John Vespasian

Problems make us wiser even if most people actually hate them. That’s why the first sign of trouble sends them into panic. They see problems as interruptions to life, while in reality, problems are just the price we pay to be alive.The French philosopher Michel de Montaigne gained this insight more than 400 years ago. He lived through civil wars, political chaos, and religious violence. Entire cities were consumed by blind hatred, hysteria, and fear. Yet, instead of becoming bitter, Montaigne reached a powerful conclusion: problems are our greatest teachers.Think about it. Nobody becomes courageous when everything is easy. Nobody develops patience, resilience and wisdom when life gives them exactly what they want. We only gain wisdom when we are forced to deal with setbacks, uncertainty, and pain.In fact, some of the qualities we admire most in people (strength, self-confidence, self-reliance, good judgement, and critical thinking) are usually the result of facing unwanted problems.Montaigne noted that adversity forces us to reexamine ourselves, develop new skills and increase our self-reliance. It exposes our vulnerabilities, challenges our assumptions, and pushes us to think independently.Every difficulty becomes an opportunity to perceive the world more accurately, and make better decisions in the future.This is why trying to avoid every problem is actually dangerous. A life without challenges doesn’t make us safe. It makes us fragile. A person who has never struggled might collapse at the first sign of real obstacles.The uncomfortable truth is that our current problems may be doing something beneficial for us, something that comfort and good luck could never do. Problems are teaching us patience, forcing us to adapt and build strengths that we don’t even realize we’re developing.Problems are painful. Nobody wants them. But they often become the very experiences that make us wiser, stronger, and more effective than we were before.If you want to apply rational ideas in all sorts of situations, I recommend my book “On becoming unbreakable: How normal people become extraordinarily self-confident.”https://johnvespasian.com/problems-make-us-wiser/

Despite being himself wealthy, Seneca wrote extensively about the advantages of living simply. He came up with dozens of examples that support his advice, but is Seneca someone we can trust? And is it workable to put his advice into practice in our century?In his essay “On the Shortness of Life,” Seneca recounts the story of a wealthy man who had devoted his life to working and investing. The man had devoted decades to accumulating his fortune, working every day, with little spare time for sports, hobbies or anything else.According to Seneca, that wealthy man had wasted his life. He had been working too much, leaving no time for enjoyment or happiness. The wealthy man, says Seneca, was complaining that “he had never truly lived.”Seneca reminds us that “life is short” and that we should adopt a simple lifestyle that enables us to live happily. He strongly condemns the pursuit of excessive wealth, and urges us to use our time wisely.I regard Seneca’s advice as contradictory and unrealistic. In the case of the wealthy man, what was Seneca recommending exactly? Would the man be happier if he had lived in poverty all his life? Of course not, I hasten to answer.Seneca’s admonishment against “time-wasting activities” is a rhetorical device. He does not explain why we should regard work as a waste of time.In fact, Seneca himself did not heed his own advice because he devoted decades to multiplying the assets he had inherited from his parents.He worked assiduously and went from millionaire to multimillionaire, and eventually became one of the wealthiest men in the Roman Empire. If such a person advises us to embrace a simple, modest lifestyle, should we believe his words?Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/practicability-of-senecas-advice-to-live-simply/

I find it surprising that so many people equate living simply with living in poverty. They regard deprivation and discomfort as the prerequisites of simplicity. They abhor high ambitions in particular, because they require complex planning.Seneca contributed to the confusion because his 89th Letter to Lucilius advises readers to prepare for death, meditate daily on their mortality, and stop worrying about the trivialities that fill their days.It’s easy to preach simplicity to people who spend their days meditating about death, but the rest of us need to solve all kinds of problems, plan for the future, and pursue our dreams.In other writings, Seneca added to the confusion by condemning the pursuit of wealth, which he regarded as “a slave to the wise, but a master to the fool.” In his eyes, a simple lifestyle motivates us to grow in wisdom, while luxury and comfort have the opposite effect.I must however regard with suspicion the fact that Seneca judged luxury and comfort incompatible with simplicity. His dire admonitions against wealth set the prelude to medieval asceticism.Even if Seneca’s call for simplicity was well meant, I would be reluctant to endorse, for instance, the extreme asceticism of Francis of Assisi (1181-1226). Francis had drawn inspiration from the Gospels to adopt a lifestyle that corresponds one hundred per cent to Seneca’s recommendations.Nevertheless, I am reluctant to categorise such a lifestyle as simple just because it entails poverty. To grow and harvest wheat seems to me a simpler way to secure food than living in the forest and picking fruits and berries.Similarly, to acquire valuable skills and pursue a productive career seems to me a simpler path to happiness than meditating six hours a day, sleeping on the ground, and eating very little.Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/the-practice-of-senecas-advice-to-live-simply/

