John Vespasian

The approach to history adopted by Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) offers a sharp contrast to what his contemporaries were doing. They revered history and studied it assiduously; it gave them an ideal to emulate. In contrast, Montaigne regarded history as a source of practical wisdom, a source to be assessed and contested as necessary. Take for instance, Montaigne’s essay “On the arms of the Parthians.” Superficially, Montaigne is speaking about ancient battle strategies, weapons and armour. At the same time, he is entertaining deeper layers of thought. The Parthians were an ancient people known for shooting arrows while riding fast horses. Nowadays, few people would care about the Parthians. Even in Montaigne’s own time, in the sixteenth century, few people knew about the Parthians. In the best Renaissance spirit, Montaigne is employing the Parthians only as a starting point for philosophical reflection. I find it fascinating to follow Montaigne’s train of thought, how he goes from ancient anecdotes to lessons of universal value. Montaigne recounts how the Parthians fought war against the all-powerful Roman legions. The Parthians knew that they had no chance in close combat against the Romans because of their inferior numbers. After studying the Roman strategy, they had realised that it was suicidal to engage in traditional combat. The Romans were able to recruit a dozen legions, as many as necessary, and keep launching attacks until they got their way. Montaigne underlines that the Parthians wisely decided to do only what they did best. They had numerous horses, at least one per soldier, and they excelled at archery. They knew how to manufacture and use arches and arrows like no other people in antiquity. That was their comparative advantage. The anecdotes about the Parthian way of life are interesting, but the whole point of Montaigne’s essay is to elaborate on the concept of “Parthian shot.” He is referring to the Parthian skill to shoot arrows backwards. The Parthians repeated the trick a thousand times. They sent their cavalry close to a Roman encampment in order to prompt Roman soldiers to run after them. Parthian riders taunted their enemies in every possible way, but never got close to them. Montaigne explains that the Parthians aimed at bringing the Romans in disarray. It was difficult to hit Roman soldiers when they marched in formation, protected by their shields. The best way to turn the Romans into easy targets is to make them run, so that they broke ranks and became vulnerable. When the Romans started to chase on foot (they had much fewer horses than the Parthians), the Parthian riders pretended to be afraid. They turned around and rode away, but not too fast. The Parthians wanted the Romans to chase them and get tired, so that they would break ranks and lower their shields. After a few hundred meters, the Parthians started to shoot arrows while still retreating. They had acquired the rare skill to shoot backwards while riding forward. For the Romans, it was a surprise with a devastating effect. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/history-in-michel-de-montaigne-and-the-renaissance/

Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) lived in dangerous times, but he adopted suitable countermeasures. He protected himself and his family by steering away from honours and competition that could have easily turned sour. He assessed the risks, kept his eyes open, and did overall much better than his peers. The Renaissance was a period of open-mindedness coupled to intellectual progress. Montaigne favoured inquiry and wrote against prejudice, but did not fool himself about human nature. He knew how hard it is for people to abandon superstition. Montaigne proved a master at navigating difficult times. He conveyed his criticism indirectly by presenting it as historical or literary commentary. He talked to people in both camps, that is, Catholics and Protestants, which represented the two sides of the political spectrum in the sixteenth century. I call Montaigne’s strategy “calibrated daring.” There was a master in this discipline also in Italy. He was one generation younger than Montaigne. I am referring to Count Baldassare Castiglione (1478-1529), whose best-known achievement is to have written “The Book of the Courtier.” While Montaigne is focusing on self-reliance and happiness as life goals, Castiglione devoted his literary efforts to describe the qualities and conduct expected of a gentleman. His book emphasises diplomacy, eloquence, courage and intelligence. The education received by Castiglione was better than the one received by Montaigne. Castiglione was able to read the Greek classics in their original language. He also had access to libraries much wider than Montaigne’s. While Montaigne spent his professional life working as a lawyer in Bordeaux, Castiglione worked mainly as a diplomat. First, he was employed by the Duke of Milan, Ludovico Sforza (1451-1508), and later by the Marquis of Mantua, Francesco Gonzaga, and the Duke of Urbino, Francesco Maria Rovere. Montaigne wrote his essays in his farmhouse in the south of France, and Castiglione composed “The Book of the Courtier” in his retirement. Both men arrived at the same conclusion: It’s ethically necessary and mandatory for happiness to be daring, but do not commit suicide by trying to do the impossible. I regard Castiglione as more experienced than Montaigne in matters of politics and war. He served in high positions where death was the price to pay for severe mistakes. He saw with his own eyes the rise and demise of many a Duke and Marquis. Both Montaigne and Castiglione defined accomplishment as “effortless grace,” which combines knowledge, empathy and a high level of alertness. I regard the term “effortless grace” as a synonym to “unconscious competence.” It is the result of long experience and extensive reading. At the height of his career, Castiglione became himself the ideal Renaissance gentleman. Pope Clement VII (1478-1534) appointed him Ambassador to Spain with the job of finding an agreement with Emperor Charles V to prevent war. Also in Spain, Castiglione was admired by his balance between daring and diplomacy. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/daring-in-michel-de-montaigne-and-the-renaissance/

