John Vespasian

Few philosophers agree with the positive views on solitude put forward by Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860). I am going to make comparisons, identify the differences, and look for the truth. Aristotle (384-322 BC) acknowledged the value of solitude for learning and self-awareness, but considered it impossible for humans to reach their full potential without social connections. By “social connections,” Aristotle did not mean only family and friends; his definition of “social connections” encompasses the “polis,” that is, a Greek city with a population around three hundred thousand people in the case of Athens. In his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle defines “eudaimonia” (translated as “happiness”) as the outcome of flourishing. It’s a dynamic state of mind arising from activities: work, art, sports, learning, etc. A large part of those activities require social interaction. It’s possible to achieve happiness in solitude, but not to the highest level. For instance, the pleasure of conversation with friends or from competing in sports cannot be easily replaced. Like Schopenhauer, Aristotle held solitude in high regard in order to enhance self-reliance and self-confidence. It supplies a quiet environment for examining one’s actions, identifying one’s goals, and making plans for the future. In the Middle Ages, the balance tipped in favour of solitude, which many regarded as a virtue. For instance, St. Francis of Assisi (1181-1226) often retired into the woods for periods of solitary reflection. Solitude, although intermittent, was an important part of St. Francis’ lifestyle, coupled to poverty, simplicity and spirituality in the Christian context. St. Francis regarded solitude as a method for achieving a deep understanding of God, nature and society. During his long retirements, he sought tranquillity and practised prayer. From time to time, he walked away from his community to spend a couple of weeks in a cave, forest, or little hermitage in the mountains. In contrast to Schopenhauer, St. Francis didn’t view solitude as a tool for self-development in the sense of skill learning. On the contrary, St. Francis resorted to solitude to learn humility. He wanted to detach himself from pride, ambition and material possessions. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/analysis-of-schopenhauers-views-on-solitude/

Like most great philosophers, Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) considered education as a lifetime activity. Schooling is only the first step, however necessary, and should build at the same time the student’s character, knowledge, and skills. Schopenhauer was very precise in defining the purpose of moral education; the principal purpose is to help students build their self-awareness and self-discipline. Self-awareness enables individuals to perceive the influence of the will (“life force”), identify the risks and assess the costs. Self-discipline allows them to implement the countermeasures to minimise the influence of the will and increase happiness. In his book “The world as will and representation,” (1818), Schopenhauer spoke in favour of developing self-awareness as a prerequisite for other virtues. In order to acquire the virtue of prudence, you must grow aware of the dangers of imprudence. According to Schopenhauer, education should teach people to make good decisions, that is, decisions that avert, minimise, or remedy suffering, or that help increase one’s happiness. In his book “Two fundamental problems in ethics” (1843), Schopenhauer stated that the purpose of ethics is to steer away from suffering, and cultivate tranquillity and inner peace. When it comes to education, the same goals should apply. It does not make sense, argued Schopenhauer, to give priority to rote learning and conformity. Memorisation cannot help you develop self-awareness and self-reliance. The ability to think critically is a prerequisite for averting the negative influence of the will; thus, it’s crucial that students learn to think independently. Schopenhauer did not prescribe a precise school curriculum, but gave guidelines about how to educate oneself. He regarded education as a lifetime process, not as a predetermined path. The more we learn, he remarked, the more we discover how much we still do not know. Self-awareness grows when students (or readers) open their field of vision as a result of their learning. People become self-aware when they start to look critically at themselves and their own actions. The wider your field of vision, the deeper your awareness. Solitude is another prerequisite for becoming self-aware. I am talking about the regular solitude periods (a few hours each day) that are necessary for reading complex texts and grasping their content. Schopenhauer considered the study of a limited number of well-selected books more beneficial than wide, indiscriminate reading of hundreds of volumes. The size of your library does not determine the size of your wisdom because reading becomes useful (“wisdom”) only after having integrated the ideas and data into coherent principles. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauer-and-the-philosophy-of-education/

