John Vespasian

The study of history and philosophy is pointless unless you can draw hands-on advice. Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) had understood perfectly the need to draw practical, tangible conclusions from the study of antiquity. I regard Montaigne’s essay “On Democritus and Heraclitus” as one of the best examples in the genre of critical history. Its contents are erudite and the quotations fascinating, but above all, Montaigne is seeking the truth. What is the best philosophy for achieving happiness here and now? Democritus and Heraclitus are roughly contemporary, that is, both lived in around 500 BC. Let us take a look at their key ideas, which represent two opposite philosophical standpoints. On the one hand, Democritus is one of the first proponents of the atomistic theory. He maintained that everything, objects or creatures, in the cosmos are composed of small particles that he called “atoms.” He also theorised that the absence of atoms means void. Democritus held overall materialistic and rational views. On the other hand, Heraclitus sustained that everything in the world, whether animate or inanimate, is subject to constant change. He famously said that “nobody can step twice into the same river” because the flowing water is constantly changing the river composition; for Heraclitus, every object and creature in the world is subject to constant change, conflict, or pressure. In this essay, Montaigne is comparing the morality ideas of Democritus and Heraclitus. He wants to identify what are their recipes for happiness, and which of them make the most sense. Based on his atomic theory, Democritus considers the world orderly and predictable. The universe is governed by natural laws, and the outcome of actions is primarily mechanistic. His recipe for happiness is based on his mechanistic world-view. If we want to do well in life, we should make careful plans and follow them through, correcting errors as we go. Heraclitus takes the opposite path. He regards the universe as a perpetual flux. Reality has no stable essence. The common element to all objects and subjects is their transitory nature. It’s pointless for us to make very detailed plans because we inhabit an unpredictable, ever-changing world. If we want to achieve happiness, we should accept change, remain flexible, and seize opportunities as they arise. What is Montaigne’s conclusion after studying Democritus and Heraclitus? In the essay, Montaigne declines to take sides, arguing that there are important lessons to learn from each. We should embrace Democritus’ rational approach for planning our projects, but at the same time, it’s advisable to implement the recommendations given by Heraclitus. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/democritus-and-heraclitus-in-montaignes-classical-philosophy/

Together with scepticism and hedonism, stoicism exerted a strong influence on Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592). About one third of his “Essays” convey the doctrines of stoicism. I am referring to the doctrines put forward by Epictetus, Seneca, and Marcus Aurelius in the first century of our era. Seneca produced a large output in terms of philosophical writings, but Epictetus was closer to Montaigne’s heart because of his concise formulations. Where Seneca wrote a whole letter (about twenty pages), Epictetus wrote a few lines. Epictetus (50-135 AD) formulated his ideas in compelling, elegant sentences, providing ideal quotations for Montaigne’s essays. Nonetheless, Epictetus’ thoughts must have been edited by his disciples, the ones that actually put them in writing. According to the tradition, Epictetus had been born a slave in Hierapolis, Phrygia, a Greek settlement that is located in today’s Turkey. In his youth, Epictetus was brought to Rome. His master, named Epaphroditus, occupied a high position in the Roman imperial administration under Nero. Epictetus was allowed to learn to read, so that he could help in his master’s business. Over the years, he delivered such good help that Epaphroditus released him from slavery. After becoming a freedman, Epictetus taught philosophy in Rome by using a hands-on approach. He recommends living in accordance with nature and reason, focusing on actions that are within our control, and accepting the constraints we cannot change. When Emperor Domitian expelled philosophers from Rome in the year 89 AD, Epictetus relocated to Nicopolis in Greece. He was around forty years old at that time. In the next decade, he taught hundreds of students, including the future Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius. Montaigne was very familiar with the writings of Epictetus, that is, with the records written by Arrian, one of Epictetus’ students at the end of the first century of our era. The two compilations of Epictetus’ philosophy are known as “The Discourses” and “The Enchiridion.” The latter is shorter, much more concise. In his essays, Montaigne quoted liberally from both. Montaigne takes over the two main ideas contained in “The Discourses” and “The Enchiridion.” Those two ideas constitute the essence of ancient stoicism. Montaigne applies those ideas to various areas of human activity, giving extensive examples. From “The Discourses,” Montaigne is referring to Epictetus’ key conclusion, namely, that happiness depends more on one’s attitude than on external circumstances. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/stoicism-michel-de-montaigne-and-classical-philosophy/

