John Vespasian

The philosophy of Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) places history on a secondary plane. Schopenhauer didn’t give history a central role because he did not consider that humanity should achieve any goal beyond the happiness of the individual. Schopenhauer believed that an eternal life force (“the will”) drives all creatures towards self-preservation and reproduction, but the influence of the will doesn’t mean that society must go in a particular direction. According to Schopenhauer, the events in the world are a perpetual manifestation of the will, but the results are not easy to foresee. The will can lead to pleasure and happiness, but also to conflict, suffering, and pointless pursuit of power. For this reason, Schopenhauer rejected the notion of linear progress in history. History can meander from good to worse, and then back to excellent. It is not leading to a particular goal, destination or achievement. It’s the result of the actions of large numbers of people, each pursuing his own happiness. Schopenhauer views of history appeared first in his doctoral thesis published in 1814 “On the fourfold root of the principle of sufficient reason” and later in his key work “The world as will and representation,” published in 1818. The philosophy of history in Schopenhauer’s work is neither pessimistic nor optimistic. I would rather describe it as liberal and non-deterministic. Schopenhauer viewed the influence of the will as a driving factor, but not as overwhelming. Each human being remains free to adopt countermeasures to protect himself against the deleterious aspects of the will; none of us is a puppet at the hands of the will; we can make our own choices; we can steer our life in the direction of our dreams. Schopenhauer acknowledged that human existence is driven by desires that will often remain unfulfilled. It is a process of work, struggle and inevitable suffering, but this should not lead you to the conclusion that passivity is better than action. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauer-and-the-philosophy-of-history/

Like many other authors, Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) regarded writing as a process of self-discovery; he talked about self-discovery through self-expression. He meant that we get to know ourselves better when we outline our ideas in writing, or when we convey our thoughts to other people. However, Montaigne knew that introspection is difficult and that most meditation techniques will fail to deliver the desired results. People seldom become more philosophical or effective by pushing themselves. That’s why personal development (the pursuit of happiness) should be practised as “letting go,” not “pushing.” Experience shows that we will thrive and attain our goals faster when we practise self-expression and self-discovery. Montaigne often repeats this idea in his essays. It constitutes one of the pillars of his personal philosophy. For example, his essay “Of the Education of Children” favours the development of a child’s natural talents, instead of imposing constraints. Similarly, in his essay “Of Friendship,” Montaigne remarks that, on the one hand, we need self-expression to find friends; and on the other hand, those friends enable our self-discovery because their words and actions are going to mirror our values. Writing constitutes Montaigne’s pre-eminent method of self-expression and self-discovery, but he also used other methods. In his essay “Of the Useful and the Honourable,” Montaigne is also recommending travelling and reading books as valid ways of self-discovery. The same proposal is made by Montaigne in his essay titled “Of Solitude,” where he argues that it’s difficult to acquire self-awareness without regular periods of solitude. Gregariousness, in the sense of random socializing, can impede self-expression rather than promote it. We need friends that match our ethical values and personal interests, but socialising in large groups may prove ineffective as a method for finding friends. Why? Because it’s far easier to figure out people by talking to them in small groups. Montaigne was aware of the desire to find kindred souls as best friends, but despite using relevant examples, he drew the wrong conclusion. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaigne-on-self-discovery-and-self-expression/

