Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) built himself a morality framework by writing essays for two decades. His philosophy resembles a house built little by little, using various techniques and materials, and then painted over several times in different colours. On the one hand, Montaigne embraced scepticism, showing very little confidence in the human ability to establish absolute truths. He studied history extensively, especially ancient Rome and ancient Greece, and realised that even the best people tend to behave inconsistently. If the best individuals seem unable to keep a steady course, how can the rest of us find the right answers? If social pressure and local traditions play a dominant role in human thought, can we hold people responsible for their mistakes? In contrast to prior philosophers, Montaigne focused on the individual instead of trying to establish universal truths. From his historical studies, he extracted valuable hands-on lessons, but declined to construe a systematic philosophy. Montaigne’s goal was to improve his own effectiveness and happiness, not to prescribe to the whole world how to behave. In his essays, we find elaborate discussions about ethics, but they all aim at solving specific problems. What to do in times of adversity, asks Montaigne. What is the right course of action when things fall apart? How to avoid liars and find truthful friends. How to use one’s time and energy wisely? Those are the questions that Montaigne tried to answer. Although Montaigne was a religious person, a Catholic, he gave more weight to history and experience than to Christian theology. Nonetheless, he agreed with theologians that each man should follow his own conscience, and do what’s right, no matter how strongly people tell him otherwise. Montaigne viewed integrity as the cardinal virtue. He called one’s conscience “the most sacred of all possessions” and the “voice of truth.” He regarded the treason to one’s conscience as a crime practically impossible to expiate. His moral philosophy revolved around the virtue of having a clear conscience. That explains why he favoured virtues such as modesty, tolerance and moderation. He spoke against undue influences on our conscience, and committed himself to letting other people follow their convictions. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaigne-and-moral-philosophy/

Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) is regarded as the first existentialist philosopher in history because he accepted the inevitability of death, and sought to maximise his happiness in every situation. Instead of fearing death, Montaigne recommended getting acquainted with it, so that it becomes part of our expectations. The consciousness of our limited lifespan can help us make the best of every day and every opportunity. Montaigne’s individualism reinforced his existentialism. He showed little interest in abstract rules that tell everybody what to do with his life. Instead, Montaigne recommended us to live in accordance with our true self. That’s the best path to a full enjoyment of life, he argued. Like the twentieth century existentialists Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) and Albert Camus (1913-1960), Montaigne was suspicious of absolute ethical truths. His prescriptions for joy and effectiveness are markedly subjective. He cared more for a good day’s work than for saving the world. Montaigne also showed his existentialism in his absence of discomfort in the face of uncertainty. Plato, Aristotle and other philosophers had wanted to build systems of thought that lead to certainty, but Montaigne could not care less. Instead of agonising about uncertainty, Montaigne took for granted that the future is, to a large extent, unpredictable. The path to high effectiveness and happiness starts with flexibility. Self-improvement is commendable, but perfection is a goal that we can never achieve. Fallibility is the price we pay for being alive. Let us work at improving ourselves, but without growing depressed about our deficiencies. Montaigne’s respect for individual choices is another trait of his existentialism. The path to happiness is uniquely personal. Choose your own path and take responsibility for your actions, advised Montaigne. Four centuries later, his prescription was replicated almost literally by Jean-Paul Sartre. The influence of Montaigne on existentialism was quiet and unrecognised. In the nineteenth century, it happened often that philosophers reproduced Montaigne’s formulations but without giving him any credit. They fed on his writings and regurgitated his ideas, passing them off as fresh and original. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaigne-and-existentialism/

