John Vespasian

When I analyse the biography of great individuals, I always focus on one question: What did they do to become great? My objective is to figure out exactly what they did differently than everybody else. The difference is what counts. Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) made it particularly clear that he wanted to differentiate himself from his peers. His vast literary achievements are not the result of luck. His philosophy is not the outcome of random circumstances, but of persistence and determination. I view Montaigne as a master in the art of living because of his unusually high productivity. Even with a busy professional life as a lawyer in Bordeaux, he read extensively and raised a family. Montaigne even found the time to travel abroad (Germany, Italy) for a year, and later occupied public office for four years. All those activities did not prevent him from becoming highly productive as an author. I’m going to summarise Montaigne’s art of living, especially the lessons that we can put into practice here and now. Montaigne limited the number of activities or tasks that he undertook. During his studies at the College de Guyenne, he did not spread himself too thin. Most of his study subjects revolved around Latin language, Latin authors, the basics of ancient Greek, history, philosophy, and arithmetic. Montaigne graduated at thirteen and enrolled in Law school, where he completed his legal studies in three years. He started working at sixteen as a legal apprentice, and five years later, he had qualified to practise as a lawyer. If Montaigne had consumed large amounts of entertainment or practised sports daily, he would have delayed his career by a long stretch. If we want to achieve important goals, the first we need to do is to focus, just as Montaigne had done. Over time, Montaigne grew extraordinarily self-reliant. I must underline that his self-confident mentality was as unusual in the sixteenth century as it is today. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaigne-and-the-art-of-living/

In our century, the protection of privacy has acquired crucial importance. I cannot even count the number of celebrities that have seen their life disrupted because a journalist has intruded in their privacy. Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) was aware of the dangers associated with popularity. He also knew the financial advantages that one can draw from it, but after careful reflection, he opted for a quiet lifestyle in the countryside. I find Montaigne’s choice remarkable because it entailed a series of drastic changes; he had lived for decades in a sizeable city, pursued a demanding career, and interacted with hundreds of people; why did he choose to leave behind his professional ambitions? There is a key philosophical lesson in Montaigne’s decision to embrace a quiet lifestyle, a lesson that has become very hard to learn in our century of social media around the clock. Even for Montaigne, it took a while to analyse his own thoughts and record his arguments in writing. Montaigne conveyed his reflections in his essay titled “Not to Communicate a Man’s Honour.” Actually, the essay has little to do with honour and very much to do with lifestyle choices. I would have given it a different title, for instance, “Why we should remain discreet about our own achievements” or “Why it is wise not to blow our own trumpet.” Montaigne employs the term “honour” as a synonym for our professional and ethical reputation. In sixteenth-century France and in the rest of Europe, an impeccable reputation was crucial particularly in commerce and banking. The question raised by Montaigne is whether we should do our best to enhance our reputation. How much effort should we devote to responding to attacks against our honour? Should we seize every opportunity to increase our popularity? Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaignes-art-of-living-quietly/

The biographies of great individuals teach us many lessons, but I am always seeking the common thread between them. In the case of Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592), it requires some work to figure out the key lesson. Montaigne’s essay titled “On the inequality amongst us” is conveying the key lesson from his life, namely, that we should accept without complaints the fact that each person is different, and that all attempts to homogenise people are doomed to fail. Individuals are unequal in intelligence, agility, beauty, skills and personal interests, just to mention a few aspects. Luckily, Montaigne accepted inequality as a fact early in life and spared himself lots of trouble. In sixteenth-century France, the monarch deployed massive efforts to homogenise the ideas in the country, but his attempts proved a dismal failure. In fact, he achieved exactly the contrary. Instead of having all citizens share the same ideals, he destroyed social harmony. Instead of having everybody accept the same beliefs, he only generated discrimination, hatred and war. Montaigne did not praise enough the wisdom of adopting a realistic stance. Not only is it a fact that individuals are all unequal, but that life rarely delivers perfect justice or fairness. We all know of people who, in their profession or business, have profited from personal connections. It is certainly unfair, but I wouldn’t waste a minute worrying about those situations. Montaigne commends self-made individuals like Spartacus (1st century BC) that rise to positions of leadership, and has no good words for incompetent aristocrats like the Ancient Roman senator and consul Claudius Pulcher. While Spartacus led a revolt that defeated Roman armies on two occasions, Claudius Pulcher ordered a foolish attack which exposed the flanks of his ships. As a result, he lost seventy-five per cent of the Roman military fleet. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaignes-key-lesson-on-the-art-of-living/

