John Vespasian

In history, few authors have been categorized as pessimistic as Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860). Critics reproach him for his observation that most pleasures fail to provide us long-term fulfilment, but is Schopenhauer’s observation inaccurate? When Schopenhauer said that worldly achievements should be regarded as distractions from long-term failure, was he not simply acknowledging the fact that all humans are mortal? Was he not simply formulating an unpleasant truth? Schopenhauer’s reflections on love and relationships rest on his observation that the pursuit of romance will often end up in disappointment. He acknowledged that individuals are driven by the desire to procreate, but tend to pay little attention to long-term factors and complex emotions. I regard this statement as accurate and wonder who can contest it. Thus, the condemnation of Schopenhauer as pessimistic has little to do with reality and very much with exaggeration. I can only point to the fact that people feel superior when they can attack with impunity philosophers they have never read. It takes effort to acquire knowledge of Schopenhauer’s ideas and their nuances, but it takes none to condemn them wholesale as pessimistic. Blanket condemnations are especially appealing to people who don’t read books. For example, the criticism against Schopenhauer’s alleged view of consciousness (intelligence) as a burden does not have any connection to his works. Schopenhauer never said that it is worse to be clever than idiotic. Or that intelligent people suffer more in life than stupid ones. The goal of spreading those inaccuracies is to make people believe that Schopenhauer’s philosophy is worthless and that it is a waste of time to study his works. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/exaggeration-and-reality-in-schopenhauers-pessimism/

I define creativity as the ability to do great things with few resources. It is a combination of ingenuity, resourcefulness and focus; note that this definition includes a useful output as a key requirement. Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) is the archetype of long-term literary creativity; while his ingenuity and resourcefulness earned him a prominent place as an essayist, his focus turned him into a philosopher. What was Montaigne’s purpose in writing? To gather facts, assess them independently, and draw valid conclusions. Every essay written by Montaigne aims at establishing the truth in a particular area, to answer a particular question. Montaigne’s literary output is the result of extreme focus. It shows us how much it is possible to produce by employing very limited resources. Nowadays, we could carry in a tablet or smartphone all the books in Montaigne’s library plus hundreds of other books, but I must hasten to add that our abundance of resources does not necessarily lead to abundance of output, let alone abundance of wisdom. Without creativity, the input will not turn into an output that adds value to our lives, an output that makes us wiser and more effective. To make it worse, too many people mistake randomness for creativity. They believe that random words constitute poetry, or that random shapes and colours constitute an artistic painting. I see little value in randomness, chance or serendipity. They can produce an output, but not a useful or beautiful one. They can consume resources, but they cannot render the spectator or reader happier. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/literary-creativity-in-michel-de-montaignes-essays/

In contrast to writers in our century, Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) never claimed to be extraordinarily creative. Even during his last years, when it was obvious that he had produced a remarkable output, his attitude remained modest. Historians have speculated whether Montaigne’s talent was innate or acquired, original or the result of imitation, a case of genius or of incidental circumstances. I view those debates as pointless because Montaigne himself had revealed the source of his creativity. Montaigne explains in his essay “On Constancy” how all his output (literary or otherwise) rests on his resilience, that is, his ability to remain serene, collected and productive in the face of obstacles. I want to dispel right away the myth that Montaigne never had to work a day in his life after having inherited a large property from his father. Montaigne had indeed inherited from his father a property, a large parcel of land with a castle. The salient particularity of Montaigne’s castle is that it possessed a tower overlooking the hay fields. The estate required heavy work, for which Montaigne hired men from the nearby village, and in any case, demanded from him several hours of effort per day. The revenue from the estate did not afford Montaigne other luxuries than travelling once a year, either to Paris or abroad. In practice, Montaigne’s lifestyle was below that of today’s middle class. Nonetheless, Montaigne had one character trait that placed him above his peers: he was remarkably resilient in the face of severe trouble. What kind of severe trouble? I am referring especially to the hostile, harsh environment of the French religious wars, and to Montaigne’s chronic suffering from kidney stones. Despite his many attempts to alleviate the latter, Montaigne never succeeded. The kidney stones plagued him for a decade. The excruciating pain sometimes rendered him unable to do anything for days. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/the-key-to-michel-de-montaignes-literary-creativity/

The literary style of Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) teaches us key lessons in the field of self-improvement. I mean lessons of universal validity that anyone can put into practice right now. Literary critics have analysed Montaigne’s works from the standpoint of tone, subjects, and structure. I am however going to concentrate on Montaigne’s philosophical style and refer to all other aspects along the way. I am convinced that philosophy is the driver of Montaigne’s literary style. His philosophical search determined his tone, the choice of subjects, and the structure of his works. Thus let us pass review to Montaigne’s philosophical style, underlining the practical lessons for today’s readers. If we put into practice those lessons, chances are that we’ll make fewer mistakes and better decisions. Montaigne had established a clear objective for himself before committing any words to paper. I don’t subscribe to the hypothesis that, for practically two decades, he was choosing random subjects and writing about them just because he found it enjoyable. Nobody in his right mind would keep going with full energy for twenty years, day in and day out, if he didn’t have a precise objective in mind. Montaigne’s key objective was philosophical enlightenment, first of all for himself, and indirectly, for his readers. Let’s bear in mind that, during his initial decade of writing, he couldn’t be even remotely sure that he would find readers for his works. No wonder that literary critics describe Montaigne’s style as reflective and prone to self-examination. Indeed, Montaigne is the archetype of the philosopher qua writer. However, Montaigne decided not to emulate Seneca (4 BC-65 AD) and Marcus Aurelius (121-180 AD), finding them too repetitive and imprecise. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaignes-literary-style/

