It is not a coincidence that historians and philosophers have spread large misunderstandings of #stoicism , especially of the ideas presented by Seneca in his writings. They did so, not to destroy Seneca’s reputation, but to push their own doctrines to the forefront. They believed that, by undermining the appeal of Stoicism, people would be driven to accept opposite doctrines. Fortunately, those historians and philosophers did an awful job at undermining Seneca. I would argue that their distortions have achieved the opposite effect. Instead of driving Stoicism into oblivion, they had magnified its influence and endurance. The attempts to misrepresent Stoicism come in all flavours, but share a common element: They present #seneca as a liar or hypocrite; they point to his literary praise of simplicity while he accumulated an immense fortune; they compare his words with his actions, and decry the inconsistencies. Indeed, those discrepancies exist, but I do not know of any philosopher who perfectly embodied his own ideals. I consider the demand for perfect #consistency unrealistic because it takes decades for a thinker to give shape to his body of thought. By the time his intellectual edifice is completed, the author cannot go back in time and change his own past. He cannot be expected to reincarnate overnight into a perfect human being, one who would think and act with omniscience. The demand for perfect consistency between words and actions does not invalidate a body of philosophical ideas. It can drive us to examine those ideals more thoroughly and question the philosopher’s motivation, but the truth is the truth. It would not make any sense to shoot the messenger. Seneca was conscious of the impossibility of achieving total consistency. Everybody makes mistakes, but we just tend to be stricter with philosophers’ errors. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/misunderstandings-about-senecas-ideas/

Historians have greatly exaggerated the importance of the Stoic insights on the fear of death. Seneca wrote about #death in his essays and in the Letters to Lucilius, but did little more than rehashing the views of earlier philosophers. I can summarise Seneca’s insights in two sentences: First, death is part of the normal life cycle, but hypochondriacs and paranoiacs will refuse to accept this fact. Second, it is wiser to devote one’s efforts to living wisely rather than #worrying about death. #seneca Seneca was baffled that people would consume endless time and energy worrying about death, consulting astrologists and oracles, and mourning deceased family members and friends. In Ancient Greece and Rome, many rituals revolved around death, but the same can be said of other cultures. A large share of the buildings preserved by history serve as burial places for aristocrats and heroes. Death seems to have been an obsession for everybody, irrespective of their beliefs or ideology. During his exile in Corsica, Seneca wrote to his mother and conveyed his thoughts on #suffering and death. Scholars have named this letter “Consolation to Helvia.” Seneca had recently turned forty-five and Helvia must have been in her sixties. In his letter, Seneca elaborates the theme of “misfortune is a normal element of life.” He is primarily referring to his exile in Corsica, but he had used the same logic in letters about death, sickness and financial setbacks.Seneca argues that suffering can help victims “develop their mental strength,” but the #logic is weak. I can imagine far easier ways to develop one’s mental strength. Do we need to undergo severe injuries to learn to avoid infections? I dare say no. The Consolation to Helvia revolves around Seneca’s belief that we’ll attain freedom if we become “masters of ourselves,” but does not explain how self-chastisement and endurance can possibly render our lives better. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/seneca-on-the-fear-of-death/

Large numbers of philosophers have preached ideals that do not have anything to do with real life. When I read their works, I can only wonder if they spent one minute reflecting on work, success, prosperity or #happiness . #seneca exemplifies the opposite. He devoted his works to dealing with real-life concerns and supplied useful advice. He didn’t put forward ideals that he would not practise himself, even if he never achieved perfect consistency. In the essay “On the Happy Life,” Seneca gave us his recipe for thriving in life. He was already sixty-two when he wrote it, and drew lessons from a lifetime experience. His long exile in Corsica had marked his character as much as his later financial success as adviser to Empress Agrippina. Seneca’s concept of happiness is different from Aristotle’s. I attribute the differences to essential philosophical arguments. It is not that Seneca was unfamiliar with #aristotle (384-322 BC) and the “Nicomachean Ethics” and “Eudemian Ethics.” He did know Aristotle’s formula for happiness, but disagreed with it. “Thriving” and “achievement” drive Aristotelian ethics from beginning to end. For Aristotle, human action is teleological. It has happiness as a goal (“telos”), for which health, prosperity, success and popularity constitute stepping stones. Aristotelian moral values are supposed to help us thrive and advance towards happiness. When we practise #virtues such as self-discipline or benevolence, Aristotle argued, we are helping ourselves build a better life. Seneca did not contest that humans desire happiness, but he found Aristotle’s advice impractical. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/senecas-principles-for-thriving-in-life/