Ancient Stoicism plays an important role in the “Essays” by Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592). The essays contain a large number of references to Seneca and Marcus Aurelius, two of the leading thinkers in Stoicism. In addition, Montaigne refers on many occasions to Cato (95-46 BC), who also falls in this philosophical movement. He devoted to Cato a specific essay, which carries the title “On Cato the Younger.” As it was his usual practice, Montaigne employs the essay’s theme as a starting point for philosophical reflection. Cato is a subject that enables Montaigne to comment about steadfastness and integrity in times of tyranny. Montaigne portrays Cato as the archetype of rationality, honesty and high-mindedness. His sources about Cato consist mainly of Cicero (106-43 BC), who had composed a highly favourable tract after Cato’s death. Yet, I must point out that Julius Caesar held a determinedly negative opinion about Cato and wrote a response to Cicero. In Caesar’s response, one can read arguments opposing the views held by Montaigne, Seneca, Sallust and other Cato’s admirers. Montaigne’s essay “On Cato the Younger” contains detailed praise for Cato’s dedication to protecting the Roman Republic from tyranny. In the Renaissance, intellectuals held the ancient Roman Republic in high regard. Cato’s were indeed dangerous times, where several political contenders were trying to establish a dictatorship. They fought each other to death about who should become the dictator that would put an end to the Roman Republic. Montaigne points out that each man was being pushed by the political contenders to risk his life. If he declined his help, he would risk retaliation; but if he gave his support, he might be killed by the other candidate dictators. It was a hard choice to make. In his essay, Montaigne recounts Cato’s choice for Pompey, and against Julius Caesar (100-44 BC), the two key contenders for the highest office. Why did Cato choose to support Pompey instead of Caesar? Because he viewed Pompey as less dangerous for the stability of the Roman Republic. Despite Montaigne’s praise for Cato’s love for the Republic and opposition to dictatorship, I wonder if Pompey (106-48 BC) would not have appointed himself dictator at the earliest opportunity. The choice made by Cato seems to rest more on expediency than on long-term considerations. What should one do in such extreme situations, where there are two choices, but none of them is ideal. Montaigne says that Cato had remained honest and steadfast in his principles, while the Roman Republic was falling apart. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/cato-in-michel-de-montaigne-and-the-renaissance/

Historians attribute to Tacitus (and Cicero to a lesser extent) a style characterised by short, profound sentences that can be interpreted at different levels. Tacitus and Cicero were highly admired in the Renaissance, precisely for that reason. Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) produced many quotable texts, but did not follow Tacitus’ and Cicero’s approach. Those must have spent hours polishing each sentence, trying to get their ideas across in a distinctly concise manner. For Montaigne, speed was more important than brilliance. He opted for producing a high output even if quality suffered a bit. He loved to read Tacitus and Cicero, but did not want to emulate them. In his eyes, the cost was just too high. Montaigne is the first writer who made a conscious choice for simplicity and directness. He made the choice at the beginning of writing his “Essays” and maintained the same course for two decades. Once he had made his choice, he did not deviate one millimetre. Nowadays, we are used to people choosing a simple, direct style. We get annoyed when writers get sidetracked or employ over-complicated words. Our mind disconnects from tiresome, phoney arguments and fluffy reasoning. The path to literary simplicity started in the Renaissance, in the “Essays” written by Montaigne. Let me underline that he was not only the first, but for a long time, the only one. Most of his peers, although brilliant in their own ways, inherited the ancient tendency to over-complicate, overdecorate, overextend, and over-strain. The Spanish Luis de Gongora (1561-1627) was extremely creative, but made the opposite choice in terms of style. Where Montaigne chose simplicity, Gongora became the archetype of over-complexity and verbosity. Gongora reminds me of ancient Greek poets, unable to put any thought in a straight sentence, unable to describe any event without attributing it to some Olympian god or goddess. Montaigne didn’t enjoy ancient Greek poets and found little wisdom in their verbosity. I am referring especially to Homer, who plays a minor role in Montaigne’s “Essays” if compared to Plutarch and Seneca. Like Montaigne, Gongora enjoyed an excellent education, in which the study of ancient literature shaped the curriculum. I find fascinating the reason for Gongora’s choice for an overly complicated style. At the beginning of his career, Gongora made an attempt at writing simple lyrics. People liked them although he could not expect to achieve great fame and recognition in this way. His was a purely quantitative assessment: there were not that many readers willing to pay for poetry. Thus, Gongora opted for seeking a patron, someone willing to support him as a poet. The search for a powerful sponsor prompted Gongora to move to Madrid, the Spanish capital. He eventually obtained the protection and support of the Duke of Lerma, a leading aristocrat. Montaigne followed the opposite path in his career. He was not expecting anyone to sponsor his literary ambitions, nor was he willing to adapt his style or interest to please any patron. He wrote primarily what he enjoyed, matters he found worthy of interest or that he wanted to research. His choice for simplicity and directness is coupled to his choice for self-reliance and effectiveness. Do things relatively well, but do them fast. Keep a reasonable level of quality, but do not get lost in cumbersome details. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/simplicity-in-michel-de-montaigne-and-the-renaissance/

Renaissance art is reputed for its proportion and harmony. It represents the human figure in an idealised manner, which also remains realistic. Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) represents the Renaissance in literature, but he cared more for results than for proportion, harmony, and idealism. Montaigne did not even care to be entertaining or brilliant. I find some of his “Essays” chaotic in structure and unequal in style. Montaigne’s Latin quotations sometimes contain errors, and his retelling of anecdotes is not always accurate. Yet, in contrast to all his contemporaries, he was totally and completely focused on results, that is, on finding the truth and presenting it in a convincing manner. For Montaigne, there was just one priority: he wanted to clarify difficult ethical questions, the keys to happiness and personal effectiveness. I consider Montaigne the archetype of result orientation. He would take any subject, any ancient anecdote, any quotation or verse, and belabour it relentlessly in order to extract every drop of philosophical knowledge. Other Renaissance writers, like Giovanni Boccaccio (1313-1375) grew far more famous, but lacked the results orientation in the sense of philosophical wisdom. Boccaccio was a highly gifted entertainer, but what do you learn from reading his works? I have never gained any important insights from reading Boccaccio. His most celebrated work, “The Decameron,” can help you pass a couple of pleasant hours, but will it make you wiser and more effective? I very much doubt it. Boccaccio deployed massive efforts to study the legacy of ancient Greece and Rome. He spent his early years in Florence but then his father sent him to Naples to study law. The goal, in his father’s mind, was to enable Giovanni Boccaccio to become a merchant. In Naples, Boccaccio devoted more time to reading novels, history and poetry than studying law. He soon started to write stories (such as “Filostrato”) in early Renaissance taste, that is, knightly love and chivalry adventures. If he had only written those, Boccaccio would have been quickly forgotten. Montaigne never felt attracted to fiction stories that lack a philosophical message. Before writing his essays, he had translated a theological treatise from Latin into French, but his results orientation had always been there. He did not care to be entertained; he just wanted to find the truth. In 1345, Boccaccio returned to Florence with the goal of settling down permanently. However, three years later, the city was devastated by the Black Death. It was an illness that killed a large part of the population, especially in the city. Those that lived in the countryside survived for the most part. Boccaccio survived and cleverly used the Black Death as background for his next book, “The Decameron.” The writing took Boccaccio four years (1349-1353) due to the sheer size of the project. From the very beginning, he planned to write one-hundred short stories recounted by ten people who met coincidentally while escaping Florence and the Black Death. The tone of the stories varies (drama, comedy, satirical) as much as the topics (crime, humour, serendipity). I don’t contest the entertainment value of Boccaccio’s work, and I can only praise his dedication in carrying out such an ambitious project. “The Decameron” became highly popular, and the fact that Boccaccio earned relatively little as an author has more to do with the economics of books in the early Renaissance than with his own actions. Boccaccio was results oriented in the sense that he carried out a major literary project, but not in philosophical terms. The world would not have lost a great deal of wisdom if Boccaccio had never written “The Decameron.” It’s a book that I can read a dozen times for entertaining purposes, but that’s it. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/results-orientation-in-michel-de-montaigne-and-the-renaissance/

Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) loved classical authors, philosophers or not, and read their books in Latin. For Greek authors such as Aristotle, he resorted to Latin translations that were already available in the sixteenth century. The efforts displayed by Montaigne are remarkable. Keep in mind that he was not a professional scholar. He was doing all the research himself, and purchasing those books with his own money. After moving to live in a farmhouse, he had no access to any large library in a convent or a university. I find even more remarkable that Montaigne focused solely on a small area of classical philosophy, namely, ethics. He had only one goal, one primary concern. He wanted to find the key to happiness, and identify the best patterns of behaviour. Montaigne succeeded in identifying behaviour patterns that had proven their effectiveness in history. For that purpose, he read Plutarch, Seneca, Cicero, Tacitus, Aristotle, Julius Caesar, and other ancient authors with extreme care. I must nonetheless warn readers that Montaigne, despite his good intentions, sometimes drew the wrong conclusion. Some of his essays present detailed arguments for one idea, and then detailed arguments for the opposite idea, without reaching a clear conclusion. While I consider those essays as unfinished, Montaigne was never bothered by his own indecision. If he could reach a clear conclusion, great. If he could not, he stated that he had given extensive thought to the matter, and that several solutions were possible. Philosophy historians have placed those Montaigne’s essays in the category of extreme scepticism. They accuse Montaigne not only of failing to draw clear conclusions, but of stating that it was impossible to do so. Those essays say literally that there is no definite, universal solution to the concerned questions. Montaigne’s extreme scepticism is also called “Pyrrhonism” because it was popularized by Pyrrho of Elis (360-270 BC); all we know about Pyrrho comes through Sextus Empiricus, who wrote a philosophical compendium five centuries after Pyrrho’s death. Pyrrho was a contemporary of Aristotle and Alexander the Great. When Alexander carried out his military campaigns in the east, Pyrrho accompanied him. His travels to Mesopotamia and India exposed him to Persian and Indian philosophy. Montaigne was less familiar with those, but knew very well the doctrines of scepticism. He agreed with Pyrrho’s views that humans cannot attain total certainty because, when there are solid arguments in favour and against, one should refrain from passing judgement and thus protect one’s peace of mind. Pyrrho’s philosophy is wrong, but so is Montaigne’s in this area. When there are solid arguments in favour and against, the correct conclusion to that one should research further. Reality doesn’t allow for contradictions. When contradictory arguments seem equally solid, they need to be tested, probed, scrutinized, until all discrepancies are removed. Truth is either or, as Aristotle had said. Scepticism is a poor excuse for unfinished work. Montaigne should have asked additional questions until he had found the correct answers. Pyrrho was delusional in thinking that one could achieve peace of mind though scepticism. The contrary is true. Peace of mind comes from clarity and truth. It comes from the elimination of contradictions and discrepancies. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaigne-and-classical-philosophy/

Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) regarded intellectual and cultural pursuits as potentially detrimental; he recommended to steer away from pursuits that generate unworkable desires and ambitions. Before investing oneself in those, one should figure out the consequences. Schopenhauer’s views on intellectual pursuits are innovative and surprising. Schopenhauer is contradicting the opinions of philosophers from previous centuries. Never before in history had a Western thinker held intellectual pursuits in such a low regard. Aristotle (384-322 BC) must have turned in his grave when learning about Schopenhauer’s views on intellectual pursuits. I share Aristotle’s profound appreciation for intellectual pursuits, and this is why I want to clarify here Schopenhauer’s views on this matter. For Aristotle, it was highly desirable to devote oneself to all sorts of intellectual inquiry. He regarded reason (defined as the ability to employ logic) as a uniquely human characteristic. It’s in your interest to exert your logical ability every single day. Aristotle didn’t perceive any danger in the exercise of logic, or in the pursuit of knowledge. In his “Nicomachean Ethics,” he rates those elements as essential for human flourishing, that is, essential for human happiness. Schopenhauer discarded Aristotle’s views on this matter. He found that Aristotle was overlooking the risk inherent in wrong or worthless knowledge. “The world as will and representation” (1818) and “Parerga and Paralipomena” (1851) contain Schopenhauer’s warnings in this area: intellectual pursuits that raise one’s self-awareness and self-reliance are beneficial; on the other hand, those that increase dissatisfaction and frustration should be avoided. Schopenhauer disagreed with Aristotle’s unreserved love for intellectual pursuits. He rejected Aristotle’s blanket praise for research and learning. Aristotle was wrong, he argued, because intellectual pursuits are just tools for achieving an objective. If the objective is detrimental, so are the intellectual pursuits. For Schopenhauer, all living creatures are driven by the will (“life force”); the will pushes them to ensure their reproduction and survival, and to seek pleasure without considering the cost and risks involved. Happiness requires counteracting the will. Schopenhauer is giving recommendations in “Parerga and Paralipomena.” He is warning readers against the short-term thinking imposed by the will, and calling them to develop prudence and foresight. Aristotle had implicitly accepted that humans can choose to think or not to think. They can freely decide to exercise reason or not. Schopenhauer goes a step back because he assumes that humans are routinely choosing not to think. Unless people grow self-aware, argues Schopenhauer, they are going to be controlled by the will. Unless they adopt strong measures to counteract the will, they are going to focus on the short term and suffer the long-term consequences. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/analysis-of-schopenhauers-views-on-intellectual-pursuits/

