When people nowadays speak about curiosity, they usually mean the open, random, wide-range interest in a multiplicity of subjects. They mean the curiosity of children exploring their environment in a disorderly, superficial, inconsistent manner. Renaissance authors such as Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) employed a different definition of curiosity. They carried out research in a multiplicity of subjects, but in the pursuit of a tightly defined goal. Their efforts were neither disorderly nor random. Montaigne displayed a remarkable curiosity in his literary work, to which he devoted the last two decades of his life. He researched classical authors, taking copious notes, and seeking to draw conclusions of universal value. For Montaigne, all humanistic research revolved around one single goal, namely, to find recipes for happiness. His curiosity was focused, even if it encompasses dozens of subjects. When Montaigne referred to the lifestyle of ancient Greece or Rome, he was pursuing a clear goal, not just retelling amusing stories. I find it specially noteworthy that Montaigne never hesitated to address difficult subjects. He routinely picked up subjects or angles that no author had considered so far. He did not fear the unknown because he was seeking the truth. Montaigne would frequently start writing an essay without having yet made up his mind about the conclusions. He began by quoting a sentence from Plutarch, Seneca, or Julius Caesar, and seeing where it took him. Those essays show us Montaigne’s mind assessing the facts and weighing the arguments. I characterise Montaigne and other Renaissance authors by the road they did not take. By embracing curiosity, they did not take the road of blind conformity. By carrying out their own research, they did not take the road of regurgitating tradition. By elevating curiosity to a work method, Montaigne attains astonishing results. He puts together ideas and historical events that nobody before had combined. He gathers solid arguments against and in favour, prompting readers to think along. I consider Montaigne’s essay “On the inconstancy of our actions” the best example of curiosity in action. On every page, we can follow Montaigne’s own intellectual struggle to assess the facts and draw accurate conclusions. The sheer number of historical citations used by Montaigne is mind-boggling. For instance, he quotes Plato’s “Phaedrus” to argue that the human soul often behaves inconsistently. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaigne-and-intellectual-curiosity/

In his essays, Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592), addresses frequently the subject of cultural identity. I can summarise his conclusions in two sentences. First, he acknowledges that each culture has its own rituals, likes and dislikes. Second, he rates those differences as minor if compared with the traits shared by humans in all cultures. Montaigne underlines the second aspect in his essay titled “That we all love and cry for the same thing.” He is conveying the idea that human emotions (joy, sorrow, compassion, hatred) are the same in all cultures. Nevertheless, from those cultural comparisons, Montaigne is drawing a totally false conclusion. Granted, human emotions such as joy or sorrow are the same in all cultures, but the particular object of joy or sorrow makes a world of difference. All humans can feel joy, but sane individuals are going to experience joy in different circumstances than those that make a psychopath joyful. The same principle applies to cultures. A sane culture promotes vastly different moral values than those promoted by evil cultures. Montaigne never grasped the difference between similarity of emotions and similarity of moral values. To the extent that psychopaths can experience joy and sorrow, those remain very different from the emotions of sane people. I find it unconscionable that Montaigne declared all cultures equal just because all people can experience joy and sorrow. It makes a live-or-death difference whether one lives in a culture promoting constructive or destructive moral values. Montaigne’s essay “That we all love and cry for the same thing” compares rituals, traditions and social norms in various cultures. For instance, in ancient Athens (around 600 BC), a funeral included a procession displaying the body, but later, in the Roman Republic (around 50 BC), the body was no longer displayed during the procession. Going further back in time, Montaigne mentions the funeral Scythian practices (around 700 BC) described by Herodotus in his “Histories.” The Scythians had buried their kings together with their horses, weapons, servants, and household utensils. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaigne-and-cultural-identity/

