John Vespasian

In assessing cultural influences, I find it more conclusive to look at philosophical values than at anecdotes and artifices of style. Thinkers leave behind ethical systems to live by, and the very best of those thinkers build intellectual systems to support their values. Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) belongs to the group that left behind ethical guidelines, practical and tangible, but roving and disorderly. Why? Because he cared for finding the path to happiness, but not for the implicit metaphysics, epistemology, politics and aesthetics. Due to his philosophical limitations, Montaigne has exerted a narrow influence on French literature and cultural identity. It would be an exaggeration to claim a vast influence from ideas, values and behavioural models that we can barely characterise. I am not underrating Montaigne’s work. My goal is to place it in the right context, so that we can benefit from its wisdom. I would see little benefit in going on philosophical tangents that are only thinly related to Montaigne’s purpose and logic. Let us take for instance Montaigne’s essay “On three good women.” Montaigne was in his mid-forties when he wrote this essay. His philosophical views were finalised and complete. In the ensuing decade, they would not evolve one inch. Montaigne’s purpose in this essay is straightforward. He just wants to illustrate virtuous behaviour by using three prominent historical anecdotes. Before speaking of Montaigne’s influence on French literature and cultural identity, let us pass review to those three examples. First, the widow of Ephesus. Her story was immortalised by Petronius (27-66 AD) in his “Satyricon.” Petronius tells us that, when her husband died, she felt such profound grief that she vowed to lock herself in his tomb and starve to death. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaignes-impact-on-french-literature-and-cultural-identity/

Few philosophers in history have analysed the advantages, disadvantages, and consequences of solitude. Seneca is one of those few. I regard his observations and advice in this area as particularly worthy. Seneca wrote the essay “On the Tranquillity of the Soul” precisely to explain how to achieve peace of mind. Solitude is one of his prescriptions, but we must first grasp how to benefit from it. We must first learn to employ solitude to increase our self-reliance and self-confidence. Modern readers may find the format of “On the Tranquillity of the Soul” somewhat annoying. It’s a philosophical essay, but Seneca wrote some parts of it in quasi-dialogue format. Those resemble a conversation he had held with his friend Serenus. Why did Seneca employ partly a quasi-dialogue format? Because it was fashionable at that time and easier to write. I regard Seneca’s choice as generally sound. On the one hand, Seneca was imitating the dialogue format employed by Plato (427-347 BC). Although his style is more concrete and less poetic than Plato’s, Seneca cannot escape the artificiality that ensues from imaginary conversations. I find, however, that the fact that Seneca chose to name his conversation partner “Serenus” renders their exchanges on the subject of serenity somewhat artificial. On the other hand, the dialogue format enabled Seneca to put his ideas in writing fairly quickly. He didn’t need to devise a careful, structured progression of consistent arguments. Seneca addressed one point after another, rather disorderly and repetitively, like in real-life conversations. The result is not philosophical clockwork, but covers the subject well enough. In the essay, Serenus complains about anxiety and worry like people nowadays often complain. He describes himself as disoriented and unable to make decisions. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/why-seneca-praised-solitude/

There is a perfect recipe for never getting angry or annoyed. If we stop caring and become indifferent, we won’t experience irritation when things don’t go our way. The problem with this recipe is that it will also destroy our motivation for achieving success and happiness. Seneca reflected extensively about the cause of anger and irritation. He viewed those as the root of evil and violence in general. He wrote that, if we steer away from anger and keep a cool head, we will do ourselves a great favour. In his essay “On Anger,” Seneca characterised anger as a form of mental illness. He was referring to hot, explosive ire. I would not put minor feelings of irritation in the same category. Seneca condemned all sorts of irrational anger, irrespective of reasons or context. He did not differentiate between the anger felt by a drunken fool or an irrational bully. Irrational is simply irrational. All his examples though portray evil people, not those who have been wronged. I understand why Seneca concentrated on the former. In his lifetime, he must have witnessed a great deal of injustices, but rarely seen any real chance of remedying them. When Seneca categorises anger as temporary insanity, he could have referred to King Cambyses II of Persia (558-522 BC), who got enraged while he was drunk and killed a boy for no reason. Similarly, he could have recalled how Alexander the Great (356-323 BC) became extremely angry because he had been criticised by one of his best generals. Alexander reacted by killing the man on the spot, even if the criticism had been sound and well-intended. I would have used those two cases to illustrate Seneca’s categorisation of temporary insanity, precisely because they do not typify everyday angry reactions. Seneca maintained the view that anger is irrational and superfluous, and that we should eradicate it completely, but I find his argument weak and unrealistic. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/senecas-quotes-about-anger/

