John Vespasian

I view Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) as 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/

In our century, the protection of privacy has acquired crucial importance. I cannot even count the number of celebrities that have seen their life disrupted because a journalist has intruded in their privacy. Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) was aware of the dangers associated with 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. I find Montaigne’s choice 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. I would have given it a different title, for instance, “Why we should remain discreet about our own achievements” or “Why it is wise not to blow our own trumpet.” 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? Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaignes-art-of-living-quietly/

Instead of endless abstract discussions, I prefer philosophers to cut to the chase and give me an example of their theories. If the example is convincing, I may explore their theories further. On the other hand, if the example doesn’t make sense, I will no longer care what that philosopher claims to know. If a plan cannot be put into practice, I don’t want to waste time studying the details. Seneca came up with excellent, deep insights in many areas, but from time to time, he got completely lost. In particular, his views on human nature rest on assumptions that contradict our daily experience. In his 82nd Letter to Lucilius, Seneca mentions Socrates (470-399 BC) as an example of wisdom. Seneca emphasised that Socrates had devoted his life to acquiring knowledge, which he viewed as more valuable than wealth and popularity. Seneca expresses appreciation for Socrates, although not in every aspect. I believe that he regarded Socrates as an example to be imitated in some areas, as the embodiment of wisdom. The 83rd Letter to Lucilius also mentions Socrates. Nevertheless, I have a problem with Seneca’s appreciation for Socrates. The attention that he bestows on Socrates seems to me gratuitous, perfunctory and exaggerated. If Seneca had limited his references to Socrates’ ability to come up with pertinent questions, I would have seconded his words, but I disagree with Seneca’s portrayal of Socrates as an example of wisdom. Socrates is not an example to imitate, unless one is socially insensitive and suicidal. On the hand, he did not build anything tangible; he didn’t write any books, build a business or perform any remarkable feats. He simply talked and talked. On the other hand, he made numerous enemies, got himself into unnecessary trouble, and proved incapable of extricating himself from the whole mess. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/what-seneca-got-wrong-about-human-nature/

High productivity depends on quality-consciousness. There is simply no other way to sell sizeable amounts of products and services at a profit. If we do not deliver quality, customers are going to complain, and we will have to devote our resources to satisfying those complaints. Thus if we want to achieve our goals in business and private activities, we need to pay attention to every step of the process. By carrying out every step correctly, we can move steadily in the right direction, without having to go back to correct errors. Was Seneca the first philosopher in history to focus on the process, instead of focusing only on the results? Not really, but he emphasised that it is better to practise virtue and hope for the best, than to achieve goals by employing tortious methods. In doing so, Seneca was slightly decoupling morality from success, against the Aristotelian tradition. In the “Nicomachean Ethics” and “Eudemian Ethics,” Aristotle (384-322 BC) had set up an ethical framework in which virtues constitute the method for attaining success and happiness. Virtues constituted a means to an end. Aristotelian ethics are supposed to deliver beneficial results to their practitioners, that is, assuming that they are practised consistently for long. Seneca showed reluctance in promising beneficial results, if only because he lived in more uncertain times than Aristotle. In his 35th Letter to Lucilius, Seneca portrays virtue as the optimal method for guiding our life, even in a context of uncertainty. Even if we end up perishing due to some external event that is outside our control, argued Seneca, we will still lead a better life if we practise virtue. Why? Because our decisions, actions, and results will be superior to those obtained through whim or randomness. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/senecas-advice-on-personal-fulfilment/

I am always puzzled when I see historians or philosophers put forward theories for which the evidence is rather thin. Even if they write a treatise about their theory, readers will ask to see the evidence, the facts, the clues. Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) produced a compelling collection of essays, but historians have exaggerated his impact on early modern philosophy; their arguments are so far-fetched that I regard them as self-refuting. Why do I contest Montaigne’s philosophical impact? I do so because Montaigne did not consider himself a philosopher. He never undertook a serious study of metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics and aesthetics. Nor did he never build a system of thought worthy of that name. 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). Philosophically, Montaigne’s arguments are so anaemic that they should not even count as philosophy. When he criticises sixteenth-century women for wearing impractical clothes, I am convinced that he would have said the same if he had attended a fashion show in our century. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/why-montaigne-had-no-impact-on-early-modern-philosophy/

When asked about someone’s contribution to philosophy, I reply by giving a list of his innovations. I want to underline the new concepts that he brought forth, the intellectual connections that nobody else had made until that point. In the case of Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592), I couldn’t point to any innovation. He didn’t put forward any new concept nor did he make any new intellectual connection. Thus, I don’t share the view that he contributed to early modern philosophy. 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 sides of every issue. I regard Montaigne in this respect as astonishingly modern, but more in terms of personal development than of philosophy. In order to prove my point, I’m going to refer to the only work of Montaigne that pre-existed his compiled essays, but that he published as one of them, no doubt because he was immensely proud of its contents. 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 that Montaigne’s personal philosophy had already congealed. It was not a rectilinear, symmetrical intellectual construction, but did the job beautifully. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaignes-contribution-to-early-modern-philosophy/

