Читать книгу Essays - Michel de Montaigne - Страница 20
CONCLUSION
ОглавлениеTo summarize: The famous “the world eternally turns round” evoked by Montaigne no longer allows man to impose on others received knowledge or to claim possession of universal truths. The skeptical attitude which characterized the end of the Renaissance, and of which Montaigne is one of the best examples, was essentially due to an ideological and moral crisis linked to the experience of the wars of religion. In the second half of the sixteenth century, skepticism cannot be conceived of as a philosophical system; it rather a simple reaction to events – a response to a moral crisis which no longer allowed one to have ready-made answers.
The implication, which was clear to Montaigne, was that the truth could no longer be taught; it had to be discovered by the individual subject. In matters of authority, everything was now up for grabs. Far from being received, truth must now be conceived individually from unique and private experiences. Montaigne was for this reason outside any didactic scheme: “so many interpretations dissipate truth and break it” (III, 13). He further concedes that “example is a vague and universal mirror, and of various reflections” (III, 13) and therefore loses its exemplarity. This is why Montaigne systematically deconstructs models to reduce them to specific cases.
At this time of crisis in political, social, and religious authority, the best reasoning comes from seeing what is in front of our eyes, rather than looking for guidance from previously celebrated universal truths. As Montaigne writes in his chapter on Raimond Sebond:
“I always call reason that appearance or show of discourses which every man devised or forged in himself: that reason, of whose condition there may be a hundred, one contrary to another, about one self same subject: it is an instrument of lead and wax, stretching, pliable, and that may be fitted to all biases and squared to all measures” (II, 12).
Skepticism towards the religious and political situation relegates Montaigne to the role of a passive observer. He reports without judging, at least in a vindictive way. His approach of a “middle path” was aptly called politique (as the term was defined in the 1570s and 1580s), namely a compromise and juste milieu between extreme positions.
In the end, the Essays analyze what can be broadly defined as human nature, the endless process by which people attempt to impose themselves and their opinions upon others through the production of laws, policies, or philosophies. For Montaigne, this recurring battle for “truth” needs to be put into a historical perspective:
“The truth of these days is not that which really is, but what every man persuades another man to believe” (II, 18).
Montaigne's famous motto, “What do I know?” (inscribed above the fireplace in his study), is a question that always needs to be asked, even when others give us ready answers.
In summary, reading him today teaches us that the angle we have defines the world we see. Or, as he wrote: “it does not only import that we see the thing, but how and after what manner we see it” (I, 40).