I view Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) as the first thinker who realized that scepticism can save one’s life. His insight is still true today, and will remain true for as long as people keep using deceit and misrepresentation to further their interests.
Unfortunately, Montaigne’s defence of scepticism is rather messy. In some essays, he rightly refuses to believe other people’s statements when they contradict his own experience. I would call that prudence rather than scepticism, and I consider it a perfectly valid attitude.
However, in some other essays, Montaigne doubts his own perceptions because they might be wrong. Since he also doubts other people’s perceptions, what is the result? His universal doubts lead him to scepticism and intellectual paralysis.
Montaigne’s essay titled “That it is folly to measure truth and error by our own capacity” shows precisely this deficiency. It raises questions on the validity of one’s perceptions, logic, and conclusions, and speaks in favour of universal scepticism.
I categorize Montaigne’s arguments as messy because they are shooting in all directions. Instead of questioning ideas that are unproven, Montaigne goes overboard and starts to question all ideas, all perceptions, and all conclusions.
Reasons for Montaigne’s scepticism
Why was Montaigne reluctant to trust his own perceptions and his own logic? Because of egoism, he explains. He was afraid that his own self-interest would distort his perception of the facts, and lead him to wrong conclusions.
I consider Montaigne’s argument extremely weak because one can easily correct emotional distortions. The only thing we need to do is to compare our conclusions with reality. Do they hold water, or do they contradict the facts?
Even worse, Montaigne found scepticism great because he regarded it as a form of humility. Why am I to make definite statements about anything, he thought. How can I be totally certain of anything if there are people wiser than me?
Montaigne’s humility comes from his Catholic background, and pollutes his whole philosophy. Humility makes him doubt his own shadow because, who knows, the sun might go away tomorrow, let the earth go dark, and efface all shadows.
“It is folly to measure truth and error by our own capacity”
To prove the point that “it is folly to measure truth and error by our own capacity,” Montaigne uses far-fetched illustrations drawn from ancient history and literature.
For instance, he mentions the myth of Atlantis drawn from the dialogues “Timaeus” and “Critias” authored by Plato (427-347 BC). According to Plato, an advanced civilisation named Atlantis had existed centuries earlier on a large island located beyond the Strait of Gibraltar.
Montaigne summarizes Plato’s description of Atlantis, and then questions its veracity. Fair enough. I think that Montaigne was right to distrust Plato. In fact, I would argue that most of what Plato wrote on any subject should be regarded as fiction.
The problem with Montaigne is that, after raising questions about Plato’s veracity, he overshoots and overkills.
In good logic, he should have concluded that one should distrust wild stories even if they are told by famous people. Instead, he employed bad logic and concluded that one should distrust all the time all stories from all people.
I have called Montaigne’s defence of scepticism messy and inconsistent because, in his arguments, he is trying to prove A and the opposite of A. His reference to Plato’s Atlantis speaks against trusting anything we hear, but then he speaks in favour of trusting the ancient Roman records about Hannibal’s wars.
Really? How much would you trust what Titus Livius (59 BC-17 AD) wrote about Hannibal (247-182 BC)? Since Livy wrote his History of Rome two centuries after Hannibal’s death, his descriptions must have been approximate at best.
By mentioning Livy’s History of Rome, Montaigne is not bringing any solid argument to the table. Whether Livy gives an accurate or inaccurate description of Hannibal’s crossing of the Alps does not speak against or in favour of scepticism.
The key lesson from Montaigne’s scepticism
Montaigne’s best argument concerns the ancient philosopher Pythagoras (6th century BC), who had apparently figured out that the earth revolves around the sun, and not the other way round.
Few people had believed Pythagoras in that respect, even if he was right. Thus, Montaigne rightly conclude that we should think twice before endorsing the majority’s opinion. It happens that, sometimes, minorities are right. One should be sceptical of social pressure and monolithic beliefs.
People in Europe had also doubted Herodotus (485-425 BC) when he had recounted the yearly flooding of the Nile River in Egypt. However, their majority opinion had proven wrong. The truth is the truth, whether people believe it or not.
The key lesson to be learned from Montaigne is that critical thinking (scepticism about unproven claims) can save one’s life when things get tough.
Scepticism goes hand in hand with non-linear thinking. We tend to “predict the future by what we see today,” observes Montaigne, but linear thinking can lead to false assumptions. It is up to each of us to scrutinize our assumptions as carefully as we scrutinize the facts.
In particular, Montaigne calls for considering opinions that contradict our beliefs. Even if it feels uncomfortable to put our cherished beliefs to the test, it pays off to do so. Let us remain sceptical about immovable truths and self-evident doctrines.
If you are interested in putting rational ideas into practice in all sort of situations, I recommend you my book “Undisrupted: How highly effective people deal with disruptions.”