John Vespasian

When historians refer to scepticism in the works by Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592), they point to his general reluctance to accept absolute truths. Taken to extremes, scepticism weakens the confidence in one’s perceptions and ability to reason. Since Montaigne wrote essays during a twenty-year period, his own definition of scepticism shifted from general doubts, to self-doubt, to doubts about society’s institutions. The latter is particularly interesting for modern readers because, as Montaigne put it, “it is foolish to consider our own preferences as the only valid model.” When looking at aspects of social organisation, Montaigne favoured open debates, and warned against the blanket condemnation of unusual ideas. Indeed, too many people will automatically steer away from unfamiliar ideas or products, calling them abhorrent, worthless or dangerous, only to realise later that they have been fooled by their own prejudices. Montaigne devoted his essay “Of a defect in our policies” specifically to applying his scepticism to social organisation. It questions the deficiencies and inconsistencies in various social institutions, especially in the field of law. Although Montaigne was a lawyer himself and had long practised law in southern France, he was far from happy with the results. Since he had witnessed how the strict application of the law sometimes leads to injustice, he argues that common sense should prevail over a literal interpretation of legal texts. I like in particular Montaigne’s rejection of the delusion that more laws will lead to better justice. In practice, the contrary will happen. Increased legal complexity tends to generate more costs for everybody involved, but fails to improve the overall results. Montaigne’s scepticism applies to the quantity and qualities of the laws, and of the people who apply them. He does not see an easy solution, but he realises that narrow-mindedness and over-complication will not solve the problem. Instead, he calls for simplicity and common sense. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/social-organisation-and-michel-de-montaignes-scepticism/

Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) built his philosophy step by step, starting with a central concept (the theory of the will), and adding layers of explanations. His physics, epistemology, logic and morality revolve around the theory of the will, and so do his views on the meaning of life. According to Schopenhauer, the will (“life force”) drives all living creatures to secure their survival and reproduction; at the same time, the will prompts them to seek pleasure but doesn’t pay attention to the costs and risks involved. Historians of philosophy call Schopenhauer pessimistic, but the adjective doesn’t quite match Schopenhauer’s ideas. He did point out that humans cannot fulfil all their goals and desires; it is a fact that everybody experiences some measure of failure, but this is not a solid argument to call Schopenhauer pessimistic. Schopenhauer’s observations about suffering are accurate. It is foolish to dismiss them because they are unpleasant. Nobody can deny that frustration eventually ensues when people keep multiplying their ambitions and pursuing them relentlessly. As soon as one desire is satisfied, argues Schopenhauer, a new one is created. Why? Because of the pressure exerted by the will. Life is too short for achieving all objectives, learning all skills, or reading all books. This is not pessimism; it’s a fact. When it comes to the meaning of life, Schopenhauer agrees with Aristotle (384-322 BC) that happiness is the ultimate goal of humans; however, Schopenhauer’s definition of happiness is different from Aristotle’s. In the “Nicomachean Ethics,” Aristotle defined happiness as thriving or flourishing. Schopenhauer chooses a less ambitious definition. He talks about absence of suffering, peace of mind, contentment, and repeated pleasure. I want to underline that Schopenhauer is emphasising the repeatability aspect. The easiest path to happiness, he argues, is to acquire habits (such as playing classical music) that lead to repeated pleasure without negative side effects. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauer-and-the-meaning-of-life/

The key concepts in the philosophy of Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) connect it to Ancient Stoicism and existentialism. Let us pass review to those concepts, which Schopenhauer first outlined in “The world as will and representation,” a book that he published in 1818. Schopenhauer built his philosophy around the theory of the will (“life force”). He viewed the will as the driver of all living creatures. It is a wild, irrational, eternal driver that prompts all creatures to secure their survival and reproduction, and to seek pleasure. The problem with the will is that it doesn’t assess any long-term consequences. It pushes individuals relentlessly to pursue short-term goals without considering the cost and risks. If you fail to become self-aware and adopt countermeasures, the will is going to take control of your life. Schopenhauer’s concept of the will is similar to the concept of fate in Ancient Stoicism. The writings of Seneca (4-65 AD) and Marcus Aurelius (121-180 AD) present fate as irresistible, overwhelming and uncontrollable. In terms of metaphysics, the most important concept from Schopenhauer’s books is the primacy position given to the will. In his early book “On the fourfold root of the principle of sufficient reason” (1814), Schopenhauer had argued that every event has a traceable cause. Subsequently, he acknowledged that the will has not because it is itself the underlying cause of all other phenomena. The Ancient Stoics recommend leading a virtuous life as the best way to enjoy one’s time on earth. Virtue averts suffering and enables happiness, even if nobody has the power to extend his own life beyond the lifespan determined by fate. Schopenhauer’s concept of the good life also entails virtue, but calls for adopting countermeasures against the will. Seneca and Marcus Aurelius had regarded fate as overwhelming, but not Schopenhauer. He considered it feasible to grow self-aware and adopt measures to minimise the influence of the will. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauers-key-concepts/

