When Renaissance authors undertook the study of antiquity, they had a practical purpose in mind. They expected to learn something useful from ancient history.
Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) constitutes the very best example. He read relentlessly about the lifestyle of ancient Romans and Greeks with the goal of drawing useful lessons.
In his philosophical research, Montaigne adopted the same hands-on approach. Even when he researched metaphysics and epistemology, he was still looking for a recipe for happiness.
Take for instance Montaigne’s essay about the early Greek thinkers Democritus and Heraclitus. When reading the essay’s title (“On Democritus and Heraclitus”) one might be expecting a boring disquisition about the nature of reality, but that’s not how Montaigne understood humanism.
Humanistic ideas, as understood by Montaigne, must be first and foremost practical. The purpose of studying Plato, Democritus, Heraclitus, and Aristotle is to learn how to lead a happy life here and now.
Psychology in Montaigne and humanistic ideas
Montaigne describes Democritus (around 500 BC) as a man who regarded the universe as rational and predictable. He put forward the theory that objects and creatures are made of small particles (“atoms”), in various configurations.
Democritus was happy and cheerful. His sunny disposition, Montaigne tell us, rested on his philosophy. The expectations of rationality, orderliness and predictability filled Democritus with confidence. He was a peaceful, efficacious person.
Heraclitus (also around 500 BC) sustained that the universe is subject to constant change. Objects, animals and persons are all in the process of becoming something or someone else. No one can predict the future. Our efforts might be wasted if the situation turns against us, explained Montaigne.
As a result of his ever-changing outlook, argued Montaigne, Heraclitus was a melancholic, unhappy man. No wonder that he was always worried about the future, since he viewed life as a flux. Everything is subject to perpetual change and conflict, said Heraclitus, and stability is just a short-term illusion.
Humanistic ideas include a detailed outline of Democritus’ and Heraclitus’ philosophies, but go much further. Montaigne’s essay does not contain exhaustive explanations about atomistic philosophy because that’s irrelevant for its purpose.
Montaigne’s is more interested in Democritus’ mentality and personality than in his atomistic cosmology. He cared little for the atom theory, but was fascinated by Democritus’ optimism.
Philosophy in Montaigne and humanistic ideas
According to Montaigne, Democritus confronted problems with humour, detachment and equanimity. He did acknowledge that humans make mistakes, plenty of them, but regarded them as part of the price we pay for living.
Democritus did not get overly upset about errors, stupidity, narrow-mindedness and incompetence. Why? Because he had understood that that the universe is fundamentally rational and that, in the long run, most problems take care of themselves.
Montaigne explains that Democritus was drawing his sunny disposition from facts, not from delusions. Democritus’ belief in a rational, predictable, efficient universe is overall correct. If there are errors, evil or suffering, those represent the exception, not the rule.
A materialistic view of the cosmos strengthened Democritus in his optimism. He regarded problems as the outcome of pre-existing factors, and solutions are the ensuring natural step.
Democritus’ peace of mind came from his view of the world as a gigantic mechanism, where all things are interconnected, and where the overall trend is optimistic. One does not need to understand every detail to grasp the overall positive trend.
Heraclitus sombre, pessimistic mentality came from a deep distrust in the future. He was expected things to turn from bad to worse. He did not see that positive trends could be sustained in the long term. His defeatism came from his expectations of generalised conflict and chaos.
Accuracy in Montaigne and humanistic ideas
Who held the correct philosophy, Democritus or Heraclitus? Was Democritus right in believing that happiness is attainable, provided that develop a rational understanding of the cosmos? Was he right in viewing human errors and vices as humorous?
Unfortunately, Montaigne fails to draw the right conclusion. He links Democritus’ peace of mind to a rational philosophy, and Heraclitus’ pessimism to expectations of chaos, but doesn’t tell us which philosophy is right.
I find it particularly bothersome to see Montaigne condemn Heraclitus’ ideas because they made their practitioner unhappy. Montaigne is employing a purely subjective argumentation. He is failing though to assess if Heraclitus was wrong or right, in full or in part.
Montaigne gravitates towards Democritus’ ideas because they made Democritus happy, but fails to assess if those ideas are actually accurate. What if Democritus was just insouciant, or too wealthy to be affected by any setbacks?
The fact that Democritus led “a life of laughter” doesn’t help us verify if his ideas are accurate. Montaigne argues that peace of mind depends on believing that, despite appearances, every aspect of the world is governed by rational principles that tend to make things better over time.
Errors in Montaigne and humanistic ideas
Montaigne should have carefully assessed the philosophies of Democritus and Heraclitus, and declare both of them true in part. He should have identified which parts are true, and draw his conclusions accordingly.
Democritus was right about the existence of natural law, but wrong about his positive expectations. If we look at history, it’s clear that errors and evil sometimes lead to catastrophes, which cannot be undone.
Heraclitus was right about constant change in some areas of human activity. With the goal of improving their station in life, individuals take actions that sometimes lead to conflict. Fair enough, but that does not mean that all changes are negative or that all conflicts lead to chaos or destruction.
Humanism, as practised by Montaigne, does not guarantee the correctness of one’s conclusions. Erudition and hard work didn’t render Montaigne infallible. Humanistic ideas constitute a framework for seeking the truth, not an assurance of success.
In his essay “On Democritus and Heraclitus,” Montaigne drew the wrong conclusions. Nonetheless, his humanistic ideas are worth reading because they prompt us to think. They train us to think logically and draw the right conclusions.
What conclusions should have Montaigne drawn from his research? That true happiness comes from rationality (which it is attributed to Democritus), but that rationality must entail a sufficient risk assessment (which Heraclitus was demanding).
Neither Democritus nor Heraclitus were completely right. It is a pity that Montaigne had linked their temperaments to their philosophies, without actually assessing if those philosophies are accurate. I am afraid that Montaigne, in this particular case, when shaping humanistic ideas, he produced distorted results.
If you are interested in putting rational ideas into practice in all areas, I recommend you my book “Rationality is the way to happiness.”