John Vespasian

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 original article: https://johnvespasian.com/practical-examples-of-michel-de-montaignes-thoughts/

In his work “Rhetoric,” Aristotle (384-322 BC) presents the three principles of effective communication and persuasion. He names them “ethos,” “pathos,” and “logos.” “Ethos” refers to the persuasive appeal of the speaker’s own personality. If a speaker possesses credibility, trustworthiness, and charisma, he can influence the audience more easily. Aristotle called for speakers to cultivate their “ethos” day in and day out. A speaker can gain influence in his community if his actions demonstrate wisdom and virtue. A good reputation creates goodwill that will benefit the speaker whenever he calls his audience to action. By “pathos”, Aristotle meant the appeal to the audience’s emotions. Salespersons and professional speakers know how to make compelling, memorable presentations. Their objective is to evoke emotions in their listeners, so that their decisions and actions go in a certain direction. In contrast, “logos” focuses on cold logic. Aristotle advised speakers to employ arguments based on evidence, rationality, and experience. The more consistent an argument, the stronger its persuasiveness. What are the applications of rhetoric? In Ancient Greece, it was employed in debates (deliberative rhetoric), in court cases (forensic rhetoric) and in ceremonies such as weddings, burials and prize awards (epideictic rhetoric). Nowadays, teaching and commerce are the primary fields of application. Professors and salespersons must employ rhetoric each day in their presentations. Otherwise, students will fail to grasp lessons and customers will fail to place orders. Aristotle also recommended speakers to engage in a dialogue with their audience. Instead of presenting a complete argument based on logic (“logos”), you may want to present only its key premises and let the audience draw the conclusion. When people draw their own conclusion, they will believe it more strongly than if they had heard it from the speaker. If you let them come up with the missing piece in an argument, they’ll end up persuading themselves. Effective speakers combine the ethos, pathos, and logos in various percentages. While professors primarily employ the ethos and logos, salespersons will rely mostly on pathos; and attorneys, on logos. In his “Rhetoric,” Aristotle was focusing on the spoken and written word. His focus on words is understandable because, in Ancient Greece, a speaker addressing a large audience would have little use for non-verbal communication. If you are speaking to a thousand people in an amphitheatre, most of them will be barely able to see your facial expression. Your tone, what you say, and how loud you say it, will make a larger impression than your non-verbal communication. Non-verbal aspects gain relevance in close-quarter debates, sales presentations and video transmissions that relay details to the audience. In those cases, it’s crucial that the speaker’s facial expression and body language are aligned with his message. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/aristotles-theory-of-rhetoric-and-persuasion/

Aristotle (384-322 BC) presented his theory of aesthetics in his work “Poetics,” which is primarily devoted to literature and theatre. For defining art, Aristotle employed the Greek word “mimesis,” which means “imitation.” Every form of art involves an imitation of reality according to the artist’s standpoint. The artistic imitation of reality can be more or less accurate, but needs to be recognisable. A random shape on a canvas or a meaningless poem do not constitute art because they have nothing to do with reality. Art can be produced for various types of physical support. In Aristotle’s times, the main types of art were the performing arts (poetry and theatre) and the objectified arts (architecture, painting and sculpture). In later centuries, art has been produced for other physical supports such as books (novels and short stories), movies and television shows, music, opera, ballet, etc. Artistic perception is limited to the human senses (vision, sound, touch, smell and taste), but new physical supports can enrich the experience. Although movies and theatre plays are perceived exactly by the same senses, nobody would contest that movies can offer a richer experience. “Poetics” revolves around theatre plays that possess a linear structure, a single purpose, and tight temporal unity. Aristotle regarded such theatre plays as artistic archetypes. Aristotle’s preference for a strong unity of plot (for instance, stories taking place in a single location and within twenty-four hours) makes theatre plays comprehensible and cohesive. Unity of plot is the application of Aristotle’s final causation to literature, in the same way as happiness is the application of final causation to ethics. In plays, novels, movies and television shows, we all prefer tightly-knit stories. We want to read or watch narratives where the events are linked by cause-and-effect, not by serendipity. Aristotle’s artistic formula has remained valid for centuries. It has widened only when technology rendered it possible to use new physical supports. The invention of the printing press enabled the publication of novels, and the invention of moving pictures enabled the production of feature movies. Nonetheless, Aristotle’s essential insight has remained true, namely, that well-structured stories, songs, paintings, buildings and sculptures will generate a deeper emotional response. It is the artist’s task to create a structure that reflects his standpoint. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/aristotles-philosophy-of-aesthetics/

