Stress and worry: Seneca's advice

Stress and worry: Seneca's advice

A linear view of human nature constitutes the weakest point of Seneca as a philosopher. He regarded humans as rational, but with a tendency to do too much or too little. If we want to prevent anxiety and worry, he theorized, we should embrace moderation in all things. Seneca considered anxiety and worry to be the roots of most unhappiness. His recipe for preventing grief is avoiding strong emotions through self-control. If we restrain ourselves from all excesses, we will remain somewhere in the middle and prevent negative emotions. The logic employed by Seneca relies on linearity, that is, on the assumption that, in all human activities, there is a line that goes from zero to one hundred. According to Seneca, if we remain in the middle and avoid the extremes, we can free ourselves of anxiety and worry. If we keep strong emotions at bay, we’ll maintain our peace of mind However, Seneca’s logic does not withstand close scrutiny. Are we supposed to choose moderation in nutrition and health, so that we eat only average food, that is, not too noxious, but also not too healthy? If we use Seneca’s logic, we should also choose moderation in virtue. We should behave honestly, but not too much. We are also to behave courageously, but not too much, and so on. Seneca’s call for moderation would prove counterproductive in those cases. We should pursue virtue, health, friendship and love to the maximum, not with moderation. If the purpose of human life is happiness, why should we pursue happiness with moderation? Human nature is not made of linear traits, where we can set the emphasis always at a moderate level. Do not do anything in excess, says Seneca, but how are we supposed to make dozens of decisions per day if we cannot figure out what moderation means? Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/senecas-views-on-human-nature/

Seneca’s insights on human nature

Virtue rewards, first and foremost, its practitioner. That was the reason for Aristotle to recommend virtues such as ambition and personal initiative. Seneca did not share the views of Aristotle on virtue because, for Seneca, achievement and success represent the exceptions in life, not the rule. In the 72nd Letter to Lucilius, Seneca explains his concept of human nature and virtue. Life is full of setbacks and failure, he argued, and the purpose of philosophy is to help us cope. Good philosophy increases our resilience and equanimity each day. Seneca underlined that the daily practice of philosophy is a prerequisite for peace of mind. In order to enjoy the benefits of philosophy, it is necessary to practise it consistently. It is not sufficient to study it. When I read this Letter, I thought of Lucius Annaeus Gallio, a friend of Seneca’s, who was very familiar with Stoicism. Gallio knew Seneca’s opinions on human nature and virtue, but seldom practised them. He viewed philosophy as an interesting intellectual game that he enjoyed playing, but he would not apply it in reality. If we accept the ideas in the 72nd Letter to Lucilius, we can only conclude that, due to his refusal to practise philosophy, Gallio led a sub-optimal life. Intellectual contradictions often lead to disorientation and anxiety. We need correct ideas and consistent implementation. Otherwise, they will prove useless. Seneca regarded the rejection of philosophy as harmful, but even those who embrace it, will need constancy and steadiness. Inconsistency is omnipresent. It is a part of human nature by default, but we can overcome it by means of steady effort. Let’s not turn human nature into an excuse for our mistakes, deficiencies and weaknesses, exhorted Seneca. We all have the power to improve ourselves, even if it takes lots of effort. Instead of employing human nature as an excuse for doing the wrong thing, we should study the lives of great individuals and learn from them. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/senecas-insights-on-human-nature/

Aristotle’s theory of causality

It is not easy to summarize the work of a lifetime in one sentence, especially when the person in question has written one and a half million words. However, in Aristotle’s case, we do not even need a full sentence to summarize his teachings. We can do it in just one word: causality. Aristotle (384-322 BC) is not only one of the three most influential philosophers in history, but the creator of a brand-new mentality. The other two key philosophers, Plato and Kant, cannot claim the same honor. Through keen observation and logic, Aristotle arrived at the conclusion that everything in the natural world has a purpose and a cause. When I say “everything,” I really mean everything tangible or intangible, whether in the past, in the present or in the future. What is Aristotle’s theory of causality? It’s widely known as “the theory of the four causes” because that’s the name that monks gave it in the late Middle Ages and early Renaissance. Aristotle named the four causes as follows: the material cause, the formal cause, the efficient cause, and the final cause. The latter is particularly interesting because it links the events of the world to human motivation. There are two unique aspects of Aristotle’s final causation. One, the fact that no prior thinker (neither in Greece nor anywhere else) had come up with the concept, not even Socrates or Plato. The second unique aspect is that the study of final causation is laying down the foundation for rational discussions on ethics and happiness. I must underline the word “rational” because, in contrast to prior philosophers, Aristotle strived to identify the good life by using reason, not feelings or intuitions. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/aristotles-theory-of-causality/

The hidden message in Michel de Montaigne’s literary legacy

Learning to fish is more valuable than getting a free meal, because the former can feed us for a lifetime. Methods are far more valuable than objects, because objects are finite. Methods are not limited in time. We can simply employ them to arrive at our goals once and again. The essays by Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) include an important hidden message: Keep your eyes open and stay alert. Don’t accept things without questioning, especially if they look too good to be true. Look beyond the obvious, especially when people tell you that there are no alternatives. Montaigne’s hidden message is about self-reliance, alertness and method. His essays illustrate his thought patterns and help readers acquire the habit of looking at the whole picture. I find it particularly impressive when Montaigne applied his method to seemingly innocuous subjects. Take for instance Montaigne’s essay “On Names” where he starts with the anodyne remark that some heirs fail to honour their family name. Their ancestors had become famous thanks to their heroic or courageous actions, but the heirs do not care. Would it not make more sense, asked Montaigne, to name individuals after their own deeds. Montaigne points to a Central African tribe called Yoruba, where children are named after something that they have done themselves or after the circumstances surrounding their birth. For instance, the Yoruba could name a child “the one that came first” (the primogenitor), indicating that he was the first child to be born to those parents. Montaigne’s disquisition starts quietly, but then his method kicks in and widens his field of vision. Why should we judge a person at all by the name he carries? Should we not rather rate each person according to his own merits? Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/the-hidden-message-in-michel-de-montaignes-literary-legacy/

Tradition versus change in Michel de Montaigne

I view Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) as one of the most realistic philosophers in history. He was remarkably talented at analysing problems, reviewing possible solutions, discarding the unworkable, and selecting the most promising amongst the rest. Let me underline the step “discarding the unworkable.” It is something that most philosophers forget to do. They will fall in love with their favourite plan and keep defending it long after it has become obvious that it cannot possibly work. Plato (427-347 BC) did so in his work “Republic,” where he put forward that totalitarianism under the rule of philosopher-kings is the best political regime. History has proven Plato wrong a thousand times. His ideas about politics are atrocious. In fact, he could have avoided his errors if he had analysed the history before his time. By then, it was already clear that totalitarianism always ends in bloodshed and misery. Montaigne did not get everything right, but at least, he kept dire mistakes at bay. Compared to Plato, Augustine, or Thomas Aquinas, he was far ahead of the game. Why? Because he had a much wider experience of life. Montaigne was particularly adverse to proposing abrasive, harsh social changes even when they seemed advantageous. His extensive experience of the world had made him distrust things that look too good to be true. The deep study of the biographies written by Plutarch (46-120 AD) had made Montaigne suspicious of drastic changes. I agree with him that very rarely does history deliver successful examples of radical changes. More often than not, those lead to unintended consequences that prove worse than the problem. Montaigne had learned the lesson the hard way in his own life. Let me recall a few instances that made him distrust harsh changes, harsh decisions, and harsh actions in general. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaignes-biography-tradition-versus-change/