In history, the concept of #selfreliance developed in parallel to the concept of #individuality . In the absence of autonomy, we cannot speak of self-reliance. In the absence of personal assets, there is no room for deploying them effectively. The Stoics, Zeno, Cleanthes, Chrysippus, and #seneca , were the first philosophers to underline the importance of individual serenity and self-reliance. #plato (427-347 BC) and #aristotle (384-322 BC) had not given much thought to this matter because they regarded the city (“polis”) as a necessity. In contrast to Plato and Aristotle, Seneca considered wealth, success, prosperity, social harmony, friendship and popularity as optional. Those factors can enrich our experience, Seneca noted, but do not determine our #happiness . In the 91st Letter to Lucilius, Seneca explained the crucial importance of self-reliance. If we make our happiness depend on other people’s actions, argued Seneca, #disappointments are inevitable. Self-reliance consists of taking our happiness in our own hands, so that we grow invulnerable to disruptions. Even if justice and #fairness generally prevail, we are bound to be deceived or short-changed in some cases. Why? Because, some people will make innocent mistakes, or take advantage of the situation, or simply refuse to play according to the rules. Like no other philosopher, Seneca had grasped that a certain measure of social friction and unfairness are unavoidable. It is in our interest to accept this fact and protect us accordingly. All plans for self-reliance will fail if we don’t internalise why they are necessary and urgent. In the 91st Letter to Lucilius, Seneca refers to the fortuitous destruction of Lyon by fire as an event that put the self-reliance of its inhabitants to the test. Lyon’s devastation occurred when Seneca was already sixty-seven years old and spending most of his time in his villa near Naples. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/senecas-thoughts-on-self-reliance/

Amongst all Stoic philosophers, Seneca has attained the widest reach and popularity. The reason is not hard to figure out. He simply wrote more and better than all others put together. #seneca devoted more than two decades of his life to writing. At the beginning, he wrote plays for the theatre, tragedies, that don’t deserve much consideration. They are boring and bloody, as well as unimaginative. In his forties, Seneca turned to writing essays, but following the literary conventions of this time. He conceived his writings as essays, but composed them in some parts as dialogues, where participants defend different views. He was imitating the pattern #plato had initiated with his #philosophy dialogues. Nonetheless, Seneca’s greatest literary achievement consists of a collection of letters called “Letters to Lucilius,” a friend of his. Seneca was in his fifties and early sixties when he wrote those letters. They sum up the #wisdom of a lifetime. In the Letters to Lucilius (or Letters from a Stoic), Seneca is presenting the principles of #stoicism . He is expanding the ideas of Cleanthes (330-230 BC), Zeno of Citium (334-262 BC) and Chrysippus (279-206 BC), the founders of Stoic philosophy. Seneca wrote more than one hundred Letters to Lucilius, but they all revolve around two main themes. The Letters are addressing these two themes from different angles: One, we should not blow our troubles out of proportion. It’s better to keep a cool head in times of adversity, and keep panic at bay. Two, we can improve our own lives, but it takes lots of effort and dedication. I regard the 63rd Letter to Lucilius as a masterpiece in clarity and conciseness. Seneca accepts that negative emotions such as grief are natural, but at the same time, he encourages readers to keep their emotions in check. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/senecas-letters-from-a-stoic-explained/