The question assumes that people are still reading books in our century, instead of watching movies, playing video-games, or practising sports. Indeed, a percentage of the population still enjoys reading. Those are the only ones who purchase books. Thus, the question is wrongly formulated. Instead of asking why we should read Seneca today, I should have asked why we should read Seneca’s books instead of books by other authors. My answer entails two aspects. First, Seneca is giving a detailed, practical exposition of the Stoic philosophy, which can prove very beneficial to our life. Second, because Seneca wisely avoided mistakes made by other Stoics philosophers. Let me explain these two aspects by means of an example. I am going to compare Seneca with Aulus Persius Flaccus (34-62 AD), a Stoic poet, to illustrate the uniqueness of Seneca’s exposition of Stoicism. In contrast to Persius and the other Stoics engaging in social criticism, Seneca regarded philosophy as an individual recipe. He wanted to provide a formula for happiness for himself and his readers, irrespective of the overall state of society. Seneca was conscious of his unique perspective in this area. He wrote extensively, but never bothered to give prescriptions for a perfect world. He knew that individuals will always have to face challenges, and wanted to develop a solid philosophy to cope with those. Persius held a different view, one shared by many Stoics in Ancient Rome. He took upon himself the task of criticising the severe problems of society, but declared himself incapable of solving them. As a result, he fell into passivity and resignation. Seneca’s philosophy is proactive and prompts us to develop good intellectual and physical habits. The purpose of his ideas is to heal spiritual wounds and strengthen the mind. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/why-read-seneca-today/

Few people read books written a hundred years ago. Even fewer show interest in books written two thousand years ago. I am one of those exceptions, one of the few who regularly devotes time to reading Seneca. I love reading Seneca’s essays and his Letters to Lucilius because they deliver one important benefit: They prompt me to reassess my priorities. Seneca’s insights give me the strength to quit unpromising projects, concentrate on the key objectives, and use my time more productively. In his 5th and 20th Letters to Lucilius, Seneca presented the principle of moderation, and explained its universal, perennial interest. It doesn’t matter where we live, which profession we practise, or how old we are. We can all benefit from embracing moderation in thinking and action, argued Seneca. Thanks to his moderate policies, the Roman Emperor Augustus (63 BC-14 AD) achieved prosperity and stability. His successors abandoned his policies and almost ruined the Empire. Moderation enables us to employ our energies wisely. If we steer away from high-risk projects and extreme emotions, we’ll maintain our capacity to think clearly and work effectively. For Seneca, moderation constitutes the pillar of wisdom. In the 48th Letter to Lucilius, he warns us against blind passions. I find the lesson harder to practise than to grasp intellectually. When someone experiences success, he will face strong and frequent temptations to abandon moderation. He will see right away the advantages of immoderate action, but the drawbacks might remain hidden. Even well-educated persons can fall prey to the enticements of immoderate action. The Macedonian prince Alexander (356-323 BC), educated by Aristotle, first grew into a well-balanced youth, but changed when his father died. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/the-main-benefit-from-reading-seneca-today/

Before devoting time to reading a classical work, it is fair to ask about its relevance today. Why should I devote my energy to reading a classic? What lessons can I possibly learn from an author who lived centuries ago? Michel de #montaigne (1533-1592) is one of the few classics that passes this test with flying colours. What is the relevance level of his works today? My answer is: hundred per cent; each time that I re-read his essays, I learn new things; I mean useful, #practical things, not empty speculations. I would rather prove my case by means of an example. For this purpose, I’m going to refer to Montaigne’s essay “Various events of the same counsel.” The contemporary translation of the title is “On applying the same principle to various cases.” Montaigne’s goal is to elucidate the best method for making decisions. He was well aware that most individuals lack a fixed method for making decisions. Sometimes, they think things through and choose the safest course of action. Other times, they trust their feelings. On other occasions, they follow someone else’s advice, or simply imitate what other people are doing. Montaigne lived in the sixteenth century, but the question in his essay is perfectly applicable today. What is the best #method for making decisions? Should we stick to principles, or adopt a pragmatic, case-by-case approach? Let me underline that, when Montaigne wrote this essay, he was primarily writing for himself. He wanted to find an answer to this question because he considered it important for his own happiness. If I can make better decisions, he reasoned, I’ll avoid errors and obtain better results. Can I employ the same principle each time and reach the correct decision, or is it unrealistic to expect #principles to work on every occasion? Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaignes-relevance-today/

Until recently, society used to hold old individuals in high regard. It was recognised that wisdom comes from experience, and that learning from other people’s mistakes is more practical than making our own. Michel de #montaigne (1533-1592) made it his life’s mission to compile the wisdom of the past. He devoted twenty years of his life to writing essays, condensing the wisdom of #aristotle (384-322 BC), #seneca (4 BC-65 AD), and other ancient Greek and Roman sources. It is fair to ask whether the lessons from ancient authors are still relevant today. In fact, people had asked the same question in the sixteenth century, when Montaigne was researching and writing his essays. Montaigne had not failed to ask himself this question, but he was very particular in the way he looked for answers. Since he had fallen prey to delusions all too often, he always wanted to consider both sides of any issue. Even if he felt pretty certain of the answer, he would still go through the arguments that contradicted his views. He enjoyed playing devil’s advocate against himself and wouldn’t proclaim victory until he had disarmed his intellectual opponents. “The aim of life is to live happily and serenely,” Montaigne wrote, but this is only possible if we are aware of what we are doing. Like Aristotle in his “Nicomachean Ethics,” Montaigne regarded happiness as the goal, and philosophy as the path. Montaigne considered wisdom as the shortcut to happiness, in particular the wisdom from ancient sources and old people. In his essay “On experience,” he reaffirms the importance of learning from our personal #history and from history in general. “We learned best through trial and error,” noted Montaigne, “because that’s the natural way to learn.” He recalls that it took him some falls to learn horse-riding, but as he progressed, the falls became rarer. He eventually grew skilful enough to ride without thinking. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/the-one-reason-why-michel-de-montaigne-remains-relevant-today/