The possibility of drawing teachings from Eastern religion didn’t occur immediately to Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860). It does not appear in his early work “About the fourfold root of the principle of sufficient reason” (1808) and only starts to take shape in “The world as will and representation” (1818). Schopenhauer grew acquainted with Buddha’s teachings in the years after 1815. Initially, he read extensively about the life of Siddhartha Gautama, the creator of Buddhism. The insights gained by Siddhartha Gautama appear rather harsh for thinkers trained in Western philosophy. Buddhism in its original form entails a radical rejection of Western comforts and values. Schopenhauer was unwilling to endorse a radical rejection. I have no problem understanding his logic; he wanted Buddhism to enrich his life, not to render it miserable; he wanted to attain higher levels of happiness, not to give up happiness altogether. In the sixth century of our era, Bodhidharma (also called Da Mo) made the ideas of Siddhartha Gautama even more radical. When Bodhidharma said that “everybody knows the way, but few people actually walk it,” he was appealing to emotions and demanding visceral reactions. He wasn’t offering a smooth path from Western philosophy to a Buddhist lifestyle. Those radical teachings did not appear to Schopenhauer. He had realized that Buddhism had very much to offer in terms of stress reduction but was unwilling to abandon the comforts and sophistication of Western culture. Schopenhauer found after further research a milder form of Buddhism, a form that appears more practicable to the Western mind. The developer of this milder variant was Nagarjuna, a Buddhist thinker of the second century of our era. Nagarjuna presented himself as a follower of all Siddhartha Gautama’s precepts, but developed additional doctrines that are known as The Middle Way. Nagarjuna’s doctrines are outlined in poetic sentences compiled by his disciples. According to Nagarjuna, we can overcome all suffering and achieve enlightenment if we understand the nature of reality and act accordingly. The process of understanding, he said, can require extensive meditation, accompanied by study. Schopenhauer did not care much for the stories of miracles attributed to Nagarjuna and other Buddhists thinkers. Miracles cannot be reproduced by the reader. Schopenhauer was mainly interested in techniques for stress reduction, increasing one’s effectiveness, and making better decisions. Nagarjuna had acknowledged the suffering inherent in each individual existence. He wrote that “birth is suffering, ageing is suffering, illness is suffering, a displeasing environment is suffering, loss of pleasure is suffering, frustration is suffering, and death is suffering and inescapable.” Those elements are dominated by the will (“life force”) that Schopenhauer had described in his book “The world as will and representation. Nagarjuna’s teachings are greatly appealing to people who want to keep suffering at bay without having to renounce the world. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauers-teachings-drawn-from-buddhism/

Artistic contemplation plays a major role in the philosophy of Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860). Art conveys reality in an immediate manner, enabling humans to grasp crucial elements without need of complex explanations. According to Schopenhauer, artistic contemplation enables people to escape the dire influence of the will (“life force”) and increase their self-awareness. In his books “The world as will and representation” (1818) and “Parerga and Paralipomena” (1851), Schopenhauer shows how to avert the influence of the will and improve one’s life by making better decisions. Artistic contemplation constitutes a method to step aside for a while from the relentless pressure exerted by the will. I view artistic contemplation as the easiest method for stepping aside, perceiving the whole picture, and assessing one’s actions. What are the advantages of artistic contemplation compared with intellectual analysis? There are several advantages. In the first place, immediacy; artworks can convey insights that every person can grasp right away without further explanation. Second, art’s power to command attention and make people forget temporarily about pressing problems. The will is making pressure all the time on humans to pursue their primal desires. It can wear people out and drive them into despair. Fortunately, art can draw and hold their attention for a while, giving them a respite from their preoccupations. Third, art enables humans to transcend individual desires or problems, engage into a state of contemplation, and become one with the world. Art enables individuals to feel at peace, in harmony with the universe, unaffected by the will. In “The world and will and representation,” Schopenhauer distinguishes between two types of artistic experiences. On the one hand, he speaks of “the experience of the sublime,” and on the other hand, of “the experience of the beautiful.” By “sublime,” Schopenhauer means feelings of grandeur or overwhelming awe, such as watching a sunset in the mountains or on the beach. By “beauty,” Schopenhauer means artworks that generate a feeling of harmony and pleasant proportionality, for example, watching a ballet performance, or looking at one of the villas built by Palladio in Vicenza. More often than not, beauty results from calculated, devoted actions of the artist. It typically entails idealising forms, shapes or sounds in order to enhance their harmony and proportion. It renders objects appealing and significant. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauers-philosophy-of-art-and-beauty/

When Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) studied Indian or Hindu philosophy, he didn’t restrict himself to the foundational texts. He read the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita but those lack the subtle interpretations made by Hindu thinkers across the centuries. Schopenhauer adopted early in his career some Hindu tenets and conveyed them, in his own words, in his book “The world as will and representation” first published in 1818. For instance, Schopenhauer wrote that the pursuit of short- term pleasure leads to disillusionment, because the hunger for additional pleasures cannot be stilled. It’s going to lead to more cravings, desires, and frustration. This Hindu insight perfectly matches Schopenhauer’s theory of the will (“life force”); unless you adopt countermeasures for minimising the negative influence of the will, you are going to be driven into self-destruction. From classical Hindu wisdom, Schopenhauer subscribed to the need of enlightenment. To people who want to escape or at least minimise the painful influence of the will, Schopenhauer recommended the cultivation of self-awareness. The first step towards solving problems or surmounting any obstacles is to acknowledge its existence. Enlightenment is not automatic, neither in Hindu philosophy nor in Schopenhauer. It is going to require in all cases a full reassessment of events, constraints, and worldly attachments. All students of the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita grow to find self-reliance in the stillness of their minds. The process is arduous and demanding, but one’s peace of mind depends on philosophical enlightenment. Schopenhauer deepened himself in the process by studying the works of Adi Shankara, a Hindu philosopher who lived in the eighth and ninth centuries of our era. Shankara wrote very extensive commentaries to the Upanishads and Bhagavad Gita, and came up with subtle interpretations. For Shankara, the individual soul or “Atman” constitutes a higher reality that each person must build for himself. People who fail to build their “Atman” are going to fall prey to stress, anxiety and discouragement when confronted with the world’s chaos. Schopenhauer adopted Shankara’s emphasis on self-growth, that is, on the cultivation of a personal “Atman.” If you fail to do that, the will is going to control your life and prompt you to make harmful decisions, argued Schopenhauer. Nonetheless, there is a crucial difference between Shankara and Schopenhauer. The former was driven by religious thought and his emphasis on the “Atman” led him to view the external world as delusion. Schopenhauer aimed at philosophical accuracy and viewed the “Atman” as a complement to perception, not as an enemy. I am against using words such as “delusion” or “mirage” when translating Schopenhauer’s definition of the external world. It’s far more accurate to employ the word “distorted.” Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/differences-between-schopenhauer-and-indian-philosophy/

Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) wrote extensively but the structure of his thoughts is sometimes disrupted. The reason is not difficult to fathom. He did not have a word processor and it was hard for him to edit his handwritten texts. In this respect, he was facing the same problem as any other author during the Renaissance. Nonetheless, his essays remain entertaining even when he goes into tangents. I have reread Montaigne through the years and red-marked my favourite essays. Despite the vast variety of subjects, there is one idea that permeates them all, namely, the idea that living according to reason is superior to any other lifestyle. Montaigne’s essay “Fortune is often met in the pursuit of reason” constitutes the best example of this principle. It gives a presentation of the advantages of living according to reason. On the one hand, reason leads to better decisions that, more often than not, lead to better results. On the other hand, even in times of adversity, reason will tilt the odds in your favour. You may suffer occasionally, but less intensely than foolish people. The key question addressed by Montaigne in “Fortune is often met in the pursuit of reason” is the extent to which we can control our life and happiness through reason. In other words, he asks whether luck plays a larger role than planning in the outcome. Montaigne supplies historical evidence proving his point. In no way is he affirming that reason is all-powerful, but he does say that reason gives us the best possible guidance. Bad luck can hit us even with the best preparations, but in those cases, the damage will be limited. For instance, reason should prompt people to diversify their risks. If you are a merchant, you should seek to acquire many clients, so that you are not dependent on just a few of them. In your social life, you should aim at acquiring a sizeable number of friends, so that you are not devastated if you lose a few of them. Montaigne presents his advice as follows “It is pleasant and profitable to have many iron bars in the fire, and keep several projects going at once because if one project fails, another one might succeed.” In addition, reason should prompt individuals to maintain an adequate margin of safety in their projects. You do not want to invest all your resources in one project, especially if there are high risks involved. Bad luck can hit anyone any time. We are to remain prudent if we want to ensure our survival and peace of mind. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/practical-examples-of-michel-de-montaignes-thoughts/

