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/

Seneca (4 BC-65 AD) had no understanding of the concept of justice, and what is even worse, he did not care. As a result, his version of Stoicism lost touch with the social and economic fibre of the Roman Empire. It would have been easy for Seneca to endorse the doctrines of Aristotle (384-322 BC) on justice. In the “Eudemian Ethics” and the “Nicomachean Ethics,” Aristotle considered justice a major virtue. A rational man aims at giving each person his due, Aristotle argued. Fairness and justice arise from the human capacity to think. Animals have no concept of justice, and no expectations thereof. Without rationality, we cannot determine who deserves what, who owns what, and who has earned what. Seneca gained important insights on the subject of serenity, equanimity and happiness, but he would have done even better if he had devoted some time to reflecting about justice. He did acknowledge the problems caused by malfeasance and abuse, but without pointing to their root cause. The 47th Letter to Lucilius exemplifies Seneca’s astonishing indifference to injustice. It recounts that Calvisius Sabinus, a Roman aristocrat, had mistreated his servants, but fails to rate Sabinus’ behaviour as evil. Instead of condemning Sabinus for mistreating his servants, Seneca expresses his dislike for Sabinus’ ignorance in matters of literature and social decorum. The Letter demonstrates deep moral and social blindness on Seneca’s side. Obliviousness to justice is a general problem affecting Stoic thinkers. In the ensuing generations, Marcus Aurelius (121-180 AD) and Epictetus (55-135 AD) show slightly more sensitivity for justice than Seneca, but their passive acceptance of abuses remains worrying. What about earlier Stoics? Zeno of Citium (334-262 BC), Cleanthes (330-230 BC) and Chrysippus (279-206 BC) had not remained insensitive to injustice, but they viewed it as a source of suffering that cannot be eradicated. For Seneca, philosophy is a balsam for the victims of abuse, mistreatment and other injustices, but its effects are limited in scope. The balsam may heal existing injuries, but does nothing to prevent new abuses from occurring. Due to Seneca’s underlying indifference for justice, I find it difficult to take his advice for victims seriously. The 47th Letter to Lucilius affirms that “only the practice of virtue can help us secure happiness,” but does not mention justice a single time. Seneca systematically avoided social or economic criticism. I have not found in all his writings even a couple of paragraphs commenting on Aristotle’s theory of justice. The avoidance of this sensitive subject is of course deliberate, not unintentional. In comparison, Seneca devoted hundreds of pages to issues of little importance. As a salient illustration, I can point to the 15th Letter to Lucilius, which criticises pointless exercise. The banality of its contents barely justifies the cost of the paper that Seneca employed for writing it. In any case, I think that Seneca should have rather praised the benefits of moderate exercise. Seneca arrives at the wrong conclusion that we should not expect too much from life. He regards failure and injustice as perennial and universal, as something we cannot avoid even if we deploy our best efforts. The 67th and 78th Letters to Lucilius present shipwreck (in a figurative manner) as normal. We can choose a good pilot for our ship and he can deploy his best efforts, but a storm may appear out of nowhere and cause the ship to sink. As philosophers, Seneca says, our job consists of fortifying our soul, so that we can cope with shipwrecks (setbacks). His most definite statement reads as follows: “Neither poverty nor suffering nor any other storm can have negative effects on wise individuals.” I couldn’t disagree more and I regret that Seneca missed the point completely. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/senecas-teachings-on-justice/

