John Vespasian

The question of cultural relativism has profound, wide- and long-reaching implications. Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) emerged in the sixteenth century as the most prominent defender of moral and cultural relativism, but never grasped the full impact of his arguments. For instance, Montaigne failed to grasp the implications of seemingly anodyne statements such as “pleasure can never be pure, because it is always mixed with some negative emotions” or “every joy in life is accompanied by some measure of fear.” What is even worse, Montaigne sustained that “every good quality contains some part of evil” and that “humans can never be totally happy because there will always be some factor that undermines their joy.” I regard those statements as philosophical horrors because they undermine all human achievements. Why should anyone strive to behave honestly if virtue is impossible to attain? What is the point of working hard and intelligently if one can never be happy? Montaigne’s determined cultural relativism (the idea that all cultures, barbaric or civilised, have the same value) mirrors his moral relativism. In essence, Montaigne favours a subjective, inconsistent approach to individual and societal ethics. The consequences of moral and cultural relativism are lethal because they deprive people of the ability to think logically. In defending that there is no good or bad (at least, not in a pure form), or that pure happiness is impossible, Montaigne is depriving people of their motivation to enjoy life. Montaigne’s relativism creates deep confusion in all areas of human activity. How is one supposed to make decisions if he is incapable of telling the difference between right and wrong? If “pure” happiness is unattainable, what’s the point of ambition, honesty, and hard work? Unsurprisingly, Montaigne proves unable to answer those questions. His essays undermine moral and cultural certainty in all areas, but fail to replace them with a workable doctrine. His ethical relativism leads to indifference, lethargy, and poverty. Late in life, while revising his essays to prepare a second edition, Montaigne must have realized that his moral relativism (individual and cultural) left too many questions unanswered. As a result, Montaigne devised a doctrine that made things even worse. He presented his doctrine in an essay titled “That our actions should be judged by our intentions.” Since he had deprived reality (ambition, work, achievement, happiness) of moral or cultural meaning, he came up with the doctrine that the crucial element for telling good from bad are a person’s intentions. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/consequences-of-montaignes-moral-and-cultural-relativism/

Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) devoted twenty years of his life to writing essays on everything under the sun. He chose questions that he found intriguing, researched them thoroughly, and enumerated the arguments in favour and against. Although Montaigne deployed massive efforts to research, he seldom reached definite conclusions on anything. He gave a detailed overview of facts and their possible interpretation, but refrained from taking sides, arguing that the truth is subjective. Montaigne’s subjectivity undermines the intellectual appeal of his essays. What’s the point of studying a subject thoroughly if no conclusion can be drawn? Why devote one’s energies to learning if the truth is relative, changeable, or unknowable? Was Montaigne conscious of the intellectual weakness of his approach? Absolutely, but the problem is that he considered subjectivity a moral virtue. Sadly, he mistook indecisiveness for “moderation” and cowardice as “humility.” Montaigne regarded moral indifference as “pragmatic” and procrastination as “prudence.” As a result, his essays shoot in all directions, but fail to hit any targets. Montaigne forgets that the purpose of wisdom is action, not abstract speculation. Relativism rendered Montaigne impervious to logic, blind to inconsistencies, and fearful of clarity. He tried to pass off his confusion as “tolerance,” while he infringed every principle set forth by Aristotle (384-322 BC). As a result, Montaigne proved unable of intellectual passion and coherence. To make things worse, since he could not make his mind on any issue, he came up with spurious explanations. Take for instance his essay “That our desires are increased by difficulty.” Instead of establishing a definite moral code that can guide readers, he emphasises that role that external factors can play in human desires. The reason why humans pursue goals that are out of reach, argues Montaigne, is precisely because those goals are hard or impossible to attain. People would be happier, he advises, if they abandoned those ambitions and enjoyed what they have. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaigne-and-the-nature-of-truth/