Despite his erudition and hard work, Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) never grasped the need for an objective morality. I find in his essays a relentless effort to obscure ethical truths in order to preach moral relativism and contorted ethical equality. Montaigne employed ethical fallacies as arguments once and again; he employed “universal emotions” to call for ethical indifference, and “diverse cultural identity” to call for empathy towards immorality. His essay “That men through various ways arrive at the same thing” provides salient examples of those fallacies. By arguing for the equality of paths, Montaigne is obscuring vast differences in goals. By focusing on irrelevant anecdotes and details, Montaigne is deviating the attention from key ethical questions. Instead of engaging discussions about good and evil, he is chasing rabbits in all directions, rabbits that lead readers towards a dead end. Montaigne’s argument is that individuals in all cultures are pursuing common goals, and that those goals reflect universal aspects of human nature. In this way, he is predicating cultural relativism. He is employing a long discussion on diverse paths to hide massive differences in goals. For instance, Montaigne is comparing the different paths in antiquity for attaining fame and success. In ancient Greece, the paths could involve achievements in war, philosophy, science, or in the arts; while in ancient Rome, people could attain fame and success only through politics and war. As ancient Greek examples (around 500 BC), Montaigne is mentioning Pericles, an elected Athenian leader who promoted arts and democracy, and Socrates, a philosopher who made key contributions to knowledge theory and ethics. As ancient Roman examples (50 BC to 15 AD), Montaigne is mentioning Julius Caesar, a military dictator, and Emperor Augustus, the final destroyer of the Roman Republic. Their achievements, Montaigne says, are recorded by many statues and monuments. Montaigne goes ahead unrelentingly with examples that are supposed to prove the equality of paths to fame and success, but implicitly, he is discussing the goals, not the paths. Surreptitiously, Montaigne is predicating the equality of all ethical values and cultural identities. He is driving home the idea that there is no fundamental difference between Socrates and Julius Caesar, or between Pericles and Emperor Augustus. Montaigne’s error is not innocent. It cannot be excused by insufficient research, lack of knowledge, excessive complexity, or terminological confusion. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/errors-in-michel-de-montaigne-and-cultural-identity/

I can summarise in three sentences the political philosophy of Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592). He outlined his political ideas in several essays, giving many historical examples, but the ideas themselves are straightforward. First, when good people govern, everything will be fine, irrespective of the political system. Second, even the very best political system can be abused by bad people. Third, since it is inevitable that, now and then, some bad people gain political power, abuses can be prevented or minimised by distributing power amongst various institutions. Like Aristotle had previously done in his work “Politics”, Montaigne passed review to the different political systems. He was aware of the advantages and disadvantages of democracy, monarchy and aristocracy, but failed to make a choice. In all political systems, argued Montaigne, one can find bad and good examples. For instance, during the Roman Empire, which is a variant of monarchy, we can find a few excellent rulers such as Marcus Aurelius (161-180 AD). Marcus Aurelius was not perfect, but overall, he exercised power with a deep sense of morality. Instead of adopting a totalitarian attitude, he practised justice and moderation. He worked hard to run the empire effectively, instead of simply enjoying his own wealth. Montaigne acknowledged that good monarchs like Marcus Aurelius represent the exception, not the rule. History offers us plenty of examples of tyrannical kings and emperors. In ancient Rome, Nero (37-68 AD) was the archetypical bad emperor. He was arrogant, tyrannical and erratic. I categorise him as a psychopath. It is almost a miracle that someone like Marcus Aurelius became emperor a few generations later. What about democracy? Does it guarantee that only good people come to power? Montaigne remained sceptical, arguing that history provides few examples of excellent elected leaders such as Pericles (495-429 BC). Why did Montaigne regard Pericles as a rarity? Because Pericles possessed characteristics that seldom go together. On the one hand, he was honest, dedicated, and willing to promote the arts. On the other hand, he was sufficiently diplomatic and patient to navigate the complexities of Athenian politics. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaigne-and-political-philosophy/

“The best human attribute is rising after every downfall,” wrote Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592). Like no other author before the Renaissance, Montaigne devoted two decades of his life to identifying the keys to personal growth, and recording them in his essays. The above citation is taken from Montaigne’s essay “That no man should be called happy until his death,” which is one of my favourites. However, recommendations on personal growth can be found in every essay he wrote. Montaigne regarded writing as an exercise in thinking. His goal was to figure out the answers to important questions, and write down his thought processes. He began his essays with the formulation of a question, and then presented the arguments in great detail, either in favour of or against a particular answer. For Montaigne, writing means exploration. Personal growth was his principal subject because it was his primary concern. I view Montaigne as the most results-oriented author of his time because of his relentless search. He wanted to identify the truth and would not be happy with anything else. Reading Montaigne’s essays requires a couple of weeks, but his recommendations about personal growth are repetitive. I’m going to summarise them here for those who lack the patience or the energy to read all of Montaigne’s essays. First and foremost, Montaigne was keen on finding practical answers. He regarded general recommendations as worthless. I can tell myself “be happy” or “be healthy” a hundred times per day, but those statements are too vague to prompt any specific action. The essay “That it’s folly to measure truth and error by our own capacity” gives a salient example of Montaigne’s penchant for practical action based on observation. Montaigne recounts in this essay that Alexander the Great, when he was still a boy, wanted to tame a wild horse named Bucephalus. So far, everybody had failed because Bucephalus was too nervous, too aggressive. Alexander wanted to tame Bucephalus, but all experienced riders had failed. The standard approach to horse taming does not work in this case, thought Alexander, but a solution can be found through observation. For the next few days, Alexander did just one thing: he watched Bucephalus. He was looking for the exact cause of the issue, so that he could then identify a practical solution. Through observation, Alexander discovered the reason for Bucephalus’ nervousness and aggressiveness: Bucephalus was afraid of his shadow. The discovery of the problem’s cause enabled Alexander to figure out a practical solution. He simply turned Bucephalus towards the sun, so that it was blinded. In this way, Bucephalus couldn’t see his shadow and its nervousness disappeared. That’s how Alexander became able to ride it. Montaigne employs the story of Alexander and a wild horse to drive home a key lesson about personal growth, namely, that practical solutions become easy to find after a problem’s cause has been identified. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaigne-and-the-nature-of-personal-growth/

