I know when to reject a proposal without having to assess its validity in detail: there is no reason to waste time investigating a proposal made by confused people. In those cases, I’ll say no right away because I expect the offer to be counterproductive.

Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) devoted substantial time and effort to pursuing knowledge, but he was confused about the method. He would spent 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.

Michel de Montaigne’s essay “On idleness”

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 nonetheless 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.

Montaigne’s faulty method for seeking knowledge

Montaigne was vastly underestimating the effort it takes to draw valid conclusions. He refused to acknowledge that logic, concentration and experimentation are prerequisites of wisdom and effectiveness.

According to Montaigne, Socrates (469-399 BC) was able to acquire knowledge by sitting in the marketplace idly, talking to random people, and asking questions on whatever crossed his mind.

Really? I must question the veracity of Montaigne’s sources about Socrates, who never wrote anything himself. Plato (427-347 BC) mentioned Socrates often, but his anecdotes might be literary devices more than historical facts.

Even if Montaigne was right about Socrates drawing some benefits from idleness, it does not mean that other individuals are able to replicate the experience; what are the real chances of gaining deep knowledge by sitting idly in the marketplace? I would rate those chances extremely low.

Montaigne gives other examples, but those undermine the point he is trying to make. For instance, he mentions a friend of his who engaged in vast reading during a period of illness.

It is obvious that Montaigne’s friend had gained knowledge from reading, not from doing nothing. His sustained efforts do not fall under the concept of “idleness.” He had been sick for little while, but not passive.

The anecdote about Montaigne’s sick friend only confirms that idleness (passivity, doing nothing, random activity) cannot themselves lead to wisdom. It takes effort and dedication to do what’s necessary (reading, meditation, studying) to learn.

Montaigne’s own lifestyle also contradicts his arguments in favour of idleness. For two decades, Montaigne wrote essays on all kind of subjects. Very often, he made corrections on past essays by interpolating paragraphs or reformulating sentences. Does it sound like idleness to you?

Montaigne’s examples about pursuing knowledge

Plato himself is the originator of the praise for idleness, but he did so in his most unrealistic work. I’m referring to his essay “The Republic,” where he speaks in favour of a society ruled by philosopher-kings.

I don’t find surprising that Plato expected philosopher-kings to “engage often in philosophical reflection,” that is, to practise idleness and relaxation. Since Plato aimed at installing himself as philosopher-king, why would he deprive himself of leisure?

One should discard self-serving arguments as unsound. The fact that Plato is a famous thinker doesn’t mean that we should endorse his totalitarian fantasy about philosopher-kings.

Equally unreliable is Montaigne’s example about Seneca (4 BC-65 AD), who was a wealthy Roman aristocrat. Late in life, Seneca was exiled to an island by the Roman Emperor. He did spent long hours walking around the island and contemplating, but that was not certainly the source of Seneca’s knowledge.

Let’s point the finger to Montaigne’s logical mistakes so that we can steer away from them. His methodology for pursuing knowledge is deficient because it relied on chance, good luck, coincidence or serendipity.

Knowledge and wisdom possess an immense value. The are the basis for good decisions, success and happiness. Cicero was (106-43 BC) called for balance between work and leisure, but never denied that learning required steady, focused effort. I regard Cicero’s advice as far more effective that Montaigne’s confusion.

If you are interested in putting rational ideas into practice in all kind of situations here and now, I recommend you my book “Rational living, rational working.”