You do not need to search long to find philosophers that rate Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) as the ultimate advocate of determinism. Nonetheless, they are wrong; their categorisation of Schopenhauer as deterministic is superficial and overlooks a large number of key aspects in Schopenhauer’s philosophy. When analysing a philosopher, one must place his ideas at a certain point in the scale of determinism versus individuality. It is particularly easy to err if you don’t study philosophical ideas in detail. If you reduce Schopenhauer’s lifetime work to a caricature, you will tend to place him at the end of the scale. However, the reality is more nuanced and interesting. When we look into the details of Schopenhauer’s ideas, we must definitely rate him as an individualist, not as deterministic. Let me explain the logic by comparing Schopenhauer to the Ancient Roman Stoic philosopher Epictetus, who lived in the first century AD. Schopenhauer’s two key works “On the fourfold root of the principle of sufficient reason” (1814) and “The world as will and representation” (1818) argue that the cosmos is dominated by the will. Schopenhauer regards the will as a blind life force. Similarly, Stoic philosophers like Epictetus believed that the cosmos is governed by a force called “logos.” This force is to blame for every good and bad occurrence in the world. The definition of the logos had been shaped by Cleanthes (331-232 BC), Zeno of Citium (334-262 BC), and Chrysippus (280-206 BC) of Cilicia, all of them predecessors of Epictetus. Schopenhauer’s definition of the will includes the adjective “irrational,” but strongly resembles the Stoic “logos.” It doesn’t change much that Zeno and Cleanthes had called their logos “rational.” In any case, the Stoic deterministic framework was stronger than Schopenhauer’s theory of the will. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/individuality-and-determinism-in-schopenhauer/

The enormous achievements of Aristotle come to light when you compare his ideas with those of other thinkers. Especially during the decade that he devoted to lecturing in Athens (335-325 BC), he came up with very accurate insights on the nature of reality and existence. As he explains in his book “Metaphysics,” each entity in the world possesses a unique essence or nature. In broad terms, the essence of an entity is determined by its “material cause” (the matter that constitutes it) and its “formal cause” (its shape). In addition, when entities move, we can also speak of their “efficient cause” (the force that moves them) and “final cause” (the purpose that they want to achieve). Aristotle considered that, by analysing the material, formal, efficient and final cause, we can identify the essence of entities in particular and of existence in general. To make his analysis even more accurate, Aristotle used the additional concepts of “potentiality” and “actuality.” Those are meant to identify changes in substances or living creatures. For instance, a piece of wood has the potential of becoming a toy, but won’t turn into a toy until a human being takes action and gives the wood a specific shape, for instance by carving it. When the wooden toy is finished, we can say that the potential has been actualised. The Aristotelian concepts of potentiality and actuality prove very useful in character development or “personal growth.” We can point to a youth and say that he has a great potential, but it remains to be seen where he will put in the work necessary to bring his potential to fruition and “actualise it.” If you look at Aristotle’s ideas from the standpoint of today’s knowledge, you’ll be tempted to rate some of them as obvious, but if you place them in their historical context, it is clear that Aristotle was ahead of his time. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/aristotles-views-on-the-nature-of-reality-and-existence/