Social constraints are not a new phenomenon in history. In one way or another, they have existed as long as social structures. They reflect the displeasure of the people who hold the dominant opinions, and their attempts to prevent criticism and irreverent comments. Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) wrote essays entailing self-discovery and self-expression, but at the same time, he avoided acute controversy and provocation. He wisely spoke in favour of tolerance, and refrained from putting his figures on somebody else’s wounds. In Montaigne’s own experience, people who refuse to consider soft arguments are seldom amenable to harsh ones. Montaigne’s essay “That the Hour of Parley is Dangerous,” establishes reasonable limits for self-discovery, self-expression and debate. I mean reasonable limits for doing it in public. The point of Montaigne is to identify disproportionate risks and dangers, and steer away from them. Instead of wasting our time and energies in acrimonious debates, Montaigne wants to ensure that we can keep pursuing self-development tomorrow and the day after. Nowadays, people complain when they are confronted with any kind of restraints to self-discovery or self-expression. Fair enough, I understand their grievances and find them frequently justified. However, today’s problems in that area are insignificant if we compare them with Montaigne’s century; he lived in France in the sixteenth century, amidst fierce religious wars. Montaigne witnessed first-hand intense religious hatred and persecution, murders and confiscations; hundreds of thousands resorted to leaving the country and going into exile, mostly to The Netherlands; those who remained in France had to keep a low profile, fearing the sudden re-ignition of social strife. When people hate each other, noted Montaigne, they rarely listen to arguments. Emotions take over and prevent rationality from functioning; and without dialogue, negotiation becomes practically impossible. Montaigne is warning us against attempting self-discovery, self-expression or personal development amidst hostility. If we are lucky, we will have wasted our time and energy. If we are not, we will have made dangerous enemies for life. Overall, it is an awful strategy to seek self-discovery or self-expression amongst hateful people. Who on earth has the energy to invest in counterproductive activities? There are much better ways to pursue personal development. Let us heed Montaigne’s advice in this respect. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/the-limits-of-michel-de-montaignes-self-discovery-and-self-expression/

Erroneously, philosophers often attribute achievements and heroism to the ability to withstand pressure, social or physical, in extreme situations. Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) came up with a more realistic view. Instead of looking at extreme situations in isolation, he saw them as part of a normal process, where things evolve either in one direction or the other, ceaselessly shifting from day to day, from good to worse, and then back to good. Montaigne had drawn this essential lesson from Heraclitus (around 500 BC); he did not expect events to be linear, and had no problem accepting the ups and downs of life. He regarded a flexible mentality as far more valuable than rigidity. As a result, Montaigne described virtues in a manner similar to Aristotle (384-322 BC) in his “Nicomachean Ethics,” that is, as beneficial habits that lead to happiness if they are practised assiduously. When it comes to self-expression or personal development, the same principle applies. Success in those areas depends on habits practised day in and day out. It’s not the result of one-in-a-lifetime deployment of rhetorical techniques to save the day when all cards have fallen. Montaigne elaborated on this idea in his essay “On Practice.” The need for daily practice, mental and physical, is the fundamental idea in the essay. Personal development in general (and the ability to self-expression in particular) need to be cultivated over time like any other complex skill. In this respect, self-discipline constitutes the indispensable pillar. When it comes to exercise and practice, self-discipline is far more important than motivation, leisure time, affordability, and any other factor. Montaigne’s vast literary achievements are hundred per cent the outcome of self-discipline. If we compare him with similar persons (French landowners in the sixteenth century), it is easy to see that he did not have any special advantage. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/self-discipline-and-michel-de-montaignes-self-expression/

We all know individuals who lack a sense of direction. They drift from day to day because they lack long-term objectives. I find it no surprise then that their decisions are inconsistent and undermine each other. Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) had observed exactly the same phenomenon in his contemporaries. Few of them had set up goals for themselves, and even fewer pursued those goals in a consistent manner. Self-discovery is the process of getting to know oneself, our likes and dislikes, our strengths and weaknesses, our hopes and expectations. Goal-setting is the consequence of self-discovery, the consequence of projecting our identity over time. Montaigne emphasised self-discovery, which he regarded as a prerequisite of goal-setting. Why? Because we need a precise alignment between our identity and our goals. If we don’t know our values and convictions, we cannot project them over time. Unfortunately, there are many false paths to self-discovery. If we walk a false path, we will end up in self-delusion or self-inflicted blindness. Alertness is crucial when choosing a path to self-discovery because there are many vested interests leading people astray or, even worse, making them run in circles, wasting their energies. Montaigne’s essay “On Physiognomy” illustrates a widely spread error in the process of self-discovery. The error consists of adopting a spurious identity simply because it is available or convenient. The essay was written in the south of France in 1588, when Montaigne had turned fifty-five years old. The key message of the essay is that we cannot establish a person’s identity just by looking at his physiognomy. Montaigne’s observation about a person’s physiognomy also applies to a person’s attire, way of speaking, social position, or mannerisms. All those may provide clues, but not a full picture of someone’s identity. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaigne-and-the-true-path-to-self-discovery/