Did Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) provide a waterproof answer to the problem of evil? No, he didn’t. He got it right in part, but failed to answer the complete question. In his essay “Two fundamental problems in ethics” (1843), Schopenhauer rated evil and suffering as natural, that is, as the predictable outcome of the unimpeded will (“life force”). Only when human beings take action can they avert the negative influence of the will and counteract evil. Schopenhauer based his analysis of evil on his theory of the will. He built his logic on the assumption that the will (a wild, irrational, cosmic force) can take control of humans, and drive them to engage in exploitation, victimization, and abuse. However, there is a problem with Schopenhauer’s reasoning on the problem of evil. His logical chain is flawed because it is jumping from the will (a cosmic force) to humans; he blames a force of nature for evil, as though humans were puppets. Aristotle (384-322 BC) knew much better than that. He had grasped perfectly that morality applies only to humans because only humans are capable of reason. Natural events (for example, storms and floods) operate in a fully automatic manner. They cause damage and suffering, but it is pointless to call nature “evil” or “malevolent.” Thousands of years ago, humans used to attribute storms or floods to divine forces, but we know better today. Science can accurately explain how storms and floods occur. Nature works according to physical and biological laws, which must be taken as they are. They are neither “good” nor “evil” in themselves. In his “Nicomachean Ethics,” Aristotle attributed evil to the human capability to make choices, that is, incorrect choices or correct choices. Ethics revolves around “right” versus “wrong” and the human ability to distinguish between them. Schopenhauer overlooked the crucial prerequisite identified by Aristotle. Reason is the prerequisite of ethics; in the absence of reason, it’s pointless to speak about “good” and “bad.” Only humans can choose between right and wrong because reason is a uniquely human characteristic. No other creature is capable of reason. Schopenhauer missed this prerequisite when he was linking the will (a cosmic force) with humans (rational beings). Despite the above-mentioned error, Schopenhauer arrived at conclusions similar to Aristotle’s. Schopenhauer viewed humans as flawed due to the negative influence of the will, but advised determined action to avert the will and pursue happiness. Aristotle considered that humans are born neither good nor bad, but also advised determined action to actualise the best of one’s potential. Even when it comes to defining the purpose of life, the error in logic did not stop Schopenhauer from reaching conclusions similar to Aristotle’s. Schopenhauer sees human life as filled with suffering due to the influence of the will, but encouraged his readers (especially in “Parerga and Paralipomena” in the edition of 1851) to adopt countermeasures, improve their lives, and pursue happiness. It is up to each person to counteract evil and build a better life. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/errors-in-schopenhauers-views-on-the-problem-of-evil/

Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) wrote extensively about the phenomenon of genius. His notes provide clues on how to increase one’s creativity and critical thinking. They give hands-on advice on increasing one’s self-awareness and self-reliance. Let us examine Schopenhauer’s recommendations and see if they can be applied here and now. I am going to be drawing the recommendations from Schopenhauer’s books, especially from “Parerga and Paralipomena” in its edition of 1851. Why do geniuses possess higher creativity? Schopenhauer argued that geniuses are more creative because of their ability to transcend their own interests, rise above them, and examine problems dispassionately. I regard Schopenhauer’s explanation as obviously wrong. It contradicts all human experience to affirm that people become more creative when they don’t care. Look at your life. You tend to think more sharply when you are interested in the outcome. It’s false to say that uninterested people are more creative. Schopenhauer should have linked his explanation to resilience, not to indifference. He should have argued that self-confident, self-reliant persons tend to be more creative because they can keep a cool head in times of trouble. Here is a major lesson: if you want to become more creative and get closer to genius level, keep a cool head. Stay calm and examine the facts. Get an accurate picture of the situation. This does not mean that you should be indifferent to the outcome. Schopenhauer observed that geniuses appear to be fearless, or at least, less fearful than the average person. In “Parerga and Paralipomena,” he noted that geniuses are willing to do what needs to be done. They are willing to go as far as necessary to get problems solved. Average people are rarely willing to risk upsetting their boss and will not tread beyond what’s known to be acceptable. They will limit themselves to doing as much as they can, even if that means leaving the problem at hand unsolved. Genius is the outcome of fearless dedication and creativity. It needs consistency, motivation and energy. It revolves around truth and truth only. It will not sway or sugar-coat its views to avoid controversy. A strong determination to get things done is an essential element in creativity and genius. Schopenhauer sustained that genius has no country and that it arises everywhere. I regard his statement as an exaggeration. The truth is that genius does not arise everywhere. Most cases of genius (such as Schopenhauer himself) result from massive encouragement from family and friends. From all children in eighteenth-century Prussia, only a few benefited from a one-year stay in England to learn English, or from a one-year stay in France to learn French. Schopenhauer benefited from both, and those certainly helped his intellectual development. When a person benefits from excellent education and family support, I find it rather cynical to say that genius can arise in any circumstances. At an early age, Mozart received intense music lessons from his father. I am talking about hundreds of hours in lessons and practice. Eventually, Mozart became a musical genius, but one cannot seriously say he would have flourished without lessons. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/lessons-from-schopenhauers-views-on-genius/

