Despite his extensive study of classical philosophy, Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) paid relatively little attention to Aristotle. He quoted Seneca, Marcus Aurelius, Epictetus, Plato and Plutarch more often than he quoted Aristotle. He devoted more efforts to understanding stoicism than he devoted to the Aristotelian views on human nature and happiness.
I have a theory that explains Montaigne’s disproportionate interest in Roman authors (Seneca, Marcus Aurelius, Cicero or Epictetus) compared to his light treatment of Aristotle.
When I say “Roman authors,” I mean authors writing during the late Roman Republic or early Roman Empire, even if those authors had been born in Greece.
Epictetus for instance is one of the authors born in Greece, but spent decades living in Rome. He returned to Greece when he was already forty years old and started a philosophy school, that the young Marcus Aurelius attended before becoming a Roman Emperor.
My theory is that Montaigne paid less attention to Aristotle because he did not have direct access to all works by Aristotle. Montaigne certainly possessed a Latin translation of Aristotle’s “Nicomachean Ethics” but the remaining corpus of Aristotelian works must have not been present in Montaigne’s library.
I base my theory on Montaigne’s language, train of thought, and argumentation logic. I fail to find in his essays Aristotelian concepts such as potentiality and actuality, and the comparison of essential versus accidental traits.
Montaigne and errors in classical philosophy
In Montaigne’s essays, I also fail to find syllogisms that are carefully constructed according to Aristotelian standards. Plato must have been a more frequent object of Montaigne’s literary explorations, if only because his works were widely available in Latin translation during the sixteenth century.
When comparing Aristotle with Montaigne, the most salient discrepancies are detectable by their absence. That’s why I seldom find in Montaigne any criticism of Plato, Epictetus, Seneca, or Marcus Aurelius.
Why has Montaigne overlooked the errors in those authors? If Montaigne had studied Aristotle’s philosophy in depth, he should have known better. Due to insufficient knowledge or for other reasons, the fact is that he overlooked the discrepancies.
From reading only the “Nicomachean Ethics,” Montaigne could not acquire a solid knowledge of the Aristotelian theory of knowledge, metaphysics, logic, politics and aesthetics.
I think that’s why he failed to detect the errors in stoicism, scepticism and hedonism. Aristotle had anticipated and refuted those errors, but Montaigne had studied only a small part of the Aristotelian corpus.
Montaigne’s praise of self-knowledge and introspection are misleading in this respect. We can look into ourselves as much as we want, but it is unlikely that we find the right answers if we do not possess sufficient knowledge of Aristotle’s work.
Self-knowledge in Montaigne and classical philosophy
According to Montaigne, self-knowledge and introspection alone can help us uncover the truth about the human condition. Twenty-one centuries earlier, Socrates had been defending the same idea. “Know yourself,” he recommended, implying that self-knowledge is the key to all wisdom.
Both Socrates and Montaigne were partially wrong in this respect. They expected too much from self-knowledge alone. That’s because none of them had benefited from the insights gained by Aristotle.
Socrates could not benefit from those insights because he had preceded Aristotle by two generations; and Montaigne did not because he lacked access to Aristotle’s complete works, or because he had failed to studied them carefully.
The Aristotelian quotations given in Montaigne’s essays are drawn mostly from two Aristotelian sources, namely, “Politics” and the “Nicomachean Ethics.” All other Aristotelian sources have been overlooked, forgotten, or ignored.
To make things worse, Montaigne is sometimes attributing false quotations to Aristotle. In his essay, “On the self,” he is quoting the sentence “all wisdom starts with knowing oneself,” and attributing to Aristotle.
Montaigne fails to quote the source. I think that he is taking a quotation from Socrates and attributing to Aristotle. I suspect that Aristotle must be turning in his grave every time someone reads the wrong attribution in Montaigne’s essay “On the self.”
Discrepancies in Montaigne and classical philosophy
What is the key discrepancy between Aristotle’s philosophy and Montaigne’s essays, which relay mistakes made by Seneca, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, and Cicero?
The key difference is the concept of human nature. Aristotle created an elaborate, integrated system of metaphysics, theory of knowledge, ethics, politics and aesthetics. He defines human nature on the basis of a key characteristic, namely, the ability to think.
Aristotle’s understanding of human psychology, motivation, and happiness revolve around the human ability to think, that is, the capacity to reason. A man is a self-made because he is free to shape his thinking, his goals, and his actions.
In contrast, Montaigne is endorsing the passivity of Seneca, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, and Cicero. Their stoicism doesn’t call for resolute action, persistence and focus. Their writings are meant to justify resignation and passive acceptance, not a fighting spirit.
Montaigne never identified this major discrepancy, or if he did, he never recorded it in his works. In his essay “Of the Happiness of Man,” Montaigne quotes an Aristotle’s sentence from “Nicomachean Ethics,” namely “happiness depends upon ourselves.”
The meaning given by Aristotle to this sentence is precisely the opposite of Montaigne’s meaning. Aristotle meant that one should build his own happiness through clear thinking, steady work, courage and determination. In contrast, Montaigne was referring to scepticism, relativism and resignation.
Montaigne gave it a fair try, but he failed abysmally in his conclusions. His error is not excused by the fact the he quoted abundantly Seneca, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, and Cicero. In the sixteenth century, Montaigne should have known better.
If you are interested in applying rational philosophy today in all sort of situations, I recommend you my book titled “Against all odds: How to achieve great victories in desperate times.”