For historians of philosophy, there is a definite proof that Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) was a forerunner of modern existentialism; they point to Montaigne’s essay titled “To study philosophy is to learn to die” and argue that it contains all key ideas of existentialist philosophers.

I cannot deny Montaigne’s position as a precursor of Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) and Albert Camus (1913-1960), but I want to underline the uniqueness of his ideas.

Neither Sartre, Camus, or any other modern existentialist has ever grasped Montaigne’s optimism and benevolence. They have also not grasped Montaigne’s method. He was not a well-spoken theoretician, even if he did lots of research. Montaigne had a hands-on approach to philosophy that contrasts with later and prior authors.

Montaigne loved to read Greek and Roman classics to draw practical wisdom. He admired Socrates, Seneca, Epicurus and Marcus Aurelius because they had solved problems similar to those he was facing. Montaigne’s interest in their ideas was one hundred per cent personal: he wanted to improve his own life.

When Montaigne affirmed that “To study philosophy is to learn to die,” he actually meant that “To study philosophy is to learn to live,” that is, to learn to make the best of each day.

Montaigne’s essay “To study philosophy is to learn to die”

Montaigne’s goal was not prepare himself for death, like a monk who goes each day to confession, but to employ death as a motivator to live better, more effectively and intensely. His awareness of his own mortality led him to cheerfulness, to joy, for the fact that he was still alive and capable of action.

Like the ancient stoics, in particular Seneca (4 BC-65 AD), Montaigne had found serenity after accepting his own future death. The fact that he suffered from kidney stones for decades only reinforced his consciousness of death.

He enjoyed each day to the maximum, precisely because he had realized that life is so precious and fragile. He was grateful for what he had, and put it to good use.

In contrast to later existentialists such as Martin Heidegger (1889-1976), Montaigne did not consider his own death as a tragedy or threat. He viewed death as an inevitable part of life: it is an aspect to be reckoned with, not something to agonize about.

In the twentieth century, existentialists such as Albert Camus, theorized about the connection between future death and present anxiety, but such connection played a minor role in Montaigne’s philosophy.

Instead of experiencing anxiety, Montaigne was too busy living his life and pursuing his own goals. He had no time for gloom and doom, even if he was deeply aware of the problems of his time: prejudice, violence, and poverty.

Montaigne’s version of existentialism

Montaigne wanted to find solutions for those problems, but refused to despair about the world. He would not devote even one minute to condemn other people’s foolishness, ignorance, and short-sightedness.

What a difference with modern existentialists such as Jose Ortega y Gasset (1883-1955), who devoted their careers to tell readers that society is falling apart, and civilisation is about to collapse because increasingly fewer individuals are capable of thinking for themselves.

Like modern existentialists, Montaigne preferred to face the facts. He knew that his lifespan was limited and that death was always stalking him.

Why was Montaigne so acutely aware of death? Because in his youth, he had experienced the death of his best friend, the lawyer and poet Etienne de La Boetie.

After a brief period of mourning, Montaigne had concluded that he should better make the best of his own life. His years and energies were limited. Thus, he should devote them to the pursuit of a worthy goal.

Montaigne set himself the long-term goal of reading history and writing essays, as many as he could. He took his plan very seriously, and committed the ensuing two decades to his goal. I commend his dedication and productivity, and encourage every person to set himself ambitious long-term goals.

Montaigne’s views on mortality

Franz Kafka (1883-1924) and other existentialist writers do not understand Montaigne’s reflections about death. They are so obsessed with social pressure, fear and intolerance that they blow them out of proportion.

They depict human beings as frightened, mindless puppets that have no chance to improve their station in life. Montaigne had a more realistic view of human beings and their intellect.

He knew that humans are capable of assessing problems, identifying solutions, and carrying them out. I regret to say that existentialist writers such as Kafka lack Montaigne’s optimistic mindset.

Like Seneca, Montaigne claimed not to fear death. He said that he was ready to die anytime because his only concern was to live each day to the maximum. By making the best of one’s life, one can eventually experience “a good death,” as a natural end of years of happiness.

To a large extent, Montaigne drew his concept of the good life from the writings of Marcus Aurelius (161-180 AD), who had committed himself to living according to nature. Aurelius embraced moderation, serenity and equanimity as guidelines for his own behaviour.

Nonetheless, there is a major difference between Montaigne and stoics or existentialist philosophers. While they devoted an inordinate amount of time to worrying about potential threats, Montaigne did his best to prevent them.

In his youth, he gave extensive thought to the question of minimizing risks (sickness, poverty, crime, etc.), devised good countermeasures, and implemented them consistently. Instead of agonizing about potential problems, he rendered them less threatening and less likely to happen.

Although Montaigne was a professed Catholic, religion is playing only a minor role in his philosophical essays. He read extensively about the afterlife, but remained unconvinced. It is better to enjoy life each day to the maximum, he concluded. If the afterlife exists, so much the better, but one shouldn’t worry in excess about it.essay “To study philosophy is to learn to die”

Montaigne’s prescription for the good life

Montaigne’s essay “To study philosophy is to learn to die” is profoundly existentialist in his conclusions. It calls for growing conscious of one’s mortality, acquiring a serene perspective of the future, and making the best of each day.

Mortality, according to Montaigne, is neither unusual nor evil. It is the common destiny of all living creatures, although only humans are conscious of their limited lifespan. Instead of fearing our mortality, let us employ it as motivation to draw a maximum of joy from each hour.

Like modern existentialist, Montaigne builds his philosophy around time. He knows that his days are limited, but cannot tell how many he has left. Thus, he keeps trudging forward, doing things that he enjoys or that need to be done.

Montaigne does not lament his own mortality. Instead, he is devoted to working in his garden, running his farm, enjoying the company of family and friends, reading interesting books, and writing down his thoughts.

In doing so, he is “learning to die” because he has learned to live. His motivation is strong because he hopes that tomorrow and the day after tomorrow, he will still be around to enjoy life and keep pursuing his goals. With this attitude, he had earned enormous psychological strength, serenity, and happiness.

“I want death to find me planting cabbages in my garden,” Montaigne wrote. He wanted to devote his time and energies to building real happiness instead of worrying about the future.

If you are interested in putting rational ideas into practice in all sort of situations, I recommend you my book titled “The 10 principles of rational living.”