John Vespasian

In this article, I present one of Aristotle’s key contributions to philosophy. Aristotle’s theory of the four causes seems at first sight very easy to understand, but if you dig into the details, you will see its epochal consequences. It changed human mentality, and in doing so, it changed the course of history. The four causes, and in particular the final cause, can dramatically change your life for the better. Aristotle adopted a systematic approach to studying the world. His theory of the four causes entails that, if you want to fully understand something, you should consider four distinct causes. First, a material cause that pertains to the material substance that makes up an item or creature. For example, the material cause of a woollen suit is wool. Second, a formal cause that relates to the object’s shape or structure. In the case of the woollen suit, the formal cause consists of a vest and a pair of pants. Their shape constitutes a suit, not a scarf, a raincoat, a shirt, or an overall. Third, an efficient cause that is concerned with the agent or force responsible for making the object. It replies to the question “What brought the object into existence?” In the context of the suit, the efficient cause is the tailor who made it. Fourth, a final cause that deals with the purpose. It answers the question, “Why does the object exist?” In the case of the suit, the final cause is to allow me to wear the suit for work, formal dinners, and other such occasions. The theory of the four causes seems simple enough as a tool for analysing reality, but as we’ll see now, it gets exceedingly complicated when it is coupled to social and political events. It is not exaggerated to affirm that Aristotle’s theory of causation has driven the intellectual discourse for twenty-five centuries. In the Middle Ages, Avicenna (980-1037) took over the four causes and applied them to his environment. Avicenna was a prominent Persian sage in the Islamic Golden Age. Although he was profoundly influenced by Aristotle’s ideas, he made a large change to the theory of the four causes. Avicenna’s theory involved a material cause equivalent to Aristotle’s material cause, focusing on the physical substance of an object. For what concerns the formal cause, Avicenna expanded Aristotle’s concept by including not only the essential features of an object, but also the secondary “accidental” ones. In this way, Avicenna allowed for a broader understanding of an object’s nature. Avicenna also retained Aristotle’s concept of efficient cause, but introduced the idea of “necessary existence.” Avicenna was suggesting that the efficient cause of everything is God, which is the only necessary being. The concept of necessary existence enabled Avicenna to reconcile the four causes with Islam. For what concerns the final cause, Avicenna showed a very heavy influence of Plato. Instead of expanding on Aristotle’s key innovation, Avicenna downplayed its importance. Instead of studying the ethical aspects of the final cause, he suggested that everything in the universe is moving toward the ultimate goal of returning to prime mover. This theory is very similar to Plato’s endless search for perfect ideas or forms. Thirteen centuries after Aristotle’s death, Avicenna initiated a tradition of distorting the four causes to fit his beliefs. I don’t doubt that Avicenna had powerful reasons to do so, but ended up losing the final cause as a tool for studying human behaviour. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/aristotles-theory-of-the-four-causes/

In contrast to his predecessors, Aristotle (384-322 BC) built his theory of knowledge on empiricism. The main principle of empiricism is that knowledge can only be gained from sensory experience before it can be assessed and refined. Aristotle taught that humans start at birth with a blank mind (a blank slate) and will acquire knowledge through interactions with the external world. In his early period (before 347 BC), Aristotle had endorsed Plato’s theory of innate knowledge. Plato had taught students that the human soul possesses innate knowledge drawn from a mystical world of pure abstractions. Learning, said Plato, is the same as remembering our innate knowledge. By the time Aristotle opened his Lyceum in Athens to teach his own students (335 BC), he had discarded Plato’s doctrine of innate knowledge. I can only infer that Aristotle had regarded Plato’s theories as nonsense already for a long time, but that he only began to attack them when he felt financially secure. In his book “Metaphysics,” Aristotle speaks of two broad categories of knowledge. He calls the first category “epistemic knowledge” and defines it as general knowledge and principles of general application. His second category is called “technical knowledge.” It includes detailed know-how and craftsmanship. How do you know if a statement is true or false? Aristotle answered this question by defining a logical method, which he named “syllogism.” The Aristotelian syllogism is a deductive argument that is made of a major premise (“normally, the weather in Athens is warm in the summer”), a minor premise (“we are in the middle of July in Athens”), leading to a conclusion (“chances are that the weather will be warm today”). In his “Metaphysics,” Aristotle also introduced the concepts of potentiality (“what an entity could become”) and actuality (“what an entity is”); He regards learning as the process of moving from potentiality to actuality. It’s the process of letting go of doubts and ascertaining the facts in detail. According to Aristotle, every entity in the natural world has the potential of becoming a better version of itself; for humans, the potential is usually realized through learning and acquiring skills. Education is the process of developing one’s potential. The acquisition of knowledge can be greatly facilitated and accelerated if we use precise vocabulary. To this end, Aristotle wrote the work “Categories,” where he defines key concepts in physics. The purpose of Aristotelian categories is to construct syllogisms with solid premises leading to flawless conclusions. Aristotle didn’t build his theory of knowledge from scratch. He was well versed in the ideas of prior Greek philosophers, in particular Parmenides and Heraclitus, and took over their best concepts. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/aristotles-views-on-knowledge-and-learning/