Romantic literature defends the thesis that it is better to go through ups and downs in life rather than leading a smooth and peaceful existence. I have my doubts about their exaltation of adventure, but when it comes to real life, none of us is afforded the luxury of perfect smoothness and peace. Seneca (4 BC-65 AD) was conscious of the detrimental role played by heartbreak and grief in human existence. Some men and women bring about their own misery, for instance because they engage in reckless behaviour; others are simply victims of circumstances. In all cases, heartbreak and grief can make bad situations even worse. I reckon that, amongst all Stoic philosophers, Seneca gave the most sensible advice for dealing with heartbreak and grief. His recommendations remain valuable today, twenty centuries after he had consigned them to paper, but require some minor adaptations. Seneca provides his universal prescription in the 20th Letter to Lucilius, where he advises us to “moderate our desires,” although in a different context. His views are drawn from three centuries earlier, from the writings of Epicurus (341-270 BC). The 20th Letter is coupling the material with the intangible by referring to Epicurus advice to Pythocles: The best way to grow wealthier is to moderate one’s desires. Seneca is using the quotation from Epicurus in the sense of physical desires and professional ambitions, amongst others. How does this recommendation apply to individuals that are suffering from heartache or grief? Their suffering comes from the desire to have reality changed, recover their lost fortune, get their lost friend back, or resurrect their deceased spouse. Seneca calls for moderating our desires in good times and bad times; excessive ambition will prove as pernicious as blind faith in the impossible. The wise man knows the difference between fantasy and feasibility, and avoids the former. Heartache and grief are aggravated when individuals look at others that seem to enjoy vast advantages. The impression that other people are luckier can magnify one’s feelings of misery. I find it sensible of Seneca’s to clarify, also in the 20th Letter, that such public images of power and wealth tend to be transient. Seneca remarks that many people who occupy a powerful or influential position will be quickly forgotten upon their passing and nobody will pay homage to their feats. It is thus irrational to compare oneself to public images that may not depict solid achievement or enjoyment. Heartbreak and grief are best combatted by focusing on the best kind of role models: people who have surmounted failure and hardships. I’m referring to individuals who have personally experienced setbacks and have emerged triumphant. In the 33rd Letter to Lucilius, Seneca warns us against weak role models. Victims of heartache and grief should pay special attention to this recommendation. Seneca invoked Pythagoras (6th century BC) as an example of teachers “who not only talk, but also do as they say.” Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/seneca-on-dealing-with-heartbreak-and-grief/

Disappointments can have dire consequences. I am referring to the victims of lies, deception or treason, to people who find themselves left behind when their rightful expectations crash. I pity those who prove unable to deal with disappointments and get back on their feet because their lives may be shortened. Seneca (4 BC-65 AD) provided excellent advice about how to deal with disappointments, but his insights are spread all over his writings. I regard the “Consolation to Polybius” as particularly relevant in this respect. Some experts question whether Seneca was its real author, but the matter has not been finally settled. Polybius, a friend of Seneca’s, was the personal secretary of Emperor Claudius (10-54 AD). His job was to handle all state correspondence in Rome and with the provinces. Seneca wrote to Polybius to console him about his brother’s death, and gave advice equally suitable for dealing with disappointments. Seneca recommended to Polybius to avoid lamentations and focus on his work, which was interesting, meaningful and very demanding. When we concentrate on productive tasks, Seneca explained, we automatically stop thinking about other subjects. Polybius was also reminded that his distress was normal and inevitable. Everybody experiences losses of friends and family members now and then. The same applies to disappointments: now and then, we all see our expectations crashed, unfulfilled, or destroyed. Seneca does not blame Polybius for blowing up the impact of his brother’s death out of proportion, but in the case of deep disappointments, we should first look for the cause within our beliefs and actions. Where the 50th Letter to Lucilius says that we should check the facts carefully before making major decisions, it prompts me to think of Theophrastus (370-288 BC). Nevertheless, I cannot ascertain if Seneca had gained this insight from reading Theophrastus, a thinker who had already observed that we can avoid disappointments if we check the facts before committing ourselves emotionally. The insights of Theophrastus mirror those of Aristotle (384-322 BC) in the “Eudemian Ethics” and “Nicomachean Ethics.” If we want to prevent disappointments, deception and betrayal, it is up to us to practise the virtue of justice, and assess people and events accurately. Disappointments can be substantially minimised if we judge people and circumstances correctly. In life, large numbers of disappointments are to be blamed on the victims, on their naive assessments of risks, on their outlandish expectations, or their underestimation of costs. However, Seneca didn’t consistently call for proportionality and reason. If he had followed Theophrastus’ advice, he might have lived longer. If he had assessed risks more accurately, he might have avoided disappointments carrying harsh, deadly consequences. I consider it abominable when Seneca adopts a pessimistic, defeatist tone which categorises disappointments as inevitable, and identifies resignation as the only possible response. This is the case of the 26th Letter to Lucilius, where Seneca makes an exhortation reminiscent of Epicurus (341-270 BC). The latter had told his disciples to prepare for death, meaning that they should keep in mind their limited lifespan, and not expect too much joy or pleasure. If we proceed according to this insight, we will likely shun disappointments, but we might also shun happiness. I regard such a piece of advice as potentially pernicious. Seneca’s best recommendations are those given to Polybius: stop complaining and focus on interesting work. Failing that, we can focus on interesting hobbies, persons, books, movies or any other activity that can capture our attention and steer us in the right direction. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/seneca-on-how-to-deal-with-disappointments/

