John Vespasian

John Vespasian

JOHN VESPASIAN is the author of sixteen books, including “When everything fails, try this” (2009), “Rationality is the way to happiness” (2009), “The philosophy of builders” (2010), “The 10 principles of rational living” (2012), “Rational living, rational working” (2013), “Consistency: The key to permanent stress relief” (2014), “On becoming unbreakable” (2015), “Thriving in difficult times” (2016), “Causality: Aristotle’s life and ideas” (2024), “Foresight: Schopenhauer’s life and ideas” (2024), and "Constancy: Michel de Montaigne's life and ideas" (2025).

  1. Schopenhauer and existentialism

    7 HR AGO

    Schopenhauer and existentialism

    The reasons why #philosophy books trace the inception of existentialism to Arthur #schopenhauer (1788–1860) are rather weak. Nonetheless, they have attained the status of mainstream opinion and deserve a robust refutation. I am going to address the arguments given in philosophy books and refute them one by one. My objective is to bring new light to a question that has been wrongly declared settled. Schopenhauer himself never declared himself to be an existentialist, not anything close to that term. You will not find such a concept in his works. Neither “On the fourfold root of the principle of sufficient reason”(1814), “The world as will and representation” (1818), or “Parerga and Paralipomena” (1851) contain any statements in favour of existentialist philosophy. Schopenhauer came up with a clear #philosophy to explain how the world works. His ground-braking theory of the will (“life force”) as a cosmological engine does explain events in the past and in the present. In contrast to existentialists, Schopenhauer rejected ideas of #randomness and lack of meaning. He acknowledged the major role played by the will in human decisions, but supplied advice to help his readers make the best of their lives. Even when confronted with setbacks, Schopenhauer never characterised human life as absurd. He never fell into the #nihilism of existentialists such as Albert #camus (1913-1960) or Jean-Paul #sartre (1905-1980). Although philosophy books label Schopenhauer a precursor of #existential anxiety, the truth is that you will not find traces of existential despair in Schopenhauer’s works. Indeed, he was realistic in stating that many goals cannot be achieved because life is too short or resources insufficient. Yet, his goal was not to preach nihilism, but to help his readers focus their energies in areas that can generate more happiness. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauer-and-existentialism/

    7 min
  2. Schopenhauer and knowledge

    7 HR AGO

    Schopenhauer and knowledge

    The question of how you know what you know is far from trivial. #epistemology is the branch of #philosophy dealing with this question. Arthur #schopenhauer (1788–1860) came up with a unique answer that has influenced later thinkers. In his early years, Schopenhauer had declared allegiance to the epistemological doctrines of #immanuelkant (1724-1804). I am referring to the theory of concept formation presented by Kant in his book “Critique of pure reason” (1781). In 1808, Schopenhauer published his PhD dissertation “On the fourfold root of the principle of sufficient reason,” stating his overall allegiance to Kant’s epistemology. However, there is one point where he had not endorsed Kant. On that point, Schopenhauer claimed that he was improving Kant’s epistemology, although in reality, he was nullifying one of the pillars of Kant’s “Critique of pure reason.” What was the point of discord between Schopenhauer and Kant? What drove Schopenhauer to build a new philosophical system almost from scratch? Schopenhauer diverged from Kant on the nature of “things-in-themselves” or “noumena.” Those Kantian terms refer to the ultimate #reality behind appearances. Kant had employed the word “noumena” to refer to truths, ideas, concepts and principles that aren’t directly derived from perception. For instance, Kant had argued that #ethical truths cannot be derived from perception. In his “Critique of pure reason,” Kant had categorised ethical principles as “noumena” outside of human knowledge. In “Critique of Practical Reason” (1788), Kant had softened his position. This time, he had theorised that ethical #principles could be inferred from “universal imperatives,” but his formula for arriving at “universal imperatives” is primarily subjective. In contrast, Schopenhauer affirmed that humans can acquire knowledge in all areas, provided that they take the will (“life force”) into account. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauer-and-knowledge/

    6 min
  3. Schopenhauer on happiness

    7 HR AGO

    Schopenhauer on happiness

    The life and works of Arthur #schopenhauer (1788-1860) are giving us crucial insights on how to achieve happiness. To this end, he devoted years to studying Western and Eastern thinkers and compiling their best recommendations. Then he put them into practice and recorded what works and what doesn’t. Schopenhauer regarded the achievement of #happiness as a sequence of steps. The very first step consists of steering away from disaster. You absolutely want to avoid mistakes that cause severe harm to yourself and other people. How do you prevent or minimise large mistakes? By getting familiar with the theory of the will (“life force”) and adopting countermeasures to protect yourself. According to Schopenhauer, the will constitutes the largest obstacle to human happiness. Why? Because it prompts people to take short-sighted actions in the pursuit of pleasure. Thereby they expose themselves to high risks and forfeit their chances of a solid future. #schopenhauer outlined his philosophy in two books: “About the fourfold root of the principle of sufficient reason” (1814) and “The world as will and representation” (1818). In his later essays “Parerga and Paralipomena” (1851), he provides advice based on his philosophy. The theory of the will is Schopenhauer’s key contribution to the history of philosophy; he sustained that the will prevents us from attaining #happiness because it drives us to chase one goal after another, endlessly and without limit. It pushes us forward without paying attention to risks, costs and feasibility. The very first step to happiness, argued Schopenhauer, is to take control of your life. Don’t allow the will to push you in the wrong direction. Don’t allow it to drive you always further and further, until you eventually drop dead from exhaustion. According to Schopenhauer, we can increase our chances of happiness if we avoid excessive risk, exercise #selfdiscipline and make rational decisions. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauer-on-happiness/

