Many philosophers have attacked Aristotle’s conception of human beings as rational and self-directed, capable of setting goals and making plans to achieve them, and driven to achieve happiness. Aristotle (384-322 BC) presented his thoughts on human nature in his works “Eudemian Ethics,” “Nicomachean Ethics” and “Politics.” All of them were written or dictated in the years 335-321 BC after Aristotle had opened The Lyceum, his school in Athens. The optimism in Aristotle’s work is seldom shared by later philosophers. Aristotle viewed the achievement of happiness as normal. He considered that human beings are normally able to attain their goals by means of intelligent, steady work. John Locke (1632-1704) outlined his ideas on epistemology in his “Essay Concerning Human Understanding” published in 1690. Locke subscribed to Aristotle’s rejection of innate ideas and other Platonic delusions. Like Aristotle, Locke affirmed that human minds are born as a blank slate. As time goes by, experience and reflection will write on the blank slate. Both experience and reason play a key role in knowledge accumulation. Locke also shared Aristotle’s conception of human beings as political animals. Happiness, they argued, can be attained more easily by collaborating with other humans. Collaboration will entail trade, friendship, exchange of ideas, love, etc. Aristotle had underlined the need for freedom to achieve the primary goal (“eudaimonia” or happiness) in life and defended a balanced system of government. Without good governance, Aristotle warned, corruptions and abuses will ensue. Good governance, according to Aristotle, can be achieved if power is divided within society (monarchs, aristocracy, and the people) and amongst the different branches of government (the legislative, executive, and judicial). Like Aristotle, Locke believed that humans are guided by reason. In normal circumstances, humans seek to preserve their own lives and protect their property. Even in situations where government doesn’t exist (ancient cultures), the normal human behaviour is to seek peace and cooperation, not war and theft. Locke viewed property rights as natural rights derived from an individual’s labour. If you have the right to life and liberty, you must have the right to accumulate property through labour. In his view of human nature, Locke emphasised individual rights and limited government. He regarded those as the best forms of social organisation; governments are bound to protect the rights enshrined in the constitution, said Locke. The essential difference between Locke and Aristotle is that Locke expected constitutions to be good enough to protect the rights of individuals. In contrast, Aristotle viewed the division of power in society as a better guarantee of individual rights. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/critique-of-aristotles-thoughts-on-human-nature/

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. 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. Aquinas employed the Aristotelian doctrine of the four causes (material, formal, efficient, and final) in order to prove God’s existence. He regarded God as the ultimate final cause for all events in the world. “Summa Theologiae” argued with copious details that God’s existence can be demonstrated through a series of syllogisms. I must express my admiration at Aquinas’ talent at fabricating an array of proofs larger than all prior attempts in history. Aquinas was as enthralled by Aristotle’s logic as he was by the Bible; nonetheless, his disquisitions presenting God as “the prime mover” fail to meet the Aristotelian standard of proof. It doesn’t suffice to state that “there must be a prime mover in the universe” and that “God must surely be the prime mover.” Surprisingly enough, Aquinas drew on Aristotelian ethics to justify Christian virtues, but his arguments are far fetched. For Aristotle, happiness is the goal of life and virtues are methods for attaining the goal. In contrast, Aquinas says that God alone knows life’s purpose and that it is in our interest to obey God. As you can see, Aquinas’ logic is vaguely similar to Aristotle’s, but cannot withstand close examination. The greatest contribution of Aquinas was to popularise the works of Aristotle. He made hundreds of thousands interested in learning about Aristotle’s logic. Without intending it, he got them to think for themselves and draw correct conclusions. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/cultural-impact-of-aristotles-philosophy-of-logic/

In life, it is wise to correct errors swiftly because otherwise they will grow and grow. The longer you wait, the worse it will get. The more lies you tell yourself, the higher the barriers to recovery. Eventually, you’ll reach the point where recovery is no longer possible. Despite his enormous wisdom, Aristotle (384-322 BC) put forward the theory of the prime mover. He should have soon realized that the theory is false. Maybe he did realise, but the error remained uncorrected in the existing copies of his book “Metaphysics.” According to the prime-mover theory, there has to exist one eternal, intangible entity responsible for all events taking place in the world. I draw your attention to the wording “there has to exist,” which is utter nonsense. If you take the prime-mover theory seriously, it means that a mysterious eternal force is responsible for making your team win the league, or helping you pass an exam or get a good job. Conversely, the prime mover is to blame when your puppy goes pissing all over the house, your car gets a flat tire, or you get a toothache after eating four dozen cookies. I cannot argue personally with Aristotle about his concept of a prime mover, but I can point to the catastrophic impact it has had in history. Century after century, the most inane theories had been predicated by referring to Aristotle’s prime mover. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) employed Aristotle’s concept of a prime mover to argue that God is ultimately behind all the events taking place in the world. Even worse, Aquinas misused Aristotle’s theory of causality to propose a logical proof that God exists and that he is indeed the prime mover. The “proof” is as misleading and worthless as Aristotle’s prime-mover concept. I can summarise Aquinas’ proof in two sentences: Every entity in motion must necessarily be moved by something else, but this chain cannot regress infinitely. At the beginning of the chain, there has to be a first mover giving impulse to all others. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/critique-of-aristotles-theory-of-the-prime-mover/

