John Vespasian

For twenty years, Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) spent a good part of his days writing his essays. He made no planning, organisation, or outline of the whole. Instead, he let his works grow organically and spontaneously. Eventually, he compiled his essays in volumes ready for publication. Montaigne’s literary themes have been identified by critics, not by Montaigne himself. As his essays piled up over time, he returned often to certain subjects, those that appealed to him in particular. Sometimes, he addressed exactly the same subject, but from different standpoints. Let us pass review to Montaigne’s themes and the key ideas that he conveyed in each theme. First, tolerance, which he presents as relativism or scepticism. Montaigne condemned all forms of fanaticism; he disliked oral and physical aggression, and presented extensive arguments in favour of peaceful collaboration. In his essay titled “Apology for Raymond Sebond,” he gave solid reasons explaining why the heretic Sebond had criticised mainstream Christianity. Montaigne didn’t excuse Sebond, but called for open-mindedness and tolerance. People tend to make too much noise about their deities, just to feel self-important, but fanaticism is unwise. We should ask ourselves “What do I really know?” and realise that our beliefs might rest on shaky assumptions. Montaigne recommended self-examination as the first step to wisdom. In this respect, he preached with example because, in his essays, he frequently retells anecdotes from his own life. When Montaigne wrote “I study myself more than I study any other subject,” he was exaggerating only slightly. I am sure that he had devoted far more time to reading Plutarch, Seneca, and Marcus Aurelius than to self-reflection, but nonetheless, he did love to philosophise about his own life. Second, self-acceptance: Montaigne rejected perfectionism in all shapes. He did not want to endure the stress that accompanies the desire to be perfect. There is nothing wrong with pursuing ambitious goals, but we should remain realistic. Like modern psychologists do, Montaigne reminded readers once and again of their fallibility. “It is part of human nature to be inconsistent at times,” acknowledged Montaigne. It’s foolish to try to be superhuman, perfect, and omniscient because those characteristics are divine, not human. Montaigne views the consciousness of our own mortality as crucial to self-acceptance. He titled one of his essays “That to philosophise is to learn to die,” meaning that, when one grasps the idea of his own mortality, he tends to become more effective, realistic and easygoing. Instead of agonising about our own death, we should use its inevitability as motivation to make the best of our lives, and not worry about petty annoyances. Most inconveniences pale when confronted with the idea that, one day, our life will end. Montaigne also mentions cultural relativism as a powerful contributor to self-acceptance. History and geography teach us that other cultures hold in high regard what our culture doesn’t like; thus, should we worry about other people’s low opinion of our shortcomings? No, we definitely shouldn’t. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaignes-literary-works-and-themes/

I agree with Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) that most of what we learn is of questionable accuracy. He preached by example because, for twenty years, he wrote haphazard essays on disorganised, sometimes obscure, subjects. Allegedly, he was looking for wisdom, but in practice, his doubts grew increasingly larger. Practical knowledge is great if you can get it. The very worst way to search knowledge is to do it randomly as Montaigne did. He explored subjects in the fields of children’s education, ethics, literature, military science, religion and history, but his lack of philosophical integration prevented him from drawing sound conclusions. Montaigne favoured scepticism and open-mindedness above all, but those only led him to permanent doubts; his essay titled “Apology for Raymond Sebond” speaks against rigid thinking, but is it possible to reach conclusions without an established intellectual structure? I don’t think so. Although Montaigne was conscious of the deficiencies of scepticism, he devoted more energy to justifying them than to correcting them. Montaigne rationalised that scepticism is the best defence against human contradictions. His essay “Of Experience” gives examples of people changing their convictions as they age, but those examples prove exactly the opposite point. The fact that people learn and grow more effective as time passes only shows the difficulty of gaining knowledge. It does not prove that knowledge (certainty, clarity, accuracy) cannot be acquired. Montaigne devoted vast efforts to arguing that knowledge is impossible to acquire. To this end, he compiled dozens of cases that speak in favour of relativism. None of those examples and arguments can withstand close examination. Without exception, they rely on fallacies or false dichotomies. Nevertheless, they are worth reading to sharpen one’s mind. Montaigne argues for instance that different countries have different views on clothing, attire, and nudity. He devoted an essay to this subject. It is titled “Of the Custom of Wearing Clothes.” Where is the fallacy? Montaigne is elevating a discussion on fashion to a philosophical issue, which it’s not. Then he says that philosophical certainty is impossible because people have different ideas on fashion. Really? Once and again, Montaigne takes accessory or exotic views, pretending that they carry philosophical weight, only to state at the end that philosophical certainty is impossible. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaigne-and-the-pursuit-of-knowledge/

