John Vespasian

John Vespasian explains that Epictetus, a philosopher from the 1st century AD, provides excellent guidance for the daily practice of the ideas of Arthur Schopenhauer (1788–1860). Schopenhauer was focused on the attainment of happiness, and Epictetus pursued tranquillity and virtue, but in practical terms, their ideas are very close. Epictetus emphasised the distinction between internal and external events. Internal events comprise our thoughts, desires, and actions. External events comprise other people’s actions and all aspects of life beyond our control. According to Epictetus, the keys tranquillity and virtue are accepting external events for what they are, and concentrating our efforts on internal events, that is, on our inner disposition. Schopenhauer did not agree with this distinction. His theory of the will (“life force”) predicates that the will pushes living creatures into a relentless quest for survival, reproduction and pleasure, without considering costs, risks and consequences. The will affects both external factors and internal factors. It is going to drive other people’s action as much as it drives our own psychology and motivation. Epictetus’ distinction between external and internal events does not correlate with the sphere of influence of the will. According to Schopenhauer, the will is exerting continuous influence both internally and externally. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauers-philosophy-of-life-in-daily-practice/

John Vespasian explains that the art of getting things done effectively and inexpensively underlies the philosophy of Arthur Schopenhauer (1788–1860). His theory of the will (“life force”) warns us against the lethal consequences of giving way to our instincts without looking at the cost and at the long-term consequences. How do you protect yourself against the negative influence of the will? Schopenhauer advised parsimony, self-reliance and self-awareness. Those habits can help us counteract the will and make better decisions. Schopenhauer never came with precise prescriptions in his quest for happiness. The book “On the fourfold root of the principle of sufficient reason,” written by Schopenhauer in 1814, attributes numerous detrimental human actions to biological forces. Ten years later, in “The world as will and representation,” Schopenhauer took this idea further. For Schopenhauer, rational thinking and rational behaviour are the best methods for minimising the influence of the will. I find it useful to break down his recommendation into detailed prescriptions, such as Franklin’s twelve virtues. Nonetheless, one shouldn’t confuse the goal with the path to achieve it. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/effectiveness-in-schopenhauers-philosophy-of-life/

John Vespasian explains that Arthur Schopenhauer (1788–1860) was deeply familiar with Eastern philosophy, in particular Buddhism and Hinduism. He held in high regard the Eastern approach to stress reduction by reducing one’s emotional engagement. In Schopenhauer’s books, you won’t find a call for “nirvana” and other Eastern philosophical concepts. Nonetheless, he put forward recommendations that are similar to “nirvana.” There’s no doubt that Schopenhauer deployed great efforts to draw the best ideas from Buddhism and Hinduism, and turned them into practical advice. In contrast to Buddhism and Hinduism, Schopenhauer didn’t recommend the suppression of desires. He came up with mild, soft advice that everybody can implement without giving up all his dreams and daily comforts. Schopenhauer presented his advice primarily in “The world as will and representation” (1818) and in his essays collection “Parerga and Paralipomena” (1851). Amongst other strategies, he favoured self-awareness, prudence and foresight, keeping a margin of safety, self-reliance and risk diversification. In this context, we must ask why he focused on Buddhism and Hinduism instead of Taoism. What made him prefer the ideas from Indian philosophers to those developed by Chinese Taoists? Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauers-philosophy-of-life-compared-with-taoism/

John Vespasian explains that Arthur Schopenhauer (1788–1860) had unduly pessimistic, gloomy ideas on love and relationships. The study of his ideas in this respect serves an educational purpose because it enables us to learn from Schopenhauer’s mistakes. Schopenhauer’s theory of the will (“life force”) underlies his views on love and relationships. This theory predicates that the will is constantly driving all living creatures towards survival, reproduction, and pleasure, without paying attention to the cost and risks involved. From this perspective, Schopenhauer viewed love as driven by the will, which he described as a blind, irrational force. His definition of love is linked to the instinctual nature of the will. According to Schopenhauer, the expression “love is blind” should be replaced by “the will makes you blind and prompts you to make counterproductive choices.” Emotional overdrive leads to infatuation, heartbreak, divorce, and harsh reactions. In contrast to Schopenhauer’s remarks, it’s perfectly feasible for individuals to make good choices in relationships. People are not cattle driven by unconscious forces to engage in rituals that cause suffering down the road. Schopenhauer was wrong when he wrote that love (“intense passion”) leads individuals into unions that ultimately result in suffering. He had witnessed cases that confirmed his theory but had overlooked many other cases that prove the contrary. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauers-views-on-love-and-relationships/

The ideas of Arthur Schopenhauer (1788–1860) on love and relationships contain fundamental mistakes. John Vespasian explains that Schopenhauer did not devote to these matters sufficient attention. As a result, his observations and conclusions leave a lot to be desired. His conception of love and relationships is instinctual. They are driven by the Will (“life force”), argues Schopenhauer, and this explains why people behave erratically when they fall in love. The Will prompts them to pursue the beloved at any cost, and without thinking of the long-term consequences. Schopenhauer drew the wrong conclusion and rated all love relationships as doomed. He assumed that the dire influence of the will could not be counteracted and corrected, while in other areas, he had devised sound strategies to address exactly those same problems. A strong refutation of Schopenhauer’s romantic pessimism can be found in the works of the Ancient Roman author Ovid (43 BC–17 AD). His work “The art of love” addresses all the issues identified by Schopenhauer and offers proven solutions. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/refutation-of-schopenhauers-views-on-love-and-relationships/