Epictetus, a philosopher from the 1st century AD, provides excellent guidance for the daily practice of the ideas of Arthur Schopenhauer (1788–1860). Schopenhauer was focused on the attainment of happiness, and Epictetus pursued tranquillity and virtue, but in practical terms, their ideas are very close. Epictetus emphasised the distinction between internal and external events. Internal events comprise our thoughts, desires, and actions. External events comprise other people’s actions and all aspects of life beyond our control. According to Epictetus, the keys tranquillity and virtue are accepting external events for what they are, and concentrating our efforts on internal events, that is, on our inner disposition. Schopenhauer did not agree with this distinction. His theory of the will (“life force”) predicates that the will pushes living creatures into a relentless quest for survival, reproduction and pleasure, without considering costs, risks and consequences. The will affects both external factors and internal factors. It is going to drive other people’s actions as much as it drives our own psychology and motivation. Epictetus’ distinction between external and internal events does not correlate with the sphere of influence of the will. According to Schopenhauer, the will is exerting continuous influence both internally and externally. Epictetus sustained that our judgements about events, rather than the events themselves, shape our emotions. He advised people to discard exaggerated beliefs and grow more rational. In contrast, Schopenhauer in his work “On the fourfold root of the principle of sufficient reason” (1814) considered it natural that negative emotions ensue after tangible setbacks. His later book “The world as will and representation” (1818) confirmed his realistic views. Suffering is not purely psychological, stated Schopenhauer. It is a fact that people endure reversals and disappointments in life. Epictetus’ view of feelings as purely psychological events does not match everyday observations. Nonetheless, the recommendations given by Schopenhauer resemble very much those given by Epictetus. For instance, in the sayings inherited from Epictetus, we find the concept of “stoic reserve.” “Stoic reserve” is defined by Epictetus as a person’s ability to endure hardship in a calm, dignified manner, that is, without complaining. You will find a similar concept in Schopenhauer’s essays “Parerga and Paralipomena” (1851), but with a different terminology. Epictetus called for turning challenges into opportunities for personal growth but Schopenhauer acknowledged that this isn’t always possible. If someone is suffering from terminal illness, I would find it insulting to categorise his situation as a chance for personal growth. Leaving aside the aspects of personal growth, it is true that both Epictetus and Schopenhauer called for cultivating mental strength and resilience, risk avoidance, and stress reduction to the maximum extent. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauers-philosophy-of-life-in-daily-practice/

Despite his efforts to develop a coherent philosophy of art and beauty, Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) missed essential elements. His aesthetics theory is incomplete because it defines beauty as harmony and symmetry, that is, he exclusively refers to aspects perceivable by the senses. Why is Schopenhauer’s art theory incomplete? Because it is leaving out major art forms. His arguments about harmony and symmetry are applicable to paintings, sculpture, architecture or decorative arts. I would also agree that harmony and symmetry apply in the area of musical composition and performance. However, there is no way to apply Schopenhauer’s argument to major art forms such as theatre and novels, or their modern derivatives, film, video and television. In his book “The world as will and representation” (1818), Schopenhauer depicted art as a consolation to the human mind because art helps assuage pain and suffering during hard times. However, his arguments about harmony and symmetry fail to explain why some novels and theatre plays can help assuage suffering, but others cannot. Schopenhauer’s art philosophy is incomplete, but we can fill its gaps through the theories of Carl Jung (1875-1961), a Swiss psychiatrist famous for having first used art as a therapeutic method. In doing so, Jung gained important insights about the nature of aesthetics. Jung’s work stands in contrast to Schopenhauer’s scepticism for emotional explanations. Jung explored the unconscious of his patients in search of insights that would enable him to steer them towards recovery and personal growth. In his book “Psychology of the unconscious” (1912), Jung invented the labels “introvert” and “extrovert” to define human personalities. He also pointed out that people build their ideas through symbols and archetypes drawn from their culture. While Schopenhauer had focused his analysis on objective aspects (harmony, symmetry) in artworks, Jung observed that art includes symbols perceivable by the unconscious. Introverted and extroverted people can interpret symbols differently, but one cannot deny that those symbols exist in artworks. In his book “Psychology and alchemy” (1944), Jung takes a highly optimistic view of art as a therapy method. He expected patients to employ artistic symbols to solve their psychological problems. Thus, he encouraged patients to draw and paint. Through his clinical observations, Jung had identified major aspects in art theory, aspects that Schopenhauer had missed. In particular, I’m referring to the ability of artworks to convey ethical guidelines and a sense of purpose. Schopenhauer’s book “Parerga and Paralipomena” (1851) refers on many occasions to artworks, but fails to point out the ability of art to provide ethical guidance. Moral guidance may take place on a symbolic level, but it is present in artworks nevertheless. Successful television shows, films, comic books, theatre, novels and video-games draw vast audiences because they provide not only entertainment but also ethical guidance. Jung was right in sustaining that art enables individuals to grasp and express aspects that had so far remained unconscious or repressed. Schopenhauer had missed the fact that art enables people to grasp their own fear and desires, and gain motivation to improve their lives. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/criticism-of-schopenhauers-philosophy-of-art-and-beauty/

For what concerns intellectual and cultural pursuits, are the views of Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) fully original or do they rely on prior philosophers? They are original because they are adding unique, innovative elements to the insights of prior thinkers. If we want to find philosophers that somewhat anticipate Schopenhauer in this respect, we need to go back twenty-two centuries. I am referring to Ancient Stoic philosophers such as Zeno of Citium (334-262 BC). Zeno held wisdom, reason and virtue in high regard, but not as an end in themselves. He regarded them as tools, as methods of achieving inner peace, meaning and happiness. Like Schopenhauer, Zeno rejected intellectual pursuits that play against inner peace, meaning and happiness. He strongly advised people to refrain from unworkable desires and goals. The choice of the right intellectual pursuits, argued Zeno, is essential for achieving happiness. Which pursuits are right and which are wrong? Zeno favoured intellectual pursuits that raise self-awareness and wisdom, especially in the ethics field, that is, in the field of decision-making. To the Ancient Stoic arguments, Schopenhauer added two entirely new insights, namely, the acknowledgement that the will (nature) is chaotic and that it’s irrational. Neither Zeno nor any other Ancient Stoic had made these remarks. In his book “The world as will and representation” (1818), Schopenhauer underlined that nature (for which he employed the term “the will” or “life force”) is chaotic, unpredictable and wild. It pushes in a certain direction, but its influence creates a wide array of unexpected problems. Schopenhauer also underlined that nature is irrational due to its inability to weigh off risks, costs and consequences. Nature prompts people to secure their own survival and reproduction, and seek short-term pleasure, but remains oblivious to long-term effects. Chaos and irrationality undermine the Ancient Stoic views on intellectual pursuits. For instance, Seneca (4-65 AD) spoke highly of intellectual pursuits, expecting those to help people live more rationally and in alignment with nature. Seneca considered nature as harmonious and rational. When he wrote about the universe, he praised its orderliness. He was blind to the severe flaws in his arguments. In contrast, Schopenhauer perceived those flaws right away. He found it ludicrous to call nature harmonious, rational and orderly; the Ancient Stoics were employing nonsensical, poetic images that do not correspond to reality. The truth is that nature is wild, irrational and merciless, not harmonious, rational and orderly. That’s precisely why we need to rate intellectual pursuits carefully. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/origin-of-schopenhauers-views-on-intellectual-pursuits/

