John Vespasian

I am going to summarise the moral #philosophy put forward by Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) in seven key ideas. The presentation of those key ideas will identify, when relevant, the difference between Schopenhauer and other philosophers. #schopenhauer Schopenhauer’s ethics don’t rely on revelation by God or prophets. His ethics overlap with Christianity in some areas, especially in the appreciation of compassion as a major virtue, but do not refer to the teachings of Jesus Christ as recorded in the #bible. Like Christians, Schopenhauer calls for compassion, but his arguments are different. He views #empathy and compassion as highly desirable attitudes that help alleviate suffering and also improve the life of people who practise them. In 1843, Schopenhauer wrote the book “Two fundamental problems in ethics,” where he justifies compassion on logical and practical grounds alone. In doing so, he refuses to regard compassion as a divine commandment. Schopenhauer views it as a waste of time to devote one’s life to social improvement. In contrast to #confucianism and the Christian faith, Schopenhauer doesn’t predicate justice, #fairness and righteousness. In his book “About the fourfold roots of the principle of sufficient reason” (1814), he acknowledged that human errors, oversights and negligence are partly to blame for the suffering in the world, but does not expect society to improve in the short term. Schopenhauer’s ethical theory focuses first and foremost on action for attaining personal happiness or minimising suffering in the course of a lifetime. Those actions can benefit others and society as a whole, but those are not the main drivers of ethics. Deep understanding of the limited human lifespan prompts Schopenhauer to steer away from unworkable projects. Goals, #ambitions and desires should be kept reasonable. If you remain focused on practical, effective action, chances are that you will achieve good results and help other people along the way. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauers-key-ideas-on-ethics/

In the field of ethics, Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) was influenced by Buddhist thought. In particular, #schopenhauer held in high regard the Buddhist concern for suffering, placing empathy and #compassion at the centre of his ethical system. Nonetheless, there are fundamental differences between the ideas of Schopenhauer and the Buddhist #religion. In his book “The world as will and representation” (1808), Schopenhauer theorised that the universe is driven by the will (“life force”). Every living creature is thus prompted to secure its survival, reproduction, and seek short-term pleasure. Buddhist religion does not rely on any principles equivalent to Schopenhauer’s theory of the will. However, it views desires and ambitions as a source of frustration, pain and sorrow. Like Schopenhauer, Buddhism seeks peace of mind by reducing all factors that generate suffering. The overlapping area between Buddhism and Schopenhauer revolves around empathy and compassion; for Buddhists, those are practices that enable humans to reduce pain. I see a similar conception in Schopenhauer, although he put forward the argument that empathy and compassion benefit as well the people who practise them. Practitioners benefit from those #virtues by becoming increasingly self-aware, benevolent and outwardly focused. While Buddhist religion aims at inner peace, Schopenhauer regards empathy and compassion as tools for escaping the dire influence of the will. Schopenhauer’s objective isn’t only inner peace, but also self-awareness, self-reliance and happiness; the latter requires the reduction and elimination of suffering. By drawing ethical values from Buddhism, Schopenhauer is reinforcing his opposition to Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) and Friedrich #hegel (1770-1831); those philosophers had proposed abstract ethical systems unconnected to real-life experience. When Schopenhauer integrated compassion in his morality system, his goal was to increase lifetime #enjoyment by helping people make better decisions. He regarded self-awareness as a prerequisite to clear thinking and making good choices. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauer-and-buddhism/

The #philosophy developed by Arthur #schopenhauer (1788-1860) takes some ethical ideas from Buddhism, but those don’t affect the theory of the will (“life force”), which constitutes the essence of Schopenhauer’s work. #buddhism was created by Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama) in the sixth century before our era. Buddha was born into a Nepalese royal family, grew disillusioned with his aristocratic lifestyle, and began to search for the meaning of life. Some of his ethical views were taken over by Schopenhauer twenty-five centuries later. At age twenty-nine, Buddha embraced an #ascetic lifestyle in which meditation and poverty played the central role. Buddha thought that asceticism would lead him to enlightenment. Buddhist tradition tells us that, after six years of asceticism, Buddha attained enlightenment, that is, he figured out that the best way to live is to pursue liberation from suffering. In the ensuing years, Buddha travelled through India to preach his ideas. He emphasised empathy and compassion, which are the two virtues taken over by Schopenhauer in his philosophy. He gave great weight to those virtues in his books “The world as will and representation” (1818) and “Two fundamental problems of ethics” (1843). Despite a partial ethical overlap, Schopenhauer’s goal is different from the goal pursued by Buddha. Schopenhauer was recommending #empathy and compassion as means of escaping or minimising the impact of the will. He argued that, if you do not adopt countermeasures, the will is going to take control of your life and drive you into destructive action. For Buddha, the philosophical #purpose was to eliminate as much as possible suffering. Thus, he advised his disciples to refrain from dwelling in the past or dreaming about the future, so that they would concentrate on the present moment. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/differences-between-schopenhauer-and-buddhism/

