John Vespasian

Ethical aspects are often underrated by individuals seeking personal growth. Psychology discussions tend to focus on pre-conceptions, personal history, and logical errors rather than on virtue. As a result, happiness is randomly defined, haphazardly pursued, and serendipitously achieved. Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) held a different view. At an early age, he had discovered the strong connection existing between virtue and happiness, and when he started to write his essays, he gave priority to ethical considerations. Virtue doesn’t require unnatural or suicidal behaviour, noted Montaigne. Once shouldn’t equate virtue with daily perfection in times of peace, and reckless bravery in times of war. Montaigne viewed virtue as organic and natural, as the right behaviour that automatically emerges in society. When people interact or trade with each other, there are strong incentives to behave respectfully and honestly. If we keep our word, we will gain a reputation of reliability and customers will prefer purchasing goods from us rather than from strangers. If we display politeness and friendliness, people will normally behave towards us in a similar way. Montaigne had grasped perfectly that virtue rests on human intelligence, that is, on our ability to differentiate between bad and good habits, shun the former, and cultivate the latter. Unfortunately, Montaigne failed to give enough thought to the concept of virtue. He failed to carefully identify and define rational virtues. Instead, he blindly adopted Aristotle’s concept of the “golden mean” and Seneca’s call for “moderation.” I must however praise Montaigne’s scepticism towards the abstract ethical definitions given by Aristotle (384-322 BC) in the “Nicomachean Ethics.” When confronted with difficult ethical choices, Aristotle’s concept of the “golden mean” is worse than useless. When we are pressed to make quick decisions during a crisis, the call for moderation made by Seneca (4 BC-65 AD) can lead to disaster. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaigne-and-the-concept-of-virtue/

I am always amazed to see people devote vast energies to growing “more effective” without having a clear idea of their goals. How is one supposed to measure “effectiveness” if there is no avowed goal to pursue? Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) was suspicious of vague promises in any area of life. He considered it self-evident that the first step is to define one’s goals, and that “effectiveness” is to be measured in relation to the achievement of that goal. Objectives vary depending on the person, but one should regard them as valid as long as they are ethical; from the moral point of view, Montaigne didn’t see any fundamental difference between military leaders, artists, philosophers, merchants and farmers. Each profession offers paths to virtue or vice, achievement or decay, greatness or demise. In his essay titled “On the most excellent men,” Montaigne analysed biographies of remarkable individuals and identified their shared character traits, namely, moral strength, ambition, resourcefulness, honesty and sense of justice. I view Montaigne’s reasoning as flawless in this respect, and I commend his conclusions to those seeking personal growth. I must first however define what Montaigne meant by “excellent men.” Montaigne’s definition is teleological and ethical, that is, he is praising individuals who have chosen ambitious objectives and pursue them assiduously, sometimes against all odds. The term “teleological” is derived from the ancient Greek word “telos,” which means “objective.” Thus, Montaigne calls excellent those who have set themselves important objectives (“telos”) and deploy steady efforts to achieve them. Montaigne equates the pursuit of important objectives with the pursuit of happiness. If we can achieve those objectives, he explains, great; and if not, we will have at least lived our life in an honourable, productive, enjoyable manner. Happiness and personal growth are the underlying themes of Montaigne’s essay “On the most excellent men.” The lessons drawn from those biographies are meant to help us achieve a higher level of happiness. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/personal-growth-and-montaignes-concept-of-virtue/

I find it reasonable to question any ethical system that does not deliver success and happiness. What’s the point of being a good person if there are no tangible rewards? Why should one practise virtue if it does not bring practical advantages? Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) asked those questions in the context of the sixteenth century, but today’s circumstances are not fundamentally different. We all face moral choices, and must figure out how those are going to impact our success and happiness. I can take those questions a step further and ask whether it’s legitimate to achieve good ends by employing unethical means such as theft, murder, or false imprisonment. Montaigne pondered precisely that question in his essay “Of bad means employed to a good end.” He scrutinised the worth of moral values in a world that is often unjust, chaotic, abusive or plain incomprehensible. All moralists in history have asked themselves if important goals justify wrongful behaviour. Montaigne wanted to give the right answer, but sometimes, he got sidetracked. Montaigne had grasped the crucial importance of practising ethical values each day, but could not always provide a solid justification. His reasoning in this area is not always accurate. He argues that, if we use bad means to achieve “good ends,” we would be automatically corrupting those “good ends” and destroying their “goodness.” Was Montaigne using the correct logic? Let’s see an example: If a man is pursuing the “good goal” of building a children’s hospital, would it be unethical for him to steal bricks from a construction site where a cinema is being built? If we adopted Montaigne’s logic, we would have to say that the bricks stolen from the cinema are corrupting the children’s hospital and destroying its goodness. However, there is room for improvement in Montaigne’s argument because, once the hospital becomes operational, will patients care where the bricks came from? Even if patients find out that the bricks had been stolen, will they view the hospital as evil? Montaigne’s logic proves inaccurate in this case because it fails to point to the key relevant principle. Unethical behaviour such as stealing is wrong because it violates a crucial ethical principle, not because it turns a “good end” into a “bad end.” Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/hard-decisions-and-montaignes-concept-of-virtue/

