John Vespasian

Despite their closeness in time, there are huge differences in intent and content between the ideas of Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) and those of Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860). Kant aimed at reconciling empiricism and rationalism, but with little success. The only result of his efforts is to decouple philosophy and science from ethics, leaving the area of values to religion, mysticism, and subjectivity. Historians have baptised Kant’s philosophy “transcendental idealism” in order to hide its deep irrationality and immorality. According to Kant, we derive our understanding of reality from sensory experience and intellectual concepts as much as from the structure of the human mind. The structure is present at birth and predetermines our perceptions and reasoning, said Kant. On this basis, Kant made the distinction between “a priori knowledge” (derived from the structure of our mind) and “a posteriori knowledge” (derived from experience). In particular, he theorised that “a priori insights” come from predetermined categories such as cause and effect, shape, size, etc. Kant devoted his book “Critique of Pure Reason” (1781) to speculating about knowledge theory, predetermined categories, and the limitations of the human mind. Seven years later, he wrote “Critique of Practical Reason,” a book that relinquishes ethics to subjectivity and religion. They are supposed to identify “categorical imperatives” valid to all individuals in all circumstances. However, the moral chaos of our era shows that Kant’s expectations have completely failed. In contrast, Schopenhauer paid little attention to knowledge theory, considering Kant’s speculations of little practical value. Schopenhauer’s key concerns are human motivation, happiness and the minimisation of suffering. While Kant got lost in abstractions, Schopenhauer focused on giving practical advice. His works “About the fourfold root of the principle of sufficient cause” (1808) and “The World as will and representation” answer questions about key elements in human motivation, making better decisions, and minimising risks. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauer-and-kant-a-comparison/

The philosophy of Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) on the unconscious has exerted a vast influence on later thinkers such as Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, Alfred Adler, or Wilhelm Reich. In his work “The world as will and representation” (1818), Schopenhauer outlined his philosophy of the unconscious. Schopenhauer defined the will as the blind, irrational drive to survive, reproduce, and seek pleasure at any cost. It’s a force that influences all living creatures, and that can prompt human beings to make dire mistakes. The will encompasses instincts and impulses that Sigmund Freud had named “the unconscious.” Schopenhauer viewed the will as a force operating beyond the realm of awareness. Thus, the will can prompt individuals to act illogically, detrimentally, or foolishly. According to Schopenhauer, the conscious mind is a surface layer driven by the will; unless you adopt countermeasures, the desires, instincts and impulses created by the will can prompt you to take counterproductive decisions. Schopenhauer devoted decades to identifying measures to counteract the will, minimise suffering and increase happiness. However, in his work “Parerga and Paralipomena” (1851), he admitted that it is easier to minimise suffering than to ensure happiness. The will can lead to intense pleasure, but also to suffering. I must explain the latter because it is far from self-evident. If the will is trying to protect life, why does suffering take place? Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauer-and-the-unconscious/

Few historians acknowledge the large influence of Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) on psychology, but Schopenhauer’s theory of the will (“life force”) as irrational driver of human psychology had set the background for Freud’s concept of a subconscious. Nowadays, it’s widely accepted that wild impulses often prompt us to seek short-term pleasures at the cost of long-term suffering. Carl Jung (1875-1961) was also profoundly influenced by Schopenhauer’s views on the unconscious, but developed them further. Jung created the concept of collective unconscious, a layer shared by humans across cultures and throughout history. According to Jung, the collective unconscious contains the archetypes (universal symbols) employed by all humans; those help shape the myths and folklore of each culture. Jung believed that archetypes (such as the lonely hero, the intransigent innovator, the wandering ghost, the restless soul or the evil force) exist in all cultures. You can find versions of the archetypes in children’s stories around the world. It is not a coincidence that archetypes exist, argued Jung. In his view, archetypes represent fundamental human attitudes to situations that occur in all cultures. They supply templates that are recognisable in every human society. Schopenhauer would have dismissed the idea of a collective unconscious as speculative and meaningless. In contrast to the theory of the will developed by Schopenhauer, the concept of a collective subconscious does not explain human motivation. Even if it was true that all cultures use similar metaphors or story patterns, it doesn’t mean that human beings are driven by those stories. Even if all individuals know the archetype of the hero, only a few people are going to display heroic behaviour.According to Jung, the collective unconscious contains the archetypes (universal symbols) employed by all humans; those help shape the myths and folklore of each culture. Jung believed that archetypes (such as the lonely hero, the intransigent innovator, the wandering ghost, the restless soul or the evil force) exist in all cultures. You can find versions of the archetypes in children’s stories around the world. It is not a coincidence that archetypes exist, argued Jung. In his view, archetypes represent fundamental human attitudes to situations that occur in all cultures. They supply templates that are recognisable in every human society. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/impact-of-schopenhauers-views-on-the-unconscious/