In contrast to thinkers preaching altruism and self-sacrifice, the theory of virtue developed by Aristotle (384-322 BC) aims at the achievement of happiness. Similarly, Aristotle regarded character development as a tool for facilitating happiness. Aristotle wrote two treatises presenting his theory of virtue and character development, namely, the “Nicomachean Ethics” and the “Eudemian Ethics.” He wrote or dictated those two works in the years between 335 BC and 321 BC, while he was teaching at the Lyceum, the school he had opened in Athens. According to Aristotle, the practice of virtues (which he had defined as habits that lead to achievement and happiness) helps not only the individual, but also society as a whole. Nonetheless, the primary addressee of Aristotelian ethics is the individual, not society. Individuals benefit directly if they practise courage, honesty, diligence, promptness, persistence, justice, benevolence, generosity, and other rational virtues. Society draws benefits when people practise rational virtues in pursuit of their own happiness, but has no right to demand altruism and self-sacrifice. Aristotle regarded courage, honesty, and justice as selfish virtues that end up benefiting everybody. Aristotle considered character development an essential part of education. Schools should teach not only facts such as those in history, geography, physics, and biology. It is crucial that schools also help students develop good habits (virtues) and a character or personality that leads to happiness. In the “Nicomachean Ethics,” Aristotle stated that the main goal of wisdom is to differentiate good from evil. If you make virtuous choices, you will achieve happiness. If you don’t, you will suffer the consequences. Character development aims at making virtuous decisions automatically. Through learning and constant practice, the students should develop courage, honesty, justice and all other rational virtues, so that they become second nature to them. A person of character will make good choices automatically, except in exceedingly complex cases where it’s not clear which side to choose. Character development doesn’t guarantee a total absence of mistakes, but when mistakes do occur, those will be identified and amended. Aristotle’s philosophy of virtue and character development is profoundly different from the philosophy of Plato (429-347 BC). Plato had outlined his ideas on virtue and ethics in his work “The Republic,” where he considered virtue as a state of harmony between reason, spirit and basic instincts, with reason playing the governing role. In contrast to Aristotle, Plato had not regarded happiness as the primary goal of human life. Plato’s theory of virtue and character development is driven by enlightenment or revelation of mystical knowledge, not by happiness. According to Plato, knowledge is deposited in an intangible, mystic world of pure abstractions (which he called “the world of forms”). A person grows wise only if he gains access to the world of forms. In the absence of access, he is condemned to ignorance and frequent errors. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/aristotles-theory-of-virtue-and-character-development/

It’s unfortunate that modern philosophers have devoted vast efforts to attacking the self-confident and optimistic views put forward by Aristotle (384-322 BC) on human nature and life’s purpose. Aristotle conveyed his main premise in his works “Politics,” “Eudemian Ethics” and “Nicomachean Ethics,” namely, that it is the essence of human beings to be rational. In contrast to all animals, we can think, assess facts, develop theories, draw our own conclusions, and test them against reality. While animals have narrow choices, humans can determine which goals to pursue, how to allocate their energies and their other resources, how hard and how long to work. Humans are uniquely able to shape their lives and make their own luck. Aristotle identified happiness as the primary goal of human life and defined ethics as the science of achieving happiness. In Aristotelian philosophy, virtues are defined as habits that lead to happiness, not as social obligations. Individuals are the main beneficiaries of their own virtues, but not the only ones. Society as a whole will also benefit when individuals adopt Aristotelian virtues such as courage, honesty, benevolence, truthfulness, generosity, and justice. Aristotle’s view of human nature is exceedingly optimistic. I do not know of any other philosopher who had developed from scratch such optimistic ethics. Aristotle viewed the attainment of happiness as normal, not as exceptionally difficult. Despite challenges and setbacks, human beings can achieve happiness if they practise the Aristotelian virtues in the pursuit of the long-term goals that they have chosen for themselves. If you read Aristotle’s “Nicomachean Ethics,” you’ll perceive the strength of his optimism. The Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) is responsible for initiating a deeply pessimistic trend in modern thought. To his credit Kierkegaard, condemned the abstract delusions put forward by Hegel (1770-1831). He rejected Hegel’s theory that history and human destiny are driven by a universal spirit, against which individuals are powerless. In contrast to Hegel, Kierkegaard emphasised freedom and individual responsibility. Each of us is responsible for making his own choices, setting up goals and pursuing them. However, Kierkegaard did not share Aristotle’s optimism. While Aristotle regarded achievement and happiness as the normal outcomes of human efforts, Kierkegaard was controlled by anguish. This anxiety is visible in his later works “Fear and Trembling” (1843) and “Sickness unto Death” (1849). Aristotle did not deny the difficulties in human existence. In his “Eudemian Ethics” and “Nicomachean Ethics,” he viewed courage as the pillar virtue upon which all other virtues rest. In order to achieve happiness, you’ll need courage and hard work. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/modern-attacks-against-aristotles-thoughts-on-human-nature/