In our century, motivation seminars have become a sizeable industry. Companies send their employees to those seminars in the hope of increasing sales, productivity and innovation, but it is hard to keep people motivated month after month, especially during periods of economic stagnation. Seneca (4 BC-65 AD) didn’t invent the motivation seminar, but he achieved the same effect by writing letters and essays. If a friend had lost a beloved family member, Seneca would give him advice about how to regain motivation. The same applies to letters that Seneca wrote to friends confronted with setbacks or illness. In the next paragraphs, I’m condensing Seneca’s best advice on motivation, pointing in each case to the original source. The examples I have selected, all drawn from Seneca’s works, help illustrate how to put Seneca’s recommendations into practice. The Letters to Lucilius provide advice that goes beyond the generalities contained in Seneca’s essays. For instance, in his essay “On the Happy Life,” he talks about living honestly and cultivating virtue, but barely addresses the issue of motivation. Seneca’s essay “The Constancy of the Wise” emphasises the virtue of equanimity more than any other. It provides extensive examples of individuals able to stay calm in times of adversity, but tells us little about their motivation. I am all for staying calm, living honestly, cultivating virtue, and practising all the other tenets of Stoicism, but I would have preferred to see Seneca address the issue of motivation. Why did he expect his readers to carry out his recommendations day after day? From where are they supposed to draw their long-term motivation? Seneca rarely mentions happiness as the driving element in human motivation. He could have done so by quoting Aristotle (384-322 BC), the “Eudemian Ethics” and the “Nicomachean Ethics,” but he chose to remain vague on this subject. In the 1st Letter to Lucilius, Seneca acknowledges indirectly that motivation is linked to time, that is, a person’s motivation becomes visible in the way he uses his time. The Letter warns us against wasting time on activities that are either worthless, unpromising or detrimental. Seneca regards the acquisition of knowledge, especially of philosophical knowledge, as a common characteristic of sound motivation, but is this really true? In his 6th Letter to Lucilius, Seneca affirms that he loves to learn because he wants to teach, but what happens to people who have no interest in teaching? The 6th Letter praises the motivation of Cleanthes (330-230 BC) for recording and conveying the insights gained by Zeno of Citium (334-262 BC), but what if Cleanthes had opted for developing his own philosophy? Is an individualist motivation less worthy than the devotion to someone else’s ideas? Neither does Seneca attain clarity in identifying the source of human motivation. In the 8th Letter to Lucilius, he calls for periods of seclusion and meditation, so that we can learn to tell important goals apart from trivialities, but fails to deliver solid criteria to separate the former from the latter. In the 16th Letter to Lucilius, Seneca gives his most detailed recommendation on motivation: he commends readers to seek spiritual wealth by living according to nature, and condemns those who are primarily motivated by becoming popular. I am afraid that Seneca’s views on motivation suffer from a great deal of personal bias. He was able to understand why he, and people like him, did what they did, but failed to deliver a general motivation theory. For instance, the 28th Letter to Lucilius criticises people that leave their home and engage in long-term foreign travel for no good reason. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/senecas-letters-on-motivation/

It is easy to keep a clear mind during a sunny day, when all elements are in our favour: good health, a regular income, old friends that appreciate us, and a loving family around us. It is a different story to keep our wits when things fall apart and keep getting worse. Seneca (4 BC-65 AD) devised the perfect recipe for staying calm and focused in times of trouble. I am convinced that his recipe works because, in history, many people had practised it successfully. I regard this aspect of Seneca’s philosophy as one of the most valuable. For Seneca, the purpose of philosophy is the acquisition and practice of virtue. What did he mean exactly? In the 34th Letter to Lucilius, he defined a virtuous person as “someone who will refuse to commit evil acts under any circumstances.” Moral clarity depends on virtue, not on the memorisation of sayings from philosophers. A conscientious student can learn a large number of texts by heart, but his rote learning will not do him any good in a crisis. Seneca knew that adversity will make a person’s true moral stature visible, for better or for worse. It brings forth the best in virtuous people, and the worst in evil ones. When we are under pressure, we must make quick decisions relying on our beliefs. Seneca was referring to our deep-rooted views of what’s good and what’s evil, of the need to respect other people’s rights, and our levels of self-confidence, self-reliance, and self-development. If our beliefs are consistent and virtuous, we will make the right decisions automatically, just as Seneca had predicted. On the contrary, if our beliefs are inconsistent or unethical, we will panic in times of adversity and commit one error after another. How do we keep a clear mind in a crisis? Seneca argues that we must take action before the risks materialise. Virtuous must be acquired early in life and practised assiduously, so that they become automatic. A crisis doesn’t change individuals fundamentally, explained Seneca. It just prompts them to display their ethical values and practical skills as they are, without delays or embellishments. The 87th and 94th Letters to Lucilius enumerate some of the vices and virtues that can save or break a person during a crisis. Seneca condemns sternly the habit of making excessive expenditures or going into debt beyond what we are able to repay. Seneca considers it harmful to embrace a lifestyle that leads us to borrow sizeable amounts of money just to stay afloat. His praise goes for Cato (234-149 BC) and his frugality, recalling Cato’s habit to travel on horse, instead of a carriage, and carry his own possessions on two bags with him on the horse. I must, however, clarify that Seneca was not encouraging us to refrain from making necessary expenditures. His concept of frugality is different from blind penny-pinching. The fact that Cato had adopted a fairly modest lifestyle did not prevent him from speaking in favour of a new sewerage in Rome. When he was elected censor in 184 BC, he carried out the project with great determination despite the high cost. Seneca regards mental clarity as a consequence of ethically correct behaviour, not as a cause in itself. In order to preserve our mental sharpness in a crisis, we should keep practising the Stoic virtues day after day, in particular prudence, risk aversion and simplicity. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/senecas-approach-to-mental-clarity/

