In his work “Rhetoric,” Aristotle (384-322 BC) identified a triad of pillars for persuasion and effective speaking. His three pillars (ethos, pathos and logos) refer to the three key elements in communication, namely, the speaker’s fame and credibility, the strength of his arguments, and their emotional impact. Hundreds of books have been written on the subject of how to communicate effectively, but most of them rehash Aristotle’s teachings on rhetoric without adding value. Although it only takes a few hours to familiarise oneself with Aristotelian rhetoric, it is tricky to put it into practice. It is a fact that most people aren’t effective public speakers and that, by attending a communication course, they will barely improve their skills. Why are rhetoric and persuasion so difficult? Plato (429-347 BC) pointed out one of the main reasons that render rhetoric and persuasion so difficult, namely, that people do not want to be perceived as manipulative. They do not want to be seen as pushy marketeers that will tell lies for personal gain. In his dialogue titled “Gorgias,” Plato presents a discussion between Socrates, the rhetoric teacher Gorgias, and his student Polus. In fact, Plato is himself speaking through Socrates. Socrates remarks that rhetoric is often misused and attacks Gorgias (a teacher of rhetoric) for his willingness to teach how to manipulate other people for personal gain. He accuses Gorgias of ignoring truth and virtue, and giving more importance to style than to substance. Socrates considers evil to employ persuasion for personal gain (financial, political or in court cases) and obliterate genuine knowledge. Socrates believed that rhetoric should be used only to foster justice and virtue. Thus, he admonished Gorgias for his moral indifference. Socrates found it appalling that Gorgias, as long as he got paid, was willing to accept anyone as student. When people state that they feel uncomfortable speaking in public, they may be experiencing the same ethical reservations that Plato had presented in his dialogue. What Plato and Socrates had called manipulation, modern psychologists may call aggressive salesmanship. The point is that some people regard all persuasion techniques as evil, and refuse to use them. No wonder that learning about Aristotelian rhetoric does not do them any good. Plato and Socrates were wrong because they hadn’t grasped the concept of individual freedom. Their demand that Gorgias should teach persuasion only for virtuous purposes was absurd. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/putting-aristotles-theory-of-rhetoric-and-persuasion-into-practice/

Despite its innovative, accurate character, philosophers first rejected the philosophy developed by Aristotle (384-322 BC) on knowledge and learning. His empiricism fell into disregard, and his detailed causal analysis (material cause, formal cause, efficient cause, and final cause) was seldom taught to students. For instance, Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153) was a fierce contender of Aristotle’s philosophy, and exerted great influence in medieval Europe. Bernard of Clairvaux was born in Burgundy, France, into a noble family. His father, Tescelin le Saur, and his mother, Aleth de Montbard, possessed large parcels of land. Their wealth and social position enabled them to give Bernard the best education available. By the time he became a teenager, Bernard was well-versed in arithmetic, Latin, rhetoric, philosophy and the Bible. He was an avid student and devoted countless hours to re-reading and memorising key ideas. Despite his established social position, Bernard decided to renounce his wealth upon turning twenty-three and join the Church. Together with a small group of friends, he travelled to the monastery of Citeaux, and requested to become a monk. Shortly after, Bernard was sent to set up a new monastery at Clairvaux, where he was elected abbot. Under his leadership, the Clairvaux monastery grew rapidly and led to establishing additional monasteries across Europe. Bernard was very familiar with Aristotelian philosophy, but regarded it as irrelevant. His focus was on adopting a Christian monastic lifestyle, which he defined as an austere life devoted to prayer, manual labour, and contemplation. Bernard wrote extensively on love, contemplation, modesty and austerity. His most famous works are “The Sermons on the Song of Songs,” “Humility and Pride,” and “On loving God.” In contrast to Aristotle’s empiricism and logic, Bernard only cared for mystical inspiration. He regarded Biblical texts as the only source of true knowledge. For all practical purposes, he obliterated and extinguished Aristotelian philosophy. When Bernard passed away in 1153, he was so famous and influential that a campaign was immediately set in motion to elevate him to sainthood. The process took two decades, and he was canonised as a saint in 1174 by Pope Alexander III. Bernard wasn’t alone in the efforts to wipe out all memories of Aristotelian philosophy. To a great extent, he had based his mysticism on the works of Augustine (454-430 AD). In contrast to Aristotle’s focus on facts and logic, Augustine had argued that the Christian faith provides the foundation for reason. He believed that true knowledge comes from God (that is, from the Bible), and shows us the path to follow. When it comes to learning, Augustine did not advocate facts gathering or logical analysis. He believed that true knowledge should come from a deep, personal relationship with God, who is the only source of wisdom and enlightenment. Knowledge, he said, is to be acquired spiritually, not intellectually. The vast dissemination of works by Augustine and Bernard of Clairvaux led to removing Aristotelian philosophy from the educational curriculum. Fortunately but unexpectedly, the tide turned a century after Bernard’s death. Thomas Aquinas (1125-1274) devoted large efforts to popularising Aristotelian logic and making it roughly compatible with Christianity. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/impact-of-aristotles-views-on-knowledge-and-learning/

Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) was more a gatherer than a creator of philosophical ideas. He devoted twenty years of his life to writing essays on history, literature and morality, but all his conclusions are based on prior philosophers. Montaigne’s contribution is the personal touch that he gave to his compilations of knowledge. He mixed up observations on ancient literature with comments about his own children, his farm, and his personal troubles. When we read his personal comments nowadays, we get an accurate idea of the lifestyle in the French Renaissance. We get to know about their working habits, the harvest, sickness and medicine, nutritional habits and religious perspectives. Montaigne’s own life is also fascinating. He started like any other heir of a French wealthy family by learning Latin at an early age. At that time, a knowledge of Latin opened the door to higher education and high employment in the government. It was a prerequisite of a successful career. The whole point of learning Latin was to be able to read books, either contemporary or ancient. I meant the books from Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece. The knowledge of Greek was less important because all major ancient Greek books have been already translated into Latin. For instance, Montaigne was very familiar with the works of Aristotle, but he had read them in Latin, not in Greek. As far as we know, Montaigne had only learned some rudiments of Ancient Greek and was unable to read books in that language. Montaigne was not unique in his breath of knowledge. In the Renaissance, thousands of people in Europe had read as much as he had, especially in France, Italy, Spain and England. His uniqueness comes from his writing, not from his level of knowledge as such. He made an effort that nobody else had even thought of doing, the effort of taking notes and compiling them into brief essays, addressing philosophical themes. Montaigne also did something that nobody else had done until that time, namely, he revised and expanded his own work. He published his first essays in 1580, when he was forty-seven years old, and kept revising and expanding them. By the time he republished them in 1592, many essays had doubled in size. Despite their wide range of subjects, Montaigne’s essays revolve around just three ideas. First, Scepticism about any kind of absolute ideals, especially in politics and religion. Second, a mild form of Stoicism for coping with setbacks and failure in life. Third, the determination to enjoy each day to the maximum. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaignes-thoughts/

The uniqueness of the ethical system put forward by Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) becomes clear when we compare it with other philosophies. I regard it as particularly enlightening to compare Schopenhauer’s ethics with Taoism and Stoicism. Taoism was created in ancient China. It predicates harmony with nature, spontaneity, modesty, simplicity and steering away from violence. Lao-Tzu (6th century BC) preceded Plato by a century. After his death, his disciples put his teachings in writing. For Taoists, the higher values are inner balance and tranquillity. They view those as more important than justice and self-fulfilment. A commonality between Taoism and Schopenhauer’s ethics is that both of them regard compassion as a cardinal virtue. For Taoists, compassion rests on the belief that all living creatures are interconnected, and that it’s good to help alleviate suffering in others. Nonetheless, Schopenhauer’s ethics call for self-awareness, foresight, and taking initiative against impending danger. This is not the case of Taoism. Its emphasis on aligning oneself with the world and living in harmony with events is not compatible with determined action. Taoists call for Wu Wei, that is, “non-action” or “effortless action” as their main tool for achieving balance and tranquillity but such a tool is doomed to failure. Schopenhauer understood this problem perfectly well. If you want to do the right thing, it is not sufficient to go with the flow. If you devote yourself to Wu Wei, you might find harmony, naturalness and spontaneity, but you will also find catastrophes and suffering. Passivity and effortless action are insufficient to solve severe problems. Wu Wei can easily turn your life into hell. Schopenhauer rejected passivity in his book “The world as will and representation” (1818). It is naive to expect Wu Wei to lead to effectiveness and happiness. If you follow “the natural flow of life,” chances are that the will (“life force”) drives you to harmful action because of its extreme short-term orientation. In daily life, Schopenhauer adopted many habits that match the Taoist paradigm; especially after settling down in Frankfurt in 1830, he led a lifestyle of frugality, moderation, simplicity, and self-reliance. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/analysis-of-schopenhauers-views-on-ethics/

