Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) had zero impact on early modern philosophy because his great merit was to look to the past, not to the future. As a result, Montaigne developed a new, fresh, truly modern mentality, which put him decades ahead of his literary peers.
When Montaigne looked at history, mostly antique history, he picked up ideas and facts that he found useful. He was very familiar with the doctrines of Pyrrho (360-270 BC) and Sextus Empiricus (160-210 AD), but adopted only a mild version of their scepticism.
Montaigne’s modern mentality is the key to his influence in all areas of culture, but not primarily on philosophy. He did not even join the debates in philosophical circles because his main concern was happiness, not certainty or truth.
Two generations later, Rene Descartes (1596-1650) would write his famous “Discourse on the Method” and his “Meditations on First Philosophy.” In the meantime, Montaigne had opted for remaining oblivious to the debate.
Why did Montaigne ignore mainstream philosophical books and debates? Because his interest in philosophy was primarily instrumental, not fundamental. His modern mentality shows in his practical approach. He steered away from theoretical issues like most individuals do nowadays.
Michel de Montaigne and first-hand experience
Similarly, Montaigne’s modern mentality shows in his focus on first-hand experience. He wanted to draw conclusions first-hand, without distortions and inaccuracies introduced by third parties.
Montaigne’s use of the first person is neither a literary nor a philosophical invention, but his tone is undisputable modern. It breaks with the timidity of prior authors, who had seldom used the first person to acknowledge their errors, fears, inadequacies and frustration.
In the ensuing century, the French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) took up none of Montaigne’s ideas, but imitated his mentality.
Rousseau would write his “Confessions” in the same mood as Montaigne had adopted when writing his essays: He vowed to appreciate his victories as much as the lessons he had drawn from his mistakes.
Philosophy historians claim that Montaigne had influenced Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) because of his emotionalism, but I do not see any proof for their claim.
While Pascal opted for remaining a faithful Christian just in case the Final Judgement came to pass, Montaigne had chosen to seek happiness each day just in case the Final Judgement did not come to pass.
While Montaigne’s choice had been driven by optimism, the rationale employed by Pascal rests on anxiety. How could one claim that Pascal had drawn inspiration from Montaigne?
Their logic was also diametrically opposed. Pascal relied on the Gospel, but Montaigne pointed to Socrates (469-399 BC), Plato (427-347 BC), Aristotle (384-322 BC) and other sources of the pre-Christian era.
Michel de Montaigne and self-interest
Neither do I endorse the theory that Montaigne’s essays had influenced John Locke (1632-1704), in particular Locke’s short essay “A Letter Concerning Toleration” published in 1689.
Why not? Because Montaigne’s arguments for toleration did not come from political considerations. While Locke employs almost exclusively political arguments, Montaigne’s arguments had been drawn from ethics, culture and history.
While Locke wrote about equality before the law and which form of government is best, Montaigne had pointed to war and famine, confiscations and exile, asking to stop the hostilities.
I must also contest the claim that Montaigne had influenced David Hume (1711-1776) and Adam Smith (1723-1790) in the conception of humanity as a species driven by passion, but also amenable to reason when it serves one’s self-interest.
Montaigne’s essays acknowledge human passions, but don’t place them in the driving seat. In this sense, Montaigne stayed loyal to Aristotle, who would have rejected a purely economic conception of human nature.
Adam Smith’s book “The Wealth of Nations” was published in 1776, almost a century after Montaigne’s death. While Smith regarded self-interest as the main motivation for human action, the essays by Montaigne adopt a nuanced perspective.
Montaigne was remarkably well-read in history, especially ancient history, which had exposed him to the vast complexity of human motivation.
None of the ancient heroes, celebrities, and rulers portrayed by Plutarch (46-120 AD) had been exclusively driven by greed or rapacity. Even the vilest characters had displayed a panoply of desires unbeknown to Hume and Smith.
Michel de Montaigne and empiricism
What about the categorisation of Montaigne as a precursor of the empiricism advocated by Francis Bacon (1561-1626) in his methodological essays published in 1597?
I regard those claims as far-fetched because of Montaigne’s lack of concern for scientific accuracy. If anything, Montaigne had been proclaiming views that oppose Francis Bacon’s. The word “exactitude,” so often employed by Bacon, rarely appears in Montaigne’s works.
Montaigne had the great merit of embodying a truly modern mentality in his vast curiosity, short attention span, concern for practicality and effectiveness, and the desire to experience joy here and now, every single day.
Those are the reasons for his enduring appeal to readers, but we should not attribute him qualities that he never displayed or that he had himself rated of negligible importance.
If you are interested in applying rational principles to issues and situations of all sorts, I recommend you my book “The 10 principles of rational living.”