“Let us allow fortune to do her thing, and she will then give us the chance to do ours,” wrote Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) in his essay “That no man should be called happy until his death.” Montaigne is not telling us that human life is shaped by luck and that we should be happy with our circumstances. Neither is he implying that we are all doomed to a short, miserable life in which countermeasures are pointless because death is awaiting us at the end of the path. I regard the following twin essays by Montaigne as the most philosophical he wrote. Their titles are “That no man should be called happy until his death” and “That men shall not judge of our happiness before our death.” I called them “twin essays” because they convey the same idea from a slightly different perspective. The former adopts an objective perspective, and the latter, a subjective. They are also referring to the same historical anecdotes. What’s the lesson Montaigne is presenting in those essays? I can summarise it in one sentence. Montaigne is telling us that personal growth requires constant action and reaction. It’s not a plateau that, once attained, remains permanently stable. Happiness is directly dependent on personal growth, which is a combination of luck and hard work. Luck will turn bad at times, but hard work should remain constant because it is the best countermeasure to errors, opposition, and setbacks. Montaigne calls it unrealistic to regard happiness as a stable, permanent plateau. Personal growth is a lifetime mission, not a temporary project. We should remind ourselves frequently of the fact that even extremely successful people can have their achievements and happiness destroyed by bad luck. That’s why Montaigne views personal growth as a process of action and reaction. In the above-mentioned twin essays, he mentions Polycrates of Samos (6th century BC) as an example. After having attained the highest political position in Samos, Polycrates’ life seemed perfectly happy and stable. However, good luck turned into bad luck, wiping out every positive element in Polycrates’ life. After he was betrayed, one calamity led to the next, and eventually, to his death. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaignes-advice-on-personal-growth/

The philosophy of Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) about the nature of evil stands in sharp contrast to other thinkers. For Schopenhauer, evil is a natural phenomenon. It’s the inevitable outcome of the will (“life force”) when left to operate freely. Schopenhauer attributes evil to the life force that prompts all living creatures to secure their survival and reproduction, seek pleasure and maximise short-term gains. This life force doesn’t care about risks, costs, and consequences. According to Schopenhauer, the nature of evil is decoupled from religion. In “The world as will and representation” (1818) and other writings, Schopenhauer opposes the Christian belief that evil has its origin in the human disobedience retold in the first book of the Bible. Christians believe in a benevolent, omnipotent, eternal God that oversees every event in the cosmos. If God wanted to stop evil, he could do it right away, but he allows evil to exist for a greater purpose, namely, giving individuals the freedom to find the right path. Victims of evil can find consolation in Christianity. When a crime or injustice is committed, Christians believe in a higher divine purpose that escapes human comprehension. They view evil as part of God’s overarching plan, from which we can only perceive bits and pieces. While Christianity attributes evil to human actions that don’t follow God’s commandments, Schopenhauer is attributing evil to human inaction. It is crucial to understand this difference. Christians view the world as good by default and evil as the exception. Schopenhauer holds the opposite view: he considers nature as wild, irrational, chaotic and dangerous; harmony and peace come only from rational human action against nature. Schopenhauer is more interested in combating evil than in offering consolation to its victims. He does not see any higher divine purpose in evil. Injury and destruction cause pain, and it is pointless to give them obscure theological interpretations. According to Schopenhauer, efforts should be concentrated on avoiding and minimising evil. His plan of action against the will requires self-awareness. It is up to each individual to learn about the will, notice its influence, and adopt countermeasures. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauers-views-on-the-nature-of-evil/

Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) deployed large efforts to study Christianity and Eastern religions. His goal was to draw the best ethical advice from religion. When I say “best advice,” I mean practical, tangible, hands-on advice. I find it remarkable that Schopenhauer devoted long years to studying religion. His theory of the will (“life force”) has no direct connection to religion and his ethics are equally far from divinities and devotionals. The key idea in Schopenhauer’s philosophy is that the world is governed by the will, that is, a blind, irrational force driving all creatures towards securing their survival and reproduction, and towards seeking pleasure. More often than not, observed Schopenhauer, the influence of the will has nefarious results. It generates short-term passion and desire, without assessing any risks and costs. Over time, it inevitably leads to failure and suffering. For Schopenhauer, religion is an attempt to cope with the suffering generated by the will. Some ethical advice in religion happens to be solid and commendable, but it is undermined by the helplessness generated by worshipping a higher realm. Blind faith constitutes a severe negative aspect in religion, said Schopenhauer, because it discourages critical thinking; the key to improving one’s results is making better decisions; those require critical thinking. Schopenhauer also pointed out that religions often generate pointless conflicts. There is no benefit to be drawn from lack of tolerance. Bigotry leads to violence that serves no purpose. That’s why Schopenhauer was more interested in ethics than in religion. What about the positive elements in religion? Schopenhauer did not deny those. For millions of people, religion is a source of comfort and hope. It imbues them with a sense of purpose; it helps them cope with setbacks and uncertainties. The problem, concluded Schopenhauer, is that the negative factors weigh much heavier than the positive ones. Even if you draw comfort and hope from religion, lack of critical thinking is likely to destroy your life. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauers-views-on-religion/

For Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860), creativity is the key element in genius. However, Schopenhauer defined creativity in an unusual way. He wasn’t referring to the ability to create new concepts by recombining existing ones. No, he was referring to the rare ability to come up with breakthrough, surprising ideas. His theory of the will (life force) doesn’t attribute creativity to nature. Schopenhauer viewed the will as a wild, blind force that drives all living creatures to secure their reproduction and survival, and seek short-term pleasure regardless of the cost. In his book “The world as will and representation” (1818), Schopenhauer emphasised the need for reason, creativity, and self-discipline to escape the dire influence of the will. Schopenhauer rated creativity as important as all other skills derived from human intelligence. Creativity has little value in the absence of prudence, foresight, self-discipline, self-reliance and purposefulness. When virtues are practised in unison, they produce sizeable benefits, noted Schopenhauer. The problem is that few people have the motivation and endurance to keep practising virtue in the face of short-term failure. Creativity is the opposite of the will because it pushes in the opposite direction. While the will leads to deep chaos, entropy, disorder and suffering, creativity creates order, purpose, clarity and harmony. Creativity is the ultimate antidote to suffering. According to Schopenhauer, self-awareness is the first step to minimise the negative effects of the will. How can one grow self-aware? You need to stand still and observe. Stop striving, running and chasing. Stop reacting automatically. Slow down. After becoming self-aware, one needs to adopt measures to curtail the influence of the will. Are you pursuing objectives that you have not chosen yourself? Are you implementing projects that have few chances of success? Schopenhauer’s books “Parerga and Paralipomena” (1851) and “Two fundamental problems in ethics” (1843) encourage readers to cultivate prudence, foresight, purposefulness, self-discipline and self-reliance. Creativity and genius constitute the result of daily, relentless self-discipline. They are the result of sustained efforts to create order mentally and practically, emotionally and intellectually. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauers-views-on-genius/

The problem of evil was addressed by Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) by referring to the theory of the will (“life force”), which constitutes the pillar of his philosophy. Schopenhauer defined the will as the force driving living creatures to secure their survival and reproduction, and seek pleasure. According to Schopenhauer, the will creates endless human desires. As soon as one desire is fulfilled, another one arises. It is simply impossible to satisfy them all. As a result, frustration and suffering ensue. Schopenhauer described the will as a blind, wild, irrational, relentless force. It drives people in a certain direction without any consideration of risks, costs, or justice. The will is impervious to legal considerations. It does not know the meaning of human rights, property rights, fairness or contractual commitments. It does not submit itself to any legal framework, nor cares about exploitation, abuses, victimization, and mistreatment. Schopenhauer attributes all evil to the influence of the will. He acknowledges that the will is inflicting damages, suffering, and confusion on people, but the will rejects any responsibility or liability. The will operates without empathy, mercy or moderation. It is a doom machine, pushing individuals towards the precipice. The will drives people to seek pleasure, ensure their survival and reproduction, and disregard the consequences. No wonder that its influence leads to vast tangible and intangible damage. How does Schopenhauer's view of evil compare to religious views, especially in Christianity? The differences are massive. For Schopenhauer, evil is the natural outcome of the will if left to operate unchecked. It's up to each individual to adopt an array of countermeasures to avert the negative influence of the will. For Christianity, evil is a separate force opposed to God. It's malevolent and ruthless but not overwhelming. Christians view God as benevolent and omnipotent, and justify evil by a divine decision to leave humans free to find the right path. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauer-and-the-problem-of-evil/

Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) devoted his whole life to intellectual pursuits. In particular, he gave extensive thought to their contribution to happiness. Schopenhauer outlined his philosophy in “The world as will and representation,” a book he published in 1818. The essential insight of the book is that the will (“life force”) is driving all living creatures to secure their own survival and reproduction. In addition, the will is pushing animals and humans to seek short-term pleasure without paying attention to cost, risks and consequences. The influence of the will on humans is harmful, pernicious and destructive. Intellectual pursuits are commendable when they help fight the negative influence of the will. I mean intellectual pursuits, studies and debates that render individuals self-aware, prudent, and self-reliant. Those intellectual pursuits vastly contribute to increasing happiness. In contrast, Schopenhauer discouraged intellectual pursuits that generate desires, goals and ambitions impossible to fulfil. Life is hard enough, he argued, to add pointless anxiety, stress, and frustration. In his essay collection “Parerga and Paralipomena” (1851), Schopenhauer gives many examples of worthy and unworthy intellectual pursuits. For instance, Schopenhauer held artistic contemplation in high regard (music, in particular), but showed little interest in politics, modern art, and organised religion. He did not regard the latter as worthy intellectual pursuits. Intellectual pursuits are futile, argued Schopenhauer, if they fail to contribute to alleviating suffering and increasing human happiness. If they don’t render human life better, those pursuits should be considered pointless. The examples in “Parerga and Paralipomena” warn people against the wrong intellectual pursuits. It is pointless to devote one’s efforts to acquiring worthless knowledge and skills. Life is too short for engaging in pointless undertakings, and pursuing clearly unworkable goals. What about intellectual pursuits in the fields of technology, science, and culture? Schopenhauer considered them beneficial and worth pursuing, but one should stay alert and focused. It is important to re-examine one’s objectives regularly, so that they remain aligned with increasing happiness and averting pain. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauers-views-on-intellectual-pursuits/

Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) never wrote any novels and deeply disliked those written by his mother, Johanna. She had attained notoriety by her romantic novels and reciprocated his son’s literary dislike by calling his essays uninteresting. However, the novels written by Johanna Schopenhauer were quickly forgotten, while Arthur Schopenhauer’s works attracted growing interest. Eventually, his ideas have influenced authors and shaped their novels. Schopenhauer’s influence on literature has taken place more in the novels’ atmosphere than in their explicit philosophy. You won’t find in literature a detailed exposition of Schopenhauer’s theory of the will, only its influence in shaping the background and attitudes of the characters. According to Schopenhauer, the will (“life force”) is driving living entities to secure their survival and reproduction, and to seek pleasure, irrespective of the costs and risks incurred. In his book “The world as will and representation” (1818), Schopenhauer depicts the dire consequences of falling under the control of the will and focusing only on the short term. Humans can become self-aware, adopt countermeasures and minimise the influence of the will. Schopenhauer enumerated those countermeasures in “Parerga and Paralipomena” (1851). The countermeasures include prudence, foresight, self-reliance and self-discipline, and artistic contemplation. Authors familiar with Schopenhauer’s ideas have translated his theory of the will into stories where heroes are driven by passion and ambition. Those literary heroes struggle to adopt the countermeasures proposed by Schopenhauer, improve their lives, and attain happiness. Fyodor Dostoevsky (1821-1881) created fiction heroes that mirror Schopenhauer’s philosophy. That’s particularly true in his masterpiece “Crime and Punishment” (1866). Its hero is named Raskolnikov and the novel depicts his fears and hesitation after he has committed a murder. Would have Schopenhauer considered Raskolnikov a model of ethics? No, absolutely not. I’m fairly sure that Schopenhauer would have disliked “Crime and Punishment” and all works by Dostoevsky because they present heroes controlled by the will. Dostoevsky’s heroes have their lives ruined by the will, but seldom adopt countermeasures. Their stories match the pattern outlined by Schopenhauer, but Dostoevsky fails to tell readers how to escape those circumstances and build a better future. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauers-influence-on-literature/