    7 min
  4. The key difference between Schopenhauer and existentialism

    7 HR AGO

    The key difference between Schopenhauer and existentialism

    Arthur #schopenhauer (1788-1860) would have been amused to see philosophers like Jean-Paul #sartre (1905-1980) theorise about #anxiety and personal authenticity. Sartre didn’t regard as self-evident that individuals are aware of their freedom and the need to make constant choices. In contrast to Sartre and other existentialists, Schopenhauer considered self-evident that #happiness is the #purpose of life; he had taken that idea from #aristotle (384-322 BC) and viewed it as obviously true. Schopenhauer didn’t spend a minute worrying about anxiety and personal authenticity because he viewed them as non-issues in the quest for personal happiness. He considered it healthy, reasonable and proper that people want to improve their lives. The objective of #philosophy is to help individuals make better choices and attain happiness, not to worry about non-issues. This point marks a major difference between Schopenhauer and existentialism. Existentialism is the product of a particular historical period that drove the world into collective trauma. It started at the end of World War I and reached its apex after World War II. People were facing massive physical destruction and couldn’t come up with any justification other than absurdity. If existentialism was a philosophical response to feelings of absurdity, I must first point out that the concept of #absurdity in life was foreign to Schopenhauer. It does not appear even once in his writings, in the sense employed by existentialism. Schopenhauer’s main works “About the fourfold root of the principle of sufficient reason” (1814), “The world as will and representation” (1818) and “Parerga and Paralipomena” (1851) acknowledge that life can be harsh at times, but not absurd. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/the-key-difference-between-schopenhauer-and-existentialism/

    6 min
  5. Analysis of Schopenhauer’s philosophy of life

    8 HR AGO

    Analysis of Schopenhauer’s philosophy of life

    Although his lifestyle was unpretentious, modesty was not a characteristic of Arthur #schopenhauer (1788–1860). He did not hide that he regarded himself as a genius. He considered other philosophers, with few exceptions, as misguided fools. Why did Schopenhauer consider himself a genius? Surely not because of his productivity. In terms of output, he was not extraordinarily prolific, especially if compared with #plato and Aristotle. Schopenhauer only wrote three sizeable books: “About the fourfold root of the principle of sufficient reason” (1814), “The world as will and representation” (1818), and “Parerga and Paralipomena” (1851). He also wrote a few minor works, but I know many intellectuals far more prolific than Schopenhauer. His claim to genius rests on the quality of his #philosophical insights, not on the size of his literary output. Talented people, he said, can achieve targets that no one else can hit, but only geniuses can hit targets that no one else can conceive. Schopenhauer placed himself amongst the geniuses because of the depth of his insights. His theory of the will (“life force”) is based on widely observable facts, but nobody so far had put them together and drawn #universal conclusions. His #philosophy of life rests on the idea that the will drives all living creatures, relentlessly and inexorably, towards survival, reproduction, and the search for short-term pleasure. The idea is straightforward, but the consequences are earth-shattering. First of all, Schopenhauer contested the belief that everyone is seeking to further his own self-interest. That’s obviously not true, argued Schopenhauer, because history offers innumerable examples of individuals who make foolish #decisions and harm themselves. Think for instance of overweight individuals. Do you think that they have never heard that excessive weight is unhealthy? Of course they have. Of course they know the truth. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/analysis-of-schopenhauers-philosophy-of-life/

