John Vespasian

Disappointments can have dire consequences. I am referring to the victims of lies, deception or treason, to people who find themselves left behind when their rightful expectations crash. I pity those who prove unable to deal with disappointments and get back on their feet because their lives may be shortened. Seneca (4 BC-65 AD) provided excellent advice about how to deal with disappointments, but his insights are spread all over his writings. I regard the “Consolation to Polybius” as particularly relevant in this respect. Some experts question whether Seneca was its real author, but the matter has not been finally settled. Polybius, a friend of Seneca’s, was the personal secretary of Emperor Claudius (10-54 AD). His job was to handle all state correspondence in Rome and with the provinces. Seneca wrote to Polybius to console him about his brother’s death, and gave advice equally suitable for dealing with disappointments. Seneca recommended to Polybius to avoid lamentations and focus on his work, which was interesting, meaningful and very demanding. When we concentrate on productive tasks, Seneca explained, we automatically stop thinking about other subjects. Polybius was also reminded that his distress was normal and inevitable. Everybody experiences losses of friends and family members now and then. The same applies to disappointments: now and then, we all see our expectations crashed, unfulfilled, or destroyed. Seneca does not blame Polybius for blowing up the impact of his brother’s death out of proportion, but in the case of deep disappointments, we should first look for the cause within our beliefs and actions. Where the 50th Letter to Lucilius says that we should check the facts carefully before making major decisions, it prompts me to think of Theophrastus (370-288 BC). Nevertheless, I cannot ascertain if Seneca had gained this insight from reading Theophrastus, a thinker who had already observed that we can avoid disappointments if we check the facts before committing ourselves emotionally. The insights of Theophrastus mirror those of Aristotle (384-322 BC) in the “Eudemian Ethics” and “Nicomachean Ethics.” If we want to prevent disappointments, deception and betrayal, it is up to us to practise the virtue of justice, and assess people and events accurately. Disappointments can be substantially minimised if we judge people and circumstances correctly. In life, large numbers of disappointments are to be blamed on the victims, on their naive assessments of risks, on their outlandish expectations, or their underestimation of costs. However, Seneca didn’t consistently call for proportionality and reason. If he had followed Theophrastus’ advice, he might have lived longer. If he had assessed risks more accurately, he might have avoided disappointments carrying harsh, deadly consequences. I consider it abominable when Seneca adopts a pessimistic, defeatist tone which categorises disappointments as inevitable, and identifies resignation as the only possible response. This is the case of the 26th Letter to Lucilius, where Seneca makes an exhortation reminiscent of Epicurus (341-270 BC). The latter had told his disciples to prepare for death, meaning that they should keep in mind their limited lifespan, and not expect too much joy or pleasure. If we proceed according to this insight, we will likely shun disappointments, but we might also shun happiness. I regard such a piece of advice as potentially pernicious. Seneca’s best recommendations are those given to Polybius: stop complaining and focus on interesting work. Failing that, we can focus on interesting hobbies, persons, books, movies or any other activity that can capture our attention and steer us in the right direction. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/seneca-on-how-to-deal-with-disappointments/

In our century, motivation seminars have become a sizeable industry. Companies send their employees to those seminars in the hope of increasing sales, productivity and innovation, but it is hard to keep people motivated month after month, especially during periods of economic stagnation. Seneca (4 BC-65 AD) didn’t invent the motivation seminar, but he achieved the same effect by writing letters and essays. If a friend had lost a beloved family member, Seneca would give him advice about how to regain motivation. The same applies to letters that Seneca wrote to friends confronted with setbacks or illness. In the next paragraphs, I’m condensing Seneca’s best advice on motivation, pointing in each case to the original source. The examples I have selected, all drawn from Seneca’s works, help illustrate how to put Seneca’s recommendations into practice. The Letters to Lucilius provide advice that goes beyond the generalities contained in Seneca’s essays. For instance, in his essay “On the Happy Life,” he talks about living honestly and cultivating virtue, but barely addresses the issue of motivation. Seneca’s essay “The Constancy of the Wise” emphasises the virtue of equanimity more than any other. It provides extensive examples of individuals able to stay calm in times