It is a myth that Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) had an extraordinary interest in literary exploration. Although he used many literary quotations, those are drawn from a couple of dozen books. Montaigne reread those books frequently, but rarely added new ones to his library. His literary explorations serve just one purpose, namely, to provide materials for his research in ethics. The latter constitutes the primary purpose of his work. The key contents of his essays revolve around ethics, not literature. As a teenager, Montaigne had attended a school where Latin language and literature in Latin shaped the curriculum; thus, he was familiar with major classical authors writing in Latin. I am referring to Cicero, Plutarch, Seneca and Marcus Aurelius. In his library, Montaigne also had books from ancient Greek authors such as Plato and Aristotle. However, those books were in Latin translation because Montaigne’s knowledge of ancient Greek was fragmentary. He was unable to read Aristotle, Plato, or Sophocles in the original Greek. I am reluctant to categorise Montaigne’s practice as “literary exploration.” He was regularly rereading a couple of dozen books, taking notes and putting together his essays, but I fail to see in Montaigne a primary interest in literary criticism. Montaigne tells readers very clearly that his main interest is philosophical, not literary. In his essay titled “On experience,” we can read the following statement: “The objective of writing is self-improvement.” He meant the author’s self-improvement in the first place, but readers can draw the same benefit. The above statement by Montaigne is not an isolated case. I can point to similar ones in other essays. For instance, in his essay “On solitude,” he acknowledges that writing is a way to “explore one’s own thoughts and discover the truth.” There is another strong argument against Montaigne’s being primarily motivated by literary exploration: in about one fifth of his essays, he is using his own personal anecdotes to support his philosophical assessment. If my primary interest was literary exploration, I would not be placing my own personal anecdotes on the same level as quotations from works of Cicero, Plato, and Seneca. However, I would have no problem doing so if my primary interest was philosophical exploration. That’s precisely what Montaigne did, but in a way that gave more weight to his personal anecdotes than to Cicero, Plato, or Aristotle. As a result, his essays are tainted by subjectivity. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaigne-and-literary-exploration/

Despite his practice of recounting anecdotes about himself, Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) failed to learn much from introspection. In fact, he often misunderstood his own motives or drew the wrong lessons. I attribute Montaigne’s constant references to introspection to self-aggrandisement, not to philosophical wisdom. He spent twenty years writing his essays, and many of those, include an anecdote about Montaigne’s personal life. However, Montaigne almost never draws a clear conclusion from those anecdotes. He tells us “this happened to me,” but then rambles about possible interpretations. He goes into one direction, but then reverses course, leaving readers in the dark about the point he was trying to make. In his essay “On practice,” Montaigne declared that he was studying himself more than he was studying any other person or subject. I must, however, clarify that, when he says “studying myself,” he mostly means “studying my own emotions.” Why do I think that Montaigne was rather ineffective at introspection? Because, during the two decades he devoted to writing, he didn’t improve his lifestyle in any meaningful way. Take for instance his essay “On repentance.” Montaigne is telling us that he is turning his gaze inward and keeping busy with introspection. “While everybody else is looking ahead, I prefer to look inside myself,” he writes. Fair enough, but what lessons does Montaigne draw from his introspection? Most of the time, none; and occasionally, an insignificant recommendation that he’ll fail to put into practice anyway. I’m not exaggerating in the least. Introspection is a tool, not a pastime for unemployed souls. It is a method for identifying our own fears and motives, not for bragging about how clever we are. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaigne-and-the-art-of-introspection/

Personal reflections can render essays colourful and lively, but cannot guarantee correct judgement. Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) made dozens of personal reflections in his essays, but more often than not, he drew trivial or wrong conclusions. Nonetheless, his essays remain worth reading because they prompt us to think. They confront us with numerous arguments favouring or opposing a thesis, or numerous answers in reply to a question. Montaigne’s faulty logic challenges the readers’ philosophical skills. Which messages is Montaigne conveying in those personal reflections? Self-justification is the only recognisable pattern. I mean that Montaigne is just looking for arguments that justify choices he has already made. For example, his essay “On solitude” recommends the daily practice of retiring from the world, a practice that aims at protecting one’s sanity and serenity. Montaigne followed such practice for the last two decades of his life, and attributed great benefits to it. I must however ask for proof of Montaigne’s assertions: two decades of daily solitude periods constitute a long experiment, but Montaigne’s biography does not show the benefits. If daily periods of solitude are supposed to be beneficial, I would expect to see improvements in Montaigne’s lifestyle in those twenty years. I would expect to see tangible changes that arise from his daily reflection periods. Yet, I see none. The fact is that Montaigne kept doing pretty much the same every day. Montaigne’s essay “On practice” serves the same purpose of self-justification, this time, for Montaigne’s approach to coping with illness. Since he was suffering from kidney stones, Montaigne tried out various treatments, but they proved to no avail. Eventually, he gave up his attempts at finding a remedy, and concluded that “humans must learn to suffer pains that are unavoidable.” Really? When confronted with burning issues, I never relent in my efforts to solve them. I think about them incessantly and keep looking for solutions. The idea of giving up does not even cross my mind. Instead, Montaigne gave up after failing to find a solution. I acknowledge his effort in travelling abroad for a thermal water cure, but when the cure failed, he returned home and left the problem unsolved. Despite the difficulties in dealing with kidney stones in the sixteenth century, Montaigne’s conclusion is wrong. He advises readers to accept pain and stop complaining. He is telling us to give up our attempts to improve our lives. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaignes-personal-reflections/