For historians of philosophy, there is a definite proof that Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) was a forerunner of modern existentialism; they point to Montaigne’s essay titled “To study philosophy is to learn to die” and argue that it contains all key ideas of existentialist philosophy. I cannot deny Montaigne’s position as a precursor of Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) and Albert Camus (1913-1960), but I want to underline the uniqueness of his ideas. Neither Sartre, Camus, or any other modern existentialist has ever grasped Montaigne’s optimism and benevolence. They have also not grasped Montaigne’s method. He was not a well-spoken theoretician, even if he did lots of research. Montaigne had a hands-on approach to philosophy that contrasts with later and prior authors. Montaigne loved to read Greek and Roman classics to draw practical wisdom. He admired Socrates, Seneca, Epicurus and Marcus Aurelius because they had solved problems similar to those he was facing. Montaigne’s interest in their ideas was one hundred per cent personal: he wanted to improve his own life. When Montaigne affirmed that “To study philosophy is to learn to die,” he actually meant that “To study philosophy is to learn to live,” that is, to learn to make the best of each day. Montaigne’s goal was not to prepare himself for death, like a monk who goes each day to confession, but to employ death as a motivator to live better, more effectively and intensely. His awareness of his own mortality led him to cheerfulness, to joy, for the fact that he was still alive and capable of action. Like the ancient stoics, in particular Seneca (4 BC-65 AD), Montaigne had found serenity after accepting his own future death. The fact that he suffered from kidney stones for decades only reinforced his consciousness of death. He enjoyed each day to the maximum, precisely because he had realized that life is so precious and fragile. He was grateful for what he had, and put it to good use. In contrast to later existentialists such as Martin Heidegger (1889-1976), Montaigne did not consider his own death as a tragedy or threat. He viewed death as an inevitable part of life: it is an aspect to be reckoned with, not something to agonise about. In the twentieth century, existentialists such as Albert Camus, theorised about the connection between future death and present anxiety, but such connection played a minor role in Montaigne’s philosophy. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaigne-as-a-precursor-of-existentialism/

I view Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) as the first thinker who realized that scepticism can save one’s life. His insight is still true today, and will remain true for as long as people keep using deceit and misrepresentation to further their interests. Unfortunately, Montaigne’s defence of scepticism is rather messy. In some essays, he rightly refuses to believe other people’s statements when they contradict his own experience. I would call that prudence rather than scepticism, and I consider it a perfectly valid attitude. However, in some other essays, Montaigne doubts his own perceptions because they might be wrong. Since he also doubts other people’s perceptions, what is the result? His universal doubts lead him to scepticism and intellectual paralysis. Montaigne’s essay titled “That it is folly to measure truth and error by our own capacity” shows precisely this deficiency. It raises questions on the validity of one’s perceptions, logic, and conclusions, and speaks in favour of universal scepticism. I categorise Montaigne’s arguments as messy because they are shooting in all directions. Instead of questioning ideas that are unproven, Montaigne goes overboard and starts to question all ideas, all perceptions, and all conclusions. Why was Montaigne reluctant to trust his own perceptions and his own logic? Because of egoism, he explains. He was afraid that his own self-interest would distort his perception of the facts, and lead him to wrong conclusions. I consider Montaigne’s argument extremely weak because one can easily correct emotional distortions. The only thing we need to do is to compare our conclusions with reality. Do they hold water, or do they contradict the facts? Even worse, Montaigne found scepticism great because he regarded it as a form of humility. Why am I to make definite statements about anything, he thought. How can I be totally certain of anything if there are people wiser than me? Montaigne’s humility comes from his Catholic background, and pollutes his whole philosophy. Humility makes him doubt his own shadow because, who knows, the sun might go away tomorrow, let the earth go dark, and efface all shadows. To prove the point that “it is folly to measure truth and error by our own capacity,” Montaigne uses far-fetched illustrations drawn from ancient history and literature. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaignes-scepticism/

When historians refer to scepticism in the works by Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592), they point to his general reluctance to accept absolute truths. Taken to extremes, scepticism weakens the confidence in one’s perceptions and ability to reason. Since Montaigne wrote essays during a twenty-year period, his own definition of scepticism shifted from general doubts, to self-doubt, to doubts about society’s institutions. The latter is particularly interesting for modern readers because, as Montaigne put it, “it is foolish to consider our own preferences as the only valid model.” When looking at aspects of social organisation, Montaigne favoured open debates, and warned against the blanket condemnation of unusual ideas. Indeed, too many people will automatically steer away from unfamiliar ideas or products, calling them abhorrent, worthless or dangerous, only to realise later that they have been fooled by their own prejudices. Montaigne devoted his essay “Of a defect in our policies” specifically to applying his scepticism to social organisation. It questions the deficiencies and inconsistencies in various social institutions, especially in the field of law. Although Montaigne was a lawyer himself and had long practised law in southern France, he was far from happy with the results. Since he had witnessed how the strict application of the law sometimes leads to injustice, he argues that common sense should prevail over a literal interpretation of legal texts. I like in particular Montaigne’s rejection of the delusion that more laws will lead to better justice. In practice, the contrary will happen. Increased legal complexity tends to generate more costs for everybody involved, but fails to improve the overall results. Montaigne’s scepticism applies to the quantity and qualities of the laws, and of the people who apply them. He does not see an easy solution, but he realises that narrow-mindedness and over-complication will not solve the problem. Instead, he calls for simplicity and common sense. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/social-organisation-and-michel-de-montaignes-scepticism/

Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) built his philosophy step by step, starting with a central concept (the theory of the will), and adding layers of explanations. His physics, epistemology, logic and morality revolve around the theory of the will, and so do his views on the meaning of life. According to Schopenhauer, the will (“life force”) drives all living creatures to secure their survival and reproduction; at the same time, the will prompts them to seek pleasure but doesn’t pay attention to the costs and risks involved. Historians of philosophy call Schopenhauer pessimistic, but the adjective doesn’t quite match Schopenhauer’s ideas. He did point out that humans cannot fulfil all their goals and desires; it is a fact that everybody experiences some measure of failure, but this is not a solid argument to call Schopenhauer pessimistic. Schopenhauer’s observations about suffering are accurate. It is foolish to dismiss them because they are unpleasant. Nobody can deny that frustration eventually ensues when people keep multiplying their ambitions and pursuing them relentlessly. As soon as one desire is satisfied, argues Schopenhauer, a new one is created. Why? Because of the pressure exerted by the will. Life is too short for achieving all objectives, learning all skills, or reading all books. This is not pessimism; it’s a fact. When it comes to the meaning of life, Schopenhauer agrees with Aristotle (384-322 BC) that happiness is the ultimate goal of humans; however, Schopenhauer’s definition of happiness is different from Aristotle’s. In the “Nicomachean Ethics,” Aristotle defined happiness as thriving or flourishing. Schopenhauer chooses a less ambitious definition. He talks about absence of suffering, peace of mind, contentment, and repeated pleasure. I want to underline that Schopenhauer is emphasising the repeatability aspect. The easiest path to happiness, he argues, is to acquire habits (such as playing classical music) that lead to repeated pleasure without negative side effects. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauer-and-the-meaning-of-life/

The key concepts in the philosophy of Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) connect it to Ancient Stoicism and existentialism. Let us pass review to those concepts, which Schopenhauer first outlined in “The world as will and representation,” a book that he published in 1818. Schopenhauer built his philosophy around the theory of the will (“life force”). He viewed the will as the driver of all living creatures. It is a wild, irrational, eternal driver that prompts all creatures to secure their survival and reproduction, and to seek pleasure. The problem with the will is that it doesn’t assess any long-term consequences. It pushes individuals relentlessly to pursue short-term goals without considering the cost and risks. If you fail to become self-aware and adopt countermeasures, the will is going to take control of your life. Schopenhauer’s concept of the will is similar to the concept of fate in Ancient Stoicism. The writings of Seneca (4-65 AD) and Marcus Aurelius (121-180 AD) present fate as irresistible, overwhelming and uncontrollable. In terms of metaphysics, the most important concept from Schopenhauer’s books is the primacy position given to the will. In his early book “On the fourfold root of the principle of sufficient reason” (1814), Schopenhauer had argued that every event has a traceable cause. Subsequently, he acknowledged that the will has not because it is itself the underlying cause of all other phenomena. The Ancient Stoics recommend leading a virtuous life as the best way to enjoy one’s time on earth. Virtue averts suffering and enables happiness, even if nobody has the power to extend his own life beyond the lifespan determined by fate. Schopenhauer’s concept of the good life also entails virtue, but calls for adopting countermeasures against the will. Seneca and Marcus Aurelius had regarded fate as overwhelming, but not Schopenhauer. He considered it feasible to grow self-aware and adopt measures to minimise the influence of the will. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauers-key-concepts/