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/

There cannot be complex thinking without reading. Ancient Greek philosophers established the basis of civilization in great part because of their ability to write cogently and build on the knowledge accumulated by their predecessors. Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) spent thousands of hours reading, especially works by authors from Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome. He read them in their original Latin, or in Latin translations from Greek. The reason why Montaigne knew many quotations by heart is because he had read those old books over and over again. He was particularly fond of Plutarch (46-120 AD) as a source of historical anecdotes, and of Seneca (4 BC-65 AD) and Marcus Aurelius (121-180 AD) as sources of ethical insights. Why is reading important? Montaigne gives strong reasons in favour of reading as a method for acquiring knowledge and developing one’s thinking abilities. I agree with Montaigne that conversation and observation could also deliver those benefits, but far more slowly. Reading is the quintessential accelerator of learning and wisdom. Montaigne was well aware of the fact that, when it comes to developing one’s capacity for abstract thinking, there is no substitute for reading. In addition, he noted that reading helps people place themselves in somebody else’s shoes and become more tolerant, benevolent, and empathic. I must however clarify that Montaigne was reading almost exclusively philosophical and historical works. In his essays, I find relatively few references to theological, fictional, medical and scientific works. Those formed a small part of Montaigne’s library because they did not interest him. Montaigne engaged in reading to extract practical lessons from biographical and historical sources. He viewed history as a raw material that one must turn into philosophical insights. In every biography he read, he was looking for principles or teachings that he put into practice in his own life, that is, in the sixteenth century. Today’s reader of Montaigne’s works can ascertain the vast efforts deployed to draw those philosophical insights; there are dozens of references to Socrates (469-399 BC), Alexander the Great (356-323 BC), Julius Caesar (100-44 BC) and other key historical figures to illustrate lessons drawn from their good and bad choices. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaigne-and-the-importance-of-reading/

Before quitting his job and retiring to live in the countryside, Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) had witnessed outrageous displays of prejudice and irrationality. Widespread violence had driven him close to losing all hope for humanity. Luckily, he opted for taking a step back and examining the situation. Montaigne’s conclusions are spread all over his essays. I can summarize here one of his main conclusions: People who don’t read books tend to be narrow-minded, gullible, emotional, and prone to exaggerated reactions. Happiness goes hand in hand with rationality, serenity, and thoughtfulness, but those cannot be improvised. Neither Plato nor Aristotle are coming back to lecture the public. Today, only books open the door to philosophy, personal growth, and self-reliance, which are the pillars of happiness. Montaigne was particularly aware of the link between self-reliance and reading. He considered the former a consequence of the latter. People who read become self-aware, prudent, and forward-looking. They realize the importance of making good decisions in times of crisis, instead of succumbing to fashions and social pressures. Montaigne considered reading the basis for self-reliance due to its sharpening effect on the mind. Readers can have a one-to-one conversation with the best authors from past centuries, and strengthen their determination to do the right thing. I do not think that other media (television, podcasts, videos, etc.) can provide such a deep connection to abstract ideas. In his essay “Of Experience,” Montaigne praised reading because “it can render any situation better.” Reading does so by making readers more self-reliant, more capable of dealing with trouble of all kinds. Montaigne also extolled the healing powers of reading. He called it “the best medicine in times of discouragement.” That’s because reading enhances self-confidence and self-reliance in dark days, when setbacks seem overwhelming. Despite its much-touted benefits, autosuggestion rarely does the trick of turning losers into winners. That’s because self-talk lacks the credibility supplied by experience. Conversely, a good book is invested with the author’s years or decades of experience. It may steer the reader’s thoughts in the right direction faster than a truckload of autosuggestion. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaigne-how-reading-enhances-self-reliance/

