Michel Eyquem de Montaigne
"What do I know?": a lived, systemless that takes the self for its matter.
French · 1533 – 1592
French Renaissance moralist and magistrate, born at the château de Montaigne in Périgord and schooled in Latin from infancy. After a career at the Bordeaux parlement and the death of his friend La Boétie, he withdrew in 1571 to his "library" to write the , he invented and reworked until his death. He wrote amid the turmoil of the Wars of Religion, in which he served as a moderate negotiator, and drew from ancient humanism, above all the Greek , and , a wisdom of measure and tolerance rather than a doctrine. A bedside book for , who fought him, for , whom he provoked into doubt, and later for who admired him, he remains among the first to make the examination of one's own life the heart of philosophy.
"What do I know?": not to suspend all judgment, but to live humbly with beliefs we know to be fallible.
I am myself the matter of my book: it is by portraying oneself that one reaches the human condition, for each man bears its whole form.
"Each man calls barbarism whatever is not his own practice": our moral certainties are the effect of custom, not of reason.
To learn no longer to die but to live: to "enjoy one's being loyally", for we waste the present running ahead of or behind ourselves.
"Laws keep their credit not because they are just, but because they are laws": a tested order is worth more than an uncertain improvement.
Justification
The motto "What do I know?" is not a thesis but a question held open. In the , Montaigne takes up the whole arsenal of the Greek , the diversity of opinions, the weakness of the senses, reason's dependence on custom, to humble the pride of a reason that claims to ground everything. But his does not stop at : he refuses systematic as a new dogma, keeps the use of beliefs in order to live, and turns doubt not toward an impassive but toward modesty, self-inquiry and . It is an inhabited, fallibilist-before-the-word doubt, the goad from which , against him, would make his starting point.
What do I know?Essays, II, 12, "Apology for Raymond Sebond"
Essays, II, 12, "Apology for Raymond Sebond"
Justification
No one scrutinized his own weaknesses more honestly, yet this lucidity stops where grip ends: of insoluble questions he concludes that they make a good place to rest a well-made head. To know about oneself what helps one live, and let sleep what only torments: the perpetual essaying of oneself coexists with an avowed incuriosity.
Oh, what a soft and delightful pillow, and a healthy one, is ignorance and incuriosity, for resting a well-made head!Essays, III, 13 (Of Experience)
Essays, III, 13 (Of Experience)
1 more
Justification
Montaigne distrusts abstract reasonings, which can prove a thing and its opposite, and prefers to them the teaching of experience: the last essay, "Of Experience", makes patient commerce with things and with oneself the only accessible wisdom. He builds no empiricist system, but his leaning is clear, to know is to have lived, observed and tested rather than to have deduced. Reason remains "a two-handled pot, that one can grasp by the left or the right", too pliant to ground knowledge on its own.
Essays, III, 13, "Of Experience" and II, 12
Justification
Where philosophy sought universal truths, Montaigne takes an unprecedented object: himself. Skeptical , by suspending the great certainties, paradoxically clears the one ground left to explore, the inner experience of one particular man. To portray oneself, not out of vanity but to reach the human condition through a single case, becomes a method: "each man bears the whole form of the human condition". It is the examined life shifted from Socratic toward patient self-observation.
I am myself the matter of my book.Essays, "To the Reader"
Essays, "To the Reader" and III, 2, "Of Repentance"
Justification
Our unhappiness, Montaigne observes, comes from never inhabiting the present: we wander ahead of or behind ourselves, fearing the future and regretting the past, so that we forget to live the hour at hand. Wisdom reverses the effort: not to project oneself nor to hoard, but to "enjoy one's being loyally", to savor fully what presents itself, like but without a system. The last word of the is no longer "to learn to die" but to learn to live, that is, to return to the present that fear of death steals from us.
