I view Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) as one of the most realistic philosophers in history. He was remarkably talented at analysing problems, reviewing possible solutions, discarding the unworkable, and selecting the most promising amongst the rest.
Let me underline the step “discarding the unworkable.” It is something that most philosophers forget to do. They will fall in love with their favourite plan and keep defending it long after it has become obvious that it cannot possibly work.
Plato (427-347 BC) did so in his work “Republic,” where he put forward that totalitarianism under the rule of philosopher-kings is the best political regime.
History has proven Plato wrong a thousand times. His ideas about politics are atrocious. In fact, he could have avoided his errors if he had analysed the history before his time. By then, it was already clear that totalitarianism always ends in bloodshed and misery.
Montaigne did not get everything right, but at least, he kept dire mistakes at bay. Compared to Plato, Augustine, or Thomas Aquinas, he was far ahead of the game. Why? Because he had a much wider experience of life.
Lessons from Michel de Montaigne’s biography
Montaigne was particularly adverse to proposing abrasive, harsh social changes even when the seemed advantageous. His extensive experience of the world had made him distrust things that look too good to be true.
The deep study of the biographies written by Plutarch (46-120 AD) had made Montaigne suspicious of drastic changes. I agree with him that very rarely does history deliver successful examples of radical changes. More often than not, those lead to unintended consequences that prove worse than the problem.
Montaigne had learned the lesson the hard way in his own life. Let me recall a few instances that made him distrust harsh changes, harsh decisions, and harsh actions in general.
First, the fact that he had been practising law since he had turned sixteenth. Initially as an apprentice for five years; later, as a fully fledged lawyer for another fifteen years.
In his two decades of legal practice in Bordeaux, Montaigne had often witnessed the failure of new legislation. Despite the legislators’ good intentions, new laws had often created chaos, uncertainty and abuses worse than the problem that they were trying to solve.
Second, Montaigne had spent four years in public office, as the mayor of Bordeaux, one of the largest cities in sixteenth-century France.
When he looked back at those four years, Montaigne had to acknowledge that his most enthusiastic decisions would often prove the most disastrous. If he had lived again, he would have displayed a strong reluctance to deviate from tradition and put forward risky proposals.
Third, his best friend Etienne de La Boetie (1530-1563) had died very young. Montaigne had assumed that their friendship would last for a lifetime, that is, that they would both live still for decades. He had been shocked to see La Boetie pass away at thirty-three.
As a result, Montaigne had grown distrustful of anything or anyone that promises vast benefits, especially in the long term. He knew that those benefits might never materialize because of the inherent uncertainty of life.
Before you embark on drastic changes, beware of protecting what you already possess, he reasoned. It’s advisable to remind ourselves that current practices are the outcome of extensive, expensive, and painful trial and error.
“Of Custom, or that one should not easily change a law received”
Montaigne conveyed his hard-learned prudence in his essay titled “Of Custom, or that one should not easily change a law received.” I rather prefer the modern title “Of Custom, or why we should not rush to change traditional laws.”
In this essay, Montaigne brings up historical examples that illustrate his point. He points out, for instance, that the ancient Spartans did well as long as they observed the laws enacted by Lycurgus in the 9th century BC, but as soon as they introduced reforms, their social structure collapsed.
Similarly, Montaigne considers that ancient Rome started to decay when Julius Caesar (100-44 BC) crossed the Rubicon to bring his troops into Italy. In doing so, Caesar undermined the republican institutions to such an extent that they would never recover.
We could argue long whether Caesar’s institutional changes produced benefits in the short term. Indeed, some people rated his quasi-dictatorship positively, but they could not foresee the deleterious consequences down the road.
Montaigne’s penchant for prudence
Montaigne compares traditions to natural law because of the strong tendency in humans to keep doing things in a manner that has proven to work in the past. Even if we forget when and how the proof had been delivered, we have retained the lesson.
The key message in the essay is condensed by Montaigne as follows: “It is really hard to assess whether new customs will prove any better than old ones.”
In particular, we should think twice in situations where bold and drastic changes seem overwhelmingly beneficial. Even if we are right, we should not assume that other people will agree with our arguments or that they will endorse the consequences.
I fully agree with Montaigne that “it can prove dangerous to change established customs” simply because we cannot foresee all the ramifications; when there are many individuals or assets affected by the change, we should be particularly careful.
If you are interested in putting rational ideas into practice in all sort of situations, I recommend you my book titled “Against all odds: How to achieve great victories in desperate times.”