John Vespasian

The most crucial philosophical lesson is learning to use our time effectively. Seneca devoted his dialogue titled “On the Shortness of Life” to presenting this insight.
He defended the thesis that human life is long enough to do all the important things that ensure our happiness. The problem is that we get distracted by unimportant issues and waste years in the pursuit of inconsequential goals.
Frantic activity tends to be at odds with effectiveness, warns Seneca. To prove his statement, he pointed to his contemporary Marcus Vinicius, who had devoted three decades of his life to a political career, starting at the lower echelons and climbing the ladder one step at a time.
At the end of his life, Vinicius complained that he had been pursuing the wrong goals. He had filled his years with frantic activity, but drawn little satisfaction from the outcome. If had chosen his goals more carefully, he would have been happier.
We need to adopt a healthy attitude about achievement, wealth, success and popularity. From the 2nd Letter to Lucilius, I have noted that we tend to obsess about how popular we are, and how much we achieve and how much we earn. I find it particularly important to avoid this kind of mentality.
Seneca recounts the story of Calvisius Sabinus, one of his contemporaries. Despite his wealth, Sabinus felt inferior due to his poor education. He was afraid of speaking in public, going to social gatherings, and expressing his opinions.
Since his manner of speech lacked elegance, Sabinus feared ridicule. He spent vast amounts on hiring instructors, but those failed to turn him into a polished, self-confident individual.
The problem is that Sabinus was placing too much weight on his level of popularity. In reality, not so many people would detect Sabinus’ lack of intellectual polish, and even those, were unlikely to make a big fuss about it.
Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/best-of-senecas-wisdom/

When people read the writings of Seneca and put them into practice, the consequences can be disappointing. If they were looking for easy solutions, they would soon discover that Stoicism is hard to implement and arduous to sustain.
Am I exaggerating the difficulties of practising Stoicism in all areas of life? Not in the least. The effort involved can prove much larger than people had expected, and the accompanying fatigue might exhaust their determination.
For instance, let us take the recommendations contained in Seneca’s 11th Letter to Lucilius. It advises readers to befriend “only people who will turn them into better persons.” If we put this recommendation into practice, the impact can be gigantic.
Do all our friends meet Seneca’s requirement of turning us into better persons? If some fall short in this area, are we ready to unfriend them? What will be the consequences on our social and professional life?
Seneca explained that the principle plays in both directions. On the one hand, it is prompting us to end all friendships that fail to turn us into a better person. On the other hand, it tells us to steer away from new ones that do not meet the mark.
I think that Seneca should have recounted the story of Gaius Cassius Longinus (86-42 BC), whose philosophy had shifted away from Stoicism. Cassius would have chosen a different course of action if he had stayed loyal to Stoicism.
Early in life, Cassius had focused on his career and steered away from political conflict, but later, he joined the conspiracy to assassinate Julius Caesar (100-44 BC). Cassius befriended Brutus, Trebonius and Decimus, and carried out the plan.
If Cassius had maintained his Stoic convictions, he wouldn’t have joined the conspiracy. He would have realised that Brutus and the other conspirators were not going to turn him into a better person. None of them fulfilled the Stoic criteria for desirable friendships.
Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/the-impact-of-senecas-wisdom/

In contrast to most Ancient Greek and Roman philosophers, Seneca remained highly consistent between his writings and his own life. I am referring specifically to his life in Corsica, where he had been exiled by Emperor Nero (54-68 AD).
Seneca’s wisdom or “art of living” has maintained its value through the centuries because it responds to a crucial need. It is answering the question “What to do when things fall apart?”
Undoubtedly, we face different challenges nowadays than in the early years of the Roman Empire. Seneca did not have to worry about pollution, overpopulation, inflation, traffic jams or unemployment, but he witnessed first-hand the ravages of war, famine, slavery, and judicial arbitrariness.
I’m going to articulate Seneca’s art of living around two key insights. Those are spread across his philosophical writings, which consist of essays (sometimes in a quasi-conversational format) and his Letters to Lucilius.
Wealth plays an enabling role in human life, but it is just one factor out of many in the formula for happiness. Seneca is the first author in history to argue at length in favour of leading a modest lifestyle, voluntarily limiting our expenditures.
The recommendation of a modest lifestyle was not new, but prior authors had never addressed it in detail. I mean “authors” and not only “philosophers.”
We can trace back this idea to the Bible, but not as a central theme in the Ancient Testament. The exhortation to embrace a modest lifestyle appears repeatedly in the Gospels, but those were written long after Seneca’s death.
Indeed, Seneca was the first author to recommend discipline in expenditures and a modest lifestyle. I haven’t mentioned the Taoist philosophers Lao-Tzu (571-531 BC) and Chuang-Tzu (369-286 BC) because those had taken poverty for granted.
Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/seneca-and-the-art-of-living/