The influence of Indian religion on Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1960) falls within a growing interest of Western thinkers in Eastern culture. In the field of art, such a tendency has been named “Orientalism” and is observable particularly amongst French painters. In the period 1810-1820, #Schopenhauer became acquainted with Indian #philosophy by reading its foundational texts. I am referring to the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita. Those give an outline of the three key concepts in Indian religion, namely, the concepts of Maya and #Atman. By “Maya,” Hindus mean a world perception that is tainted by delusion or prejudice. Hindus consider that we can perceive reality only through the veil of Maya, that is, in a distorted and biased manner. Schopenhauer drew a parallelism between the veil of Maya and his theory of the will (“life force”) presented in his book “The world as will and representation,” published in 1818. For persons unfamiliar with the theory of the will, the world cannot be perceived without distortions. The observer is going to prove unable to see things as they are. He is going to arrive at wrong conclusions because the will is blurring his thoughts. By “Atman,” Hindus refer to the individual self or soul. It is the decisive element in establishing one’s relationship with the world. However, the individuality is not total because Hindus regard the “Atman” as part of the universal #consciousness. Schopenhauer drew a parallelism between the “Atman” and self-aware individuals, that is, those who are familiar with the theory of the will. If you cultivate your self-awareness and take measures to protect yourself against the dire influence of the will, you are going to enhance your “Atman.” In his book “On the will in nature” (1832). Schopenhauer employs concepts similar to “Maya” and “Atman.” The former drives human existence because it taints all perceptions with a deceptive veil. It obscures the nature of reality and prompts all persons to focus on the short term and make poor decisions. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauer-and-indian-philosophy/

Stoicism is the only philosophy that aims at increasing one’s mental strength. Its founders, #Zeno of Citium (334-262 BC) and Cleanthes (330-230 BC) devoted more efforts to avoiding emotional misery than to achieving success and happiness. Seneca followed the line of thought of his predecessors, but his recommendations are more subtle. It’s not hard to understand why: #Seneca was more knowledgeable than the earlier Stoics. Not only was he familiar with the ideas of #Socrates (470-399 BC), Plato (427-347 BC) and #Aristotle (384-322 BC), but he also possessed a wider experience of the world. None of his predecessors had occupied a high office in the Roman empire, nor acquired a large fortune. Seneca’s Letters to Lucilius give remarkably modern advice on self-control (I would call it “mental strength.) I view the 5th Letter as particularly relevant in this respect. Mental strength, Seneca affirms, is the result of self-reliance and moderation, not the cause; the purpose of cultivating virtue is to grow emotionally balanced, rational and highly resilient. I would compare Seneca’s ideal of a philosophically minded person to a fisherman, who lives modestly and self-sufficiently. Like a fisherman, the philosopher keeps going day after day, unaffected by fashions and social pressures. The philosophically minded love human interaction, Seneca notes, but they will not be swayed by other people’s fear and preoccupations. They are also able to enjoy the pleasures of the world, but they will embrace moderation in order to preserve their peace of mind. Seneca regards mental strength as the highest benefit from #philosophy. Like other Stoic philosophers, he takes for granted that happiness is unlikely and adversity inevitable. Everybody is confronted with adversity sooner or later. The purpose of philosophy is to develop mental and physical habits that render us practically immune to adversity. Mental strength is a synonym for emotional immunity to #adversity. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/senecas-thoughts-on-mental-strength/