Imagine devoting two decades of your life to writing dozens of essays with no expectation of anyone ever reading them. For most people, such a perspective would not make sense. Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) thought otherwise. Why? Because he was primarily writing for himself. There were a few best-selling books in the sixteenth century but they made little money for their authors. Literature became a business only in the nineteenth century, when technology made it possible to print novels at a low-cost and sell them in large quantities. Montaigne never enjoyed the advantages of literary success, but still, he carried out a project that he had set for himself. He wanted to explore in depth subjects that interested him, and his method of exploration was writing essays. He wrote non-stop for two decades, jumping from subject to subject without any pre-established order. He would address subjects that he found intriguing, sometimes repeating himself, but never bothered to justify his inconsistencies. Montaigne possessed an insatiable curiosity. He was fond of literature (mostly ancient Greek and Roman authors), history, philosophy and law, but did not hesitate to explore any subject that attracted his attention. Psychology had not yet established itself as a science in the sixteenth century, but Montaigne was unafraid to explore new grounds. I consider him a pioneer in the field of self-help and how-to literature because he provided advice of perennial quality to readers. For instance, he wrote essays about how to deal with one’s own imperfections or inconsistencies, how imagination works, the art of conversation, how to educate children, how to make friends, and how to deal with cultural diversity. Any attempt to classify Montaigne’s essays into an orderly plan is destined to failure, precisely because there was never a plan. Montaigne acknowledged that the choice of subjects was solely dictated by his fancy. He wrote in order to philosophise and find the truth, not with the goal of pleasing readers. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/the-essays-by-michel-de-montaigne/

In the vast critical commentary on the essays by Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592), I haven’t found detailed explanations of Montaigne’s writing method. The question is intriguing and worth answering: Montaigne proved capable of producing dozens of high-quality essays, but he lacked sophisticated tools. He possessed a relatively small book collection, paper, ink, a feather, and a writing desk. How did he manage to produce such an extensive literary output? How did he manage to keep a high level of quality in his essays? After studying Montaigne’s texts in detail, I have come with an answer to those questions. I have looked at the output and inputs, and developed a theory. Montaigne wrote his essays by using a method that I have baptised “drill around the pain.” The method encompasses two elements: pain and drilling. Let me explain how it works. First, Montaigne selected subjects about which he felt very strongly or that bothered him in some way. He chose historical figures, current events, societal fashions, moral misconceptions and injustices that irritated him. That’s what I call “pain.” Second, he started to throw arguments at the pain, trying to extinguish it once and for all, but as he drilled, the pain seemed to grow wider and stronger. Montaigne kept drilling, but the pain kept growing. He gave solid arguments to terminate the pain, but at the same time, he found arguments that nourished and strengthened the pain. The tension of this fight is present in all Montaigne’s essays. Let’s take a look at one example. I have chosen this essay precisely because, at first sight, it doesn’t fall into the paradigm of “drilling around the pain.” The essay carries the title “Not to counterfeit being sick.” A superficial look at the essay reveals its subject as a study of the reasons why some people pretend to be sick. If we look at the subject from a distance, it seems anodyne, boring. Why would anyone bother to write an essay on this subject? Nevertheless, Montaigne managed to turn a seemingly grey, anodyne subject into a thought-provoking essay. He did so by using pain as a starting point. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/how-michel-de-montaigne-wrote-his-essays/

