John Vespasian

Self-awareness remains as rare a phenomenon nowadays as it has been in prior generations. It requires the ability to apply philosophical ideas in daily life, weighing them against social pressures, personal convenience, and short-term practicality. Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) was the first essayist in history to practise self-awareness systematically. He displayed enormous efforts to compare abstractions with facts, emotions with prejudices, ethics with rationalisations, and principles with fashions. We can draw from Montaigne’s essays crucial advice about how to increase our alertness and self-awareness. If we follow those practices, chances are that we will make better decisions and attain our goals faster with less effort. Let us pass review to those recommendations. Self-awareness is easier to acquire in solitude. This does not mean that solitude should be embraced as a lifestyle. It is a question of degree. Montaigne himself shows us the way in his own life, when he chose to quit his profession and retire to live in the countryside as of 1571. He was thirty-eight years old at that time. Montaigne devoted his essay “On Solitude” to underlining the importance of occasional periods of quietness to figure out what exactly we want from life. Note that solitude does not mean seclusion or isolation. It only means that we are separating ourselves from the noise of the world. To a great extent, Montaigne also practised solitude when he travelled in 1580 to take the waters in Italy, Switzerland and Germany, trying to find a remedy for his kidney stones. Those periods of solitude enabled Montaigne to recharge spiritually, only to work even more productively upon his return to France. I think that nowadays most people can afford mini-periods of solitude to recharge their energies. I regard this practice as highly beneficial for generating fresh ideas and plans for the future. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaigne-and-self-awareness/

I’m always puzzled when I meet individuals unable to make up their minds. They stay put in losing situations and keep going in the wrong direction. They say yes when they do not mean it, because they cannot gather the strength to say no. Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) was also puzzled by this situation. He correctly blamed it on a lack of self-awareness. In those cases, the victims are not alert or awake enough to resist manipulation by third parties. What’s the underlying reason for indecisiveness? Montaigne pointed to a lack of individualism. He also proposed remedies to the problem, namely, solitude, introspection and meditation. Montaigne remarked in his essay “On Solitude” that regular periods of solitude enable people to gain self-reliance. Instead of focusing on popularity and third-party endorsement, they’re developing a strong, independent willpower. When it comes to education, Montaigne similarly favoured the cultivation of critical, individual thinking. His essay titled “On the Education of Children” calls for independent thinking and character development; he regarded memorization as a bad educational practice. Society is important, recognised Montaigne, but in reality, it consists of individuals. Each person must live his own life and remains responsible for his acts and omissions. Unfortunately, Montaigne failed to illustrate this key insight with the right historical examples. In his essay “An Apology for Raymond Sebond,” he points to Socrates (469-399 BC) as an allegedly great individualist. Montaigne could not have chosen a worst example because Socrates failed to think critically when it was most necessary. On the one hand, Socrates let Athens convict him of some trumped-up charges in a trial that was ridiculously unfair. He should have escaped and gone into exile. On the other hand, Socrates accepted a death sentence and executed it himself. Plato recounts that Socrates did not seize the chance to escape, a chance secured by one of his friends. By using convoluted logic, Socrates chose to die instead of going into exile. His trial and death are clearly not examples of individualism. They represent the opposite principle. To make it worse, Montaigne equates individualism with a life of poverty and rebelliousness. He recounts the encounter in Corinth (336 BC) of Alexander the Great and the philosopher Diogenes, who lived in abject poverty. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaigne-and-individualism/

The confusion between authenticity and subjectivity keeps exerting a negative influence on philosophy and literature. It is wrong to call an author “authentic” just because he is giving a personal opinion devoid of reasoning and unconnected to facts. When historians categorize the essays written by Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) as “authentic,” they mean that those essays contain his opinions or anecdotes about his own life. In my view, they are using the wrong logic in their categorization. Let me explain why I think they are wrong. “Authentic” is the opposite of “false, deceitful, adulterated, manipulated, untruthful.” The whole point of authentic writing is to present the truth, not to come up with a different version of falsehood, deceit and manipulation. Take for instance Montaigne’s essay “Of Death,” in which he includes some personal comments about deceased members of his family. The “authenticity” doesn’t reside in the subjective tone of those comments, but in their accuracy and truthfulness. Are those comments helping readers apprehend the insights that Montaigne wants to convey “Of Death,” or are they giving a false impression, despite their entertainment value? Subjectivity does not mean authenticity, far from it. I could recount my early life and fill many pages with memories, but the authenticity arises from quality, not from quantity. The important question is whether my memories are conveying true messages (insights, advice, enlightenment) or not. If those messages are distorted or inaccurate, we shouldn’t speak about “authenticity.” Montaigne had understood the difference between authentic and subjective. He committed himself to pursuing the first and avoiding the second, but his attempts led to unequal success. In his essay titled “Of Experience,” Montaigne recounts that he had adopted the motto “what do I know” (“Que sais-je?” in French) as a starting point of his writings. Montaigne had committed himself to pursuing the truth, and his approach matched the definition of authenticity. When he did not attain the mark, it’s because he did not manage to find the correct answer to the question he had raised. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaigne-and-authenticity-in-writing/