The relationship between art and morality plays a secondary role in the philosophy of Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860). In this area, Schopenhauer failed to establish consistent principles and incurred contradictions. Nevertheless, it teaches us lessons that are worth examining. For Schopenhauer, artistic experiences (he was in particular referring to playing music and listening to music) help people escape their pressing problems. When enjoying music, theatre, literature or painting, individuals stop perceiving the world and focus their minds on something else. Although Schopenhauer didn’t employ the term “escapism,” his definition of art falls close to this psychological term. One shouldn’t forget that psychologists coined the term “escapism” in the mid-twentieth century, that is, about two hundred years after Schopenhauer’s death. In his book “The world as will and representation” (1818), Schopenhauer theorised that artworks draw viewers into a state of abstraction, meditation or contemplation. Artistic experience can lead viewers to blur the borderline between themselves and an invented world. However, Schopenhauer overlooked several crucial points. I am afraid that he never figured out why some artworks convey a philosophical message and others not. He also failed to grasp the connection between artworks and the artist’s point of view, especially in the area of ethics. In his essay collection “Parerga and Paralipomena” (1851), Schopenhauer mentions numerous artworks but examines them only from the escapist perspective. His analysis never answers the crucial question: What is the meaning of art? Schopenhauer fails to identify the difference between high- and low-quality art, and shows little concern for what the artist is trying to say. Instead of addressing major questions, Schopenhauer comes up with an abstruse theory. He argues that artworks enable the viewers to connect with underlying truths, that is, with the will (“life force”), which he viewed as the force driving the world. Schopenhauer’s explanations are clearly contradictory. He is saying, on the one hand, that artworks help viewers disconnect from reality. On the other hand, he is also saying that artworks enable viewers to connect with an underlying reality. No wonder that philosophers find Schopenhauer’s theory of art hard to fathom. If he regards artworks as expressions of the will, does it not mean that they all convey similar messages? If artworks represent the will from the artist’s point of view, does it not mean that artists can misrepresent the will’s message? Although Schopenhauer’s books span a three-decade period, they never solve the contradiction outlined above. In fact, later Schopenhauer’s works only deepen the contradiction by adding spurious explanations. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauers-views-on-the-relationship-between-art-and-morality/

The study of history and philosophy is pointless unless you can draw hands-on advice. Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) had understood perfectly the need to draw practical, tangible conclusions from the study of antiquity. I regard Montaigne’s essay “On Democritus and Heraclitus” as one of the best examples in the genre of critical history. Its contents are erudite and the quotations fascinating, but above all, Montaigne is seeking the truth. What is the best philosophy for achieving happiness here and now? Democritus and Heraclitus are roughly contemporary, that is, both lived in around 500 BC. Let us take a look at their key ideas, which represent two opposite philosophical standpoints. On the one hand, Democritus is one of the first proponents of the atomistic theory. He maintained that everything, objects or creatures, in the cosmos are composed of small particles that he called “atoms.” He also theorised that the absence of atoms means void. Democritus held overall materialistic and rational views. On the other hand, Heraclitus sustained that everything in the world, whether animate or inanimate, is subject to constant change. He famously said that “nobody can step twice into the same river” because the flowing water is constantly changing the river composition; for Heraclitus, every object and creature in the world is subject to constant change, conflict, or pressure. In this essay, Montaigne is comparing the morality ideas of Democritus and Heraclitus. He wants to identify what are their recipes for happiness, and which of them make the most sense. Based on his atomic theory, Democritus considers the world orderly and predictable. The universe is governed by natural laws, and the outcome of actions is primarily mechanistic. His recipe for happiness is based on his mechanistic world-view. If we want to do well in life, we should make careful plans and follow them through, correcting errors as we go. Heraclitus takes the opposite path. He regards the universe as a perpetual flux. Reality has no stable essence. The common element to all objects and subjects is their transitory nature. It’s pointless for us to make very detailed plans because we inhabit an unpredictable, ever-changing world. If we want to achieve happiness, we should accept change, remain flexible, and seize opportunities as they arise. What is Montaigne’s conclusion after studying Democritus and Heraclitus? In the essay, Montaigne declines to take sides, arguing that there are important lessons to learn from each. We should embrace Democritus’ rational approach for planning our projects, but at the same time, it’s advisable to implement the recommendations given by Heraclitus. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/democritus-and-heraclitus-in-montaignes-classical-philosophy/