The twentieth century has generated three serious initiatives to revive the educational philosophy put forward by Aristotle (384-322 BC), or similar to his. In essence, revival initiatives aim at prioritising the student’s individual development. Let’s review these three attempts and see the extent to which they have remained loyal to Aristotelian education. Let’s assess if they have grasped the philosophy outlined in the “Eudemian Ethics” and the “Nicomachean Ethics” by Aristotle. John Dewey (1859-1952) put experiential learning back into the picture, bringing education a step closer to the empiricism favoured by Aristotle. Dewey argued that students learn best when they’re actively engaged in solving real-life problems. It is an idea reminiscent of Aristotle’s theory of causality (material cause, formal cause, efficient cause, and final cause) that prompts us to assess facts by looking at them from several practical standpoints. For this reason, Dewey proposed “learning by doing” as the ideal educational formula. In the classroom, Dewey wanted to engage students in hands-on activities and real-life problems, so that students grasp the subject matter better. In contrast to Aristotle, Dewey underscored the importance of social interaction. He demanded students to solve problems collectively and arrive at solutions in a democratic manner. Dewey’s social interaction requirement plays against all the other elements in his education philosophy. Aristotle would not have endorsed it because he regarded the individual student as the prime actor and beneficiary of the educational process. For Aristotle, the purpose of education is helping students acquire good habits (virtues). It entails shaping each student’s mind, so that it understands the world and learns the difference between good and evil. In contrast to Dewey, Aristotle viewed reason as a personal capability. Each individual must learn to think for himself and make good decisions. There is nothing democratic about virtue and rationality. Each individual must decide whether to employ his mind or not. It is not a social decision. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/the-revival-of-aristotles-views-on-education/

Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) rejected the unshakeable optimism of his contemporaries about the power of reason. He acknowledged that all individuals are potentially able to think, but pointed out that few people make the effort to assess facts accurately and draw logical conclusions. His book “On the fourfold root of the principle of sufficient reason” (1814) defends the thesis that events can be traced to a particular cause in each case. Nothing happens by chance. Also human decisions can be traced to specific causes. However, Schopenhauer found an exception to the principle of sufficient reason and built his whole philosophy around this exception. He named the exception “the will” (life force) and theorised that the will is driving all living entities to secure their survival and reproduction, and to seek short-term pleasure. Schopenhauer described the will in his book “The world as will and representation”(1818). He called the will an irrational, wild, relentless, blind force that drives animals and humans in a certain direction without giving any thought to cost and risks. Humans can understand the cosmos to the extent that they grow aware of the will. Self-awareness is not automatic. It can only be acquired by making a pause and thinking about one’s perceptions. According to Schopenhauer, self-awareness is a prerequisite of reason. Unless you short-circuit the influence of the will, it is going to control your life and drive you to make short-sighted, harmful decisions. Without self-awareness, reason can become a double-edged sword. Without consciousness of the will, reason cannot judge facts accurately. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauer-and-the-role-of-reason/