The sound principles established by Aristotle (384-322 BC) in the field of ethics were quickly abandoned. His philosophy of virtue and character development gathered a vast number of enemies precisely because it is fair and realistic. Too many people don’t want to hear the truths enunciated by Aristotle, namely, that human beings are rational, that they are responsible for their own choices, and that their happiness will depend on making the right choices. In his books “Eudemian Ethics” and “Nicomachean Ethics,” Aristotle had identified happiness as the primary goal for every human being, and ethics as the science of achieving happiness. Virtues, according to Aristotle, are habits that contribute to happiness. He encouraged his students to practise benevolence, courage, honesty, justice, temperance and generosity because those habits are proven to make one’s life better. Character development consists of acquiring good habits, so that those become second nature. If you practise temperance, courage and honesty every day, they’ll help you make the right choices when confronted with severe problems. It takes a long time to develop a virtuous character. Aristotle wrote in the second book of “Nicomachean Ethics,” that the development of virtues requires constant practice. There are no short-cuts to character development but the efforts are worth it. Note that I’m referring to partitions within Aristotle’s works as “books” because each original hand-written work consisted of several parchment rolls. When quoting Aristotelian works, it is customary to refer to the original parchment rolls as “books” instead of calling them sections or chapters. Why have other philosophers opposed Aristotle’s theory of virtue and character development? Because of fear, anxiety and wishful thinking; because they don’t want to take responsibility for their own success and happiness. The French philosopher Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) is one of the leading opponents to Aristotelian ethics. His writings in this area were published in 1669 under the title “Pensees,” which in French means “Thoughts” or “Reflections.” Pascal’s concept of virtue is the opposite of Aristotle’s. The difference between their ideas is not a matter of chance. Pascal had enjoyed a sound education and was very familiar with the works of Aristotle. His opposition to Aristotle was deliberate in every respect. Pascal’s concept of virtue is rooted in medieval superstition, fear and anxiety. He viewed confusion and apprehension as the dominant emotions in humans, and reason as incapable to deal with those problems. He discarded Aristotle’s call for rationality and certainty, but then devoted dozens of pages to abstruse speculations, arguing that one should believe in God and pray just in case. He spoke in favour of self-sacrifice and humility, but acknowledged that they won’t lead to happiness. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/opponents-to-aristotles-theory-of-virtue-and-character-development/

Various thinkers have tried to put rational systems of virtues and character development into practice. Their attempts have attained success to the extent that they are aligned with the ideas presented by Aristotle (384-322 BC) in his “Eudemian Ethics” and “Nicomachean Ethics.” In those works, Aristotle outlines his five key ideas about virtue and character development. Let’s summarise those five ideas. First, Aristotle placed at the centre of philosophy the fact that human beings are rational, or more precisely, the fact that human beings possess the capability to be rational. We are the only creatures able to grasp and apply logic. In contrast to animals, we can turn observations into abstractions, and create new concepts by combining and recombining those abstractions. Second, by employing reason, human beings are capable of understanding causality. We can analyse events and entities to figure out their composition (“material cause”), shape (“formal cause”), the forces that move them (“efficient cause”) and most importantly, the purpose of their actions (“final cause”). Third, the final cause plays a major role in understanding all human actions. For instance, in order to categorise a death as a crime or as an accident, the police will have to figure out the motivation (“final cause”) of the suspect. Did he intend to kill the victim? In book one of his treatise on rhetoric, Aristotle named seven causes for human action, namely, chance, passion, the forces of nature, habit, reason, compulsion, and desire. Nonetheless, he pointed out that happiness is the ultimate goal of all humans. Fourth, ethics is the science of attaining happiness. Aristotle taught that the practice of virtue is the surest path to happiness. You can substantially raise your chances of attaining happiness if you assiduously practise courage, temperance, benevolence, justice, generosity, and all other rational virtues. Fifth, Aristotle wrote in his “Nicomachean Ethics” that each person is the main contributor to his own happiness. Decisions and actions should be examined in advance in order to ensure that they are correct. If you make good choices and carry them out, you should normally achieve happiness. Character development is a proven method for making good choices because it renders them automatic. A man of character will do the right thing without hesitation because he has made courage, temperance, and justice part of his personality. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/putting-aristotles-theory-of-virtue-and-character-development-into-practice/

I have never been impressed by individuals who preach effectiveness, productivity and efficiency for the sake of it. They devote their efforts to finding faster ways of getting from A to B, without explaining why we should want to get to B in the first place. Seneca took the opposite approach. His ideas about effectiveness are linked to the pursuit of happiness, self-reliance, and peace of mind. Seneca first speaks about the goal, and then describes the path to reach it. For the 59th Letter to Lucilius, I conclude that permanent joy is routinely felt by individuals who are able to think effectively, that is, philosophically. We should categorise such permanent joy as essential and fundamental, as a feeling that goes beyond the trivialities of daily life. Effective thinking enables us to put things in context before drawing conclusions. It prevents exaggerated emotions such as anxiety and depression, and prompts us to ponder the long and short-term consequences before deciding on a course of action. For Seneca, effectiveness requires taking a long-term view especially when everybody else is closing their eyes, avoiding questions about the day after tomorrow. Short-term thinking, in Seneca’s view, can deliver bodily pleasure, but not happiness. The search for superficial pleasures denotes ineffectiveness, argues Seneca. As examples of superficial pleasures, he speaks of gambling, overeating and exaggerated lust. He would have been horrified to learn that, nowadays, some people devote endless hours to watching television or playing video-games. Why does effectiveness lead to happiness? Because humans are naturally driven to seek progress and improve their station in life. Even wealthy individuals love to find ways to achieve better results in their investments and higher value-for-money in their purchases. According to Seneca, we can all draw immense satisfaction from becoming a better version of ourselves. I mean becoming better able to look at the world with philosophical eyes, staying cool when situations get hot, and discarding negative emotions such as anger and hatred. In today’s world, the term “effectiveness” possesses a cheap, short-term connotation, devoid of philosophical depth. People feel effective when they get things done faster or at a lower cost than yesterday, but can those victories deliver serenity and happiness? Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/seneca-effectiveness-leads-to-happiness/