Despite his extensive writings, Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) produced a rather limited set of ideas. His philosophical system revolves around the theory of the will (“life force”) that he regarded as the prime mover of all living entities. Let's review Schopenhauer's main ideas. First and foremost, Schopenhauer rebelled against the ideas of Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831), and Johann Gottlieb Fichte (1762-1814). They dominated mainstream philosophy at that time. I find it heartbreaking however that Schopenhauer achieved very little success in his lifetime. After death, Kant and Hegel continued to rule undisputed for a century. What's the key difference between Schopenhauer and Kant? According to Kant, human beings cannot know things as they are in themselves because human intelligence is limited. In this way, Kant kept the door open for religious beliefs. Philosophy historians categorise Kant as “idealist” because he believed in the existence of some ideas that humans cannot grasp. The same categorisation applies to Fichte and Hegel. In contrast, Schopenhauer sustained that humans are able to grasp the true nature of reality through self-awareness. In “The world as will and representation” (1818), he acknowledged the influence of the will, but called readers to grow self-aware and adopt countermeasures (prudence, foresight, self-reliance...). Similarly, Schopenhauer criticised Fichte's belief in national spirits and Hegel's belief in an absolute spirit. Those spirits do not exist in reality, countered Schopenhauer. He did not regard idealism as a sound philosophy. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauers-main-ideas/

The influence of Aristotle (384-322 BC) on Western ideals, philosophy and society has been a slow and difficult process. I tend to choose direct ways when it comes to business, learning, and problem solving but Aristotelian ideas survived and spread only indirectly. Before Aristotle’s works became popular in twelve-century Europe, they had been preserved in Eastern countries. Without the studies made by Avicenna (990-1037), I am convinced that some works by Aristotle would have been definitively lost. Avicenna lived in Persia (today’s Iran), where he laboured to preserve and transmit Aristotelian ideas. His “Handbook of Medicine” borrows heavily from Aristotle’s metaphysics. In Avicenna’s work, we can find the Aristotelian concepts of material cause, formal cause, efficient cause, final cause, and prime mover. Avicenna named it “Unmoved Mover,” but gave it exactly the same meaning as Aristotle’s prime mover. It is the ultimate cause behind all actions taking place in the world. The meaning given by Avicenna to the “Unmoved Mover” is connected to religion. While Aristotelian philosophy regards the prime mover as a speculation (a potential explanation that still needs to be proven), Avicenna considered the theory of the “Unmoved Mover” as a demonstration of God’s existence and infinite power. Avicenna’s “Handbook of Medicine” relies on Aristotelian empiricism from beginning to end. It advises physicians to use their senses (smell, touch, vision) to assess symptoms, identify the pattern of sickness, and treat it methodically. The trial-and-error method outlined by Avicenna was more sophisticated than Aristotle’s incipient empiricism. His deeper understanding of scientific inquiry can be attributed to the fact that he was a practising physician. In contrast, Aristotle’s observations on zoology and botany had often remained at layman’s level. During his stay at Lesbos in 337 BC, he took extensive notes and later turned them into two books, but I must rate them as superficial if compared with Avicenna’s “Handbook of Medicine.” Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/the-path-of-aristotles-influence-on-western-philosophy/

For Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860), wisdom is an effect of philosophy. I define wisdom as practical ethics, that is, a set of principles that enables humans to make quick decisions in all life’s situations. Wisdom is not necessarily sophisticated, but it must rest on sound philosophical footing. According to Schopenhauer, wisdom is a practical outcome from philosophical study, especially from the study of the will (“life force”), which he regarded as the driving force of living creatures. In his book “The world as will and representation” (1818), Schopenhauer outlined his theory of the will and analysed its implications. The more you study the will, the higher your self-awareness and self-reliance, which constitute the basis for all wisdom. Schopenhauer considered it impossible to develop wisdom without a profound understanding of the will. Why? Because the will is continuously driving humans to ensure their survival and reproduction. In addition, the will is prompting humans to seek pleasure without looking at costs, risks and consequences. The acquisition of wisdom consists of negating the will. It is a process that starts with acknowledging the negative influence of the will, identifying countermeasures, and carrying them out consistently. Wisdom is the opposite of the will. Schopenhauer described the will as irrational, eternal, relentless, wild and insatiable. He advised countermeasures aiming at developing wisdom. Those countermeasures encompass self-awareness and self-reliance, foresight, prudence, and adopting adequate margins of safety. According to Schopenhauer, the unwillingness or failure to develop wisdom is tantamount to losing control of one’s life. If you fail to adopt countermeasures, the will is going to take full control and drive you to make harmful decisions. Schopenhauer considered it impossible to achieve happiness without wisdom. Happiness is the destination, and wisdom is the path. Lack of wisdom leads to stress, anxiety, and all sorts of suffering. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauers-views-on-wisdom/