The historical influence of Aristotle (384-322 BC) rests on the labours of one man, namely, Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274). I find it remarkable that Aquinas made Aristotle’s philosophy popular even though he had never intended to do so. Aquinas was an Italian Dominican monk and theologian, who aimed at spreading Christian ideals. He could not care less about Aristotelian ideas as such, but he had read Aristotle and realized that Aristotelian philosophy is true. The validity of Aristotelian philosophy confronted Aquinas with major questions: How could he present the Gospel as true if it is contradicting Aristotle? How could he claim that Jesus Christ is the only source of truth, if Aristotle had devised a solid philosophy four centuries before Jesus Christ? Aquinas devoted most of his life to reconciling Christian theology with Aristotelian philosophy because he had realized that anyone reading Aristotle would find it very hard to regard the Bible (in particular, the Gospels) as true. During the last five years of his life, Aquinas wrote down a series of arguments (“Summa Theologiae”) using Aristotelian philosophy to justify Christian beliefs. The driving principle in “Summa Theologiae” is that reason and faith can coexist. Aquinas wanted to demonstrate that there are no contradictions between reasons and faith. To this end, he placed the Aristotelian ethics and metaphysics at the service of Christian theology. Truth be told, Aquinas did a wonderful job, but I consider it more a work of imagination than a work of philosophy. He did find ways to twist Aristotle’s ideas into supporting Christianity, and presented them in polished, flawless Latin. Despite Aquinas’ ingenuity, there are aspects of Aristotelian philosophy that cannot be conciliated with Christianity. I refer for instance to Aristotle’s definition of virtue (courage, justice, wisdom) compared to Christian virtue (modesty, altruism, self-sacrifice, charity). I must nonetheless express my gratitude to Aquinas because he made it possible for Aristotelian philosophy to spread across Europe and the rest of the world. Aquinas reinvigorated ideals that had been dormant for centuries and enabled them to grow strong roots. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/aristotles-influence-on-western-philosophy/

The views of Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) on the role of reason differ from those of prior philosophers. On the one hand, Schopenhauer is more realistic. He does hold reason in high regard, but acknowledges the strong influence of impulses in human decisions. On the other hand, Schopenhauer observes that it takes substantial effort to use reason assiduously. The ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus (341-271 BC) had in part anticipated Schopenhauer’s views on the role of reason. He favoured the search of pleasure as the key to happiness, but he acknowledged that the thoughtless search for pleasure can lead to pain. Schopenhauer conveyed this warning in “Two fundamental problems in ethics,” a book he published in 1843. He regarded the avoidance of suffering as the first step to happiness; reason plays a crucial role in this process because it’s the only means to assess risks and costs. Epicurus had distinguished between kinetic pleasure (which is the result of satisfying desires) and tranquillity, which he had defined as the absence of pain. Like Schopenhauer, he viewed tranquillity as a top priority. Peace of mind requires the use of reason, but according to Schopenhauer, one must grow self-aware before using reason consistently; for Schopenhauer, self-awareness is a prerequisite to exercising the power of reason. In his book “The world as will and representation” (1818), Schopenhauer theorised that the will (“life force”) prompts all living entities to secure their survival and reproduction, and to seek pleasure without thinking of risks, costs or consequences. Reason can help you adopt countermeasures against the will but you must first grow aware of the will. Schopenhauer gives “self-awareness” a specific meaning. He refers to awareness of the will, its influence, and its dire consequences. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/analysis-of-schopenhauers-views-on-the-role-of-reason/

The search for happiness relies on certainty in reasoning and effectiveness in action. Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) coined a brand of moral relativism that, he assumed, could help us reduce mistakes in reasoning. Montaigne’s arguments give us abundant food for thought, in particular when it comes to making crucial decisions. How much can you trust your perceptions and logic? What mistakes are typically made by people under pressure? All in all, these discussions aim at improving one’s chances of success in life. In an essay titled “On the uncertainty of our judgement,” we can find Montaigne’s key questions about morality and why he is favouring, in some cases, moral relativism. Montaigne states as a starting point that every human feels the pressure of his environment, physical and social. His ideas and desires are, to a certain extent, influenced by culture. Even his opinion of himself depends, at least in part, of what others are thinking. I find it fair to acknowledge that humans can perceive facts wrongly. Even if we go through the same situation, we can feel differently and perceive the situation differently. Our emotions can distort how we see the world, and drive us in the wrong direction. However, Montaigne was wrong in concluding that there is no objective truth. The fact that humans often make mistakes does not mean that it is impossible to do things correctly. Individuals have the potential to figure out the truth, but this does not mean that the truth is self-evident. Gaining certainty is hard because it requires intelligence, effort and motivation, but it can be done. Truth is neither subjective nor relative. Montaigne resorts to historical examples to prove that truth (especially ethical truth) is relative, but none of his examples can withstand close examination. In fact, they lead us to the opposite conclusion, namely, that it’s hard to discover the truth, but that discovery and certainty are possible. For instance, Montaigne recounts that King Pyrrhus (318-272 BC) had consulted a soothsayer before engaging in war in Italy against Rome. The soothsayer encouraged Pyrrhus to go ahead and predicted severe destruction for Rome. Pyrrhus went ahead and invaded southern Italy, fighting a large battle in Heraclea, in the Basilicata region. He caused severe destruction for Rome, as the soothsayer had predicted, but his own troops were also decimated. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaigne-and-moral-relativism/