The concept of determinism was unknown to ancient Greek and Roman philosophers because they regarded the universe as a combination of forces. Gods could influence our lives, but we can request the succour of other divinities. Our future is not written in stone. Seneca lived in a polytheistic environment in which Roman deities embodied concepts taken from Greece or Egypt. Humans find themselves on the receiving end of divine forces, but those are contradictory, inconstant and chaotic. After some initial hesitations, Seneca embraced the ideas of Stoicism, as they had been coined by Zeno of Citium (334-262 BC) and Cleanthes (330-230 BC). However, he regarded them as a starting point, not as a closed universe. Little by little, Seneca purified and filtered the Stoic ideals, until, in some areas, they became unrecognisable. I’m referring specifically to the concept of fate, which Seneca linked to luck, rationality and individual responsibility. In his essay “On Providence,” he called readers to accept the inevitable hassles of life, learn from experience and take an active role in shaping their own lives. In contrast to Zeno and Cleanthes, Seneca viewed “fate” as the outcome of conflicting forces that are strengthened or tempered by our decisions. Seneca didn’t equate “fate” with “doom” because he viewed all events as learning experiences. Today’s adversity, he noted, can help us build a better future and prevent future problems. It can literally “save our life,” in the future says Seneca, even if it proves painful in the short term. By “fate,” Seneca referred to the elements in life that prove dominant and irresistible, like storms on the open sea. Wisdom (practical philosophy) helps us steer away from storms before they arrive, but if we are caught in a storm, we shouldn’t waste time complaining. It is better to use our energies productively. Seneca encourages readers to ascertain when “fate” is really irresistible and when it isn’t. When circumstances prompt us to make difficult decisions, it isn’t “fate” if we decide to stay loyal to our values instead of relinquishing them. Instead of misrepresenting the facts, Publius Rutilius Rufus (158-78 BC) had opted to go into exile. He could have lied and prevaricated, blaming his misconduct on “fate,” but he would have lost his peace of mind. Similarly, the Roman officer Gaius Mucius Scaevola, could have begged for mercy after being captured by Lars Porsenna, the king of Clusium. Scaevola could have fallen prey to fear and blamed his mental breakdown on “fate,” but chose instead to give an extraordinary proof of valour. Seneca explains that, due to their moral rectitude, Rutilius and Scaevola had triumphed over “fate.” They had made the right decisions by strengthening their souls, not by falling apart emotionally and letting “fate” take over their lives. Wise individuals view difficulties and adversity as character tests, not as final determinations. “Fate” may force them to lose ground temporarily, but the ground can be regained. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/senecas-ideas-on-the-nature-of-fate/

Worry is the quintessential wasteful emotion. It doesn’t help improve our life, but consumes large amounts of energy. The more we worry, the less time we have available for productive, constructive action. Seneca had endured worry and anxiety in his mid-twenties, due to a severe respiratory illness. He thought he was going to die, when he had barely started to live. Decades later, when looking back at that period, he had drawn crucial philosophical lessons. I regard the 107th Letter to Lucilius as a summary of sound principles for dealing with worry, anxiety and similar negative emotions. The first step is to become conscious of the fact that those feelings are a complete waste of time. “A normal human lifespan should suffice us as long as we do not waste time,” reasoned Seneca. “If we work assiduously towards our goals,” he observed, “we can achieve a great deal.” I want to emphasise the importance of this principle, which constitutes a prerequisite for further self-improvement. People who regard worry and anxiety as useful, are unlikely to remedy them. Their naivete reminds me of an ancient fable about a bird that befriends a snake, only to be betrayed and eaten alive. The bird complains that the snake has betrayed their friendship, but the snake replies that “I’m snake and I must behave like one.” It was foolish for the bird to think that a snake could change its nature. Similarly, it is foolish for people to view their worry and anxiety as favourable or productive. Seneca lamented that humans will waste enormous amounts of time on worthless activities. His recipe was straightforward. Effective living and emotional health revolve around “focusing our attention on the present.” In the 107th Letter to Lucilius, Seneca advised us to consider each day as a self-contained unity. He employed the words “to regard each day as a separate life.” He meant that the sheer fact of using today’s hours well should put us in a positive mood. Seneca recommended the daily practice of virtue because it is the best way to live. By doing today what needs to be done, we are establishing a solid basis for tomorrow’s happiness. It is better to get today’s work done one hundred per cent than waste our time worrying about potential setbacks. I must hasten to add that Seneca was not advising people to live blindly, without making plans for the future. That wouldn’t solve any problem. Insouciance is impractical and dangerous. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/seneca-on-how-to-stop-worrying/

I can understand those who doubt the applicability of Stoic philosophy to today’s problems. Seneca lived a long time ago. How could he possibly foresee the problems we are facing today? Indeed, Seneca’s preoccupations did not resemble ours, but we shouldn’t assume that people in Ancient Rome faced fewer problems than people in our century. Nor that Seneca’s anxiety and worry experience was essentially different from ours. Philosophy is about principles, about immanent truths that, come what may, will remain applicable. If Seneca’s philosophy is true, then it remains applicable today because human nature has not changed one bit. Seneca’s insights on worry remain applicable today as it can be easily proven by applying them to real-life situations. There is nothing in today’s worry that Seneca, Marcus Aurelius (121-180 AD) and Epictetus (55-135 AD) had not experienced in a similar fashion. The stress produced by mobile communications and global competition is historically a new phenomenon, but I would put it in a similar category as the fear and anxiety experienced in Ancient Rome by individuals facing barbarian invasions and monetary debasement. Seneca’s insights become clearer if we apply them to recent events and personalities. I’m going to employ Joseph Pulitzer’s life story (1847-1911) as a test ground for Seneca’s insights on worry. If those insights worked for Pulitzer, I would argue that they will work equally well in our century. Pulitzer, who was of Hungarian origin, embodies the quinta-essential America story of the self-made millionaire. Starting his life as an immigrant into the United States of America, he worked himself up the system and accumulated a large fortune. When interviewed for magazine articles, Pulitzer would call himself “a poor boy who took advantage of great opportunities that were available.” Instead of looking for a pastoral lifestyle to escape worry, Pulitzer earned a fortune from it. Seneca’s anti-worry recipe calls for living in the present and adopting a balanced view of risks. He looked favourably on taking action to protect our assets and happiness, but regarded it as foolish to obsess about potential disasters against which we cannot do much. From the very beginning of his career, Pulitzer employed Seneca’s insight to his benefit; he had understood that most people love to worry and obsess about potential threats, sometimes for taking practical steps to counter them, but other times not. Pulitzer was in his late teens when he landed his first job in journalism. He became a reporter in a local newspaper in St. Louis, and soon began to write passionate articles about social and political issues. His articles aimed at raising the reader’s concerns about the future, and polarising their opinions. Pulitzer categorised his journalism as a fight for justice, but Seneca would have viewed it as potential fuel for worry and preoccupation. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/putting-senecas-anti-worry-recipe-into-practice/