Aristotle (384-322 BC) outlined his philosophy of education primarily in his works “Eudemian Ethics” and “Nicomachean Ethics.” His work “Politics” also contains some statements on education, as part of Aristotle’s views on governance and social organisation. The Aristotelian formula for education revolves around the concept of virtue: the purpose of education is to equip students with physical, moral and intellectual habits enabling them to achieve “eudaimonia.” How should we translate the Greek term “Eudaimonia” that appears in Aristotle’s works? Medieval translators had mostly transcribed “eudaimonia” as “happiness.” In later centuries, we can find translations employing the words “human flourishing” and “human thriving.” I prefer the modern translations because “flourishing” and “thriving” are dynamic terms. They convey a more accurate picture of the Aristotelian meaning of happiness. For Aristotle, “eudaimonia” is not a fixed status. It is not a fixed destination at which one arrives, a fixed place where you can stay. I would rather describe “eudaimonia” as a spiritual experience achieved by practising virtue day after day. If the Aristotelian “eudaimonia” is a dynamic process, so is the Aristotelian education. It is not a fixed amount of materials that you need to study, memorise, and regurgitate. Aristotle viewed education as a lifelong process of gathering knowledge to grasp the world better. Why does Aristotle’s educational philosophy revolve around virtue? Because Aristotle considered “eudaimonia” the purpose of life, and virtue as the best method to achieve “eudaimonia.” It’s meaningless to say that Aristotle recommended studying metaphysics, rhetoric and history if one does not grasp the goal of studying. Aristotelian education is not primarily designed to raise obedient children and good citizens. Instead, its goal is to raise self-reliant, happy human beings. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/aristotles-views-on-education/

When people nowadays speak about curiosity, they usually mean the open, random, wide-range interest in a multiplicity of subjects. They mean the curiosity of children exploring their environment in a disorderly, superficial, inconsistent manner. Renaissance authors such as Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) employed a different definition of curiosity. They carried out research in a multiplicity of subjects, but in the pursuit of a tightly defined goal. Their efforts were neither disorderly nor random. Montaigne displayed a remarkable curiosity in his literary work, to which he devoted the last two decades of his life. He researched classical authors, taking copious notes, and seeking to draw conclusions of universal value. For Montaigne, all humanistic research revolved around one single goal, namely, to find recipes for happiness. His curiosity was focused, even if it encompasses dozens of subjects. When Montaigne referred to the lifestyle of ancient Greece or Rome, he was pursuing a clear goal, not just retelling amusing stories. I find it specially noteworthy that Montaigne never hesitated to address difficult subjects. He routinely picked up subjects or angles that no author had considered so far. He did not fear the unknown because he was seeking the truth. Montaigne would frequently start writing an essay without having yet made up his mind about the conclusions. He began by quoting a sentence from Plutarch, Seneca, or Julius Caesar, and seeing where it took him. Those essays show us Montaigne’s mind assessing the facts and weighing the arguments. I characterise Montaigne and other Renaissance authors by the road they did not take. By embracing curiosity, they did not take the road of blind conformity. By carrying out their own research, they did not take the road of regurgitating tradition. By elevating curiosity to a work method, Montaigne attains astonishing results. He puts together ideas and historical events that nobody before had combined. He gathers solid arguments against and in favour, prompting readers to think along. I consider Montaigne’s essay “On the inconstancy of our actions” the best example of curiosity in action. On every page, we can follow Montaigne’s own intellectual struggle to assess the facts and draw accurate conclusions. The sheer number of historical citations used by Montaigne is mind-boggling. For instance, he quotes Plato’s “Phaedrus” to argue that the human soul often behaves inconsistently. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaigne-and-intellectual-curiosity/