When Michel de Montaigne referred to classical philosophy in his “Essays,” his goal was to illustrate a particular point or give credibility to a certain argument. Montaigne (1533-1592) was not interested in classical philosophy as such. His primary and constant interest was the theory of happiness. Classical authors gave Montaigne a helping hand in his own philosophical path. Montaigne’s essay “A Consideration Upon Cicero” provides a paramount example of how to employ classical philosophy for addressing today’s problems. Since Montaigne lived in the sixteenth century, he could not even comprehend many of Cicero’s concerns. The institutions of the Roman Republic were completely different from those in Montaigne’s France. The economic, military, and morality issues addressed by Cato refer to a very different environment. Yet, Montaigne managed to extract every drop of wisdom from Cicero’s writings. He passed review to Cicero’s ambitions and setbacks, and pointed out the contradictions between the public ideals defended by Cicero and his sordid, sleazy moves to increase his personal power. Montaigne’s interest in Cicero’s writings rests on Cicero’s avowed allegiance to stoicism. Although the memory has been lost, stoicism was the dominant philosophy in the late Roman Republic and early Roman Empire. The aristocracy and middle class overwhelmingly adhered to the doctrines of stoicism. Which ideas was Cicero defending in public? Stoicism calls for honesty, justice, and self-restraint. It condemns thoughtless ambitions, that is, those that appear attractive in the short term but are likely to cause headaches down the road. Montaigne had a deep respect for ancient stoicism and held Seneca, Marcus Aurelius, and Epictetus in high regard. Cicero didn’t come up with the doctrine of stoicism. He just took over ideas already present in the late Roman Republic. The great merit of this essay by Montaigne is to isolate the crucial details from Cicero’s biography and compare them with his avowed philosophy. To which extent did Cicero practise the virtues of honesty, justice, and self-restraint? Montaigne arrives at the sad conclusion that Cicero failed to meet his own standards. His political scheming does not fulfil the moral standards of stoicism. His dedication to the Roman Republic was little more than a disguise for his power-seeking intrigues. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/cicero-michel-de-montaigne-and-classical-philosophy/

Despite his extensive study of classical philosophy, Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) paid relatively little attention to Aristotle. He quoted Seneca, Marcus Aurelius, Epictetus, Plato and Plutarch more often than he quoted Aristotle. He devoted more efforts to understanding stoicism than he devoted to the Aristotelian views on human nature and happiness. I have a theory that explains Montaigne’s disproportionate interest in Roman authors (Seneca, Marcus Aurelius, Cicero or Epictetus) compared to his light treatment of Aristotle. When I say “Roman authors,” I mean authors writing during the late Roman Republic or early Roman Empire, even if those authors had been born in Greece. Epictetus for instance is one of the authors born in Greece, but spent decades living in Rome. He returned to Greece when he was already forty years old and started a philosophy school that the young Marcus Aurelius attended before becoming a Roman Emperor. My theory is that Montaigne paid less attention to Aristotle because he did not have direct access to all works by Aristotle. Montaigne certainly possessed a Latin translation of Aristotle’s “Nicomachean Ethics” but the remaining corpus of Aristotelian works must have not been present in Montaigne’s library. I base my theory on Montaigne’s language, train of thought, and argumentation logic. I fail to find in his essays Aristotelian concepts such as potentiality and actuality, and the comparison of essential versus accidental traits. In Montaigne’s essays, I also fail to find syllogisms that are carefully constructed according to Aristotelian standards. Plato must have been a more frequent object of Montaigne’s literary explorations, if only because his works were widely available in Latin translation during the sixteenth century. When comparing Aristotle with Montaigne, the most salient discrepancies are detectable by their absence. That’s why I seldom find in Montaigne any criticism of Plato, Epictetus, Seneca, or Marcus Aurelius. Why has Montaigne overlooked the errors in those authors? If Montaigne had studied Aristotle’s philosophy in depth, he should have known better. Due to insufficient knowledge or for other reasons, the fact is that he overlooked the discrepancies. From reading only the “Nicomachean Ethics,” Montaigne could not acquire a solid knowledge of the Aristotelian theory of knowledge, metaphysics, logic, politics and aesthetics. I think that’s why he failed to detect the errors in stoicism, scepticism and hedonism. Aristotle had anticipated and refuted those errors, but Montaigne had studied only a small part of the Aristotelian corpus. Montaigne’s praise of self-knowledge and introspection are misleading in this respect. We can look into ourselves as much as we want, but it is unlikely that we find the right answers if we do not possess sufficient knowledge of Aristotle’s work. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/aristotle-michel-de-montaigne-and-classical-philosophy/

