John Vespasian

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.” John Vespasian explains that Aristotle 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’s 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. Aristotle taught that the cultivation of a virtuous character is the path to eudaimonia. The path is defined by good habits that you need to practise every day. Otherwise, it does not work. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/aristotles-views-on-ethics-virtue-and-happiness/

Like Schopenhauer would do twenty-four centuries later, Aristotle regarded practical wisdom (“phronesis” in Greek) as a crucial ingredient of a happy life. John Vespasian explains that, in his “Nicomachean Ethics,” Aristotle defined phronesis as a skill that enables us to choose timely the correct course of action and for the correct reasons. In other words, phronesis is the daily implementation of general moral principles. How do you develop practical wisdom? Through experience and rational reflection, answered Aristotle. It is not something that you can learn by heart. It does not consist of a series of rules that can be memorised and implemented blindly. To cultivate phronesis, you need to exercise judgement on a case-by-case basis, draw lessons from each experience, and adapt those lessons to the context of each situation. Practical wisdom, according to Aristotle, will not only help you attain your own happiness, but also contribute to the common good. It will guide you to a flourishing, thriving life, which will surely impact the community positively. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/aristotles-concept-of-practical-wisdom/

John Vespasian explains that 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. First of all, Schopenhauer himself never declared himself to be an existentialist, not anything close to that term. You won’t 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. Second, 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. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauer-and-existentialism/

John Vespasian explains that, in his early years, Schopenhauer had declared allegiance to the epistemological doctrines of Immanuel Kant (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. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauer-and-knowledge/

John Vespasian explains that, 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 Immanuel Kant (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. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/opposition-to-schopenhauers-theory-of-knowledge/

John Vespasian explains that 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. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauer-on-happiness/

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. John Vespasian explains that Schopenhauer 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.” Nobody can take decisions at a reasonable speed if every time he has to check if the underlying principles are universal, eternal and categorical. No supernatural consciousness is driving nations in a particular direction. No metaphysical force prompts people to make the right decision every time. 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 self-awareness and steer away from problems. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/analysis-of-schopenhauers-philosophy-of-happiness/

John Vespasian explains that 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 a 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. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/the-key-difference-between-schopenhauer-and-existentialism/

John Vespasian explains that Aristotle used a systematic method for drawing conclusions from empirical observations. His concept of reality revolves around the idea of “substance,” which actually means “entity” in the sense employed by Aristotle. Every entity, he taught, is composed of matter that takes a certain form, configuration, or shape. For Aristotle, it is the “form” what characterises each entity, what defines the nature of an entity, what makes it what it is. A material (“matter”) such as wood can take different forms. For instance, it can be an element in trees, but also in furniture, in a building, etc. In addition to speaking about matter and form, Aristotle employed the concepts of potentiality and actuality. He argued that most entities have the potential to become something else, and reach actuality when it fulfils its potential. Modern psychology employs the term self-actualisation to denote the process of human achievement. A man who pursues goals that fulfil his potential is driven by self-actualisation. For plants, a seed has the potential to become a plant. When a seed grows into a plant, it attains actuality, but psychologists don’t employ the term self-actualisation for plants and animals due to their inability to formulate complex goals. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/aristotles-views-on-the-nature-of-reality/

John Vespasian explains that Aristotle placed purpose at the very centre of his view of ethics. Purpose is the magnet that enables polarisation. It is the force that keeps things aligned and harmonious. What’s the purpose of life according to Aristotle? To attain happiness (in Greek “eudaimonia”). He defined happiness as “thriving” or “flourishing,” a state of high, steady enjoyment. According to Aristotle, a proper human life shall aim at high achievement, self-actualisation, and happiness. It is not enough to just stay alive, eat and reproduce. It is not enough to pursue pleasure and entertainment. Without purpose, it becomes impossible to attain the highest stages of joy. Happiness comes from striving to achieve crucial goals, and employing your energies and reason to reach your full potential. For Aristotle, happiness goes beyond fleeting pleasures. You cannot randomly fall into happiness. It is a state of being that can only be earned through good decisions and actions. Aristotle taught that every person should establish a purpose (“telos” in Greek) that is worth pursuing. Purpose enables each human being to filter out noise and distractions, and use his resources optimally. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/aristotles-perspective-on-the-purpose-of-human-life/