I can understand those who doubt the applicability of Stoic philosophy to today’s problems. Seneca lived a long time ago. How could he possibly foresee the problems we are facing today? Indeed, Seneca’s preoccupations did not resemble ours, but we shouldn’t assume that people in Ancient Rome faced fewer problems than people in our century. Nor that Seneca’s anxiety and worry experience was essentially different from ours. Philosophy is about principles, about immanent truths that, come what may, will remain applicable. If Seneca’s philosophy is true, then it remains applicable today because human nature has not changed one bit. Seneca’s insights on worry remain applicable today as it can be easily proven by applying them to real-life situations. There is nothing in today’s worry that Seneca, Marcus Aurelius (121-180 AD) and Epictetus (55-135 AD) had not experienced in a similar fashion. The stress produced by mobile communications and global competition is historically a new phenomenon, but I would put it in a similar category as the fear and anxiety experienced in Ancient Rome by individuals facing barbarian invasions and monetary debasement. Seneca’s insights become clearer if we apply them to recent events and personalities. I’m going to employ Joseph Pulitzer’s life story (1847-1911) as a test ground for Seneca’s insights on worry. If those insights worked for Pulitzer, I would argue that they will work equally well in our century. Pulitzer, who was of Hungarian origin, embodies the quinta-essential America story of the self-made millionaire. Starting his life as an immigrant into the United States of America, he worked himself up the system and accumulated a large fortune. When interviewed for magazine articles, Pulitzer would call himself “a poor boy who took advantage of great opportunities that were available.” Instead of looking for a pastoral lifestyle to escape worry, Pulitzer earned a fortune from it. Seneca’s anti-worry recipe calls for living in the present and adopting a balanced view of risks. He looked favourably on taking action to protect our assets and happiness, but regarded it as foolish to obsess about potential disasters without actually doing anything to avert them. From the very beginning of his career, Pulitzer employed Seneca’s philosophy to his benefit; he had understood that most people love to worry and obsess about potential threats instead of taking practical steps to counter them. Pulitzer was in his late teens when he landed his first job in journalism. He became a reporter in a local newspaper in St. Louis, and soon began to write passionate articles about social and political issues. His articles aimed at raising the reader’s concerns about the future, and polarising their opinions. Pulitzer categorised his journalism as a fight for justice, but Seneca would have viewed it as fuel for worry and preoccupation. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/putting-senecas-anti-worry-recipe-into-practice/

The solution to worry must begin by understanding its cause and how it builds over time. Seneca grasped the nature of preoccupations better than most philosophers in history, but his recommendations need to be adapted to our century. Seneca attributed mental strain to the human tendency to go too far, run too quickly, and expect too much. He viewed peace of mind as the major goal of philosophy, but acknowledged the difficulty of giving up the desires that prevent tranquillity. We achieve tranquillity, Seneca argued, by becoming more realistic in our expectations. When we pursue a desirable goal, we work hard and expect to achieve it, but we should keep our expectations reasonable, especially if we are operating in harsh environments under tight constraints. Socrates (470-399 BC) had been known for his remarkable ability to stay calm under pressure. According to Plato (427-347 BC), Socrates was able to keep a cool head in the face of dire adversity; he would remain clear-headed even when things had turned dramatically for the worse. Why do so few individuals achieve tranquillity? Why does serenity remain elusive? Seneca rightly pointed out that people fail to attain tranquillity because of their reluctance to practise virtue. By “virtue,” Seneca was referring to Stoicism, that is, a combination of rationality, alertness, parsimony, contemplation and patience. Tranquillity is the outcome of good emotional hygiene, not a mysterious gift of destiny or heredity. It comes from saying no to an unbalanced lifestyle and exaggerated reactions. It rests on our commitment to Seneca’s prescriptions. Seneca’s formula for achieving tranquillity is similar to his formula for friendship: both formulas require full commitment in good and bad weather. We recognise true friends thanks to their loyalty during adversity. Similarly, we recognise effective thinkers in their ability to keep a cool head during a crisis. In his 46th Letter to Lucilius, Seneca noted that true friends are rare and that it’s foolish to count mere acquaintances as true friends. Those who engage in jovial conversation during dinner may or may not possess the potential to become true friends. I’m afraid that only time can tell if those acquaintances will become true friends or not. Seneca wisely observed that “fair-weather companions tend to vanish in times of hardship.” Seneca’s observation applies with equal rigour to achieving tranquillity. It is easy to maintain our serenity when things are going well, but superficial serenity “tends to vanish in times of hardship.” If we want to achieve and maintain our tranquillity, we need to keep practising the Stoic virtues day in and day out, not only during fair weather. In particular, we will need to stay loyal to virtue during major crises, even in life-or-death situations. Seneca implies in the 64th Letter to Lucilius that we should regard life as a path. I would point to the Taoist metaphor of a river flowing to the sea, a river that will occasionally traverse rough patches. Philosophy is a sturdy boat that enables us to navigate downstream with a minimum of trouble. Tranquillity requires that we “periodically remove all weeds from our garden,” so that our mind can operate efficiently. We should stay away from “worthless gossip and distractions” that waste our time and undermine our resolve to practise virtue. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/senecas-formula-for-achieving-tranquillity/