The twentieth century has generated three serious initiatives to revive the educational philosophy put forward by Aristotle (384-322 BC), or similar to his. In essence, revival initiatives aim at prioritising the student’s individual development. Let’s review these three attempts and see the extent to which they have remained loyal to Aristotelian education. Let’s assess if they have grasped the philosophy outlined in the “Eudemian Ethics” and the “Nicomachean Ethics” by Aristotle. John Dewey (1859-1952) put experiential learning back into the picture, bringing education a step closer to the empiricism favoured by Aristotle. Dewey argued that students learn best when they’re actively engaged in solving real-life problems. It is an idea reminiscent of Aristotle’s theory of causality (material cause, formal cause, efficient cause, and final cause) that prompts us to assess facts by looking at them from several practical standpoints. For this reason, Dewey proposed “learning by doing” as the ideal educational formula. In the classroom, Dewey wanted to engage students in hands-on activities and real-life problems, so that students grasp the subject matter better. In contrast to Aristotle, Dewey underscored the importance of social interaction. He demanded students to solve problems collectively and arrive at solutions in a democratic manner. Dewey’s social interaction requirement plays against all the other elements in his education philosophy. Aristotle would not have endorsed it because he regarded the individual student as the prime actor and beneficiary of the educational process. For Aristotle, the purpose of education is helping students acquire good habits (virtues). It entails shaping each student’s mind, so that it understands the world and learns the difference between good and evil. In contrast to Dewey, Aristotle viewed reason as a personal capability. Each individual must learn to think for himself and make good decisions. There is nothing democratic about virtue and rationality. Each individual must decide whether to employ his mind or not. It is not a social decision. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/the-revival-of-aristotles-views-on-education/

Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) rejected the unshakeable optimism of his contemporaries about the power of reason. He acknowledged that all individuals are potentially able to think, but pointed out that few people make the effort to assess facts accurately and draw logical conclusions. His book “On the fourfold root of the principle of sufficient reason” (1814) defends the thesis that events can be traced to a particular cause in each case. Nothing happens by chance. Also human decisions can be traced to specific causes. However, Schopenhauer found an exception to the principle of sufficient reason and built his whole philosophy around this exception. He named the exception “the will” (life force) and theorised that the will is driving all living entities to secure their survival and reproduction, and to seek short-term pleasure. Schopenhauer described the will in his book “The world as will and representation”(1818). He called the will an irrational, wild, relentless, blind force that drives animals and humans in a certain direction without giving any thought to cost and risks. Humans can understand the cosmos to the extent that they grow aware of the will. Self-awareness is not automatic. It can only be acquired by making a pause and thinking about one’s perceptions. According to Schopenhauer, self-awareness is a prerequisite of reason. Unless you short-circuit the influence of the will, it is going to control your life and drive you to make short-sighted, harmful decisions. Without self-awareness, reason can become a double-edged sword. Without consciousness of the will, reason cannot judge facts accurately. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauer-and-the-role-of-reason/

The historical influence of Aristotle (384-322 BC) rests on the labours of one man, namely, Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274). I find it remarkable that Aquinas made Aristotle’s philosophy popular even though he had never intended to do so. Aquinas was an Italian Dominican monk and theologian, who aimed at spreading Christian ideals. He could not care less about Aristotelian ideas as such, but he had read Aristotle and realized that Aristotelian philosophy is true. The validity of Aristotelian philosophy confronted Aquinas with major questions: How could he present the Gospel as true if it is contradicting Aristotle? How could he claim that Jesus Christ is the only source of truth, if Aristotle had devised a solid philosophy four centuries before Jesus Christ? Aquinas devoted most of his life to reconciling Christian theology with Aristotelian philosophy because he had realized that anyone reading Aristotle would find it very hard to regard the Bible (in particular, the Gospels) as true. During the last five years of his life, Aquinas wrote down a series of arguments (“Summa Theologiae”) using Aristotelian philosophy to justify Christian beliefs. The driving principle in “Summa Theologiae” is that reason and faith can coexist. Aquinas wanted to demonstrate that there are no contradictions between reasons and faith. To this end, he placed the Aristotelian ethics and metaphysics at the service of Christian theology. Truth be told, Aquinas did a wonderful job, but I consider it more a work of imagination than a work of philosophy. He did find ways to twist Aristotle’s ideas into supporting Christianity, and presented them in polished, flawless Latin. Despite Aquinas’ ingenuity, there are aspects of Aristotelian philosophy that cannot be conciliated with Christianity. I refer for instance to Aristotle’s definition of virtue (courage, justice, wisdom) compared to Christian virtue (modesty, altruism, self-sacrifice, charity). I must nonetheless express my gratitude to Aquinas because he made it possible for Aristotelian philosophy to spread across Europe and the rest of the world. Aquinas reinvigorated ideals that had been dormant for centuries and enabled them to grow strong roots. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/aristotles-influence-on-western-philosophy/

