John Vespasian

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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