Authenticity starts and ends with critical thinking. It revolves around checking the accuracy of facts, contesting ready-made conclusions, and pursuing consistency. Truth is the outcome of authenticity, and ethics is the compilation of practical wisdom. Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) pursued authenticity day after day. He devoted two decades to writing essays that often questioned “self-evident” truths, and then came up with better conclusions. Considering the strong social pressure exerted on writers in the sixteenth century, I see Montaigne’s essays as the archetype of authenticity. Few authors of his generation have devoted so much effort to assess opposing arguments, extract examples from history, and arrive at independent conclusions. My favourite example of authenticity is Montaigne’s essay titled “That Men Are Justly Punished for Being Obstinate in Defending a Fort That is Unreasonable to Defend.” In this essay, Montaigne employs his usual structure. First, he states a controversial thesis. Second, he presents anecdotes from ancient history that illustrate his thesis. Third, he reviews in detail the arguments in favour and against. Fourth, he draws a conclusion, either confirming his thesis, or proving it wrong. Montaigne’s authenticity relies on structure. His extended assessment of historical evidence enables him to present controversial conclusions as irrefutable. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/analysis-of-michel-de-montaignes-authenticity-in-writing/

Ignorance, improvisation and incoherence are not sources of artistic authenticity. At best, they can lead to colourful chaos or waste. At worst, they can do the artist in. When we refer to artistic and philosophical authenticity, we are referring to truthfulness, consistency, and accuracy. Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) devoted twenty years to the pursuit of literary authenticity, and he succeeded fairly well. Nevertheless, Montaigne’s authenticity remains asymmetric: It reached a very high level in his areas of expertise (history, law, religion), but decreased in other areas (health, warfare, or epistemology). Montaigne deployed good efforts to research his subjects, but his personal library was limited. I do admire his endless curiosity and dedication to seeking the truth, but nobody can become a master in all trades. Let us look at several examples that show the asymmetry in his literary authenticity. His authenticity was superb in essays directly based on his own experience. For instance, his essay “Of Experience” is presenting us a first-hand recollection of Montaigne’s efforts to acquire knowledge and improve his own life. I perceive the same deep authenticity in Montaigne’s essay “Of the Education of Children,” which is based on his personal experience as a father. Montaigne criticizes rote memorization as a pointless exercise, and favours the development of critical thinking. Similarly, Montaigne’s essay “Of Friendship” is drawn from the friendship between Montaigne and Etienne de la Boetie. In many aspects, this essay is mirroring the writings of Aristotle (384-322 BC) in the “Nicomachean Ethics,” which view close friendships as a major contributing factor to happiness. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/asymmetry-in-michel-de-montaignes-literary-authenticity/

Consistency is the very first thing we expect from authentic individuals, that is, consistency between their speech and feats. Nonetheless, Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) knew that few thinkers in history have demonstrated a tight consistency. Even in Socrates (469-399 BC) and Plato (427-347 BC), we can detect inconsistencies. Later, in the decades after Aristotle (384-322 BC), the culture declined to such an extent that the so-called philosophers would not even claim to be consistent. Montaigne’s method for remaining authentic (consistent) was to quit his public office, retire to live in the countryside, and adopt a semi-ascetic lifestyle. On the one hand, he steered away from all grandstanding or virtue signalling. On the other hand, he embraced an effaced, modest, semi-solitary lifestyle. Those two factors made it hard for anyone to criticise Montaigne for “lack of authenticity.” In this respect, Montaigne wrote an essay that constitutes a lifestyle manifesto. I am referring to the essay titled “That We Are to Avoid Pleasures Even at the Expense of Enjoyment.” Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/asceticism-and-michel-de-montaignes-literary-authenticity/

