Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 32:19 — 29.7MB)
Discussing Michel de Montaigne's Essays: "That to Philosophize is to Learn to Die," "Of Experience," "Of Cannibals," "Of the Education of Children," and "Of Solitude" (all from around 1580) with some discussion of "Apology for Raymond Sebond."
This is a 32-minute preview of our vintage 1 hr, 41-minute episode which you can buy at partiallyexaminedlife.com/store or get for free with PEL Citizenship (see partiallyexaminedlife.com/membership). You can also purchase the full episode in the iTunes Store: Search for "Partially Examined Montaigne" and look under "Albums."
Renaissance man Montaigne tells us all how to live, how to die, how to raise our kids, that we don't know anything, and a million Latin quotations. Montaigne put the skeptical fire under Descartes and both draws upon and mocks a great deal of ancient Greek and Roman philosophy. Plus, he's actually fun to read.
The role of Seth is played this time by our guest podcaster Dylan Casey.
Read along here; the translation we all read is available for purchase.
End song: "I Like Life" from Mark Lint and the Fake Johnson Trio (1998)
lol…fun episode
Have you considered doing a podcast on Pascal?
Great episode. Just a couple of positive pointers:
Wes’ background on Pyrrhonism was right on the mark. Often this sort of skepticism gets a bad name for itself–conjuring images of ‘external world’ skeptics walking into walls or pits; forcing their followers to redirect them. Montaigne addresses these worries quite specifically in the Sebond essay:
“Where Morals are concerned, they conform to the common mould. They find it appropriate to yield to natural inclination, to the thrust and constraints of their emotions, to established laws and customs and to the traditional arts…This is why I cannot square with these conceptions what is told about Pyrrho himself. They describe him as emotionless and virtually senseless, adopting a wild way of life, cut off from society, allowing himself to be bumped into by wagons [etc.]…That goes well beyond his teaching. He was not fashioning a log or a stone but a living, arguing, thinking man, enjoying natural pleasuers and comforts of every sort and making full use of his parts, bodily as well as spiritual” (p. 563; Screech translation of the Complete Essays)
Skepticism is much more interesting and palatable in its Ancient forms than it is among its most modern practitioners (from Descartes->Stroud)
The Nietzsche connection was equally interesting and important. Dr. Berry argues in her “Nietzsche and the Ancient Skeptical Tradition” that you can get Nietzsche to Pyrrhonism (her goal) through Montaigne. There are of course some issues with it, but at the end of the day it seems quite compelling. The idea of a ‘Gay Science’ stands in contrast to a Wissenschaft throughout Nietzsche’s writings. Then we can throw out all the sketchy debates about his ‘epistemology’ too.
One big question, which was touched on briefly, is ‘what role is religion playing in Montaigne’. I have no reason to doubt he is quite serious about his Catholicism, but it is difficult to see what role revelation seems to be playing in his thought. It better not be saying it is a form of knowledge!
Anyway, keep it up. I’m looking forward to the Frege episode.
Thanks Getty — I was working with some very ancient recollections.
You may know that we were classmates of Dr. Berry at U.T., and I have the same interest strong interest in Skepticism in Nietzsche (stimulated in part by Brian Leiter and the fact that there was a lot going on regarding skepticism at the time in the ancient philosophy program). You’ve probably heard of Maudmarie Clarke’s “Nietzsche on Truth and Knowledge,” which makes him out to be something of a neo-Kantian skeptic epistemologically; if not, you should check it out.
@Matthew: “Pascal’s Wager” (all 2 pages of it) will likely be a topic on some near-term “arguments for the existence of God” podcast, though I wouldn’t hold your breath.
I’ve never read anything else by him; maybe Wes can speak to that. If you have any specific suggestions re. what tack to take on a Pascal episode, I’d be glad to hear it.
-Mark
Screw Pascal… go for the Existential wager made by Jean Paul Sartre and review Being and Nothingness in a 2+ part episode (only cover more than bad faith and being for others like most do– his conception of transcendence, thoughts on solipsism, pre-reflective/ reflective consciousness, time, metaphysics etc..).
you could probably work Pascal into an episode on Sartre anyway, considering he offers an alternative to religion and Being and Nothingness was banned by the Catholic Church.
@Wes
It sounds like UT-Austin was the place to be at that time. I have heard some of Jim Hankinson’s stuff too; very interesting.
I have been meaning to get around to that Clarke book for some time now. I know it is quite the classic! I guess I have been unconsciously avoiding it for some reason or another.
@Mark
Pascal is super interesting. As Nietzsche brutally noted:
“I don’t read but love Pascal, as the most instructive victim of Christianity, murdered slowly, first physically and then psychologically – the whole logic of this gruesome form of inhuman cruelty”
It isn’t like you guys don’t already have enough on your plate!
Philosopher Irwin likes to write on how philosophy can give iseas on how to live, live well, and live better (what Whitehead identifies as the sole function of reason)
Like Montaign, Irwin likes the Stoics.
His book on Desire was spectacular – a lot of affective neuroscience, and a lot of philosophical schools of thought on how to handle desire.
http://www.wright.edu/~william.irvine/wbi/wbi-index.html
Correction – Irvine. He has a good podcast interview on Stoics on the site.
In case you do want your kids to wake up/sleep to some Led Zeppelin, there is Rockabye Baby’s album full of lullaby versions of Zeppelin songs. http://amzn.com/B000IFSFY0
@Alex — fantastic, thanks.
Philosopher Kwame Anthony Appiah calls Montaigne “the first liberal” in a March 2011 article on Slate.com:
http://www.slate.com/id/2287982/
Cheers,
Tom
Perhaps Montaigne was aquianted with Diogenes?
Diogenes was asked, “What is the difference between life and death?
“No difference.”
“Well then, why do you remain in this life?”
“Because there is no difference.”
Just how many essays on solitude have you read?!
[Discussing Michel de Montaigne’s Essays: “That to Philosophize is to Learn to Die,” “Of Experience,” “Of Cannibals,” “Of the Education of Children,” “Of Solitude,” and “Of Solitude” (all from around 1580) with some discussion of “Apology for Raymond Sebond.”]