In his pursuit of reason, effectiveness and happiness, Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) devoted extensive efforts to assess risks; he recorded his reflections and conclusions in essays like “On one saying of Caesar.” Montaigne refers to a saying from Caesar just to start his discussion about risk. He wants to establish the role played by reason and luck in human achievement and happiness. Here is the saying from Caesar that Montaigne is employing to start the discussion: “It is not for the well-born to go to war, but for the born fortunate, because participants in war will find it hard to escape misfortune.” Let me first clarify that Montaigne’s wording “for the well-born” does not only refer to aristocrats or wealthy individuals. Montaigne also means people of ability and virtue, people who possess skills and work hard. He is referring to any person who can expect success in life under normal circumstances. Montaigne uses this particular saying of Caesar because it is making a striking comparison between peacetime and wartime. In peacetime, that is, in normal circumstances, one can expect skilful, hard-working people to do well. One can expect them to do far better than incompetent, lazy people. Incompetent, lazy people might purchase a lottery ticket and win a large prize. That’s conceivable but highly unlikely. The odds are heavily tilted against individuals who do not possess skills and do not desire to work. Winning at the lottery is not a sound strategy for succeeding in life. Montaigne then points to the second part in Caesar’s saying, the part that refers to wartime. The odds change massively during wartime because random death invalidates the value of productive skills and hard work. Even a genius computer programmer can get randomly shot in a battle. His knowledge and dedication to productiveness are irrelevant under mortar fire. There were no mortars in Caesar’s lifetime but battles were equally unpredictable. Random death increases the value of good luck. Montaigne draws the conclusion that, in normal times, one can trust productiveness to work in one’s favour. He says that fortune presents us challenges and opportunities, but that it is up to us to confront the challenges and seize the opportunities. Nonetheless, Montaigne warns us against trusting reason to the maximum extent. Even if you develop skills and work very hard, luck still plays a role. Circumstances might turn against you even if your plans are well-thought. Montaigne formulates his warning in the following way: “Men believe that they control their own fortune through their own industry and foresight, but those cannot always counteract malign influences.” Indeed, it does not pay to be arrogant because bad luck will always play a role. Nevertheless, I have observed that the role played by luck tends to diminish over time. The value of skills and hard work tends to win in the long run. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaigne-thoughts-on-risk/

Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) is the archetypical writer from the Renaissance, the archetypical example of Humanism. Nowadays, his ideas are almost forgotten. They are no longer taught in today’s education system; the study of classical Greek and Roman history, philosophy and literature are no longer a priority. What is Humanism? The concept is related to “humanity” in the sense of ethical values, but it possesses a larger meaning. When we talk about Humanism, we mean classical learning, that is, the study of Greek and Roman antiquity. Montaigne devoted twenty years of his life to studying and writing about Greek and Roman antiquity with the objective of drawing practical lessons. He was looking for hands-on advice to solve his own problems, and drew inspiration from ancient sources. The subjects addressed by Montaigne in his “Essays” fall in multiple categories, namely, historical, social, health, military, family, relationships, and literary commentary. However, the underlying themes in most of Montaigne’s essays are success and happiness. Montaigne employed the Humanist approach in his essays, that is, a mixture of introspection, careful research of ancient sources, respect for individual liberty, and critical thinking. He quoted ancient authors to examine their ideas, not to follow them blindly. When it comes to the Humanist approach, Montaigne can be best compared to Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536). I prefer Montaigne because of his practical mentality. Erasmus had a larger erudition, but often got lost in theological criticism. Montaigne had a rather romantic view of ancient Greece and Rome. He knew in depth the works of Seneca (4-65 AD), Plutarch (46-120 AD) and Cicero (106-43 BC), but rarely took notice of the higher standard of living in the sixteenth century compared to antiquity. He also had a tendency to exaggerate the social and political problems in the sixteenth century compared to antiquity. For instance, Montaigne often complains about “the corruption of our age” without realising that corruption was equally high or higher in the times of Seneca, Plutarch, and Cicero. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaigne-and-humanism/