In history, few philosophers have come with workable, solid advice about dealing with setbacks. Socrates (470-399 BC), Plato (427-347 BC) and Aristotle (384-322 BC) had given little thought to this matter, concentrating their efforts on logic and epistemology rather than on human psychology. Seneca was the first philosopher in history to come up with a complete prescription for dealing with setbacks in all sorts of circumstances. He took the insights developed by Zeno of Citium (334-262 BC) and Cleanthes (330-230 BC) in prior centuries, and turned them into a ready-made formula. The formula appears, in bits and pieces, in the essays and in the Letters to Lucilius written by Seneca. I am outlining here the principles, so that today’s reader can access them right away without having to go through hundreds of pages. Seneca’s formula consists of three steps: First, making a fair assessment of our problems. Second, addressing the most acute problems with priority. Third, looking for ways to turn those problems into stepping stones. The first step is the most difficult because many people tend to blow their problems out of proportion. I must include myself sometimes in this category, although experience has taught me how to apply Seneca’s insights more consistently. In the 41st Letter to Lucilius, Seneca provides an extremely effective recommendation in this area: If we want to assess our problems accurately, we should put them in perspective. If we are terrified of falling ill or going bankrupt, we should remind ourselves of our mortality. Reading Seneca had led me to consider the strategy of reflecting daily on death in order to live fully. Compared to death, all problems seem of little importance, whether they are financial, emotional, social, or medical. As long as we are alive, we have possibilities of improving our situation. It is easy to regain balance, if we train ourselves to consider death as the alternative. The consequence of doing so is that we will devote more energy to taking practical action, and much less to complaints and lamentations. Seneca’s second step is to identify, amongst all our pressing problems, those that are the most severe. By “severity,” I mean “lethality,” not discomfort or embarrassment. We should ignore our natural tendency to focus on pain as the principal criterion. It is painful to suffer from indigestion, but probably less lethal than a heart condition that is not giving us any pain at this moment. As a general rule, humans tend to be more objective when they look at somebody else’s problems than when they look at their own. We may prove capable of identifying the most lethal threat for a friend, while we remain blind and deaf to the risks that we are facing ourselves. In his 111th Letter to Lucilius, Seneca advised drawing the counsel of a good friend. His definition of “good friend” is however quite demanding. Seneca meant “someone willing to point to our mistakes and propose improvements.” If we can draw this kind of advice, that would be ideal, but on many occasions, the threats might require immediate action, allowing us no time for consultations. For this reason, it’s good to build one’s self-reliance and learn to keep a cool head during crisis situations. Seneca had great appreciation for friendship, but favoured self-reliance over all. From the 111th Letter to Lucilius, I have concluded that a wise man does not rely on friends for securing his peace of mind. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/senecas-advice-on-setbacks/

Most philosophical doctrines are worthless for dealing with uncertainty. They fail to recognise emerging threats and, when people wake up, it’s too late to do anything. If we want to have a successful, happy life, we need to know what to do exactly in order to deal effectively with uncertainty. Seneca came up with the answer, although he failed to see the implications. He was too busy with his own problems and possessed only a limited grasp of economics. Let us review his insights and complete them where necessary. In his 102nd Letter to Lucilius, Seneca described in detail the risks that we all face in life. I would use the metaphor of trees that we have seen when they were planted, but that are now old and decayed. I am referring to the process of getting old, but we can extrapolate the principle to all areas of human life. In terms of business, professional or social development, we all face risks of obsolescence, market shifts, and decreasing opportunities. Uncertainty is a general concept that encompasses all kinds of future risks. If we fail to adopt preventive measures, we may have to face a sharp decline in our health, social and financial status. Stoics sometimes employ the metaphor of a tree, which used to be tall and thriving, but has become dead wood, only good enough for burning in the fireplace. Lamentations will not help us deal successfully with future changes in the environment; they will not help us identify risks and determine what to do exactly. The Stoic prescription given by Zeno of Citium (334-262 BC) and Cleanthes (330-230 BC) consisted of acceptance and resignation. The same passive attitude had been proposed by Chrysippus (279-206 BC). I regard the prescriptions of the early Stoics as profoundly unsatisfactory. Uncertainty constitutes a generic risk that every person needs to face; a philosopher that preaches acceptance or resignation is not helping us deal with uncertainty. Seneca improved substantially compared to the early Stoics because he had understood that, when we are facing important threats, passivity is suicidal. Zeno was advising people to take setbacks philosophically, but is it not better to adopt preventive measures to avert problems? In his 19th Letter to Lucilius, Seneca identifies a formula for dealing effectively with uncertainty, although he fails to take it further. Heraclitus had already implied that fortune is always flowing; sometimes, turning in our favour, other times, against. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/senecas-advice-on-dealing-with-uncertainty/

Seneca laboured intensively in the pursuit of wisdom. He devoted four decades of his life to reflecting and writing about philosophy. I would not question his dedication, but I cannot ignore the rather poor results he achieved. The fact that he ended up killing himself does not speak in his favour. Despite Seneca’s large efforts to acquire wisdom, we should not close our eyes to his errors. He gained important insights on Stoicism and made solid recommendations, but where did he go wrong? Why did he not come up a winner in the end? Seneca’s Letters to Lucilius provide the clue for solving this mystery. The purpose of the Letters is to praise self-control and condemn emotional overreactions. Seneca rated Stoic self-denial and calm very high, while condemning aggressiveness, anger and rage. The 47th Letter to Lucilius does not equate rationality and tolerance, but anyway, it encourages readers to befriend people who they might have regarded below their level. The letter refers to servants, in the sense of Ancient Roman law, but the idea applies to all sorts of situations. Seneca is telling us to embrace life’s experience as a whole, and draw spiritual benefits from every situation, friendship or acquaintance. In order to attain this goal, we should judge each person for what they are, not by external appearances such as their clothes or their role in society. I can only endorse Seneca’s openness and equanimity, but I detect a strong prejudice in the 47th Letter against “ambition or the pursuit of success.” Seneca devotes almost every sentence to encouraging us to look downwards, while sternly opposing people who dare to look upwards. Seneca’s characterisation of wisdom shows a deep negative bias. He rightly praises our willingness to share our table with the disadvantaged, but why does he condemn our ambition to achieve success and prosperity? I view Seneca’s bias as extremely dangerous because, if we take it at face value, it becomes demotivating and paralysing. It can prove harmful to look only downwards and talk only about the disadvantaged, instead of improving our own life. Seneca had already put forward this idea in the 10th Letter to Lucilius, where he condemned people who rely primarily on religious prayer (instead of self-discipline) to solve problems. I mean people who pray, asking for help in some private matter. I find it problematic that Seneca condemns all private goals as impure and demands total transparency. He speaks in favour of openness and publicity, but overlooks that silent praying can provide people comfort and strength in times of trouble. Seneca is correct in condemning praying for satisfying low passions, but again, he is solely looking downwards, forgetting the beneficial motivation drawn from looking upwards. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/senecas-mistake-in-the-pursuit-of-wisdom/

