It’s not correct to say that Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) embraced a form of metaphysical determinism. His philosophy rests on the assumption that the will (which I translate as “life force”) influences all events, but there is a substantial distance between influencing and determining. The difference between influence and determinism has large consequences. I am not pointing to a trivial linguistic variance. If you want to make good decisions and keep anxiety at bay, it is crucial that you understand the difference. In his major work “The world as will and representation” (1818), Schopenhauer argued that the will is the fundamental force underlying reality. He described the will as irrational and blind. It’s ceaseless energy that propels all existence. According to Schopenhauer, the will manifests itself in all animal and human actions. It helps shape human desires, goals and decisions, although we experience those as free-chosen. In all cases, Schopenhauer argued, we are subject to the relentless influence of the will. Yet, we are neither helpless nor enslaved. Schopenhauer’s philosophical stance is that it’s hard to slow down or minimize the influence of the will. As individuals, we are convinced that we possess free will, but to a large extent, we are driven by the “life force” that propels the cosmos. I would not use the term “determinism” for describing how the will is influencing human life. We are driven to achieve the goals inherent in the will (pleasure, reproduction, etc.) but we are not blind brutes unable to figure things out. Although Schopenhauer employs the concept of “necessity” to underscore the nature of the will, he does not mean that one is unable to escape or minimize the influence of the life force. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauer-on-determinism/

You do not need to search long to find philosophers that rate Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) as the ultimate advocate of determinism. Nonetheless, they are wrong; their categorization of Schopenhauer as deterministic is superficial and overlooks a large number of key aspects in Schopenhauer’s philosophy. When analysing a philosopher, one must place his ideas at a certain point in the scale of determinism versus individuality. It is particularly easy to err if you don’t study philosophical ideas in detail. If you reduce Schopenhauer’s lifetime work to a caricature, you will tend to place him at the end of the scale. However, the reality is more nuanced and interesting. When we look into the details of Schopenhauer’s ideas, we must definitely rate him as an individualist, not as deterministic. Let me explain the logic by comparing Schopenhauer to the Ancient Roman Stoic philosopher Epictetus, who lived in the first century AD. Schopenhauer’s two key works “On the fourfold root of the principle of sufficient reason” (1814) and “The world as will and representation” (1818) argue that the cosmos is dominated by the will. Schopenhauer regards the will as a blind life force. Similarly, Stoic philosophers like Epictetus believed that the cosmos is governed by a force called “logos.” This force is to blame for every good and bad occurrence in the world. The definition of the logos had been shaped by Cleanthes (331-232 BC), Zeno of Citium (334-262 BC), and Chrysippus (280-206 BC) of Cilicia, all of them predecessors of Epictetus. Schopenhauer’s definition of the will includes the adjective “irrational,” but strongly resembles the Stoic “logos.” It doesn’t change much that Zeno and Cleanthes had called their logos “rational.” In any case, the Stoic deterministic framework was stronger than Schopenhauer’s theory of the will. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/individuality-and-determinism-in-schopenhauer/

The reflections of Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) are to be found in his work “The world as will and representation.” I consider equally interesting the observations contained in his “Aphorisms on the art of living,” published in 1851. In contrast to Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831), Schopenhauer is not a philosopher of history. He didn’t develop an all-inclusive vision of history nor theorized about the end of times. He did not regard the course of history as one unequivocal path pointing into a single direction. There is no single destiny where humanity is headed. History is made by people’s choices every single day. The will (which I translate as “life force”) influences how a man or woman makes decisions; however, the will is not pushing people right or left. It is not exercising overwhelming power to the extent that each person can say “I could not help it.” Schopenhauer declines presenting history as an imposition of destiny. Conversely, he underlines the importance of how a human being behaves over time. Life is essentially temporary. Every success and possession is naturally limited. In his work “The world as will and representation”(1818), Schopenhauer wrote that “each experience of happiness should be regarded as contingent on the passage of time.” There is no guarantee that today’s happiness will be prolonged in the near future. As a result, a wise man will take measures to reduce the risk of total loss, and increase the chances of stable, repeated pleasure. Good health helps prevent pain. Schopenhauer formulated this principle in a beautiful manner: “It is the greatest of follies to sacrifice one’s health for any other type of pleasure.” I must point out that few individuals realize the long-term impact of today’s health dissipation. It requires knowledge and imagination to link today’s smoking and fast-food consumption to illness ensuing ten years down the road. Yet, the capacity to think in these terms will save you lots of unnecessary trouble. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauer-and-the-philosophy-of-time/