The views of Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) on the role of reason differ from those of prior philosophers. On the one hand, Schopenhauer is more realistic. He does hold reason in high regard, but acknowledges the strong influence of impulses in human decisions. On the other hand, Schopenhauer observes that it takes substantial effort to use reason assiduously. The ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus (341-271 BC) had in part anticipated Schopenhauer’s views on the role of reason. He favoured the search of pleasure as the key to happiness, but he acknowledged that the thoughtless search for pleasure can lead to pain. Schopenhauer conveyed this warning in “Two fundamental problems in ethics,” a book he published in 1843. He regarded the avoidance of suffering as the first step to happiness; reason plays a crucial role in this process because it’s the only means to assess risks and costs. Epicurus had distinguished between kinetic pleasure (which is the result of satisfying desires) and tranquillity, which he had defined as the absence of pain. Like Schopenhauer, he viewed tranquillity as a top priority. Peace of mind requires the use of reason, but according to Schopenhauer, one must grow self-aware before using reason consistently; for Schopenhauer, self-awareness is a prerequisite to exercising the power of reason. In his book “The world as will and representation” (1818), Schopenhauer theorised that the will (“life force”) prompts all living entities to secure their survival and reproduction, and to seek pleasure without thinking of risks, costs or consequences. Reason can help you adopt countermeasures against the will but you must first grow aware of the will. Schopenhauer gives “self-awareness” a specific meaning. He refers to awareness of the will, its influence, and its dire consequences. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/analysis-of-schopenhauers-views-on-the-role-of-reason/

The search for happiness relies on certainty in reasoning and effectiveness in action. Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) coined a brand of moral relativism that, he assumed, could help us reduce mistakes in reasoning. Montaigne’s arguments give us abundant food for thought, in particular when it comes to making crucial decisions. How much can you trust your perceptions and logic? What mistakes are typically made by people under pressure? All in all, these discussions aim at improving one’s chances of success in life. In an essay titled “On the uncertainty of our judgement,” we can find Montaigne’s key questions about morality and why he is favouring, in some cases, moral relativism. Montaigne states as a starting point that every human feels the pressure of his environment, physical and social. His ideas and desires are, to a certain extent, influenced by culture. Even his opinion of himself depends, at least in part, of what others are thinking. I find it fair to acknowledge that humans can perceive facts wrongly. Even if we go through the same situation, we can feel differently and perceive the situation differently. Our emotions can distort how we see the world, and drive us in the wrong direction. However, Montaigne was wrong in concluding that there is no objective truth. The fact that humans often make mistakes does not mean that it is impossible to do things correctly. Individuals have the potential to figure out the truth, but this does not mean that the truth is self-evident. Gaining certainty is hard because it requires intelligence, effort and motivation, but it can be done. Truth is neither subjective nor relative. Montaigne resorts to historical examples to prove that truth (especially ethical truth) is relative, but none of his examples can withstand close examination. In fact, they lead us to the opposite conclusion, namely, that it’s hard to discover the truth, but that discovery and certainty are possible. For instance, Montaigne recounts that King Pyrrhus (318-272 BC) had consulted a soothsayer before engaging in war in Italy against Rome. The soothsayer encouraged Pyrrhus to go ahead and predicted severe destruction for Rome. Pyrrhus went ahead and invaded southern Italy, fighting a large battle in Heraclea, in the Basilicata region. He caused severe destruction for Rome, as the soothsayer had predicted, but his own troops were also decimated. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaigne-and-moral-relativism/