It’s useless to be strong in situations where strength plays no meaningful role. Will mental strength alone help you achieve your business, professional and social #goals? Will it render you healthier and happier? I very much doubt it. #Seneca viewed mental strength as the answer to all questions. How do we minimize trouble in life? How do we prevent a nervous breakdown and maintain our motivation after a setback? Through mental strength, he argued. The problem is that Seneca’s questions are severely biased. They assume, wrongly, that human life consists mostly of pain, misery and defeats. They forecast a dark future for everybody, everywhere, in every area of life. They only spread pessimism and resignation. In his 13th and 24th Letters to Lucilius, Seneca categorized coping with adversity as a central goal of his philosophy. He gives his readers advice on how to prepare themselves for bad times, and encourages them to practise daily in their heads, so that they will be ready when disaster strikes. To make things worse, Seneca calls for “mediating daily on the shortness of life,” so that we do not grow too enamoured of anyone or anything. He argues that, by preparing ourselves for the worst, we will suffer less when we experience a large loss. I consider Seneca’s low expectations as the root cause of his philosophical misconceptions: He vastly underrated the human capacity for #selfimprovement and for pursuing and achieving difficult goals. He placed a heavy emphasis on #meditation and moderation, and too little on #motivation and implementation. Seneca’s misconceptions about human psychology run too deep to be ignored. They permeate his complete writings from the first page to the last. They must be addressed and resolved before we can enjoy the benefits of #Stoicism. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/senecas-misconceptions-about-mental-strength/

How can we grow in #effectiveness and happiness? Is there a proven method we can use to improve our station in life? Can we rely on advice given by philosophers in previous centuries? #Seneca was already aware of those questions when he wrote his Letters to Lucilius. His answers are concrete and coherent, and have been proven true in countless cases. In contrast to today’s self-development gurus, Seneca didn’t call for intense effort and dedication. Why not? Because he had learned from experience that personal growth depends more on constancy than on exorbitant efforts. I’m not saying that Seneca denied the importance of reading or studying. He regarded them as advisable, but not as the sole source of #wisdom. In fact, he viewed reading as insufficient for sustained personal growth. Seneca’s essay “On Idleness” complements the teachings of Plato (427-347 BC) on the acquisition of wisdom. It invites readers to slow down, and devote time to meditation. Without regular periods of idleness, Seneca explained, we will become physically and mentally exhausted. The demands of daily life, if they are not paused from time to time, will eat all our energy, and leave us “empty and disenchanted.” Seneca regarded personal growth as the automatic outcome of exercising reason, having clear priorities and pursuing them assiduously. The presence of those elements (reason, priorities, constancy) marks the difference between true personal growth and simple progress in one’s career, business or social life. Why does Seneca view regular periods of idleness as crucial for #personalgrowth? Because those periods help us refocus, recalibrate and rebalance our #priorities. They enable us to let go of the trivial and concentrate ourselves on the essential. Seneca is assuming that idleness periods would remain brief and spaced out. We are talking about a few weeks per year, not about a life devoted to idleness. Extended leisure would prove noxious, he explains, but so would prove relentless work. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/senecas-reflections-on-personal-growth/

In history, few philosophers have proven qualified to speak about effectiveness. They were disqualified by their economic, professional and social failure, or by their sheer ignorance of practical matters. #Seneca belongs to the opposite category. He is the archetype of the realistic, savvy, experienced thinker that has been everywhere and seen everything. The 118th Letter to Lucilius leads me to acknowledge the key importance of wisdom in life enjoyment. Unless we learn how to lead a proper life, we cannot achieve serenity and true #happiness. Seneca was in his sixties when he wrote the 118th Letter. He had lived for decades in Rome and in the countryside, and had seen people experiment with various approaches to happiness. For instance, he had witnessed the aristocrats in Rome and Naples attend shows and banquets each evening in their search for pleasure, but did those people grow happier as a result? Did they really enjoy life? Seneca considered their approach to happiness ineffective. Their search for short-term pleasures, argued Seneca, is bound to produce the opposite effect. Insecurity instead of stability. Anxiety instead of #serenity. Enslavement instead of freedom. Nor is a busy social life an effective recipe for happiness. In the times of Seneca, aristocrats would spend many hours each week on the Roman forum, exchanging news and gossiping. If they had lived in our century, they would have spent all those hours on social media. Seneca categorized their lifestyle as ineffective and wasteful because it does not fulfil the human need for philosophy. Dogs and cats can spend their days roaming and sleeping, but those activities are insufficient for human happiness. Effective living does not need to be expensive, said Seneca, because wisdom can be exercised without luxury. We can gain peace of mind without expensive hobbies, food and travel. We can live our life to the fullest if we make good choices, which more often than not, will prove simple and inexpensive. What are Seneca’s top recommendations for improving our personal effectiveness? Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/seneca-on-effectiveness/

