John Vespasian

Aristotle addressed friendship in his “Nicomachean Ethics.” He viewed friendship as indispensable for leading a happy life, but identified three types of friendships: those based on utility, those based on pleasure, and those based on shared values or virtues. The latter is by far the most valuable. Friendships of utility are based on mutual interest. People collaborate with each other for a myriad of reasons, which are not necessarily linked to business or making money. Business partners constitute an example of the Aristotelian “friendship based on utility” but the same can be said of people who join a tennis club because they enjoy playing tennis, or of those who happen to be neighbours because they live in the same apartment block. They collaborate in running a business, playing a tennis or football match, maintaining the common areas in a building, or exchanging little favours amongst neighbours. Those friendships are based on tic for tac. If those persons did not have a shared interest, they might perhaps not even talk to each other. If their common interest disappears, those people will grow apart very quickly and their friendship will wane. In contrast, friendships of pleasure arise from enjoying each other’s company. For instance, when a group of youths gather every Saturday night to go out. They tell each other stories and jokes, and have a good time. However, friendships of pleasure tend to remain superficial and temporary. They don’t last long because they are not based on strong intellectual and emotional connections. They deliver some pleasure, but lack depth and endurance power. The third type identified by Aristotle are friendships based on shared moral values or virtues. Aristotle calls them “perfect friendships,” especially when those values or virtues are hard to achieve. Friends that share common values will feel genuine respect, generosity and admiration towards each other. They will gladly devote their energies and material resources to helping friends because they see them as contributors to a common cause. These friendships rest on the personality and values of the persons involved. They tend to be strong and enduring. They’ll often last a lifetime, and if they end, it’s because the concerned person has changed his personality or moral values. Nonetheless, Aristotle was wrong in saying that friendships based on shared values take time to develop. In fact, they grow extremely quickly. Once people recognise each other’s loyalty to values they admire, the emotional connection can be almost immediate. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/aristotles-view-on-friendship/

Aristotle (384-322 BC) made four decisive contributions to philosophy. First, in metaphysics, he refuted Plato’s theory of forms. While Plato had believed in a world of pure abstractions (which he called “forms”), Aristotle emphasised observing the material world. Second, Aristotle came up with the concepts of substance and form. He asserted that each item is composed of substance and form. Substance refers to its underlying essence, and form to its individual characteristics. The combination of substance and form define the identity of each entity or person. Identity determines how an entity will behave, its present and future actions. Those are connected by relations of cause and effect, which constitute Aristotle’s theory of causality. Aristotle studied motion and defined four types of causation (material cause, formal cause, efficient cause, and final cause). The latter (final cause or purpose) is crucial for understanding human motivation and behaviour. Third, Aristotle reinvented morality in his “Nicomachean Ethics.” He argued that the goal of human life is “eudaimonia” (happiness, flourishing, thriving, fulfilment) and that the path to eudaimonia requires a virtuous life. Aristotle’s view of virtue is linked to individual happiness, not to supernatural edicts. He came up with a new art theory in his work “Poetics” and identified objective criteria for telling apart good from bad art, explaining the link between art and happiness. Fourth, in his work “Politics,” Aristotle examined all forms of government (monarchy, aristocracy, polity) and the risks of corruption that transform them into tyranny, oligarchy and mob rule. He favoured a mixed form of government where power is divided amongst the monarch, the aristocracy, and the people. Let us explore these four key contributions, one by one. Aristotle refuted once and for all the theory of forms devised by Plato (428-347). Plato had conveyed his philosophy through his dialogues (a literary genre) where Socrates is often the main character. The key element of Plato’s philosophy is the theory of forms or theory of pure abstractions. Plato believed that the world we perceive is just an imperfect reflection of an intangible world made of pure abstractions or “forms.” According to Plato, the acquisition of knowledge consists of accessing the world of forms. Plato stated that most people live in a state of ignorance, like prisoners in a cave, perceiving only shadows of a true reality, which can only be accessed through education about the forms. Aristotle’s greatest contribution was to discard the theory of the forms. We learn through observation and thinking, he said, not by mystical connection to a world of pure abstractions. You should look at reality, study the characteristics of entities, and figure out how they are interconnected through causality. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/aristotles-four-key-contributions-to-philosophy/

