I agree with Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) that most of what we learn is of questionable accuracy. He preached by example because, for twenty years, he wrote haphazard essays on disorganised, often obscure, subjects. Allegedly, he was looking for wisdom, but in practice, his doubts grew increasing larger.
Practical knowledge is great if you can get it; the very worst manner to search knowledge is to do it randomly as Montaigne did. He explored subjects in the fields of children’s education, ethics, literature, military science, religion and history, but his lack of philosophical integration prevented him from drawing sound conclusions.
Montaigne favoured scepticism and open-mindedness above all, but those only led him to permanent doubts; his essay titled “Apology for Raymond Sebond” speaks against rigid thinking, but is it possible to reach conclusions without an established intellectual structure? I don’t think so.
Although Montaigne was conscious of the deficiencies of scepticism, he devoted more energies to justify them than to correct them.
Montaigne rationalized that scepticism is the best defence against human contradictions. His essay “Of Experience” gives examples of people changing their convictions as they age, but those examples prove exactly the opposite point.
The fact that people learn and grow more effective as time passes only shows the difficulty of gaining knowledge. It does not prove that knowledge (certainty, clarity, accuracy) cannot be acquired.
Scepticism and Montaigne’s pursuit of knowlege
Montaigne devoted vast efforts to arguing that knowledge is impossible to acquire. To this end, he compiled dozens of cases that speak in favour of relativism.
None of those examples and arguments can withstand close examination. Without exception, they rely on fallacies or false dichotomies. Nevertheless, they are worth reading to sharpen one’s mind.
Montaigne argues for instance that different countries have different views on clothing, attire, and nudity. He devoted an essay to this subject. It is titled “Of the Custom of Wearing Clothes.”
Where is the fallacy? Montaigne is elevating a discussion on fashion to a philosophical issue, which it’s not. Then he says that philosophical certainty is impossible because people have different ideas on fashion. Really?
Once and again, Montaigne takes accessory or exotic views, pretending that they carry philosophical weight, only to state at the end that philosophical certainty is impossible.
I can point to many salient examples where Montaigne uses this fallacy. The most famous essay in this respect is the one he wrote “Of Cannibals,” where he points to a primitive Brazilian tribe that was allegedly eating up their enemies.
Montaigne argues that the cannibalism of a Brazilian tribe is proving that all moral values are relative. I must categorically reject Montaigne’s argument and its faulty logic.
The fact that a tribe in Brazil (in the sixteenth century) was engaging in abhorrent practices does not mean that ethics does not exist, or that we should imitate that tribe in any way. Their lack of values can be attributed to ignorance or malevolence. In any case, it does nothing to invalidate morality itself.
Relativism and Montaigne’s pursuit of knowledge
Montaigne wrongly equates the possibility of mistakes with the impossibility of certainty. Indeed, people make mistakes all over the world, but they also learn to do better next time.
Truth and certainty depend our ability to grasp reality, said Aristotle (384-322 BC). When our beliefs deviate from reality, we should correct them, so that we grow more effective.
Errors do not mean that we are incapable of learning, or that learning is not possible. Montaigne had his views of certainty and knowledge all wrong.
Montaigne’s great merit is that, despite a deficient doctrine of knowledge, he never stopped asking questions. He struggled to find answers to crucial questions, but kept trying for years. Eventually, he came up with something resembling the truth.
“People should not fear asking questions because those are out main instrument for learning,” affirmed Montaigne. I can detect in his statement the influence of Socrates (469-399 BC), and his method of truth-seeking through a series of questions.
However, asking questions is not enough to attain certainty. When it comes to seeking knowledge, Montaigne was wrong in regarding asking questions as “the most important thing.”
In addition to making inquiries, one must be able to assess, validate, and integrate the answers logically. That’s the element that Montaigne was missing. His error was replicating those of Stoic philosophers such as Marcus Aurelius (121-180 AD) and Seneca (4 BC-AD 65).
Philosophy, knowledge and certainty require integration. It’s of paramount importance that answers are validated before we declare them true. Aristotle provided the intellectual tools for validation and integration, but Montaigne failed to use them.
In order to seek knowledge, it is not sufficient to familiarize oneself with moral theory, for example with the “Nicomachean Ethics” written by Aristotle.
Montaigne knew the “Nicomachean Ethics” in great detail, but he should have studied also the rest of Aristotle’s works. If he had devoted a few months to studying Aristotelian logic and epistemology, he would have spared himself decades of errors.
If you are interested in putting rational ideas into practice in all areas of life, I recommend you my book “Asymmetry: The shortcut to success when success seems impossible.”