An independent spirit and strong nerves are the prerequisites of intellectual independence. Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) possessed those qualities, but had not inherited them. It would take him three decades of trial and error to acquire them. Nowadays, intellectual independence is as rare as it was in Montaigne’s lifetime, that is, in sixteenth-century France. Few people dare to oppose in public the dominant views, even if the penalty for doing so seldom goes beyond enduring criticism. Montaigne dared to adopt minority views in important and trivial matters, employing the latter as practice for developing strong nerves. Every Olympic athlete had once been a beginner and learned that daily practice is the basis of high performance. Religion was the most dangerous of all subjects at the time of Montaigne. During peaceful years, deviant opinions carried the risk of ostracism in all areas of life; and in wartime, they could lead to property confiscation, exile or death. Montaigne learned to formulate his views carefully, starting with anodyne subjects where contrarianism just sounded weird and entertaining. In those cases, reprisals were highly unlikely. If they took place at all, they carried no consequences. However, even when addressing anodyne subjects, he opted for quoting ancient Greek and Roman authors. Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 BC) and Plutarch (46-120 AD) presented lower risks than making references to contemporary personalities. Montaigne’s essay “Apology for Raymond Sebond” defends minority opinions within the Catholic Church, but does it very carefully. It summarises Sebond’s treatise “Natural Theology” (1497), contests Thomas Aquinas’ logic, expresses scepticism about dogmas, and calls for an intuitive grasp of divinity. A fierce intellectual independence comes forth more clearly in Montaigne’s essays that state a commonly accepted idea, but then reinterpret it, dilute it in doubt, or tear it apart mercilessly. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaigne-and-intellectual-independence/

While the risks of intellectual interdependence are obvious, the advantages are rarely mentioned. Widespread silence about the advantages explains why many people dismiss intellectual independence as unworkable or not affordable. Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) played a pivotal role in affirming intellectual independence as advantageous, first of all, for its practitioners. His literary output proves the feasibility of exercising intellectual independence in a hostile context. The path towards intellectual independence was widened by Voltaire (1694-1778). He demonstrated the vast benefits drawn by a determined practitioner despite his powerful enemies. I regard it as crucial to state those benefits because they are far from self-evident. History supplies compelling illustrations of those benefits, but not everyone has the patience to look for them. Excellent friends constitute a most valuable outcome of intellectual independence. Individuals who speak out the truth are particularly adept at identifying like-minded people. Strong friendships rely on the virtues (truthfulness, courage, self-discipline, etc.) of the concerned persons, but those virtues can only be perceived when they are publicly exercised. Montaigne acknowledged the insights and enjoyment drawn from conversing with his friend Etienne de La Boetie (1530-1563). I doubt that they would have become friends if they had refrained from speaking freely. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaigne-and-the-advantages-of-intellectual-independence/

