When in doubt, it is wise to develop a theory and check if it matches the facts; experience will tell us if the theory is correct or if it needs revising. Trial and error can prove tiresome but it is the best of methods to figure out the truth.
Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) wasn’t a scientist, but he possessed an immense curiosity. He read incessantly (although his library was not large), asked questions, developed theories, and put them through the test.
When he was in his late thirties, he became interested in the question of free will. His interest matched the spirit of his time, especially in France, where Catholics and Huguenots engaged in harsh theological disputes, where the existence or not of free will played a central role.
Montaigne had little interest in theological disputations, but found the question fascinating nonetheless. In our decisions, it makes a huge difference whether we consider ourselves free or puppets of destiny.
People who consider themselves puppets of destiny tend to renounce their ambitions and reject responsibility for their own actions; they refuse to take the blame for their errors, misdeeds and oversights; they claim to be victims of circumstances.
Michel de Montaigne’s essay “On drunkenness”
Montaigne touched the question of free will tangentially in several of his essays. I say “tangentially” because he avoided a direct discussion of the subject.
Since Montaigne was living in an area ravaged by religious wars, it’s no wonder that he avoided a theological debate on the existence of free will. Instead, he passed review to the practical consequences of freedom and determinism.
In his essay “On drunkenness,” Montaigne indirectly proves the existence of free will.
Nowadays, we know that many road accidents are caused by people who had consumed alcohol in excess, but that those people should not be discharged of liability.
The alcohol may have impaired their faculties, but that’s the result of their free decision to drink. Those people had decided in the first place to consume alcohol, and must take the full responsibility of the consequences.
Montaigne doesn’t mention road accidents and civil liability, but acknowledges that “drunkenness can lead to recklessness.” He is not calling for people to become teetotallers, but advises prudence when drinking alcohol.
Free will and clear-headiness in Montaigne
As an example, he mentions Socrates (469-399 BC), who was fond of consuming alcohol in moderate amounts during parties that lasted a good part of the night.
I take that Socrates must have diluted his wine with water, so that he could stay clear-headed and enjoy the philosophical discussions held during the party. At the origin of his decision to drink wine, Socrates had used his free will to determine how much and for how long.
Montaigne draws a definite lesson from Socrates’ behaviour and categorises drinking as acceptable provided that we do not exceed our limits.
There is nothing wrong with enjoying wine, but we should not drink in excess. We should not place ourselves in situations where we lose our free will and fall prey to intoxication.
In the words of Montaigne, a drunkard is “a man who has lost his grounding” and who is walking a path that “can lead to chaos and destruction.”
Montaigne’s essay “Of anger and choler”
Montaigne follows the same premise in his essay “Of anger and choler,” where he calls for people to govern their emotions and avoid excesses. Like he did for alcohol, Montaigne only condemns anger and irritability when they get out of control. If we lose control, we lose our free will and our capacity to think.
Psychological knowledge in the sixteenth century was still unsophisticated and this explains why Montaigne depicts anger as a physiological phenomenon.
Nevertheless, he reaffirms the existence of free will at the origin; the concerned person has the capacity to stop his anger, or at least to minimize it before it causes harm to other people.
Montaigne regards anger as natural but good persons should display intense emotions “only for the right reason and at the right moment.” Wisdom gives us foresight and prudence, and helps us preserve our free will.
In ancient times, King Lycurgus had prescribed that Spartan men should never lose their temper. He knew that excess anger or pride leads to pointless violence and societal decay.
Montaigne’s prescription for wisdom
Even Alexander the Great (356-323 BC) had occasionally fallen prey to anger and suffered its dire consequences. On one occasion, Alexander blew a trifling dispute out of proportion and ended up killing his close friend Cleitus. As of that day, he vowed to keep his anger under control.
In all historical anecdotes presented by Montaigne, the idea is always the same. It is up to each person to keep his free will, and his capacity to think clearly. Let’s not allow any event, idea or person to make us lose our temper and cause pointless harm.
Montaigne describes enraged people as “inhuman and mad” and warns us against provocations. Let us not engage in fights that could be avoided by taking a step back and letting things cool off for a while.
Let us keep our free will intact by steering away from anger and inebriation. Montaigne praises equanimity as a great virtue that brings its own rewards. Wisdom requires self-restraint, he tells us. Equanimity goes hand in hand with dignity, peace, and personal effectiveness.
If you are interested in putting rational ideas into practice in all kind of situations, I recommend you my book titled “On becoming unbreakable.”