The best advice provided by Seneca concerns the method for making decisions. His recommendations are condensing decades of philosophical reflection, and a profound knowledge of Ancient Greek and Roman history. Seneca’s advice is straightforward: Keep going in the right direction and do not dwell on difficulties and setbacks. He had seen too many of his friends choose unhealthy, self-defeating lifestyles for the sake of fitting in society. In doing so, those friends of Seneca’s had relinquished their best opportunities to achieve serenity and happiness. The question, of course, is to identify “the right direction” that should guide our decisions. In Seneca’s case, the answer was obvious because of his strong interest in philosophy. For other people, the answers might be different. In his 56th Letter to Lucilius, Seneca points out that people tend to assign too much power to external events. He gives the example of noise and social pressure. Those factors can prove annoying, but we should not give them more weight than they deserve. Seneca points to boisterous youngsters and sportsmen, the passage of commercial and private wagons, and chatter of all kinds; a philosophical mind can acknowledge them as potential distractions, but only to reaffirm its commitment to achieving one’s essential objectives. I would generalise this point by saying that we should keep going in the right direction and let our focus keep distractions at bay. If we maintain our equanimity, we won’t be bothered by setbacks or by hostile environments. Seneca condensed his strategy as follows: “When we are at peace with ourselves, we won’t be shaken by the world’s noise, praise or reproach.” It is far more important to enjoy a peaceful mind, he argued, than living in a peaceful neighbourhood. His advice to keep going in the right direction only becomes feasible when we possess sufficient serenity and equanimity. It entails substantial amounts of focus and self-discipline. These two Stoic virtues, argued Seneca, are indispensable to serenity. Seneca expanded this piece of advice in the 81st Letter to Lucilius, where he favoured serenity and mental independence. In modern terms, I would see this point as a call for spiritual self-sufficiency.” I can only endorse Seneca’s praise for mental independence because it is a prerequisite for other virtues. I must point to Seneca’s example of the wealthy but anxious man, who cannot even fall asleep due to his preoccupations. His mind remains outwardly focused, unable to find peace, because any change in circumstances will disturb its balance. Seneca warns us against making decisions based on external factors. He was referring to the blind pursuit of wealth, fame, influence and power. Those objectives alone cannot fulfil the definition of “the right direction” and cannot provide guidance for making good decisions. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/senecas-advice-on-making-good-decisions/

Amongst all insights gained by Seneca, his recipe for handling pessimism is particularly remarkable. I find it perennial in its validity and universal in its applications. Few philosophers have analysed this issue as profoundly as Seneca, and even fewer have come up with useful recommendations. I can sum up Seneca’s recipe for handling pessimism in one brief metaphor. Instead of adopting a fearful, worrisome view of the world, we should imitate the insouciance of dogs, cats or any other wild species. On good and bad days, they keep walking around, looking for food. They fail in most of their attempts to chase a prey or obtain food, but they keep trying nonetheless. Even when they succeed, they seldom get their favourite food, but they enjoy it anyway. Last but not least, when things turn for the worse, they look for solutions without exaggerating the problem. Their attention and capabilities are focused on addressing the problem at hand, leaving no time for blowing up future risks out of proportion. Seneca did not employ the metaphor of animal insouciance, but his Letters to Lucilius provide advice that corresponds one hundred per cent to this metaphor. I am referring in particular to the 49th, the 92nd and the 24th Letters. In the 49th Letter to Lucilius, Seneca addresses the question of how to face adversity. Life is full of crises, some of them heavier than others. When Seneca wrote the 49th Letter, he was surrounded by war and violence, fearing for his own safety. Even in the worst circumstances, it pays to keep going and making the best of each day, Seneca concludes. “Some people live a long life, but they waste most of their time,” he notes. It’s up to us to seize the available opportunities each day without wasting time with complaints. Thus, my metaphor for dogs and cats, or wild animals. Seneca considers a pure time waste to engage in pessimistic thinking. In his own situation, amidst bitter military hostilities, he could spend the whole day agonizing over the risk that “this might be the last day of my life.” Such a pessimistic attitude is useless and counterproductive. We should rather imitate cats and dogs in their ability to stay relatively insouciant in times of trouble. They keep going each day, not wasting time agonizing over potential risks. Seneca complements this important insight in the 49th Letter to Lucilius, where he reminds us of the human ability to deal with adversity. I would call it a formula for attaining happiness to the maximum extent possible. The philosopher knows how to deal with negative elements and make the best of each day. In the original Latin text, Seneca is referring to any material setback, external or internal. For instance, he is talking about health problems as much as material poverty. I have translated this concept by “negative elements beyond his control.” In my metaphor, I refer to the animals’ contentment in cases where they do not find their favourite type of food. This covers the great majority of cases. Nonetheless, they are happy to eat whatever is available and call it a day. We should not grow pessimistic by the fact that we have not yet achieved our goals, or due to the uncertainty of ever getting to our desired destination, argues Seneca. In the 92nd Letter to Lucilius, Seneca affirmed that we can deal successfully with anger. It has taught me that our soul enables us to deal with negative issues and elevate us above a purely perceptual level. In this area, we are far better equipped than dogs, cats or any other creature. Seneca emphasises the need to maintain our equanimity and keep pessimism at bay. In this respect, I must mention Publius Rufus Rutilius (2nd century BC) as an illustration of the human ability to deal with setbacks and still find happiness. Rutilius was twice prosecuted on dubious ground, absolved the first time, but the second time sent into exile. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/seneca-on-handling-pessimism/

