French thinker Michel de Montaigne invented a whole newgenrein which to do philosophy: the essay. But in his use of thatform，蒙田反复离题，自相矛盾。那么，为什么他认为这篇文章是哲学的好媒介呢?蒙田的发明对他自己的哲学著作以及随后几个世纪的思想产生了什么影响?有没有什么特殊的写作形式能帮助我们过上更有哲学意义的生活?The philosophers live their best life with Cécile Alduy from Stanford University, author ofThe Politics of Love: Poetics and Genesis of the "Amours" in Renaissance France (1549-1560).
Are essays a good way to do philosophy? What if they’re full of digressions and contradictions? Josh thinks that Michel de Montaigne’s essays don’t do true philosophical work because they’re filled with contradictions, but Lanier argues that they’re full of themes like knowledge, morality, and death. Plus, essays were a form of trying out certain claims and questioning one’s own knowledge. Josh agrees after realizing that contradiction is beneficial to skepticism because it reminds us to be more humble about what we know.
The hosts welcome Cécile Alduy, Professor of French Literature and Culture at Stanford University, to the show. Lanier questions what defines the essay in Montaigne’s sense, and Cécile explains that his literary form was notable for trying out contradictory ideas, having many digressions, and being honest about his argument’s shortcomings. Josh appreciates how the use of the essay brings out the value of the written word, and Cécile describes how Montaigne not only wrote about himself, but also put himself in conversation with other authors and philosophers.
In the last segment of the show, Josh, Lanier, and Cécile discuss how philosophers today could benefit from returning to the essay form and modern day equivalents of Montaigne. Cécile suggests Adam Gopnik and Susan Sontag as two similar essayists, while Josh thinks of David Foster Wallace for his characteristic digressions and retractions. Lanier asks if Montaigne could be considered a proto-feminist, and Cécile points out that he called for the increased education of girls and women. In fact, she thinks that the essay would be a good literary form for the feminists of today.
Roving Philosophical Report (Seek to 4:51) →Holly J. McDede提供了米歇尔·德·蒙田生平的简要传记。
Josh Landy
Are essays a good way to do philosophy?
Lanier Anderson
What if they're full of digressions or contradictions?
Josh Landy
Does that make them even more philosophical?
Comments(5)
Devon
Tuesday, April 13, 2021 -- 9:46 AM
A listener in Tel Aviv sentA listener in Tel Aviv sent in this question too late to include in the recording:
Montaigne is most well known for having invented the essay, which means the try. But didn’t the great sage Yoda declare that there is no try, only do? How would Montaigne respond to Yoda's claim?
Devon
Tuesday, April 13, 2021 -- 1:16 PM
https://media.giphy.com/mediahttps://media.giphy.com/media/26FmQ6EOvLxp6cWyY/giphy.gif
Tim Smith
Wednesday, April 14, 2021 -- 10:48 PM
This question is a fun playThis question is a fun play on words, but essays are doing, not trying to do. Montaigne did.
I have never read Montaigne before coming on this show topic and am only now most of the way through at this point, but I do see some reflections of Yoda's "Do or do not, There is no try."
This quote is probably my favorite so far and hits on Yoda's call for belief in order to do.
"For each man good or ill is as he finds. The man who is happy is not he who is believed to be so but he who believes he is so: in that way alone does belief endow itself with true reality." - Book I 14. That the taste of good and evil things depends in large part on the opinion we have of them
仅在这方面，他把信仰归结为坚实的基础。在其他一切方面，蒙田都简化为尝试或至少是质疑。这是一个非常深刻的点，因为肯经常说。
These essays are impacting me and resonating with my own thought. Michel goes on later and gets more into the call for the need for self doubt.
“相信自己是正确的，以至于相信没有人会有相反的想法，这是一种多么可恶的疾病啊。”——第一卷On prayer
Other than that, Montaigne is not one to push things with fictional Force. He seems very much opposed to the power of fiction in general.
The converse is true of the Jedi master. I doubt Yoda ever talked to Luke about his penis, flatulence, or body shame. Montaigne would have looked harshly, thinking of Yoda as a true sage. He does indulge in the dark and the light a bit in his reverence for Christianity, but even that seems secondary to his truths.