Many philosophers have attacked Aristotle’s conception of human beings as rational and self-directed, capable of setting goals and making plans to achieve them, and driven to achieve happiness. Aristotle (384-322 BC) presented his thoughts on human nature in his works “Eudemian Ethics,” “Nicomachean Ethics” and “Politics.” All of them were written or dictated in the years 335-321 BC after Aristotle had opened The Lyceum, his school in Athens. The optimism in Aristotle’s work is seldom shared by later philosophers. Aristotle viewed the achievement of happiness as normal. He considered that human beings are normally able to attain their goals by means of intelligent, steady work. John Locke (1632-1704) outlined his ideas on epistemology in his “Essay Concerning Human Understanding” published in 1690. Locke subscribed to Aristotle’s rejection of innate ideas and other Platonic delusions. Like Aristotle, Locke affirmed that human minds are born as a blank slate. As time goes by, experience and reflection will write on the blank slate. Both experience and reason play a key role in knowledge accumulation. Locke also shared Aristotle’s conception of human beings as political animals. Happiness, they argued, can be attained more easily by collaborating with other humans. Collaboration will entail trade, friendship, exchange of ideas, love, etc. Aristotle had underlined the need for freedom to achieve the primary goal (“eudaimonia” or happiness) in life and defended a balanced system of government. Without good governance, Aristotle warned, corruptions and abuses will ensue. Good governance, according to Aristotle, can be achieved if power is divided within society (monarchs, aristocracy, and the people) and amongst the different branches of government (the legislative, executive, and judicial). Like Aristotle, Locke believed that humans are guided by reason. In normal circumstances, humans seek to preserve their own lives and protect their property. Even in situations where government doesn’t exist (ancient cultures), the normal human behaviour is to seek peace and cooperation, not war and theft. Locke viewed property rights as natural rights derived from an individual’s labour. If you have the right to life and liberty, you must have the right to accumulate property through labour. In his view of human nature, Locke emphasised individual rights and limited government. He regarded those as the best forms of social organisation; governments are bound to protect the rights enshrined in the constitution, said Locke. The essential difference between Locke and Aristotle is that Locke expected constitutions to be good enough to protect the rights of individuals. In contrast, Aristotle viewed the division of power in society as a better guarantee of individual rights. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/critique-of-aristotles-thoughts-on-human-nature/

The cultural impact of Aristotle’s philosophy of logic begins with Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), who undertook to couple Christian theology to Aristotelian philosophy. The combination is far from self-evident and Aquinas did it only by twisting the ideas of Aristotle almost beyond recognition. In his “Summa Theologiae,” Aquinas provides a systematic presentation on how to merge syllogistic logic and Christianity. According to Aquinas reason and faith are both important and should coexist harmoniously. Aristotle must have turned in his grave upon hearing such a suggestion. Mixing logic and faith was anathema to his way of thinking. Nonetheless, I must acknowledge that Aquinas did a job better than anyone could have done in his impossible enterprise. Aquinas employed the Aristotelian doctrine of the four causes (material, formal, efficient, and final) in order to prove God’s existence. He regarded God as the ultimate final cause for all events in the world. “Summa Theologiae” argued with copious details that God’s existence can be demonstrated through a series of syllogisms. I must express my admiration at Aquinas’ talent at fabricating an array of proofs larger than all prior attempts in history. Aquinas was as enthralled by Aristotle’s logic as he was by the Bible; nonetheless, his disquisitions presenting God as “the prime mover” fail to meet the Aristotelian standard of proof. It doesn’t suffice to state that “there must be a prime mover in the universe” and that “God must surely be the prime mover.” Surprisingly enough, Aquinas drew on Aristotelian ethics to justify Christian virtues, but his arguments are far fetched. For Aristotle, happiness is the goal of life and virtues are methods for attaining the goal. In contrast, Aquinas says that God alone knows life’s purpose and that it is in our interest to obey God. As you can see, Aquinas’ logic is vaguely similar to Aristotle’s, but cannot withstand close examination. The greatest contribution of Aquinas was to popularise the works of Aristotle. He made hundreds of thousands interested in learning about Aristotle’s logic. Without intending it, he got them to think for themselves and draw correct conclusions. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/cultural-impact-of-aristotles-philosophy-of-logic/