John Vespasian

I am sceptical of remedies that cure all types of sickness; and when it comes to #philosophy , I’m sceptical of prescriptions that can assuage profound suffering. In the case of #seneca , #resilience was the universal prescription. What did Seneca get wrong about resilience? Is it not true that resilience can help anyone deal with #setbacks and reduce suffering? If thousands of individuals have embraced resilience across the centuries, how do I dare criticise its #effectiveness ? Indeed, many positive things can be said about resilience. It can help people deal with illness, #disappointment and setbacks, but my point is that resilience is not enough. I must clarify that the fact that Seneca placed resilience at the centre of his philosophy does not mean that life is a valley of tears. It does not mean that we cannot achieve #happiness nor that all joyful experiences will inevitably end up in disaster. In his 100th Letter to Lucilius, Seneca affirms that the goal of philosophy is to prepare us for #poverty , suffering and death, but we should not interpret it as Seneca saying that he did not expect life to offer #joy and happiness. Seneca’s emphasis on resilience is consistent with his views of the universe. If all we could expect is misery, it makes sense to train ourselves to cope with misery. If all we could hope for is to suffer and die, it makes sense to regard philosophy as a form of #consolation . From reading Seneca, I come to a #balanced assessment of reality. If we look around, we can see negative elements, but also plenty of #opportunities for improvement. It’s obvious that individuals who pursue #ambitiousgoals and work hard, are likely to build a better life for themselves than those who spend their days complaining and doing nothing. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/what-seneca-got-wrong-about-resilience/

#aristotle (384-322 BC) believed that #ethics have a clear, definite purpose. He defined ethics as the science of achieving eudaimonia, which means “a happy, thriving, flourishing life.” He argued that human beings can only achieve #happiness by living a life of virtue. Unfortunately, in some cases, he wrongly identified virtue with the “golden mean,” a middle-of-the-road attitude between two evils. In general terms, Aristotle’s ethics promote the #virtues of #courage , #temperance , and justice. Aristotle taught that, only by cultivating those virtues, we can achieve #harmony and #joy in a sustained manner. Aristotle presented his views on ethics primarily in two of his works. They carry the titles “Nicomachean Ethics” and “Eudemian Ethics.” Aristotle’s ethical theory is often referred to as virtue ethics because it focuses on behaviour patterns. It all revolves around having good habits and not deviating from them, especially in periods of crisis. If you stick to your good habits, they’ll lead you to #success and happiness. In contrast, other ethical systems focus on prescriptions that are coupled to various rewards and punishments. Whether you earn rewards or punishments will depend on your adherence level to the rules. Christianity is a prime example of a consequential ethical system, but beware that I am using the term “consequential” to mean “ethical precepts associated with consequences.” In this context, I’m not employing the term “consequential” to mean “of high importance.” Thus, consequential ethical systems are driven by carrots and sticks. They promise you that you will go to heaven if you comply with their rules, and at the same time, they threaten you with eternal #damnation in hell if you disobey. Most consequential ethical systems take their precepts from divine revelation. God instructs human beings how to behave, and promises rewards to the obedient, and punishment to those that refuse to comply. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/aristotles-views-on-ethics-virtue-and-happiness/

You can learn a lot from reading #philosophy books, but you will acquire practical wisdom much faster by studying the life of philosophers. By looking at what they actually did, you will draw more accurate conclusions than by looking at what they said. #aristotle (384-322 BC) is no exception in this respect. His books about metaphysics and logic are impressive, but we can draw practical lessons more directly by looking at his life. It’s a simple, straightforward manner to see philosophy in action. In 384 BC, Aristotle was born in Stagira, a small city on the northern coast of the #aegeansea . Aristotle’s father (his name was Nicomachus) was the personal physician to King Amyntas of #macedonia . Thanks to his elevated position, Nicomachus gave Aristotle the best upbringing available. The efforts bore fruit fairly soon because Aristotle possessed an insatiable #curiosity . He wanted to learn all kinds of things even before he could comprehend the benefits of pursuing #knowledge and truth . His interests covered abstract subjects and concrete applications. In particular, he spent hours on end studying the local flora and fauna. Upon turning seventeen, Aristotle travelled to Athens with the goal of enrolling in Plato’s Academy, which possessed the best reputation amongst all schools. At that time, Athens’ philosophical discourse was dominated by Plato (428-349 BC) and #socrates (469-388 BC), but despite his admiration for them, the young Aristotle began to develop his own philosophy. In the Academy, Aristotle listened to #plato speak about ideal forms (abstractions), but little by little, he complemented them with #empirical observation. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/aristotles-pursuit-of-knowledge-and-truth/