Specifically in the works of Carl Rogers, Wilhelm Reich and William James, the twentieth century brought strong criticism of the views on the unconscious presented by Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860). Their definitions of the unconscious are based on the ideas developed by Schopenhauer, but only after having narrowed them down to a point where they are almost unrecognisable. In their own ways, Carl Rogers, Wilhelm Reich and William James emphasise particular aspects of Schopenhauer’s concept of the unconscious. As a result, they have obscured the original concept and deprived it of its ability to explain human action. Let’s first recapitulate what Schopenhauer put forward in his two major books “About the fourfold root of the principle of sufficient reason” (1814), and four years later in “The world as will and representation.” According to Schopenhauer, the will (“life force”) drives all living creatures to ensure their survival and reproduction. Even if you adopt countermeasures, you will not succeed in escaping the influence of the will. You can minimise its negative effects, but you cannot shut it down. Schopenhauer defined the will as a blind, irrational force. It is a definition that matches Sigmund Freud’s conception of the unconscious. Although Schopenhauer had employed historical examples and Freud had referred to psychiatric cases, they are speaking about the same phenomenon. Here is a link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/critique-of-schopenhauers-views-on-the-unconscious/

Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) devoted his whole life to the pursuit of truth. He acknowledged that truth is sometimes unpleasant and harsh, but humans are better off when they face problems and take action to solve them. In his major work “The World as Will and Representation,” (1818), Schopenhauer categorised the will (“life force”) as the main driver behind human actions. It exerts massive influence on perception, motivation, and on how people take decisions. Schopenhauer criticised mainstream philosophers because of their failure to grasp how the will drives the universe. If you fail to study the theory of the will, you cannot understand the tangible experiences of life. Truth can only be perceived, argued Schopenhauer, by those who acknowledge the influence of the will on the thoughts of individuals. Those thoughts combine the will (blind, irrational, external force) with individual perceptions and desires. Schopenhauer’s books “On the fourfold root of the principle of sufficient cause” (1814) and “Parerga and Paralipomena” (1851) recommend confronting the harsh realities of existence, instead of engaging in wishful thinking. The truth will help us make the right decisions. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauer-and-the-nature-of-truth/

Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) gave us valuable insights on human behaviour. Let us take a look at historical examples of Schopenhauer’s views on the nature of truth. First of all, Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592), a French philosopher, as a worthy predecessor of Schopenhauer. Like Schopenhauer, Montaigne remained outside academic circles, but wrote essays on the nature of truth. Montaigne did not offer answers as sophisticated as Schopenhauer, but spent years doing research on the reliability of human judgement and the certainty of knowledge. Also like Schopenhauer, Montaigne underlined the fallibility of human reason, especially when influenced by strong external factors. However, Montaigne was willing to accept a higher level of subjectivity than Schopenhauer. While Schopenhauer employed his theory of the will to seek the nature of truth, Montaigne regarded truth as contingent on the cultural context and individual circumstances. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/examples-of-schopenhauers-views-on-the-nature-of-truth/