If fourteen-year old students received a solid introduction to Aristotle’s logic, it would change their lives; it could help them stay away from trouble, prevent bad decisions and acquire self-confidence. 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. 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 calls those statements “premises” and explains how to use them to draw an accurate conclusion. In Aristotelian terminology, a syllogism typically consists of two premises that lead to a conclusion by means of deductive reasoning. From the premises A and B, we draw an inescapable conclusion that is verifiable and true. In the example “all sentences contain words” and “a story is made of sentences,” we can draw the conclusion that “a story is made of words.” The premises share the term “sentences.” The conclusion connects the “story” and the “words” through the middle term “sentences.” Does Aristotelian logic sound simple? Indeed, it seems easy but we make mistakes all the time. Very often, people will not see the facts that are right before their eyes; their blindness can be self-inflicted or caused by ignorance, tiredness, or fear. Apathy is another reason why we fail to employ Aristotelian logic. People will clearly perceive the premises or facts but fail to draw any conclusions; they will overlook the obvious due to laziness, apathy, or discouragement. “Posterior Analytics” is devoted to inductive reasoning. It is the method for drawing general principles from specific facts, statements, or experiments. The key to accurate inductive logic is to check that the premises and conclusion are connected by a solid, verifiable link, not by chance or coincidence. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/aristotles-teachings-on-logic-and-reasoning/

The great Aristotle (384-322 BC) presented his thoughts on human nature in his three books “Eudemian Ethics,” “Nicomachean Ethics,” and “Politics.” He wrote or dictated them in the last period of his life after he had started his own school (“the Lyceum”) in Athens. What is Aristotle’s key idea on human nature? He defined humans as “rational animals.” Compared to all other creatures, humans are the only ones that possess the ability to reason and choose their behaviour on ethical grounds. Modern science has proven that some animal species have a limited capacity to think. I’m talking about dolphins, elephants, chimpanzees, ravens, cats, and dogs, for example; they possess the ability to draw simple conclusions but I wouldn’t categorise them as “rational animals” in the Aristotelian sense. As a result of their rationality, humans are uniquely able to give direction to their lives. They can set long-range objectives and pursue them steadily. They can allocate their energies and other resources to achieve their goals as quickly as possible. For humans, argued Aristotle, the overriding goal is to attain happiness. In all his books, Aristotle employed the Greek term “eudaimonia.” It translates not only as “happiness,” but also as “well-being,” “flourishing” or “thriving.” These translations show that Aristotle’s idea of happiness is dynamic. It is not a spiritual status of lethargic contentment but the result of determined action by the concerned person. It is something that you achieve or earn, not an undeserved present. In Aristotelian philosophy, it is up to each person to actively seek his own happiness. The philosopher’s task is to delineate the path and set up guideposts. The sole purpose of ethics is to teach individuals to attain happiness, understood as a radically personal experience. How do you attain happiness according to Aristotle? It is all about acquiring good habits (virtues) and practising them daily. The Aristotelian virtues (self-discipline, benevolence, courage and persistence, amongst others) are tools for achieving a goal. Compared to animals, human nature is highly complex. For the sake of analysis, Aristotle split the human mind (soul) into three areas. He called them rationality, emotions and vegetative in the same way as prior and later philosophers have done. Even Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) employed this tripartite division when he spoke of the conscious, subconscious and the societal constraints, although his explanations differ from those given by Aristotle. The Aristotelian division of the soul in three elements helps us grasp human nature better. When we refer to a certain aspect in someone’s personality, we can connect it to reason, emotions (desires, appetites, tastes) or vegetative drive (survival, growth, nutrition, reproduction). Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/aristotles-thoughts-on-human-nature/