It is not an exaggeration to say that #aristotle (384-322 BC) made modern civilisation possible. He invented formal #logic at a time where most of humanity could neither read nor write. If it wasn’t for Aristotle’s contribution to #philosophy , we wouldn’t enjoy such a high standard of living nowadays. In his book “Prior Analytics,” Aristotle outlined the method for drawing correct conclusions; his method is called syllogism or syllogistic reasoning. A syllogism is a sequence of thoughts, ideas or statements that lead to an inescapable conclusion. Human intelligence can employ #syllogisms (animals cannot, even the most intelligent) and, through programming, computers imitate what humans do naturally. Syllogisms typically consist of three elements. In Aristotle’s works, the first element is called “major premise” because it is making a wide statement. For instance, “cats are carnivorous.” The second element is called “minor premise” because it’s making a narrower statement. For example, “my pet is a cat.” I draw your attention to the fact that major and minor premises must share a common feature that enables a conclusion. In our example, the conclusion is “my pet is carnivorous.” I can imitate Aristotle’s style and place the word “therefore” at the beginning: “Therefore, my pet is carnivorous.” When a syllogism is based on permanent characteristics, it’s called “categorical syllogism.” For instance, the major premise “all horses have four legs” and the minor premise “my pet is a horse,” lead to the categorical outcome “my pet has four legs.” Syllogisms can also employ hypothetical premises. Let’s use the example, “when the weather is cold, there are fewer people on the beach” as a major premise. The minor premise “today is a cold day,” leads to the outcome “today, there are fewer people on the beach.” Modern philosophers have criticised Aristotelian syllogisms because of their #rigidity , but that’s precisely their key strength. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/accuracy-in-aristotles-philosophy-of-logic/

If your #logic is slightly wrong, even one per cent wrong, you will end up completely lost fairly soon. Over time, your errors will compound and the consequences will eventually wipe you out. No one can escape the deleterious effects of faulty logic. There are three aspects that render Aristotelian logic vastly superior to other logical systems. For attaining success in your private and professional life, Aristotle’s logic is indispensable. Let us pass review at the three aspects that make it so effective. First, Aristotelian logic relies on human #perception . It does not need extrasensory inputs or religious insights to draw valid conclusions. It only needs facts or statements based on sensory data normally available to humans. That’s all it takes. Syllogisms, the logical method devised by #aristotle , operate on two premises that share a middle term, which enables us to reach a conclusion; the premises might be perfectly accurate or rather imprecise. Yet, even in the worst cases, we can still draw a conclusion provided that the premises share a middle term. The fact that Aristotelian logic works on human perception is crucial. Its importance should not be underestimated. In fact, catastrophic #decisions are often the result of people discarding their own senses and invoking insights from a higher realm. Ramon Llull (1232–1315) is to blame for having attacked and undermined this aspect of Aristotelian logic. Llull found it wrong that Aristotelian logic didn’t include mystical insights. It is a pity that his ideas gained traction in the early #renaissance and managed to confuse other philosophers. Gottfried Wilhelm #leibniz (1646-1716) made things worse by inventing requirements that he wanted to add to everyday logic; his invented claims only created #confusion and degraded the logical method devised by Aristotle. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/the-superiority-of-aristotles-teachings-on-logic-and-reasoning/

The choice of a method in #logic determines all other choices in your life. It determines the scope and depth of your thinking, your concept of #happiness , your drive and your steadfastness. In contrast to other systems of logic, the one delineated by #aristotle (384-322 BC) understands the importance of purpose and gives a central role in how conclusions are drawn. When looking at entities and events, Aristotelian #logic is not only asking how or why. It looks beyond the obvious and aims at clarifying the context. In his work “Metaphysics,” Aristotle recommended to study entities and events by looking at their constituent ingredients (“material cause”), at their shape (“formal cause”), at the force that moves them (“efficient cause”) and especially at their goal (“final cause”). The latter element constitutes a unique characteristic of the Aristotelian method of logic. When you draw conclusions from premises, you employ a middle term. You employ an element that is shared by both premises, a key element that stands “in the middle,” so to speak. However, the middle term is not always easy to find. This is where Aristotle’s theory of #causality comes to help. By looking at the material, formal, efficient, and final cause, you will stand much better chances of finding the middle term. In ethical or moral questions, Aristotle gave heavier weight to the final cause, that is, to the purpose. It’s wise to investigate someone’s #motivation and intentions before passing judgement on his actions. Humans don’t function like machines. We are not robots that carry out a program without asking themselves any questions. I regard Aristotelian logic as vastly superior to all others because it places so much emphasis on understanding the #purpose . Unfortunately, after Aristotle’s death, most logicians lost all interest in investigating the final cause; logic became ritualistic and formulaic. It was all about connecting A to B as quickly as possible, without having grasped the underlying motivation. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/morality-in-aristotles-teachings-on-logic-and-reasoning/