Instead of endless abstract discussions, I prefer philosophers to cut to the chase and give me an example of their theories. If the example is convincing, I may explore their theories further. On the other hand, if the example doesn’t make sense, I will no longer care what that philosopher claims to know. If a plan cannot be put into practice, I don’t want to waste time studying the details. Seneca came up with excellent, deep insights in many areas, but from time to time, he got completely lost. In particular, his views on human nature rest on assumptions that contradict our daily experience. In his 82nd Letter to Lucilius, Seneca mentions Socrates (470-399 BC) as an example of wisdom. Seneca emphasised that Socrates had devoted his life to acquiring knowledge, which he viewed as more valuable than wealth and popularity. Seneca expresses appreciation for Socrates, although not in every aspect. I believe that he regarded Socrates as an example to be imitated in some areas, as the embodiment of wisdom. The 83rd Letter to Lucilius also mentions Socrates. Nevertheless, I have a problem with Seneca’s appreciation for Socrates. The attention that he bestows on Socrates seems to me gratuitous, perfunctory and exaggerated. If Seneca had limited his references to Socrates’ ability to come up with pertinent questions, I would have seconded his words, but I disagree with Seneca’s portrayal of Socrates as an example of wisdom. Socrates is not an example to imitate, unless one is socially insensitive and suicidal. On the hand, he did not build anything tangible; he didn’t write any books, build a business or perform any remarkable feats. He simply talked and talked. On the other hand, he made numerous enemies, got himself into unnecessary trouble, and proved incapable of extricating himself from the whole mess. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/what-seneca-got-wrong-about-human-nature/

In his Letters to Lucilius and essays, Seneca gave a detailed recipe for personal fulfilment. His insights can be applied still today. I am going to summarize them in the next paragraphs. When necessary, I am adapting Seneca’s ideas to our century. The search for personal fulfilment is a lifetime mission. It is not a quick fix that will take us to a plateau of permanent, uninterrupted happiness. Even with the best of luck, each person has to face adversity from time to time. It is unrealistic to believe that we can isolate ourselves from pain and suffering. The purpose of philosophy is to help us see the big picture, that is, the picture of one’s lifetime achievement and happiness. We should not get stuck on temporary problems, even if we are experiencing vast disruption and annoyance. One generation after Seneca, another Stoic philosopher built a powerful intellectual edifice around this principle. I’m talking about Epictetus (55-135 AD), who embodies the idea of steady self-improvement. Seneca had aristocratic origins and adopted the principles of Stoicism after long study and reflection. In contrast, Epictetus had been born a slave in Hierapolis. Through assiduous study, he acquired valuable skills, earned respect, became a freeman, and eventually a famous philosopher. Epictetus had more than sufficient grounds for complaint. I can hardly imagine a worse situation than being born a slave in Ancient Greece or Rome. Nonetheless, Epictetus made the best of the situation, created new opportunities and moved forward. Like Seneca, Epictetus regarded self-improvement as a goal for a lifetime, not an isolated task. He kept improving his skills and acquiring knowledge all his life, travelling and teaching. It is an example we should remember when we face adversity or opposition. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/seneca-on-personal-fulfilment/

High productivity depends on quality-consciousness. There is simply no other way to sell sizeable amounts of products and services at a profit. If we do not deliver quality, customers are going to complain, and we will have to devote our resources to satisfying those complaints. Thus if we want to achieve our goals in business and private activities, we need to pay attention to every step of the process. By carrying out every step correctly, we can move steadily in the right direction, without having to go back to correct errors. Was Seneca the first philosopher in history to focus on the process, instead of focusing only on the results? Not really, but he emphasised that it is better to practise virtue and hope for the best, than to achieve goals by employing tortious methods. In doing so, Seneca was slightly decoupling morality from success, against the Aristotelian tradition. In the “Nicomachean Ethics” and “Eudemian Ethics,” Aristotle (384-322 BC) had set up an ethical framework in which virtues constitute the method for attaining success and happiness. Virtues constituted a means to an end. Aristotelian ethics are supposed to deliver beneficial results to their practitioners, that is, assuming that they are practised consistently for long. Seneca showed reluctance in promising beneficial results, if only because he lived in more uncertain times than Aristotle. In his 35th Letter to Lucilius, Seneca portrays virtue as the optimal method for guiding our life, even in a context of uncertainty. Even if we end up perishing due to some external event that is outside our control, argued Seneca, we will still lead a better life if we practise virtue. Why? Because our decisions, actions, and results will be superior to those obtained through whim or randomness. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/senecas-advice-on-personal-fulfilment/

Compared to Ancient Greece and Rome, people nowadays can easily choose to be as lonely or as gregarious as they wish. Our ability to give shape to our lifestyle is much larger than in the times of Aristotle (384-322 BC) or Seneca. However, the benefits that we can draw from solitude have not changed through the centuries. I find Seneca’s observations in this respect particularly insightful. In his own life, Seneca went through periods of solitude and periods of gregariousness. Those periods were long, protracted, and overwhelming, in the sense that they were driven by forces over which Seneca had little control. We can benefit from Seneca’s sharp observations and advice because he made the effort to put them in writing. His essay “On the Happy Life” contains reflections on daily habits that contribute to our peace of mind. It does not refer to solitude, which is a theme handled in some Letters to Lucilius. Seneca regarded solitude as beneficial if we use it to raise our serenity and self-reliance. To a great extent, he affirmed, happiness is equivalent to self-sufficiency. If we learn to enjoy life on our own, without depending on other people for support or comfort, we’ll be able to experience joy every day. If we have friendly, loving individuals around us and they make our lives pleasant, great. If not, we’ll be able to enjoy our days anyway. In his 98th Letter to Lucilius, Seneca defines a happy person as someone who is not anxious about the future. Solitude, if we employ it wisely, allows us to increase our self-sufficiency and serenity, removing all worry, preoccupation and anxiety. As a practical illustration, Seneca points to the philosopher Stilbo, a contemporary of Aristotle. He recounts that Stilbo had grown immensely self-sufficient and serene through reflection. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/seneca-on-finding-joy-in-solitude/