The process of philosophical development is similar to the process of learning to walk after you have suffered an injury. It takes lots of training for your muscles to work properly and in a coordinated manner. The learning process can prove tough, but works fine if you are willing to put in the hours; there are ways to accelerate and shorten the process, and from those ways, the most effective is the comparison of concepts between various philosophers. Comparisons will help you understand aspects that you had not considered before. It will sharpen and speed up your mind to an extent that you had so far regarded as impossible. In the case of #aristotle ’s theory of the soul, there is no better teaching method than comparing it to Plato’s theory of the soul. #plato , who had been a student of #socrates , taught in his school that the soul is immortal and that it preexists before entering the body. Plato further taught that the soul is on a quest for truth and knowledge, which it can acquire by remembering eternal truths encountered before birth. Plato named those eternal truths or perfect abstractions “Forms.” When Christianity began to spread in the earlier years of the Roman Empire, the soul played a central role similar to the one it had played in Plato’s philosophy. Christianity teaches that the soul is created by God and that is thus immortal. It regards the soul as the seat of all moral responsibility and teaches that the soul survives physical death. After death, the qualities acquired by the soul will lead to its salvation or punishment. Similarly, Islam regards the #soul as a person’s inner essence that will be judged in the afterlife. Depending on the qualities of the soul, a person will ascend to paradise or rot in hell. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/happiness-and-aristotles-theory-of-the-soul/

#aristotle ’s views on politics and #governance can be summed up in a few sentences: depending on the number of rulers (one, a few, everybody), political systems for the #commongood can be classified into monarchies, aristocracies, and polities. When rulers abuse their power, those three systems shall be named tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy. In order to prevent abuse of power, Aristotle advised to distribute power amongst the monarch, the aristocracy, and the people. The two paragraphs above summarise the very best Ancient Greek ideas in the area of politics and governance. Those ideas have exerted influence on Western #civilisation for hundreds of years. Still today, they continue to shape our views on how to govern society. Aristotle’s ideas have undergone attacks from many fronts, but before presenting those attacks, it is important to mention that Aristotle’s ideas constitute an elaboration of the criticisms against democracy raised by his predecessor #socrates (469-399 BC). Socrates never wrote any treatises, but we know of his ideas on politics and government through the writings of #plato (428-348 BC) and Xenophon (435-354 BC). Socrates was a sharp critic of Athenian democracy. He expected governance and politics to be guided by knowledge, wisdom, and moral virtue. Reality proved deeply disappointing because Athenian democracy was often guided by foolishness and emotions of all sorts. He was critical of Athenian democracy because it relied too much on rhetoric. Minorities suffered from the prejudice and mistakes of the majority, and the system did not offer them any possibility of redress. Socrates was against majority rule (democracy) because it only takes one skilful speaker to manipulate people’s emotions and make citizens vote against the common good. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/critics-of-aristotles-views-on-politics-and-governance/

In the next paragraphs, I am going to summarise the advice from #seneca about dealing with failure. He devoted a couple of decades to compiling his advice, not only from his personal experience, but also from other notable persons in the early Roman Empire. Seneca called for keeping adequate margins of error. I mean having a backup plan or sufficient resources to keep us above water even if the worst possible risks materialise. There is no need to become a paranoiac. It’s enough if we make a fair #assessment of the risks, and cover the most likely and lethal. History shows us, for instance, how the Roman general Pompey (106-48 BC) had painted himself into a corner. After burning all the bridges, he bet his future on one card at the Battle of Pharsalus. When Pompey lost the battle, he had nowhere safe to go, and was pushed into suicide shortly after. He would have fared better if he had devised a plan B, or if he had covered his risks in some way, avoiding total disaster. I miss in Seneca consistent explanations about how to keep reasonable margins of error in life. He should have analysed examples such as Pompey, showing that they had made a mistake. I also consider that #socrates (470-399 BC) had made the same mistake. Pompey had been foolish to bet his life on one card, but if we examine Socrates’ trial, we find exactly the same pattern. It didn’t make any sense for Socrates to let himself be spuriously accused and prosecuted. Socrates should have left #athens at an earlier stage. As soon as he learned that his enemies were plotting to accuse him, he should have left Athens and never returned again. There was no need for Socrates to play a game in which he could only lose, a game in which he had no backup plan and no resources for an #emergency exit. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/what-seneca-taught-about-dealing-with-failure/