/

Cooking recipes are hard to carry out perfectly the first time if the process is too complex. Even if the recipe is described in great detail, one must deal with variability in the ingredients in terms of quality and freshness, cooking temperature, etc.Seneca gave philosophical recipes that are not any easier to carry out than haute-cuisine recipes. He did write down his recommendations with profuse detail, but we must nonetheless adapt those to our own circumstances.In his 77th and 101st Letters to Lucilius, Seneca provides an important clue about how to achieve balance. He encourages us to look at life from the perspective of death, so that we can identify those things that are really important, and those that waste our time.Seneca’s advice can help us acquire serenity, first of all. His writings do not speak about a balanced perspective, but if we get the numbers right, we would automatically strike the right balance. It all starts with our being realistic regarding our life expectancy.We should not make an assumption that is too short because it would destroy our motivation to do anything productive. I would not expect a high motivation from people who believe that they have no future.In the Middle Ages, especially in the ninth century, some people were convinced that the world was about to end. As a result, those people stopped labouring the fields, building new homes, and all other productive activities.Seneca was trying to prevent individuals from adopting an exaggerated short-term attitude. Barring a strong reason, it is not rational to think that we are about to die, or that the world is about to end.Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/senecas-recipe-for-achieving-a-balanced-life/

Seneca made some worthy recommendations about how to deal with pain and suffering. Unfortunately, he also dispensed plenty of irrational, harmful ones. It’s important to tell the difference between his good and bad advice.For instance, Seneca offered solid advice for addressing pain and suffering when they are mental constructs, but does his method work in cases of physical pain? In his 13th Letter to Lucilius, he affirms that “we are more frequently afraid than hurt; and suffer more from our fears than from real injuries.”I can only wonder if Seneca had forgotten all victims of the cruelty inflicted by emperors such as Nero (54-68 AD). We are talking about vast numbers of individuals being sent to exile or executed.How could Seneca possibly argue that the suffering of those victims was predominantly a mental construct? Was their pain and anxiety a figment of their imagination? Did those people suffer just because of their negative thinking?Seneca was wrong, but his error is not obvious. Through the centuries, many readers have taken him seriously and adopted his insights. They have confronted pain and suffering by telling themselves that those emotions are mostly imaginary.They were convinced that Seneca was telling them the truth, but over time, they were forced to recognise reality. Their pain and suffering eventually became so acute that they could no longer be categorised as imaginary.I would have asked Seneca to recheck if his philosophical recommendations have universal applicability. Human pain and suffering arise mostly from harmful situations, not from delusion or imagination.Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/seneca-on-dealing-with-pain-and-suffering/

Seneca wrote hundreds of pages about how to grief and fear in difficult times. Modern readers can benefit from Seneca’s wise recommendations for dealing with pain and suffering. I am going to summarise those recommendations to the extent that we can still apply them today.Emotional overreaction should be avoided because it’s a sure recipe for disaster. In his essay “On the Constancy of the Wise,” Seneca calls for moral strength in the face of trouble.In this context, I equate “moral strength” to “equanimity,” that is, the capacity to keep an equal temper in good and bad times. If we face severe problems, we should strive to keep a cool head, so that we can identify the best solution.Panic reactions tend to prove counterproductive. Without sufficient serenity, it is simply not possible to assess the facts and weigh the alternatives correctly.Since few problems are really life-threatening, we should take time to reflect. Seneca regards it as particularly foolish to react heavily to insults or moral injuries. We should refrain from reacting in a manner that makes problems worse.Risk prevention and diversification, in modern terms, can provide us with solid protection against life’s misfortunes. Seneca does not employ a modern set of terms concerning risk management, but uses “self-sufficiency” and “self-discipline.”Those words are not equivalent. They are pointing to two strategies that are complementary. In the 66th Letter to Lucilius, Seneca gives a wide meaning to the term “self-sufficiency.” In our century, I find the words “self-reliant” and “independent” better aligned with the ancient meaning.When Seneca speaks about how to protect ourselves against the ups and downs of life, he is calling for serenity as much as he is calling for risk prevention. If we do not get into troubled waters, we do not need to fear shipwreck and drowning.Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/senecas-best-advice-for-dealing-with-pain-and-suffering/