What we call “humanistic” nowadays has little to do with the work of humanists in the sixteenth century, such as Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592). They were digging into the past in order to regain concepts that had been lost. They were fighting against centuries of intellectual distortion, misrepresentations, and contradictions. Montaigne would devote dozens of hours to compose a little essay such as “On the parsimony of the ancients.” He would read and reread ancient sources such as Plutarch, Seneca and Cicero; and he would formulate his conclusions carefully and politely to prevent unnecessary conflicts. Nowadays, few people are doing that. Instead, they assume that their “humanism” is somehow automatic. They believe that they know the truth implicitly, without having to do any research. Those individuals are arrogant enough to categorise their beliefs as “humanistic” even if they brazenly contradict all ancient Greek and Roman authors and twenty-five centuries of historical experience. Humanism is something very different. It’s what Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) did in his essay “On the parsimony of the ancients.” He employed his erudition in ancient Greek and Roman history to identify the ideal lifestyle, that is, the habits more likely to lead to happiness. Montaigne doesn’t care about parsimony (economy, thrift, modesty, penny-pinching, humility) as such. His exploration is going much further than human economic behaviour. The key goal of Montaigne is to identify virtue in general terms. Like every worthy writer, Montaigne is looking for a recipe for success and happiness. He employs his knowledge of the ancient Greek and Roman lifestyle in order to criticise his own contemporaries. Montaigne praises the alleged parsimony of ancient times, so that he can reject the waste and excesses in his own century. His historical research (humanism in practice) prompts him to recommend simplicity, frugality and austerity. It also leads him to reject material excess as destructive. According to Montaigne, ancient parsimony was dictated by philosophical principles, not by lack of resources. Seneca and Marcus Aurelius could have spent much more money than they did. They embraced moderation and self-restraint in order to prevent their own moral decay. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaigne-and-humanistic-ideas/

When Renaissance authors undertook the study of antiquity, they had a practical purpose in mind. They expected to learn something useful from ancient history. Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) constitutes the very best example. He read relentlessly about the lifestyle of ancient Romans and Greeks with the goal of drawing useful lessons. In his philosophical research, Montaigne adopted the same hands-on approach. Even when he researched metaphysics and epistemology, he was still looking for a recipe for happiness. Take for instance Montaigne’s essay about the early Greek thinkers Democritus and Heraclitus. When reading the essay’s title (“On Democritus and Heraclitus”) one might be expecting a boring disquisition about the nature of reality, but that’s not how Montaigne understood humanism. Humanistic ideas, as understood by Montaigne, must be first and foremost practical. The purpose of studying Plato, Democritus, Heraclitus, and Aristotle is to learn how to lead a happy life here and now. Montaigne describes Democritus (around 500 BC) as a man who regarded the universe as rational and predictable. He put forward the theory that objects and creatures are made of small particles (“atoms”), in various configurations. Democritus was happy and cheerful. His sunny disposition, Montaigne tells us, rested on his philosophy. The expectations of rationality, orderliness and predictability filled Democritus with confidence. He was a peaceful, efficacious person. Heraclitus (also around 500 BC) sustained that the universe is subject to constant change. Objects, animals and persons are all in the process of becoming something or someone else. No one can predict the future. Our efforts might be wasted if the situation turns against us, explained Montaigne. As a result of his ever-changing outlook, argued Montaigne, Heraclitus was a melancholic, unhappy man. No wonder that he was always worried about the future, since he viewed life as a flux. Everything is subject to perpetual change and conflict, said Heraclitus, and stability is just a short-term illusion. Humanistic ideas include a detailed outline of Democritus’ and Heraclitus’ philosophies, but go much further. Montaigne’s essay does not contain exhaustive explanations about atomistic philosophy because that’s irrelevant for its purpose. Montaigne is more interested in Democritus’ mentality and personality than in his atomistic cosmology. He cared little for the atom theory, but was fascinated by Democritus’ optimism. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/democritus-and-heraclitus-montaigne-and-humanistic-ideas/