We all need clear philosophical principles to make accurate, quick decisions. In the absence of principles, decisions depend on emotions, prejudice and superstition. The essayist Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) asked himself how to make good decisions, and recorded his reasoning in detail. Montaigne was puzzled by the wide variety of opinions that people hold when confronted with the same facts. He devoted his essay “That what’s called good and evil mostly depends on our opinions” to analysing this matter. Although Montaigne drew the wrong conclusion, his essay is worth reading to immunise oneself against the philosophical errors of relativism, emotionalism and escapism. Montaigne invoked historical examples that, in his eyes, are pointing to the conclusion that moral judgement only possesses subjective value. Thus, he affirms that moral judgement cannot be universal, objective, and permanent. Instead of looking for moral principles, Montaigne denies their existence. Instead of calling for philosophical consistency and accuracy, he praises the humility and tolerance of people who refuse to pass judgement. Montaigne employs examples drawn from ancient history, mostly from Greek and Rome. For instance, he points to the fact that, in the battles between the Roman Republic and King Pyrrhus (318-272 BC), Roman soldiers fought orderly, keeping their formation, while Pyrrhus' soldiers fought chaotically. However, says Montaigne, the Roman order and discipline failed to win over Pyrrhus' disorganised troops. Those battles lacked a clear outcome because both opponents suffered major losses. Pyrrhus claimed victory, but in reality, his troops had been decimated. The more battles he fought, the more men he lost, without barely gaining any land. Shortly after, he decided to abandon his ambition of conquering Italy. Montaigne draws the wrong conclusion: He claims that it is impossible to determine whether the organised fighting style of the Romans is superior to Pyrrhus' chaotic manoeuvres. He tries to argue that one style is as good as another, that nobody can really tell, and that this proves that moral values are subjective. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/critique-of-michel-de-montaignes-moral-relativism/

Many people today ask themselves if all cultures are equal, or if some cultures are superior to others; the question is as old as humanity, and the answer is crucially important. Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) asked himself this same question in the sixteenth century, and examined in great detail the arguments from both sides. His careful philosophical analysis is still worth reading nowadays. In the sixteenth century, intellectuals regarded Europe as the leading culture. They took for granted that all things European were vastly superior to other cultures. Neither America, Africa, or Asia could compete with Europe, they thought. Montaigne was the first essayist to contest this presumption. He realized that European architecture and military technology were far superior to those in other countries, but he argued that those do not necessarily render Europe superior in all areas. Human nature is the same everywhere, noted Montaigne. It makes no sense to praise a culture as “superior” without having assessed if individuals in that culture are actually happier than those in other cultures. For instance, argues Montaigne, we should not dismiss too quickly the lifestyle of Brazilian tribes. They might appear “barbaric” at first sight, but are they not happier because they live closer to nature? Do they not live more authentically and morally than the average European? Montaigne defended cultural relativism, that is, the idea that all cultures are equal. He refused to use the terms “civilized” and “barbaric,” arguing that they are purely subjective. People tend to regard their own lifestyle as civilized, and everything else as barbaric, he observed. I agree with Montaigne that prejudice and personal taste can play a role in how we judge another culture, but does it play the dominant role? I very much doubt it. French people consider their cuisine better than the English one, but does this aspect render French culture “superior”? Or do paintings by Rafael, Leonardo and Michelangelo render Italian culture superior to every other culture? I love French cuisine and Italian art, but my personal taste does not constitute a solid argument for categorizing a culture as “superior” or “inferior.” Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaigne-and-cultural-relativism/

The question of cultural relativism has profound, wide- and long-reaching implications. Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) emerged in the sixteenth century as the most prominent defender of moral and cultural relativism, but never grasped the full impact of his arguments. For instance, Montaigne failed to grasp the implications of seemingly anodyne statements such as “pleasure can never be pure, because it is always mixed with some negative emotions” or “every joy in life is accompanied by some measure of fear.” What is even worse, Montaigne sustained that “every good quality contains some part of evil” and that “humans can never be totally happy because there will always be some factor that undermines their joy.” I regard those statements as philosophical horrors because they undermine all human achievements. Why should anyone strive to behave honestly if virtue is impossible to attain? What is the point of working hard and intelligently if one can never be happy? Montaigne’s determined cultural relativism (the idea that all cultures, barbaric or civilised, have the same value) mirrors his moral relativism. In essence, Montaigne favours a subjective, inconsistent approach to individual and societal ethics. The consequences of moral and cultural relativism are lethal because they deprive people of the ability to think logically. In defending that there is no good or bad (at least, not in a pure form), or that pure happiness is impossible, Montaigne is depriving people of their motivation to enjoy life. Montaigne’s relativism creates deep confusion in all areas of human activity. How is one supposed to make decisions if he is incapable of telling the difference between right and wrong? If “pure” happiness is unattainable, what’s the point of ambition, honesty, and hard work? Unsurprisingly, Montaigne proves unable to answer those questions. His essays undermine moral and cultural certainty in all areas, but fail to replace them with a workable doctrine. His ethical relativism leads to indifference, lethargy, and poverty. Late in life, while revising his essays to prepare a second edition, Montaigne must have realized that his moral relativism (individual and cultural) left too many questions unanswered. As a result, Montaigne devised a doctrine that made things even worse. He presented his doctrine in an essay titled “That our actions should be judged by our intentions.” Since he had deprived reality (ambition, work, achievement, happiness) of moral or cultural meaning, he came up with the doctrine that the crucial element for telling good from bad are a person’s intentions. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/consequences-of-montaignes-moral-and-cultural-relativism/

Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) devoted twenty years of his life to writing essays on everything under the sun. He chose questions that he found intriguing, researched them thoroughly, and enumerated the arguments in favour and against. Although Montaigne deployed massive efforts to research, he seldom reached definite conclusions on anything. He gave a detailed overview of facts and their possible interpretation, but refrained from taking sides, arguing that the truth is subjective. Montaigne’s subjectivity undermines the intellectual appeal of his essays. What’s the point of studying a subject thoroughly if no conclusion can be drawn? Why devote one’s energies to learning if the truth is relative, changeable, or unknowable? Was Montaigne conscious of the intellectual weakness of his approach? Absolutely, but the problem is that he considered subjectivity a moral virtue. Sadly, he mistook indecisiveness for “moderation” and cowardice as “humility.” Montaigne regarded moral indifference as “pragmatic” and procrastination as “prudence.” As a result, his essays shoot in all directions, but fail to hit any targets. Montaigne forgets that the purpose of wisdom is action, not abstract speculation. Relativism rendered Montaigne impervious to logic, blind to inconsistencies, and fearful of clarity. He tried to pass off his confusion as “tolerance,” while he infringed every principle set forth by Aristotle (384-322 BC). As a result, Montaigne proved unable of intellectual passion and coherence. To make things worse, since he could not make his mind on any issue, he came up with spurious explanations. Take for instance his essay “That our desires are increased by difficulty.” Instead of establishing a definite moral code that can guide readers, he emphasises that role that external factors can play in human desires. The reason why humans pursue goals that are out of reach, argues Montaigne, is precisely because those goals are hard or impossible to attain. People would be happier, he advises, if they abandoned those ambitions and enjoyed what they have. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaigne-and-the-nature-of-truth/

Despite his extensive writings, Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) produced a rather limited set of ideas. His philosophical system revolves around the theory of the will (“life force”) that he regarded as the prime mover of all living entities. Let's review Schopenhauer's main ideas. First and foremost, Schopenhauer rebelled against the ideas of Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831), and Johann Gottlieb Fichte (1762-1814). They dominated mainstream philosophy at that time. I find it heartbreaking however that Schopenhauer achieved very little success in his lifetime. After death, Kant and Hegel continued to rule undisputed for a century. What's the key difference between Schopenhauer and Kant? According to Kant, human beings cannot know things as they are in themselves because human intelligence is limited. In this way, Kant kept the door open for religious beliefs. Philosophy historians categorise Kant as “idealist” because he believed in the existence of some ideas that humans cannot grasp. The same categorisation applies to Fichte and Hegel. In contrast, Schopenhauer sustained that humans are able to grasp the true nature of reality through self-awareness. In “The world as will and representation” (1818), he acknowledged the influence of the will, but called readers to grow self-aware and adopt countermeasures (prudence, foresight, self-reliance...). Similarly, Schopenhauer criticised Fichte's belief in national spirits and Hegel's belief in an absolute spirit. Those spirits do not exist in reality, countered Schopenhauer. He did not regard idealism as a sound philosophy. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauers-main-ideas/