We are never at home, we are always beyond ourselves.Essays, I, 3, "Our Feelings Reach Out Beyond Us"
Essays, I, 20, "That to Philosophize Is to Learn to Die" and III, 13, "Of Experience"
Justification
Against a Christian asceticism that sets soul over body, Montaigne rehabilitates natural pleasures and refuses to "dissociate" himself from the body he was given. There are not two wisdoms, one for the mind and one despising the flesh: "it is an absolute and almost divine perfection to know how to enjoy one's being loyally". To eat, sleep and make love are not concessions to nature but occasions of presence, provided one is wholly in them. Measure tempers this celebration, since excess spoils enjoyment itself; but the tone, joyful and earthbound, places him squarely on the side of nature, where would hail a free spirit.
Essays, III, 13, "Of Experience"
Justification
The young Montaigne, following and , holds that "to philosophize is to learn to die": to rehearse death ceaselessly so as to disarm it. The mature Montaigne overturns this voluntarist Stoicism: thinking too much about death poisons life. Better to trust nature, which "will teach you well enough" to die when the time comes, as peasants do without philosophy. Death ceases to be an ordeal to prepare for and becomes a natural term to welcome without fear, in a serenity colored more by Epicureanism than by any hope of an afterlife.
Essays, I, 20, "That to Philosophize Is to Learn to Die" and III, 12, "Of Physiognomy"
3 more
Justification
Montaigne finds in himself no fixed substance. The self is "the sway", a flux of moods, opinions and states contradictory from one instant to the next, closer to a shifting bundle than to a stable soul. What nonetheless holds it together is no essence but, it seems, the continued writing of the , which recaptures this passing in a self-portrait never closed: hence a narrative strand that tempers the sheer patchwork of the parts. For him the self is not given, it is composed in the very telling.
I do not portray being: I portray passing.Essays, III, 2, "Of Repentance"
Essays, III, 2, "Of Repentance" and II, 1, "Of the Inconsistency of Our Actions"
Justification
Pain is quite real, and Montaigne, who suffered from kidney stones, dresses it in no redemptive virtue: he rejects the heroism of Stoic contempt as well as the Christian idea of meritorious suffering. But opinion adds much to the evil, and pain borne with suppleness, without swelling it through imagination, can become a schooling of the self. It is less a fecundity of suffering than an economy: neither to exalt it nor to think oneself crushed by it.
Essays, I, 14, "That the Taste of Good and Evil Depends on Our Opinion" and III, 13
Justification
Montaigne seeks the meaning of life neither in a cosmic order nor in an afterlife, but in the quality of a present existence well lived. Without denying a nature to follow, he makes of life a personal art, a day-by-day composition of the self rather than a received destiny. Meaning is not handed down from above, it is fashioned in the way one inhabits one's own life.
Our great and glorious masterpiece is to live fitly.Essays, III, 13, "Of Experience"
Essays, III, 13, "Of Experience"
Justification
In "Of Cannibals", Montaigne turns the European's gaze back upon himself: we hold barbarous whatever departs from our usages, never seeing that our own would look just as strange from elsewhere. "Each man calls barbarism whatever is not his own practice". The diversity of customs across the world shows that our moral certainties owe less to reason than to , "other world, other laws". This relativism stays prudent, though: it serves to disarm fanaticism and cruelty, not to permit everything, for the cruelty of the conquerors is judged worse than that of the "savages".
Each man calls barbarism whatever is not his own practice.Essays, I, 31, "Of Cannibals"
Essays, I, 31, "Of Cannibals" and II, 12
Justification
If our laws rest not on reason but on , the reformer who would remake them in the name of truth risks, in shaking the edifice, more harm than he cures, as the Wars of Religion show. Montaigne draws from this a paradoxical conservatism: one should obey the laws "because they are laws", not because they are just, for their authority lies in their antiquity, not in their foundation. This is not love of the established order but distrust of novelties, whose certain cost outweighs their uncertain gain. A skeptic in politics is readily conservative, for want of any certainty to justify the risk of change.
