The study of history and philosophy is pointless unless you can draw hands-on advice. Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) had understood perfectly the need to draw practical, tangible conclusions from the study of antiquity.
I regard Montaigne’s essay “On Democritus and Heraclitus” as one of the best examples in the genre of critical history. Its contents are erudite and the quotations fascinating, but above all, Montaigne is seeking the truth. What is the best philosophy for achieving happiness here and now?
Democritus and Heraclitus are roughly contemporary, that is, both lived in around 500 BC. Let us take a look at their key ideas, which represent two opposite philosophical standpoints.
On the one hand, Democritus is one of the first proponents of the atomistic theory. He sustained that everything, objects or creatures, in the cosmos are composed of small particles that he called “atoms.” He also theorised that the absence of atoms means void. Democritus held overall materialistic and rational views.
On the other hand, Heraclitus sustained that everything in the world, whether animate or inanimate, is subject to constant change. He famously said that “nobody can step twice into the same river” because the flowing water is constantly changing the river composition; for Heraclitus, every object and creature in the world is subject to constant change, conflict, or pressure.
Montaigne’s essay “On Democritus and Heraclitus”
In this essay, Montaigne is comparing the morality ideas of Democritus and Heraclitus. He wants to identify what are their recipes for happiness, and which of them make the most sense.
Based on his atomic theory, Democritus considers the world orderly and predictable. The universe is governed by natural laws, and the outcome of actions is primarily mechanistic. His recipe for happiness is based on his mechanistic world-view. If we want to do well in life, we should make careful plans and follow them through, correcting errors as we go.
Heraclitus takes the opposite path. He regards the universe as a perpetual flux. Reality has no stable essence. The common element to all objects and subjects is their transitory nature. It’s pointless for us to make very detailed plans because we inhabit an unpredictable, ever-changing world. If we want to achieve happiness, we should accept change, remain flexible, and seize opportunities as they arise.
What is Montaigne’s conclusion after studying Democritus and Heraclitus? In the essay, Montaigne declines to take sides, arguing that there are important lessons to learn from each. We should embrace Democritus’ rational approach for planning our projects, but at the same time, it’s advisable to implement the recommendations given by Heraclitus.
Montaigne and the teachings of classical philosophy
When unexpected obstacles or setbacks hinder our progress, we should remind ourselves of Heraclitus’ advice. Stay flexible and keep an adequate margin of safety in your projects. Don’t place all eggs on one basket because Democritus was not fully correct. His expectations of rationality and predictability won’t always be met.
Democritus had assessed the order and disposition of the cosmos, and concluded that the outcome of actions is governed by necessity, explained Montaigne. Regarding human emotions and desires, Democritus held similar views. He regarded pain and pleasure as purely mechanistic, leaving nothing to chance.
What are the risks of subscribing to Democritus’ views? We run the risk of becoming exceedingly rigid, overconfident and naive. Nowadays, even powerful computers are proving unable to model complex human behaviour.
Computers are great at playing chess, but less than great for investing in the stock market. They make horrendous mistakes sometimes because they are unable to rate emotions accurately and separate facts from exaggerations. They tend to overreact precisely because they operate mechanistically.
Heraclitus fills the gap left open by Democritus. He reminds us that change and conflicts are to be expected. There are part of the process of life, not an exception to the rule. Rigidity is likely to become a liability. Flexibility, self-reliance, back-up plans can help us carry the day.
Democritus drew the conclusion that the universe is rational and predictable because it is made of atoms taking a definite shape. Certain atoms in a certain configuration should produce an outcome different from other atoms or configurations.
Key ideas from Montaigne and classical philosophy
Fair enough, Democritus’ logic makes sense for chemical or mechanical reactions, but his views on human psychology are rather primitive. Human motivation and thinking are self-made by each individual. They aren’t mechanistic.
Ethical principles and personal ambitions play a larger role in human behaviour than chemical or mechanistic reactions. If we adopt Democritus’ ideas, we will be missing a large part of the picture of how individuals behave.
Heraclitus is warning us against tensions and conflicts that are inherent in the universe. His philosophy should prompt us to prepare back-up plans. Sooner or later, we are going to have to face obstacles, opposition and chaos.
Montaigne grasped the key difference between Democritus and Heraclitus for what concerns human psychology. Desires, motivation and emotions are regarded by Democritus as results of a mechanistic process. In contrast, Heraclitus places them at the source of human action; they are part of the universal flux.
I agree with Montaigne that we should familiarise ourselves with the ideas of Democritus and Heraclitus. We can add to our effectiveness and happiness by making solid plans, which cater for possible obstacles, delays and setbacks.
Heraclitus was the first philosopher who identified setbacks, chaos and stress as normal, that is, as impossible to eradicate. I consider it wise to heed his warnings by remaining flexible and adaptable. Montaigne did a great job and drew the right lesson.
If you are interesting in putting rational ideas into practice day in and day out, I recommend you my book “Thriving in difficult times.”