of adversity, but tells us little about their motivation. I am all for staying calm, living honestly, cultivating virtue, and practising all the other tenets of Stoicism, but I would have preferred to see Seneca address the issue of motivation. Why did he expect his readers to carry out his recommendations day after day? From where are they supposed to draw their long-term motivation? Seneca rarely mentions happiness as the driving element in human motivation. He could have done so by quoting Aristotle (384-322 BC), the “Eudemian Ethics” and the “Nicomachean Ethics,” but he chose to remain vague on this subject. In the 1st Letter to Lucilius, Seneca acknowledges indirectly that motivation is linked to time, that is, a person’s motivation becomes visible in the way he uses his time. The Letter warns us against wasting time on activities that are either worthless, unpromising or detrimental. Seneca regards the acquisition of knowledge, especially of philosophical knowledge, as a common characteristic of sound motivation, but is this really true? In his 6th Letter to Lucilius, Seneca affirms that he loves to learn because he wants to teach, but what happens to people who have no interest in teaching? The 6th Letter praises the motivation of Cleanthes (330-230 BC) for recording and conveying the insights gained by Zeno of Citium (334-262 BC), but what if Cleanthes had opted for developing his own philosophy? Is an individualist motivation less worthy than the devotion to someone else’s ideas? Neither does Seneca attain clarity in identifying the source of human motivation. In the 8th Letter to Lucilius, he calls for periods of seclusion and meditation, so that we can learn to tell important goals apart from trivialities, but fails to deliver solid criteria to separate the former from the latter. In the 16th Letter to Lucilius, Seneca gives his most detailed recommendation on motivation: he commends readers to seek spiritual wealth by living according to nature, and condemns those who are primarily motivated by becoming popular. I am afraid that Seneca’s views on motivation suffer from a great deal of personal bias. He was able to understand why he, and people like him, did what they did, but failed to deliver a general motivation theory. For instance, the 28th Letter to Lucilius criticises people that leave their home and engage in long-term foreign travel for no good reason. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/senecas-letters-on-motivation/

It is easy to keep a clear mind during a sunny day, when all elements are in our favour: good health, a regular income, old friends that appreciate us, and a loving family around us. It is a different story to keep our wits when things fall apart and keep getting worse. Seneca (4 BC-65 AD) devised the perfect recipe for staying calm and focused in times of trouble. I am convinced that his recipe works because, in history, many people had practised it successfully. I regard this aspect of Seneca’s philosophy as one of the most valuable. For Seneca, the purpose of philosophy is the acquisition and practice of virtue. What did he mean exactly? In the 34th Letter to Lucilius, he defined a virtuous person as “someone who will refuse to commit evil acts under any circumstances.” Moral clarity depends on virtue, not on the memorisation of sayings from philosophers. A conscientious student can learn a large number of texts by heart, but his rote learning will not do him any good in a crisis. Seneca knew that adversity will make a person’s true moral stature visible, for better or for worse. It brings forth the best in virtuous people, and the worst in evil ones. When we are under pressure, we must make quick decisions relying on our beliefs. Seneca was referring to our deep-rooted views of what’s good and what’s evil, of the need to respect other people’s rights, and our levels of self-confidence, self-reliance, and self-development. If our beliefs are consistent and virtuous, we will make the right decisions automatically, just as Seneca had predicted. On the contrary, if our beliefs are inconsistent or unethical, we will panic in times of adversity and commit one error after another. How do we keep a clear mind in a crisis? Seneca argues that we must take action before the risks materialise. Virtuous must be acquired early in life and practised assiduously, so that they become automatic. A crisis doesn’t change individuals fundamentally, explained Seneca. It just prompts them to display their ethical values and practical skills as they are, without delays or embellishments. The 87th and 94th Letters to Lucilius enumerate some of the vices and virtues that can save or break a person during a crisis. Seneca condemns sternly the habit of making excessive expenditures or going into debt beyond what we are able to repay. Seneca considers it harmful to embrace a lifestyle that leads us to borrow sizeable amounts of money just to stay afloat. His praise goes for Cato (234-149 BC) and his frugality, recalling Cato’s habit to travel on horse, instead of a carriage, and carry his own possessions on two bags with him on the horse. I must, however, clarify that Seneca was not encouraging us to refrain from making necessary expenditures. His concept of frugality is different from blind penny-pinching. The fact that Cato had adopted a fairly modest lifestyle did not prevent him from speaking in favour of a new sewerage in Rome. When he was elected censor in 184 BC, he carried out the project with great determination despite the high cost. Seneca regards mental clarity as a consequence of ethically correct behaviour, not as a cause in itself. In order to preserve our mental sharpness in a crisis, we should keep practising the Stoic virtues day after day, in particular prudence, risk aversion and simplicity. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/senecas-approach-to-mental-clarity/

If fourteen-year old students received a solid introduction to Aristotle’s logic, it would change their lives; it could help them stay away from trouble, prevent bad decisions and acquire self-confidence. Aristotle (384-322 BC) did not teach ready-made solutions, but methods for solving problems. The purpose of logic is to see beyond the obvious, assess the facts, and draw conclusions that are in line with all available evidence. Aristotle’s teachings on logic and reasoning are presented in his book “Categories” and the twin treatises “Prior Analytics” and “Posterior Analytics.” They outline a method that is easy to grasp, but hard to apply consistently in every area of life. “Categories” is just an introductory work to logic. Its goal is to define terminology to describe the characteristics of objects, plants, animals, and human beings. For instance, Aristotle talks about categories relating to space, time, cause and effect, etc. “Prior Analytics” and “Posterior Analytics” are devoted to a single subject, namely, how to draw correct conclusions from statements and facts. Aristotle uses examples consisting of two statements or facts; he calls those statements “premises” and explains how to use them to draw an accurate conclusion. In Aristotelian terminology, a syllogism typically consists of two premises that lead to a conclusion by means of deductive reasoning. From the premises A and B, we draw an inescapable conclusion that is verifiable and true. In the example “all sentences contain words” and “a story is made of sentences,” we can draw the conclusion that “a story is made of words.” The premises share the term “sentences.” The conclusion connects the “story” and the “words” through the middle term “sentences.” Does Aristotelian logic sound simple? Indeed, it seems easy but we make mistakes all the time. Very often, people will not see the facts that are right before their eyes; their blindness can be self-inflicted or caused by ignorance, tiredness, or fear. Apathy is another reason why we fail to employ Aristotelian logic. People will clearly perceive the premises or facts but fail to draw any conclusions; they will overlook the obvious due to laziness, apathy, or discouragement. “Posterior Analytics” is devoted to inductive reasoning. It is the method for drawing general principles from specific facts, statements, or experiments. The key to accurate inductive logic is to check that the premises and conclusion are connected by a solid, verifiable link, not by chance or coincidence. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/aristotles-teachings-on-logic-and-reasoning/

The great Aristotle (384-322 BC) presented his thoughts on human nature in his three books “Eudemian Ethics,” “Nicomachean Ethics,” and “Politics.” He wrote or dictated them in the last period of his life after he had started his own school (“the Lyceum”) in Athens. What is Aristotle’s key idea on human nature? He defined humans as “rational animals.” Compared to all other creatures, humans are the only ones that possess the ability to reason and choose their behaviour on ethical grounds. Modern science has proven that some animal species have a limited capacity to think. I’m talking about dolphins, elephants, chimpanzees, ravens, cats, and dogs, for example; they possess the ability to draw simple conclusions but I wouldn’t categorise them as “rational animals” in the Aristotelian sense. As a result of their rationality, humans are uniquely able to give direction to their lives. They can set long-range objectives and pursue them steadily. They can allocate their energies and other resources to achieve their goals as quickly as possible. For humans, argued Aristotle, the overriding goal is to attain happiness. In all his books, Aristotle employed the Greek term “eudaimonia.” It translates not only as “happiness,” but also as “well-being,” “flourishing” or “thriving.” These translations show that Aristotle’s idea of happiness is dynamic. It is not a spiritual status of lethargic contentment but the result of determined action by the concerned person. It is something that you achieve or earn, not an undeserved present. In Aristotelian philosophy, it is up to each person to actively seek his own happiness. The philosopher’s task is to delineate the path and set up guideposts. The sole