The philosophy of logic and reason developed by Aristotle (384-322 BC) is different from computer logic, religious logic, and other types of logic that have existed in history. There are three distinct features that render Aristotelian logic unique. I’m going to present those three features, one by one. First, Aristotelian logic is linked to language. I would go even further and specify that it is linked to human language. Humans have ways of thinking that are very different from those of computers. We can place statements in a psychological or ethical context, and draw extremely accurate conclusions from sketchy evidence. The fact that Aristotelian logic is based on human language should be regarded as a strength, not as a weakness. I certainly do not share the views of Ramon Llull (1232–1315) who wrote a complete treatise (“Ars Magna”) favouring a non-ambiguous system of logic based on quasi-mathematical formulae. Llull was attacking the imprecision of Aristotelian logic; his argument is that human language is often imprecise and cannot be trusted. Llull proposed to replace language with an array of symbols similar to today’s commands in computer programs. If we follow Llull’s proposal, we would reduce the areas in which logic can be used. Llull’s proposal would cut down by ninety per cent the fields where logic is currently applied. Why on earth would anybody want to do that? Even if the remaining ten per cent of conclusions becomes perfectly exact, the loss is huge. How are we supposed to make decisions in everyday life without logic? Llull was naïve in his belief that, by eliminating natural language, he would improve the situation. Second, human logic can deal with imprecision. Aristotle’s method of drawing conclusions is nothing but a mirror of how the human mind works. It is the way we formulate conclusions a hundred times a day. We automatically compare, combine, and re-combine facts to guide our actions in all circumstances. In most cases, we don’t need precise facts or conclusions. A cook can vary the recipe and still prepare a tasty dish. Lawyers can draw up contracts by using different wordings to the same effect. Chess players can invert the order of their moves, but still arrive at the same position. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/aristotles-most-crucial-teachings-on-logic-and-reasoning/

Aristotle (384-322 BC) outlined his thoughts on tragedy in his work “Poetics.” He regarded tragedy as an art form evoking pity and fear, leading the audience to gain emotional resilience and wisdom. The process of gaining resilience and wisdom from tragedy watched on stage is called “catharsis.” The key plot element in a tragedy is that the hero (who is essentially virtuous) ends up destroying his life due to a judgement error. Aristotle considered the plot structure crucial for delivering the desired aesthetic effect on stage. In Ancient Athens, theatre was the primary means of literary expression. “Poetics” gives advice on how to maximise the literary effect and catharsis. According to Aristotle, a playwright can raise the aesthetic effect of his works if he commits to unity of action, unity of time, and unity of place. Triple unity makes theatre plays easy to grasp for the audience. “Unity of action” means that a play should have a cohesive, single plot. Aristotle was against sub-plots because they create confusion in the audience. Unless sub-plots are strictly needed to explain the main action, Aristotle asked to remove them. “Unity of time” means that the events in the play should all take place in a short period. Preferably, all events should take place in no longer than twenty-four hours. If you compress the actions on stage, the story becomes easier to understand for the audience. “Unity of place” means that the actions on stage should take place in a single location or in locations that are closely linked. Ancient Greek stages did not allow for change of settings, and this explains Aristotle’s preference for strict unity of place. In modern theatre, where it is technically possible to change settings quickly, and in novels and movies, there is no need to stick to Aristotle’s requirements. Unity of action, unity of time, and unity of place play a minor role in modern literature. Catharsis is no longer the main purpose of literary works. If authors choose to stick to the Aristotelian framework, their plot will revolve around the hero’s moral choices and his struggle to achieve his goals. First-class literature remains loyal to Aristotelian paradigms but prefers to have its heroes win. Readers, television-watchers and movie-goers definitely prefer to see the hero triumph over adversity and attain happiness. The hero’s journey is a proven pattern in many Hollywood’s successful movies. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/aristotles-thoughts-on-tragedy-and-literature/

