Why should be study Montaigne’s literary techniques? What benefits can we draw from his contributions?

I see two crucial reasons for studying the literary techniques and contributions from Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592). In the first instance, they can enable us to think faster in the face of challenges; second, they can help us make better decisions.

Let’s pass review to his literary techniques and contributions in the light of those two benefits.

Montaigne’s key literary technique: the counterpoint

[1] Montaigne belongs to a small group of authors, a group that I credit with the ability to help readers think faster. I would include also Aristotle (384-322 BC) and Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) in that small group, and a few other authors.

Those authors possess the rare ability to address any subject of their interest, literally any subject under the sun, make deep observations, and draw useful conclusions.

I regard Montaigne’s essays as an ideal training ground for faster thinking. Why? Because they cover a wide variety of subjects, and in each case, they make us consider unusual or unorthodox standpoints. They help us develop the habit to look beyond the obvious.

For example, Montaigne has no problem in recommending regular periods of solitude (in his essay “Of Solitude”) against the dominant opinions, which promoted gregariousness and a sense of community.

He also has no problem in proclaiming critical thinking as a central objective of education (in his essay “Of the Education of Children”), while his peers considered that the transmission of moral values should remain the fundamental goal.

Montaigne’s favourite literary technique is the counterpoint, that is, the presentation of sharply contrasting arguments. His goal is to let readers see the complete picture before they make a decision.

In the history of literature, few authors have employed the counterpoint as dexterously as Montaigne. His essays present a vast array of arguments or anecdotes pointing in one direction, and then reverse course to let the opposite party speak.

Montaigne trains readers to think faster by driving them to consider strong arguments against prevailing ideas. He teaches us by means of examples to question apparent truths and probe their soundness.

Contrarian thinking is an invaluable habit that enables us to prevent mistakes. It provides us the self-confidence to ask for proof, without fear of contradicting the philosophical authority of Cicero (106-43 BC) or Seneca (4 BC-65 AD). If Montaigne had question their statements, why should we not do the same?

Montaigne also helps us think faster by showing us how to reach workable conclusions with imperfect information. For instance, when he analyses wrath in his essay “Of Anger”, he is not looking for a perfect remedy.

The fact that he lacks the resources to study the subject in an exhaustive manner doesn’t prevent Montaigne from drawing valid conclusions. He illustrates the process of thinking fast, of passing review to arguments against and in favour, and coming to a practical recommendation.

Montaigne also helps us think faster by showing how to ask the right questions. He does not beat around the bush, and goes directly into the core of the matter. For instance, his essay “Of Repentance” revolves around a key question: “Why should we regret at all what is already lost or gone?”

In each essay, Montaigne help us develop the habit of going directly to the central issue, and pretty much ignoring the rest. That’s how we can solve problems fast without getting stuck in a quagmire of hesitations and irrelevant information.

“That the profit of one man is the damage of another”

[2] Montaigne’s second key contribution is to help us make better decisions. How is he doing that? By showing us how to trade off arguments, without being thrown off track by social pressure, tradition or prejudice.

Let me underline that Montaigne does not always reach the right conclusion, but the important thing is the method. He is showing us how to weigh off arguments, and he gets it right in most cases.

Take for instance his essay titled “That the profit of one man is the damage of another,” in which he acknowledges the profit motive as a key driver of human behaviour.

Instead of agitating against alleged injustices, he encourages readers to accept price variability as a fact of life. Each person must make his own trade off, compare the possibilities at hand, pick up the most promising, and move on.

I must point out that Montaigne’s argument (“That the profit of one man is the damage of another”) is economically false. In fact, price variability proves that the contrary is true.

Since the seventeenth century, economists know that buyers and sellers are willing to trade at different prices because they are drawing different benefits from the transaction.

A baker prefers to sell bread for coins, and the buyers value the bread more than their coins. Both parties are drawing profit from the transaction.

Montaigne was mistaken in this essay because there is no “damage” when people buy and sell freely. Nonetheless, I find it worthy to read all his essays because, as a reader, he prompts me to think. Are his arguments true? Is he assessing all factors correctly?

I find the essay “That the profit of one man is the damage of another” particularly interesting because, for readers without a background in economics, it is not easy to identify the flaws in Montaigne’s argumentation.

It requires some reflection to realize that his comparison of trade (free exchange of value for value) and war (destruction in the context of a violent conflict) is essentially fallacious.

In the sixteenth century, few individuals possessed enough economic insight to contest Montaigne’s arguments, but this is not the case today. The fact that Montaigne is quoting Plutarch (46-120 AD) about ancient Roman wars does not add any force to his comparison between trade and war.

I find it fascinating to see that Montaigne was realizing that his conclusion must have been flawed because he endorsed the views of Heraclitus (535-475 BC), who had acknowledged that all humans feel a desire for improvement and growth. He also praised Marco Polo (1254–1324) as a brilliant entrepreneur.

We should read and reread Montaigne’s essays because they deliver important benefits. Montaigne’s literary style serves the purpose of teaching us to weigh off contrasting arguments and draw quick, workable conclusions. I can not praise enough the value of this intellectual skill.

If you are interested in putting rational ideas into practice in all sort of situations, I recommend you my book “Rationality is the way to happiness.”