John Vespasian

John Vespasian explains that Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) had zero impact on early modern philosophy because his great merit was to look to the past, not to the future. As a result, Montaigne developed a new, fresh, truly modern mentality that put him decades ahead of his literary peers. When Montaigne looked at history, mostly antique history, he picked up ideas and facts that he found useful. He was very familiar with the doctrines of Pyrrho (360-270 BC) and Sextus Empiricus (160-210 AD), but adopted only a mild version of their scepticism. Montaigne’s modern mentality is the key to his influence in all areas of culture, but not primarily on philosophy. He did not even join the debates in philosophical circles because his main concern was happiness, not certainty or truth. Two generations later, Rene Descartes (1596-1650) would write his famous “Discourse on the Method” and his “Meditations on First Philosophy.” In the meantime, Montaigne had opted for remaining oblivious to the debate. Why did Montaigne ignore mainstream philosophical books and debates? Because his interest in philosophy was primarily instrumental, not fundamental. His modern mentality shows in his practical approach. He steered away from theoretical issues like most individuals do nowadays. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaignes-impact-on-early-modern-philosophy/

John Vespasian explains that Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) produced a compelling collection of essays, but historians have exaggerated his impact on early modern philosophy. Take for instance Montaigne’s essay titled “On the custom of wearing clothes.” When Montaigne wrote this piece, he was in his early forties, living quietly in the countryside. Day after day, he retired to the tower of his castle to read and write, and kept churning out one essay after another. Historians sustain that Montaigne wrote “On the Custom of Wearing Clothes” to present and endorse cultural relativism. In their eyes, Montaigne was asking us to refrain from judging our culture because, across history, people have been wearing different types of attire in different countries or occasions. According to this theory, Montaigne’s cultural relativism is the originator or contributor to the relativism deployed in the eighteenth century by the likes of Montesquieu (1689-1755) and Voltaire (1694-1778). Really? Montaigne points out that some indigenous tribes in Brazil do not wear clothing, but so what? They also don’t build ships, castles and cathedrals. Montaigne also says that infants do not demand to wear clothes, but so what? They also not ask to have toys, a soft bed, and visits to the paediatrician. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/why-montaigne-had-no-impact-on-early-modern-philosophy/

John Vespasian explains that Montaigne is an extraordinary author in many aspects, great in erudition and wisdom, but not a philosophical innovator. If anything, he looked at the past more than he was looking at the future. He had drawn his more enlightened ideas from antiquity in the formulations given by Seneca (4 BC-65 AD), Plutarch (46-120 AD) or Aristotle (384-322 BC). Even his theological views draw more from medievalism than from modernity. Nevertheless, Montaigne surpassed all his predecessors in a singular area: his passion from balance and perspective; no one in prior centuries had devoted so vast efforts to looking at both side of every issue. Montaigne had written the “Apology for Raymond Sebond” years before he decided to abandon his legal career to relocate to the countryside and devote himself to research and writing. In the “Apology for Raymond Sebond,” we find though that Montaigne’s personal philosophy had already congealed. It was not a rectilinear, symmetrical intellectual construction, but did the job beautifully. Montaigne had defined philosophy’s objective as the pursuit of happiness, nothing less but also very little more. His interest in metaphysics, epistemology, politics or aesthetics was narrow and purpose-bound. The ideas of theologian Raymond Sebond (1385-1436) may have been forgotten if Montaigne, instigated by his father, had not bothered to write an extensive piece in their defence. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaignes-contribution-to-early-modern-philosophy/

John Vespasian explains that Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) left behind ethical guidelines, practical and tangible, but roving and disorderly. Why? Because he cared for finding the path to happiness, but not for the implicit metaphysics, epistemology, politics and aesthetics. Due to his philosophical limitations, Montaigne has exerted a narrow influence on French literature and cultural identity. It would be an exaggeration to claim a vast influence from ideas, values and behavioural models that we can barely characterise. Let us take for instance Montaigne’s essay “On three good women.” Montaigne was in his mid-forties when he wrote this essay. His philosophical views were finalised and complete. In the ensuing decade, they would not evolve one inch. Montaigne’s purpose in this essay is straightforward. He just wants to illustrate virtuous behaviour by using three prominent historical anecdotes. Before speaking of Montaigne’s influence on French literature and cultural identify, let us pass review to those three examples. First, the widow of Ephesus. Her story was immortalised by Petronius (27-66 AD) in his “Satyricon.” Petronius tells us that, when her husband died, she felt such a profound grief that she vowed to lock herself in his tomb and starve to death. However, she changed her mind when she met a handsome Roman soldier near her husband’s tomb. The soldier had been assigned to guard a nearby site. When he saw the widow walk by, he made a pass at her, and soon won her over. Second, a Roman mother whose story has gone down into history as “Roman charity,” as recounted by Valerius Maximus in his “Memorable deeds and sayings” written in 30 AD. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaignes-impact-on-french-literature-and-cultural-identity/

Before devoting time to reading a classical work, it is fair to ask about its relevance today. Why should I devote my energy to reading a classic? What lessons can I possible learn from an author who lived centuries ago? John Vespasian explains that Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) is one of the few classics that passes this test with flying colours. What is the relevance level of his works today? My answer is: hundred per cent; each time that I re-read his essays, I learn new things; I mean useful, practical things, not empty speculations. Montaigne’s goal is to elucidate the best method for making decisions. He was well aware that most individuals lack a fixed method for making decisions. Sometimes, they think things through and choose the safest course of action. Other times, they trust their feelings. On other occasions, they follow someone else’s advice, or simply imitate what other people are doing. Montaigne lived in the sixteenth century, but the question in his essay is perfectly applicable today. What is the best method for making decisions? Should we stick to principles, or adopt a pragmatic, case-by-case approach? Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaignes-relevance-today/

