John Vespasian

What characterises the philosophy of the self developed by Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)? Which are the differences between Schopenhauer’s ideas and those of other philosophers? John Vespasian explains that Schopenhauer outlined his philosophy in “The world as will and representation,” a book published in 1818. The book puts forward the “theory of the will” as explanation for the cosmos, society, and human nature. According to this theory, the will (“life force”) is driving all living creatures to ensure their own survival, reproduction, and to seek short-time pleasure. To a large extent, the concept of instincts in Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) corresponds to Schopenhauer’s theory of the will. In Freud’s books, instincts are also defined as unconscious and primordial forces driving animals and humans. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauers-views-on-the-self/

Like most great philosophers, Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) considered education as a lifetime activity. Schooling is only the first step, however necessary, and should build at the same time the student’s character, knowledge, and skills. John Vespasian explains that Schopenhauer was very precise in defining the purpose of moral education; the principal purpose is to help students build their self-awareness and self-discipline. Self-awareness enables individuals to perceive the influence of the will (“life force”), identify the risks and assess the costs. Self-discipline allows them to implement the countermeasures to minimise the influence of the will and increase happiness. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauer-and-the-philosophy-of-education/

There is fierce opposition to the philosophy of education put forward by Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860). The opposition goes beyond little details. It’s essential, fundamental, ferocious, and relentless. John Vespasian explains that Schopenhauer created his own antagonists from the moment that he diverged from the doctrines of Plato (429-347 BC). You can find those doctrines in Plato’s book “The Republic.” Plato employed grandiloquent terms for describing his ideas about education. He spoke about a “just, harmonious society,” but in practice, he was proposing a totalitarian, oppressive and tyrannical education system. According to Plato, the purpose of education is to construct a society ruled by philosophers like himself, who impose their views on everyone else by means of hired warriors. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/opposition-to-schopenhauers-philosophy-of-education/

In the field of ethics, Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) was influenced by Buddhist thought. In particular, Schopenhauer held in high regard the Buddhist concern for suffering, placing empathy and compassion at the centre of his ethical system. John Vespasian explains that, nonetheless, there are fundamental differences between the ideas of Schopenhauer and the Buddhist religion. In his book “The world as will and representation” (1808), Schopenhauer theorised that the universe is driven by the will (“life force”). Every living creature is thus prompted to secure its survival, reproduction, and seek short-term pleasure. Buddhist religion does not rely on any principles equivalent to Schopenhauer’s theory of the will. However, it views desires and ambitions as a source of frustration, pain and sorrow. Like Schopenhauer, Buddhism seeks peace of mind by reducing all factors that generate suffering. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauer-and-buddhism/

The philosophy developed by Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) takes some ethical ideas from Buddhism, but those don’t affect the theory of the will (“life force”), which constitutes the essence of Schopenhauer’s work. John Vespasian explains that Buddhism was created by Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama) in the sixth century before our era. Buddha was born into a Nepalese royal family, grew disillusioned with his aristocratic lifestyle, and began to search for the meaning of life. Some of his ethical views were taken over by Schopenhauer twenty-five centuries later. At age twenty-nine, Buddha embraced an ascetic lifestyle in which meditation and poverty played the central role. Buddha thought that asceticism would lead him to enlightenment. Buddhist tradition tells us that, after six years of asceticism, Buddha attained enlightenment, that is, he figured out that the best way to live is to pursue liberation from suffering. In the ensuing years, Buddha travelled through India to preach his ideas. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/differences-between-schopenhauer-and-buddhism/

The possibility of drawing teachings from Eastern religion didn’t occur immediately to Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860). It does not appear in his early work “About the fourfold root of the principle of sufficient reason” (1808) and only starts to take shape in “The world as will and representation” (1818). John Vespasian explains that Schopenhauer grew acquainted with Buddha’s teachings in the years after 1815. Initially, he read extensively about the life of Siddhartha Gautama, the creator of Buddhism. The insights gained by Siddhartha Gautama appear rather harsh for thinkers trained in Western philosophy. Buddhism in its original form entails a radical rejection of Western comforts and values. Schopenhauer was unwilling to endorse a radical rejection. I have no problem understanding his logic; he wanted Buddhism to enrich his life, not to render it miserable; he wanted to attain higher levels of happiness, not to give up happiness altogether. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauers-teachings-drawn-from-buddhism/

The philosophy of logic and reason developed by Aristotle (384-322 BC) is different from computer logic, religious logic, and other types of logic that have existed in history. John Vespasian explains that there are three distinct features that render Aristotelian logic unique. First, Aristotelian logic is linked to language. In would even specify that it is linked to human language. Humans have ways of thinking that are very different from those of computers. We can place statements in a psychological or ethical context, and draw extremely accurate conclusions from sketchy evidence. The fact that Aristotelian logic is based on human language should be regarded as a strength, not as a weakness. I certainly do not share the views of Ramon Llull (1232–1315) who wrote a complete treatise (“Ars Magna”) favouring a non-ambiguous system of logic based on quasi-mathematical formulae. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/aristotles-most-crucial-teachings-on-logic-and-reasoning/

John Vespasian explains that there are three aspects that render Aristotelian logic vastly superior to other logical systems. For attaining success in your private and professional life, Aristotle’s logic is indispensable. Let us pass review at the three aspects that make it so effective. First, Aristotelian logic relies on human perception. It does not need extrasensory inputs or religious insights to draw valid conclusions. It only needs facts or statements based on sensory data normally available to humans. That’s all it takes. Syllogisms, the logical method devised by Aristotle, operate on two premises that share a middle term, which enables us to reach a conclusion; the premises might be perfectly accurate or rather imprecise. Yet, even in the worst cases, we can still draw a conclusion provided that the premises share a middle term. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/the-superiority-of-aristotles-teachings-on-logic-and-reasoning/

In contrast to other systems of logic, the one delineated by Aristotle (384-322 BC) understands the importance of purpose and gives a central role in how conclusions are drawn. John Vespasian explains that, when looking at entities and events, Aristotelian logic is not only asking how or why. It looks beyond the obvious and aims at clarifying the context. In his work “Metaphysics,” Aristotle recommended to study entities and events by looking at their constituent ingredients (“material cause”), at their shape (“formal cause”), at the force that moves them (“efficient cause”) and especially at their goal (“final cause”). Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/morality-in-aristotles-teachings-on-logic-and-reasoning/

In his work “Metaphysics,” Aristotle presents the concept of the prime mover. Philosophers have also called it the unmoved mover, the prime cause, the prime mover, or the first cause. All those terms have the same meaning, namely, the idea that there is a single entity responsible for everything that happens. John Vespasian explains that Aristotle (384-322 BC) was not the first philosopher to put forward the theory of a single force driving the cosmos, but he kept the inventor’s glory because he wrote down his thoughts about the matter. In his work “Metaphysics,” Aristotle argued that there must be some unchanging, eternal source driving all changes we perceive day in and day out. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/aristotles-theory-of-the-prime-mover/