purpose of ethics is to teach individuals to attain happiness, understood as a radically personal experience. How do you attain happiness according to Aristotle? It is all about acquiring good habits (virtues) and practising them daily. The Aristotelian virtues (self-discipline, benevolence, courage and persistence, amongst others) are tools for achieving a goal. Compared to animals, human nature is highly complex. For the sake of analysis, Aristotle split the human mind (soul) into three areas. He called them rationality, emotions and vegetative in the same way as prior and later philosophers have done. Even Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) employed this tripartite division when he spoke of the conscious, subconscious and the societal constraints, although his explanations differ from those given by Aristotle. The Aristotelian division of the soul in three elements helps us grasp human nature better. When we refer to a certain aspect in someone’s personality, we can connect it to reason, emotions (desires, appetites, tastes) or vegetative drive (survival, growth, nutrition, reproduction). Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/aristotles-thoughts-on-human-nature/

Aristotle (384-322 BC) made a large understatement in his work “Politics” by writing that “education is the best provision for old age.” He should have written that “education is the best investment one can make.” The problem is that most education lacks quality, but should we not say the same about most newspapers, clothing, movies, television shows, books, songs, food, and many other items? If you apply the Aristotelian theory of virtue and character development, you should do well, but can you ensure a consistent application? How do you turn Aristotelian virtues (temperance, courage, justice) into second nature, so that you make the right choices every time? At present, there is no educational model fully based on the teachings of Aristotle; once and again, educators have come up with proposals to improve the current system, but their insights failed to meet their promises. Despite vast investments in new educational methods, I find it hard to believe that classrooms are delivering better results today than fifty years ago. What are the underlying reasons for this decline? The poor understanding of the Aristotelian theory of virtue and character development, and the failed attempts to replace it with random nonsense. Aristotelian ethics is based on the principle that humans can think. Of course, when I say “think,” I mean “think logically.” I don't mean “experience emotions” such as fear, anxiety, stress and confusion. I also don't mean “making arbitrary decisions.” The whole Aristotelian philosophy is based on logic. It is all about assessing facts, looking for connections, and figuring out the objective truth. Real life imposes heavy penalties on people who choose to ignore the truth. No amount of crying and wailing will be able to hide the dire consequences of mistakes. That's why Aristotle placed so much emphasis on virtues (good habits). If you practise virtue (courage, temperance, justice), you'll make good decisions in most cases. Occasionally, you'll make some mistakes, but those should be relatively minor. The acquisition of a good character (a virtuous character) is the key purpose of education. Aristotle wrote in book six of his “Nicomachean Ethics” that “the primary goal of wisdom is to differentiate good from evil.” In the Aristotelian tradition, character development includes knowledge accumulation (history, literature) and logic training (mathematical, causal, ethical), so that students learn to assess facts and draw correct conclusions. Unfortunately, today's education conveys neither sufficient facts nor a strong logic. Students are asked to memorise details without understanding them. They are required to regurgitate answers without grasping their justification. It's no wonder that such a process will generate graduates that are unable to think. The problems are well known already for some time. Let us now take a look at two modern attempts to correct them. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/education-and-aristotles-theory-of-virtue-and-character-development/

In his work “Rhetoric,” Aristotle (384-322 BC) identified a triad of pillars for persuasion and effective speaking. His three pillars (ethos, pathos and logos) refer to the three key elements in communication, namely, the speaker’s fame and credibility, the strength of his arguments, and their emotional impact. Hundreds of books have been written on the subject of how to communicate effectively, but most of them rehash Aristotle’s teachings on rhetoric without adding value. Although it only takes a few hours to familiarise oneself with Aristotelian rhetoric, it is tricky to put it into practice. It is a fact that most people aren’t effective public speakers and that, by attending a communication course, they will barely improve their skills. Why are rhetoric and persuasion so difficult? Plato (429-347 BC) pointed out one of the main reasons that render rhetoric