The #optimism found in Aristotle’s view of human nature has been rarely shared by other philosophers. While #aristotle (384-422 BC) regarded humans as rational captains of their destiny, most thinkers in history have considered humans as deficient creatures driven by instincts and social pressure. Aristotle’s predecessor and teacher #plato (429-347 BC) gave his views on human nature in his books titled “The Republic” and “Phaedo.” In “The Republic,” Plato theorises about the division of the human soul in three parts (reason, emotions, and instincts). The same three parts appear in Aristotle’s writings. It’s clear that he had taken over Plato’s theory almost verbatim. However, there are large differences between Aristotle’s and Plato’s views on human nature. Plato had sustained the theory that the human #soul is immortal and that it preexists birth. The soul of each person, said Plato, preexists in a mythical realm of pure abstractions, which Plato called “forms.” It joins the body at the time of birth, and returns to the world of forms at the time of #death . After Plato’s death in 347 BC, Aristotle continued to adhere to Plato’s teachings for a while; later, around 345 BC, he began to develop his own #philosophy , sustaining that the soul appears at birth and will cease to exist when the body dies. Aristotle’s and Plato’s opposing views on the soul bear large practical consequences. In the field of education for instance, it plays a major role whether you endorse one theory or the other. For Plato, education and learning consist of remembering. It means that your soul will remember little by little what it knew already before joining your body at birth. Thus, Plato considers #education as a ritual to help students remember innate ideas. In contrast, Aristotle views education and learning as a pure process of self-development. Every person must first decide if he wants to learn, what he wants to learn and what for. Without motivation, there will be little progress in learning, and without goals, there will be little practical application. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/opponents-to-aristotles-thoughts-on-human-nature/

I love ancient #timemanagement techniques because they do not rely on technology. They revolve around human nature and the concentration of one’s efforts; and their advice can be put into practice right away. In his Letters to Lucilius, #seneca made recommendations on time #management, especially in the 47th and 101st Letters. His advice can be condensed in one word: consistency. I must however acknowledge that it is hard to implement. Seneca had perfectly understood that time management isn’t about little tricks that enable us to gain a few minutes here and there. In the long term, those little gains don’t amount to much because they are unsustainable without strong #motivation . From Seneca’s perspective, time management is about focus and self-discipline. It rests on the willingness to say no to less important activities, so that we can concentrate our efforts on a few areas. Seneca mentions that Cleanthes (330-230 BC) possessed this kind of focus and self-discipline. In spite of his limited financial resources, he devoted sustained efforts to learning philosophy. The fact that he had to earn a living doing menial jobs hadn’t discouraged him from pursuing knowledge. If we imitate Cleanthes, we’ll manage our time excellently and advance in the direction of our dreams. Consistency is the key element in this respect. Seneca emphasised the importance of acquiring the habit of pursuing the right goals. Seneca also refers to the drills performed by Roman soldiers in times of peace. Those exercises required daily effort, but helped Roman soldiers move fast and effectively in the face of danger. By investing their efforts in acquiring skills, Roman soldiers enhanced their fighting abilities. They cultivated their skills on a consistent basis, so that they would be able to move quickly during battles. Their time management was the result of doing the right thing every day. Good time management, Seneca explained, is the outcome of good habits. When we teach ourselves to do the right thing, our habits will automatically drive us in the right direction. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/seneca-on-the-best-use-of-time/