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

The cultural impact of Aristotle’s philosophy of logic begins with Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), who undertook to couple Christian theology to Aristotelian philosophy. The combination is far from self-evident and Aquinas did it only by twisting the ideas of Aristotle almost beyond recognition. In his “Summa Theologiae,” Aquinas provides a systematic presentation on how to merge syllogistic logic and Christianity. According to Aquinas reason and faith are both important and should coexist harmoniously. Aristotle must have turned in his grave upon hearing such a suggestion. Mixing logic and faith was anathema to his way of thinking. Nonetheless, I must acknowledge that Aquinas did a job better than anyone could have done in his impossible enterprise. Aquinas employed the Aristotelian doctrine of the four causes (material, formal, efficient, and final) in order to prove God’s existence. He regarded God as the ultimate final cause for all events in the world. “Summa Theologiae” argued with copious details that God’s existence can be demonstrated through a series of syllogisms. I must express my admiration at Aquinas’ talent at fabricating an array of proofs larger than all prior attempts in history. Aquinas was as enthralled by Aristotle’s logic as he was by the Bible; nonetheless, his disquisitions presenting God as “the prime mover” fail to meet the Aristotelian standard of proof. It doesn’t suffice to state that “there must be a prime mover in the universe” and that “God must surely be the prime mover.” Surprisingly enough, Aquinas drew on Aristotelian ethics to justify Christian virtues, but his arguments are far fetched. For Aristotle, happiness is the goal of life and virtues are methods for attaining the goal. In contrast, Aquinas says that God alone knows life’s purpose and that it is in our interest to obey God. As you can see, Aquinas’ logic is vaguely similar to Aristotle’s, but cannot withstand close examination. The greatest contribution of Aquinas was to popularise the works of Aristotle. He made hundreds of thousands interested in learning about Aristotle’s logic. Without intending it, he got them to think for themselves and draw correct conclusions. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/cultural-impact-of-aristotles-philosophy-of-logic/

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

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

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

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

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

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