The writings of Seneca are so persuasive that readers can be tempted to put them into practice before having a clear idea of the consequences. If they follow Seneca’s advice to the letter, I fear that they could get themselves in trouble.Interpretation is a necessary step between the philosophical ideals presented by Seneca and the reality we face every day. I love Seneca’s insights and examples, but I must remind myself that, due to his high social position, Seneca hadn’t experienced the challenges and constraints of the average citizen.I am not exaggerating when I say that a literal interpretation of Seneca can point people in the wrong direction. I can prove my assertion by pointing to Seneca’s nephew, Marcus Annaeus Lucanus (39-65 AD) or “Lucan.”Lucan was very familiar with the Stoic ideals professed by Seneca. Since an early age, he had embraced the pursuit of truth, self-discipline and steadiness.He was committed to facing life’s difficulties with serenity, as advised by Seneca in the 18th Letter to Lucilius. It teaches us how to counter adversity with calmness, serenity and moral strength. In today’s terms, I would call it “personal growth.”Lucan applied himself to studying, but had too widely interpreted Seneca’s exhortation to pursue self-development. The purpose of Seneca’s recommendation was to encourage the development of virtue, especially moderation.Instead, Lucan interpreted that Seneca was praising study or self-development for career purposes. Seneca’s essay “On the Shortness of Life” and other Ancient Stoics commend us to use time wisely, although not in the context of career development. This didn’t prevent Lucan from working to develop his talents.Lucan focused his efforts on writing the poem “Pharsalia,” a recreation of the civil war that had brought Julius Caesar to power. “Pharsalia” has merit as a poetic work, but during the rise of the Roman Empire, it was rather foolish to write a poem praising the old Roman Republic.Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/risks-in-senecas-art-of-living/

Despite the overall soundness of his ideas, Seneca incurred important inconsistencies. His wisdom or “art of living” needs rectifications to avoid potentially lethal risks. Let us point out those inconsistencies and see how to address them.
Three centuries before Seneca, Cleanthes had enunciated a crucial tenet of Stoicism: “People who conform to the dictates of their circumstances tend to do better in life than those who are reluctant.”
In order to adapt the original text to modern language, I have translated “fate” by “the dictates of their circumstances.” When Cleanthes used the word “fate,” he was not referring to divine predestination. He just meant “inevitable, inescapable or unavoidable.”
His statement entails an inconsistency that runs across the whole Stoic philosophy. The problem arises from the concept of “willing individual.” Cleanthes meant individuals who align their thoughts and actions with fate.
He used the word “fate” to underline that those constraints and circumstances cannot be modified. He was taking for granted that individuals cannot steer their life in their chosen direction, and that obstacles and setbacks should be accepted.
Cleanthes had overlooked that the terms “willing” and “fate” are incompatible because a willing person has reviewed his options and made a choice, but if there are no options, it is meaningless to speak of “choice” and “willingness.”
Immanuel Kant considered freedom of choice a precondition for morality. In his book, “Critique of Practical Reason” published in 1788, he declared it pointless to establish ethical rules for circumstances that do not offer a choice.
Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/inconsistencies-in-senecas-art-of-living/

A linear view of human nature constitutes the weakest point of Seneca as a philosopher. He regarded humans as rational, but with a tendency to do too much or too little. If we want to prevent anxiety and worry, he theorized, we should embrace moderation in all things.
Seneca considered anxiety and worry to be the roots of most unhappiness. His recipe for preventing grief is avoiding strong emotions through self-control. If we restrain ourselves from all excesses, we will remain somewhere in the middle and prevent negative emotions.
The logic employed by Seneca relies on linearity, that is, on the assumption that, in all human activities, there is a line that goes from zero to one hundred.
According to Seneca, if we remain in the middle and avoid the extremes, we can free ourselves of anxiety and worry. If we keep strong emotions at bay, we’ll maintain our peace of mind
However, Seneca’s logic does not withstand close scrutiny. Are we supposed to choose moderation in nutrition and health, so that we eat only average food, that is, not too noxious, but also not too healthy?
If we use Seneca’s logic, we should also choose moderation in virtue. We should behave honestly, but not too much. We are also to behave courageously, but not too much, and so on.
Seneca’s call for moderation would prove counterproductive in those cases. We should pursue virtue, health, friendship and love to the maximum, not with moderation. If the purpose of human life is happiness, why should we pursue happiness with moderation?
Human nature is not made of linear traits, where we can set the emphasis always at a moderate level. Do not do anything in excess, says Seneca, but how are we supposed to make dozens of decisions per day if we cannot figure out what moderation means?
Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/senecas-views-on-human-nature/