Style is the opposite of randomness and disharmony. When we say of a person or item that “they have style,” we mean that they stand apart; that they possess characteristics making them recognisable at first sight. Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) turned his philosophical convictions into a literary style, one that stands apart because of its goals, structure and logic. Montaigne’s essays possess an array of characteristics that make them unique, and convey key philosophical lessons. In order to present those, I am going to employ an essay of Montaigne’s as an illustration. This particular essay carries the title “Tomorrow Is Another Day.” Montaigne wrote it when he was in his mid-forties. Let’s see which philosophical lessons it conveys by looking at its literary style. Like all other essays of Montaigne, this one has a clear, precise focus. Montaigne did not care much for abstractions or general questions lacking practical application. His philosophy revolved around self-improvement, day by day, year after year. The subject of this essay is anxiety, stress, preoccupation or worry. Those psychological issues have always existed, also in antiquity, although nowadays we tend to blow their impact out of proportion. Montaigne had a definite objective in writing this essay, that is, to find ways to reduce anxiety. He regarded himself as the archetype of the worried individual. He was always looking for ways to reduce risks, for instance, when travelling, cultivating his land, or educating his children. The more precise our questions, the higher our chances of finding an answer, reasoned Montaigne. In the case of anxiety, Montaigne formulated the question as follows: How can we avoid unnecessary mental suffering due to our tendency to fear risks and threats that will never materialise? Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/philosophical-lessons-from-michel-de-montaignes-literary-style/

Why should we study Montaigne’s literary techniques? What benefits can we draw from his contributions? I see two crucial reasons for studying the literary techniques and contributions from Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592). In the first instance, they can enable us to think faster in the face of challenges. Secondly, they can help us make better decisions. Let us review his literary techniques and contributions in the light of those two benefits. Montaigne belongs to a small group of authors, a group that I credit with the ability to help readers think faster. I would also include Aristotle (384-322 BC) and Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) in that small group, and a few other authors. Those authors possess the rare ability to address any subject of their interest, literally any subject under the sun, make deep observations, and draw useful conclusions. I regard Montaigne’s essays as an ideal training ground for faster thinking. Why? Because they cover a wide variety of subjects, and in each case, they make us consider unusual or unorthodox standpoints. They help us develop the habit to look beyond the obvious. For example, Montaigne has no problem in recommending regular periods of solitude (in his essay “Of Solitude”) against the dominant opinions, which promoted gregariousness and a sense of community. He also has no problem in proclaiming critical thinking as a central objective of education (in his essay “Of the Education of Children”), while his peers considered that the transmission of moral values should remain the fundamental goal. Montaigne’s favourite literary technique is the counterpoint, that is, the presentation of sharply contrasting arguments. His goal is to let readers see the complete picture before they make a decision. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/montaignes-literary-techniques-and-contributions/

Literary critics state that Albert Camus (1913-1960) wrote his novel “The Stranger” under the influence of Schopenhauer (1788-1860), but they are completely wrong. Camus created a protagonist, named Meursault, who displays indifference and defeatism that do not exist in Schopenhauer’s work. Worse still, Camus did not provide any useful advice to his readers. If anything, he promoted the idea that anxiety, despair, and aggressiveness are normal. Schopenhauer actually did his best to combat those and keep them at bay. I find it more accurate to say that Schopenhauer was acutely aware of how difficult it is to attain success and happiness. In his books, we can find exceptionally clever observations on how to steer away from high risks and protect one’s happiness. The categorisation of Schopenhauer as pessimistic is wrong but provides a cheap excuse for pointing fingers and avoiding the effort of studying his works. The truth is that his advice can contribute more to human flourishing than the inaccuracies of allegedly optimistic people. It is equally unfair to link Schopenhauer to works by Franz Kafka such as “The Trial,” which presents human existence as absurd, and human rights abuses as normal. Schopenhauer did acknowledge that success and happiness take lots of effort, but did not discourage people from pursuing their dreams. According to Schopenhauer, individuals will strive all their lives to accomplish goals, and fail rather often, but he still categorised striving as normal and healthy. People are driven to pursue one goal after another without ever attaining satiety, but the process itself can be motivating and exciting. Certainly, striving is better than passivity, despair and defeatism. For instance, Schopenhauer’s objectivity and practicality do not have anything to do with the profound anxiety depicted by Edvard Munch (1863-1944) in his painting “The Scream.” It is a completely different world. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/human-flourishing-and-schopenhauers-pessimism/

