Mоntаigne: Actiоn аnd Virtue Mоntаigne is one of the greatest early modern interpreters of ancient skepticism, but he does push Pyrrhonism in some interesting new ways. While Montaigne is strongly rooted in Pyrrhonism, he is also doing a few additional things (one of the main reasons we read him). Let me briefly summarize some of the key principles of analysis we find in Montaigne. The first few are strongly rooted in Pyrrhonism, the later ones are unique to Montaigne. The world (both nature, human society, and our own passions/desires) is in a state of change, or flux. Additionally, we never comprehend the world ‘as it truly is’, but rather the operations of human sense modify what it ‘out there’ in order to make it intelligible to our brains. We therefore comprehend only ‘appearances’ of the world, not the true nature of it. For example, the actual spectrum of light is much greater than what our eyes can observe, so while they do pick up on ‘light’ which is a real thing, they don’t capture it in its true essence but just as much as our senses can understand. To uncover the complexity of the world, listing arguments on all sides (not necessarily pro and con) of a question in a clash of perspectives will show that there is not single truth on a subject. These first three Montaignian principles are strongly linked to Pyrrhonism, and it motivates what we can call the problem of truth. Ancient skeptics would stop here and argue that the recognition of no truth will lead to happiness (ataraxia, tranquility of the mind). Montaigne, however, goes a step further. After the clash of perspectives, ethical choice is possible, but it is something that is true for the individual, not absolutely always true. Because there is no certain knowledge, does not mean that individuals cannot decide questions for themselves while acknowledging others might have a different point of view. In this sense, Montaigne wants to stimulate individuality when people say “this is right for me”. Additionally, for Montaigne the clash of perspectives is quite tumultuous. Individuals should feel genuinely torn between the different choices and opinions before them, which means that, rather than leading to tranquility, it often leads to the exact opposite, or a kind of internal tumult, a feeling of being jumbled up and confused. We’ll call this the virtue of open-mindedness because as a personal trait, it means that you are open to a variety of opinions, and information that might disagree with your current belief. This refocuses our attention on the person who decides, and actually asks them to own their choices in a way not present in Stoicism or Pyrrhonist skepticism. In this way Montaigne seeks to provoke action by individuals, but not to prescribe the right course of action. In Stoicism, the rules are all ‘out there’ (whether social roles and expectations, or other notions of right and wrong). Individuals must act according to these rules, but they do not bear ultimate responsibility for them. By “just doing my duty” and enforcing rules, individuals are removed from responsibility in an interesting way. “I was just doing what I was told” or “I don’t make the rules” are not acceptable excuses in Montaigne’s way of thinking. Montaigne’s solution means that individuals must consider all possibilities, all courses of action, all possible advantages and disadvantages of a decision, and when he or she acts, to act in full knowledge of likely outcomes. We will call this the virtue of accountability, because individuals make decisions by measuring lots of pros and cons and are also honest about whatever trade-offs exist. It can therefore be challenged by others with their own reasons in an open and honest conversation. The act of looking at issues from many sides also means using our empathy and moral imagination to put ourselves in the shoes of others, to try to imagine what they are going through. It doesn’t mean we have to agree with their course of action, but it means that we need to have the virtue of compassion for those that are different, and to try to understand the world in their terms. This especially means a dictum to avoid cruelty, whether it be physical or emotional. Intentionally inflicting unnecessary pain (you have a right to self-defense, for example), is clearly wrong in his mind. Finally, Montaigne counsels moderation in judgment and action. By moderation in judgment he means the intellectual humility to not pretend to know more than you really do, and to remember the uncertainty of decision-making; in action moderation means choosing courses of action that balance the needs of the different parties affected. For example, in regards to social custom and traditions that the Stoics and Bushido raise to the level of almost blind obedience, Montaigne argues that individuals should—in most cases—follow custom but that they should also remember that custom is fundamentally arbitrary. There is more leeway for Montaigne in how individuals engage with their culture than in Stoicism and when cultural traditions can be shown to be unnecessarily cruel or harmful, there is room in Montaigne to argue for changing social custom. Montaigne therefore presents a powerfully different vision of what it means to be happy, or to live the good life, than the Stoics we studied the last two weeks. In many ways, Montaigne advocates for much greater engagement