Few philosophers in history have analysed the advantages, disadvantages, and consequences of solitude. Seneca is one of those few. I regard his observations and advice in this area as particularly worthy. Seneca wrote the essay “On the Tranquillity of the Soul” precisely to explain how to achieve peace of mind. Solitude is one of his prescriptions, but we must first grasp how to benefit from it. We must first learn to employ solitude to increase our self-reliance and self-confidence. Modern readers may find the format of “On the Tranquillity of the Soul” somewhat annoying. It’s a philosophical essay, but Seneca wrote some parts of it in quasi-dialogue format. Those resemble a conversation he had held with his friend Serenus. Why did Seneca employ partly a quasi-dialogue format? Because it was fashionable at that time and easier to write. I regard Seneca’s choice as generally sound. On the one hand, Seneca was imitating the dialogue format employed by Plato (427-347 BC). Although his style is more concrete and less poetic than Plato’s, Seneca cannot escape the artificiality that ensues from imaginary conversations. I find, however, that the fact that Seneca chose to name his conversation partner “Serenus” renders their exchanges on the subject of serenity somewhat artificial. On the other hand, the dialogue format enabled Seneca to put his ideas in writing fairly quickly. He didn’t need to devise a careful, structured progression of consistent arguments. Seneca addressed one point after another, rather disorderly and repetitively, like in real-life conversations. The result is not philosophical clockwork, but covers the subject well enough. In the essay, Serenus complains about anxiety and worry like people nowadays often complain. He describes himself as disoriented and unable to make decisions. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/why-seneca-praised-solitude/

The question assumes that people are still reading books in our century, instead of watching movies, playing video-games, or practising sports. Indeed, a percentage of the population still enjoys reading. Those are the only ones who purchase books. Thus, the question is wrongly formulated. Instead of asking why we should read Seneca today, I should have asked why we should read Seneca’s books instead of books by other authors. My answer entails two aspects. First, Seneca is giving a detailed, practical exposition of the Stoic philosophy, which can prove very beneficial to our life. Second, because Seneca wisely avoided mistakes made by other Stoics philosophers. Let me explain these two aspects by means of an example. I am going to compare Seneca with Aulus Persius Flaccus (34-62 AD), a Stoic poet, to illustrate the uniqueness of Seneca’s exposition of Stoicism. In contrast to Persius and the other Stoics engaging in social criticism, Seneca regarded philosophy as an individual recipe. He wanted to provide a formula for happiness for himself and his readers, irrespective of the overall state of society. Seneca was conscious of his unique perspective in this area. He wrote extensively, but never bothered to give prescriptions for a perfect world. He knew that individuals will always have to face challenges, and wanted to develop a solid philosophy to cope with those. Persius held a different view, one shared by many Stoics in Ancient Rome. He took upon himself the task of criticising the severe problems of society, but declared himself incapable of solving them. As a result, he fell into passivity and resignation. Seneca’s philosophy is proactive and prompts us to develop good intellectual and physical habits. The purpose of his ideas is to heal spiritual wounds and strengthen the mind. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/why-read-seneca-today/

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 possibly learn from an author who lived centuries ago? 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. I would rather prove my case by means of an example. For this purpose, I’m going to refer to Montaigne’s essay “Various events of the same counsel.” The contemporary translation of the title is “On applying the same principle to various cases.” 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? Let me underline that, when Montaigne wrote this essay, he was primarily writing for himself. He wanted to find an answer to this question because he considered it important for his own happiness. If I can make better decisions, he reasoned, I’ll avoid errors and obtain better results. Can I employ the same principle each time and reach the correct decision, or is it unrealistic to expect #principles to work on every occasion? Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaignes-relevance-today/

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. The learning process can prove tough, but works fine if you are willing to put in the hours; there are ways to accelerate and shorten the process, and from those ways, the most effective is the comparison of concepts between various philosophers. Comparisons will help you understand aspects that you had not considered before. It will sharpen and speed up your mind to an extent that you had so far regarded as impossible. In the case of #aristotle ’s theory of the soul, there is no better teaching method than comparing it to Plato’s theory of the soul. #plato , who had been a student of #socrates , taught in his school that the soul is immortal and that it preexists before entering the body. Plato further taught that the soul is on a quest for truth and knowledge, which it can acquire by remembering eternal truths encountered before birth. Plato named those eternal truths or perfect abstractions “Forms.” When Christianity began to spread in the earlier years of the Roman Empire, the soul played a central role similar to the one it had played in Plato’s philosophy. Christianity teaches that the soul is created by God and that is thus immortal. It regards the soul as the seat of all moral responsibility and teaches that the soul survives physical death. After death, the qualities acquired by the soul will lead to its salvation or punishment. Similarly, Islam regards the #soul as a person’s inner essence that will be judged in the afterlife. Depending on the qualities of the soul, a person will ascend to paradise or rot in hell. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/happiness-and-aristotles-theory-of-the-soul/

