John Vespasian

In all areas of human endeavour, the advantages of speed should not be underestimated. For builders, it makes a world of difference whether the structure of an edifice can be completed before the winter comes. For growers, it is crucial that all seeds have been planted before the warm season arrives. Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) applied the principle of speed to philosophy, problem solving, and writing. He wrote a large number of essays, focusing each one on a particular issue or question that he wanted to answer. I consider each essay written by Montaigne as a lesson in problem solving. As a reader, I love how each essay is focusing from the start on the key issue, without wasting time. It is true that Montaigne goes occasionally on a tangent, but I view his thought excursions as signs of the difficulty of doing a tight editing in the sixteenth century. Let’s pass review to the problem-solving techniques used by Montaigne in his essays. He employed those techniques during the two decades that he devoted to writing. I would group his problem-solving techniques in the following categories: First, taking a general problem and making it specific by retelling a little story. The process of recounting a story from beginning to end will often bring forward the key to solving the problem. For instance, in his essay “Of Cannibals,” Montaigne wants to establish the proper limits of tolerance. What kind of ideas, laws and behaviours are acceptable in a civilised society? Instead of getting lost in abstractions, Montaigne recounts a little story about cannibals in Brazil, a story that he had read in a report from a French explorer in South America. Montaigne is using the story as “counterpoint to European civilisation,” so that he can immediately address the question at hand. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/problem-solving-and-michel-de-montaignes-literary-techniques/

It is easier to understand someone’s actions if we know his motivation. The same applies to understanding his philosophy and literary style, especially when it incorporates innovations, controversy, or unorthodox features. Historians have written extensively about the literary style of Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592), but their conclusions are rather unconnected and disorganised. Literary critics point out that Montaigne loved to recount anecdotes, ask rhetorical questions, employ humour and irony, quote authors from antiquity and go on lengthy tangents. Those remarks are true, but why did Montaigne write like that? What is the rationale for his style? I can answer that question by using one word: self-reliance. Montaigne’s strong self-reliance shows in his literary style. It shapes every one of his essays, every aspect of his logic, every anecdote he recounts. Let me illustrate my argument with Montaigne’s essay titled “On Prognostications.” The key idea of the essay is that no one can predict our future with precision, and that we will do better if we rely on our own efforts to give direction to our life. If Montaigne had stated his thesis in a couple of sentences, his arguments would have lost persuasiveness and strength. Let us not forget that he was writing primarily for himself; his goal was to cover the subject matter thoroughly and arrive at a solid conclusion. Self-reliance preceded Montaigne’s literary activity: it was a key trait of his personality, a trait that was also present in his best friend, Etienne de La Boetie (1530-1563). Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/the-rationale-for-michel-de-montaignes-literary-techniques/

In his essays, Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) pursued a single goal. He just wanted to figure out how to live each day in the best possible manner. The question underlying his works is always the same: What should I do now? Montaigne’s literary output becomes easily comprehensible if we keep in mind its purpose. Otherwise, it seems chaotic and arbitrary, as though the author was waking up each morning in total ignorance of what he had done the day before. I regard literary analysis as a tool, not as a goal in itself. The whole point of studying an author’s style is to grasp his thought patterns. Montaigne wrote primarily to understand himself, and solve problems in the present and the near future. His literary style is the expression of his philosophical exploration, his hesitations, and his enlightenment. The elements of Montaigne’s literary style correspond to the steps in his thinking. He first asked the question and identified the most promising response; then he played with arguments or anecdotes until those would point in the right direction. I define Montaigne’s literary style as: ask, reply, argue, and justify.” Until that moment, philosophers refrained from taking sides until they had thoroughly analysed a problem. Montaigne breaks with the tradition of Augustine (354-430 AD) and Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274 AD) because of his time pressure. In contrast to his predecessors, he wants to come to a workable answer quickly and with a minimum of research. Let’s examine the four key elements of Montaigne’s literary style, that is, ask, reply, argue, and justify. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/literary-analysis-of-michel-de-montaignes-essays/

Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) embodies the opposite of naivety because his observations revolve around human nature. In every situation, he always wanted to grasp the motivation of the persons involved. Before becoming a writer, Montaigne had practised law for a decade in Bordeaux. He had many times found himself in the middle of family and business conflicts, and had witnessed the best and worst of human nature. We could ask ourselves a hundred times why Montaigne wrote in the first person, used historical anecdotes and rhetorical questions, but the answers will remain elusive as long as we fail to look at the full picture. Let me illustrate it with an example, namely, the essay titled “On the three kinds of relationships,” which passes review to the main characteristics of marriage, friendship and parenthood. Montaigne draws from the Bible the example of King David and Jonathan (eleventh century BC) as a relationship of mutual trust and shared intellectual interests. Each of the two men held a very different social position, but their friendship developed all the same. On a personal level, Montaigne refers to his friendship with Etienne de La Boetie (1530-1563), a man who had shared the interests of Montaigne in philosophy, history and literature. In the section devoted to marriage, Montaigne recalls a few examples of harmonious couples in history, such as Alexander the Great (356-323 BC) and his wife Roxanne. Their enduring love, theorises Montaigne, rested on their deep compatibility. When it comes to parental relationships, Montaigne recalls the Roman Emperor Augustus (63 BC-14 AD) and his mother, Atia. She died shortly after Augustus twentieth birthday, after having nurtured his social and political talents, preparing him for a successful career. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/the-role-of-purpose-in-the-literary-analysis-of-michel-de-montaignes-essays/