and enjoyment of life than the Stoics. By embracing the complexity and indeterminacy of the world the skeptical approach to philosophy opens up a genuine space of individuality. Thinking for yourself is a critical element in skeptical philosophy and—despite the difficulty of making choices—these choices in many ways come to define the kind of person we are. Montaigne’s view of happiness is a bit different from the Pyrrhonist as well. To him happiness is a combination of four things: creative self-exploration through philosophy and life, cultivating high-quality and deep personal friendships, accepting yourself for your imperfections, and remember the difficulty of knowledge in a world of uncertainty. While the last two are strongly rooted in Pyrrhonism, the first two are linked and are significantly different. Montaigne’s great book, The Essays, were essentially explorations of himself in writing. He viewed them as self-revelatory, of giving expression to his own inner life and thoughts. But more than just philosophy, all of life—especially a happy life—is this project of learning about yourself. In a way, Montaigne thinks, we don’t really know who we are, but must discover it through our actions. True happiness is engaging with this project of self-discovery, but it’s not a project of self-control the way the Stoics imagine. Rather, it is a creative and playful project of engagement with the world. This playful engagement with the world happens both in cultivating deep friendships and in cultivating individuality. Montaigne’s advice to live a happy life: Avoid dogmatism by remembering you only see appearances of things, not things as they actually are. Therefore, do not get too attached to your beliefs and opinions of how things should be. List arguments on all sides to recognize weight (not always equal weight) of different answers, but engage deeply with the trade-offs of real world decision-making. Own your choices by being self-aware of the pros and cons, and being accountable to yourself and others for what you do. Following custom is good, but remember that custom itself is arbitrary and itself will change with time. Develop deep friendships. Cultivate your individuality through creative and playful, but sincere, engagement with the world. A Short Montaigne Argument by Someone not Named Montaigne This small excerpt from Alexis de Tocqueville’s book Democracy in America is a perfect demonstration of Montaigne’s style of argument. Use the chart in your workbook to list the pros and cons of aristocracy and democracy as forms of government. Tocqueville loved Montaigne and you see elements of the clash of perspectives in his thought all the time. From Democracy in America, trans. Henry Reeve. We must first understand the purpose of society and the aim of government is held to be. If it be your intention to confer a certain elevation upon the human mind, and to teach it to regard the things of this world with generous feelings, to inspire men with a scorn of mere temporal advantage, to give birth to living convictions, and to keep alive the spirit of honorable devotedness; if you hold it to be a good thing to refine the habits, to embellish the manners, to cultivate the arts of a nation, and to promote the love of poetry, of beauty, and of renown; if you would constitute a people not unfitted to act with power upon all other nations, nor unprepared for those high enterprises which, whatever be the result of its efforts, will leave a name forever famous in time – if you believe such to be the principal object of society, you must avoid the government of democracy, which would be a very uncertain guide to the end you have in view. But if you hold it to be expedient to divert the moral and intellectual activity of man to the production of comfort, and to the acquirement of the necessaries of life; if a clear understanding be more profitable to man than genius; if your object be not to stimulate the virtues of heroism, but to create habits of peace; if you had rather witness vices than crimes and are content to meet with fewer noble deeds, provided offences be diminished in the same proportion; if, instead of living in the midst of a brilliant state of society, you are contented to have prosperity around you; if, in short, you are of opinion that the principal object of a Government is not to confer the greatest possible share of power and of glory upon the body of the nation, but to ensure the greatest degree of enjoyment and the least degree of misery to each of the individuals who compose it – if such be your desires, you can have no surer means of satisfying them than by equalizing the conditions of men, and establishing democratic institutions. But if the time be passed at which such a choice was possible, and the movement of God’s Providence is impelling us towards the government of democracy, let us at least endeavor to make the best of that which is allotted to us; and let us so inquire into its good and its evil propensities as to be able to foster the former and repress the latter to the utmost.
Which оf the fоllоwing is not considered а symptom of Hepаtic Portаl Hypertension relating to Cirrhosis of the liver?
A lооp оf bowel thаt is twisted resulting in obstruction is referred to аs а Volvulus.
Which clаss оf аntidepressаnts inhibits mоnоamine oxidase enzymes, preventing breakdown of neurotransmitters?