In his work “Metaphysics,” Aristotle presents the concept of the prime mover. Philosophers have also called it the unmoved mover, the prime cause, the prime mover, or the first cause. All those terms have the same meaning, namely, the idea that there is a single entity responsible for everything that happens. Aristotle (384-322 BC) was not the first philosopher to put forward the theory of a single force driving the cosmos, but he kept the inventor’s glory because he wrote down his thoughts about the matter. In “Metaphysics,” Aristotle argued that there must be some unchanging, eternal source driving all changes we perceive day in and day out. Aristotle viewed the prime mover as a hypothesis or working concept to be explored. He found the idea interesting to play with, but never claimed that it was a proven fact. The prime mover, theorised Aristotle, should consist of pure actuality that is devoid of potentiality. This means it is already perfect and complete in its present shape (“actuality”) and that has no unrealised goals or desires (“potentiality”). Aristotle speculated further that, if the prime mover remains at the origin of all events, it should consist of an intangible and immutable force. According to this theory, the prime mover is going to set events in motion and drive them towards a goal or purpose (“final cause”). Despite my admiration for Aristotle, I must say that his idea of the prime mover does not make any sense, nor has any basis in observable reality. It’s unfortunate that Aristotle devoted two chapters of “Metaphysics” to elaborate on this concept because it has wasted the time of later philosophers. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/aristotles-theory-of-the-prime-mover/

Can a person become happy if he refrains from taking sides, making decisions, and pursuing clear objectives? Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) addressed this subject in his essay “On Moderation,” where he praises moderation as a crucial virtue. Montaigne defines “moderation” as the contrary to “extreme ideas and behaviour.” Thus, he is giving a subjective definition where “moderation” means the middle of the road between two points arbitrarily chosen. According to Montaigne’s definition, all strong desires and emotions are evil, or at the very least, counterproductive. He is calling for “moderation” in all areas of life because he regards all human passions as inappropriate. Montaigne equates “moderation” with “balance,” and then proclaims them universally good. It doesn’t matter what subject one is addressing, or which circumstances one is facing. If we take sides, we are “unbalanced” and ethically wrong. In his call for “moderation” and “equanimity,” Montaigne is invoking the ancient Greek philosopher Socrates (470-399 BC) and ancient Stoics such as Seneca (4 BC-65 AD) and Marcus Aurelius (161-180 AD). Montaigne doesn’t even try to explain why “moderation” is better than passion; his ethical model is, to put it mildly, weird. Why does Montaigne consider a moderate liar more virtuous than a consistent truth teller? Is a moderate thief more virtuous than a man who consistently respects other people’s property? Instead of explaining the alleged benefits of “moderation,” Montaigne undertakes a fierce attack against “extreme actions” and “excesses.” He regards moderation as the key to serenity, well-being, and happiness, and employs historical anecdotes to prove his point. The problem is that, if we analyse those historical anecdotes impartially, we must draw the opposite conclusion. Instead of viewing “moderation” as a virtue, we bear witness that it often results from cowardice, confusion and indecision. Instead of a recipe for happiness, it is a recipe for anxiety. Montaigne praises Socrates as a practitioner of moderation, simplicity and self-control, but is it really true? Socrates’ death shows that his “moderation” was based on his inability to think clearly, escape Athens and go into exile. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/happiness-and-michel-de-montaignes-views-on-the-nature-of-truth/