Was Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) a subjectivist? Did he reject an objective philosophy, where the concepts of good and bad are universally defined? What’s the difference between Schopenhauer and subjectivist thinkers? Schopenhauer wasn’t a subjectivist. His book “The world as will and representation” (1818) outlines the theory of the will, which sustains that all living entities are driven by a life force (“the will”) to ensure their survival and reproduction. According to Schopenhauer, the will is a wild, irrational and eternal force. The will is objective in the sense that it exists before human consciousness. However, it is also subjective in the sense that it exerts relentless pressure on the thoughts and actions of each individual. Schopenhauer built a philosophy that connects the objective and the subjective, identifying how they interact across time. It is wrong to say that he favoured subjectivity and arbitrariness, or that he encouraged people to elevate their feelings to ethical principles. The comparison with a subjectivist thinker is the best way to present Schopenhauer’s views on the meaning of life; for the comparison, I have chosen the archetypical subjectivist thinker, namely, Emile Coué (1857-1926). Coué belongs to the generation born after Schopenhauer but he inhabited a world that, to a large extent, inherited the ideals and habits from Schopenhauer’s time. Geographically, Coué was not far away from the German- speaking area of Europe. Coué spent most of his life in a town located a few hundred kilometres from the German border. I consider Coué the archetype of the subjectivist thinker due to his experiments in the field of suggestion. He was the first promoter of positive thinking and daily positive affirmations. Schopenhauer was never confronted with ideas exactly like the ones developed by Coué, but was familiar with suggestions and affirmations in Buddhism, Hinduism and Christianity. If Schopenhauer had met Coué, he wouldn’t have taken him seriously. Why not? Because he never took seriously positive thinking, suggestion and affirmation in religion. Schopenhauer didn’t give credence to theories that appear borderline magical. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/analysis-of-schopenhauers-views-on-the-meaning-of-life/

Aristotle (384-322 BC) devoted his “Poetics” to defining art and beauty, especially in the field of theatre. For Aristotle, art consists of a reality imitation or reflection (“mimesis”) with a purpose determined by the artist. The Aristotelian concept of art goes beyond defining what is pretty, pleasant or appealing. The goal of art is not to entertain or make your time more pleasant, but to identify truths that are not self-evident. Art conveys ideas that cannot be apprehended in the course of normal life. According to Aristotle, artists produce beauty by integrating harmoniously a theme, subject and style for emotional impact. Artistic beauty is a manifestation of cosmic order and balance, not just a superficial appearance. Artworks use elements from the natural world, but recreating them to enhance their moral significance. “Mimesis” or imitation is an essential concept in Aristotle’s “Poetics.” Aristotle views art (especially poetry and theatre) as a form of imitation of nature, to which the artist adds the essence of human actions and personalities in order to evoke emotions. In Ancient Greece, there were two primary forms of literary art, namely, tragedy and epic poetry. Their narrative structures were different, but both genres aimed at maximum emotional impact leading to a “cathartic experience” in the audience. Aristotle defined “catharsis” as a spiritual renewal brought about by intense emotions. In the case of epic poetry and stage tragedies, Aristotle was referring to emotions such as fear and compassion. Why can witnessing a tragedy in the theatre lead to spiritual renewal? How does the Aristotelian “catharsis” work exactly?When the audience experiences the emotional intensity caused by the story, they overcome their fear and inhibitions, and gain strength to confront the problems in their own life. The hero on the stage gives inspiration to the audience. He’s showing how to conduct difficult struggles, how to pursue key objectives relentlessly, and how to overcome daunting obstacles. In the cathartic process, the audience grows mentally stronger. In contrast to the random qualities of protagonists in today’s movies and television shows, Aristotle expected heroes to meet high ethical standards. Catharsis only takes place if the audience witnesses heroes that embody ethical virtues. Even if the hero ends up making a mistake that destroys him or faces an insoluble moral dilemma, he still represents virtue. As long as his motivation is commendable, his actions are worth watching. Otherwise, the audience will lose interest. According to Aristotle, beauty can be achieved more easily through unity or integration. This means that an artwork needs to have internal consistency. Its theme, subject and style should be coherent. Otherwise, they won’t succeed in conveying the truth. In the theatre, Aristotle recommended playwrights to attain integration through “unity of action.” This means that their plot should be well-constructed and relatively straightforward. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/aristotles-thoughts-on-the-purpose-of-art-and-beauty/