Few philosophers agree with the positive views on solitude put forward by Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860). I am going to make comparisons, identify the differences, and look for the truth. Aristotle (384-322 BC) acknowledged the value of solitude for learning and self-awareness, but considered it impossible for humans to reach their full potential without social connections. By “social connections,” Aristotle did not mean only family and friends; his definition of “social connections” encompasses the “polis,” that is, a Greek city with a population around three hundred thousand people in the case of Athens. In his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle defines “eudaimonia” (translated as “happiness”) as the outcome of flourishing. It’s a dynamic state of mind arising from activities: work, art, sports, learning, etc. A large part of those activities require social interaction. It’s possible to achieve happiness in solitude, but not to the highest level. For instance, the pleasure of conversation with friends or from competing in sports cannot be easily replaced. Like Schopenhauer, Aristotle held solitude in high regard in order to enhance self-reliance and self-confidence. It supplies a quiet environment for examining one’s actions, identifying one’s goals, and making plans for the future. In the Middle Ages, the balance tipped in favour of solitude, which many regarded as a virtue. For instance, St. Francis of Assisi (1181-1226) often retired into the woods for periods of solitary reflection. Solitude, although intermittent, was an important part of St. Francis’ lifestyle, coupled to poverty, simplicity and spirituality in the Christian context. St. Francis regarded solitude as a method for achieving a deep understanding of God, nature and society. During his long retirements, he sought tranquillity and practised prayer. From time to time, he walked away from his community to spend a couple of weeks in a cave, forest, or little hermitage in the mountains. In contrast to Schopenhauer, St. Francis didn’t view solitude as a tool for self-development in the sense of skill learning. On the contrary, St. Francis resorted to solitude to learn humility. He wanted to detach himself from pride, ambition and material possessions. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/analysis-of-schopenhauers-views-on-solitude/

Like most great philosophers, Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) considered education as a lifetime activity. Schooling is only the first step, however necessary, and should build at the same time the student’s character, knowledge, and skills. Schopenhauer was very precise in defining the purpose of moral education; the principal purpose is to help students build their self-awareness and self-discipline. Self-awareness enables individuals to perceive the influence of the will (“life force”), identify the risks and assess the costs. Self-discipline allows them to implement the countermeasures to minimise the influence of the will and increase happiness. In his book “The world as will and representation,” (1818), Schopenhauer spoke in favour of developing self-awareness as a prerequisite for other virtues. In order to acquire the virtue of prudence, you must grow aware of the dangers of imprudence. According to Schopenhauer, education should teach people to make good decisions, that is, decisions that avert, minimise, or remedy suffering, or that help increase one’s happiness. In his book “Two fundamental problems in ethics” (1843), Schopenhauer stated that the purpose of ethics is to steer away from suffering, and cultivate tranquillity and inner peace. When it comes to education, the same goals should apply. It does not make sense, argued Schopenhauer, to give priority to rote learning and conformity. Memorisation cannot help you develop self-awareness and self-reliance. The ability to think critically is a prerequisite for averting the negative influence of the will; thus, it’s crucial that students learn to think independently. Schopenhauer did not prescribe a precise school curriculum, but gave guidelines about how to educate oneself. He regarded education as a lifetime process, not as a predetermined path. The more we learn, he remarked, the more we discover how much we still do not know. Self-awareness grows when students (or readers) open their field of vision as a result of their learning. People become self-aware when they start to look critically at themselves and their own actions. The wider your field of vision, the deeper your awareness. Solitude is another prerequisite for becoming self-aware. I am talking about the regular solitude periods (a few hours each day) that are necessary for reading complex texts and grasping their content. Schopenhauer considered the study of a limited number of well-selected books more beneficial than wide, indiscriminate reading of hundreds of volumes. The size of your library does not determine the size of your wisdom because reading becomes useful (“wisdom”) only after having integrated the ideas and data into coherent principles. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauer-and-the-philosophy-of-education/

