John Vespasian

Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) deployed large efforts to study Christianity and Eastern religions. His goal was to draw the best ethical advice from religion. When I say “best advice,” I mean practical, tangible, hands-on advice. I find it remarkable that Schopenhauer devoted long years to studying religion. His theory of the will (“life force”) has no direct connection to religion and his ethics are equally far from divinities and devotionals. The key idea in Schopenhauer’s philosophy is that the world is governed by the will, that is, a blind, irrational force driving all creatures towards securing their survival and reproduction, and towards seeking pleasure. More often than not, observed Schopenhauer, the influence of the will has nefarious results. It generates short-term passion and desire, without assessing any risks and costs. Over time, it inevitably leads to failure and suffering. For Schopenhauer, religion is an attempt to cope with the suffering generated by the will. Some ethical advice in religion happens to be solid and commendable, but it is undermined by the helplessness generated by worshipping a higher realm. Blind faith constitutes a severe negative aspect in religion, said Schopenhauer, because it discourages critical thinking; the key to improving one’s results is making better decisions; those require critical thinking. Schopenhauer also pointed out that religions often generate pointless conflicts. There is no benefit to be drawn from lack of tolerance. Bigotry leads to violence that serves no purpose. That’s why Schopenhauer was more interested in ethics than in religion. What about the positive elements in religion? Schopenhauer did not deny those. For millions of people, religion is a source of comfort and hope. It imbues them with a sense of purpose; it helps them cope with setbacks and uncertainties. The problem, concluded Schopenhauer, is that the negative factors weigh much heavier than the positive ones. Even if you draw comfort and hope from religion, lack of critical thinking is likely to destroy your life. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauers-views-on-religion/

For Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860), creativity is the key element in genius. However, Schopenhauer defined creativity in an unusual way. He wasn’t referring to the ability to create new concepts by recombining existing ones. No, he was referring to the rare ability to come up with breakthrough, surprising ideas. His theory of the will (life force) doesn’t attribute creativity to nature. Schopenhauer viewed the will as a wild, blind force that drives all living creatures to secure their reproduction and survival, and seek short-term pleasure regardless of the cost. In his book “The world as will and representation” (1818), Schopenhauer emphasised the need for reason, creativity, and self-discipline to escape the dire influence of the will. Schopenhauer rated creativity as important as all other skills derived from human intelligence. Creativity has little value in the absence of prudence, foresight, self-discipline, self-reliance and purposefulness. When virtues are practised in unison, they produce sizeable benefits, noted Schopenhauer. The problem is that few people have the motivation and endurance to keep practising virtue in the face of short-term failure. Creativity is the opposite of the will because it pushes in the opposite direction. While the will leads to deep chaos, entropy, disorder and suffering, creativity creates order, purpose, clarity and harmony. Creativity is the ultimate antidote to suffering. According to Schopenhauer, self-awareness is the first step to minimise the negative effects of the will. How can one grow self-aware? You need to stand still and observe. Stop striving, running and chasing. Stop reacting automatically. Slow down. After becoming self-aware, one needs to adopt measures to curtail the influence of the will. Are you pursuing objectives that you have not chosen yourself? Are you implementing projects that have few chances of success? Schopenhauer’s books “Parerga and Paralipomena” (1851) and “Two fundamental problems in ethics” (1843) encourage readers to cultivate prudence, foresight, purposefulness, self-discipline and self-reliance. Creativity and genius constitute the result of daily, relentless self-discipline. They are the result of sustained efforts to create order mentally and practically, emotionally and intellectually. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauers-views-on-genius/

The problem of evil was addressed by Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) by referring to the theory of the will (“life force”), which constitutes the pillar of his philosophy. Schopenhauer defined the will as the force driving living creatures to secure their survival and reproduction, and seek pleasure. According to Schopenhauer, the will creates endless human desires. As soon as one desire is fulfilled, another one arises. It is simply impossible to satisfy them all. As a result, frustration and suffering ensue. Schopenhauer described the will as a blind, wild, irrational, relentless force. It drives people in a certain direction without any consideration of risks, costs, or justice. The will is impervious to legal considerations. It does not know the meaning of human rights, property rights, fairness or contractual commitments. It does not submit itself to any legal framework, nor cares about exploitation, abuses, victimization, and mistreatment. Schopenhauer attributes all evil to the influence of the will. He acknowledges that the will is inflicting damages, suffering, and confusion on people, but the will rejects any responsibility or liability. The will operates without empathy, mercy or moderation. It is a doom machine, pushing individuals towards the precipice. The will drives people to seek pleasure, ensure their survival and reproduction, and disregard the consequences. No wonder that its influence leads to vast tangible and intangible damage. How does Schopenhauer's view of evil compare to religious views, especially in Christianity? The differences are massive. For Schopenhauer, evil is the natural outcome of the will if left to operate unchecked. It's up to each individual to adopt an array of countermeasures to avert the negative influence of the will. For Christianity, evil is a separate force opposed to God. It's malevolent and ruthless but not overwhelming. Christians view God as benevolent and omnipotent, and justify evil by a divine decision to leave humans free to find the right path. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauer-and-the-problem-of-evil/

Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) devoted his whole life to intellectual pursuits. In particular, he gave extensive thought to their contribution to happiness. Schopenhauer outlined his philosophy in “The world as will and representation,” a book he published in 1818. The essential insight of the book is that the will (“life force”) is driving all living creatures to secure their own survival and reproduction. In addition, the will is pushing animals and humans to seek short-term pleasure without paying attention to cost, risks and consequences. The influence of the will on humans is harmful, pernicious and destructive. Intellectual pursuits are commendable when they help fight the negative influence of the will. I mean intellectual pursuits, studies and debates that render individuals self-aware, prudent, and self-reliant. Those intellectual pursuits vastly contribute to increasing happiness. In contrast, Schopenhauer discouraged intellectual pursuits that generate desires, goals and ambitions impossible to fulfil. Life is hard enough, he argued, to add pointless anxiety, stress, and frustration. In his essay collection “Parerga and Paralipomena” (1851), Schopenhauer gives many examples of worthy and unworthy intellectual pursuits. For instance, Schopenhauer held artistic contemplation in high regard (music, in particular), but showed little interest in politics, modern art, and organised religion. He did not regard the latter as worthy intellectual pursuits. Intellectual pursuits are futile, argued Schopenhauer, if they fail to contribute to alleviating suffering and increasing human happiness. If they don’t render human life better, those pursuits should be considered pointless. The examples in “Parerga and Paralipomena” warn people against the wrong intellectual pursuits. It is pointless to devote one’s efforts to acquiring worthless knowledge and skills. Life is too short for engaging in pointless undertakings, and pursuing clearly unworkable goals. What about intellectual pursuits in the fields of technology, science, and culture? Schopenhauer considered them beneficial and worth pursuing, but one should stay alert and focused. It is important to re-examine one’s objectives regularly, so that they remain aligned with increasing happiness and averting pain. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauers-views-on-intellectual-pursuits/

Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) never wrote any novels and deeply disliked those written by his mother, Johanna. She had attained notoriety by her romantic novels and reciprocated his son’s literary dislike by calling his essays uninteresting. However, the novels written by Johanna Schopenhauer were quickly forgotten, while Arthur Schopenhauer’s works attracted growing interest. Eventually, his ideas have influenced authors and shaped their novels. Schopenhauer’s influence on literature has taken place more in the novels’ atmosphere than in their explicit philosophy. You won’t find in literature a detailed exposition of Schopenhauer’s theory of the will, only its influence in shaping the background and attitudes of the characters. According to Schopenhauer, the will (“life force”) is driving living entities to secure their survival and reproduction, and to seek pleasure, irrespective of the costs and risks incurred. In his book “The world as will and representation” (1818), Schopenhauer depicts the dire consequences of falling under the control of the will and focusing only on the short term. Humans can become self-aware, adopt countermeasures and minimise the influence of the will. Schopenhauer enumerated those countermeasures in “Parerga and Paralipomena” (1851). The countermeasures include prudence, foresight, self-reliance and self-discipline, and artistic contemplation. Authors familiar with Schopenhauer’s ideas have translated his theory of the will into stories where heroes are driven by passion and ambition. Those literary heroes struggle to adopt the countermeasures proposed by Schopenhauer, improve their lives, and attain happiness. Fyodor Dostoevsky (1821-1881) created fiction heroes that mirror Schopenhauer’s philosophy. That’s particularly true in his masterpiece “Crime and Punishment” (1866). Its hero is named Raskolnikov and the novel depicts his fears and hesitation after he has committed a murder. Would have Schopenhauer considered Raskolnikov a model of ethics? No, absolutely not. I’m fairly sure that Schopenhauer would have disliked “Crime and Punishment” and all works by Dostoevsky because they present heroes controlled by the will. Dostoevsky’s heroes have their lives ruined by the will, but seldom adopt countermeasures. Their stories match the pattern outlined by Schopenhauer, but Dostoevsky fails to tell readers how to escape those circumstances and build a better future. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauers-influence-on-literature/