It’s not correct to say that Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) embraced a form of metaphysical determinism. His philosophy rests on the assumption that the will (which I translate as “life force”) influences all events, but there is a substantial distance between influencing and determining. The difference between influence and determinism has large consequences. I am not pointing to a trivial linguistic variance. If you want to make good decisions and keep anxiety at bay, it is crucial that you understand the difference. In his major work “The world as will and representation” (1818), Schopenhauer argued that the will is the fundamental force underlying reality. He described the will as irrational and blind. It’s ceaseless energy that propels all existence. According to Schopenhauer, the will manifests itself in all animal and human actions. It helps shape human desires, goals and decisions, although we experience those as free-chosen. In all cases, Schopenhauer argued, we are subject to the relentless influence of the will. Yet, we are neither helpless nor enslaved. Schopenhauer’s philosophical stance is that it’s hard to slow down or minimise the influence of the will. As individuals, we are convinced that we possess free will, but to a large extent, we are driven by the “life force” that propels the cosmos. I would not use the term “determinism” for describing how the will is influencing human life. We are driven to achieve the goals inherent in the will (pleasure, reproduction, etc.) but we are not blind brutes unable to figure things out. Although Schopenhauer employs the concept of “necessity” to underscore the nature of the will, he does not mean that one is unable to escape or minimise the influence of the life force. I regard it as a lame excuse when criminals blame nature or metaphysical forces for their crimes. They’ll employ the term “necessity,” just as Schopenhauer had done, but one should not give credence to their stories of blind, irrational influence. Schopenhauer contends that every event in the world can be regarded as a manifestation of the will, but manifestation does not mean total control. Similarly, Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) viewed one’s survival as a manifestation of one’s instincts, not as an enslaved, subservient function thereof. In “the world as will and representation,” Schopenhauer is providing valuable advice about how to restate our freedom. In general, one is better off by exercising caution; we should steer away from unbridled passion and cultivate prudence. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauer-on-determinism/

Aristotle (384-322 BC) addressed human flourishing in his work, “Nicomachean Ethics.” The key idea of “Nicomachean Ethics” is that the goal of human life should be happiness (in Greek “eudaimonia).” For Aristotle, happiness means “leading the good life” or “flourishing.” It means that the concerned person has attained steady, overall well-being, not just a fleeting pleasure. According to “Nicomachean Ethics,” eudaimonia requires cultivating intellectual and moral virtues day after day. What did Aristotle mean by “intellectual virtues”? He meant wisdom and understanding developed through education and reflection. On the other hand, moral virtues such as courage, generosity and justice are acquired through regular practice. In order to flourish, you should embrace virtue and calibrate your behaviour. Aristotle defined virtues as the “golden mean” between too extremes. For example, the virtue of courage is a mid-point between the vices of recklessness and cowardice. It takes care and determination to find the virtuous middle point. If you strike the right balance, said Aristotle, you will enjoy a virtuous and flourishing life; happiness will be yours because it is a direct consequence of virtue. The Aristotelian theory of happiness is based on action from beginning to end. It requires the subject to define goals, weigh alternatives, discard evil and laziness, and do what is right. The recommendations given by Aristotle need to be grasped and practised. In order to attain happiness, it is not sufficient to sit down and meditate. It is not enough to wait for events to take place. You’ll need to place yourself in the driving seat and choose the right direction. In his metaphysics, Aristotle emphasised that every creature has a purpose (“telos” in Greek). In the case of plants, animals, and natural phenomena, we are talking about simple goals such as finding food, reproducing, or flowing downwards (like the water in rivers). For humans, the goal is eudaimonia. How do you achieve happiness according to Aristotle? He recommended living in accordance with nature and developing one’s potential. Human beings cannot attain happiness by remaining static. Mentally healthy individuals long for challenges, adventure and excitement. They enjoy life more intensely when they are pursuing great goals and overcoming difficulties. It’s essential to human nature to define and pursue ambitious goals. Nonetheless, Aristotle recognised the crucial role played by social relationships in human happiness; that’s because humans are social beings and self-actualisation usually requires plenty of social interaction. For Aristotle, an ideal society must allow citizens to flourish by letting them free to pursue their initiatives. On the contrary, all types of totalitarian governance (tyranny, oligarchy, mob rule) will prevent citizens from attaining happiness. For what concerns success (wealth, friendships, popularity, etc.) the recommendations given by the “Nicomachean Ethics” are similar to those given for happiness. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/aristotles-understanding-of-human-flourishing-and-success/