The influence of Aristotle (384-322 BC) on Western ideals, philosophy and society has been a slow and difficult process. I tend to choose direct ways when it comes to business, learning, and problem solving but Aristotelian ideas survived and spread only indirectly. Before Aristotle’s works became popular in twelve-century Europe, they had been preserved in Eastern countries. Without the studies made by Avicenna (990-1037), I am convinced that some works by Aristotle would have been definitively lost. Avicenna lived in Persia (today’s Iran), where he laboured to preserve and transmit Aristotelian ideas. His “Handbook of Medicine” borrows heavily from Aristotle’s metaphysics. In Avicenna’s work, we can find the Aristotelian concepts of material cause, formal cause, efficient cause, final cause, and prime mover. Avicenna named it “Unmoved Mover,” but gave it exactly the same meaning as Aristotle’s prime mover. It is the ultimate cause behind all actions taking place in the world. The meaning given by Avicenna to the “Unmoved Mover” is connected to religion. While Aristotelian philosophy regards the prime mover as a speculation (a potential explanation that still needs to be proven), Avicenna considered the theory of the “Unmoved Mover” as a demonstration of God’s existence and infinite power. Avicenna’s “Handbook of Medicine” relies on Aristotelian empiricism from beginning to end. It advises physicians to use their senses (smell, touch, vision) to assess symptoms, identify the pattern of sickness, and treat it methodically. The trial-and-error method outlined by Avicenna was more sophisticated than Aristotle’s incipient empiricism. His deeper understanding of scientific inquiry can be attributed to the fact that he was a practising physician. In contrast, Aristotle’s observations on zoology and botany had often remained at layman’s level. During his stay at Lesbos in 337 BC, he took extensive notes and later turned them into two books, but I must rate them as superficial if compared with Avicenna’s “Handbook of Medicine.” Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/the-path-of-aristotles-influence-on-western-philosophy/

For Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860), wisdom is an effect of philosophy. I define wisdom as practical ethics, that is, a set of principles that enables humans to make quick decisions in all life’s situations. Wisdom is not necessarily sophisticated, but it must rest on sound philosophical footing. According to Schopenhauer, wisdom is a practical outcome from philosophical study, especially from the study of the will (“life force”), which he regarded as the driving force of living creatures. In his book “The world as will and representation” (1818), Schopenhauer outlined his theory of the will and analysed its implications. The more you study the will, the higher your self-awareness and self-reliance, which constitute the basis for all wisdom. Schopenhauer considered it impossible to develop wisdom without a profound understanding of the will. Why? Because the will is continuously driving humans to ensure their survival and reproduction. In addition, the will is prompting humans to seek pleasure without looking at costs, risks and consequences. The acquisition of wisdom consists of negating the will. It is a process that starts with acknowledging the negative influence of the will, identifying countermeasures, and carrying them out consistently. Wisdom is the opposite of the will. Schopenhauer described the will as irrational, eternal, relentless, wild and insatiable. He advised countermeasures aiming at developing wisdom. Those countermeasures encompass self-awareness and self-reliance, foresight, prudence, and adopting adequate margins of safety. According to Schopenhauer, the unwillingness or failure to develop wisdom is tantamount to losing control of one’s life. If you fail to adopt countermeasures, the will is going to take full control and drive you to make harmful decisions. Schopenhauer considered it impossible to achieve happiness without wisdom. Happiness is the destination, and wisdom is the path. Lack of wisdom leads to stress, anxiety, and all sorts of suffering. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauers-views-on-wisdom/

In his work “Metaphysics,” Aristotle presents the concept of the prime mover. Philosophers have also called it the unmoved mover, the prime cause, the prime mover, or the first cause. All those terms have the same meaning, namely, the idea that there is a single entity responsible for everything that happens. Aristotle (384-322 BC) was not the first philosopher to put forward the theory of a single force driving the cosmos, but he kept the inventor’s glory because he wrote down his thoughts about the matter. In “Metaphysics,” Aristotle argued that there must be some unchanging, eternal source driving all changes we perceive day in and day out. Aristotle viewed the prime mover as a hypothesis or working concept to be explored. He found the idea interesting to play with, but never claimed that it was a proven fact. The prime mover, theorised Aristotle, should consist of pure actuality that is devoid of potentiality. This means it is already perfect and complete in its present shape (“actuality”) and that has no unrealised goals or desires (“potentiality”). Aristotle speculated further that, if the prime mover remains at the origin of all events, it should consist of an intangible and immutable force. According to this theory, the prime mover is going to set events in motion and drive them towards a goal or purpose (“final cause”). Despite my admiration for Aristotle, I must say that his idea of the prime mover does not make any sense, nor has any basis in observable reality. It’s unfortunate that Aristotle devoted two chapters of “Metaphysics” to elaborate on this concept because it has wasted the time of later philosophers. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/aristotles-theory-of-the-prime-mover/