Balanced judgement was central to Michel de Montaigne’s thinking. Image by southernfried.
Therefore, man’s relationship with God was of less interest to him than the relationships of people to one another.
Saul Frampton’s Guardian article, “Montaigne and the Macaques,” records this commitment to human relationships.
“400 years ago this great French essayist recognised our inbuilt capacity for sympathy depends on our physical proximity to others,” says Frampton.
The article explains how Macaque monkeys instinctively mirror each others’ actions. The mirroring causes a neuron to fire in their brains. Scientists labeled this “the empathy neuron,” claims Frampton.
________________
Would you like to see more articles like this?
Support This Expert’s Articles, This Category of Articles, or the Site in General Here.
Just put your preference in the “I Would Like to Support” Box after you Click to Donate Below:
Montaigne was no stranger to controversy. For example, he said, “…there are no universal standards for humans to consider themselves superior to other species,” according to Jeremy Harwood in 100 Great Thinkers.
Montaigne was exceptional in his achievements, not least for being self-taught and making essential life-choices of independence and good judgement. The great René Descartes later followed his example through self-education and the application of balanced judgement in his thinking.
The Burden of Too Much Knowledge
Michel de Montaigne dedicated his life to the search for knowledge and for truth with an approach that was always open-minded and individualistic. He was born in Saint-Michel-de-Montaigne in France, and he produced, from age 37, three volume of essays, or “Essais” in which “he applied his governing philosophical principles to a huge variety of topics,” says Jeremy Harwood in “Michel de Montaigne.”
While Montaigne’s first love was writing, he was also a great “thinker about thinking” in his lifetime search for the truth.
Therefore, his stance was that of a healthy scepticism, but this was no “lazy man’s philosophy,” a label applied frequently to the original ancient school of the sceptics in Bertrand Russell’s History of Western Philosophy. Russell said, “Scepticism made an appeal to many unphilosophic minds… Scepticism was a lazy man’s consolation, since it showed the ignorant to be as wise as the reputed men of learning.”
This was a very different kind of scepticism from that of Michel de Montaigne. For the sceptics of ancient times, the philosophy of scepticism was, a times, an excuse. For Montaigne, it was a commitment and a way of life and had a full and specific role to play in his thinking.
He believed in balance, and testing one opinion against another to ensure a genuine seeking of truth. Thinking was not a science, in Montaigne’s view, and knowledge did not necessarily help understanding.
Implications of Montaigne’s Scepticism
As stated above, his insistence that humans could not set themselves above other species was central to his thinking. He did, however, make concessions to cultural tendencies. “Notions, such as ‘reason’ and ‘nature’ – could help people to exercise their judgement better,” explains Jeremy Harwood.
“Cultural relativism” is defined as the view that we must understand that an individual person’s beliefs and his or her cultural background define his or her actions.
Of Cannibals and Cultural Relativism
In his essay “Of Cannibals,” Montaigne says that we have no reason to assume that our European culture is any better than any other, or any closer to God or goodness or truth, even though other cultures might appear less advanced.
“I find there is nothing barbarous and savage in this nation… excepting that everyone gives the title of barbarism to everything that is not in use in his own country,” says Montaigne in “Of Cannibals.”
He tells a story of cannibalism. Two tribes are making war on one another. They go to war naked, with just a bow and a wooden sword apiece. There is much blood, yet no warrior ever runs away. When a tribe takes prisoners, extreme revenge is exacted.
These two extracts below are verbatim from the essay, after describing how, first of all, the opposing tribe treats the prisoner well.
Then the victor “…ties a rope to one of the arms of the prisoner… he holds the one end himself and gives to the friend he loves best the other arm to hold… in the presence of the assembly, they despatch him with their swords. After that, they roast him, eat him among them, and send some chops to their absent friends.”
Montaigne’s judgement does not regard this behaviour in an unfavourable light compared to European behaviour.
“I conceive there is more barbarity in eating a man alive than when he is dead, in tearing a body limb from limb by racks and torments that is yet in perfect sense, in roasting it by degrees, in causing it to be bitten and worried by dogs and swine, as practised by neighbours and fellow citizens under cover of piety and religion, than roast and eat him after he is dead.”
He also mentions the stoics’ belief that there was no immorality in eating a dead carcass.
Jeremy Harwood summarises: “Individuals should think about and then evaluate the customs they lived by, and then, if necessary, challenge them.”
Montaigne’s Gentle Frankness Disarms His Enemy
There is a charming story in the article “Montaigne and the Macaques” by Saul Frampton, telling how Montaigne regarded his house as open to all. Then something dramatic and frightening happened.
“And standing as a solitary sentinel over all this was an ancient porter, whose function, admitted Montaigne, is not so much to defend his door as to offer it with more grace and decorum,” making an attack on it “a cowardly and treacherous business… it is not shut to anyone that knocks.”