Laws keep their credit not because they are just, but because they are laws.Essays, III, 13, "Of Experience"
Essays, III, 13, "Of Experience" and I, 23, "Of Custom"
Justification
Taking up 's but raising it to a white heat, Montaigne reserves, in the chapter "On friendship" of his , the name of friendship for a single, freely chosen bond that comes before love-as-passion: amorous ardour is but a fickle, shifting fire, whereas perfect friendship is a steady warmth in which two souls mingle and blend into one another. He holds it to have no ground but itself, irreducible to usefulness, to pleasure or to the duty of kinship; in it each gives themselves without reserve, a share of gift that exceeds any mere exchange of good offices. Of his communion with La Boétie he can give no reason other than the mutual self-evidence of the two beings.
Because it was he, because it was I.Essays, I, 28 ("On friendship")
Essays, I, 28 ("On friendship")
Justification
Against the pride that sets man atop creation, Montaigne brings the beasts near to us: "when I play with my cat, who knows whether she is not amusing herself with me more than I with her?". They have their intelligence, their affections, a communication. From this kinship he draws a duty: we owe "justice" to human beings, but "grace and kindness" to the other creatures, and cruelty toward animals fills him with horror. Moral consideration thus spills beyond humanity toward whatever can suffer, without going so far as an equality of all living things.
Essays, II, 12, "Apology for Raymond Sebond" and II, 11, "Of Cruelty"
Justification
Lying is for Montaigne the vice he most detests: "we are men, and hold together, only by our word", and whoever lies betrays the social bond at its heart. The whole enterprise of the is itself a wager of frankness, to show himself "wholly and entirely naked", without disguise. This demand for truthfulness remains, however, that of a tolerant sage, not of an inflexible rigorism: it aims at good faith more than at the avowal of every truth in every circumstance.
Essays, I, 9, "Of Liars" and II, 18, "Of Giving the Lie"
6 more
Justification
Montaigne distrusts the strained, heroic virtues that do violence to nature and often turn into hypocrisy or the cruelty of the righteous. He prefers an ordinary, accommodating goodness that "lets itself flow" with the common slope of men. The highest moral demand, in his eyes, is not to surpass oneself but to know oneself well and keep one's just measure: a morality of "living fitly" rather than of grand duties.
Essays, III, 13, "Of Experience" and II, 11
Justification
The same that turns him from reform turns him from utopias: to claim to redraw society by a rational plan is still to believe that reason can ground the civil order, which Montaigne takes for a dangerous illusion. He prefers the stability of an imperfect but tested order to the promises of a better regime, and judges politics by the real human cost of upheavals rather than by the ideal they invoke. A disabused realism, fed by the spectacle of civil war.
Essays, III, 9, "Of Vanity" and I, 23
Justification
What we take for our identity, our tastes, our beliefs, our moral judgments, is very largely the deposit of the of the place and time we were born into: "we have no other test of truth than the example and pattern of the opinions and usages of our own country". Education and the fold of habit make us what we are, to the point where we mistake for a law of nature what is merely local usage. This lucidity about the social manufacture of our certainties places him on the side of construction, without his making it a systematic theory.
Essays, I, 23, "Of Custom" and II, 12
Justification
Discovering through the accounts of the New World that other peoples live otherwise and just as well, Montaigne loosens the exclusive attachment to his own city: he feels himself a citizen of the world and counts all men his compatriots. But this cosmopolitanism remains that of a rooted man, loyal to his laws, his friendships and his country by as much as by choice. An openness without uprooting, more curious about the foreigner than aspiring to the universal.
Essays, III, 9, "Of Vanity" and I, 31
Justification
The exceptional friendship with La Boétie, where "because it was he, because it was I" the two souls merge, shows a Montaigne capable of the most entire gift of self. But his ordinary wisdom preaches "husbanding oneself", keeping a "back shop" of one's own and not lending oneself to others to the point of getting lost in them. Neither egoism nor unreserved devotion: a just distance, giving itself fully where the bond is rare and withdrawing everywhere else.
Essays, I, 28, "Of Friendship" and III, 10
Justification
What revolts Montaigne most is cruelty, "the extreme of all the vices". From this horror springs a clemency: vengeance and ferocious punishment repel him, and he praises the gentleness, the magnanimity that disarms an enemy rather than crushing him. Without theorizing an unconditional forgiveness, his leaning carries him to excuse rather than to punish, to understand the common human weakness rather than to demand requital.
