John Vespasian

Every artwork entails magnification. It blows some aspects of reality out of proportion to underline their significance from the creator’s viewpoint. Other aspects are minimised, ignored, distorted or blurred. #seneca was a playwright before becoming a #stoic philosopher. It is enlightening to study his plays because they announce the principles of Stoicism, magnify its powerful insights, and attempt to cover up its deficiencies. The plays written by Seneca fall in the category “tragedies” and, to a great extent, they recreate historical or religious tales from Ancient Greece. In the first century of our era, educated Romans were familiar with those tales although few of them could actually read Greek. Seneca was in his last decades (the precise date is uncertain) when he wrote his play “Medea,” the story of a married woman betrayed by her husband, Jason. When he goes away with his new love, #medea takes revenge by killing their two sons. At the end of the play, Medea escapes, leaving behind Jason to suffer for the loss. Her physical escape doesn’t mean that she doesn’t suffer herself. Emotionally, she experiences even more pain than Jason because she had committed double infanticide. “Medea” condemns exaggerated emotions by showing their destructive power. In his #philosophical works, Seneca will do exactly the same: He will condemn all kinds of feelings, calling for moderation or resignation. According to Stoicism, Medea should have quietly accepted her abandonment by Jason. She should have regarded her fate as inevitable, as a dictate of destiny, and focused her efforts on rebuilding her life without Jason. However, I must disagree with the Stoic interpretation of the story. Indeed, Medea should not have killed her children, but the #ultimate cause of her suffering had been her decision to marry Jason. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/philosophical-lessons-from-senecas-tragedies/

#patience and #endurance have become the archetypal #virtues of those who claim to be enlightened. When the situation gets from bad to worse, they are the first to recommend resignation, acceptance and passivity. #seneca is to blame for originating the passive #mentality that will accept anything, even the most outrageous abuses. That’s the mentality of inner serenity amidst turbulence and decay. Even in the face of severe setbacks, Seneca’s followers will look away while repeating to themselves beautiful mantras. All their energy will be focused inwards, making them indifferent to #misery and pain. That’s the doctrine Seneca was preaching. In his essay “On the Shortness of Life,” Seneca advises us to concentrate on what’s important, so that we can draw the most #happiness from life. He argues that “the human #lifespan is long enough if we do not waste it on secondary matters.” I have translated Seneca’s Latin text by “secondary matters” instead of “short-term pleasures” or “fleeting interests” because I find “secondary matters” closer to Seneca’s original intent. Seneca was recommending us to stop chasing shiny objects, so that we can concentrate our energies and resources on major achievements. I endorse this insight, but how does it correlate with Seneca’s exhortation to be patient in the face of adversity? The contradiction is obvious, and I can only wonder why it has been ignored in commentaries about Seneca’s philosophy. I really fail to understand how Stoic thinkers can simultaneously favour activity and passivity, initiative and resignation, clarity and blindness. In order to make sense of Seneca’s ideas about patience, we need the “Nicomachean Ethics” and “Eudemian Ethics” written by Aristotle (384-322 BC). Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/seneca-and-the-art-of-patience/

#stoicism is often presented as a purely reactive philosophy. Its role is to toughen the soul for enduring setbacks, adversity, and eventually death; and its goal is the reduction of emotional pain, devoting little energy to solving the root problems. #seneca was the most prolific Stoic author in #ancientrome , but his recommendations are far more dynamic than those made by previous Stoic thinkers such as #zeno of Citium (334-262 BC). I would define their difference as follows: Where Zeno had advised to retreat and quit, Seneca called for firmness, serenity, and recovery to the maximum possible extent. Zeno viewed every battle as lost in advance. His philosophy aims at consoling the victim for the incurred losses, telling him that it could have been worse, and that his #suffering is not so relevant anyway because we are all going to die some day. In times of trouble, Zeno prepared himself to deal with the worst case. His efforts were primarily devoted to #psychological counselling. He employed grandiose words, but did very little in terms of practical action. Essentially, it was all talk. In contrast, Seneca will consider a battle lost only when the situation is truly hopeless, that is, when there is absolutely no objective chance of turning the situation around; life is already hard enough to give up what we have without resistance. Seneca’s 18th Letter to Lucilius presents the idea of Stoicism as a springing board to better things; the purpose of #philosophy is preparation, not consolation; it’s all about using adversity for growing stronger and achieving happiness in the future. In the 5th Letter to Lucilius, Seneca recounts that Socrates (470-399 BC) had adopted an inexpensive lifestyle by eating simple meals, wearing simple clothes and walking barefoot. At first sight, it seems that Socrates had embraced poverty and discomfort out of religious conviction, but Seneca corrects that impression by telling us that #socrates had a goal in mind. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/the-practice-of-senecas-art-of-patience/