The philosophy of Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) places history on a secondary plane. Schopenhauer didn’t give history a central role because he did not consider that humanity should achieve any goal beyond the happiness of the individual. Schopenhauer believed that an eternal life force (“the will”) drives all creatures towards self-preservation and reproduction, but the influence of the will doesn’t mean that society must go in a particular direction. According to Schopenhauer, the events in the world are a perpetual manifestation of the will, but the results are not easy to foresee. The will can lead to pleasure and happiness, but also to conflict, suffering, and pointless pursuit of power. For this reason, Schopenhauer rejected the notion of linear progress in history. History can meander from good to worse, and then back to excellent. It is not leading to a particular goal, destination or achievement. It’s the result of the actions of large numbers of people, each pursuing his own happiness. Schopenhauer views of history appeared first in his doctoral thesis published in 1814 “On the fourfold root of the principle of sufficient reason” and later in his key work “The world as will and representation,” published in 1818. The philosophy of history in Schopenhauer’s work is neither pessimistic nor optimistic. I would rather describe it as liberal and non-deterministic. Schopenhauer viewed the influence of the will as a driving factor, but not as overwhelming. Each human being remains free to adopt countermeasures to protect himself against the deleterious aspects of the will; none of us is a puppet at the hands of the will; we can make our own choices; we can steer our life in the direction of our dreams. Schopenhauer acknowledged that human existence is driven by desires that will often remain unfulfilled. It is a process of work, struggle and inevitable suffering, but this should not lead you to the conclusion that passivity is better than action. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/schopenhauer-and-the-philosophy-of-history/

Like many other authors, Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) regarded writing as a process of self-discovery; he talked about self-discovery through self-expression. He meant that we get to know ourselves better when we outline our ideas in writing, or when we convey our thoughts to other people. However, Montaigne knew that introspection is difficult and that most meditation techniques will fail to deliver the desired results. People seldom become more philosophical or effective by pushing themselves. That’s why personal development (the pursuit of happiness) should be practised as “letting go,” not “pushing.” Experience shows that we will thrive and attain our goals faster when we practise self-expression and self-discovery. Montaigne often repeats this idea in his essays. It constitutes one of the pillars of his personal philosophy. For example, his essay “Of the Education of Children” favours the development of a child’s natural talents, instead of imposing constraints. Similarly, in his essay “Of Friendship,” Montaigne remarks that, on the one hand, we need self-expression to find friends; and on the other hand, those friends enable our self-discovery because their words and actions are going to mirror our values. Writing constitutes Montaigne’s pre-eminent method of self-expression and self-discovery, but he also used other methods. In his essay “Of the Useful and the Honourable,” Montaigne is also recommending travelling and reading books as valid ways of self-discovery. The same proposal is made by Montaigne in his essay titled “Of Solitude,” where he argues that it’s difficult to acquire self-awareness without regular periods of solitude. Gregariousness, in the sense of random socializing, can impede self-expression rather than promote it. We need friends that match our ethical values and personal interests, but socialising in large groups may prove ineffective as a method for finding friends. Why? Because it’s far easier to figure out people by talking to them in small groups. Montaigne was aware of the desire to find kindred souls as best friends, but despite using relevant examples, he drew the wrong conclusion. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaigne-on-self-discovery-and-self-expression/