Essays, II, 11, "Of Cruelty" and I, 1, "By Diverse Means We Arrive at the Same End"
Justification
The mainspring of the is a paradoxical : by ruining reason's claim to prove anything of God, Montaigne does not destroy faith but strips it of its false supports. A reason incapable of reaching the slightest certainty cannot ground religion, which can therefore hold only by grace and authority, not by demonstration. Far from setting faith and reason in a conflict, he separates them while ranking them, the very weakness of reason serving as an argument for believing submission.
It is faith alone that vividly and certainly embraces the high mysteries of our religion.Essays, II, 12, "Apology for Raymond Sebond"
Essays, II, 12, "Apology for Raymond Sebond"
5 more
Justification
Montaigne holds two threads without cutting either. On one side there is indeed a nature, common to all human beings and even shared with the beasts, to which one should "let oneself go" as to a good guide. On the other, what passes for natural is most often the effect of habit: , that "second nature" and "violent and treacherous schoolmistress", shapes our judgments until it passes itself off as nature itself. Hence a central position, leaning slightly toward the weight of the cultural in what we believe innate.
Essays, I, 23, "Of Custom" and III, 13
Justification
A sincere Catholic, submissive to the Church, Montaigne never doubts the existence of God and dies in the faith of his fathers. But this declared theism comes with an avowal of reason's impotence: we can know nothing of God, neither prove nor conceive him, and what we say of him belongs to usage and revelation, not to knowledge. Hence a theism held by faith and more than by proof, which keeps the score back from the extreme on the side of affirmation.
Essays, II, 12, "Apology for Raymond Sebond"
Justification
Montaigne admires Stoic constancy without holding himself bound to it: to claim to root out the passions is, in the ordinary man, a playacting ill-suited to our nature. Better to know one's emotions, to accompany and temper them than to deny them, and he readily portrays himself angry, fearful or troubled, without shame. A supple regulation rather than a mastery, which gives the affects their place as companions of the human condition.
Essays, II, 11, "Of Cruelty" and III, 10, "Of Husbanding Your Will"
Justification
Montaigne deflates man's pretension to think himself the masterpiece of creation, "the most calamitous and frail of all creatures", vain, inconstant, more often led by and fancy than by the reason he claims. But this indictment of pride is no black pessimism: man remains capable of goodness, measure and joy, provided he accepts his condition and stops trying to be an angel. It is less a verdict on his wickedness than an acknowledgment of his plasticity and weakness.
Essays, II, 12, "Apology for Raymond Sebond"
An anachronistic question: nothing in the Essays allows situating Montaigne on machine thought without hazardous extrapolation.
Essaying your own judgmentHabitInteriority
I do not portray being, I portray passing.
made the , literally a "trial", an "attempt", into a philosophical practice: a way of testing his own judgment on the page rather than reaching for borrowed conclusions. Take a question that genuinely touches you and write your way through it, watching yourself think, allowing yourself to change your mind as you go. Today it is a remedy against opinions we hold only because they were handed to us: it turns self-examination into a concrete, repeatable habit.
Unlock the practices
The step-by-step routine is part of Premium access: a modest contribution that supports and encourages the development of Philoscopia. Everything encyclopedic stays free and open source — this only opens the actionable practices.
Discover Premium accessAlready unlocked on another device? Sign in to restore it.
The foreign gazeRuleStatus of norms (metaethics)
Each calls barbaric what is not of his own custom.
Reflecting on the so-called "savages" of the New World, noticed that "each man calls barbarism whatever is not his own custom" (Of Cannibals). Before you let your reflex of disgust pass for a moral verdict, turn the gaze around: ask how your own would look to that other eye. The point is to tell a real wrong from mere unfamiliarity, so that "it's not how we do it" stops counting as "it's wrong".
Unlock the practices
The step-by-step routine is part of Premium access: a modest contribution that supports and encourages the development of Philoscopia. Everything encyclopedic stays free and open source — this only opens the actionable practices.
Discover Premium accessAlready unlocked on another device? Sign in to restore it.