In his essays, Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592), addresses frequently the subject of cultural identity. I can summarise his conclusions in two sentences. First, he acknowledges that each culture has its own rituals, likes and dislikes. Second, he rates those differences as minor if compared with the traits shared by humans in all cultures. Montaigne underlines the second aspect in his essay titled “That we all love and cry for the same thing.” He is conveying the idea that human emotions (joy, sorrow, compassion, hatred) are the same in all cultures. Nevertheless, from those cultural comparisons, Montaigne is drawing a totally false conclusion. Granted, human emotions such as joy or sorrow are the same in all cultures, but the particular object of joy or sorrow makes a world of difference. All humans can feel joy, but sane individuals are going to experience joy in different circumstances than those that make a psychopath joyful. The same principle applies to cultures. A sane culture promotes vastly different moral values than those promoted by evil cultures. Montaigne never grasped the difference between similarity of emotions and similarity of moral values. To the extent that psychopaths can experience joy and sorrow, those remain very different from the emotions of sane people. I find it unconscionable that Montaigne declared all cultures equal just because all people can experience joy and sorrow. It makes a live-or-death difference whether one lives in a culture promoting constructive or destructive moral values. Montaigne’s essay “That we all love and cry for the same thing” compares rituals, traditions and social norms in various cultures. For instance, in ancient Athens (around 600 BC), a funeral included a procession displaying the body, but later, in the Roman Republic (around 50 BC), the body was no longer displayed during the procession. Going further back in time, Montaigne mentions the funeral Scythian practices (around 700 BC) described by Herodotus in his “Histories.” The Scythians had buried their kings together with their horses, weapons, servants, and household utensils. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaigne-and-cultural-identity/

Despite his erudition and hard work, Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) never grasped the need for an objective morality. I find in his essays a relentless effort to obscure ethical truths in order to preach moral relativism and contorted ethical equality. Montaigne employed ethical fallacies as arguments once and again; he employed “universal emotions” to call for ethical indifference, and “diverse cultural identity” to call for empathy towards immorality. His essay “That men through various ways arrive at the same thing” provides salient examples of those fallacies. By arguing for the equality of paths, Montaigne is obscuring vast differences in goals. By focusing on irrelevant anecdotes and details, Montaigne is deviating the attention from key ethical questions. Instead of engaging discussions about good and evil, he is chasing rabbits in all directions, rabbits that lead readers towards a dead end. Montaigne’s argument is that individuals in all cultures are pursuing common goals, and that those goals reflect universal aspects of human nature. In this way, he is predicating cultural relativism. He is employing a long discussion on diverse paths to hide massive differences in goals. For instance, Montaigne is comparing the different paths in antiquity for attaining fame and success. In ancient Greece, the paths could involve achievements in war, philosophy, science, or in the arts; while in ancient Rome, people could attain fame and success only through politics and war. As ancient Greek examples (around 500 BC), Montaigne is mentioning Pericles, an elected Athenian leader who promoted arts and democracy, and Socrates, a philosopher who made key contributions to knowledge theory and ethics. As ancient Roman examples (50 BC to 15 AD), Montaigne is mentioning Julius Caesar, a military dictator, and Emperor Augustus, the final destroyer of the Roman Republic. Their achievements, Montaigne says, are recorded by many statues and monuments. Montaigne goes ahead unrelentingly with examples that are supposed to prove the equality of paths to fame and success, but implicitly, he is discussing the goals, not the paths. Surreptitiously, Montaigne is predicating the equality of all ethical values and cultural identities. He is driving home the idea that there is no fundamental difference between Socrates and Julius Caesar, or between Pericles and Emperor Augustus. Montaigne’s error is not innocent. It cannot be excused by insufficient research, lack of knowledge, excessive complexity, or terminological confusion. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/errors-in-michel-de-montaigne-and-cultural-identity/