The insertion of personal reflections is the most innovative aspect in the essays of Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592). The previous centuries had relegated personal reflections to poetry. Montaigne is the first author who gave his personal views on a wide range of subjects, placing his reflections on equal level to quotations from Plato, Aristotle, or Cicero. Since Montaigne did not possess expertise in all those areas, it is fair to question the accuracy of his personal views. I have read his essays in detail, assessing how often he got it right. When Montaigne addressed subjects he knew well, like the education of children, his personal reflections are remarkably accurate. However, when he addressed general philosophical questions, his logic often went astray. On too many occasions, he did not draw a clear conclusion. After examining the arguments against and in favour, he stated that the subject is too complex or that human knowledge is too limited. I find those essays particularly disappointing. Montaigne’s reflections grew in accuracy when he treated subjects particularly close to his heart. That’s the case of his essay “On the inconveniences of high status.” Montaigne could speak from experience because, at one time, he had occupied the highest elected post in the city of Bordeaux. During his tenure, Montaigne had faced civil and religious strife, criticism and opposition. The job had placed him in the middle of confrontations between Catholics and Protestants. It became by far the most stressful experience of his life. Montaigne’s personal reflections are inordinately accurate in assessing the disadvantages of high office. He speaks with an open heart of the vulnerability, risks, and reduced privacy that are associated with jobs in the public view. The risks mentioned by Montaigne go further than the mere loss of fortune or reputation. In his essay, he repeatedly points to the risk of assassination by the opposing political faction. Was Montaigne suffering from paranoia? Did he exaggerate the inconveniences of public office? No, I view his remarks as a fair assessment of the situation in sixteenth-century France. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/accuracy-of-michel-de-montaignes-personal-reflections/

Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) is still widely read today because of one reason. He wrote essays on the nature of human experience and drew conclusions of permanent value. He used numerous examples from ancient Greece and Rome, and those remain fresh and fascinating for today’s readers. What is Montaigne’s main conclusion after devoting twenty years of his life to writing essays? Did he endorse the doctrines of scepticism and relativism, or discovered universal behaviour patterns that lead to happiness? Montaigne’s key philosophical lesson is that happiness takes lots of work, but that it is worth pursuing through daily, steady activity. He acknowledged human imperfections, mistakes, and inconsistencies, but on the other hand, he praised the ancient Greek and Roman heroes for their persistent idealism. Reading Montaigne’s essays enables today’s readers to gain a crucial insight, namely, that it is worth it to pursue the good life despite setbacks, opposition and occasional defeats. This is a message that it is difficult to find elsewhere. Montaigne focused his literary explorations on the analysis of different perspectives on human experience. He took stories from different cultures and scrutinised their underlying ideas with the goal of finding happiness. His comments are sometimes wrong, but never trivial. His search for ancient Greek and Roman wisdom was indefatigable and exuberant. His retelling of historical anecdotes is not fully accurate in details, but always precise in the spirit. Montaigne is the first essayist in history who had no qualms about confessing his confusion when assessing human experience. In half of his essays, he fails to draw clear conclusions, arguing that human experience is so “shapeless and diverse that each moment plays a unique role.” He was also the first essayist in history to regard happiness as deeply subjective. After assessing hundreds of biographies, he concluded that happiness is not a cold summation of one’s wealth, health, pleasures and delights. Montaigne pointed to the strong connection between one’s happiness and the “pattern of opinions and traditions received from the environment.” It is practically impossible, he argued, to attain happiness through immorality. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaigne-and-the-nature-of-human-experience/

Aristotle addressed friendship in his “Nicomachean Ethics.” He viewed friendship as indispensable for leading a happy life, but identified three types of friendships: those based on utility, those based on pleasure, and those based on shared values or virtues. The latter is by far the most valuable. Friendships of utility are based on mutual interest. People collaborate with each other for a myriad of reasons, which are not necessarily linked to business or making money. Business partners constitute an example of the Aristotelian “friendship based on utility” but the same can be said of people who join a tennis club because they enjoy playing tennis, or of those who happen to be neighbours because they live in the same apartment block. They collaborate in running a business, playing a tennis or football match, maintaining the common areas in a building, or exchanging little favours amongst neighbours. Those friendships are based on tic for tac. If those persons did not have a shared interest, they might perhaps not even talk to each other. If their common interest disappears, those people will grow apart very quickly and their friendship will wane. In contrast, friendships of pleasure arise from enjoying each other’s company. For instance, when a group of youths gather every Saturday night to go out. They tell each other stories and jokes, and have a good time. However, friendships of pleasure tend to remain superficial and temporary. They don’t last long because they are not based on strong intellectual and emotional connections. They deliver some pleasure, but lack depth and endurance power. The third type identified by Aristotle are friendships based on shared moral values or virtues. Aristotle calls them “perfect friendships,” especially when those values or virtues are hard to achieve. Friends that share common values will feel genuine respect, generosity and admiration towards each other. They will gladly devote their energies and material resources to helping friends because they see them as contributors to a common cause. These friendships rest on the personality and values of the persons involved. They tend to be strong and enduring. They’ll often last a lifetime, and if they end, it’s because the concerned person has changed his personality or moral values. Nonetheless, Aristotle was wrong in saying that friendships based on shared values take time to develop. In fact, they grow extremely quickly. Once people recognise each other’s loyalty to values they admire, the emotional connection can be almost immediate. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/aristotles-view-on-friendship/