"Whatever people preach to us and whatever we may learn from them, never forget that the giver is a man and so is the taker; a mortal hand presents it to us: a mortal hand takes it from him. Only such things as come to us from Heaven have the right and the authority to carry conviction; they alone bear the mark of Truth; but even they cannot be seen with our human eyes, nor do we obtain them by our own means: so great and so holy an Image could never dwell in so wretched a dwelling, unless God first makes it ready for that purpose, unless he forms it anew and fortifies it by his special grace and supernatural favour." - Book II 10. On books
I can't say how much I am impressed by Montaigne. I'm delighted with this show for bringing this to my world. What other works have I skipped in my youth that need excavating?
Tim Smith
Thursday, April 22, 2021 -- 9:58 AM
I just finished the essaysI just finished the essays last night, and as is my custom, when I am affected by a book, I jot my impressions on my first pass through directly to the author. Generally, I have been reading contemporary works, but in this case, I have no recourse. Here is my letter. Hopefully, you can write your own letter or perhaps even respond in his stead. His spirit is in all of us, whether you know it or not. Michel was a great human being in a not-so-great time. So, reader, are you.
To the Writer
Dear Michel,
I follow a particular salon where people talk lightly about philosophy; they call it ‘Philoso?hy Talk©’, your essays came up; I just now finished reading them, and here are my impressions. If I read them correctly, I doubt I will go back to reread them. Thanks for your service.
So many things have happened since you have died. Your work is as relevant now as it was in your time. The tricky thing, for modern readers ( I write to you from the year 2021 using your recently updated Gregorian calendar – which it seems so appropriate – we largely still use )... the tricky thing is that your ideas and countenance have quickly become the core operating system of human identity and thought.
Upon reading your first essay, I immediately asked myself, “Self, Why am I reading this?” I couldn’t really answer that as you state so plainly, you are writing this only about yourself as a passage in time to your family and kin. It took me a few essays to comprehend this. Humankind are your kin. But there was more.
Why were you so diligent in seeking to get this work published? Why the constant revisions? Why the commentary in your time and significantly more so after your passing? Why had I not read your book in my youth (I’ll save you that story?) Why am I so profoundly affected having read this? Why?
Here are my answers. I think I get it. I’ve yet to hear our salon run this down but here are my answers in anticipation and reflection of my first, and I think only, reading of your attempt at Philosophy.
你是在一个重大变革的时代写作的;西班牙宗教裁判所，对新世界的蹂躏，经济和阶级剥削的黎明。你不能公开发言，因为你害怕被教会、政府，最糟糕的是，你的母亲(我不需要提醒你，她比你活得长)喊出来。面对这样的审查，一个人会怎么做?你做得很好。
Granted, you were given a silver spoon/pen to write these essays, but you could have squandered your education (which took two generations of good fortune to bring to fruition.) I am glad you didn’t. Your singular focus on your own mind and time threw out all pretensions of academy that, save the elided near half-millennium since your birth, have come to revisit our time and brains.
Just as you wrote to a world beginning to throw out religion for science (yes, we can say that now without fear of being put to death,) so now our world is faced with throwing out science for technology. As you leverage Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura and the work of Sextus Empiricus, we now balance science with the expediency and urgency of artificial intelligence. Ancient philosophy informs religion informs science informs technology. As you point out. It all ties together.
The best, maybe only path, is the one you show. (By the way, I have to stop here to say your got several things wrong in these essays.) That you wrote this is enough to inspire humans to open the books of their brains and explicate their own truths. Que sais-je? - What do I know?
Thanks for writing this. I am in your debt. After Cécile Alduy and others have their say, I might comment on their thought. If not, I am good. Thanks to you.
Well done,
蒂姆•史密斯;现在是两千零一年四月二十二号。
audreyj1
Sunday, April 25, 2021 -- 5:50 PM
i enjoyed the Montaigne show.i enjoyed the Montaigne show. Just wanted to say that Adam Phillips is a much better example of a modern essayist than Adam Gopnik. She got the wrong Adam.