Nowadays, writers privilege structure above all. Before they write down the first word, they want to know precisely where they are going. They want to select in advance their destination and all the stops along the way. For writing his essays, Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) embraced a different approach; he managed to supply structure and pace to his works without doing lots of advance planning. I find Montaigne’s approach worth studying because of its vast potential. It can teach us not only how to structure our essays, but also how to think on our feet when we have limited inputs, limited knowledge, and limited time. Let me employ an example to explain how Montaigne was able to give structure to his essays with very little preparation in advance. I call Montaigne’s manner of writing “spontaneous structure.” Montaigne’s essay “On physiognomy” provides a first-class illustration of spontaneous structure. Instead of delineating one integrated argument, Montaigne starts with an anecdote, quote, or statement he endorses, and then builds on it by attacking it, defending it, and confronting it with his own experience. In this way, he creates a spontaneous structure that can grow organically. The result is similar to a conversation between two friends. Arguments are confronted with counter-arguments and facts are weighed against other facts. When Montaigne feels inspired by the arguments, anecdotes and quotes, he can go on for dozens of pages; he is not worried by the fact that some subjects are more suitable than others for lively discussion. He will simply take as much as a subject can give, and then move on to the next. Montaigne’s essay “On physiognomy” starts with a forceful premise, one that was close to Montaigne’s heart. He wanted to demonstrate his belief that, when it comes to success, hard work and determination play a larger role than luck. Good looks constitute the ultimate present from fortune. It’s a present that beneficiaries receive for free when they are born. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/the-structure-of-michel-de-montaignes-essays/

When in doubt, it is wise to develop a theory and check if it matches the facts; experience will tell us if the theory is correct or if it needs revising. Trial and error can prove tiresome but it is the best of methods to figure out the truth. Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) wasn’t a scientist, but he possessed an immense curiosity. He read incessantly (although his library was not large), asked questions, developed theories, and put them through the test. When he was in his late thirties, he became interested in the question of free will. His interest matched the spirit of his time, especially in France, where Catholics and Huguenots engaged in harsh theological disputes, where the existence or not of free will played a central role. Montaigne had little interest in theological disputations, but found the question fascinating nonetheless. In our decisions, it makes a huge difference whether we consider ourselves free or puppets of destiny. People who consider themselves puppets of destiny tend to renounce their ambitions and reject responsibility for their own actions; they refuse to take the blame for their errors, misdeeds and oversights; they claim to be victims of circumstances. Montaigne touched the question of free will tangentially in several of his essays. I say “tangentially” because he avoided a direct discussion of the subject. Since Montaigne was living in an area ravaged by religious wars, it’s no wonder that he avoided a theological debate on the existence of free will. Instead, he passed review to the practical consequences of freedom and determinism. In his essay “On drunkenness,” Montaigne indirectly proves the existence of free will. Nowadays, we know that many road accidents are caused by people who had consumed alcohol in excess, but that those people should not be discharged from liability. The alcohol may have impaired their faculties, but that’s the result of their free decision to drink. Those people had decided in the first place to consume alcohol, and must take full responsibility for the consequences. Montaigne doesn’t mention road accidents and civil liability, but acknowledges that “drunkenness can lead to recklessness.” He is not calling for people to become teetotallers, but advises prudence when drinking alcohol. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaigne-and-free-will/

I have a simple definition of wisdom. It consists of just seven words. I define wisdom as “the habit of seeing what is hidden.” It is a short, but highly demanding definition, which disqualifies most mindless rituals and educated nonsense. Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) never quite managed to define wisdom, but his writings interpreted it in a fashion that astonished his contemporaries. He would pass review not only to the hidden elements, but also to their long-term consequences. For twenty years, Montaigne wrote one essay after another without any planning, organisation or consistency. He handled subjects that he found intriguing, annoying, or controversial. In many instances, he confessed that he was writing mostly for himself because he wanted to clarify his ideas. Why did he devote thousands of hours to reading, researching and writing down his essays? Because he regarded the process as enjoyable and highly satisfying. Montaigne was immensely proud of his essays, even if they never enjoyed a large readership during Montaigne’s lifetime. He did not care because his principal objective was to acquire wisdom, not popularity. A day devoted to acquiring wisdom is a day well spent, said Montaigne. Every little piece of wisdom should be regarded as an investment that will bear fruit down the road. It is like a tree that will grow and deliver a load of delicious fruits each year. Montaigne’s wisdom is spread all over his essays, but more often than not, his conclusions will go further than the essay’s subject. Whether he is writing about literature, war, children’s education, or religion, Montaigne loves to philosophise, that is, to draw lessons of universal application. When we read his essays, we can witness Montaigne talk to himself in a reproachful but benevolent tone. One day, he says that “I am too lazy, too slow, I should be doing more,” and then another day he writes that “I do not need to do much. Living is more than enough.” Montaigne’s wisdom is rather chaotic because he was not a system builder like Aristotle (384-322 BC) or Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274). He just cared for his game of play and say, for his literary composition that should deliver him one worthy insight at the end of the day. Consistency was not Montaigne’s goal by any stretch of the imagination. Instead of worrying about coherence, he trudged ahead contentedly, building his literary output day by day. For Montaigne, errors and discrepancies carry little weight in the grand scheme of things. He took those for granted and regarded them as impossible to eradicate. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaigne-and-wisdom/