I can summarise in three sentences the political philosophy of Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592). He outlined his political ideas in several essays, giving many historical examples, but the ideas themselves are straightforward. First, when good people govern, everything will be fine, irrespective of the political system. Second, even the very best political system can be abused by bad people. Third, since it is inevitable that, now and then, some bad people gain political power, abuses can be prevented or minimised by distributing power amongst various institutions. Like Aristotle had previously done in his work “Politics”, Montaigne passed review to the different political systems. He was aware of the advantages and disadvantages of democracy, monarchy and aristocracy, but failed to make a choice. In all political systems, argued Montaigne, one can find bad and good examples. For instance, during the Roman Empire, which is a variant of monarchy, we can find a few excellent rulers such as Marcus Aurelius (161-180 AD). Marcus Aurelius was not perfect, but overall, he exercised power with a deep sense of morality. Instead of adopting a totalitarian attitude, he practised justice and moderation. He worked hard to run the empire effectively, instead of simply enjoying his own wealth. Montaigne acknowledged that good monarchs like Marcus Aurelius represent the exception, not the rule. History offers us plenty of examples of tyrannical kings and emperors. In ancient Rome, Nero (37-68 AD) was the archetypical bad emperor. He was arrogant, tyrannical and erratic. I categorise him as a psychopath. It is almost a miracle that someone like Marcus Aurelius became emperor a few generations later. What about democracy? Does it guarantee that only good people come to power? Montaigne remained sceptical, arguing that history provides few examples of excellent elected leaders such as Pericles (495-429 BC). Why did Montaigne regard Pericles as a rarity? Because Pericles possessed characteristics that seldom go together. On the one hand, he was honest, dedicated, and willing to promote the arts. On the other hand, he was sufficiently diplomatic and patient to navigate the complexities of Athenian politics. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaigne-and-political-philosophy/

“The best human attribute is rising after every downfall,” wrote Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592). Like no other author before the Renaissance, Montaigne devoted two decades of his life to identifying the keys to personal growth, and recording them in his essays. The above citation is taken from Montaigne’s essay “That no man should be called happy until his death,” which is one of my favourites. However, recommendations on personal growth can be found in every essay he wrote. Montaigne regarded writing as an exercise in thinking. His goal was to figure out the answers to important questions, and write down his thought processes. He began his essays with the formulation of a question, and then presented the arguments in great detail, either in favour of or against a particular answer. For Montaigne, writing means exploration. Personal growth was his principal subject because it was his primary concern. I view Montaigne as the most results-oriented author of his time because of his relentless search. He wanted to identify the truth and would not be happy with anything else. Reading Montaigne’s essays requires a couple of weeks, but his recommendations about personal growth are repetitive. I’m going to summarise them here for those who lack the patience or the energy to read all of Montaigne’s essays. First and foremost, Montaigne was keen on finding practical answers. He regarded general recommendations as worthless. I can tell myself “be happy” or “be healthy” a hundred times per day, but those statements are too vague to prompt any specific action. The essay “That it’s folly to measure truth and error by our own capacity” gives a salient example of Montaigne’s penchant for practical action based on observation. Montaigne recounts in this essay that Alexander the Great, when he was still a boy, wanted to tame a wild horse named Bucephalus. So far, everybody had failed because Bucephalus was too nervous, too aggressive. Alexander wanted to tame Bucephalus, but all experienced riders had failed. The standard approach to horse taming does not work in this case, thought Alexander, but a solution can be found through observation. For the next few days, Alexander did just one thing: he watched Bucephalus. He was looking for the exact cause of the issue, so that he could then identify a practical solution. Through observation, Alexander discovered the reason for Bucephalus’ nervousness and aggressiveness: Bucephalus was afraid of his shadow. The discovery of the problem’s cause enabled Alexander to figure out a practical solution. He simply turned Bucephalus towards the sun, so that it was blinded. In this way, Bucephalus couldn’t see his shadow and its nervousness disappeared. That’s how Alexander became able to ride it. Montaigne employs the story of Alexander and a wild horse to drive home a key lesson about personal growth, namely, that practical solutions become easy to find after a problem’s cause has been identified. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaigne-and-the-nature-of-personal-growth/