Social constraints are not a new phenomenon in history. In one way or another, they have existed as long as social structures. They reflect the displeasure of the people who hold the dominant opinions, and their attempts to prevent criticism and irreverent comments. Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) wrote essays entailing self-discovery and self-expression, but at the same time, he avoided acute controversy and provocation. He wisely spoke in favour of tolerance, and refrained from putting his figures on somebody else’s wounds. In Montaigne’s own experience, people who refuse to consider soft arguments are seldom amenable to harsh ones. Montaigne’s essay “That the Hour of Parley is Dangerous,” establishes reasonable limits for self-discovery, self-expression and debate. I mean reasonable limits for doing it in public. The point of Montaigne is to identify disproportionate risks and dangers, and steer away from them. Instead of wasting our time and energies in acrimonious debates, Montaigne wants to ensure that we can keep pursuing self-development tomorrow and the day after. Nowadays, people complain when they are confronted with any kind of restraints to self-discovery or self-expression. Fair enough, I understand their grievances and find them frequently justified. However, today’s problems in that area are insignificant if we compare them with Montaigne’s century; he lived in France in the sixteenth century, amidst fierce religious wars. Montaigne witnessed first-hand intense religious hatred and persecution, murders and confiscations; hundreds of thousands resorted to leaving the country and going into exile, mostly to The Netherlands; those who remained in France had to keep a low profile, fearing the sudden re-ignition of social strife. When people hate each other, noted Montaigne, they rarely listen to arguments. Emotions take over and prevent rationality from functioning; and without dialogue, negotiation becomes practically impossible. Montaigne is warning us against attempting self-discovery, self-expression or personal development amidst hostility. If we are lucky, we will have wasted our time and energy. If we are not, we will have made dangerous enemies for life. Overall, it is an awful strategy to seek self-discovery or self-expression amongst hateful people. Who on earth has the energy to invest in counterproductive activities? There are much better ways to pursue personal development. Let us heed Montaigne’s advice in this respect. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/the-limits-of-michel-de-montaignes-self-discovery-and-self-expression/

Erroneously, philosophers often attribute achievements and heroism to the ability to withstand pressure, social or physical, in extreme situations. Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) came up with a more realistic view. Instead of looking at extreme situations in isolation, he saw them as part of a normal process, where things evolve either in one direction or the other, ceaselessly shifting from day to day, from good to worse, and then back to good. Montaigne had drawn this essential lesson from Heraclitus (around 500 BC); he did not expect events to be linear, and had no problem accepting the ups and downs of life. He regarded a flexible mentality as far more valuable than rigidity. As a result, Montaigne described virtues in a manner similar to Aristotle (384-322 BC) in his “Nicomachean Ethics,” that is, as beneficial habits that lead to happiness if they are practised assiduously. When it comes to self-expression or personal development, the same principle applies. Success in those areas depends on habits practised day in and day out. It’s not the result of one-in-a-lifetime deployment of rhetorical techniques to save the day when all cards have fallen. Montaigne elaborated on this idea in his essay “On Practice.” The need for daily practice, mental and physical, is the fundamental idea in the essay. Personal development in general (and the ability to self-expression in particular) need to be cultivated over time like any other complex skill. In this respect, self-discipline constitutes the indispensable pillar. When it comes to exercise and practice, self-discipline is far more important than motivation, leisure time, affordability, and any other factor. Montaigne’s vast literary achievements are hundred per cent the outcome of self-discipline. If we compare him with similar persons (French landowners in the sixteenth century), it is easy to see that he did not have any special advantage. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/self-discipline-and-michel-de-montaignes-self-expression/

We all know individuals who lack a sense of direction. They drift from day to day because they lack long-term objectives. I find it no surprise then that their decisions are inconsistent and undermine each other. Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) had observed exactly the same phenomenon in his contemporaries. Few of them had set up goals for themselves, and even fewer pursued those goals in a consistent manner. Self-discovery is the process of getting to know oneself, our likes and dislikes, our strengths and weaknesses, our hopes and expectations. Goal-setting is the consequence of self-discovery, the consequence of projecting our identity over time. Montaigne emphasised self-discovery, which he regarded as a prerequisite of goal-setting. Why? Because we need a precise alignment between our identity and our goals. If we don’t know our values and convictions, we cannot project them over time. Unfortunately, there are many false paths to self-discovery. If we walk a false path, we will end up in self-delusion or self-inflicted blindness. Alertness is crucial when choosing a path to self-discovery because there are many vested interests leading people astray or, even worse, making them run in circles, wasting their energies. Montaigne’s essay “On Physiognomy” illustrates a widely spread error in the process of self-discovery. The error consists of adopting a spurious identity simply because it is available or convenient. The essay was written in the south of France in 1588, when Montaigne had turned fifty-five years old. The key message of the essay is that we cannot establish a person’s identity just by looking at his physiognomy. Montaigne’s observation about a person’s physiognomy also applies to a person’s attire, way of speaking, social position, or mannerisms. All those may provide clues, but not a full picture of someone’s identity. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaigne-and-the-true-path-to-self-discovery/