Three words suffice me to summarise the literary legacy of Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592): Think for yourself. In each of his essays, he calls for self-reliance, critical thinking, open-mindedness, and personal initiative. Unfortunately, historians have given excessive weight to the stylistic aspects of Montaigne’s work, and overlooked his ideas and attitude. Indeed, Montaigne invented the essay as a literary genre but it represents a small step compared with the dialogues written by Plato (427-347 BC), the letters written by Seneca (4 BC-65 AD), or the brief treatises written by Cicero (106-43 BC). What about its meditative standpoint? Does thoughtfulness make Montaigne’s essays unique? Not at all. I cannot see that Montaigne’s essays are more reflective than the “Meditations” written by Marcus Aurelius (121-180 AD). If we take Montaigne’s essay “On Experience,” which is in part autobiographical, we can find observations reminiscent of those made by Marcus Aurelius fourteen centuries earlier. Neither do scepticism or relativism make Montaigne unique because of the large number of freethinkers in France during the Middle Ages. Montaigne is a notable custodian of a worthy tradition, but not its creator or initiator. When Montaigne published his essays in 1580, he included his “Apology for Raymond Sebond.” It is a remarkable work in terms of theological depth, but its arguments had already been known long before Montaigne. In this essay, a freethinker looks back kindly upon the work of a freethinker from a previous generation, but his arguments about the limits of human reason are spurious and specious. He is bringing back Plato’s world of pure ideas, and lamenting that they remain inaccessible to us. Nothing new under the sun. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaignes-literary-legacy/

Three words suffice me to summarise the literary legacy of Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592): Think for yourself. In each of his essays, he calls for self-reliance, critical thinking, open-mindedness, and personal initiative. Unfortunately, historians have given excessive weight to the stylistic aspects of Montaigne’s work, and overlooked his ideas and attitude. Indeed, Montaigne invented the essay as a literary genre but it represents a small step compared with the dialogues written by Plato (427-347 BC), the letters written by Seneca (4 BC-65 AD), or the brief treatises written by Cicero (106-43 BC). What about its meditative standpoint? Does thoughtfulness make Montaigne’s essays unique? Not at all. I cannot see that Montaigne’s essays are more reflective than the “Meditations” written by Marcus Aurelius (121-180 AD). If we take Montaigne’s essay “On Experience,” which is in part autobiographical, we can find observations reminiscent of those made by Marcus Aurelius fourteen centuries earlier. Neither do scepticism or relativism make Montaigne unique because of the large number of freethinkers in France during the Middle Ages. Montaigne is a notable custodian of a worthy tradition, but not its creator or initiator. When Montaigne published his essays in 1580, he included his “Apology for Raymond Sebond.” It is a remarkable work in terms of theological depth, but its arguments had already been known long before Montaigne. In this essay, a freethinker looks back kindly upon the work of a freethinker from a previous generation, but his arguments about the limits of human reason are spurious and specious. He is bringing back Plato’s world of pure ideas, and lamenting that they remain inaccessible to us. Nothing new under the sun. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaignes-literary-legacy/

The idea of freedom in Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) is linked to his philosophy of the will. He outlined his concept of the will in his major works “About the fourfold root of the principle of sufficient reason” (1808) and “The world as will and representation” (1818). According to Schopenhauer, the will (which I translate as “life force”) is the underlying force driving all human actions, goals and desires. Schopenhauer defined the will as an insatiable and irrational force that drives human beings towards reproduction and other goals such as success, fame, and wealth accumulation. From this perspective, individual freedom is influenced by the relentless demands of the will. Humans are pushed to seek the satisfaction of endless desires, leading to inevitable failure and frustration. Nonetheless, individuals aren’t defenceless against the will. In his later work “Parerga and Paralipomena” (1851), he gives advice about enhancing one’s freedom and steering away from stress, failure and frustration. On the one hand, Schopenhauer recommends a certain level of asceticism because it helps individuals break out of endless desires that are impossible to satisfy. Schopenhauer praises self-discipline and contemplation. His books argue that Buddhism, Hinduism and Christianity regard self-discipline and contemplation positively; those have proven their liberating effect countless times. In addition, Schopenhauer advises his readers to engage in aesthetic experiences such as music. Art can help us forget the constant pressure of the will and societal demands. Through artistic contemplation, individuals can escape the relentless pressure of the will. Art can lead to a state of higher perception, where the will is rendered temporarily inert. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauer-and-freedom/