Seldom has a philosopher devoted so much effort to writing about human nature. Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) spent two decades doing research about philosophy and psychology, gathering lessons about happiness. Montaigne’s objective was to identify the best patterns of behaviour, those that promote individual and social happiness. He read everything about Socrates (470-399 BC), as recorded by Plato (427-347 BC) in his dialogues, trying to draw advice applicable to his own life. Most sources consulted by Montaigne came from ancient Greece and Rome; he was fluent in Latin, and this enabled him to read Cicero (106-43 BC) and Seneca (4 BC-65 AD) in their mother tongue; for reading Greek authors, he resorted to Latin translations. Which lessons did Montaigne draw from his wide research on human nature? First, he noted that times of crisis bring forth the best and the worst of human nature. When people are under high pressure, they fall back to their default personality, for the positive and for the negative aspects. Second, he witnessed that modesty, persistence, tolerance, and prudence are more conducive to happiness than arrogance and prejudice. He viewed haughtiness and excessive ambition and sure recipes for self-destruction. Montaigne’s essay “On recompenses, rewards and honours” warns against external motivations. Beware of people driven by the desire to become famous. More often than not, they tend to be superficial and vain, ready to cut corners to attain their goal. I agree with Montaigne that we should define our goals carefully before devoting years or decades to pursuing them. Fame and popularity constitute fleeting rewards. Even in favourable conditions, they cannot deliver lasting satisfaction. Do you want to make your self-esteem depend on someone else’s opinion, asks Montaigne. I certainly don’t, but popularity and fame possess intense sweetness. When Montaigne wrote about “recompenses, rewards and honours,” he was mainly referring to public office and military distinctions. Why are those recompenses, rewards and honours difficult to resist? Because they bring enormous short-term advantages, for which the price will be due only much later. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaigne-and-human-nature/

For twenty years, Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) wrote incessantly about human nature. He did extensive research and addressed a myriad of individual and societal issues. What is the main lesson that he drew from his philosophical studies? Montaigne presented this lesson in his essay “On pedantry,” but I must first explain what he meant by “pedantry.” In the sixteenth century, the word “pedantry” had a wider meaning. It denoted people who focus on elaborate, rigid, irrelevant details but have little understanding of the underlying principles. Nowadays, we still use the word “pedant” to refer to people who focus on elaborate, rigid, irrelevant details. Those people have a high opinion of themselves and show off by making ridiculous, unnecessary complicated statements. However, in our century, the second part of Montaigne’s definition has been lost. Montaigne defined pedants not only for their focus on irrelevant details, but also for their lack of common sense. Pedants have no general understanding, no common sense, because they are unable to think in terms of principles. Their minds can only apprehend isolated, mostly irrelevant details. In Montaigne’s words, “pedants lack practical wisdom” in spite of their education, background, or social status. They can memorise and parrot other people’s words, but cannot assess facts independently and draw their own conclusions. The key lesson conveyed by Montaigne in this essay is that self-reliant, effective, happy individuals are the opposite of pedants. Instead of focusing on irrelevant details, they identify the driving factors. Instead of parroting some else’s words, they want to figure things out. To illustrate his point, Montaigne compared Aristotle (384-322 BC) to his disciple and friend Theophrastus (371-287 BC) in their approach to learning. While Aristotle sought to identify the essential principles of metaphysics, epistemology and ethics, Theophrastus devoted himself to writing a treatise about botany. While Aristotle gave advice on finding happiness, Theophrastus compiled endless details about plant morphology. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaignes-key-lesson-about-human-nature/

Inflation in usage has devalued the word “friend.” In today’s parlance, “friend” doesn’t even mean acquaintance. People call “friends” individuals they have never met and with whom they have little in common. Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) wrote extensively about friendship, which he rightly viewed as one of the greatest joys in life. His essay “On friendship” is known to students of the French language because of its high literary and philosophical value. However, I must first of all state that Montaigne employed the term “friend” carefully and sparingly. He did not call mere acquaintances “friends” because, in his youth, he had already figured out that friendship requires shared values and interests. Montaigne defined friendship as a process that is initially spontaneous, but then takes deep roots over time. He regarded friendship as a process because its two essential components, trust and mutual admiration, need to be developed over time. Ethics plays a key role in friendship, argued Montaigne, due to the need for friends to hold common values. I am of course referring to positive values such as honesty, justice, ambition, and rationality. In the absence of ethical values, people may associate for a while to accomplish a particular goal, but they’ll quickly split as soon as the goal has been achieved. The same principle applies to commercial and professional relations. They can be cordial and pleasant, but in the absence of shared moral values, they are bound to remain superficial. Montaigne acknowledged the benefits of trade, politeness, and cordiality, but regarded those as lubricants that make social interactions more efficient; the smile of the merchant can make transactions easier, but should not be necessarily trusted upon. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaignes-thoughts-on-friendship/