In history, only a handful of philosophers have endorsed the views on knowledge and learning developed by Aristotle (384-322 BC). The opposition to Aristotle’s empiricism began before his birth, that is, with his predecessors, in particular Socrates and Plato. Let us take a look at how their views differ from those of Aristotle. Socrates (469-399 BC) never wrote any books, but his ideas have been recorded by Plato and Xenophon in their books. If we trust those sources, Socrates had been born in Athens to Sophroniscus, a stonemason, and Phaenarete, a midwife. Neither Plato nor Xenophon recount any details of Socrates’ youth. The first time they mention him, Socrates was already in his early thirties. Apparently, he was in the habit of holding lively conversations in the Athenian marketplace, attacking the established beliefs and traditions. His attacks employed a method that has been later labelled as “Socratic.” It consists of taking an apparently true statement and asking a series of probing questions to test its validity. The questions will start in a friendly tone, and grow increasingly aggressive as the statement validity begins to crumble. According to Plato, Socrates said that true wisdom starts with recognising one’s ignorance, which is a meaningless thing to say. In his work “Metaphysics,” Aristotle took the opposite view to Socrates. Aristotle considered that wisdom should be measured only by objective standards. Truth must be universal or not at all. It is irrelevant if you fulfil Socrates’ requirement of recognising your own ignorance because the truth is not subjective. Socrates is supposed to have said that “I am wise because I know that I know nothing.” That’s another meaningless thing to say. Socrates was trying to look humble, but humility has no connection to wisdom. The fact that someone is modest doesn’t mean that he is wise, nor that he will ever be. Socrates’ theory of knowledge and learning did not make any sense. Unsurprisingly, Socrates’ criticism of Athenian beliefs made him lots of enemies. Eventually, he was charged with impiety and corrupting the youth. The charges themselves were idiotic, but that was not the point. The real issue was that Socrates had made a vast number of enemies. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/opponents-to-aristotles-views-on-knowledge-and-learning/

After the disastrous distortions introduced in late Antiquity, it took twenty-three centuries to put into practice the views that Aristotle (384-322 BC) had developed on education. The reason for the long interval is not that Aristotle’s ideas on education are difficult to grasp. In fact, it only takes a few hours of study to understand Aristotelian ethics, which regards happiness as the goal of human life and virtue as the path to happiness. Aristotelian educational ideas emanate from Aristotelian ethics. If happiness is the goal, and virtue shows the path, then the purpose of education is to teach virtue. Each student should learn ethics and acquire good habits (virtues) that will lead him to happiness. The reason why the world has taken twenty-three centuries to embrace Aristotelian education is that people did not agree with it. For twenty-three centuries, most educators had rejected the Aristotelian link between happiness, virtue and education. I give credit for starting to resurrect Aristotelian educational ideals to Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi (1746-1827). Although he did not come to embrace Aristotle out of intellectual reflection, his practical discoveries opened the door for reintroducing Aristotelian thinking in education. Without Pestalozzi’s work, I fear that education would still be following the authoritarian paradigm imposed by medieval monks and later strengthened by Bismarck (1815-1898). Just as Aristotle’s ideas rely on empiricism, Pestalozzi was a proponent of learning through experience. As a teacher, he had observed that students learn best by doing, and worst through rote memorisation. Pestalozzi outlined his ideas on education in his book “The Evening Hours of a Hermit,” published in 1780. He regarded a practical education as the best method because it helps students integrate conceptual knowledge with hands-on results. In his work “Metaphysics,” Aristotle had advised to analyse the four causes of entities, namely, the material cause (what are they made of?), formal cause (their shape), efficient cause (the force bringing them in motion) and final cause (their purpose). Similarly, Pestalozzi was teaching students by involving at the same time their heads, their heart, and their hands. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/putting-aristotles-views-on-education-into-practice/

Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) built himself a morality framework by writing essays for two decades. His philosophy resembles a house built little by little, using various techniques and materials, and then painted over several times in different colours. On the one hand, Montaigne embraced scepticism, showing very little confidence in the human ability to establish absolute truths. He studied history extensively, especially ancient Rome and ancient Greece, and realised that even the best people tend to behave inconsistently. If the best individuals seem unable to keep a steady course, how can the rest of us find the right answers? If social pressure and local traditions play a dominant role in human thought, can we hold people responsible for their mistakes? In contrast to prior philosophers, Montaigne focused on the individual instead of trying to establish universal truths. From his historical studies, he extracted valuable hands-on lessons, but declined to construe a systematic philosophy. Montaigne’s goal was to improve his own effectiveness and happiness, not to prescribe to the whole world how to behave. In his essays, we find elaborate discussions about ethics, but they all aim at solving specific problems. What to do in times of adversity, asks Montaigne. What is the right course of action when things fall apart? How to avoid liars and find truthful friends. How to use one’s time and energy wisely? Those are the questions that Montaigne tried to answer. Although Montaigne was a religious person, a Catholic, he gave more weight to history and experience than to Christian theology. Nonetheless, he agreed with theologians that each man should follow his own conscience, and do what’s right, no matter how strongly people tell him otherwise. Montaigne viewed integrity as the cardinal virtue. He called one’s conscience “the most sacred of all possessions” and the “voice of truth.” He regarded the treason to one’s conscience as a crime practically impossible to expiate. His moral philosophy revolved around the virtue of having a clear conscience. That explains why he favoured virtues such as modesty, tolerance and moderation. He spoke against undue influences on our conscience, and committed himself to letting other people follow their convictions. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaigne-and-moral-philosophy/

Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) is regarded as the first existentialist philosopher in history because he accepted the inevitability of death, and sought to maximise his happiness in every situation. Instead of fearing death, Montaigne recommended getting acquainted with it, so that it becomes part of our expectations. The consciousness of our limited lifespan can help us make the best of every day and every opportunity. Montaigne’s individualism reinforced his existentialism. He showed little interest in abstract rules that tell everybody what to do with his life. Instead, Montaigne recommended us to live in accordance with our true self. That’s the best path to a full enjoyment of life, he argued. Like the twentieth century existentialists Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) and Albert Camus (1913-1960), Montaigne was suspicious of absolute ethical truths. His prescriptions for joy and effectiveness are markedly subjective. He cared more for a good day’s work than for saving the world. Montaigne also showed his existentialism in his absence of discomfort in the face of uncertainty. Plato, Aristotle and other philosophers had wanted to build systems of thought that lead to certainty, but Montaigne could not care less. Instead of agonising about uncertainty, Montaigne took for granted that the future is, to a large extent, unpredictable. The path to high effectiveness and happiness starts with flexibility. Self-improvement is commendable, but perfection is a goal that we can never achieve. Fallibility is the price we pay for being alive. Let us work at improving ourselves, but without growing depressed about our deficiencies. Montaigne’s respect for individual choices is another trait of his existentialism. The path to happiness is uniquely personal. Choose your own path and take responsibility for your actions, advised Montaigne. Four centuries later, his prescription was replicated almost literally by Jean-Paul Sartre. The influence of Montaigne on existentialism was quiet and unrecognised. In the nineteenth century, it happened often that philosophers reproduced Montaigne’s formulations but without giving him any credit. They fed on his writings and regurgitated his ideas, passing them off as fresh and original. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaigne-and-existentialism/