I pity those who ignore the lessons from antique thinkers because they are leaving remarkable wisdom on the table. It is a sign of deep ignorance to categorise Socrates (470-399 BC), Plato (427-347 BC) and Aristotle (384-322 BC) as impractical, and to sustain that their works are no longer worth studying. Curiously enough, Seneca often battled with prior Greek and Roman thinkers; he regarded their conclusions as superficial or incomplete, and claimed for himself the credit of having discovered a higher truth. Are those debates too theoretical? No, not at all. Does it make a real difference whether we favour modern thinkers to the detriment of the ancients? Yes, it makes a large difference because it is costly to acquire wisdom. If we foolishly discard our intellectual inheritance, we may prove unable to replace it when things turn from the worse. If we fail to absorb the wisdom from the past here and now, we’ll miss those insights when we need them badly. Seneca made this mistake in his treatment of doubts, fears, and threats. In his 90th Letter to Lucilius, he put aside the ideas and wisdom of Posidonius (135-50 BC) all too quickly and all too recklessly, just because Posidonius was not a Stoic. Let’s not forget that Posidonius had written fifty-two history books that, in Seneca’s lifetime, constituted the most accurate record of the late Roman Republic. Those books contained lots of details about philosophy, psychology and culture. Posidonius’ works gave a first-hand account of how Ancient Romans addressed problems, individually and societally. Their stories illustrated especially how people dealt effectively with doubts and fears. In the 90th Letter to Lucilius, Seneca discards all inherited wisdom as fruitless, and calls for “returning to nature” in terms of clothing, nourishment, habitation and social mores. He calls Posidonius’ reflections undesirable because they make our life easier and safer. Seneca expects readers to use their philosophical skills to overcome doubts, fears, poverty and lack of comfort, but fails to realise the high cost associated with his recommendation. This error becomes obvious when Seneca, discussing how people protect themselves from cold, puts on an equal footing primitive fur clothing and a well-built, comfortable home. Who can affirm truthfully that the former is as good as the latter? Antique philosophy teaches us how to overcome doubts and fears by thinking rationally. This entails employing the insights and resources available in our culture. It would be foolish to go back in history and discard the knowledge accumulated by our predecessors. In the 39th Letter to Lucilius, Seneca somewhat remedies his mistake because he praises a moderate lifestyle as the essential Stoic strategy for dealing with doubts and fears. He speaks in favour of “aiming high when following our natural drives” and avoiding excesses. Stoicism calls for dissolving doubts and fears through daily virtue. Seneca does not expect his readers to deploy impossible levels of willpower and determination. His method is soft and incremental, and simply encourages us to live in accordance with nature. In the 39th Letter to Lucilius, Seneca regards “uncontrolled passions” as the most dangerous enemy to Stoic virtue. His call for a tempered, moderate lifestyle summarises his prescription against doubts and fears. Does Seneca’s recipe work in real life? Only to the extent that we complement it with state-of-the-art knowledge. Unless we adopt Posidonius’ love for existing know-how, chances are that our attempt to “return to nature” will create more problems than it solves. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/seneca-on-overcoming-doubts-and-fears/

How many people do you know that are able to remain calm under extreme pressure? My guess is that you know very few. I can count those I know with the fingers of one hand. Serenity is not taught in school, and when people most need it, then it is far too late to acquire it. Seneca came up with effective strategies for staying calm under pressure, although, to be fair, I must point out that he built on the ideas of Zeno of Citium (334-262 BC), Cleanthes (330-230 BC) and Chrysippus (279-206 BC). The most important innovation of Seneca’s in this respect is that he combined the ancient Stoic wisdom with the doctrines of Epicurus (341-270 BC). The resulting advice carries, in my view, a much heavier weight than the ideas of prior Stoics. Seneca addressed this matter fragmentarily in the 22nd and 75th Letters to Lucilius. We need to pick up those separate observations and put them together into a powerful recipe that can be still employed today. In the 75th Letter to Lucilius, Seneca conveys the idea that most people tend to suffer gratuitously due to their poor habits. If they practised Stoicism, he argues, they would be protected from “the surrounding horrors and temptations.” Seneca affirms that the only valid method for staying calm under pressure is “to break with bad habits and tendencies.” He is referring to the severe fear that handicaps individuals when they are confronted to sickness, poverty or social exclusion. For staying calm under pressure, Seneca’s prescription calls for adopting good habits (intellectual and physical habits) and practising them day after day. Seneca strongly condemns individuals who are willing to practise virtue when it is already too late. He is employing the wording “people who practise virtue only sporadically.” Let us take note of this recommendation as the first step for staying calm under pressure. From those Letters, I have concluded that it is not generally a bad idea to complain and give other people too many details about our problems. If we do so, those problems will remain unsolved and the pressure will not relent. Seneca acknowledges that “conversation can appear deeply appealing, almost like love or drinking wine,” but we shouldn’t engage in counterproductive actions when we are surrounded by trouble. There is a high risk, argues Seneca, that lamentations would make things worse. Instead of solving the underlying problem, there is a high risk that those conversations would elicit “envy, disdain, fear or hatred.” Those elements can surely not help us to stay calm under pressure. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/senecas-advice-on-staying-calm-under-pressure/