and persuasion so difficult, namely, that people do not want to be perceived as manipulative. They do not want to be seen as pushy marketeers that will tell lies for personal gain. In his dialogue titled “Gorgias,” Plato presents a discussion between Socrates, the rhetoric teacher Gorgias, and his student Polus. In fact, Plato is himself speaking through Socrates. Socrates remarks that rhetoric is often misused and attacks Gorgias (a teacher of rhetoric) for his willingness to teach how to manipulate other people for personal gain. He accuses Gorgias of ignoring truth and virtue, and giving more importance to style than to substance. Socrates considers evil to employ persuasion for personal gain (financial, political or in court cases) and obliterate genuine knowledge. Socrates believed that rhetoric should be used only to foster justice and virtue. Thus, he admonished Gorgias for his moral indifference. Socrates found it appalling that Gorgias, as long as he got paid, was willing to accept anyone as student. When people state that they feel uncomfortable speaking in public, they may be experiencing the same ethical reservations that Plato had presented in his dialogue. What Plato and Socrates had called manipulation, modern psychologists may call aggressive salesmanship. The point is that some people regard all persuasion techniques as evil, and refuse to use them. No wonder that learning about Aristotelian rhetoric does not do them any good. Plato and Socrates were wrong because they hadn’t grasped the concept of individual freedom. Their demand that Gorgias should teach persuasion only for virtuous purposes was absurd. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/putting-aristotles-theory-of-rhetoric-and-persuasion-into-practice/

Despite its innovative, accurate character, philosophers first rejected the philosophy developed by Aristotle (384-322 BC) on knowledge and learning. His empiricism fell into disregard, and his detailed causal analysis (material cause, formal cause, efficient cause, and final cause) was seldom taught to students. For instance, Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153) was a fierce contender of Aristotle’s philosophy, and exerted great influence in medieval Europe. Bernard of Clairvaux was born in Burgundy, France, into a noble family. His father, Tescelin le Saur, and his mother, Aleth de Montbard, possessed large parcels of land. Their wealth and social position enabled them to give Bernard the best education available. By the time he became a teenager, Bernard was well-versed in arithmetic, Latin, rhetoric, philosophy and the Bible. He was an avid student and devoted countless hours to re-reading and memorising key ideas. Despite his established social position, Bernard decided to renounce his wealth upon turning twenty-three and join the Church. Together with a small group of friends, he travelled to the monastery of Citeaux, and requested to become a monk. Shortly after, Bernard was sent to set up a new monastery at Clairvaux, where he was elected abbot. Under his leadership, the Clairvaux monastery grew rapidly and led to establishing additional monasteries across Europe. Bernard was very familiar with Aristotelian philosophy, but regarded it as irrelevant. His focus was on adopting a Christian monastic lifestyle, which he defined as an austere life devoted to prayer, manual labour, and contemplation. Bernard wrote extensively on love, contemplation, modesty and austerity. His most famous works are “The Sermons on the Song of Songs,” “Humility and Pride,” and “On loving God.” In contrast to Aristotle’s empiricism and logic, Bernard only cared for mystical inspiration. He regarded Biblical texts as the only source of true knowledge. For all practical purposes, he obliterated and extinguished Aristotelian philosophy. When Bernard passed away in 1153, he was so famous and influential that a campaign was immediately set in motion to elevate him to sainthood. The process took two decades, and he was canonised as a saint in 1174 by Pope Alexander III. Bernard wasn’t alone in the efforts to wipe out all memories of Aristotelian philosophy. To a great extent, he had based his mysticism on the works of Augustine (454-430 AD). In contrast to Aristotle’s focus on facts and logic, Augustine had argued that the Christian faith provides the foundation for reason. He believed that true knowledge comes from God (that is, from the Bible), and shows us the path to follow. When it comes to learning, Augustine did not advocate facts gathering or logical analysis. He believed that true knowledge should come from a deep, personal relationship with God, who is the only source of wisdom and enlightenment. Knowledge, he said, is to be acquired spiritually, not intellectually. The vast dissemination of works by Augustine and Bernard of Clairvaux led to removing Aristotelian philosophy from the educational curriculum. Fortunately but unexpectedly, the tide turned a century after Bernard’s death. Thomas Aquinas (1125-1274) devoted large efforts to popularising Aristotelian logic and making it roughly compatible with Christianity. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/impact-of-aristotles-views-on-knowledge-and-learning/

Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) was more a gatherer than a creator of philosophical ideas. He devoted twenty years of his life to writing essays on history, literature and morality, but all his conclusions are based on prior philosophers. Montaigne’s contribution is the personal touch that he gave to his compilations of knowledge. He mixed up observations on ancient literature with comments about his own children, his farm, and his personal troubles. When we read his personal comments nowadays, we get an accurate idea of the lifestyle in the French Renaissance. We get to know about their working habits, the harvest, sickness and medicine, nutritional habits and religious perspectives. Montaigne’s own life is also fascinating. He started like any other heir of a French wealthy family by learning Latin at an early age. At that time, a knowledge of Latin opened the door to higher education and high employment in the government. It was a prerequisite of a successful career. The whole point of learning Latin was to be able to read books, either contemporary or ancient. I meant the books from Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece. The knowledge of Greek was less important because all major ancient Greek books have been already translated into Latin. For instance, Montaigne was very familiar with the works of Aristotle, but he had read them in Latin, not in Greek. As far as we know, Montaigne had only learned some rudiments of Ancient Greek and was unable to read books in that language. Montaigne was not unique in his breath of knowledge. In the Renaissance, thousands of people in Europe had read as much as he had, especially in France, Italy, Spain and England. His uniqueness comes from his writing, not from his level of knowledge as such. He made an effort that nobody else had even thought of doing, the effort of taking notes and compiling them into brief essays, addressing philosophical themes. Montaigne also did something that nobody else had done until that time, namely, he revised and expanded his own work. He published his first essays in 1580, when he was forty-seven years old, and kept revising and expanding them. By the time he republished them in 1592, many essays had doubled in size. Despite their wide range of subjects, Montaigne’s essays revolve around just three ideas. First, Scepticism about any kind of absolute ideals, especially in politics and religion. Second, a mild form of Stoicism for coping with setbacks and failure in life. Third, the determination to enjoy each day to the maximum. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaignes-thoughts/

The uniqueness of the ethical system put forward by Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) becomes clear when we compare it with other philosophies. I regard it as particularly enlightening to compare Schopenhauer’s ethics with Taoism and Stoicism. Taoism was created in ancient China. It predicates harmony with nature, spontaneity, modesty, simplicity and steering away from violence. Lao-Tzu (6th century BC) preceded Plato by a century. After his death, his disciples put his teachings in writing. For Taoists, the higher values are inner balance and tranquillity. They view those as more important than justice and self-fulfilment. A commonality between Taoism and Schopenhauer’s ethics is that both of them regard compassion as a cardinal virtue. For Taoists, compassion rests on the belief that all living creatures are interconnected, and that it’s good to help alleviate suffering in others. Nonetheless, Schopenhauer’s ethics call for self-awareness, foresight, and taking initiative against impending danger. This is not the case of Taoism. Its emphasis on aligning oneself with the world and living in harmony with events is not compatible with determined action. Taoists call for Wu Wei, that is, “non-action” or “effortless action” as their main tool for achieving balance and tranquillity but such a tool is doomed to failure. Schopenhauer understood this problem perfectly well. If you want to do the right thing, it is not sufficient to go with the flow. If you devote yourself to Wu Wei, you might find harmony, naturalness and spontaneity, but you will also find catastrophes and suffering. Passivity and effortless action are insufficient to solve severe problems. Wu Wei can easily turn your life into hell. Schopenhauer rejected passivity in his book “The world as will and representation” (1818). It is naive to expect Wu Wei to lead to effectiveness and happiness. If you follow “the natural flow of life,” chances are that the will (“life force”) drives you to harmful action because of its extreme short-term orientation. In daily life, Schopenhauer adopted many habits that match the Taoist paradigm; especially after settling down in Frankfurt in 1830, he led a lifestyle of frugality, moderation, simplicity, and self-reliance. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/analysis-of-schopenhauers-views-on-ethics/