In a discussion about pessimism in Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860), we must begin by defining our terms. Before you engage any philosophical discussion, you should ask people to define their terms. It’s a waste of time to argue for or against an idea, if words are being misinterpreted. Misunderstandings are a widespread ground for litigation. I regard Schopenhauer’s pessimism as a myth because those who affirm it are distorting the term “pessimism.” If someone makes an accurate assessment of risks and rewards, you cannot call it pessimism. If someone gathers facts carefully and draws an inevitable conclusion, you cannot call it pessimism. One should not categorise ideas as “pessimistic” if they do not entail negative distortions. Pessimism means calling a glass “half-empty” when it is filled at fifty per cent. However, if the glass is filled at one fifth, it is not pessimistic to call it “almost empty.” It is just an accurate description of the facts. Schopenhauer described human life accurately in his work “The world as will and representation” (1818) and then gave a great deal of sound advice in his “Aphorisms about the art of living” (1851) about how to reduce risks and enjoy life. Why do people persist in calling Schopenhauer pessimistic? The answer to this question is psychological. If you label ideas as pessimistic, you don’t need to debate them, and you can get away with spreading delusions by calling them “optimistic” or “positive.” Actually, people who favour blind optimism are causing an avalanche of suffering. If the glass is filled at one fifth, you are not helping anyone by calling it “substantially filled” or “filled to a sizeable level.” It is in your interest to avoid inaccurate information because it leads to bad decisions. Imagine that instead of a glass, we are talking about the fuel tank of an aircraft. Pilots need to know if the tank is filled at one fifth or one third. It would be foolish to call someone “pessimistic” because he tells you the truth. The myth of Schopenhauer’s pessimism becomes obvious if we compare his works with those of actual pessimists such as Miguel de Unamuno (1864-1936), Fyodor Dostoevsky (1821-1881) and August Strindberg (1849-1912). Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/the-myth-of-schopenhauers-pessimism/

In the philosophy of Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860), we find a unique combination of realism and empathy. His books show that Schopenhauer was fully conscious of the advantages of industrial societies. They offer individuals far more chances than agrarian, immobile, medieval structures. At the same time, Schopenhauer was aware that perfection cannot be expected from any justice system. Judges and juries make mistakes, and corruption and incompetence play a role in some cases. Even with hard work and the best intentions, you may prove extraordinarily unlucky, suffer a random accident, and lose your savings and your health. Indeed, justice isn’t guaranteed but we should remain grateful for the opportunities offered by modern society. In his first book “Over the fourfold root of the principle of sufficient reason” (1814), Schopenhauer applies the principle of cause and effect to justify the world as it is. Normally, cause and effect should lead to justice, enabling individuals to receive what they have earned with their efforts, but from time to time, random factors will disrupt causality. In those cases, people can rightly feel disadvantaged, but it’s a fact that luck plays a role in life. Schopenhauer recognised it as a fact that some people will inherit a better disposition and a better set of circumstances. That’s life. In his second book, “The world as will and representation” (1818), Schopenhauer delved into the influence of the will on world affairs. The will (which I translate as “life force”) can be irrational and cruel. It will sometimes thwart good projects and reasonable plans for no good reason. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauer-and-the-idea-of-justice/

The genius of Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) also shows in his unique idea of justice. On the one hand, he regarded it as highly desirable in society. Civilisation cannot exist without a consistent protection of life, liberty and property. On the other hand, Schopenhauer acknowledged that human life inevitably entails injustice; sometimes injustices are caused by errors and mistakes; on other occasions, injustice is caused by sheer bad luck that deprives a person of his health, property, or livelihood. In the latter cases, lamentations help very little. There is no mechanism to remedy all injustices in the world. Even with the best intentions, projects will sometimes fail, relationship break up, and accidents occur. Schopenhauer praised empathy and compassion as essential virtues to diminish suffering when injustices occur. You’ll find those recommendations in his key book “The world as will and representation” (1818) and in his “Aphorisms of life’s wisdom” (1851). It’s remarkable how profoundly Schopenhauer’s differs from other philosophers in his idea of justice. If we take for instance Ralph Waldo Emerson (1802-1882), we see a subjective focus with an emphasis on self-reliance and individual freedom. Emerson regarded justice as a result of divine guidance that leads individuals to do what’s right. His essay “Self-Reliance” advises readers to rely on their intuition more than on societal conventions. According to Emerson, justice depends more on a personal, intuitive understanding of what’s right than on legal and social frameworks. He viewed the collective justice of society as the outcome of each person’s listening to his inner moral truth. In contrast, Schopenhauer favoured the need of an objective legal system that protects life, liberty and property. He had no trust on intuition and subjective perceptions because he viewed them as easily swayed by the will (“life force”). Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/analysis-of-schopenhauers-idea-of-justice/