“Let us allow fortune to do her thing, and she will then give us the chance to do ours,” wrote Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) in his essay “That no man should be called happy until his death.” Montaigne is not telling us that human life is shaped by luck and that we should be happy with our circumstances. Neither is he implying that we are all doomed to a short, miserable life in which countermeasures are pointless because death is awaiting us at the end of the path. I regard the following twin essays by Montaigne as the most philosophical he wrote. Their titles are “That no man should be called happy until his death” and “That men shall not judge of our happiness before our death.” I called them “twin essays” because they convey the same idea from a slightly different perspective. The former adopts an objective perspective, and the latter, a subjective. They are also referring to the same historical anecdotes. What’s the lesson Montaigne is presenting in those essays? I can summarise it in one sentence. Montaigne is telling us that personal growth requires constant action and reaction. It’s not a plateau that, once attained, remains permanently stable. Happiness is directly dependent on personal growth, which is a combination of luck and hard work. Luck will turn bad at times, but hard work should remain constant because it is the best countermeasure to errors, opposition, and setbacks. Montaigne calls it unrealistic to regard happiness as a stable, permanent plateau. Personal growth is a lifetime mission, not a temporary project. We should remind ourselves frequently of the fact that even extremely successful people can have their achievements and happiness destroyed by bad luck. That’s why Montaigne views personal growth as a process of action and reaction. In the above-mentioned twin essays, he mentions Polycrates of Samos (6th century BC) as an example. After having attained the highest political position in Samos, Polycrates’ life seemed perfectly happy and stable. However, good luck turned into bad luck, wiping out every positive element in Polycrates’ life. After he was betrayed, one calamity led to the next, and eventually, to his death. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaignes-advice-on-personal-growth/

The philosophy of Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) about the nature of evil stands in sharp contrast to other thinkers. For Schopenhauer, evil is a natural phenomenon. It’s the inevitable outcome of the will (“life force”) when left to operate freely. Schopenhauer attributes evil to the life force that prompts all living creatures to secure their survival and reproduction, seek pleasure and maximise short-term gains. This life force doesn’t care about risks, costs, and consequences. According to Schopenhauer, the nature of evil is decoupled from religion. In “The world as will and representation” (1818) and other writings, Schopenhauer opposes the Christian belief that evil has its origin in the human disobedience retold in the first book of the Bible. Christians believe in a benevolent, omnipotent, eternal God that oversees every event in the cosmos. If God wanted to stop evil, he could do it right away, but he allows evil to exist for a greater purpose, namely, giving individuals the freedom to find the right path. Victims of evil can find consolation in Christianity. When a crime or injustice is committed, Christians believe in a higher divine purpose that escapes human comprehension. They view evil as part of God’s overarching plan, from which we can only perceive bits and pieces. While Christianity attributes evil to human actions that don’t follow God’s commandments, Schopenhauer is attributing evil to human inaction. It is crucial to understand this difference. Christians view the world as good by default and evil as the exception. Schopenhauer holds the opposite view: he considers nature as wild, irrational, chaotic and dangerous; harmony and peace come only from rational human action against nature. Schopenhauer is more interested in combating evil than in offering consolation to its victims. He does not see any higher divine purpose in evil. Injury and destruction cause pain, and it is pointless to give them obscure theological interpretations. According to Schopenhauer, efforts should be concentrated on avoiding and minimising evil. His plan of action against the will requires self-awareness. It is up to each individual to learn about the will, notice its influence, and adopt countermeasures. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauers-views-on-the-nature-of-evil/