#aristotle presented his political #philosophy in his works “Politics” and “Nicomachean Ethics.” He believed that #humans are political by nature. By “political,” he meant that humans prefer living in #communities to enhance the enjoyment of life. In his work “Politics,” Aristotle described different forms of government and compared their advantages and disadvantages. His classification of government forms is based on whether the rule is exercised for the common good or for rulers’ benefit. Aristotle identified the following six forms of government: monarchy (rule by one person), aristocracy (rule by the few), polity (rule by the citizens), tyranny (corrupt rule by one), oligarchy (corrupt rule by the few), and false democracy (corrupt rule by the many). He categorised the last three on the list as undesirable because they did not further the #commongood . According to Aristotle, monarchy, aristocracy and polity are preferable because they favour the common good, although he fails to explain how to differentiate in advance between good and corrupt governments. For instance, how will you ascertain in advance that a new king is going to become a tyrant instead of a good monarch? Aristotle described monarchy as a government form where a virtuous ruler is guided by wisdom and benevolence. He uses the same #logic to define aristocracy as a form of government where virtuous elites govern for the common good. In his third government form, the polity, the citizens rule themselves with the goal of enhancing their common welfare. I regard Aristotle’s definitions as equivocal and naïve. There is no way to determine in advance whether the governing elites will govern for the common good or for their own interest. It is equally impossible to predict whether self-ruling citizens will make sound or #foolish decisions. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/aristotles-views-on-politics-and-governance/

#aristotle presented his theory of #justice in “Nicomachean Ethics.” He distinguished between two types of justice. On the one hand, distributive justice, and on the other hand, reparation or rectification justice. Distributive justice deals with the distribution of tangible goods or jobs, and intangible honours. The purpose of this type of justice is to ensure that each person receives what he has earned (“what he deserves”). Aristotle was rather vague about the criteria for distribution, or about the person who has to perform the distribution. Is distributive justice based on merit (“earned”) or is it based on personal needs? If it is the latter, why is it just to take away from person A (who has earned it) and give it to person B (who has not earned it)? This crucial question remains unanswered in “Nicomachean Ethics” and in other works by Aristotle. He does mention that distributive justice should be carried out with “proportionality” but fails to indicate the parameters for such proportionality. The second type of justice aims at performing reparations or rectifications. Its purpose is to make amends or rectify wrongs and settle disputes. The result of this type of justice is that the guilty party shall pay #compensation to the injured party; or that the guilty party shall be punished for the committed crime. In practice, this second type of justice is what concerns civil and criminal courts. In their practice, they impose punishments or condemn the defendant to pay compensation. The purpose of civil and criminal legal actions is to balance the scales. If someone has been wronged, justice shall deliver reparation to restore the balance. Unfortunately, Aristotle employed in his ethical framework the concept of the #goldenmean , a middle-of-the-road point that is in practice impossible to find. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/aristotles-theory-of-justice/

Aristotle’s views on the natural world established the basis of scientific thought and civilisation. Aristotle’s #philosophy is relying on experience, observation, and logical reasoning. His approach to natural philosophy consists of studying the cosmos and nature through careful observation and analysis. His three foundational works in this area are “ #metaphysics ,” “Physics” and “On the Heavens.” In “Metaphysics,” #aristotle introduced his theory of the four causes. This theory creates a framework for understanding how nature works. According to the four-cause theory, all entities in the world can be analysed by identifying their material cause (what they are made of), formal cause (their structure or shape), efficient cause (what brings them into existence) and final cause (their #purpose of goal). By applying observation and the four-cause theory, Aristotle established a classification of objects and animals. In his work titled “History of Animals,” he categorised animals according to their mode of reproduction and whether they possess blood. Aristotle’s most innovative analysis tool is the final cause or the study of purpose (in Greek “telos”). Thus, the science that studies purpose is called “teleology.” According to Aristotle, everything in nature has a purpose or final cause. He considered the world governed by a natural force that drives each entity towards its purpose. At the same time, Aristotle rejected the idea of emptiness or void in the universe. He believed that nature abhors vacuum in the sense that it will immediately fill any empty space. Even a barren field will soon be covered by weeds or other plants. Aristotle regarded empirical, systematic observation as the best method for drawing accurate conclusions. In this way, he established the empirical approach underlying science. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/aristotles-views-on-natural-philosophy/