However, this concept did not hold true when Montaigne’s neighbour appeared, requesting safety from some soldiers. Naturally they admitted him. Shortly after, four or five more soldiers asked for sanctuary, which was duly granted. Before long there were around twenty people in the house all seeking sanctuary from the fighting. Montaigne knew that his neighbour was setting him up, since his home contained much of value.
He looked directly at his neighbour and soon, the neighbour turned away and left, along with everyone else. Later, he told Montaigne that his expression of frankness had prevented him from carrying out his criminal plan. In other words, the close proximity to his victim and the obvious fear and distress in the expression on his face, had forced the neighbour to sympathise and abandon his ill-conceived course of action.
Michel de Montaigne’s Legacy
This French philosopher, who was never much impressed by philosophy, who started his writing career from nothing, and who relied entirely on his own thinking, proved the inspiration for a number of later philosophers, for example Blaise Pascal and René Descartes.
Harwood says:
“Claude Levi-Strauss hailed him as the father of cultural relativism while his approach to philosophy inspired such influential modern sages as Richard Rorty to look for new ways of seeking out knowledge and truth.”
There is too much emphasis on the “intellect” and on “thought”. Intellect is a survival mechanism of our species. It puts food on the table and money in our bank. It is practically useless in interpersonal relationships which need commitment and involvement. Thoughts are ideas injected into our mind by heredity and environment. They are part of memory and always of the past. Thought is always recycled with added knowledge. Nothing really new happens in thought. All we have are relative truths and in this I agree with Michel de Montaigne. Absolute Truth is beyond human ken,…..mainly because the Absolute is not human centric but Infinity….and Universal..
I’m not sure I agree that thought and intellect are entirely redundant from successful Interpersonal relationships. Honest, analytical (yes, analytical!) thinking, including thinking about ourselves and being conscious of our motivation and our actions, is, for me, a part of how we work out our disputes and insecurities..
I wasn”t quite sure if your insistence on not over-emphasising intellect was a direct criticism of Montaigne. When I write about philosophers, I always take their viewpoint in order to give them a voice, whether i agree with them or not. (Although I might, if my editor allows, occasionally voice an opinion.) But I do like Montaigne’s take on life. Also, I would point out that because a person takes a specific direction in their thinking/development/career, then they are going to focus on that. It doesn’t mean they are denying that there are alternative paths. We have mathematicians, scientists, philosophers, psychologists. They all play a part and they all have an angle that is useful for their projects.. Montaigne’s search for knowledge might seem “emphasised” but I don’t believe it excludes the “empathy neuron,” I mentioned at the beginning of the article.
Yet, another engaging article, Janet. There hasn’t been a time I’ve perceived that “thought and intellect are entirely redundant from successful interpersonal relationships” but then it’s a personal opinion conceived from various factors of an individual’s breeding, beliefs, exposures, etc. Although I respect M. de Montaigne as a philosopher (e.g. his influence on Pascal, great thinker amongst my list of favourites), I’ve wondered about his scepticism. Then again his writings were not always consistent, as he was often engaged in a dialogue with himself. On the other hand, he accepted the idea of ‘reasons’ and ‘nature’ that might help us in our exercise of judgement.
Don’t we all search for knowledge endlessly? Empathy shouldn’t (can’t) be far where knowledge exists.
“This French philosopher, who was never much impressed by philosophy, who started his writing career from nothing, and who relied entirely on his own thinking…”
Cannot quite agree with you. Montaigne was extremely well read and evidenced this by the extensive quotes he used from classical philosophers and historians throughout the Essais. Have you read my favourite book on Montaigne? It is by Sarah Bakewell, who summarizes his purposes in her title: How to Live – A Life of Montaigne in one question and twenty attempts at an answer.
Hi,
Thank you for your interest in the article, and your comment.
I certainly never intended to imply that I believed Montaigne wasn’t well-educated and didn’t read books. It’s worrying that perhaps my meaning wasn’t clear enough. I choose my resources with great care, although I am sure the book you mention is an inspiring read.
Montaigne was, first and foremost, an original thinker and did not rely on speculative and traditional philosophy. He preferred to balance one opinion against another. He took the stance that no one could be certain of anything.
Jeremy Harwood says: “Believing that knowledge was just as likely to stifle understanding as to promote it, his aim was to liberate thought from the straightjacket of false certainty.” At another point, Harwood says:that Descartes was impressed by Montaigne’s belief in the importance of self education. “Like Montaigne, Descartes taught himself more or less from scratch,” says Harwood.
Bertrand Russell says: “Although in art, the Renaissance is still orderly, in thought it prefers a large and fruitful disorder. In this respect, Montaigne is the most typical exponent of the age.” Russell, too, seems to accept that Montaigne was not to be restrained by the traditional boundaries in place at the time.
Any remarks I have made regarding Montaigne starting from nothing and relying on his own judgements are intended to express admiration at the achievement of a great original thinker, who didn’t take anything he learned or read on trust.
I must get that book you mention. Thanks for the tip.