Aristotle used a systematic method for drawing conclusions from empirical observations. His concept of reality revolves around the idea of “substance,” which actually means “entity” in the sense employed by Aristotle. Every entity, he taught, is composed of matter that takes a certain form, configuration, or shape. For Aristotle, the “form” is what characterises each entity, what defines the nature of an entity, what makes it what it is. A material (“matter”) such as wood can take different forms. For instance, it can be an element in trees, but also in furniture, in a building, etc. In addition to speaking about matter and form, Aristotle employed the concepts of potentiality and actuality. He argued that most entities have the potential to become something else, and reach actuality when it fulfils its potential. Modern psychology employs the term self-actualisation to denote the process of human achievement. A man who pursues goals that fulfil his potential is driven by self-actualisation. For plants, a seed has the potential to become a plant. When a seed grows into a plant, it attains actuality, but psychologists don’t employ the term self-actualisation for plants and animals due to their inability to formulate complex goals. Aristotle’s theory of potentiality and actuality helps us grasp change and causality. The world is driven by entities that try to achieve their full potential; they generate relationships of cause and effect. Plants grow. Animals look for food. Human beings build homes and roads. Aristotle only managed to outline his philosophy of reality after he had abandoned Plato’s theory of forms. Plato believed in a mythical realm populated by perfect, immutable ideas or “forms.” According to Plato, the objects we perceive are just a reflection of the realm of forms. After rejecting Plato’s theory of an invisible realm of perfect forms, Aristotle simply pointed out that “forms” are part of the entities themselves. Each entity is made of matter and form. You cannot have one without the other. By using reason, humans can identify relations of cause and effect between several entities. There are four different types of causation, according to Aristotle, that is, four possible types of cause-and-effect relationships. Aristotle named them the material, the formal, the efficient, and the final cause. Let us take a bed as an example. What is the material cause? The wood that has been employed as material to make the concerned item. What is the formal cause? The carpenter’s design or idea of a bed. The efficient cause is the carpenter himself. The final cause is the purpose of the bed, that is, a place to sleep. By employing the Aristotelian concepts of matter and form, potentiality and actuality, and the types of causation (material cause, formal cause, efficient, and final cause), we can assess reality systematically, draw conclusions and gather knowledge. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/aristotles-views-on-the-nature-of-reality/

When Aristotle was born in 384 BC, logic was in its infancy and indistinguishable from rhetoric; the ancient Greeks viewed rhetoric as useful because it could help them secure a business deal or win a case in court. The purpose of rhetoric was to win; logic (even twisted logic) was just part of its arsenal. Aristotle came up with a fresh approach to logic. His books “Categories,” “Prior Analytics” and “Posterior Analytics” give us his insights in this regard. “Categories” was written around 350 BC. Aristotle was just thirty-four years old at that time. The book enumerates crucial categories for analysing reality. The Aristotelian categories refer to substances, qualities and quantities, and to the relations between objects. They don’t add much to terms used by prior philosophers such as Plato (428-347 BC), Anaxagoras (500-428 BC) or Democritus (460-370 BC), but for the first time, they provide a systematic overview. In “Categories,” Aristotle introduces the term “substance.” I must point out that he did not mean “material” or “ingredient” as we do nowadays. For Aristotle, “substance” means “entity,” “creature” or key characteristics that define them. He says for instance that “the substance of human beings is rationality.” He means that the key characteristic that defines humans is rationality. Aristotle’ second and third works on logic are titled “Prior Analytics” and “Posterior Analytics.” They contain much more innovative ideas than “Categories.” Aristotle must have written “Prior Analytics” and “Posterior Analytics” after Plato’s death, that is, after 347 BC. Those two works are devoted to syllogistic reasoning, that is, to the rules for drawing correct conclusions from facts or statements. The term “syllogism” employed by Aristotle simply means a logical argument; every syllogism is composed of three steps of which the initial two are called premises (major premise and minor premise); the third step is the conclusion. Here is an example of a syllogism. “All men are mortal” is the major premise, and “Achilles is a man,” the minor premise. If you combine the major and the minor premise, you’ll arrive at the conclusion “Achilles is mortal.” In this example, “Achilles is a man” is the minor premise because Achilles is included in the major premise “All men are mortal.” Since Achilles is a man, he must be mortal. “Prior Analytics” teaches us that conclusions must be either true or false. Either Achilles is a man or he is not. If he is, then he must be mortal; when syllogisms are well-constructed, there is no possibility of a middle ground. Achilles cannot be at the same time mortal and immortal. He is either one or the other. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/aristotles-philosophy-of-logic/