The concept of #stress in our century is dramatically different from the concepts in prior centuries. People in the Middle Ages or in Ancient Rome wouldn’t have understood our concerns for issues such as noise pollution and work overload. Seneca wrote extensively about #worries and preoccupations, but those would involve life-or-death threats. I am referring to people worrying about not having enough food to eat tomorrow, or being killed in an upcoming battle. Nonetheless, Seneca’s insights on this matter have perennial value. Few philosophers in history had devoted so much effort to understanding the cause of preoccupations and anxiety, and devising methods to combat them effectively. In his 53rd Letter to Lucilius, #seneca mentions the aristocrat Gaius Cilnius Maecenas (70-8 BC) and his preoccupation with death. Maecenas was constantly consulting physicians about how to prevent #sickness and prolong his lifespan. Nevertheless, Maecenas passed away at sixty-two, which is a normal lifespan for wealthy individuals in #ancientrome . If Maecenas had lived in our century, he might have received better advice and lived a few decades more. Seneca considered that, due to his acute concern with death, Maecenas had wasted precious time. Maecenas had devoted a large chunk of the present to worrying about the future, but in the end, he had not drawn any benefit. I must question Seneca’s argument at this point because we don’t really know if Maecenas had drawn any benefit. The fact that he passed away at sixty-two does not mean that his efforts had proven fruitless. We do not know if Maecenas would have lived a shorter life if he had not consulted those physicians. Or maybe his lifespan would have been the same, but the physicians had enabled him to stay healthy and avoid debilitating sickness until the end. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/seneca-on-overcoming-stress/

The reasons why #philosophy books trace the inception of existentialism to Arthur #schopenhauer (1788–1860) are rather weak. Nonetheless, they have attained the status of mainstream opinion and deserve a robust refutation. I am going to address the arguments given in philosophy books and refute them one by one. My objective is to bring new light to a question that has been wrongly declared settled. Schopenhauer himself never declared himself to be an existentialist, not anything close to that term. You will not find such a concept in his works. Neither “On the fourfold root of the principle of sufficient reason”(1814), “The world as will and representation” (1818), or “Parerga and Paralipomena” (1851) contain any statements in favour of existentialist philosophy. Schopenhauer came up with a clear #philosophy to explain how the world works. His ground-braking theory of the will (“life force”) as a cosmological engine does explain events in the past and in the present. In contrast to existentialists, Schopenhauer rejected ideas of #randomness and lack of meaning. He acknowledged the major role played by the will in human decisions, but supplied advice to help his readers make the best of their lives. Even when confronted with setbacks, Schopenhauer never characterised human life as absurd. He never fell into the #nihilism of existentialists such as Albert #camus (1913-1960) or Jean-Paul #sartre (1905-1980). Although philosophy books label Schopenhauer a precursor of #existential anxiety, the truth is that you will not find traces of existential despair in Schopenhauer’s works. Indeed, he was realistic in stating that many goals cannot be achieved because life is too short or resources insufficient. Yet, his goal was not to preach nihilism, but to help his readers focus their energies in areas that can generate more happiness. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauer-and-existentialism/