In his works, Arthur Schopenhauer (1788–1860) pointed out that love relationships often fail because people will initially idealise their beloved, and experience a disappointment when they realise that their expectations do not match reality. John Vespasian explains that Schopenhauer presented those views in “The world as will and representation” (1818) and in “Parerga and Paralipomena” (1851). He warned readers against seeking short-term pleasure without assessing the cost and risks involved. According to Schopenhauer, the whole cosmos is driven by the will (“life force”), which prompts living creatures to secure their survival and reproduction, and seek short-term pleasure. In his warning against delusion, Schopenhauer describes all problems accurately, but fails to provide solutions; he warns us against blind love, but fails to outline workable alternatives. The search for better answers must start with the definition of love. Schopenhauer describes love as “intense attraction” in a rather simplistic way. In doing so, he overlooks five hundred years of literary and psychological exploration. Schopenhauer lacks a nuanced view of love relationships. He could have grasped those nuances by reading the works of Francesco Petrarca (1304-1374) or Petrarch, the first poet who explored the complexities of love. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/idealism-in-schopenhauers-views-on-love-and-relationships/

The justice definition given by Aristotle in “Nicomachean Ethics” is simple, but accurate and profound. A person behaves in accordance to justice only if he has “an habitual disposition to render to each person his due.” John Vespasian explains that the definition demands giving consistently and regularly to each person his due, not only occasionally, not only from time to time. Aristotle’s predecessors such as Socrates (469-399 BC) had not been able to come up with such a complete definition. Despite his focus on self-examination and introspection, Socrates had failed to give a precise meaning to the concept of justice. He had talked about the need of “knowing oneself” in order to “lead an examined life” as prerequisites to happiness, but in no way had he provided practical advice about justice. Instead of concentrating on essential features (as Aristotle had done), Socrates had focused on the method. By means of debates, he had tried to identify the nature of justice and ethics, but with little success. Socrates had theorised that ignorance is the main cause of injustice, but without giving any proof for his statement. In fact Socrates had just made up the link between ignorance and lack of justice. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/impact-of-aristotles-theory-of-justice/

John Vespasian explains that, after Aristotle’s death in 322 BC, the next generation began to question the principles of identity and causality, and rejected Aristotle’s concept of justice. Epicurus (341-271 BC) completely distorted Aristotle’s idea of justice. Instead of viewing it as a major virtue, Epicurus did not even consider it worth pursuing. He talked of pursuing serenity and happiness, but defined them in a vacuum. He regarded them as individual experiences detached from morality, causality, or justice. Epicurus considered justice a tool (legal procedure) with the sole purpose of preventing and settling conflicts in society. He wanted justice to function well in order to be left alone to seek pleasure and happiness. Other than that, Epicurus did not care if each person would actually receive his due. The concept of justice presented by Epicurus is subjective, instrumental, and relativistic. In his eyes, the main command of justice is “to refrain from causing harm.” His conception of justice is so vague that it is worthless for making decisions. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/critique-of-aristotles-theory-of-justice/

Aristotle (384-322 BC) addressed human flourishing in his work, “Nicomachean Ethics.” John Vespasian explains that the key idea of “Nicomachean Ethics” is that the goal of human life should be happiness (in Greek “eudaimonia).” For Aristotle, happiness means “leading the good life” or “flourishing.” It means that the concerned person has attained steady, overall well-being, not just a fleeting pleasure. According to “Nicomachean Ethics,” eudaimonia requires cultivating intellectual and moral virtues day after day. What did Aristotle mean by “intellectual virtues”? He meant wisdom and understanding developed through education and reflection. On the other hand, moral virtues such as courage, generosity and justice are acquired through regular practice. In order to flourish, you should embrace virtue and calibrate your behaviour. Aristotle defined virtues as the “golden mean” between too extremes. For example, the virtue of courage is a mid-point between the vices of recklessness and cowardice. It takes care and determination to find the virtuous middle point. If you strike the right balance, said Aristotle, you will enjoy a virtuous and flourishing life. Happiness will be yours because it is a direct consequence of virtue. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/aristotles-understanding-of-human-flourishing-and-success/

John Vespasian explains that Aristotle’s understanding of human flourishing and success, as presented in the “Nicomachean Ethics” and the “Eudemian Ethics,” can be summarised in three principles. Those three key ideas are common to Plato, Taoism and Confucianism. The first principle is the need of knowledge to achieve self-actualisation, that is, to achieve one’s potential. The process of self-actualisation or flourishing is essential to happiness, said Aristotle. You need to take action and pursue challenging goals; if you stay passive or fail to set goals for yourself, entropy will eat up your time and energies, and you’ll end up in despondency. The issue is that, before taking action, you’ll have to learn to think. Plato (429-347 BC) had arrived at this conclusion decades before Aristotle. In fact, Aristotle took this principle from Plato and integrated it in his theory of self-actualisation. In his dialogues “The Republic” and “Phaedo,” Plato stated that the goal of life is the pursuit of knowledge, which in his eyes, must be acquired from studying abstractions or “forms.” Aristotle acknowledged the role of knowledge in leading an effective life, but did not regard learning as an end in itself. It’s important to acquire skills and expertise, but those constitute a means to an end. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/key-ideas-in-aristotles-understanding-of-human-flourishing-and-success/