Like Schopenhauer would do twenty-four centuries later, Aristotle regarded practical wisdom (“phronesis” in Greek) as a crucial ingredient of a happy life. In his “Nicomachean Ethics,” Aristotle defined “phronesis” as a skill that enables us to choose the correct course of action and for the correct reasons. In other words, “phronesis” is the daily implementation of general moral principles. How do you develop practical wisdom? Through experience and rational reflection, answered Aristotle. It is not something that you can learn by heart. It does not consist of a series of rules that can be memorised and implemented blindly. To cultivate phronesis, you need to exercise judgement on a case-by-case basis, draw lessons from each experience, and adapt those lessons to the context of each situation. Practical wisdom, according to Aristotle, will not only help you attain your own happiness, but also contribute to the common good. It will guide you to a flourishing, thriving life, which will surely impact the community positively. Aristotle emphasised the role played by virtues in practical wisdom. Virtues such as courage, temperance and justice will guide you in each case, as general principles, so that you can make wise decisions and achieve happiness (“eudaimonia” in Greek). Although Aristotle linked practical wisdom to the pursuit of the golden mean, I strongly recommend you to ignore his ideas about the golden mean. They don’t make any sense and cannot be implemented consistently. The golden-mean principle consists, according to Aristotle, in finding the mid-point between extremes. For instance, if you take the virtue of courage, the mid-point should lie somewhere between cowardice and recklessness. Thus, Aristotle’s advice is that your actions should be neither excessive nor deficient. If you accept the golden-mean theory, practical wisdom will take a different shape in each situation. Virtue will be context-dependent and constantly variable. It will be driven by the ups and downs of life and your ability to cope with them. Aristotle didn’t view practical wisdom as purely intellectual because it is linked to one’s character and moral values. Since life prompts us to make quick decisions once and again, one needs strong ethics in order to find the right answers. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/aristotles-concept-of-practical-wisdom/

The justice definition given by Aristotle in “Nicomachean Ethics” is simple, but accurate and profound. A person behaves in accordance with justice only if he has “an habitual disposition to render to each person his due.” The definition demands giving consistently and regularly to each person his due, not only occasionally, not only from time to time. Aristotle’s predecessors such as Socrates (469-399 BC) had not been able to come up with such a complete definition. Despite his focus on self-examination and introspection, Socrates had failed to give a precise meaning to the concept of justice. He had talked about the need of “knowing oneself” in order to “lead an examined life” as prerequisites to happiness, but in no way had he provided practical advice about justice. Instead of concentrating on essential features (as Aristotle had done), Socrates had focused on the method. By means of debates, he had tried to identify the nature of justice and ethics, but with little success. Socrates had theorised that ignorance is the main cause of injustice, but without giving any proof for his statement; in fact Socrates had just made up the link between ignorance and lack of justice. It only takes a second to reveal the falsehood of Socrates’s theory. Look at history and you’ll find thousands of examples proving that injustices and abuses are frequently committed in full knowledge of their dire consequences. Thus, it is no wonder that Socrates’ ideas about justice have made zero impact on later generations. If anything, they have confused people and led them in the wrong direction. In contrast, Aristotle’s theory of justice has shaped Western civilisation. A definition of justice similar to Aristotle’s was coined by Ancient Roman jurists and constitutes the backbone of modern legal systems. The Roman jurist and senator Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 BC) believed in the existence of natural law, a universal set of moral principles inherent in human nature and common to all peoples on earth. Cicero argued that fundamental laws are discoverable by all men through reason. He asked to apply them universally to all human beings because they form the basis of justice. Like Aristotle, Cicero connected justice with virtue. He saw justice as an essential moral virtue that goes hand in hand with wisdom, courage, and temperance. Cicero also underlined the need for steadiness in practising the virtue of justice. Unless justice is a continuous part of one’s moral character, one should not regard that person as just. What does justice consist of specifically? Aristotle had not made reference to natural law, but the universality requirement was implicit in his definition. Cicero linked his definition of justice to natural law. In his eyes, just human laws should reflect natural law. When laws or court decisions deviate from natural law, they are unjust and should be rejected and condemned. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/impact-of-aristotles-theory-of-justice/