Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) loved classical authors, philosophers or not, and read their books in Latin. For Greek authors such as Aristotle, he resorted to Latin translations that were already available in the sixteenth century. The efforts displayed by Montaigne are remarkable. Keep in mind that he was not a professional scholar. He was doing all the research himself, and purchasing those books with his own money. After moving to live in a farmhouse, he had no access to any large library in a convent or a university. I find even more remarkable that Montaigne focused solely on a small area of classical philosophy, namely, ethics. He had only one goal, one primary concern. He wanted to find the key to happiness, and identify the best patterns of behaviour. Montaigne succeeded in identifying behaviour patterns that had proven their effectiveness in history. For that purpose, he read Plutarch, Seneca, Cicero, Tacitus, Aristotle, Julius Caesar, and other ancient authors with extreme care. I must nonetheless warn readers that Montaigne, despite his good intentions, sometimes drew the wrong conclusion. Some of his essays present detailed arguments for one idea, and then detailed arguments for the opposite idea, without reaching a clear conclusion. While I consider those essays as unfinished, Montaigne was never bothered by his own indecision. If he could reach a clear conclusion, great. If he could not, he stated that he had given extensive thought to the matter, and that several solutions were possible. Philosophy historians have placed those Montaigne’s essays in the category of extreme scepticism. They accuse Montaigne not only of failing to draw clear conclusions, but of stating that it was impossible to do so. Those essays say literally that there is no definite, universal solution to the concerned questions. Montaigne’s extreme scepticism is also called “Pyrrhonism” because it was popularized by Pyrrho of Elis (360-270 BC); all we know about Pyrrho comes through Sextus Empiricus, who wrote a philosophical compendium five centuries after Pyrrho’s death. Pyrrho was a contemporary of Aristotle and Alexander the Great. When Alexander carried out his military campaigns in the east, Pyrrho accompanied him. His travels to Mesopotamia and India exposed him to Persian and Indian philosophy. Montaigne was less familiar with those, but knew very well the doctrines of scepticism. He agreed with Pyrrho’s views that humans cannot attain total certainty because, when there are solid arguments in favour and against, one should refrain from passing judgement and thus protect one’s peace of mind. Pyrrho’s philosophy is wrong, but so is Montaigne’s in this area. When there are solid arguments in favour and against, the correct conclusion to that one should research further. Reality doesn’t allow for contradictions. When contradictory arguments seem equally solid, they need to be tested, probed, scrutinized, until all discrepancies are removed. Truth is either or, as Aristotle had said. Scepticism is a poor excuse for unfinished work. Montaigne should have asked additional questions until he had found the correct answers. Pyrrho was delusional in thinking that one could achieve peace of mind though scepticism. The contrary is true. Peace of mind comes from clarity and truth. It comes from the elimination of contradictions and discrepancies. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaigne-and-classical-philosophy/