In the field of ethics, Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) was influenced by Buddhist thought. In particular, Schopenhauer held in high regard the Buddhist concern for suffering, placing empathy and compassion at the centre of his ethical system. Nonetheless, there are fundamental differences between the ideas of Schopenhauer and the Buddhist religion. In his book “The world as will and representation” (1808), Schopenhauer theorised that the universe is driven by the will (“life force”). Every living creature is thus prompted to secure its survival, reproduction, and seek short-term pleasure. Buddhist religion does not rely on any principles equivalent to Schopenhauer’s theory of the will. However, it views desires and ambitions as a source of frustration, pain and sorrow. Like Schopenhauer, Buddhism seeks peace of mind by reducing all factors that generate suffering. The overlapping area between Buddhism and Schopenhauer revolves around empathy and compassion; for Buddhists, those are practices that enable humans to reduce pain. I see a similar conception in Schopenhauer, although he put forward the argument that empathy and compassion benefit as well the people who practise them. Practitioners benefit from those virtues by becoming increasingly self-aware, benevolent and outwardly focused. While Buddhist religion aims at inner peace, Schopenhauer regards empathy and compassion as tools for escaping the dire influence of the will. Schopenhauer’s objective isn’t only inner peace, but also self-awareness, self-reliance and happiness; the latter requires the reduction and elimination of suffering. By drawing ethical values from Buddhism, Schopenhauer is reinforcing his opposition to Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) and Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831); those philosophers had proposed abstract ethical systems unconnected to real-life experience. When Schopenhauer integrated compassion in his morality system, his goal was to increase lifetime enjoyment by helping people make better decisions. He regarded self-awareness as a prerequisite to clear thinking and making good choices. Schopenhauer’s book titled “Two fundamental problems of ethics” (1843) doesn’t endorse the Buddhist “nirvana” concept without making some adaptations. While Buddhism is seeking quietness and liberation of all desires, Schopenhauer considers peace of mind only the first step. According to Schopenhauer, happiness goes far beyond the search for inner peace and detachment from desire. Simplicity, meditation and contemplation are only intermediate stages, not a goal unto themselves. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauer-and-buddhism/

If you walk the streets of any large city nowadays, the sheer number of homeless, confused people will make you wonder if Aristotle’s theory of potentiality and actuality has been totally forgotten. While most people today believe that self-development and self-actualisation are almost impossible, Aristotle had already observed twenty-five centuries ago that all creatures have the potential to actualise a better version of themselves. Aristotle defined “potentiality” as “the capacity for change that creatures and entities possess.” In contrast, he defined “actuality” as the realisation of their potential. From this perspective, the whole dynamics of the world can be explained by the activities of creatures and entities to attain their potential. Thus, change of any sort (chemical, mechanical, biological, or psychological) can be regarded as potentiality turning into actuality. If you take clay and make a cup, you have actualised its potential. In doing so, you have applied your purpose (final cause) to a material to give it a specific shape (formal cause). Human creativity and vision play a major role in developing new products, features and markets; only humans can conceive complex goals (final cause) and organise materials, shapes and labour to bring projects to fruition. In contrast to prior philosophers, and also in contrast to later philosophers, Aristotle applied the concepts of potentiality and actuality to morality. He regarded happiness (“eudaimonia” in Greek) as the ultimate goal of human life and self-actualisation as the primary path to happiness. If you want to improve your life and achieve happiness, the best way is to develop your potential. This means learning new skills, making ambitious plans, and working steadily to pursue your dreams. It is up to you to actualise your potential. Do not leave it to chance. For Aristotle, the concept of self-actualisation goes together with the concept of happiness, flourishing or thriving. Human happiness is a dynamic process whereby individuals become better versions of themselves. You cannot become happy by doing nothing and meditating the whole day. You cannot attain self-actualisation by repeating some mantra and brainwashing yourself; happiness needs to be earned by means of focused action. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/aristotles-concepts-of-potentiality-and-actuality/