A contrarian spirit and strong nerves are the prerequisites of intellectual independence. Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) possessed those qualities, but did not inherit them. It took him three decades of trial and error to acquire them.
Nowadays, intellectual independence is as rare as it was in Montaigne’s lifetime, that is, in sixteenth-century France. Few people dare to oppose in public the dominant views, even if the penalty for doing so seldom goes beyond enduring criticism.
Montaigne dared to adopt minority views in important and trivial matters, employing the latter as practice for developing strong nerves. Every Olympic athlete had once been a beginner and learned that daily practice is the basis of high performance.
Religion was the most dangerous of all subjects the times of Montaigne. During peaceful years, deviant opinions carried the risk of ostracism in all areas of life; and in wartime, they could lead to property confiscation, exile or death.
Montaigne learned to formulate his views carefully, starting with anodyne subjects where contrarianism just sounded weird and entertaining. In those cases, reprisals were highly unlikely. If they took place at all, they carried no consequences.
Montaigne’s path to intellectual independence
However, even when addressing anodyne subjects, he opted for quoting ancient Greek and Roman authors. Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 BC) and Plutarch (46-120 AD) presented lower risks than making references to contemporary personalities.
Montaigne’s essay “Apology for Raymond Sebond” defends minority opinions within the Catholic Church, but does it very carefully. It summarises Sebond’s treatise “Natural Theology” (1497), contests Thomas Aquinas’ logic, expresses scepticism about dogmas, and calls for an intuitive grasp of divinity.
A fierce intellectual independence comes forth more clearly in Montaigne’s essays that state a commonly accepted idea, but then reinterpret it, dilute it in doubt, or tear it apart mercilessly.
For example, his essay “Of Solitude” seems first to endorse the widespread condemnation of solitude as selfish, anti-social, and inhuman. Subsequently, Montaigne argues little by little the opposite point of view, presenting intermittent solitude in a positive light, as a prerequisite of intellectual independence.
Montaigne wild streak of intellectual independence leads to shocking conclusions when he feels sure that he won’t face any reprisals. For instance, his essay “Of Cannibals” argues that the cannibalistic practices of a primitive Brazilian tribe are not so bad after all if compared with instances of extreme cruelty in European history.
For the facts about cannibalism in Brazil, Montaigne relied on a report written by the French explorer Andre Thevet, who had allegedly witnessed those horrors; for the historical events in Europe, he draws from ancient and recent history.
Montaigne’s intellectual independence shows in his ability to reinterpret well-known events and quotations, even the letter of the law. Occasional hair-splitting disputations are no doubt rooted in Montaigne’s experience practising law in Bordeaux.
For instance, his essay “That We Should Not Easily Change a Law Received” speaks against new legislation that obliterates ancient customs (e.g., local burial practices) and creates havoc for no good reason.
Montaigne’s criticism equally applies to new legislation that obliterates ancient Roman law, in particular for what concerns contract law, property and possession.
Tolerance and Montaigne’s intellectual independence
Tolerance goes hand in hand with intellectual independence. In contrast to the religious fanaticism of his time, Montaigne is calling for tolerance and moderation. The wider our mentality, the stronger our willingness to let people go their own way.
Montaigne’s essay “Of Prayers” reproduces the insights of Erasmus of Rotterdam, calling for religious peace, toleration of minority opinions and compassion for victims of persecution. I view Montaigne’s intellectual independence in religious issues as particularity praiseworthy.
Intellectual independence can generate feelings of isolation. Minority views (in Montaigne’s case, a minuscule minority) do not make authors popular with the majority.
Like-minded friends prove extremely valuable in sustaining one’s intellectual independence. Montaigne acknowledged this fact in his essay “Of Friendship,” which is principally devoted to his best friend Etienne de La Boetie (1530-1563).
Without their regular conversations, I doubt that the literary output of La Boetie and Montaigne would have reached such a high quality. It’s not an exaggeration to say that their friendship furthered their courage, enabled their intellectual independence and set them on the path of literary achievement.
Curiously enough, the most important work from La Boetie is absent from Montaigne’s essays. The reason for its absence, according to Montaigne, is that it had been already published elsewhere. It’s hard to say though whether La Boetie’s opinions had proven too controversial, even for his best friend.
If you are interested in applying rational ideas to all kind of situations here and now, I recommend you my book “Rational living, rational working.”