For historians of philosophy, there is a definite proof that Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) was a forerunner of modern existentialism; they point to Montaigne’s essay titled “To study philosophy is to learn to die” and argue that it contains all key ideas of existentialist philosophy. I cannot deny Montaigne’s position as a precursor of Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) and Albert Camus (1913-1960), but I want to underline the uniqueness of his ideas. Neither Sartre, Camus, or any other modern existentialist has ever grasped Montaigne’s optimism and benevolence. They have also not grasped Montaigne’s method. He was not a well-spoken theoretician, even if he did lots of research. Montaigne had a hands-on approach to philosophy that contrasts with later and prior authors. Montaigne loved to read Greek and Roman classics to draw practical wisdom. He admired Socrates, Seneca, Epicurus and Marcus Aurelius because they had solved problems similar to those he was facing. Montaigne’s interest in their ideas was one hundred per cent personal: he wanted to improve his own life. When Montaigne affirmed that “To study philosophy is to learn to die,” he actually meant that “To study philosophy is to learn to live,” that is, to learn to make the best of each day. Montaigne’s goal was not to prepare himself for death, like a monk who goes each day to confession, but to employ death as a motivator to live better, more effectively and intensely. His awareness of his own mortality led him to cheerfulness, to joy, for the fact that he was still alive and capable of action. Like the ancient stoics, in particular Seneca (4 BC-65 AD), Montaigne had found serenity after accepting his own future death. The fact that he suffered from kidney stones for decades only reinforced his consciousness of death. He enjoyed each day to the maximum, precisely because he had realized that life is so precious and fragile. He was grateful for what he had, and put it to good use. In contrast to later existentialists such as Martin Heidegger (1889-1976), Montaigne did not consider his own death as a tragedy or threat. He viewed death as an inevitable part of life: it is an aspect to be reckoned with, not something to agonise about. In the twentieth century, existentialists such as Albert Camus, theorised about the connection between future death and present anxiety, but such connection played a minor role in Montaigne’s philosophy. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaigne-as-a-precursor-of-existentialism/

I view Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) as the first thinker who realized that scepticism can save one’s life. His insight is still true today, and will remain true for as long as people keep using deceit and misrepresentation to further their interests. Unfortunately, Montaigne’s defence of scepticism is rather messy. In some essays, he rightly refuses to believe other people’s statements when they contradict his own experience. I would call that prudence rather than scepticism, and I consider it a perfectly valid attitude. However, in some other essays, Montaigne doubts his own perceptions because they might be wrong. Since he also doubts other people’s perceptions, what is the result? His universal doubts lead him to scepticism and intellectual paralysis. Montaigne’s essay titled “That it is folly to measure truth and error by our own capacity” shows precisely this deficiency. It raises questions on the validity of one’s perceptions, logic, and conclusions, and speaks in favour of universal scepticism. I categorise Montaigne’s arguments as messy because they are shooting in all directions. Instead of questioning ideas that are unproven, Montaigne goes overboard and starts to question all ideas, all perceptions, and all conclusions. Why was Montaigne reluctant to trust his own perceptions and his own logic? Because of egoism, he explains. He was afraid that his own self-interest would distort his perception of the facts, and lead him to wrong conclusions. I consider Montaigne’s argument extremely weak because one can easily correct emotional distortions. The only thing we need to do is to compare our conclusions with reality. Do they hold water, or do they contradict the facts? Even worse, Montaigne found scepticism great because he regarded it as a form of humility. Why am I to make definite statements about anything, he thought. How can I be totally certain of anything if there are people wiser than me? Montaigne’s humility comes from his Catholic background, and pollutes his whole philosophy. Humility makes him doubt his own shadow because, who knows, the sun might go away tomorrow, let the earth go dark, and efface all shadows. To prove the point that “it is folly to measure truth and error by our own capacity,” Montaigne uses far-fetched illustrations drawn from ancient history and literature. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaignes-scepticism/