The question of how you know what you know is far from trivial. #epistemology is the branch of #philosophy dealing with this question. Arthur #schopenhauer (1788–1860) came up with a unique answer that has influenced later thinkers. In his early years, Schopenhauer had declared allegiance to the epistemological doctrines of #immanuelkant (1724-1804). I am referring to the theory of concept formation presented by Kant in his book “Critique of pure reason” (1781). In 1808, Schopenhauer published his PhD dissertation “On the fourfold root of the principle of sufficient reason,” stating his overall allegiance to Kant’s epistemology. However, there is one point where he had not endorsed Kant. On that point, Schopenhauer claimed that he was improving Kant’s epistemology, although in reality, he was nullifying one of the pillars of Kant’s “Critique of pure reason.” What was the point of discord between Schopenhauer and Kant? What drove Schopenhauer to build a new philosophical system almost from scratch? Schopenhauer diverged from Kant on the nature of “things-in-themselves” or “noumena.” Those Kantian terms refer to the ultimate #reality behind appearances. Kant had employed the word “noumena” to refer to truths, ideas, concepts and principles that aren’t directly derived from perception. For instance, Kant had argued that #ethical truths cannot be derived from perception. In his “Critique of pure reason,” Kant had categorised ethical principles as “noumena” outside of human knowledge. In “Critique of Practical Reason” (1788), Kant had softened his position. This time, he had theorised that ethical #principles could be inferred from “universal imperatives,” but his formula for arriving at “universal imperatives” is primarily subjective. In contrast, Schopenhauer affirmed that humans can acquire knowledge in all areas, provided that they take the will (“life force”) into account. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauer-and-knowledge/

The life and works of Arthur #schopenhauer (1788-1860) are giving us crucial insights on how to achieve happiness. To this end, he devoted years to studying Western and Eastern thinkers and compiling their best recommendations. Then he put them into practice and recorded what works and what doesn’t. Schopenhauer regarded the achievement of #happiness as a sequence of steps. The very first step consists of steering away from disaster. You absolutely want to avoid mistakes that cause severe harm to yourself and other people. How do you prevent or minimise large mistakes? By getting familiar with the theory of the will (“life force”) and adopting countermeasures to protect yourself. According to Schopenhauer, the will constitutes the largest obstacle to human happiness. Why? Because it prompts people to take short-sighted actions in the pursuit of pleasure. Thereby they expose themselves to high risks and forfeit their chances of a solid future. #schopenhauer outlined his philosophy in two books: “About the fourfold root of the principle of sufficient reason” (1814) and “The world as will and representation” (1818). In his later essays “Parerga and Paralipomena” (1851), he provides advice based on his philosophy. The theory of the will is Schopenhauer’s key contribution to the history of philosophy; he sustained that the will prevents us from attaining #happiness because it drives us to chase one goal after another, endlessly and without limit. It pushes us forward without paying attention to risks, costs and feasibility. The very first step to happiness, argued Schopenhauer, is to take control of your life. Don’t allow the will to push you in the wrong direction. Don’t allow it to drive you always further and further, until you eventually drop dead from exhaustion. According to Schopenhauer, we can increase our chances of happiness if we avoid excessive risk, exercise #selfdiscipline and make rational decisions. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauer-on-happiness/