Aristotle (384-322 BC) made a large understatement in his work “Politics” by writing that “education is the best provision for old age.” He should have written that “education is the best investment one can make.” The problem is that most education lacks quality, but should we not say the same about most newspapers, clothing, movies, television shows, books, songs, food, and many other items? If you apply the Aristotelian theory of virtue and character development, you should do well, but can you ensure a consistent application? How do you turn Aristotelian virtues (temperance, courage, justice) into second nature, so that you make the right choices every time? At present, there is no educational model fully based on the teachings of Aristotle; once and again, educators have come up with proposals to improve the current system, but their insights failed to meet their promises. Despite vast investments in new educational methods, I find it hard to believe that classrooms are delivering better results today than fifty years ago. What are the underlying reasons for this decline? The poor understanding of the Aristotelian theory of virtue and character development, and the failed attempts to replace it with random nonsense. Aristotelian ethics is based on the principle that humans can think. Of course, when I say “think,” I mean “think logically.” I don't mean “experience emotions” such as fear, anxiety, stress and confusion. I also don't mean “making arbitrary decisions.” The whole Aristotelian philosophy is based on logic. It is all about assessing facts, looking for connections, and figuring out the objective truth. Real life imposes heavy penalties on people who choose to ignore the truth. No amount of crying and wailing will be able to hide the dire consequences of mistakes. That's why Aristotle placed so much emphasis on virtues (good habits). If you practise virtue (courage, temperance, justice), you'll make good decisions in most cases. Occasionally, you'll make some mistakes, but those should be relatively minor. The acquisition of a good character (a virtuous character) is the key purpose of education. Aristotle wrote in book six of his “Nicomachean Ethics” that “the primary goal of wisdom is to differentiate good from evil.” In the Aristotelian tradition, character development includes knowledge accumulation (history, literature) and logic training (mathematical, causal, ethical), so that students learn to assess facts and draw correct conclusions. Unfortunately, today's education conveys neither sufficient facts nor a strong logic. Students are asked to memorise details without understanding them. They are required to regurgitate answers without grasping their justification. It's no wonder that such a process will generate graduates that are unable to think. The problems are well known already for some time. Let us now take a look at two modern attempts to correct them. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/education-and-aristotles-theory-of-virtue-and-character-development/

In his work “Rhetoric,” Aristotle (384-322 BC) identified a triad of pillars for persuasion and effective speaking. His three pillars (ethos, pathos and logos) refer to the three key elements in communication, namely, the speaker’s fame and credibility, the strength of his arguments, and their emotional impact. Hundreds of books have been written on the subject of how to communicate effectively, but most of them rehash Aristotle’s teachings on rhetoric without adding value. Although it only takes a few hours to familiarise oneself with Aristotelian rhetoric, it is tricky to put it into practice. It is a fact that most people aren’t effective public speakers and that, by attending a communication course, they will barely improve their skills. Why are rhetoric and persuasion so difficult? Plato (429-347 BC) pointed out one of the main reasons that render rhetoric and persuasion so difficult, namely, that people do not want to be perceived as manipulative. They do not want to be seen as pushy marketeers that will tell lies for personal gain. In his dialogue titled “Gorgias,” Plato presents a discussion between Socrates, the rhetoric teacher Gorgias, and his student Polus. In fact, Plato is himself speaking through Socrates. Socrates remarks that rhetoric is often misused and attacks Gorgias (a teacher of rhetoric) for his willingness to teach how to manipulate other people for personal gain. He accuses Gorgias of ignoring truth and virtue, and giving more importance to style than to substance. Socrates considers evil to employ persuasion for personal gain (financial, political or in court cases) and obliterate genuine knowledge. Socrates believed that rhetoric should be used only to foster justice and virtue. Thus, he admonished Gorgias for his moral indifference. Socrates found it appalling that Gorgias, as long as he got paid, was willing to accept anyone as student. When people state that they feel uncomfortable speaking in public, they may be experiencing the same ethical reservations that Plato had presented in his dialogue. What Plato and Socrates had called manipulation, modern psychologists may call aggressive salesmanship. The point is that some people regard all persuasion techniques as evil, and refuse to use them. No wonder that learning about Aristotelian rhetoric does not do them any good. Plato and Socrates were wrong because they hadn’t grasped the concept of individual freedom. Their demand that Gorgias should teach persuasion only for virtuous purposes was absurd. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/putting-aristotles-theory-of-rhetoric-and-persuasion-into-practice/