The powerful connection between intellectual independence and peace of mind is seldom mentioned. I view the former as a prerequisite of the latter. Peace of mind requires a fair, realistic assessment of people and events. In the absence of intellectual independence, such an assessment cannot be performed. Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) proved the point beyond doubt. His essays go against the dominant opinions of his time, raise necessary questions, and relentlessly seek the truth. I’m not saying that Montaigne always came up with correct arguments nor that he always reached the right conclusion. He did not, but that’s not the key issue. What matters is that he did his best to assess the evidence at hand and choose the response supported by the strongest arguments. Montaigne passed review to dozens of ethical questions. He wrote essays for twenty years, addressing the subjects of health and wealth, friendship and love, good and evil from numerous perspectives. I believe Montaigne when he says that he was writing first and foremost for himself. He felt the urge to study those issues, examine the arguments against and in favour, add them up and draw a conclusion. Montaigne wanted to find answers that he could directly put into practice. His goal was to use those answers to improve his own life, day after day, year after year. Nonetheless, he was not aspiring to completeness and perfection in the process. All that Montaigne wanted are working answers, solid and realistic. He wanted to identify principles and strategies well-anchored in reality, so that he could apply them daily in every situation. From his research and pondering, Montaigne drew to large benefits. First, he was able to make quick decisions (accurately in most cases) where other people would remain paralysed by doubt. Second, he enjoyed an unparalleled peace of mind. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaignes-intellectual-independence-and-peace-of-mind/

Posterity showed vast disagreements with the philosophy of history put forward by Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860). His individualist view of society came to be rejected by Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) in the first place. Schopenhauer had argued that the will (“life force”) exerts a large influence on individual and society choices, but not to the extent of obliterating personal liberty; the will can drive you in a certain direction (pleasure, reproduction, etc.) but you decide whether to give in or go a different way. According to Schopenhauer, history is the result of a million individual decisions, which are neither coordinated nor aligned in any meaningful way. Each man and woman is chasing goals that he considers advantageous, rarely caring about long-term consequences. Friedrich Nietzsche embraced a philosophy of history that departs significantly from Schopenhauer’s individualism. For Nietzsche, history doesn’t follow a linear evolution, nor does it correspond to any Judaic-Christian sense of destiny. According to Nietzsche, the force that drives history and the world at large is the “will to power.” Schopenhauer’s definition of the will had been more attentive to individual choices; that’s not the case in Nietzsche’s philosophy. Nietzsche viewed the “will to power” as a dynamic, creative force that prompts individuals to overcome their hesitations, and seek to achieve greatness. Nietzsche argued that the “will to power” provides a continual push for individual and societal advancement. Nonetheless, Nietzsche’s philosophy of history took a weird turn as of 1883, when he wrote the first part of “Thus Spoke Zarathustra.” He comes up with the idea of eternal recurrence, implying that the universe and all events are eternally recurring in an infinite loop. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/critique-of-schopenhauers-philosophy-of-history/

According to most philosophy books, Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) was profoundly pessimistic. However, when you look into the details of his life and his works, you will see that the truth goes in the opposite direction. Historians tell us that Schopenhauer was confronted with a series of personal tragedies that rendered him pessimistic, but is this really true? Indeed, his father passed away when Arthur Schopenhauer was just seventeen. That’s an early death by any standards, but not an unheard tragedy. Let us not forget that Schopenhauer received from his father an inheritance that enabled him to live without ever working. I do not know many people that are placed in such a favourable financial situation when they are just seventeen. I am sure that Arthur Schopenhauer would have preferred that his father lived for another three decades, but that’s life. It gives you good cards and bad cards, and demands you to play the game right away. There is not much point in complaining. One thing is sure when speaking about Schopenhauer. He is not someone that had to face terrible financial struggles. I don’t know why some biographers would invent such nonsense. The truth is that Schopenhauer inherited a sizeable share package in his father’s company. The shares threw an annual dividend that is equivalent to forty thousand USD in today’s terms. Schopenhauer was not a millionaire in terms of income, but didn’t have to worry about his next meal. His father had placed him in a comfortable position. When his mother passed away, he inherited additional shares in the company. Historians also exaggerate Schopenhauer’s disappointments in the romantic area. He did have a tumultuous affair with the opera singer Caroline Richter. They eventually split, but is this such a big deal? They were not even married. Why was it such a tragedy to break up with a girlfriend? Schopenhauer also struggled in his academic career, but I find it difficult to call it “a career.” The truth is that he never put much effort into establishing himself as a professor. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauers-pessimism-what-it-is-and-what-its-not/