It is a myth that Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) had an extraordinary interest in literary exploration. Although he used many literary quotations, those are drawn from a couple of dozen books. Montaigne reread those books frequently, but rarely added new ones to his library. His literary explorations serve just one purpose, namely, to provide materials for his research in ethics. The latter constitutes the primary purpose of his work. The key contents of his essays revolve around ethics, not literature. As a teenager, Montaigne had attended a school where Latin language and literature in Latin shaped the curriculum; thus, he was familiar with major classical authors writing in Latin. I am referring to Cicero, Plutarch, Seneca and Marcus Aurelius. In his library, Montaigne also had books from ancient Greek authors such as Plato and Aristotle. However, those books were in Latin translation because Montaigne’s knowledge of ancient Greek was fragmentary. He was unable to read Aristotle, Plato, or Sophocles in the original Greek. I am reluctant to categorise Montaigne’s practice as “literary exploration.” He was regularly rereading a couple of dozen books, taking notes and putting together his essays, but I fail to see in Montaigne a primary interest in literary criticism. Montaigne tells readers very clearly that his main interest is philosophical, not literary. In his essay titled “On experience,” we can read the following statement: “The objective of writing is self-improvement.” He meant the author’s self-improvement in the first place, but readers can draw the same benefit. The above statement by Montaigne is not an isolated case. I can point to similar ones in other essays. For instance, in his essay “On solitude,” he acknowledges that writing is a way to “explore one’s own thoughts and discover the truth.” There is another strong argument against Montaigne’s being primarily motivated by literary exploration: in about one fifth of his essays, he is using his own personal anecdotes to support his philosophical assessment. If my primary interest was literary exploration, I would not be placing my own personal anecdotes on the same level as quotations from works of Cicero, Plato, and Seneca. However, I would have no problem doing so if my primary interest was philosophical exploration. That’s precisely what Montaigne did, but in a way that gave more weight to his personal anecdotes than to Cicero, Plato, or Aristotle. As a result, his essays are tainted by subjectivity. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaigne-and-literary-exploration/

Despite his practice of recounting anecdotes about himself, Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) failed to learn much from introspection. In fact, he often misunderstood his own motives or drew the wrong lessons. I attribute Montaigne’s constant references to introspection to self-aggrandisement, not to philosophical wisdom. He spent twenty years writing his essays, and many of those, include an anecdote about Montaigne’s personal life. However, Montaigne almost never draws a clear conclusion from those anecdotes. He tells us “this happened to me,” but then rambles about possible interpretations. He goes into one direction, but then reverses course, leaving readers in the dark about the point he was trying to make. In his essay “On practice,” Montaigne declared that he was studying himself more than he was studying any other person or subject. I must, however, clarify that, when he says “studying myself,” he mostly means “studying my own emotions.” Why do I think that Montaigne was rather ineffective at introspection? Because, during the two decades he devoted to writing, he didn’t improve his lifestyle in any meaningful way. Take for instance his essay “On repentance.” Montaigne is telling us that he is turning his gaze inward and keeping busy with introspection. “While everybody else is looking ahead, I prefer to look inside myself,” he writes. Fair enough, but what lessons does Montaigne draw from his introspection? Most of the time, none; and occasionally, an insignificant recommendation that he’ll fail to put into practice anyway. I’m not exaggerating in the least. Introspection is a tool, not a pastime for unemployed souls. It is a method for identifying our own fears and motives, not for bragging about how clever we are. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaigne-and-the-art-of-introspection/