In the next paragraphs, I am going to summarise the advice from #seneca about dealing with failure. He devoted a couple of decades to compiling his advice, not only from his personal experience, but also from other notable persons in the early Roman Empire. Seneca called for keeping adequate margins of error. I mean having a backup plan or sufficient resources to keep us above water even if the worst possible risks materialise. There is no need to become a paranoiac. It’s enough if we make a fair #assessment of the risks, and cover the most likely and lethal. History shows us, for instance, how the Roman general Pompey (106-48 BC) had painted himself into a corner. After burning all the bridges, he bet his future on one card at the Battle of Pharsalus. When Pompey lost the battle, he had nowhere safe to go, and was pushed into suicide shortly after. He would have fared better if he had devised a plan B, or if he had covered his risks in some way, avoiding total disaster. I miss in Seneca consistent explanations about how to keep reasonable margins of error in life. He should have analysed examples such as Pompey, showing that they had made a mistake. I also consider that #socrates (470-399 BC) had made the same mistake. Pompey had been foolish to bet his life on one card, but if we examine Socrates’ trial, we find exactly the same pattern. It didn’t make any sense for Socrates to let himself be spuriously accused and prosecuted. Socrates should have left #athens at an earlier stage. As soon as he learned that his enemies were plotting to accuse him, he should have left Athens and never returned again. There was no need for Socrates to play a game in which he could only lose, a game in which he had no backup plan and no resources for an #emergency exit. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/what-seneca-taught-about-dealing-with-failure/

Let us beware of people who preach passivity because they might be trying to slow us down. If they have already taken advantage of the situation, they might be preaching resignation to prevent their victims from taking action. Seneca condemned revenge, but did his idea of revenge also include creative, peaceful solutions? When he wrote about revenge, he meant bitterness, aggression and chaos. I tend to think that his conception was aggressive and warlike. If we give revenge a narrow definition, it is no wonder that #seneca was against it. I’m also against it and I assume that my readers will also be against it. However, we can give revenge an alternative definition, one that includes peaceful, clever, constructive action to redress the grievances. I want to emphasise the peaceful character of this approach. If someone has suffered damage, he should not just remain passive. Instead, he should review the alternatives, look for a creative, peaceful solution, and implement it without delay. Seneca’s calls for passivity and resignation are misguided. I share his condemnation of aggressiveness, but there is a broad range of possibilities that he never explored. One can conceive revenge as peaceful, #creative action to bring back #balance and fairness. In his 89th Letter to Lucilius, Seneca employs other narrow definitions that are also false. He mentions Crates of Thebes, a Cynic philosopher, who criticised formal logic because it does not teach us how to live. Crates was actually criticising #aristotle (384-322 BC), who had written his treatises on logic one generation earlier. The conception of #logic employed by Crates is too narrow, because it ignores the connection between logic and ethics. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/was-seneca-wrong-about-revenge/

Even the smartest, most enlightened humans are doomed to suffer from envy and jealousy. #seneca analysed the problem and came up with an imperfect solution. He spent considerable time reflecting about this matter, but his deficient logic prevented him from seeing the truth. I consider it important to study Seneca’s #philosophy on this issue, and see where he went wrong exactly. Understanding his error is a prerequisite for finding the correct solution, one that works in real life. Why did Seneca oppose envy and jealousy? He spelled out his reasons in his Letters to Lucilius. The problem with envy and jealousy, explained Seneca, is that they generate “double suffering.” In the first place, the victims suffer because of their failures, setbacks and unfulfilled desires. Secondly, victims will render their #emotional #suffering more acute by comparing themselves with successful people. Victims of envy and jealousy feel doubly mistreated by life. Not only have they failed to achieve their goals, but on top of that, they must witness how other people, often less deserving, appear to have been blessed by luck. Seneca analysed the problem and blamed it on the victims, that is, on their unfulfilled desires. Envy and #jealousy wouldn’t exist, he reasoned, if people felt content with their station in life. Let’s ponder Seneca’s conclusion for a second. If people did not look beyond their nose, they would not see possibilities for #improvement and would not feel envious of others, deservedly or not. They would not feel the emotional pain of defeat, inferiority and discontent. They wouldn’t regard other people’s success as unfair because they would remain unaware of what’s going on in the world. Even #alexanderthegreat (356-323 BC) had suffered from unfulfilled desires, argues Seneca in his 9th Letter to Lucilius. I find this argument particularly spurious, but let’s take it at face value, so that we can assess Seneca’s logic. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/seneca-on-overcoming-envy-and-jealousy/