John Vespasian

Consistency is the hallmark of philosophical truth; in a good system of ideas, each individual aspect matches the totality and the totality matches reality. Every application of true principles leads to the best possible outcome under the circumstances. John Vespasian explains that true philosophy operates through identity and causality. It does not depend on wishful thinking, magic, or hope. Aristotle in his “Nicomachean Ethics” called hope a “waking dream” in contrast to the predictability delivered by causality. Even small deviations from the truth will create a lethal lack of consistency. Any discrepancy will undermine effectiveness and motivation. For example, the Roman philosopher Seneca (1-65 AD) had adopted in many areas ideas similar to Aristotle’s, but failed to grasp the concept of causality. Just as Aristotle had done, Seneca recommended practising virtue, rationality, and accepting the natural order. The problem is that his definition of “the natural order” was vastly incorrect. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/happiness-and-aristotles-views-on-the-nature-of-reality-and-existence/

When Aristotle was born in 384 BC, logic was in its infancy and indistinguishable from rhetoric; the ancient Greeks viewed rhetoric as useful because it could help them secure a business deal or win a case in court. The purpose of rhetoric was to win; logic (even twisted logic) was just part of its arsenal. John Vespasian explains that Aristotle came up with a fresh approach to logic. His books “Categories,” “Prior Analytics” and “Posterior Analytics” give us his insights in this regard. “Categories” was written around 350 BC. Aristotle was just thirty-four years old at that time. The book enumerates crucial categories for analysing reality. The Aristotelian categories refer to substances, qualities and quantities, and to the relations between objects. They don’t add much to terms used by prior philosophers such as Plato (428-347 BC), Anaxagoras (500-428 BC) or Democritus (460-370 BC), but for the first time, they provide a systematic overview. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/aristotles-philosophy-of-logic/

It is not an exaggeration to say that Aristotle (384-322 BC) made modern civilisation possible. He invented formal logic at a time where most of humanity could neither read nor write. If it wasn’t for Aristotle’s contribution to philosophy, we wouldn’t enjoy such a high standard of living nowadays. John Vespasian explains that, in his book “Prior Analytics,” Aristotle outlined the method for drawing correct conclusions; his method is called syllogism or syllogistic reasoning. A syllogism is a sequence of thoughts, ideas or statements that lead to an inescapable conclusion. Human intelligence can employ syllogisms (animals cannot, even the most intelligent) and, through programming, computers imitate what humans do naturally. Modern philosophers have criticised Aristotelian syllogisms because of their rigidity, but that’s precisely their key strength. The whole point of syllogisms is to lead to conclusions that are either true or false. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/accuracy-in-aristotles-philosophy-of-logic/

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. John Vespasian explains that, 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. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/cultural-impact-of-aristotles-philosophy-of-logic/

The philosophical innovations brought forth by Aristotle (384-322 BC) are momentous, truly revolutionary, especially in the field of logic. His identification of a precise method (which he called syllogism) to reach accurate conclusions allowed, for the first time in history, to conduct rational debates. John Vespasian explains that modern civilisation is built on the pillars of Aristotle’s logic, and the enemies of civilisation know that it can be undermined by severing those pillars. Without well-defined rules of logic, a rational discussion becomes impossible and anything goes. Unfortunately, history has generated many crusaders against Aristotelian logic. The damage they’ve inflicted on civilisation is proportional to the extent of their popularity. The confusion they have created is proportional to how far they’ve twisted the works of Aristotle. The French philosopher Rene Descartes (1596–1650) made vast efforts to undermine Aristotelian logic. In his book titled “Meditations on First Philosophy” from 1841, Descartes gives long arguments in favour of subjective introspection; he speaks in favour of finding the truth in pure abstractions. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/the-failed-crusade-against-aristotles-philosophy-of-logic/

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. John Vespasian explains that 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 call those examples “premises” and then explains how to assess them and draw an accurate conclusion. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/aristotles-teachings-on-logic-and-reasoning/

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. John Vespasian explains that 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. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/analysis-of-schopenhauers-views-on-ethics/

John Vespasian summarises 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’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, the rejects regarding them as God’s commandments. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauers-key-ideas-on-ethics/

It is not exaggerated to affirm that solitude enabled Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) to become a great philosopher. It took him forty thousand hours of quietness to sharpen his powers of observation, and another forty thousand to make sense of what he had observed. John Vespasian explains that Schopenhauer held solitude in high regard because it is a prerequisite of self-awareness. Individuals need quietness to understand how the will (“life force”) affects their lives. In his book “The world as will and representation” (1818), Schopenhauer argued that the will never stops prompting humans to pursue goals that are often impossible to achieve. The will is to blame for a large part of dissatisfaction and suffering in the world. Solitude enables individuals to disengage from the influence of the will. It helps people say no to distractions and confront their passivity, disorientation, and fears. According to Schopenhauer, solitude can help you achieve a profound understanding of the world in general, and yourself (your motivation, goals and desires) in particular. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauers-views-on-solitude/

Few philosophers agree with the positive views on solitude put forward by Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860). John Vespasian makes comparisons to identify the differences and look for the truth. Aristotle (384-322 BC) acknowledged the value of solitude for learning and self-awareness, but considered impossible for humans to reach their full potential without social connections. By “social connections,” Aristotle did not mean only family and friends; his definition of “social connections” encompasses the “polis,” that is, a Greek city with a population around three hundred thousand people in the case of Athens. In his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle defines “eudaimonia” (translated as “happiness”) as the outcome of flourishing. It’s a dynamic state of mind arising from activities: work, art, sports, learning, etc. A large part of those activities require social interaction. It’s possible to achieve happiness in solitude, but not to the highest level. For instance, the pleasure of conversation with friends or from competing in sports cannot be easily replaced. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/analysis-of-schopenhauers-views-on-solitude/