I am always puzzled when I see historians or philosophers put forward theories for which the evidence is rather thin. Even if they write a treatise about their theory, readers will ask to see the evidence, the facts, the clues. Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) produced a compelling collection of essays, but historians have exaggerated his impact on early modern philosophy; their arguments are so far-fetched that I regard them as self-refuting. Why do I contest Montaigne’s philosophical impact? I do so because Montaigne did not consider himself a philosopher. He never undertook a serious study of metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics and aesthetics. Nor did he never build a system of thought worthy of that name. Take for instance Montaigne’s essay titled “On the custom of wearing clothes.” When Montaigne wrote this piece, he was in his early forties, living quietly in the countryside. Day after day, he retired to the tower of his castle to read and write, and kept churning out one essay after another. Historians sustain that Montaigne wrote “On the Custom of Wearing Clothes” to present and endorse cultural relativism. In their eyes, Montaigne was asking us to refrain from judging our culture because, across history, people have been wearing different types of attire in different countries or occasions. According to this theory, Montaigne’s cultural relativism is the originator or contributor to the relativism deployed in the eighteenth century by the likes of Montesquieu (1689-1755) and Voltaire (1694-1778). Philosophically, Montaigne’s arguments are so anaemic that they should not even count as philosophy. When he criticises sixteenth-century women for wearing impractical clothes, I am convinced that he would have said the same if he had attended a fashion show in our century. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/why-montaigne-had-no-impact-on-early-modern-philosophy/

Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) had zero impact on early modern philosophy because his great merit was to look to the past, not to the future. As a result, Montaigne developed a new, fresh, truly modern mentality that put him decades ahead of his literary peers. When Montaigne looked at history, mostly antique history, he picked up ideas and facts that he found useful. He was very familiar with the doctrines of Pyrrho (360-270 BC) and Sextus Empiricus (160-210 AD), but adopted only a mild version of their scepticism. Montaigne’s modern mentality is the key to his influence in all areas of culture, but not primarily on philosophy. He did not even join the debates in philosophical circles because his main concern was happiness, not certainty or truth. Two generations later, Rene Descartes (1596-1650) would write his famous “Discourse on the Method” and his “Meditations on First Philosophy.” In the meantime, Montaigne had opted for remaining oblivious to the debate. Why did Montaigne ignore mainstream philosophical books and debates? Because his interest in philosophy was primarily instrumental, not fundamental. His modern mentality shows in his practical approach. He steered away from theoretical issues like most individuals do nowadays. Similarly, Montaigne’s modern mentality shows in his focus on first-hand experience. He wanted to draw conclusions first-hand, without distortions and inaccuracies introduced by third parties. Montaigne’s use of the first person is neither a literary nor a philosophical invention, but his tone is indisputably modern. It breaks with the timidity of prior authors, who had seldom used the first person to acknowledge their errors, fears, inadequacies and frustration. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaignes-impact-on-early-modern-philosophy/

When asked about someone’s contribution to philosophy, I reply by giving a list of his innovations. I want to underline the new concepts that he brought forth, the intellectual connections that nobody else had made until that point. In the case of Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592), I couldn’t point to any innovation. He didn’t put forward any new concept nor did he make any new intellectual connection. Thus, I don’t share the view that he contributed to early modern philosophy. Montaigne is an extraordinary author in many aspects, great in erudition and wisdom, but not a philosophical innovator. If anything, he looked at the past more than he was looking at the future. He had drawn his more enlightened ideas from antiquity in the formulations given by Seneca (4 BC-65 AD), Plutarch (46-120 AD) or Aristotle (384-322 BC). Even his theological views draw more from medievalism than from modernity. Nevertheless, Montaigne surpassed all his predecessors in a singular area: his passion from balance and perspective; no one in prior centuries had devoted so vast efforts to looking at both sides of every issue. I regard Montaigne in this respect as astonishingly modern, but more in terms of personal development than of philosophy. In order to prove my point, I’m going to refer to the only work of Montaigne that pre-existed his compiled essays, but that he published as one of them, no doubt because he was immensely proud of its contents. Montaigne had written the “Apology for Raymond Sebond” years before he decided to abandon his legal career to relocate to the countryside and devote himself to research and writing. In the “Apology for Raymond Sebond,” we find that Montaigne’s personal philosophy had already congealed. It was not a rectilinear, symmetrical intellectual construction, but did the job beautifully. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaignes-contribution-to-early-modern-philosophy/