Arthur #schopenhauer (1788-1860) would have been amused to see philosophers like Jean-Paul #sartre (1905-1980) theorise about #anxiety and personal authenticity. Sartre didn’t regard as self-evident that individuals are aware of their freedom and the need to make constant choices. In contrast to Sartre and other existentialists, Schopenhauer considered self-evident that #happiness is the #purpose of life; he had taken that idea from #aristotle (384-322 BC) and viewed it as obviously true. Schopenhauer didn’t spend a minute worrying about anxiety and personal authenticity because he viewed them as non-issues in the quest for personal happiness. He considered it healthy, reasonable and proper that people want to improve their lives. The objective of #philosophy is to help individuals make better choices and attain happiness, not to worry about non-issues. This point marks a major difference between Schopenhauer and existentialism. Existentialism is the product of a particular historical period that drove the world into collective trauma. It started at the end of World War I and reached its apex after World War II. People were facing massive physical destruction and couldn’t come up with any justification other than absurdity. If existentialism was a philosophical response to feelings of absurdity, I must first point out that the concept of #absurdity in life was foreign to Schopenhauer. It does not appear even once in his writings, in the sense employed by existentialism. Schopenhauer’s main works “About the fourfold root of the principle of sufficient reason” (1814), “The world as will and representation” (1818) and “Parerga and Paralipomena” (1851) acknowledge that life can be harsh at times, but not absurd. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/the-key-difference-between-schopenhauer-and-existentialism/

Although his lifestyle was unpretentious, modesty was not a characteristic of Arthur #schopenhauer (1788–1860). He did not hide that he regarded himself as a genius. He considered other philosophers, with few exceptions, as misguided fools. Why did Schopenhauer consider himself a genius? Surely not because of his productivity. In terms of output, he was not extraordinarily prolific, especially if compared with #plato and Aristotle. Schopenhauer only wrote three sizeable books: “About the fourfold root of the principle of sufficient reason” (1814), “The world as will and representation” (1818), and “Parerga and Paralipomena” (1851). He also wrote a few minor works, but I know many intellectuals far more prolific than Schopenhauer. His claim to genius rests on the quality of his #philosophical insights, not on the size of his literary output. Talented people, he said, can achieve targets that no one else can hit, but only geniuses can hit targets that no one else can conceive. Schopenhauer placed himself amongst the geniuses because of the depth of his insights. His theory of the will (“life force”) is based on widely observable facts, but nobody so far had put them together and drawn #universal conclusions. His #philosophy of life rests on the idea that the will drives all living creatures, relentlessly and inexorably, towards survival, reproduction, and the search for short-term pleasure. The idea is straightforward, but the consequences are earth-shattering. First of all, Schopenhauer contested the belief that everyone is seeking to further his own self-interest. That’s obviously not true, argued Schopenhauer, because history offers innumerable examples of individuals who make foolish #decisions and harm themselves. Think for instance of overweight individuals. Do you think that they have never heard that excessive weight is unhealthy? Of course they have. Of course they know the truth. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/analysis-of-schopenhauers-philosophy-of-life/

The ideas of Arthur Schopenhauer (1788–1860) on love and relationships contain fundamental mistakes. Schopenhauer did not devote sufficient attention to these matters. As a result, his observations and conclusions leave a lot to be desired. His conception of love and relationships is instinctual. They are driven by the will (“life force”), argues Schopenhauer, and this explains why people behave erratically when they fall in love. The will prompts them to pursue the beloved at any cost, and without thinking of the long-term consequences. Schopenhauer drew the wrong conclusion and rated all #love #relationships as doomed. He assumed that the dire influence of the will could not be counteracted and corrected, while in other areas, he had devised sound strategies to address exactly those same problems. A strong refutation of Schopenhauer’s romantic pessimism can be found in the works of the Ancient Roman author #ovid (43 BC–17 AD). His work “The art of love” addresses all the issues identified by #schopenhauer and offers proven solutions. Schopenhauer regarded it as very difficult to build lasting love relationships. He claimed to have witnessed first-hand the natural deterioration of relationships when the infatuation goes away. His views of #marriage were equally negative. Ovid’s approach to love was the exact opposite. He viewed relationships with a sense of joy, playfulness and celebration. It wasn’t a chore to court the beloved, but a wonderful challenge. Setbacks are not bitter, Ovid argued, as long as we regard them as learning experiences. In the area of love, Schopenhauer had lost his #philosophical objectivity due to his bad experience with Caroline Richter. It’s widely known that their relationships ended bitterly, leaving an unpleasant aftermath. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/refutation-of-schopenhauers-views-on-love-and-relationships/