When people advise me to embrace a balanced lifestyle, I’m always interested in hearing the details. What do they mean by “balanced”? Do they mean that I should allocate equal time to work, sleep and play? Or that I should balance out my interests or my friends, and devote equal time to each of them?In his writings, Seneca often repeated his recommendation to achieve a balanced life. We can find this call for balance in a few Letters to Lucilius, and in his essay “On the Shortness of Life.”I would describe Seneca’s definition of “balance” as quasi-mathematical. His exhortation to achieve a balanced lifestyle is accompanied by a strong admonition against wasting time. He is urging us to increase useful activities and decrease worthless ones by the same amount.As examples of wasteful activities, Seneca names the time spent on trivialities and entertainment, the pursuit of popularity and the pursuit of a high social status.Instead, Seneca urges us to devote more time to learning and practising philosophy. In modern terms, I would translate his advice into acquiring new skills, and pursuing personal development, self-improvement and spiritual harmony.Seneca’s advice to achieve a balanced life has become very popular, but when we look into the details, his formula doesn’t add up. His recipe is imprecise, and leaves too many questions unanswered.For instance: Why does Seneca condemn entertainment as a waste of time? Why does he view meditation or contemplation as great? Why should we give priority to skills acquisition over productivity improvement? Why is Seneca against the pursuit of an ambitious career?Instead of giving solid answers, Seneca reminds us that life is short and that we should use our time wisely. His repetitions though fail to add clarity to his advice.In the Letters to Lucilius, there are passages where Seneca’s advice to lead a balanced life becomes outright questionable. I am referring to his exhortations to live in poverty.Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/seneca-on-achieving-a-balanced-life/

In the field of ethics, Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) was influenced by Buddhist thought. In particular, #schopenhauer held in high regard the Buddhist concern for suffering, placing empathy and #compassion at the centre of his ethical system. Nonetheless, there are fundamental differences between the ideas of Schopenhauer and the Buddhist #religion. In his book “The world as will and representation” (1808), Schopenhauer theorised that the universe is driven by the will (“life force”). Every living creature is thus prompted to secure its survival, reproduction, and seek short-term pleasure. Buddhist religion does not rely on any principles equivalent to Schopenhauer’s theory of the will. However, it views desires and ambitions as a source of frustration, pain and sorrow. Like Schopenhauer, Buddhism seeks peace of mind by reducing all factors that generate suffering. The overlapping area between Buddhism and Schopenhauer revolves around empathy and compassion; for Buddhists, those are practices that enable humans to reduce pain. I see a similar conception in Schopenhauer, although he put forward the argument that empathy and compassion benefit as well the people who practise them. Practitioners benefit from those #virtues by becoming increasingly self-aware, benevolent and outwardly focused. While Buddhist religion aims at inner peace, Schopenhauer regards empathy and compassion as tools for escaping the dire influence of the will. Schopenhauer’s objective isn’t only inner peace, but also self-awareness, self-reliance and happiness; the latter requires the reduction and elimination of suffering. By drawing ethical values from Buddhism, Schopenhauer is reinforcing his opposition to Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) and Friedrich #hegel (1770-1831); those philosophers had proposed abstract ethical systems unconnected to real-life experience. When Schopenhauer integrated compassion in his morality system, his goal was to increase lifetime #enjoyment by helping people make better decisions. He regarded self-awareness as a prerequisite to clear thinking and making good choices. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauer-and-buddhism/