The most dangerous idea in modern culture

Problems make us wiser

Problems make us wiser even if most people actually hate them. That’s why the first sign of trouble sends them into panic. They see problems as interruptions to life, while in reality, problems are just the price we pay to be alive. The French philosopher Michel de Montaigne gained this insight more than 400 years ago. He lived through civil wars, political chaos, and religious violence. Entire cities were consumed by blind hatred, hysteria, and fear. Yet, instead of becoming bitter, Montaigne reached a powerful conclusion: problems are our greatest teachers. Think about it. Nobody becomes courageous when everything is easy. Nobody develops patience, resilience and wisdom when life gives them exactly what they want. We only gain wisdom when we are forced to deal with setbacks, uncertainty, and pain. In fact, some of the qualities we admire most in people (strength, self-confidence, self-reliance, good judgement, and critical thinking) are usually the result of facing unwanted problems. Montaigne noted that adversity forces us to reexamine ourselves, develop new skills and increase our self-reliance. It exposes our vulnerabilities, challenges our assumptions, and pushes us to think independently. Every difficulty becomes an opportunity to perceive the world more accurately, and make better decisions in the future. This is why trying to avoid every problem is actually dangerous. A life without challenges doesn’t make us safe. It makes us fragile. A person who has never struggled might collapse at the first sign of real obstacles. The uncomfortable truth is that our current problems may be doing something beneficial for us, something that comfort and good luck could never do. Problems are teaching us patience, forcing us to adapt and build strengths that we don’t even realize we’re developing. Problems are painful. Nobody wants them. But they often become the very experiences that make us wiser, stronger, and more effective than we were before. If you want to apply rational ideas in all sorts of situations, I recommend my book “On becoming unbreakable: How normal people become extraordinarily self-confident.” https://johnvespasian.com/problems-make-us-wiser/

The most dangerous idea in modern culture

The most dangerous idea in modern culture would sound completely insane to Aristotle. I am talking about the idea that you can be anything you want. Aristotle regarded the idea of random potential as nonsense. Over 2,300 years ago, Aristotle asked a question that still divides people today: Does everything have a true nature? He believed the answer was yes. An acorn becomes an oak, not an apple tree. A lion acts like a lion, not like a rabbit. And what about humans? According to Aristotle, we are not made of malleable clay. We all have built-in potentials and strengths, but those are different for each person. That’s why Aristotle rejected the idea that each person can become literally anything. To him, the key to thriving in life means becoming what you’re best suited to become. It is not about pursuing random improvements. But about discovering your highest potential. And here’s the uncomfortable part: If Aristotle is right, then most people are failing to reach their potential. They’re failing because, instead of cultivating their strengths, they’re trying to become someone they’re not. The question Aristotle leaves us with is the following: Are you trying to imitate someone else? Or are you creating the best version of yourself? If you are interested in applying rational ideas in all sorts of situations, I recommend my book “The 10 principles of rational living.” https://johnvespasian.com/the-most-dangerous-idea-in-modern-culture/

The biggest lie you tell yourself every day

The biggest lie you tell yourself every day is that you’re thinking rationally, but in reality, you are not as logical as you think. Arthur Schopenhauer, one of history’s most crucial thinkers, argued that most of our decisions are not driven by logic. They are driven by something that he called “the ‘Will”, an irrational force pushing our desires, emotions, and impulses. Think about it. Did you ever buy something you didn’t need? Have you ever stayed in a bad relationship? Or have you ever ignored obvious red flags and allowed problems to grow? According to Schopenhauer, your mind wasn’t leading you. Your desires were. And then your brain created a story to justify your bad decisions afterward. Schopenhauer believed that truth is uncomfortable because it forces us to see reality as it is, not as we would like it to be. Sometimes, people do not want to see the truth because reality clashes with their wishes. What is Schopenhauer’s solution? Stop chasing every desire. Question your motives. And when something feels true, ask yourself: Do I believe this because it’s reality, or because I just want it to be true? Schopenhauer said that finding the truth is not about feeling good. It is about pushing ourselves to see clearly. Truth sometimes hurts, but delusion will cost us much more. If you are interested in applying rational ideas in all sorts of situations, I recommend my book “The 10 Principles of Rational Living” https://johnvespasian.com/the-biggest-lie-you-tell-yourself-every-day/

Seneca on living in accordance with nature

When taken out of context, philosophical statements can prove misleading; when poorly defined, they become dangerous; and the more frequently they are repeated, the more dangerous they become. Seneca (4 BC-65 AD) did his fair share of repeating poorly defined statements. The fact that he eschewed debates spared him uncomfortable questions. For instance, readers might have asked Seneca to clarify what he meant by “living in accordance with nature.” He loved to exhort everyone to “live in accordance with nature,” but his writings define “nature” rather fuzzily. What did Seneca mean exactly? Was he talking about nature in the sense of trees, sheep, and mosquitoes? Or did he actually mean “human nature” as defined by Aristotle (384-322 BC)? Seneca added to the mystification by using cryptic words. I am afraid that he only created confusion by advising people to “live in harmony with the logos.” The word “logos” is employed by Seneca interchangeably with “cosmic order” and “universal reason.” Those don’t match exactly the Aristotelian tradition, which had only used the term “logos” to mean “intellect, reason or logic.” The fact that Seneca had not built on Aristotle’s works should raise the alarm in the philosophically minded. To make it worse, Seneca performed his word transmutation implicitly, without ever stating his rationale for not following Aristotle. In the Letters to Lucilius, Seneca provides us an indirect definition of “logos.” He recommends respecting the “rational order.” It reminds me of Cleanthes’ advice to align our actions with “cosmic reason.” Cleanthes and Seneca dug up a deep trench between their concept of logos and the one used by Aristotle. The trench is as deep as an oceanic abyss and as wide as the Himalayas. If we fall into this trench, I fear that we might never see the sunshine again. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/senecas-on-living-in-accordance-with-nature/

Feasibility of Seneca's advice to live in accordance with nature

Like most ancient philosophers, Seneca used grandiloquent terms to spice up his writings. For instance, he employed the words “cosmos” and “natural order” to designate rather mundane events. Similarly, he used the word “logos” to mean “destiny.” Respect for the natural order is Seneca’s favourite theme. He regarded nature as all-encompassing, not just as wilderness or greenery. When he spoke about nature, he was also referring to human actions. I mean professional, family, political and sports activities, just to name a few. In his treatise “On the Happy Life,” Seneca outlines his recipe for happiness. As it was customary in ancient times, the treatise was addressed to a third person. “On the Happy Life” is not written as a dialogue, the genre preferred by Plato (427-347 BC) for philosophical writing. The advantage of dialogues as a genre is that they make it easy to present and compare contrasting views. I must, however, clarify that Plato’s works do not constitute “dialogues” as we define them today. When we watch movies or television shows, we expect their speech to sound vivid and spontaneous. If this is not the case, viewers will lose interest and categorise the movie or show as boring. Plato did not bother to render his “dialogues” spontaneous and vivid. It never crossed his mind that readers might rate his characters as artificial and their speech as construed. In fact, Plato had regarded artificiality and craftiness in literature as laudable. The objective of his “dialogues” was to get philosophical ideas across. He did not consider it relevant to create compelling characters and make their speech realistic. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/feasibility-of-senecas-advice-to-live-in-accordance-with-nature/