Together with scepticism and hedonism, stoicism exerted a strong influence on Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592). About one third of his “Essays” convey the doctrines of stoicism. I am referring to the doctrines put forward by Epictetus, Seneca, and Marcus Aurelius in the first century of our era. Seneca produced a large output in terms of philosophical writings, but Epictetus was closer to Montaigne’s heart because of his concise formulations. Where Seneca wrote a whole letter (about twenty pages), Epictetus wrote a few lines. Epictetus (50-135 AD) formulated his ideas in compelling, elegant sentences, providing ideal quotations for Montaigne’s essays. Nonetheless, Epictetus’ thoughts must have been edited by his disciples, the ones that actually put them in writing. According to the tradition, Epictetus had been born a slave in Hierapolis, Phrygia, a Greek settlement that is located in today’s Turkey. In his youth, Epictetus was brought to Rome. His master, named Epaphroditus, occupied a high position in the Roman imperial administration under Nero. Epictetus was allowed to learn to read, so that he could help in his master’s business. Over the years, he delivered such good help that Epaphroditus released him from slavery. After becoming a freedman, Epictetus taught philosophy in Rome by using a hands-on approach. He recommends living in accordance with nature and reason, focusing on actions that are within our control, and accepting the constraints we cannot change. When Emperor Domitian expelled philosophers from Rome in the year 89 AD, Epictetus relocated to Nicopolis in Greece. He was around forty years old at that time. In the next decade, he taught hundreds of students, including the future Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius. Montaigne was very familiar with the writings of Epictetus, that is, with the records written by Arrian, one of Epictetus’ students at the end of the first century of our era. The two compilations of Epictetus’ philosophy are known as “The Discourses” and “The Enchiridion.” The latter is shorter, much more concise. In his essays, Montaigne quoted liberally from both. Montaigne takes over the two main ideas contained in “The Discourses” and “The Enchiridion.” Those two ideas constitute the essence of ancient stoicism. Montaigne applies those ideas to various areas of human activity, giving extensive examples. From “The Discourses,” Montaigne is referring to Epictetus’ key conclusion, namely, that happiness depends more on one’s attitude than on external circumstances. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/stoicism-michel-de-montaigne-and-classical-philosophy/

When Michel de Montaigne referred to classical philosophy in his “Essays,” his goal was to illustrate a particular point or give credibility to a certain argument. Montaigne (1533-1592) was not interested in classical philosophy as such. His primary and constant interest was the theory of happiness. Classical authors gave Montaigne a helping hand in his own philosophical path. Montaigne’s essay “A Consideration Upon Cicero” provides a paramount example of how to employ classical philosophy for addressing today’s problems. Since Montaigne lived in the sixteenth century, he could not even comprehend many of Cicero’s concerns. The institutions of the Roman Republic were completely different from those in Montaigne’s France. The economic, military, and morality issues addressed by Cato refer to a very different environment. Yet, Montaigne managed to extract every drop of wisdom from Cicero’s writings. He passed review to Cicero’s ambitions and setbacks, and pointed out the contradictions between the public ideals defended by Cicero and his sordid, sleazy moves to increase his personal power. Montaigne’s interest in Cicero’s writings rests on Cicero’s avowed allegiance to stoicism. Although the memory has been lost, stoicism was the dominant philosophy in the late Roman Republic and early Roman Empire. The aristocracy and middle class overwhelmingly adhered to the doctrines of stoicism. Which ideas was Cicero defending in public? Stoicism calls for honesty, justice, and self-restraint. It condemns thoughtless ambitions, that is, those that appear attractive in the short term but are likely to cause headaches down the road. Montaigne had a deep respect for ancient stoicism and held Seneca, Marcus Aurelius, and Epictetus in high regard. Cicero didn’t come up with the doctrine of stoicism. He just took over ideas already present in the late Roman Republic. The great merit of this essay by Montaigne is to isolate the crucial details from Cicero’s biography and compare them with his avowed philosophy. To which extent did Cicero practise the virtues of honesty, justice, and self-restraint? Montaigne arrives at the sad conclusion that Cicero failed to meet his own standards. His political scheming does not fulfil the moral standards of stoicism. His dedication to the Roman Republic was little more than a disguise for his power-seeking intrigues. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/cicero-michel-de-montaigne-and-classical-philosophy/

Despite his extensive study of classical philosophy, Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) paid relatively little attention to Aristotle. He quoted Seneca, Marcus Aurelius, Epictetus, Plato and Plutarch more often than he quoted Aristotle. He devoted more efforts to understanding stoicism than he devoted to the Aristotelian views on human nature and happiness. I have a theory that explains Montaigne’s disproportionate interest in Roman authors (Seneca, Marcus Aurelius, Cicero or Epictetus) compared to his light treatment of Aristotle. When I say “Roman authors,” I mean authors writing during the late Roman Republic or early Roman Empire, even if those authors had been born in Greece. Epictetus for instance is one of the authors born in Greece, but spent decades living in Rome. He returned to Greece when he was already forty years old and started a philosophy school that the young Marcus Aurelius attended before becoming a Roman Emperor. My theory is that Montaigne paid less attention to Aristotle because he did not have direct access to all works by Aristotle. Montaigne certainly possessed a Latin translation of Aristotle’s “Nicomachean Ethics” but the remaining corpus of Aristotelian works must have not been present in Montaigne’s library. I base my theory on Montaigne’s language, train of thought, and argumentation logic. I fail to find in his essays Aristotelian concepts such as potentiality and actuality, and the comparison of essential versus accidental traits. In Montaigne’s essays, I also fail to find syllogisms that are carefully constructed according to Aristotelian standards. Plato must have been a more frequent object of Montaigne’s literary explorations, if only because his works were widely available in Latin translation during the sixteenth century. When comparing Aristotle with Montaigne, the most salient discrepancies are detectable by their absence. That’s why I seldom find in Montaigne any criticism of Plato, Epictetus, Seneca, or Marcus Aurelius. Why has Montaigne overlooked the errors in those authors? If Montaigne had studied Aristotle’s philosophy in depth, he should have known better. Due to insufficient knowledge or for other reasons, the fact is that he overlooked the discrepancies. From reading only the “Nicomachean Ethics,” Montaigne could not acquire a solid knowledge of the Aristotelian theory of knowledge, metaphysics, logic, politics and aesthetics. I think that’s why he failed to detect the errors in stoicism, scepticism and hedonism. Aristotle had anticipated and refuted those errors, but Montaigne had studied only a small part of the Aristotelian corpus. Montaigne’s praise of self-knowledge and introspection are misleading in this respect. We can look into ourselves as much as we want, but it is unlikely that we find the right answers if we do not possess sufficient knowledge of Aristotle’s work. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/aristotle-michel-de-montaigne-and-classical-philosophy/

