Everybody can talk and put forward his ideas, but it requires alertness and subtlety to draw the best of conversations. In life, time and energies are limited, and conversation takes up a fair measure of those. How can we carry out conversations in ways that enable us to draw maximum benefit?
Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) spent twenty years of his life in his farmhouse, interacting with friends only from time to time. For this reason, whenever he had the chance, he tool part in good conversations and enjoyed it enormously.
Two of Montaigne’s essays are specifically devoted to the art of conversation. I am referring to his essays “On the Art of Conversation†and “On the Vanity of Words.”
Montaigne is summarising in those two essays the insights he had gained in a lifetime of conversation, either in his private life, or as a lawyer and public officer in the south of France. In the next paragraphs, I am going to enumerate the key ideas that Montaigne is conveying in those two essays.
Montaigne’s essay “On the Art of Discussion”
[1] We can learn the most in conversations with people who are different from us, or who hold different ideas. If we talk to friends, we can draw lots of enjoyment, but will they challenge our beliefs? Will they criticize our errors? Rarely.
Montaigne was himself a Catholic, but recommended to talk to Protestants and even pagans. He found those conversations stimulating because they challenged his Catholic faith, driving him to come up with reasons for his beliefs.
Like Socrates (469-399 BC) in Ancient Greece, Montaigne prefers difficult discussions to weak convictions; he was strong enough to deal with controversy, criticism, and uncertainty. It’s easier to learn from those than from routine and immobility.
[2] Our primary goal in conversation should be learning, not winning. In his work “Of the Art of Discussion,” Montaigne is opposing heated debates, where the participants barely listen to each other.
Rhetorical victories often come at the price of intellectual, spiritual and social impoverishment. Montaigne commends the conversation skills of Julius Caesar (100-44 BC), who had no problem in listening to criticism, and didn’t abuse his power to make people shut up, even when he was being provoked.
Through uncomfortable conversations, Caesar gained major insights that he might have missed otherwise. Montaigne says that he had himself gained key insights from his conversations with physicians, and that he highly appreciated their wisdom.
Montaigne’s advice on the art of conversation
[3] A calm demeanour is crucial for drawing the maximum benefits from conversation. In exchanges with family, friends, and neighbours, Montaigne pushed himself to remaining calm even if he was being heftily contradicted.
Why did he did so? Because he had realised that debate and controversy help us bring our intellect to a higher level. The words employed by Montaigne are that “conversations can render our minds sharper and brighter.”
Montaigne meant lively conversations, not the confirmation of our preconceptions and prejudices. He felt particularly glad when exchanges with family, friends and neighbours made him change his mind.
When Montaigne was confronted with solid arguments, he had no qualms about acknowledging his errors. He praised the readiness to change one’s mind in the face of contrary evidence as a beneficial character trait. Learning the truth is vastly more important than scoring points in a debate.
[4] Humour, goodheartedness, and benevolence can vastly speed up our capacity for learning. On the contrary, meanness, aggressiveness and vindictiveness will stifle conversations. No one wants to be attacked verbally just for expressing his ideas.
Montaigne praised his friend Etienne de La Boetie (1530-1563) as a gifted conversation partner, able to combine a sharp intellect with a lighthearted disposition.
In contrast, Montaigne disliked acrimonious debates. Thus, he did his best to steer away from conversations with inflexible people, in particular in the areas of religion, politics and ethics.
Montaigne held humour in high regard. Humour renders our conversations sharper, more entertaining and enjoyable. It calls for playful rebuttals that can bring us closer to the truth.
People who close the door to humour are doing themselves a disservice. Exaggerated seriousness is bound to curtail their ability to learn.
Montaigne defined humour as “an entertaining incitement to confront our ideas without demeaning our self-esteem.” It is up to the speakers and listeners to maintain a lighthearted tone, steering away from personal insults.
Montaigne’s essay “On the Vanity of Words”
[5] The best conversations maintain an objective tone. They revolve around abstract ideas and principles, more than about specific events or people. The problem with the latter is that it can degenerate into personal insults, even if the speaker did not have the intention to offend the listener.
Montaigne mentions the story of Alexander the Great (356-323 BC) killing his friend Clitus as a result of a heated dispute. Apparently, Clitus made a personal remark against Alexander, who took it very badly, and reacted violently.
Alexander was drunk at that moment. He later lamented that he had overreacted but Clitus was already death. Even if we do not have to face Alexander in our conversations, we should not imitate Clitus and make insulting remarks. We can do better if we maintain a polite, objective tone.
[6] In his essay “On the Vanity of Words,” Montaigne calls for tolerance of errors made during conversations. It happens to all of us that we sometimes employ imprecise words, or lose our chain of thought, or convey our ideas in the wrong tone.
Nonetheless, I disagree with Montaigne’s argument that our errors are to blame in the inherent limitations of language. His logic is obviously faulty in this case.
I am sure that we could all improve our speaking abilities, but does it make sense to put extraordinary effort in exchanges that serve a very limited purpose? I see little incentive in using a polished rhetoric in unimportant conversations.
Montaigne praised contemplation and silence to an extent that I cannot endorse. There is a place in life for contemplation and silence, but those should not be overdone.
Indeed, we have nothing to gain from conversations with clever manipulators such as Gorgias, an Ancient Greek sophist known for employing rhetoric to mislead his listeners. I agree with steering away from worthless exchanges, but that is not a valid reason to fall into lengthy contemplation and silence.
Montaigne is wrong to affirm that “The most graceful words do not convey any meaning.” His statement is undermining the immense value of conversation, which he had acknowledged in his prior essay, as I have explained above.
I can only infer that Montaigne had written his essay “On the Vanity of Words” on a bad day, and that we should not give it excessive importance. Montaigne’s occasional errors do not detract to the overall great merit of his writings.
If you are interested in putting rational ideas into practice in all sort of situations here and now, I recommend you my book “Rational living, rational working.”