Despite his sound reasoning and accurate writing, Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) didn’t succeed in making his ideas on freedom popular. In particular, his theory of the will wasn’t taken seriously by other philosophers and fell into oblivion at the beginning of the twentieth century. According to Schopenhauer, civilised society should grant legal protection to life, liberty and property. However, laws do not have the power to remove biological limits on freedom. I’m referring to the limits imposed by the will (“life force”) and by the human lifespan. In his work “The world as will and representation”(1818), Schopenhauer exposed at length the deep influence of the will on human freedom. The will prompts people towards pleasure, reproduction, wealth accumulation and success, generating one desire upon another. The will drives people to seek more and more, without ever achieving fulfilment. Schopenhauer observed the pattern repeat itself a million times. Thus, he acknowledged the influence of the will as a fact of life to be taken into account. Schopenhauer outlined his philosophy of freedom not only in his major works, but also in the brief essays contained in his “Parerga and Paralipomena” (1851). Those essays give precise strategies to minimize the negative influence of the will. They can help readers keep trouble at bay and maximise happiness. Why did other philosophers fail to embrace Schopenhauer’s views on freedom? The major reason for their rejection is that Schopenhauer disagreed with any kind of absolutist thinking. I find in Schopenhauer a defender of individual freedom focused on maximising happiness through personal responsibility. Karl Marx (1818-1883) took the opposite path and regarded freedom as a purely socioeconomic concept. He wrote essays on the material conditions of human existence, class struggle, historical materialism and communism, but overlooked the key role played by personal responsibility on happiness. According to Marx, capitalism leads to the alienation of the individual from his work because employment leads to severe exploitation; freedom is limited, he argued, because employees are subjected to oppressive conditions. Schopenhauer had not regarded a capitalistic society as evil and oppressive. In fact, he pointed out that industrial societies offer chances of success, wealth accumulation and mobility. In previous historical periods, those chances had been scarce. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/critique-of-schopenhauers-ideas-on-freedom/

The concept of the will (which I translate as “life force” or “primal energy”) plays the key role in the philosophy of Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860). He argued that a blind, irrational, overwhelming force drives all creatures to reproduce, sustain their own lives, and improves their situation. According to Schopenhauer, the will is exerting relentless pressure on humans, prompting them to pursue objectives that are often impossible to achieve. The inevitable result is failure, setbacks and disappointments. Schopenhauer objected to the optimistic ideals of thinkers such as Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831). He objected to the theory that history is driven to the realisation of a particular goal, let alone, the realisation of a perfect society. Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) and Friedrich Hegel are called “idealists” because they built speculative philosophies. Instead of looking at reality and checking the facts, they constructed a chain of logical arguments unconnected to everyday life. Schopenhauer did the opposite. His views on the nature of existence are based on his experience and observations. In his eyes, life is a constant struggle. Individuals pursue endless goals without ever achieving them all. They live in a constant state of dissatisfaction. In his doctoral thesis published in 1814 (“Over the fourfold root of the principle of sufficient reason”), Schopenhauer had postulated that there is always a reason or cause for everything that happens. In 1818, he wrote his work “The world as will and representation,” refining the principle of sufficient reason. The will is the underlying force that drives all life, he theorised. It can ruin your life if you fail to pay attention and counteract its negative effects. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauers-views-on-the-nature-of-existence/

The stunning accuracy of the intuitions and insights gained by Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) becomes apparent when we compare him with other philosophers. Many have attacked Schopenhauer’s views on the nature of existence but the attacks have only served to reinforce his positions. You cannot dismiss Schopenhauer by saying that he was too pessimistic or nihilistic. Why not? Because, when you analyse the details, you will see that his observations match reality. For better or for worse, he was objective and precise. Schopenhauer’s views on the nature of existence rest on his theory of the will, the life force that drives all living creatures. The will awakes endless desires in us, and if you do not know how to counteract it, you are likely to make dire mistakes. His work “Parerga and Paripomena” (1851) gives valuable advice to minimise suffering and secure happiness. You cannot call pessimistic a philosopher who identifies risks and outlines effective countermeasures. Those who compare Schopenhauer with Franz Kafka (1883-1924) are profoundly mistaken. Kafka struggled all his life and the heroes in his works are overwhelmed by external forces, but those forces do not correspond to Schopenhauer’s theory of the will. In his early years, Kafka suffered from a tense relationship with his authoritarian father, Hermann Kafka, but such tension has nothing to do with Schopenhauer’s theory of the will. Kafka spent most of his professional life working as a legal counsel for an insurance company. His job made him regard modern society as hierarchical, bureaucratic and abusive; that’s the type of society that he depicted in his novel “The Trial,” published posthumously in 1937. In “The Trial,” Josef K becomes the victim of a bewildering legal system; he is arrested, but the charges against him remain secret; he is prosecuted without having the chance to articulate a defence. The trial ends with his irregular execution. The absurd world depicted by Kafka has nothing to do with Schopenhauer’s philosophy. Kafka’s heroes are passive victims of circumstances, but Schopenhauer warned against passivity. Schopenhauer advised readers to reduce risks and enhance their self-sufficiency and self-reliance. He warned them against the dangers brought about by the will and advised them to take effective steps. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/impact-of-schopenhauers-views-on-the-nature-of-existence/