History provides compelling illustrations of the rhetoric and persuasion techniques identified by Aristotle (384-322 BC) in his work “Rhetoric.” Each example is using the Aristotelian ethos (speaker’s reputation), pathos (emotional tone) and logos (rational arguments) in various proportions. Demosthenes (384-322 BC), who was born in the same year as Aristotle and died roughly at the same age as Aristotle, gave inspiration for the Aristotelian principles of rhetoric. He made repeated speeches in Athens, explaining the threats arising from King Philip II of Macedonia. Those speeches had the goal of convincing Athenian citizens to prepare the defence of their city against upcoming attacks from Macedonia. Demosthenes’ speeches strongly relied on pathos (emotional tone). They made passionate appeals to honour, patriotism, and self-preservation. They produced outrage and indignation with the goal of awakening the listeners’ desire to fight. The pathos employed by Demosthenes was forceful, intense and relentless. He used compelling imagery (“do you want to become slaves to Macedonia?”), extreme descriptions (“you will lose everything and will be mistreated”) and then repeated the main themes (“take action now, or it will soon be too late”) to drive his point home. In 341 BC, Demosthenes delivered his most famous speech against King Philip II of Macedonia. He described the horrors that would take place if Athens was conquered by Macedonia, and made an urgent call to arms. Together with the emotional undertone (“horrible things are about to happen”), Demosthenes employed the logos. He made logical arguments in favour of gathering an army to prepare the defence of Athens. In his logical argumentation, he addressed one by one every possible objection to his call to arms. How do we know that Macedonia intends to attack Athens? What happens if we lose the war? Is it not better to accept slavery than fighting? After enunciating the objections, Demosthenes demolished them systematically. He wanted his listeners to grow afraid and grasp intellectually that fighting was the best course of action. Demosthenes also put the Aristotelian ethos (the speaker’s reputation) to work to his advantage. He reminded people of his decades-long engagement in Athenian public life and of his participation in past battles to defend Athens. Pericles (490-429 BC), another talented speaker, was also Aristotle’s contemporary. His leadership in the Peloponnesian War and his funerary oration in honour of the fallen Athenian soldiers exemplify the best in Aristotle’s theory of rhetoric. We know the contents of the funerary oration delivered by Pericles in 431 BC because Thucydides (460-400 BC) included an extensive report in his “History of the Peloponnesian War.” The objective of Pericles’ speech was to say farewell to the deceased and exalt the virtues of Athenian democracy. I would go as far as saying that he was using the deceased soldiers as a pretext to arouse patriotism and recruit new soldiers (“are you committed to defending Athenian freedom?”). Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/examples-of-aristotles-theory-of-rhetoric-and-persuasion/

After Aristotle’s death in 322 BC, it did not take long for the world to forget his contributions to educational theory. His idea that the purpose of life is happiness received attacks from all sides. His definition of virtues as “habits leading to happiness” fell into oblivion. His view of education as a process of teaching virtues became a minority opinion. In the Middle Ages, education became deeply dominated by religion. Its contents became anti-Aristotelian, even if the ideas put forward by Aristotle had remained in the curriculum. The revival of Aristotelian education began in the sixteenth century, where scholastic professors such as Francisco Suarez (1548-1617) attempted to combine faith with reason. Suarez and the other scholastics at Salamanca University loved to quote at the same time theologians such as Augustine (354-430) and Aristotle’s “Categories” and “Metaphysics.” Their attempts resulted in a mishmash of logic, classicism, and mysticism. By the time Francisco Suarez wrote his book “Metaphysical Disputations,” he had gained access to all of Aristotle’s works thanks to Arabic and Byzantine sources. In contrast to Aristotle’s educational advice (“teach students to become virtuous, so that they can achieve happiness”), the education in ensuing centuries concentrated on learning facts and acquiring skills. For instance in the Middle Ages, the educational curriculum revolved around the “Trivium” and the “Quadrivium.” Pupils were taught the trivium before starting the quadrivium. The trivium consisted of grammar, rhetoric and logic, which medieval teachers regarded as the most basic subjects. Today, we would categorise the trivium as humanities or liberal arts. In contrast, the quadrivium contained subjects that today we categorise primarily as science and technology. The medieval quadrivium encompassed arithmetic, geometry, astronomy and music. Compared to the trivium, the quadrivium was regarded as advanced learning. One of the main problems of medieval education is the very limited number of schools. In ancient Athens, Plato (428-347 BC) had operated his school “The Academy” and Aristotle had opened his school “The Lyceum.” In medieval Europe, schools were mostly located at monasteries and mixed education with religious proselytism. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/opponents-to-aristotles-views-on-education/

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

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

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