The possibility of drawing teachings from Eastern religion didn’t occur immediately to Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860). It does not appear in his early work “About the fourfold root of the principle of sufficient reason” (1808) and only starts to take shape in “The world as will and representation” (1818). Schopenhauer grew acquainted with Buddha’s teachings in the years after 1815. Initially, he read extensively about the life of Siddhartha Gautama, the creator of Buddhism. The insights gained by Siddhartha Gautama appear rather harsh for thinkers trained in Western philosophy. Buddhism in its original form entails a radical rejection of Western comforts and values. Schopenhauer was unwilling to endorse a radical rejection. I have no problem understanding his logic; he wanted Buddhism to enrich his life, not to render it miserable; he wanted to attain higher levels of happiness, not to give up happiness altogether. In the sixth century of our era, Bodhidharma (also called Da Mo) made the ideas of Siddhartha Gautama even more radical. When Bodhidharma said that “everybody knows the way, but few people actually walk it,” he was appealing to emotions and demanding visceral reactions. He wasn’t offering a smooth path from Western philosophy to a Buddhist lifestyle. Those radical teachings did not appear to Schopenhauer. He had realized that Buddhism had very much to offer in terms of stress reduction but was unwilling to abandon the comforts and sophistication of Western culture. Schopenhauer found after further research a milder form of Buddhism, a form that appears more practicable to the Western mind. The developer of this milder variant was Nagarjuna, a Buddhist thinker of the second century of our era. Nagarjuna presented himself as a follower of all Siddhartha Gautama’s precepts, but developed additional doctrines that are known as The Middle Way. Nagarjuna’s doctrines are outlined in poetic sentences compiled by his disciples. According to Nagarjuna, we can overcome all suffering and achieve enlightenment if we understand the nature of reality and act accordingly. The process of understanding, he said, can require extensive meditation, accompanied by study. Schopenhauer did not care much for the stories of miracles attributed to Nagarjuna and other Buddhists thinkers. Miracles cannot be reproduced by the reader. Schopenhauer was mainly interested in techniques for stress reduction, increasing one’s effectiveness, and making better decisions. Nagarjuna had acknowledged the suffering inherent in each individual existence. He wrote that “birth is suffering, ageing is suffering, illness is suffering, a displeasing environment is suffering, loss of pleasure is suffering, frustration is suffering, and death is suffering and inescapable.” Those elements are dominated by the will (“life force”) that Schopenhauer had described in his book “The world as will and representation. Nagarjuna’s teachings are greatly appealing to people who want to keep suffering at bay without having to renounce the world. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauers-teachings-drawn-from-buddhism/

Artistic contemplation plays a major role in the philosophy of Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860). Art conveys reality in an immediate manner, enabling humans to grasp crucial elements without need of complex explanations. According to Schopenhauer, artistic contemplation enables people to escape the dire influence of the will (“life force”) and increase their self-awareness. In his books “The world as will and representation” (1818) and “Parerga and Paralipomena” (1851), Schopenhauer shows how to avert the influence of the will and improve one’s life by making better decisions. Artistic contemplation constitutes a method to step aside for a while from the relentless pressure exerted by the will. I view artistic contemplation as the easiest method for stepping aside, perceiving the whole picture, and assessing one’s actions. What are the advantages of artistic contemplation compared with intellectual analysis? There are several advantages. In the first place, immediacy; artworks can convey insights that every person can grasp right away without further explanation. Second, art’s power to command attention and make people forget temporarily about pressing problems. The will is making pressure all the time on humans to pursue their primal desires. It can wear people out and drive them into despair. Fortunately, art can draw and hold their attention for a while, giving them a respite from their preoccupations. Third, art enables humans to transcend individual desires or problems, engage into a state of contemplation, and become one with the world. Art enables individuals to feel at peace, in harmony with the universe, unaffected by the will. In “The world and will and representation,” Schopenhauer distinguishes between two types of artistic experiences. On the one hand, he speaks of “the experience of the sublime,” and on the other hand, of “the experience of the beautiful.” By “sublime,” Schopenhauer means feelings of grandeur or overwhelming awe, such as watching a sunset in the mountains or on the beach. By “beauty,” Schopenhauer means artworks that generate a feeling of harmony and pleasant proportionality, for example, watching a ballet performance, or looking at one of the villas built by Palladio in Vicenza. More often than not, beauty results from calculated, devoted actions of the artist. It typically entails idealising forms, shapes or sounds in order to enhance their harmony and proportion. It renders objects appealing and significant. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauers-philosophy-of-art-and-beauty/

When Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) studied Indian or Hindu philosophy, he didn’t restrict himself to the foundational texts. He read the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita but those lack the subtle interpretations made by Hindu thinkers across the centuries. Schopenhauer adopted early in his career some Hindu tenets and conveyed them, in his own words, in his book “The world as will and representation” first published in 1818. For instance, Schopenhauer wrote that the pursuit of short- term pleasure leads to disillusionment, because the hunger for additional pleasures cannot be stilled. It’s going to lead to more cravings, desires, and frustration. This Hindu insight perfectly matches Schopenhauer’s theory of the will (“life force”); unless you adopt countermeasures for minimising the negative influence of the will, you are going to be driven into self-destruction. From classical Hindu wisdom, Schopenhauer subscribed to the need of enlightenment. To people who want to escape or at least minimise the painful influence of the will, Schopenhauer recommended the cultivation of self-awareness. The first step towards solving problems or surmounting any obstacles is to acknowledge its existence. Enlightenment is not automatic, neither in Hindu philosophy nor in Schopenhauer. It is going to require in all cases a full reassessment of events, constraints, and worldly attachments. All students of the Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gita grow to find self-reliance in the stillness of their minds. The process is arduous and demanding, but one’s peace of mind depends on philosophical enlightenment. Schopenhauer deepened himself in the process by studying the works of Adi Shankara, a Hindu philosopher who lived in the eighth and ninth centuries of our era. Shankara wrote very extensive commentaries to the Upanishads and Bhagavad Gita, and came up with subtle interpretations. For Shankara, the individual soul or “Atman” constitutes a higher reality that each person must build for himself. People who fail to build their “Atman” are going to fall prey to stress, anxiety and discouragement when confronted with the world’s chaos. Schopenhauer adopted Shankara’s emphasis on self-growth, that is, on the cultivation of a personal “Atman.” If you fail to do that, the will is going to control your life and prompt you to make harmful decisions, argued Schopenhauer. Nonetheless, there is a crucial difference between Shankara and Schopenhauer. The former was driven by religious thought and his emphasis on the “Atman” led him to view the external world as delusion. Schopenhauer aimed at philosophical accuracy and viewed the “Atman” as a complement to perception, not as an enemy. I am against using words such as “delusion” or “mirage” when translating Schopenhauer’s definition of the external world. It’s far more accurate to employ the word “distorted.” Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/differences-between-schopenhauer-and-indian-philosophy/

Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) wrote extensively but the structure of his thoughts is sometimes disrupted. The reason is not difficult to fathom. He did not have a word processor and it was hard for him to edit his handwritten texts. In this respect, he was facing the same problem as any other author during the Renaissance. Nonetheless, his essays remain entertaining even when he goes into tangents. I have reread Montaigne through the years and red-marked my favourite essays. Despite the vast variety of subjects, there is one idea that permeates them all, namely, the idea that living according to reason is superior to any other lifestyle. Montaigne’s essay “Fortune is often met in the pursuit of reason” constitutes the best example of this principle. It gives a presentation of the advantages of living according to reason. On the one hand, reason leads to better decisions that, more often than not, lead to better results. On the other hand, even in times of adversity, reason will tilt the odds in your favour. You may suffer occasionally, but less intensely than foolish people. The key question addressed by Montaigne in “Fortune is often met in the pursuit of reason” is the extent to which we can control our life and happiness through reason. In other words, he asks whether luck plays a larger role than planning in the outcome. Montaigne supplies historical evidence proving his point. In no way is he affirming that reason is all-powerful, but he does say that reason gives us the best possible guidance. Bad luck can hit us even with the best preparations, but in those cases, the damage will be limited. For instance, reason should prompt people to diversify their risks. If you are a merchant, you should seek to acquire many clients, so that you are not dependent on just a few of them. In your social life, you should aim at acquiring a sizeable number of friends, so that you are not devastated if you lose a few of them. Montaigne presents his advice as follows “It is pleasant and profitable to have many iron bars in the fire, and keep several projects going at once because if one project fails, another one might succeed.” In addition, reason should prompt individuals to maintain an adequate margin of safety in their projects. You do not want to invest all your resources in one project, especially if there are high risks involved. Bad luck can hit anyone any time. We are to remain prudent if we want to ensure our survival and peace of mind. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/practical-examples-of-michel-de-montaignes-thoughts/