John Vespasian explains that Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) made it his life’s mission to compile the wisdom of the past. He devoted twenty years of his life to writing essays, condensing the wisdom of Aristotle (384-322 BC), Seneca (4 BC-65 AD), and other ancient Greek and Roman sources. It is fair to ask whether the lessons from ancient authors are still relevant today. In fact, people had asked the same question in the sixteenth century, when Montaigne was researching and writing his essays. Montaigne had not failed to ask himself this question, but he was very particular in the way he looked for answers. Since he had fallen prey to delusions all too often, he always wanted to consider both sides of any issue. Even if he felt pretty certain of the answer, he would still go through the arguments that contradicted his views. He enjoyed playing devil’s advocate against himself and wouldn’t proclaim victory until he had disarmed his intellectual opponents. “The aim of life is to live happily and serenely,” Montaigne wrote, but this is only possible if we are aware of what we are doing. Like Aristotle in his “Nicomachean Ethics,” Montaigne regarded happiness as the goal, and philosophy as the path. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/the-one-reason-why-michel-de-montaigne-remains-relevant-today/

Aristotle adopted a systematic approach to studying the world, explains John Vespasian. His theory of the four causes entails that, if you want to fully understand something, you should consider four distinct causes. First, a material cause that pertains to the material substance that makes up an item or creature. For example, the material cause of a woollen suit is wool. Second, the a formal cause that relates to the object’s shape or structure. In the case of the woollen suit, the formal cause consists of a vest and a pair of pants. Their shape constitutes a suit, not a scarf, a raincoat, a shirt, or an overall. Third, an efficient cause that is concerned with the agent or force responsible for making the object. It replies to the question “What brought the object into existence?” In the context of the suit, the efficient cause is the tailor who made it. Fourth, a final cause that deals with the purpose. It answers the question, “Why does the object exist?” In the case of the suit, the final cause is to allow me to wear the suit for work, formal dinners, and other such occasions. The theory of the four causes seems simple enough as a tool for analysing reality, but as we’ll see now, it gets exceedingly complicated when it is coupled to social and political events. It is not exaggerated to affirm that Aristotle’s theory of causation has driven the intellectual discourse for centuries. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/aristotles-theory-of-the-four-causes/

“Teleology” is derived from the Greek word “telos,” which means end, purpose, motivation or intent. Aristotle’s teleology postulates that every action in nature has a specific purpose. In Aristotle’s words, such a purpose is called “final cause.” John Vespasian explains that Aristotle believed that teleological considerations apply to living creatures and, to a lesser extent, to natural phenomena. It is a concept that applies to human development, animal actions and natural events such as storms, rain or floods. According to Aristotle, all entities strive to fulfil their goals and inherent purposes. For animals, those goals will be simple desires such as food, sex and shelter. For human beings, there are many different ranges of objectives and motivation levels. Aristotle’s teleological perspective applies to ethics, politics, and to all fields of human endeavour. Since he considered happiness as the primary goal of humans, he defined the path as living a meaningful, fulfilling life. For Aristotle, ethics and morality consist of practical advice for attaining happiness in this world. He favoured the pursuit of virtue and moral excellence as the only means to achieve eudaimonia. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/aristotles-concept-of-teleology/

Aristotle did not invent the concept of the soul. John Vespasian explains that the concept was already existing in older cultures such as those of ancient Egyptians and Hinduism. In those cultures, people believed that the soul was the animating energy or force behind life, also including human life. For the ancient Egyptians and Hindus, the sole involved ideas of immortality, reincarnation, and the soul’s journey after death. Ancient Egyptians practised mummification of corpses to safeguard their soul in the afterlife. The mummy was meant to give the soul a physical place of residence, so to speak. In ancient Greece, a century before Aristotle, Pythagoras put forward that the soul was immortal and could migrate from one body to another. In this regard, Pythagoras was imitating the philosophy of Hinduism. Aristotle devoted a full book to the concept of the soul. The Latin title of this work is “De Anima,” which means “About the Soul). Aristotle wrote this book when he was still a student of Plato’s or shortly after leaving Plato’s school. Historians do not know the exact date of the writing, but it is clearly influenced by Plato’s theories. Aristotle had not yet developed his own philosophical system, or at least, not fully. In this book, Aristotle divides the soul in three types or parts, namely, the vegetative soul, the sensitive soul, and the rational soul. Let us see what each type means. He devotes one part of “De Anima” to each type of soul. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/aristotles-theory-of-the-soul/

The process of philosophical development is similar to the process of learning to walk after you have suffered an injury. It takes lots of training for your muscles to work properly and in a coordinated manner. John Vespasian explains that Aristotle’s ethical philosophy is tied to his conception of the soul, but he was more reality-oriented than Plato. He did not worry so much about abstract “Forms” existing in a hidden realm. For Aristotle, the soul’s functions are practical, not ethereal. In his work “Nicomachean Ethics,” he argued that the purpose of the soul is to allow individuals to perfect themselves through ethical excellence or virtue. Virtue is the primary means to achieving a happy life, which is characterised intellectual flourishing. Virtue, according to Aristotle, is a disposition of the soul that enables humans to act in accordance with reason and moral principles. Aristotle identifies moral virtues such as courage, justice, and temperance, as essential for achieving a well-balanced life. For him, ethical values are not arbitrary external rules, but are connected to the workings of the soul. Aristotle emphasised the unity of soul and body. His views contrast with the dualism of thinkers like Plato, who believed in the soul as a distinct, immortal entity temporarily inhabiting the body. In view of his mythical conception of the soul, it’s no wonder that Plato failed to offer practical advice on happiness. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/happiness-and-aristotles-theory-of-the-soul/