In his “Essays,” Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) often called for reason and tolerance. Those are distinctive features of humanism, together with critical thinking, a love of ancient history, and a strong preference for experience over theory. Montaigne was aware that sheer distance, whether temporal or geographical, can prompt people to suspicion. He wrote that “every person calls barbarous things that he is unaccustomed to.” Indeed, we tend to consider the opinions, customs, and prejudices of the country where we live to be correct. Humanism endorses precisely the opposite idea. It calls for open-mindedness and fairness when confronting new ideas. It’s sceptical of apparent truths until they have been subjected to a careful examination. I consider Montaigne’s essay “On some verses of Virgil” a great example of humanistic open-mindedness and fairness. Its exploration of ancient Roman mores doesn’t lead to immediate condemnation. Instead, it asks the right questions and looks for credible answers. The essay contains numerous quotations from Virgil (70-19 BC), the ancient Roman poet. The quotations are drawn from Virgil’s major work titled “Aeneid.” Curiously enough, Virgil himself was practising in “Aeneid” his own version of humanism by comparing recent events with older ones. He recounts the episode where Aeneas is visiting Carthage and encounters paintings about the Trojan War in a religious building. As a result, Aeneas begins to “shed tears for passed things and his mind is inundated with thoughts about death.” The incident gives Montaigne an excuse to quote a dozen other verses, where Virgil is making philosophical remarks or direct observations about life in ancient Rome. One of the most-widely quoted verses from Virgil is “Love conquers everything.” Montaigne philosophises about human nature in ancient and present times, concluding that love has remained a strong element in how we make decisions. Montaigne’s observations aren’t particularly profound when he chooses Virgil’s verses about basic human emotions. He exults the love of parents for their children as another strong, constant factor in society, and calls for children to reciprocate the love from their parents. Virgil had commended children to “look at their mother with a smile because she had carried them inside her for nine months.” Fair enough, Montaigne was as aware as Virgil was that not every child will behave lovingly and obediently. Concerning human nature, Montaigne quotes Virgil’s brief remark about women. It reads as follows: “Women tend to remain fickle and changeable.” Does this remark not denote gender prejudice? Montaigne compares the quotation with his own experience with women in the sixteenth century, that is, his contemporaries. Montaigne also reproduces a verse from Virgil about human insouciance and self-delusion. It refers to the tendency to keep our eyes closed or turn our heads when events don’t match our expectations. As Virgil noted, it’s dangerous to remain oblivious to danger and risks, even if obliviousness brings short-term comfort. This is the original quotation from Virgil: “How can you sleep in the middle of a crisis? Can you not see the dangers that threaten you?” Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/examples-of-michel-de-montaigne-and-humanism/

Critical thinking is the key characteristic of the writings of Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592), who symbolises the spirit of the Renaissance. Mind you, the social and political context at that time was very different from our century. Daring to say what you think was far from self-evident in the Renaissance. Montaigne exercised critical thinking in his “Essays,” which address dozens of different subjects. He writes about literature, history, theology, friendship, love relationships, and his own method of writing, just to mention some of his subjects. His treatment of all subjects is erudite and thoughtful, while keeping it entertaining and practical. His goal in reviewing the past is to draw lessons for the present and future. He employs a story from ancient Rome as an excuse to criticise his peers and speak in favour of justice and tolerance of minority opinions. Nonetheless, Montaigne remained prudent in his opinions. You will not find in his “Essays” any direct attack against the French monarchy, its decisions or legitimacy. If you compare Montaigne with his contemporary Giordano Bruno, you’ll get the impression that Montaigne never took any personal risks. Giordano Bruno (1548-1600) did in Italy what Montaigne had done in France, but taking much higher risks. Bruno didn’t content himself with raising ethical questions or commenting on history. Instead, Bruno spoke publicly about uncomfortable subjects and put forward controversial theories. While Montaigne was studying in a private school, Bruno became a priest. At age 15, he joined the Dominican Order, and this enabled him to study theology and philosophy. Montaigne, during his historical and theological comments, found discrepancies and contradictions in mainstream beliefs, but kept his criticism soft. He exercised toleration for errors, in the midst of a society driven by prejudice. Bruno proved unable to keep his criticism soft and ended up leaving the Dominican convent where he lived. He then started travelling across Europe, mostly Switzerland and France. The purpose of his travels was to look for a position enabling him to earn a living, mostly teaching. Montaigne also travelled around Europe, mostly Italy, but in his mind, he had different goals than Bruno. Montaigne was ill, suffering from kidney stones, and was trying to find a cure. He spent months at various thermal baths, seeking to reduce his chronic pain, but it was to no avail. The Renaissance spirit combines the sharp criticism from a travelling theologian like Bruno with the hands-on approach of Montaigne. Both men embody the Renaissance, but they took very different paths. Montaigne wrote about Virgil, Alexander the Great, ancient Rome, Troy, and other subjects in a pleasant, entertaining tone. In contrast, Bruno threw oil into the theological debate in his books “On the infinite universe” and “The expulsion of the triumphant beast.” While Montaigne stopped short at any direct attacks on his peers, Bruno offended the Catholic hierarchy by engaging in a harsh debate on astronomy. He endorsed the ideas of Nicolas Copernicus (1463-1543), that is, that the earth revolves around the sun, and not the sun around the earth. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaigne-and-the-renaissance/