Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) is regarded as the first existentialist philosopher in history because he accepted the inevitability of death, and sought to maximise his happiness in every situation.
Instead of fearing death, Montaigne recommended to get acquainted with it, so that it becomes part of our expectations. The consciousness of our limited lifespan can help us make the best of every day and every opportunity.
Montaigne’s individualism reinforced his existentialism. He showed little interest in abstract rules that tell everybody what to do with his life. Instead, Montaigne recommended us to live living in accordance with our true self. That’s the best path to a full enjoyment of life, he argued.
Like the twentieth century existentialists Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) and Albert Camus (1913-1960), Montaigne was suspicious of absolute ethical truths. His prescriptions for joy and effectiveness are markedly subjective. He cared more for a good day’s work than for saving the world.
Montaigne also showed his existentialism in his absence of discomfort in the face of uncertainty. Plato, Aristotle and other philosophers had wanted to build systems of thought that lead to certainty, but Montaigne could not care less.
Instead of agonising about uncertainty, Montaigne took for granted that the future is, to a large extent, unpredictable. The path to high effectiveness and happiness starts with flexibility.
Montaigne’s influence on modern existentialism
Self-improvement is commendable, but perfection is a goal that we can never achieve. Fallibility is the price we pay for being alive. Let us work at improving ourselves, but without growing depressed about our deficiencies.
Montaigne’s respect for individual choices is another trait of his existentialism. The path to happiness is uniquely personal. Choose your own path and take responsibility for your actions, advised Montaigne. Four centuries later, his prescription was replicated almost literally by Jean-Paul Sartre.
The influence of Montaigne on existentialism was quiet and unrecognized. In the nineteenth century, it happened often that philosophers reproduced Montaigne’s formulations but without giving him any credit. The fed on his writings and regurgitated his ideas, passing them off as fresh and original.
Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) copied Montaigne’s focus on subjective experience and his scepticism of absolute morals, but polluted Montaigne’s message with theological anxiety.
While Montaigne called for determined action in search of personal happiness, Kierkegaard emphasized the observance of religious values. When Kierkegaard advised his readers to take “a leap of faith” in key decisions, he was referring to religious faith, not to earthly happiness.
Jean-Paul Sartre took over Montaigne’s recommendation to accept one’s mortality and make the best of the time we have. Unfortunately, Sartre polluted Montaigne’s words with obscure disquisitions.
For instance, Sartre devoted extensive efforts to prove his thesis that “existence precedes essence,” while Montaigne had regarded it as self-evident. For Montaigne, each person is fully responsible of shaping his own life, goals and morality. He did not see the point of arguing that “existence precedes essence.”
Montaigne’s views on absurdity and existentialism
Albert Camus took over Montaigne’s acknowledgment of life’s absurdities and contradictions, but presented those rather negatively. Montaigne had found them amusing, occasionally sad, and always intriguing. Camus found them depressing and overwhelming, leading him to despair.
Camus coined the concept of “absurd hero” to define people who keep trudging forward and doing their best, despite their limited energies and lifespan.
In contrast, Montaigne had not found well-meaning, hard-working people absurd in the least. From history and from his own experience, he had learned that doing one’s best each day helps maximize one’s happiness.
Martin Heidegger (1889-1976) drew from Montaigne the idea that the awareness of death shapes human existence, but gave this insight a tragic undertone that was totally absent in Montaigne’s essays.
For Montaigne, the conscience of one’s mortality is a source of motivation. It is a strong, constant reminder to do the best of each day. However, Montaigne would have been puzzled at Heidegger’s description of human life as “being toward death.”
Heidegger’s description is missing Montaigne’s key insight, namely, that mortality is simply a fact of life, not a Damocles’ sword to fear every minute. Consciousness of one’s death is a tool of self-improvement, not a reason for despair.
Montaigne’s essays are totally free of the feelings of doom that plague modern existentialists. Montaigne was busy all day organising his ideas, living his life to the fullest, and seeking happiness. Absurdities and unfairness occur from time to time, but so what. Life does not have to be perfect, he noted.
Differences between Montaigne and existentialism
He would have found incomprehensible the novels of Franz Kafka (1883-1924). Those present the absurdities of life in a dark, malevolent manner. They portray human life as surreal, hopeless and claustrophobic. In contrast, Montaigne adopted a joyful lifestyle and chose to overlook life’s inconveniences.
Montaigne’s choice for a straightforward literary style gave him an immense advantage vis-a-vis modern existentialists. He simply called things by their names instead of creating a weird, useless terminology.
Jose Ortega y Gasset (1883-1955) replicated Montaigne’s emphasis on individual experience, but gave it a new name. He called it “perspectivism” and wrote extensively on how various persons can regard the same fact from different perspectives.
Like other modern existentialists, Ortega added little to the ideas originally put forward by Montaigne. By coining terms like “perspectivism,” Ortega obscured Montaigne’s message, diluted its original strength, and pointed readers in the wrong direction.
Let us rediscover Montaigne’s original optimism and drive, its appreciation of human life and potential. Existentialism was not meant to create confusion, but to motivate people to make the best of their lives here and now.
If you are interested in putting rational ideas into practice in all sort of situations, I recommend you my book “Rational living, rational working.”