Few thinkers in history have developed integrated systems of philosophy. I view Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) as one of those few. The key of Schopenhauer’s philosophy is that all reality is governed by a cosmical force, which he calls “Will.” According to Schopenhauer, Will is blind, irrational, eternal and all-powerful. It’s the prime force that drives all existence in the animal and human world in particular. Schopenhauer claims to have built his philosophy on ideas put forward by Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), but he did so only to a limited extent. Kant’s knowledge theory is categorized as idealistic because of its distinction between the tangible world and “things in themselves.” While Kant had written hundreds of pages about “things in themselves,” Schopenhauer simply claimed to have identified the “Will” as the driving force in nature. One of Schopenhauer’s merits is that he had studied Eastern philosophies in depth, in particular Buddhism. Schopenhauer viewed the Buddhist concept of “nirvana” as the perfect recipe against the anxiety and frustration generated by the Will. Like in Buddhism, Schopenhauer believed that self-imposed limitations can help reduce anxiety, stress and disappointments in life. By contenting yourself with less, you can keep distress at bay. By becoming enlightened, you can reduce the influence of the Will in your life. By desiring less and doing less, you could achieve “nirvana” (peace of mind) like in Buddhism. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauers-philosophy-summary/

The theory of the will constitutes the key element in all books by Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) and the most distinctive aspect of his philosophy. Schopenhauer regarded “the Will” as the fundamental force in nature, a force that drives animal and human existence. Schopenhauer is the most important thinker in the decades after Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), but rejected many of Kant’s ideas. Schopenhauer admired Kant, but disagreed with his cold view of the universe. Kant regarded reason and morality as the drivers of history, but had failed to explain the high levels of irrationality present in human society. He had theorized about universal values and ethics, but failed to explain chaos, conflict and war. In contrast, Schopenhauer’s theory of the Will gives a solid explanation for irrational behaviour. Instead of theorizing that the world is guided by reason and ethics, Schopenhauer names “the Will” as the ultimate source of animal and human actions. According to Schopenhauer, the Will cares little for reason and morality. It is an irrational, blind force that drives animals and humans towards self-preservation and reproduction. Does the Will have a purpose? To the extent that it does, its main goal is the perpetuation of life. However, Schopenhauer regards other goals as equally strong. He describes the Will as insatiable, as a constant source of new desires and cravings. Schopenhauer’s theory of metaphysics consists of searching for manifestations of the Will in society. He sees the Will as an abstract force taking endless shapes and constantly changing direction. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauers-theory-of-the-will/

The theory of the will formulated by Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) was neither original nor revolutionary. Before the publication of Schopenhauer’s ideas, dozens of theologians had postulated that a divine force is the ultimate driver of all events in the world. Even Aristotle (384-322 BC) had speculated that all actions in the cosmos are driven by one original force, which he called “the prime mover.” Plato (428-348 BC) and his followers had postulated the existence of a world of forms (pure abstractions) which provide the original blueprints for the world’s events. Despite the large number of prior proponents of the theory of a single cause behind all world’s events, Schopenhauer was the first in history to build a philosophical system around this principle. He presented his philosophy in two major works: “On the fourfold root of the principle of sufficient reason” (1814) and “The world as will and representation” (1818). I regard these two books as works of genius, rarely equalled in history. In addition to outlining the theory of the will, Schopenhauer explained its positive and negative consequences. He proposed measures to counter the negative consequences and enable his readers to minimize problems in life. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/the-great-merit-of-schopenhauers-theory-of-the-will/

Arthur Schopenhauer and Friedrich Nietzsche are two of the most important philosophers in history. Both lived in Germany (in territories that eventually became part of today’s Germany) and placed the theory of the will at the centre of their ideas. Schopenhauer (1788-1860) appreciated Kant, but criticised other mainstream philosophers such as Hegel. He had no kind word for Hegel’s determinism, which reduced individuals and history to pawns of a supernatural spirit. Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) took Schopenhauer’s ideas to the extreme. He rejected Western rationalism and idealism, and favoured profoundly individualistic ideals. Schopenhauer and Nietzsche aimed at finding solutions to a key philosophical problem: How can you reduce suffering and experience as much happiness as possible in life? Their answers are driven by their conception of the cosmos. For Schopenhauer, the universe is driven by the Will, which he defined as the will to live, the will for sexual reproduction, the will for success, and so on. He regarded the Will as a universal, blind, overwhelming force that drives animals and humans. For Nietzsche, the answer is “the will to power,” which is a narrower concept. It is self-generated and self-propelled. You’ll be able to develop it, if you wish. It can motivate you to pursue challenging goals, persevere, and succeed against all odds. Both Schopenhauer and Nietzsche acknowledge the strong influence of primal instincts and desires upon humans. In their writings, they give examples of individuals driven by the Will (the Will in general, or the Will to Power), and the results of their actions. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauer-and-nietzsche-similarities-and-differences/