We all need clear philosophical principles to make accurate, quick decisions. In the absence of principles, decisions depend on emotions, prejudice and superstition. The essayist Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) asked himself how to make good decisions, and recorded his reasoning in detail. Montaigne was puzzled by the wide variety of opinions that people hold when confronted with the same facts. He devoted his essay “That what’s called good and evil mostly depends on our opinions” to analysing this matter. Although Montaigne drew the wrong conclusion, his essay is worth reading to immunise oneself against the philosophical errors of relativism, emotionalism and escapism. Montaigne invoked historical examples that, in his eyes, are pointing to the conclusion that moral judgement only possesses subjective value. Thus, he affirms that moral judgement cannot be universal, objective, and permanent. Instead of looking for moral principles, Montaigne denies their existence. Instead of calling for philosophical consistency and accuracy, he praises the humility and tolerance of people who refuse to pass judgement. Montaigne employs examples drawn from ancient history, mostly from Greek and Rome. For instance, he points to the fact that, in the battles between the Roman Republic and King Pyrrhus (318-272 BC), Roman soldiers fought orderly, keeping their formation, while Pyrrhus' soldiers fought chaotically. However, says Montaigne, the Roman order and discipline failed to win over Pyrrhus' disorganised troops. Those battles lacked a clear outcome because both opponents suffered major losses. Pyrrhus claimed victory, but in reality, his troops had been decimated. The more battles he fought, the more men he lost, without barely gaining any land. Shortly after, he decided to abandon his ambition of conquering Italy. Montaigne draws the wrong conclusion: He claims that it is impossible to determine whether the organised fighting style of the Romans is superior to Pyrrhus' chaotic manoeuvres. He tries to argue that one style is as good as another, that nobody can really tell, and that this proves that moral values are subjective. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/critique-of-michel-de-montaignes-moral-relativism/

Many people today ask themselves if all cultures are equal, or if some cultures are superior to others; the question is as old as humanity, and the answer is crucially important. Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) asked himself this same question in the sixteenth century, and examined in great detail the arguments from both sides. His careful philosophical analysis is still worth reading nowadays. In the sixteenth century, intellectuals regarded Europe as the leading culture. They took for granted that all things European were vastly superior to other cultures. Neither America, Africa, or Asia could compete with Europe, they thought. Montaigne was the first essayist to contest this presumption. He realized that European architecture and military technology were far superior to those in other countries, but he argued that those do not necessarily render Europe superior in all areas. Human nature is the same everywhere, noted Montaigne. It makes no sense to praise a culture as “superior” without having assessed if individuals in that culture are actually happier than those in other cultures. For instance, argues Montaigne, we should not dismiss too quickly the lifestyle of Brazilian tribes. They might appear “barbaric” at first sight, but are they not happier because they live closer to nature? Do they not live more authentically and morally than the average European? Montaigne defended cultural relativism, that is, the idea that all cultures are equal. He refused to use the terms “civilized” and “barbaric,” arguing that they are purely subjective. People tend to regard their own lifestyle as civilized, and everything else as barbaric, he observed. I agree with Montaigne that prejudice and personal taste can play a role in how we judge another culture, but does it play the dominant role? I very much doubt it. French people consider their cuisine better than the English one, but does this aspect render French culture “superior”? Or do paintings by Rafael, Leonardo and Michelangelo render Italian culture superior to every other culture? I love French cuisine and Italian art, but my personal taste does not constitute a solid argument for categorizing a culture as “superior” or “inferior.” Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaigne-and-cultural-relativism/