You can accurately predict a person’s future if you know his goals and the intensity of his #motivation . #aristotle , one of the three most influential philosophers in history, introduced the concept of teleology , a framework that examines the objectives of #humanaction . “Teleology” is derived from the Greek word “telos,” which means end, purpose, motivation or intent. Aristotle’s teleology postulates that every action in nature has a specific purpose. In Aristotle’s words, such a #purpose is called “final cause.” Aristotle believed that teleological considerations apply to living creatures and, to a lesser extent, to natural phenomena. It is a concept that applies to human development, animal actions and natural events such as storms, rain or floods. According to Aristotle, all entities strive to fulfill their goals and inherent purposes. For animals, those goals will be simple desires such as food, sex and shelter. For human beings, there are many different ranges of #objectives and #motivation levels. In the pursuit of purpose, Aristotle sees the seeds for growth and development. His perspective of the final cause has vastly influenced #philosophy , science, biology, and #psychology . When it comes to living beings, Aristotle’s teleological view can be most notably applied to biology. He argued that each organism has a distinct “telos” or #purpose which guides its life. For instance, the telos of a tree is to grow, reproduce, and maintain its existence. In contrast, the telos of humans, said Aristotle, is to attain happiness (“eudaimonia” in Greek). The achievement of #happiness requires human flourishing, #virtue , and sustained motivation. It does not happen by chance. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/aristotles-concept-of-teleology/

Arthur #schopenhauer (1788-1860) did not believe that real-life #problems can be solved through psychological tricks. The purpose of #philosophy is to understand the world, so that one can take real action to solve real problems. Although Schopenhauer made contributions to #psychology , his focus was on philosophy. He never lost sight of his primary goal, namely, to identify the principles driving the cosmos in general, and #humannature in particular. In his book “The world as will and representation” (1918), Schopenhauer argued that living entities are driven by a blind, #irrational force that he called “the will.” The theory of the will (“life force”) maintains that humans are driven to ensure survival, reproduction and seek short-term #pleasure without thinking of the cost or the consequences. The will can be counteracted through prudence, #foresight , and #riskreduction , but those measures require steady dedication. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauer-on-psychology/

We could substantially increase our #performance if we learn to think like the greatest philosophers in history, but is it really possible? I consider it feasible to the extent that one is familiar with the corresponding #ideas and those are consistent. Aristotelian thinkers know the works of #aristotle (384-322 BC), have absorbed their principles, and put them into practice each day. Aristotelians take pride in their ability to think like Aristotle on a consistent basis. If we ask the same question to two Aristotelian thinkers, we will normally get the same answer. That’s because those people are employing the same Aristotelian #logic , which constitutes a consistent body of thought. Unfortunately, few thinkers are as consistent as Aristotle. If we take Plato (427-347 BC) for example, we will find that his ideas include mystical, supernatural elements. Plato never gave logical explanations for those elements. In view of Plato’s deficient logic, it would be hard to answer the question whether we can think like Plato. When it came to explaining how humans learn and reach conclusions, #plato was unable to give answers. Instead, he pointed to a supernatural “world of forms” that allegedly provides us the answers. When a #philosophical system is deficient, like Plato’s, it is pointless to ask if we can think like Plato. We could regurgitate Plato’s ideas about “the world of forms,” but those ideas make no sense and are worthless for drawing conclusions. I would not consider the regurgitation of deficient ideas as “thinking” in the proper sense. We could repeat Plato’s ideas as nauseam, but they won’t grow any clearer with use. Instead of thinking, we will be engaged in philosophical obfuscation. Seneca constitutes less of a challenge in this respect because he circumscribed his philosophy to the field of ethics. He didn’t write anything meaningful about metaphysics, epistemology, politics and aesthetics. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/how-to-think-like-seneca/

Before praising the advantages of a #philosophy , we should devote equal efforts to assessing its disadvantages. Few people enjoy looking at the #risks of projects because the outcome can prove depressing, but rational decision making requires us to look before we jump. Seneca was partially aware of the flaws in his philosophy, but failed to address them in his writings. By the time #seneca had committed himself to addressing those issues, it was too late. He had been already marked for death by #nero (37-68 AD), and then pushed to commit suicide. At first sight, it seems difficult to believe that there are risks in Seneca’s ideas, that is, in mainstream #stoicism . If those ideas have been frequently endorsed in #history , is it not safe to assume that they are true and beneficial? Besides, what could be possibly wrong in a philosophy that is promoting #peaceful cooperation, honesty and modesty. If we all followed Seneca’s recommendations, is it not true that the world would be a better place? Those are solid questions, but do not prove the correctness of Seneca’s ideas. The questions will elicit the answer that, yes, indeed, there are many ideas worse than Seneca’s and possibly, large numbers of people could benefit from reading his works. I don’t need to be convinced of those benefits. I regard them as incontrovertible, but incomplete facts. The problem is that a partial truth, when assumed to be whole, can inflict devastating damage. Let me give an unrelated example to show what I mean. If I am asked by a tourist “Can you swim from the mainland to the nearby island?”, I should give the complete answer. If I answer that “the water temperature is great this week,” I would be giving a partial truth. Indeed, the water is warm, but I am omitting to say that there are sharks in the area, and that it’s #dangerous to swim to the nearby island. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/the-dark-side-of-thinking-like-seneca/