John Vespasian explains that Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) was one of the most realistic philosophers in history. He was remarkably talented at analysing problems, reviewing possible solutions, discarding the unworkable, and selecting the most promising amongst the rest. Let me underline the step “discarding the unworkable.” It is something that most philosophers forget to do. They will fall in love with their favourite plan and keep defending it long after it has become obvious that it cannot possibly work. Plato (427-347 BC) did so in his work “Republic,” where he put forward that totalitarianism under the rule of philosopher-kings is the best political regime. History has proven Plato wrong a thousand times. His ideas about politics are atrocious. In fact, he could have avoided his errors if he had analysed the history before his time. By then, it was already clear that totalitarianism always ends in bloodshed and misery. Montaigne did not get everything right, but at least, he kept dire mistakes at bay. Compared to Plato, Augustine, or Thomas Aquinas, he was far ahead of the game. Why? Because he had a much wider experience of life. Montaigne was particularly adverse to proposing abrasive, harsh social changes even when they seemed advantageous. His extensive experience of the world had made him distrust things that look too good to be true. The deep study of the biographies written by Plutarch (46-120 AD) had made Montaigne suspicious of drastic changes. I agree with him that very rarely does history deliver successful examples of radical changes. More often than not, those lead to unintended consequences that prove worse than the problem. Montaigne had learned the lesson the hard way in his own life. Let me recall a few instances that made him distrust harsh changes, harsh decisions, and harsh actions in general. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaignes-biography-tradition-versus-change/

John Vespasian explains that Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) made it particularly clear that he wanted to differentiate himself from his peers. His vast literary achievements are not the result of luck. His philosophy is not the outcome of random circumstances, but of persistence and determination. Montaigne was a master in the art of living because of his unusually high productivity. Even with a busy professional life as a lawyer in Bordeaux, he became extremely well-read and raised a family. Montaigne even found the time to travel abroad (Germany, Italy) for a year, and later occupied public office for four years. All those activities did not prevent him from becoming highly productive as an author. From Montaigne’s art of living, which lessons can we put into practice here and now? Montaigne limited the number of activities or tasks that he undertook. During his studies at the College de Guyenne, he did not spread himself too thin. If Montaigne had consumed large amounts of entertainment or practised sports daily, he would have delayed his career by a long stretch. If we want to achieve important goals, the first thing we need to do is to focus, just as Montaigne had done. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaigne-and-the-art-of-living/

John Vespasian explains that Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) was aware of the dangers associated to popularity. He also knew the financial advantages that one can draw from it, but after careful reflection, he opted for a quiet lifestyle in the countryside. Montaigne’s choice is remarkable because it entailed a series of drastic changes; he had lived for decades in a sizeable city, pursued a demanding career, and interacted with hundreds of people; why did he choose to leave behind his professional ambitions? There is a key philosophical lesson in Montaigne’s decision to embrace a quiet lifestyle, a lesson that has become very hard to learn in our century of social media around the clock. Even for Montaigne, it took a while to analyse his own thoughts and record his arguments in writing. Montaigne conveyed his reflections in his essay titled “Not to Communicate a Man’s Honour.” Actually, the essay has little to do with honour and very much to do with lifestyle choices. Montaigne employs the term “honour” as a synonym for our professional and ethical reputation. In sixteenth-century France and in the rest of Europe, an impeccable reputation was crucial particularly in commerce and banking. The question raised by Montaigne is whether we should do our best to enhance our reputation. How much effort should we devote to responding to attacks against our honour? Should we seize every opportunity to increase our popularity? Montaigne recommends to pursue tangible achievements, so that they can speak for themselves. It’s a massive waste of time to debate people who criticise our skills and personal qualities. Instead, let us deliver great results and those will automatically enhance our popularity. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaignes-art-of-living-quietly/

John Vespasian explains that Montaigne’s essay titled “On the inequality amongst us” is conveying the key lesson from his life, namely, that we should accept without complaints the fact that each person is different, and that all attempts to homogenise people are doomed to fail. Individuals are unequal in intelligence, agility, beauty, skills and personal interests, just to mention a few aspects. Luckily, Montaigne accepted inequality as a fact early in life and spared himself lots of trouble. In sixteenth-century France, the monarch deployed massive efforts to homogenise the ideas in the country, but his attempts proved a dismal failure. In fact, he achieved exactly the contrary. Instead of having all citizens share the same ideals, he destroyed social harmony. Instead of having everybody accept the same beliefs, he only generated discrimination, hatred and war. Montaigne did not praise enough the wisdom of adopting a realistic stance. Not only is it a fact that individuals are all unequal, but that life rarely delivers perfect justice or fairness. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaignes-key-lesson-on-the-art-of-living/