Due to their heterogeneous subjects, the essays of Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) cannot be easily summarised in quotes and one-liners. Nevertheless, I am going to present here the quotes that I consider most relevant for conveying Montaigne’s key messages. Montaigne’s essays constitute the output of twenty years of quiet labour. Amidst religious wars, political strife, famine and pestilence, Montaigne stayed loyal to his daily habits. He didn’t allow anyone or anything to disrupt his reading and writing. To those who are learning to appreciate Montaigne, I advise you to read his essay titled “On Books.” Literary historians have established that Montaigne was already fifty years old when he wrote it. In a way, he conceived this essay as a summary of the insights he had accumulated through the years. When did Montaigne mean when he wrote that “I do not measure my wisdom by the number of books in my library, but by their practical use.” In today’s terms, his library was not very large. It must have consisted of about one hundred volumes; that’s a small fraction of the number of books we can store nowadays in the memory of a tablet or smart phone. However, there is a key difference between Montaigne and most owners of tablets or smart phones. Few people nowadays read complete books, let alone numerous books per year. They prefer to watch videos or listen to podcasts. In contrast, Montaigne read his hundred volumes with great interest, and then reread them many times. He wanted to draw every drop of wisdom from those books and improve his life. Reading develops one’s critical thinking. That’s why he wrote that “I trust my own judgement more than the opinions and teachings of learned parties.” Montaigne had acquired his self-confident thinking through twenty years of re-reading great books. Note that the ability to think critically didn’t come to him out of the blue. It’s the result of steady work, day in and day out. The trust in one’s intellect comes from using it daily, not from bravado or wishful thinking. Montaigne’s essays cover a large multiplicity of subjects. Those are areas in which he was looking for answers, or for arguments to support his views. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaignes-literary-appreciation-and-criticism/

It is only recently that people have started to regard literary, historical, and philosophical studies as worthless. Parents warn their children against humanities studies, and instead, try to steer them towards medicine, law, or computer science. Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) was the living proof that, in prior centuries, people had regarded literature, history, and philosophy as highly practical. In the sixteenth century, students viewed those disciplines as sources of wisdom and personal effectiveness. They devoted themselves to studying philosophy and history in order to lead a better life. They expected tangible, practical benefits. Montaigne’s essays show us his dedication to those studies. For more than two decades, he delved into ancient books with the goal of absorbing their wisdom. He wanted to draw hands-on lessons and record them in writing for posterity. To the extent that they enable us to acquire wisdom, literary appreciation and criticism do constitute practical disciplines. I can only lament that today’s focus has shifted from wisdom to entertainment, from practicality to pretentiousness, and from cultural sophistication to manipulation. Montaigne was acutely aware of the need to use one’s time effectively. He abhorred pretentiousness and worthless details. When he studied biographies and historical anecdotes, his goal was to absorb tangible wisdom. The entertainment value of historical and literary studies is not playing a central role in Montaigne’s works. I compare him to an athlete, focused on his performance and indifferent to the rigours of daily training. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/lessons-from-michel-de-montaignes-literary-appreciation-and-criticism/

Everybody can talk and put forward his ideas, but it requires alertness and subtlety to draw the best of conversations. In life, time and energies are limited, and conversation takes up a fair measure of those. How can we carry out conversations in ways that enable us to draw maximum benefit? Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) spent twenty years of his life in the countryside, interacting with friends only from time to time. For this reason, whenever he had the chance, he took part in good conversations and enjoyed it enormously. Two of Montaigne’s essays are specifically devoted to the art of conversation. I am referring to his essays “On the Art of Conversation” and “On the Vanity of Words.” Montaigne is summarising in those two essays the insights he had gained in a lifetime of conversation, either in his private life, or as a lawyer and public officer in the south of France. In the next paragraphs, I am going to summarise the key ideas that Montaigne is conveying in those two essays. We can learn the most in conversations with people who are different from us, or who hold different ideas. If we talk to friends, we can draw lots of enjoyment, but will they challenge our beliefs? Will they criticize our errors? Rarely. Montaigne was himself a Catholic, but recommended to talk to Protestants and even pagans. He found those conversations stimulating because they challenged his Catholic faith, driving him to come up with reasons for his beliefs. Like Socrates (469-399 BC) in Ancient Greece, Montaigne prefers difficult discussions to weak convictions; he was strong enough to deal with controversy, criticism, and uncertainty. It’s easier to learn from those than from routine and immobility. Our primary goal in conversation should be learning, not winning. In his work “Of the Art of Discussion,” Montaigne is opposing heated debates, where the participants barely listen to each other. Rhetorical victories often come at the price of intellectual, spiritual and social impoverishment. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaigne-and-the-art-of-conversation/