Aristotle (384-322 BC) made four decisive contributions to philosophy. First, in metaphysics, he refuted Plato’s theory of forms. While Plato had believed in a world of pure abstractions (which he called “forms”), Aristotle emphasised observing the material world. Second, Aristotle came up with the concepts of substance and form. He asserted that each item is composed of substance and form. Substance refers to its underlying essence, and form to its individual characteristics. The combination of substance and form define the identity of each entity or person. Identity determines how an entity will behave, its present and future actions. Those are connected by relations of cause and effect, which constitute Aristotle’s theory of causality. Aristotle studied motion and defined four types of causation (material cause, formal cause, efficient cause, and final cause). The latter (final cause or purpose) is crucial for understanding human motivation and behaviour. Third, Aristotle reinvented morality in his “Nicomachean Ethics.” He argued that the goal of human life is “eudaimonia” (happiness, flourishing, thriving, fulfilment) and that the path to eudaimonia requires a virtuous life. Aristotle’s view of virtue is linked to individual happiness, not to supernatural edicts. He came up with a new art theory in his work “Poetics” and identified objective criteria for telling apart good from bad art, explaining the link between art and happiness. Fourth, in his work “Politics,” Aristotle examined all forms of government (monarchy, aristocracy, polity) and the risks of corruption that transform them into tyranny, oligarchy and mob rule. He favoured a mixed form of government where power is divided amongst the monarch, the aristocracy, and the people. Let us explore these four key contributions, one by one. Aristotle refuted once and for all the theory of forms devised by Plato (428-347). Plato had conveyed his philosophy through his dialogues (a literary genre) where Socrates is often the main character. The key element of Plato’s philosophy is the theory of forms or theory of pure abstractions. Plato believed that the world we perceive is just an imperfect reflection of an intangible world made of pure abstractions or “forms.” According to Plato, the acquisition of knowledge consists of accessing the world of forms. Plato stated that most people live in a state of ignorance, like prisoners in a cave, perceiving only shadows of a true reality, which can only be accessed through education about the forms. Aristotle’s greatest contribution was to discard the theory of the forms. We learn through observation and thinking, he said, not by mystical connection to a world of pure abstractions. You should look at reality, study the characteristics of entities, and figure out how they are interconnected through causality. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/aristotles-four-key-contributions-to-philosophy/

The philosophy of logic and reason developed by Aristotle (384-322 BC) is different from computer logic, religious logic, and other types of logic that have existed in history. There are three distinct features that render Aristotelian logic unique. I’m going to present those three features, one by one. First, Aristotelian logic is linked to language. I would go even further and specify that it is linked to human language. Humans have ways of thinking that are very different from those of computers. We can place statements in a psychological or ethical context, and draw extremely accurate conclusions from sketchy evidence. The fact that Aristotelian logic is based on human language should be regarded as a strength, not as a weakness. I certainly do not share the views of Ramon Llull (1232–1315) who wrote a complete treatise (“Ars Magna”) favouring a non-ambiguous system of logic based on quasi-mathematical formulae. Llull was attacking the imprecision of Aristotelian logic; his argument is that human language is often imprecise and cannot be trusted. Llull proposed to replace language with an array of symbols similar to today’s commands in computer programs. If we follow Llull’s proposal, we would reduce the areas in which logic can be used. Llull’s proposal would cut down by ninety per cent the fields where logic is currently applied. Why on earth would anybody want to do that? Even if the remaining ten per cent of conclusions becomes perfectly exact, the loss is huge. How are we supposed to make decisions in everyday life without logic? Llull was naïve in his belief that, by eliminating natural language, he would improve the situation. Second, human logic can deal with imprecision. Aristotle’s method of drawing conclusions is nothing but a mirror of how the human mind works. It is the way we formulate conclusions a hundred times a day. We automatically compare, combine, and re-combine facts to guide our actions in all circumstances. In most cases, we don’t need precise facts or conclusions. A cook can vary the recipe and still prepare a tasty dish. Lawyers can draw up contracts by using different wordings to the same effect. Chess players can invert the order of their moves, but still arrive at the same position. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/aristotles-most-crucial-teachings-on-logic-and-reasoning/