    6 min
  6. Refutation of Schopenhauer’s views on love and relationships

    8 HR AGO

    Refutation of Schopenhauer’s views on love and relationships

    The ideas of Arthur Schopenhauer (1788–1860) on love and relationships contain fundamental mistakes. Schopenhauer did not devote sufficient attention to these matters. As a result, his observations and conclusions leave a lot to be desired. His conception of love and relationships is instinctual. They are driven by the will (“life force”), argues Schopenhauer, and this explains why people behave erratically when they fall in love. The will prompts them to pursue the beloved at any cost, and without thinking of the long-term consequences. Schopenhauer drew the wrong conclusion and rated all #love #relationships as doomed. He assumed that the dire influence of the will could not be counteracted and corrected, while in other areas, he had devised sound strategies to address exactly those same problems. A strong refutation of Schopenhauer’s romantic pessimism can be found in the works of the Ancient Roman author #ovid (43 BC–17 AD). His work “The art of love” addresses all the issues identified by #schopenhauer and offers proven solutions. Schopenhauer regarded it as very difficult to build lasting love relationships. He claimed to have witnessed first-hand the natural deterioration of relationships when the infatuation goes away. His views of #marriage were equally negative. Ovid’s approach to love was the exact opposite. He viewed relationships with a sense of joy, playfulness and celebration. It wasn’t a chore to court the beloved, but a wonderful challenge. Setbacks are not bitter, Ovid argued, as long as we regard them as learning experiences. In the area of love, Schopenhauer had lost his #philosophical objectivity due to his bad experience with Caroline Richter. It’s widely known that their relationships ended bitterly, leaving an unpleasant aftermath. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/refutation-of-schopenhauers-views-on-love-and-relationships/

    6 min
  7. Seneca’s methods for overcoming stress

    2 DAYS AGO

    Seneca’s methods for overcoming stress

    More than two thousand years have passed since Seneca first defined his methods for overcoming anxiety, worry and other negative emotions. The context has changed, but his examples and recommendations remain valid. I am going to summarise those methods, sometimes quoting Seneca’s precise words and examples, and other times, putting the method in the context of our century. For the sake of clarity, when I present Seneca’s insights, I’m going to use modern terminology. #seneca didn’t employ words such as “stress” or “desensitisation,” but that’s how people call those concepts nowadays. Seneca’s first method is desensitisation. If we jump into a cold-water swimming pool, we will find it highly unpleasant in the winter, but we might get used to it little by little. We could try first with semi-cold water and increase the difficulty slowly until we achieve our goal. In his 53rd Letter to Lucilius, Seneca encourages readers to “become accustomed to difficulties” as a method for increasing their resilience. If we get used little by little to handle anxiety effectively, we will grow able to keep a cool head in difficult situations. Desensitisation may be physical, emotional, financial, etc. It entails becoming accustomed to discomfort, so that we become able to tolerate certain levels of #risk or preoccupation. I would describe desensitisation as a physical, emotional or financial learning curve. The purpose of desensitisation is to draw more joy from life by making ourselves more resilient. If we push our limits, we can do things better and faster due to our increased resilience. Seneca affirms in his 53rd Letter to Lucilius that we should fear wasting our life more than we fear death. Desensitisation can help us make the best of each day. Seneca recommends us to stop thinking about unlikely catastrophes. In his 13th Letter to Lucilius, he remarks that we tend to create lots of unnecessary #suffering for ourselves due to our exaggerated fears. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/senecas-methods-for-overcoming-stress/

    8 min
  8. Why Seneca’s anti-stress methods still work today

    2 DAYS AGO

    Why Seneca’s anti-stress methods still work today

    For the most part, ancient techniques have become obsolete. We no longer use horses and triremes as our principal means of transportation. Neither do we build houses and roads according to the methods employed in Ancient Greece and Rome. However, we can still rely on anti-worry methods conceived by Seneca. Why have they remained effective? Because human nature has not changed since Ancient Rome. The changes in technology have raised our living standards, but many individuals still suffer from worry, preoccupation and other negative emotions. The passage of the centuries has rendered human existence easier, but has not diminished the percentage of the population that is affected by anxiety. #seneca held unorthodox views about worry and anxiety. He regarded those #emotional phenomena as problematic, but didn’t recommend running away from hardship. Instead, he devoted his efforts to severing the connection between hardship and negative emotions. In his 78th Letter to Lucilius, Seneca noted that #hardship can prove helpful if we allow it to #strengthen our mind. Even when we are not to blame for the hardship, it can still prove useful in the future. It can still render us stronger and more resilient. Seneca’s conception of hardship was different from ours. In Ancient Greece and Rome, it meant extreme physical privation or poverty. The concept would also encompass life-and-death threats such as war, shipwreck and severe illness. Training was Seneca’s preferred anti-worry method; he held the view that, if we train ourselves to become tougher, we will not fall prey to despair if bad turns to worse. If we get used to a modest lifestyle, we will not grow depressed if our revenue is sharply reduced. Seneca had followed this practice and attained good results. For instance, after his fiftieth birthday, he adopted the habit of walking barefoot and eating simple, inexpensive food. Those privations, he argued, had rendered his body and mind stronger and more resilient. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/why-senecas-anti-stress-methods-still-work-today/

    6 min

About

JOHN VESPASIAN is the author of sixteen books, including “When everything fails, try this” (2009), “Rationality is the way to happiness” (2009), “The philosophy of builders” (2010), “The 10 principles of rational living” (2012), “Rational living, rational working” (2013), “Consistency: The key to permanent stress relief” (2014), “On becoming unbreakable” (2015), “Thriving in difficult times” (2016), “Causality: Aristotle’s life and ideas” (2024), “Foresight: Schopenhauer’s life and ideas” (2024), and "Constancy: Michel de Montaigne's life and ideas" (2025).