Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) devoted twenty years of his life to writing essays on everything under the sun. He chose questions that he found intriguing, researched them thoroughly, and enumerated the arguments in favour and against.
Although Montaigne deployed massive efforts to research, he seldom reached definite conclusions on anything. He gave a detailed overview of facts and their possible interpretation, but refrained from taking sides, arguing that the truth is subjective.
Montaigne’s subjectivism undermines the intellectual appeal of his essays. What’s the point of studying a subject thoroughly if no conclusion can be drawn? Why devote one’s energies to learning if the truth is relative, changeable, or unknowable?
Was Montaigne conscious of the intellectual weakness of his approach? Absolutely, but the problem is that he considered subjectivism a moral virtue. Sadly, he mistook indecisiveness for “moderation” and cowardice as “humility.”
Montaigne regarded moral indifference as “pragmatic” and procrastination as “prudence.” As a result, his essays shoot in all directions, but fail to hit any targets. Montaigne forgets that the purpose of wisdom is action, not abstract speculation.
Montaigne’s relativism and the nature of truth
Relativism rendered Montaigne impervious to logic, blind to inconsistencies, and fearful of clarity. He tried to pass off his confusion as “tolerance,” while he infringed every principle set forth by Aristotle (384-322 BC).
As a result, Montaigne proved unable of intellectual passion and coherence. To make things worse, since he could not make his mind on any issue, he came up with spurious explanations.
Take for instance his essay “That our desires are increased by difficulty.” Instead of establishing a definite moral code that can guide readers, he emphasises that role that external factors can play in human desires.
The reasons that humans pursue goals that are out of reach, argues Montaigne, is precisely because of those goals are hard or impossible to attain. People would be happier, he advises, if they abandoned those ambitions and enjoyed what they have.
Montaigne’s “conclusions” overlook the fact that humans do love to take initiative and improve their lives. Ambition, which he regards as a negative trait, is the basis of progress. There is no reason to regard difficult goals as impossible, unworkable, or out of reach. Montaigne’s subjectivity is tainted by lethargy and defeatism.
Montaigne’s essay “That our desires are increased by difficulty”
He tells us that Scipio Africanus (236-183 BC) achieved a great victory in the Battle of Zama against Carthage because his motivation had been increased by the obstacles (logistics, weather, hostile local tribes, etc.) he had faced.
Montaigne’s argument does not make any sense. Scipio had proven his military abilities in earlier years and he surely didn’t enjoy fighting against Hannibal’s elephants under the glaring sun. Scipio was driven buy his convictions and ambitions, not because he enjoyed risking his life.
Similarly, Alexander the Great (356-323 BC) didn’t attempt to conquer Greece, Syria, Turkey, Egypt and India because he enjoyed facing obstacles. Montaigne is depicting Alexander as a man driven by subjective impressions. In doing so, he is contradicting the details provided by Plutarch (46-120 AD).
Nor did Diogenes of Sinope (412-323 BC) chose to live in poverty because he enjoyed hunger and weather inclemency. I fail to see how anyone could regard destitution as a difficulty to be enjoyed or as a source of motivation.
Montaigne’s subjectivity and the nature of truth
Montaigne is endorsing an obviously flawed theory because he refuses to let go of his subjectivism. His rejection of a solid, universal morality had led him stray. Unfortunately, he never found the way back.
Instead of acknowledging his errors and changing course, Montaigne kept going in the wrong direction. His essay wants to drive home the idea that the intensity of our desires depends on the difficulties we encounter, but his arguments are weak, illogical and unconvincing.
Due to his subjectivism and relativism, Montaigne failed to grasp the nature of truth. I determinedly contest his thesis that we choose our ambitions because we enjoy facing difficulties.
Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274 AD) would have turned in his grave upon reading Montaigne’s deficient logic. Unfortunately, in the five centuries that have elapsed since Montaigne’s death, few thinkers have called for returning to objective, consistent, integrated ethical values.
If you are interested in applying rational principles here and now in all sort of situations, I recommend you my book “The philosophy of builders.”