Personal reflections can render essays colourful and lively, but cannot guarantee correct judgement. Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) made dozens of personal reflections in his essays, but more often than not, he drew trivial or wrong conclusions. Nonetheless, his essays remain worth reading because they prompt us to think. They confront us with numerous arguments favouring or opposing a thesis, or numerous answers in reply to a question. Montaigne’s faulty logic challenges the readers’ philosophical skills. Which messages is Montaigne conveying in those personal reflections? Self-justification is the only recognisable pattern. I mean that Montaigne is just looking for arguments that justify choices he has already made. For example, his essay “On solitude” recommends the daily practice of retiring from the world, a practice that aims at protecting one’s sanity and serenity. Montaigne followed such practice for the last two decades of his life, and attributed great benefits to it. I must however ask for proof of Montaigne’s assertions: two decades of daily solitude periods constitute a long experiment, but Montaigne’s biography does not show the benefits. If daily periods of solitude are supposed to be beneficial, I would expect to see improvements in Montaigne’s lifestyle in those twenty years. I would expect to see tangible changes that arise from his daily reflection periods. Yet, I see none. The fact is that Montaigne kept doing pretty much the same every day. Montaigne’s essay “On practice” serves the same purpose of self-justification, this time, for Montaigne’s approach to coping with illness. Since he was suffering from kidney stones, Montaigne tried out various treatments, but they proved to no avail. Eventually, he gave up his attempts at finding a remedy, and concluded that “humans must learn to suffer pains that are unavoidable.” Really? When confronted with burning issues, I never relent in my efforts to solve them. I think about them incessantly and keep looking for solutions. The idea of giving up does not even cross my mind. Instead, Montaigne gave up after failing to find a solution. I acknowledge his effort in travelling abroad for a thermal water cure, but when the cure failed, he returned home and left the problem unsolved. Despite the difficulties in dealing with kidney stones in the sixteenth century, Montaigne’s conclusion is wrong. He advises readers to accept pain and stop complaining. He is telling us to give up our attempts to improve our lives. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaignes-personal-reflections/

The insertion of personal reflections is the most innovative aspect in the essays of Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592). The previous centuries had relegated personal reflections to poetry. Montaigne is the first author who gave his personal views on a wide range of subjects, placing his reflections on equal level to quotations from Plato, Aristotle, or Cicero. Since Montaigne did not possess expertise in all those areas, it is fair to question the accuracy of his personal views. I have read his essays in detail, assessing how often he got it right. When Montaigne addressed subjects he knew well, like the education of children, his personal reflections are remarkably accurate. However, when he addressed general philosophical questions, his logic often went astray. On too many occasions, he did not draw a clear conclusion. After examining the arguments against and in favour, he stated that the subject is too complex or that human knowledge is too limited. I find those essays particularly disappointing. Montaigne’s reflections grew in accuracy when he treated subjects particularly close to his heart. That’s the case of his essay “On the inconveniences of high status.” Montaigne could speak from experience because, at one time, he had occupied the highest elected post in the city of Bordeaux. During his tenure, Montaigne had faced civil and religious strife, criticism and opposition. The job had placed him in the middle of confrontations between Catholics and Protestants. It became by far the most stressful experience of his life. Montaigne’s personal reflections are inordinately accurate in assessing the disadvantages of high office. He speaks with an open heart of the vulnerability, risks, and reduced privacy that are associated with jobs in the public view. The risks mentioned by Montaigne go further than the mere loss of fortune or reputation. In his essay, he repeatedly points to the risk of assassination by the opposing political faction. Was Montaigne suffering from paranoia? Did he exaggerate the inconveniences of public office? No, I view his remarks as a fair assessment of the situation in sixteenth-century France. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/accuracy-of-michel-de-montaignes-personal-reflections/

Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) is still widely read today because of one reason. He wrote essays on the nature of human experience and drew conclusions of permanent value. He used numerous examples from ancient Greece and Rome, and those remain fresh and fascinating for today’s readers. What is Montaigne’s main conclusion after devoting twenty years of his life to writing essays? Did he endorse the doctrines of scepticism and relativism, or discovered universal behaviour patterns that lead to happiness? Montaigne’s key philosophical lesson is that happiness takes lots of work, but that it is worth pursuing through daily, steady activity. He acknowledged human imperfections, mistakes, and inconsistencies, but on the other hand, he praised the ancient Greek and Roman heroes for their persistent idealism. Reading Montaigne’s essays enables today’s readers to gain a crucial insight, namely, that it is worth it to pursue the good life despite setbacks, opposition and occasional defeats. This is a message that it is difficult to find elsewhere. Montaigne focused his literary explorations on the analysis of different perspectives on human experience. He took stories from different cultures and scrutinised their underlying ideas with the goal of finding happiness. His comments are sometimes wrong, but never trivial. His search for ancient Greek and Roman wisdom was indefatigable and exuberant. His retelling of historical anecdotes is not fully accurate in details, but always precise in the spirit. Montaigne is the first essayist in history who had no qualms about confessing his confusion when assessing human experience. In half of his essays, he fails to draw clear conclusions, arguing that human experience is so “shapeless and diverse that each moment plays a unique role.” He was also the first essayist in history to regard happiness as deeply subjective. After assessing hundreds of biographies, he concluded that happiness is not a cold summation of one’s wealth, health, pleasures and delights. Montaigne pointed to the strong connection between one’s happiness and the “pattern of opinions and traditions received from the environment.” It is practically impossible, he argued, to attain happiness through immorality. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaigne-and-the-nature-of-human-experience/