What we call “humanistic” nowadays has little to do with the work of humanists in the sixteenth century, such as Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592). They were digging into the past in order to regain concepts that had been lost. They were fighting against centuries of intellectual distortion, misrepresentations, and contradictions. Montaigne would devote dozens of hours to compose a little essay such as “On the parsimony of the ancients.” He would read and reread ancient sources such as Plutarch, Seneca and Cicero; and he would formulate his conclusions carefully and politely to prevent unnecessary conflicts. Nowadays, few people are doing that. Instead, they assume that their “humanism” is somehow automatic. They believe that they know the truth implicitly, without having to do any research. Those individuals are arrogant enough to categorise their beliefs as “humanistic” even if they brazenly contradict all ancient Greek and Roman authors and twenty-five centuries of historical experience. Humanism is something very different. It’s what Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) did in his essay “On the parsimony of the ancients.” He employed his erudition in ancient Greek and Roman history to identify the ideal lifestyle, that is, the habits more likely to lead to happiness. Montaigne doesn’t care about parsimony (economy, thrift, modesty, penny-pinching, humility) as such. His exploration is going much further than human economic behaviour. The key goal of Montaigne is to identify virtue in general terms. Like every worthy writer, Montaigne is looking for a recipe for success and happiness. He employs his knowledge of the ancient Greek and Roman lifestyle in order to criticise his own contemporaries. Montaigne praises the alleged parsimony of ancient times, so that he can reject the waste and excesses in his own century. His historical research (humanism in practice) prompts him to recommend simplicity, frugality and austerity. It also leads him to reject material excess as destructive. According to Montaigne, ancient parsimony was dictated by philosophical principles, not by lack of resources. Seneca and Marcus Aurelius could have spent much more money than they did. They embraced moderation and self-restraint in order to prevent their own moral decay. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaigne-and-humanistic-ideas/

When Renaissance authors undertook the study of antiquity, they had a practical purpose in mind. They expected to learn something useful from ancient history. Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) constitutes the very best example. He read relentlessly about the lifestyle of ancient Romans and Greeks with the goal of drawing useful lessons. In his philosophical research, Montaigne adopted the same hands-on approach. Even when he researched metaphysics and epistemology, he was still looking for a recipe for happiness. Take for instance Montaigne’s essay about the early Greek thinkers Democritus and Heraclitus. When reading the essay’s title (“On Democritus and Heraclitus”) one might be expecting a boring disquisition about the nature of reality, but that’s not how Montaigne understood humanism. Humanistic ideas, as understood by Montaigne, must be first and foremost practical. The purpose of studying Plato, Democritus, Heraclitus, and Aristotle is to learn how to lead a happy life here and now. Montaigne describes Democritus (around 500 BC) as a man who regarded the universe as rational and predictable. He put forward the theory that objects and creatures are made of small particles (“atoms”), in various configurations. Democritus was happy and cheerful. His sunny disposition, Montaigne tells us, rested on his philosophy. The expectations of rationality, orderliness and predictability filled Democritus with confidence. He was a peaceful, efficacious person. Heraclitus (also around 500 BC) sustained that the universe is subject to constant change. Objects, animals and persons are all in the process of becoming something or someone else. No one can predict the future. Our efforts might be wasted if the situation turns against us, explained Montaigne. As a result of his ever-changing outlook, argued Montaigne, Heraclitus was a melancholic, unhappy man. No wonder that he was always worried about the future, since he viewed life as a flux. Everything is subject to perpetual change and conflict, said Heraclitus, and stability is just a short-term illusion. Humanistic ideas include a detailed outline of Democritus’ and Heraclitus’ philosophies, but go much further. Montaigne’s essay does not contain exhaustive explanations about atomistic philosophy because that’s irrelevant for its purpose. Montaigne is more interested in Democritus’ mentality and personality than in his atomistic cosmology. He cared little for the atom theory, but was fascinated by Democritus’ optimism. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/democritus-and-heraclitus-montaigne-and-humanistic-ideas/

Aristotle used a systematic method for drawing conclusions from empirical observations. His concept of reality revolves around the idea of “substance,” which actually means “entity” in the sense employed by Aristotle. Every entity, he taught, is composed of matter that takes a certain form, configuration, or shape. For Aristotle, the “form” is what characterises each entity, what defines the nature of an entity, what makes it what it is. A material (“matter”) such as wood can take different forms. For instance, it can be an element in trees, but also in furniture, in a building, etc. In addition to speaking about matter and form, Aristotle employed the concepts of potentiality and actuality. He argued that most entities have the potential to become something else, and reach actuality when it fulfils its potential. Modern psychology employs the term self-actualisation to denote the process of human achievement. A man who pursues goals that fulfil his potential is driven by self-actualisation. For plants, a seed has the potential to become a plant. When a seed grows into a plant, it attains actuality, but psychologists don’t employ the term self-actualisation for plants and animals due to their inability to formulate complex goals. Aristotle’s theory of potentiality and actuality helps us grasp change and causality. The world is driven by entities that try to achieve their full potential; they generate relationships of cause and effect. Plants grow. Animals look for food. Human beings build homes and roads. Aristotle only managed to outline his philosophy of reality after he had abandoned Plato’s theory of forms. Plato believed in a mythical realm populated by perfect, immutable ideas or “forms.” According to Plato, the objects we perceive are just a reflection of the realm of forms. After rejecting Plato’s theory of an invisible realm of perfect forms, Aristotle simply pointed out that “forms” are part of the entities themselves. Each entity is made of matter and form. You cannot have one without the other. By using reason, humans can identify relations of cause and effect between several entities. There are four different types of causation, according to Aristotle, that is, four possible types of cause-and-effect relationships. Aristotle named them the material, the formal, the efficient, and the final cause. Let us take a bed as an example. What is the material cause? The wood that has been employed as material to make the concerned item. What is the formal cause? The carpenter’s design or idea of a bed. The efficient cause is the carpenter himself. The final cause is the purpose of the bed, that is, a place to sleep. By employing the Aristotelian concepts of matter and form, potentiality and actuality, and the types of causation (material cause, formal cause, efficient, and final cause), we can assess reality systematically, draw conclusions and gather knowledge. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/aristotles-views-on-the-nature-of-reality/