After devoting twenty years of his life to writing essays, Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) had developed great expectations for the future. He believed that his essays would appeal to a large public and influence future generations. History has proven Montaigne right but not in the manner he expected. His essays did find a large audience, but their philosophical influence has been negligible. His quotations do appeal to truth-seekers, but they have seldom changed anyone’s life. Montaigne’s curiosity and verbosity led to a vast output, but every page he wrote contains hesitations and inconsistencies. I admire his ability to pour out essays on every subject under the sun, but I am not blind to their inconclusiveness. When it comes to Montaigne’s cultural impact, in particular on French literature, I must point out the key insights conveyed by Montaigne’s essays. First, a general belief in God’s benevolence, and that it’s up to each person to discover it and lead a virtuous life. I must though state that Montaigne was not a religious fanatic and did not like fanatics of any kind. He repeatedly called for tolerance and respect of minority beliefs. The French philosopher Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) proved a worthy intellectual heir to Montaigne in this respect. Pascal’s main work, his “Reflections” (in French, “Pensees”), resumes a discussion that Montaigne had barely initiated. I’m referring to the justification of religious faith in a world that is dominated by injustice. In the sixteenth century, war and religious prosecution were omnipresent in Europe. Montaigne had witnessed those with his own eyes, and knew of their dire consequences. In his “Reflections,” Pascal took over the thread initiated by Montaigne and came up with a probabilistic argument for faith. Pascal recommended people to remain faithful to Christianity just in case the Bible proved true and God would examine our souls on Judgement Day. Even if the Bible proved wrong, we would still benefit from leading a virtuous life. Even if there is no God, no Judgement Day, and no Heaven and Hell, we would still be happier if we adopt sound ethical principles. In addition to influencing Pascal’s ideas, Montaigne’s essays also influenced Pascal’s style. Both Pascal and Montaigne use their personal experience and observations as arguments, and both employ ancient quotations to support their conclusions. I must however point out that Montaigne quoted primarily ancient classical Greek and Roman authors such as Seneca (4 BC-AD 65), Plutarch (46-120 AD), Julius Caesar (100-44 BC), and Cicero (106-43 BC). In contrast, Pascal quoted the Bible on many occasions. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/montaignes-cultural-impact-especially-on-french-literature/

Sadly, the cultural impact of Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) has been mostly detrimental. Why? Because intellectuals have retained the worst part of Montaigne’s ideas and forgotten his valuable insights. Am I exaggerating in my assessment? I do not think so. Let us look at three wrong Montaigne’s ideas that have taken root in popular culture, and that many people regard as indisputable truths. Lack of intellectual structure is a severe deficiency that undermines Montaigne’s essays. It shows in his inability to tell apart the crucial elements from the accessories. If we talk indistinctly about entertainment, hobbies, games, and philosophical truths, there is a degradation of the latter. If we place trivialities and important things at the same level, we are degrading the latter. Montaigne’s essays lack plan, structure and proportion; they present philosophical discussions side by side with trivialities. As an example, I point to Montaigne’s essay “On Diversion.” In this essay, Montaigne explains the advantages of hobbies and other leisure activities, but says nothing that the average reader would not have already figured out himself. The fact that Montaigne uses Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 BC) as an example doesn’t add any depth to the arguments. It is nice to know that Cicero enjoyed reading poetry, but what practical knowledge can we draw from such an anecdote? None. Montaigne also points out that, in Ancient Rome, people loved to attend theatre performances, in particular comedies written by Plautus (254-184 BC). I would compare Plautus’ comedies to the soap operas that fill TV cable channels in the morning. Indeed, numerous people watch those soap operas, but what’s the point? There is nothing to be learned from those nor from Plautus’ plays. By choosing trivial subjects, Montaigne wasted the readers’ time and patience. Sadly, some magazines, radio stations, and TV channels today have adopted the same practice. By turning trivialities into their main fare, they are steering away from important subjects. I regret that this cultural trend, initiated by Montaigne, has reached enormous proportions. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/critique-of-michel-de-montaignes-cultural-impact/