Wisdom without controversy is soon forgotten, in the same way as one forgets unused knowledge, unused spare parts, and unused train tickets. Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) made a conscious decision to use controversy in his essays, precisely because he wanted the lessons to be learned and not forgotten. Besides, Montaigne found it much more interesting to write about unorthodox, dissonant ideas; he knew all the mainstream doctrines of his century, and found them unworthy of his time. He had better things to think about and write about. Take for instance Montaigne’s essay “Of Cannibals,” which in today’s translations is sometimes titled “On Cannibals.” This essay is by far Montaigne’s best known work, even if it shows deficiencies in its research and logic. Why is this essay so famous? Because it defends profoundly controversial opinions. For better or for worse, the essay about cannibals has contributed to building Montaigne’s reputation. It has prompted millions of people to read his essays and profit from their wisdom. Montaigne could have selected a less controversial title for this essay. For instance, he could have named it “In defence of cultural relativism” or “Social perspectives on ethics.” Luckily, Montaigne did not choose any of those anodyne tiles. They would have condemned this essay to oblivion, and steered potential readers away from Montaigne’s writings. The key idea of “Of Cannibals” is fairly simple. Montaigne points out that, in his century, some indigenous tribes in South America are still practising horrendous cannibalism, mostly by eating their enemies, but that Europeans are to blame for some practices that are as horrendous as cannibalism. Montaigne is using alleged South-American cannibalism as a literary subterfuge to address controversial European issues. By pointing his finger to “those cruel South-American tribes,” he can raise his voice against European abuses that he couldn’t have addressed otherwise. Controversy is a method for rendering the whole argument interesting, and discussing uncomfortable issues. Montaigne is referring to the appalling European habits of conducting wars for the personal gain of the instigators, or imprisoning and torturing the members of religious minorities. In a way, argues Montaigne, cannibalism is less cruel than warfare and torture because it is not motivated by greed and self-interest. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/controversy-in-michel-de-montaignes-wisdom/

Life would be much easier if we could reduce ethics to just one concept. Would it not be great if we could make decisions and implementation plans that always hit the target? Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) took upon himself the task of reducing ethics to one concept, and he succeeded pretty well. Montaigne believed that self-discipline constitutes the pillar that sustains ethics, success and personal effectiveness. In most cases, people know what they should be doing, but they fail to do it because they lack self-discipline. Vices and crimes are often the result of poor self-discipline, theorised Montaigne. Even when people are aware of the risks of unethical behaviour, they will still go ahead with it because they want to avoid putting in the effort of doing things right. Montaigne knew what he was talking about because, in his own life, he displayed a remarkable self-discipline. He devoted two decades to writing his essays with occasional interruptions due to health problems, travel, or discharging public duties. In his essay “On Cruelty,” Montaigne notes how easy it is, after ascending to a position of power, to lose one’s prudence and self-discipline, and carry out all sorts of abuses, from which cruelty constitutes the most odious example. Montaigne presents as an illustration the Roman Emperor Nero, (37-68 AD), who became a monster after ascending to the throne, carrying out countless tyrannical abuses, deploying pointless violence, and engaging in extreme cruelty. Before Nero ascended to the imperial throne, his poor self-discipline was publicly known, but few people had predicted such a terrible outcome. Montaigne recounts that the Stoic philosopher Seneca (4-65 AD) had contributed to Nero’s education, but failed to obtain the desired result. Seneca had failed to steer Nero in the right direction. Seneca had feared that Nero would turn into a wild beast if left to his own devices, but failed to correct the issue. He wrote an essay titled “On Clemency,” addressed to Nero, arguing that a ruler would gain popularity if he showed clemency, but Nero simply ignored Seneca’s recommendations. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaigne-and-self-discipline/