John Vespasian

John Vespasian explains that Aristotle addressed friendship in his “Nicomachean Ethics.” He viewed friendship as indispensable for leading a happy life, but identified three types of friendships: those based on utility, those based on pleasure, and those based on shared values or virtues. The latter is by far the most valuable. Friendships of utility are based on mutual interest. People collaborate with each other for a myriad of reasons, which are not necessarily linked to business or making money. Business partners constitute an example of the Aristotelian “friendship based on utility” but the same can be said of people who join a tennis club because they enjoy play tennis, or even neighbours in a large building. They collaborate in running a business, playing a tennis or football match, maintaining the common areas in a building, or exchanging little favours amongst neighbours. Those friendships are based on tic for tac. If those persons did not have a shared interest, they might perhaps not even talk to each other. If their common interest disappears, those people will grow apart very quickly and their friendship will wane. In contrast, friendships of pleasure arise from enjoying each other’s company. For instance, when a group of youths gather every Saturday night to go out. They tell each other stories and jokes, and have a good time. However, friendships of pleasure tend to remain superficial and temporary. They don’t last long because there are no based on strong intellectual and emotional connections. They deliver some pleasure, but lack depth and endurance power. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/aristotles-view-on-friendship/

John Vespasian explains that Aristotle’s views on the natural world established the basis of scientific thought and civilisation. Aristotle’s philosophy is relaying 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. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/aristotles-views-on-natural-philosophy/

John Vespasian explains that 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 common good. 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. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/aristotles-views-on-politics-and-governance/

John Vespasian explains that Aristotle’s views on politics and governance can be summed up in a few sentences: depending on the number of rulers (one, a few, everybody), political systems for the common good can be classified into monarchies, aristocracies, and polities. When rulers abuse their power, those three systems shall be named tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy. In order to prevent abuse of power, Aristotle advised to distribute power amongst the monarch, the aristocracy, and the people. The two paragraphs above summarise the very best Ancient Greek ideas in the area of politics and governance. Those ideas have exerted influence on Western civilisation for hundreds of years. Still today, they continue to shape our views on how to govern society. Aristotle’s ideas have undergone attacks from many fronts, but before presenting those attacks, it is important to mention that Aristotle’s ideas constitute an elaboration of the criticisms raised by his predecessors. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/critics-of-aristotles-views-on-politics-and-governance/

John Vespasian explains that Aristotle came up with the two key ideas of balanced governance, but history has done everything possible to wipe them out from people’s memory. Aristotle’s first principle of governance is that rulers should work for the common good. He didn’t exclude any government form (monarchy, aristocracy, polity) as long as the ruler (one, a few, every citizen) keeps the common good as top priority. This lesson seems easy and self-evident enough, so that it is never forgotten, right? You could not counter Aristotle’s advice credibly, right? Actually not. In the mid-eighteenth century, the writings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) created a vast confusion about the purpose of governance. The main concept in Rousseau’s political philosophy is the “general will” (“volonte generale” in French) as supreme guide of governmental decisions. In contrast to Aristotle, Rousseau is assuming that decisions taken by the majority will necessarily be good decisions. Aristotle knew better because he had a better understanding of human nature. He underlined that the goal of governance is to achieve the common good. Aristotle had focused on the common good but leaving each person free to pursue his dreams of success, wealth, happiness, and health. He knew by experience that humans differ widely in skills and motivation, and that one shouldn’t misuse politics to homogenise society and eliminate freedom. Oblivious to the lessons of history, Rousseau proposed the opposite. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/the-two-keys-in-aristotles-views-on-politics-and-governance/

John Vespasian explains that 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 the 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 results 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. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/aristotles-theory-of-justice/

John Vespasian explains that mainstream philosophers call Schopenhauer a pessimist and consider his work uninteresting. They argue that Schopenhauer had little concern for social issues and that, for that reason, his ideas are unsuited for today’s world. However, if you devote time to studying Schopenhauer, you will learn to appreciate the finesse and soundness of his analysis. His works provide insights that are not available elsewhere, and are intellectually stimulating. Besides, Schopenhauer was an excellent, polished writer. In his books, you’ll find a seamless compilation of wisdom drawn from Christianity, Buddhism and Hinduism. Very few philosophers in history are as practically oriented as Schopenhauer. He really disliked wasting his own time and the time of his readers. In his books, he aims at providing valid and timely advice to solve the reader’s problems. Schopenhauer based his philosophy of life on a simple idea, namely, the existence of a life force (“the will”) that drives all living entities towards survival, reproduction and the pursuit of short-term pleasure. The theory of the will is presented in Schopenhauer’s books “About the fourfold root of the principle of sufficient reason” (1814) and “The world as will and representation” (1818). Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauers-philosophy-of-life/

Although his lifestyle was unpretentious, modesty was not a characteristic of Arthur Schopenhauer (1788–1860). John Vespasian explains that Schopenhauer 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). 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. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/analysis-of-schopenhauers-philosophy-of-life/

John Vespasian explains that Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) had no problem to accept that he was an eccentric. In fact, he considered it a privilege to be categorised as an eccentric. He considered it a confirmation of the originality of his ideas. Schopenhauer’s key contribution to philosophy is the theory of the will, that is, the belief that the will (“life force”) exerts a strong influence on all living creatures. The will drives them at the same time towards survival, reproduction and pleasure, but without any consideration of cost and long-term consequences. By creating the theory of the will, Schopenhauer set himself apart from other philosophers, especially from Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) and Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831). Kant and Hegel had placed philosophy on an idealistic path by focusing on epistemology and proposing vague abstractions for defining morality. Schopenhauer rebelled against those vague abstractions that have no connection to reality; he simply pointed out that Kant’s “categorical imperative” and Hegel’s “absolute spirit” generate confusion and fail to supply practical guidance for deciding on everyday matters. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/happiness-and-schopenhauers-philosophy-of-life/

John Vespasian explains that history provides excellent examples of the philosophy put forward by Arthur Schopenhauer (1788–1860). For instance, Marcus Aurelius (121-180 AD), who had favoured living in accordance with nature. Aurelius’ recipe for happiness is understanding the order of the universe and aligning our actions with it. However, when he talked about “the order of the universe,” he was assuming that the world is rational and that humans can grasp its laws. In contrast, Schopenhauer theorised that the universe is not necessarily orderly. His theory of the will (“life force”) points to a blind, eternal force as a driver of all living creatures. Thus, he was expecting the will to exert an irrational influence on the decisions and actions of humans. Despite his different conception of the universe, the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius constitutes a good practical example of Schopenhauer’s philosophy of life. Every aspect of Aurelius’ life matches Schopenhauer’s ethics. Marcus Aurelius expected the universe to be rational and, to a certain extent, comprehensible to our minds. Nonetheless, he acknowledged the inevitability of change, accepting that often we must face external events beyond our control. Schopenhauer placed great emphasis on self-reliance and on all elements that help humans build their self-confidence. The terminology used in Marcus Aurelius’ work “Meditations” does not exactly match Schopenhauer’s, but the meaning is similar. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/an-example-of-schopenhauers-philosophy-of-life/