Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) devoted substantial time and effort to pursuing knowledge, but he employed a rather haphazard method. He would spend a week writing an essay on some important subject, but then failed to draw clear conclusions. I know that Montaigne was employing a confusing, chaotic, erratic method because it happened all too often that he found himself unable to draw conclusions. When I read Montaigne’s essays, I discovered that one third of them fail to pass judgement on the issue at hand. Montaigne would throw arguments back and forth, in favour and against, without actually closing the case. As a reader, I found this approach perplexing. It took me a while to figure out the reasons behind Montaigne’s confusion. Those reasons are worth exploring because they can prevent us from getting stuck in our own life. Montaigne revealed those reasons in his essay titled “On idleness.” I am sure that he did not intend to invalidate his own method for pursuing knowledge, but in this essay, we can find the explanation for his deficient logic. The key idea of Montaigne’s essay “On idleness” is that we can acquire knowledge, especially philosophical knowledge, by doing nothing. Montaigne defines idleness as relaxation that keeps the mind engaged in contemplation. Montaigne argues that idleness can generate or elicit “deep knowledge” in those who practise it. I agree that some valuable insight could come to our mind while we are relaxing or taking a shower, but that method is not valid for a systematic gain of knowledge. Randomness is not a valid method for gaining knowledge. It should have dawned on Montaigne that sheer luck, coincidence and idleness cannot be expected to deliver wisdom. Sadly, his essays show that he was deeply enamoured with scepticism, relativism and the cult of moderation. No wonder that he proved unable to reach solid conclusions. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/critique-of-michel-de-montaignes-method-for-pursuing-knowledge/