Despite his extensive philosophising, Seneca never showed a systematic approach to philosophy. His Letters to Lucilius employ hundreds of times the word “virtue,” but do not connect it to metaphysics, epistemology, politics, aesthetics or to the Aristotelian tradition. Seneca was a gifted writer, but not a systematic thinker. His goal was to prevent misery more than to promote happiness. In his works, we are led to assume that he knew the doctrines of Plato and Aristotle, but he does very little to prove this point. How can I then summarise Seneca’s insights? I will do so in seven principles that condense the essence of his philosophical works. These seven ideas are spread all over Seneca’s works. It would take days for anyone to go through all of Seneca’s works and come to these conclusions: Life is to a great extent unpredictable, and philosophy is the best tool for navigating the uncertainty. In his 71st and 88th Letters to Lucilius, Seneca acknowledges that Stoicism views philosophy as the study of virtue, but the study is not a purely theoretical study. The goal of philosophy is to help us make good decisions, especially when we only possess incomplete information. Even if living conditions have improved enormously since the times of Ancient Rome, Seneca’s insights remain true: Every person is going to be confronted, sooner or later, with setbacks, failure and sickness. Wisdom is philosophy in practice. Seneca employs the metaphor of the voyage in the 71st Letter to Lucilius. This Letter prompts me to conclude that, if life is a voyage, then philosophy shows us the goal, and wisdom delineates the path to follow. Wisdom is the skill that we acquire through careful, detailed and sustained study of philosophy. It is a skill that protects our serenity when things turn for the worse. In those Letters to Lucilius, Seneca fails to quote Aristotle (384-322 BC) and his “Nicomachean Ethics” and “Eudemian Ethics,” which also conceived ethics as a practical science, but one that is fully consistent with other branches of philosophy. I miss in Seneca this concern for consistency and integration. Stoicism admits that philosophy also deals with politics, nature, aesthetics and logic, but in practice, pays little attention to those matters. Seneca focused almost exclusively on ethics, just as the prior Stoics had done. The extant works of Cleanthes (330-230 BC), Chrysippus (279-206 BC) and Zeno of Citium (334-262 BC) don’t contain many disquisitions on logic, aesthetics and politics. Peace of mind was their priority and everything else came second. Seneca calls for concentrating our efforts on learning all the intricacies of Stoicism. In the 32nd Letter to Lucilius, he is condemning those who make material abundance their priority because, in doing so, they are unlikely to find happiness. Stoicism, says Seneca in the 32nd Letter, can render us calm, peaceful and satisfied. Later Stoics, such as Marcus Aurelius (121-180 AD) and Epictetus (55-135 AD) gave more weight to minimising suffering and increasing our resilience. Philosophy is for practising, not for preaching. Seneca is often coming back to this idea in his Letters to Lucilius and in his essays “On the Constancy of the Wise” and “On the Happy Life.” He views it as a waste of time to try to convince other people to change their ideas and lifestyle. In the 29th Letter to Lucilius, Seneca considers philosophical proselytism ineffective because it is doomed to fail most of the time. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/senecas-philosophy-explained/

Amongst all paths to serenity, the one delineated by Seneca is the most straightforward. It rests on a single principle that can be applied to all problems and circumstances that we encounter in life. Seneca’s path to serenity has been proven effective through twenty centuries of experience. In contrast to the recipes given by Marcus Aurelius (121-180 AD) and Epictetus (55-135 AD), Seneca’s path can be summarised in one word: flexibility. Nowadays, most people regard themselves as flexible, but is it really true? Does their flexibility correspond to Seneca’s idea as presented in his Letters to Lucilius? Surely not. Seneca was not referring to the willingness to eat fish and chips instead of hamburger, or take the early flight when later flights are fully booked. His conception of flexibility is wider and deeper. In the 36th Letter to Lucilius, Seneca underlines the fleeting nature of life and exhorts us to practice virtue. It has led me to conclude that most problems pale when we accept the fact that, one day, we will pass away, just like every other human being. The philosophical mind looks at the present and the future at the same time. In doing so, it strengthens its resolve to enjoy each day to the maximum. Stoicism calls for mental flexibility, for the ability to weigh the pros and cons of each situation, and automatically gravitate to the best alternative. Cleanthes (330-230 BC) personified the idea of flexibility because he was willing to take a succession of menial jobs to fund his philosophical quest. Seneca’s meaning of flexibility encompasses the willingness to relocate, change professions, change friends, accept failure and setbacks as a normal part of life, and cope with dire illness if need be. His concept of flexibility was as radical as one can imagine nowadays. In the 67th Letter to Lucilius, Seneca explains how to lead a happy life, but it does not tell us, for instance, how to cope with debilitating illness. Instead of complaining about poor health, should we declare ourselves happy that, due to our illness, we can devote more time to reading or music? Seneca enumerates many setbacks that confront individuals in the course of their existence: War, physical injuries, material privations or accidents of all sorts. What to do in those cases? The fool will waste his energy crying and complaining. His goal is to elicit compassion from other people, and obtain help and comfort. The problem is that, even if he succeeds, he will remain anxious about the future. His supporters might change their mind, or his problems might grow worse over time. Seneca explains that the path to serenity consists of patience and flexibility. The Stoic regards problems as the price we pay to be alive. No problems, explains Seneca, means death. In the 67th Letter to Lucilius, Seneca is quoting Demetrius, a philosopher who had compared a smooth life to a “dead sea.” I find the idea of a totally smooth life unrealistic anyway, but the point made by Seneca is that, even if it was possible, it would prevent us from developing our intellectual and physical skills. Seneca was referring to Demetrius, a contemporary of his, more closely associated with the Cynics than with the Stoics. Curiously enough, Demetrius also endured exile under the rule of Nero, just as Seneca had done. Flexibility entails the automatic capability to see the hidden benefits that go hand in hand with seemingly dire situations. In the 81st Letter to Lucilius, Seneca encourages readers to count their blessings and express gratitude at every opportunity. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/senecas-path-to-serenity/