The powerful connection between intellectual independence and peace of mind is seldom mentioned. I view the former as a prerequisite of the latter. Peace of mind requires a fair, realistic assessment of people and events. In the absence of intellectual independence, such an assessment cannot be performed.
Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) proved the point beyond doubt. His essays go against the dominant opinions of his time, raise necessary questions, and relentless seek the truth.
I’m not saying that Montaigne always came up with correct arguments not that he always reached the right conclusion. He did not, but that’s not the key issue. What matters is that he did his best to assess the evidence at hand and choose the response supported by the strongest arguments.
Montaigne passed review to dozens of ethical questions. He wrote essays for twenty years, addressing the subjects of health and wealth, friendship and love, good and evil from numerous perspectives.
I believe Montaigne when he says that he was writing first and foremost for himself. He felt the urge to study those issues, examine the arguments against and in favour, add them up and draw a conclusion.
Montaigne wanted to find answers that he could directly put into practice. His goal was to use those answers to improve his own life, day after day, year after year. Nonetheless, he was not aspiring to completeness and perfection in the process.
Michel de Montaigne’s essay “On Sorrow”
All that Montaigne wanted are working answers, solid and realistic. He wanted to identify principles and strategies well-anchored in reality, so that he could apply them daily in every situation.
From his research and pondering, Montaigne drew to large benefits. First, he was able to make quick decisions (accurately in most cases) where other people would remain paralysed by doubt. Second, he enjoyed an unparalleled peace of mind.
Montaigne’s peace of mind came from the process that he had followed; he had gathered the relevant evidence, examined it carefully and drawn a logical conclusion.
As of that moment, he regarded the matter as settled. When the situation arrived, he could apply the principle and arrive at a decision right away. Nonetheless, he remained open to revisit the principle and the decision if new evidence emerged.
Peace of mind is a rare today as it was in Montaigne’s time, in the sixteenth century. It is rare because few people will take the steps to achieve it. Intellectual independence constitutes the very first step.
Let me give you an example taken from Montaigne’s work. His essay “On Sorrow” examines cases of individuals who are overpowered by feelings of grief.
Montaigne’s independence from dominant opinions
The examination serves a definite goal, namely, identifying the best way to respond to adversity. Should we allow sorrow to paralyse our actions, as it happened to Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots (1542-1587), when she learned of the execution of her husband? Or is there a better way to react?
In the absence of intellectual independence, we would adopt the dominant opinions. We would let sorrow take total control of our lives, or look for consolation in religion.
Montaigne knew those answers, but found them inadequate. If we let sorrow paralyse us, it could destroy our health; and if we seek consolation in religion, we might grow estranged from reality. Both answers amount to relinquishing control over our own life.
There must be a better response, thought Montaigne. Let us examine the evidence and see in which direction it is pointing. Let us weigh the options in our own mind, independently from any external influence, and look for the truth.
Montaigne rejected the attitude of the Greek philosopher Heraclitus (535-475 BC), who was constantly overpowered by sorrow. Due to real or potential adversities, Heraclitus devoted an inordinate part of his energies to complaining.
The opposite attitude was adopted by the Roman aristocrat Lucretia (around 500 BC) who remained silent and collected in a terrible situation. Lucretia refused to display her emotions in public because she considered such display as humiliating.
Montaigne links silent endurance to the morality of ancient Rome. General Gaius Marius, when he experienced severe military defeat in the year 105 BC, he also opted for keeping silent. Instead of verbalising his sorrow, he went for a walk all on his own.
Montaigne’s preferred response to sorrow
Fortunately, history shows us better reactions to adversity. I agree with Montaigne that mourning rituals can help us accept the loss, express our sorrow, and get back on our feet relatively quickly.
Montaigne considers the mourning process beneficial to the concerned individual because it strengthens his self-reliance. As examples, Montaigne mentions the mourning rituals after a Pharaoh’s death in ancient Egypt and the funeral processions in ancient Rome.
If we regard mourning as a healing and recovery period, we come to a satisfactory approach. Nevertheless, we do not need to go as far as ancient Persians, who would tear their clothes upon learning that King Darius had passed away (486 BC).
Montaigne notes that “Adversity will weigh heavier upon us if we refuse to express our sorrow.” Let us go through a period of mourning that help us recover within a reasonable time.
In any case, we should not let sorrow paralyse our thoughts and actions. Such an approach is wrong because it will make our problems worse. Instead of losing control, let us employ adversity as a training ground to strengthen our peace of mind.
If you are interested in applying rational principles here and now in all areas of life, I recommend you my book titled “The philosophy of builders.”