Virtue rewards, first and foremost, its practitioner. That was the reason for Aristotle to recommend virtues such as ambition and personal initiative. Seneca did not share the views of Aristotle on virtue because, for Seneca, achievement and success represent the exceptions in life, not the rule.
In the 72nd Letter to Lucilius, Seneca explains his concept of human nature and virtue. Life is full of setbacks and failure, he argued, and the purpose of philosophy is to help us cope. Good philosophy increases our resilience and equanimity each day.
Seneca underlined that the daily practice of philosophy is a prerequisite for peace of mind. In order to enjoy the benefits of philosophy, it is necessary to practise it consistently. It is not sufficient to study it.
When I read this Letter, I thought of Lucius Annaeus Gallio, a friend of Seneca’s, who was very familiar with Stoicism. Gallio knew Seneca’s opinions on human nature and virtue, but seldom practised them. He viewed philosophy as an interesting intellectual game that he enjoyed playing, but he would not apply it in reality.
If we accept the ideas in the 72nd Letter to Lucilius, we can only conclude that, due to his refusal to practise philosophy, Gallio led a sub-optimal life. Intellectual contradictions often lead to disorientation and anxiety. We need correct ideas and consistent implementation. Otherwise, they will prove useless.
Seneca regarded the rejection of philosophy as harmful, but even those who embrace it, will need constancy and steadiness. Inconsistency is omnipresent. It is a part of human nature by default, but we can overcome it by means of steady effort.
Let’s not turn human nature into an excuse for our mistakes, deficiencies and weaknesses, exhorted Seneca. We all have the power to improve ourselves, even if it takes lots of effort.
Instead of employing human nature as an excuse for doing the wrong thing, we should study the lives of great individuals and learn from them.
Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/senecas-insights-on-human-nature/

It is not easy to summarize the work of a lifetime in one sentence, especially when the person in question has written one and a half million words. However, in Aristotle’s case, we do not even need a full sentence to summarize his teachings. We can do it in just one word: causality.
Aristotle (384-322 BC) is not only one of the three most influential philosophers in history, but the creator of a brand-new mentality. The other two key philosophers, Plato and Kant, cannot claim the same honor.
Through keen observation and logic, Aristotle arrived at the conclusion that everything in the natural world has a purpose and a cause. When I say “everything,” I really mean everything tangible or intangible, whether in the past, in the present or in the future.
What is Aristotle’s theory of causality? It’s widely known as “the theory of the four causes” because that’s the name that monks gave it in the late Middle Ages and early Renaissance.
Aristotle named the four causes as follows: the material cause, the formal cause, the efficient cause, and the final cause. The latter is particularly interesting because it links the events of the world to human motivation.
There are two unique aspects of Aristotle’s final causation. One, the fact that no prior thinker (neither in Greece nor anywhere else) had come up with the concept, not even Socrates or Plato.
The second unique aspect is that the study of final causation is laying down the foundation for rational discussions on ethics and happiness. I must underline the word “rational” because, in contrast to prior philosophers, Aristotle strived to identify the good life by using reason, not feelings or intuitions.
Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/aristotles-theory-of-causality/

Learning to fish is more valuable than getting a free meal, because the former can feed us for a lifetime. Methods are far more valuable than objects, because objects are finite. Methods are not limited in time. We can simply employ them to arrive at our goals once and again.
The essays by Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) include an important hidden message: Keep your eyes open and stay alert. Don’t accept things without questioning, especially if they look too good to be true. Look beyond the obvious, especially when people tell you that there are no alternatives.
Montaigne’s hidden message is about self-reliance, alertness and method. His essays illustrate his thought patterns and help readers acquire the habit of looking at the whole picture. I find it particularly impressive when Montaigne applied his method to seemingly innocuous subjects.
Take for instance Montaigne’s essay “On Names” where he starts with the anodyne remark that some heirs fail to honour their family name.
Their ancestors had become famous thanks to their heroic or courageous actions, but the heirs do not care. Would it not make more sense, asked Montaigne, to name individuals after their own deeds.
Montaigne points to a Central African tribe called Yoruba, where children are named after something that they have done themselves or after the circumstances surrounding their birth.
For instance, the Yoruba could name a child “the one that came first” (the primogenitor), indicating that he was the first child to be born to those parents.
Montaigne’s disquisition starts quietly, but then his method kicks in and widens his field of vision. Why should we judge a person at all by the name he carries? Should we not rather rate each person according to his own merits?
Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/the-hidden-message-in-michel-de-montaignes-literary-legacy/

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