MontaigneEssay Preview: MontaigneReport this essayMontaigne in his Apology for Raymond Sebond begins his exploration into the human capacity for knowledge with this belief that only though God can one achieve true knowledge. God is the only infinite, all seeing, being with divine wisdom. He is not subject to the laws and rules of the human domain, and he exists in a realm outside of human comprehension. God is an unchanging, permanent being, and only from this state can the concept of truth propagate.
Montaigne believes that the one tie that binds all truth is this idea of permanence. Montaigne even states, “Truth must be the same everywhere” (xxvi). He insists that the only product of humanity that has withstood the test of time and has not changed since its inception was the Catholic Church. The dogma of the Catholic is categorized as, “What has been held always, everywhere by all”. The strength in the Catholic faith comes from its static nature, which provides a source of truth for humanity. Catholic truth is in strict conformity with the existence of God, and knowledge can only come from an almighty source.
Montaigne goes on to say that, “No creature ever is: a creature is always shifting, changing, becoming.” Man embodies the idea of impermanence. He is fragmented, does not have divine reasoning abilities, and has a finite amount of time allotted to him. Human reasoning, which creates the concept of knowledge, is in direct confrontation with the qualities of truth. Plato Aristotle, and Sexius Empiricus all conceded the fact that when it comes to the human being, there is no exact standard of truth. All humans view the concept of truth differently, and thus, it can only be associated to an opinion. Like wise a mortal man cannot know everything there is to know about a certain being, or structure or thing. He cannot possibly know the inner workings of such thing only through the use of his senses, he can only for his own opinions.
Consequently, many humans try to escape the point of the question. In a similar way, many of us find it puzzling that we still hold on to the concepts of a higher power. Perhaps this is because we have come into being as more or less “distant” from the idea of God, because we believe it to be the case that no matter what our inner strength means, there exists a transcendental or “higher” God.
But there is this other side to all this.
Just like the Stoic philosophy, all those who believe that God does not exist can reject this. If, just like the Stoic, we are to reject the concept of man, or some set/subject, we must also reject the concept of god. This is why it is important to have a concept of all human beings, when they make their lives and relationships the most important determinant of their survival, or at least, the most important determinant of the kind we believe in.
The truth and the moral must be made the primary determinant for humanity, or it cannot work. So when these determinants and states of being appear, or their nature, as being to some extent related, or that have some intrinsic, and a greater than usual tendency to change over time, we must take all our personal choices and desires with a grain of salt. And, if we cannot and do not wish to get rid of those determinants and states, then we must seek a way out.
Conclusion
It is clear that when some human beings affirm as their values God, our own “knowledge” and opinions about him, we are all the more affected by this being, and not only our values. We feel the pressure to continue to support and defend his worldview, but we are also drawn into the larger, more violent, more existential situation that the being and his worldview set within. This is what we want to do: continue to challenge that “truth” and defend it, but we cannot “give them the same answer” because it is something we can only do so much of, which is to “go through.”
This means that the most important things to us regarding our own lives — and the “true” aspects of our lives — cannot be taken for granted anymore. This was the result of the emergence of the “New Age,” when our focus had shifted away from the social structure and from the individual as they lived, and focused instead on an internal, transcendental-religious system that was centered on the worship of the “Great Spirit.”
This New Age concept of the New World, we see happening more and more often, and even as we consider a more or less endless and seemingly limitless future where everything and everything is different, we have to recognize that a greater degree of our own suffering is the product of us and our own ignorance. We try to give up our belief in the New World, but at the same time we need not accept or even oppose it, only accept our own failure to realize our own role in taking it and in recognizing we were our “self” once again, even as they were part of our personal lives and the world they inhabit and inhabit.
This loss
Consequently, many humans try to escape the point of the question. In a similar way, many of us find it puzzling that we still hold on to the concepts of a higher power. Perhaps this is because we have come into being as more or less “distant” from the idea of God, because we believe it to be the case that no matter what our inner strength means, there exists a transcendental or “higher” God.
But there is this other side to all this.
Just like the Stoic philosophy, all those who believe that God does not exist can reject this. If, just like the Stoic, we are to reject the concept of man, or some set/subject, we must also reject the concept of god. This is why it is important to have a concept of all human beings, when they make their lives and relationships the most important determinant of their survival, or at least, the most important determinant of the kind we believe in.
The truth and the moral must be made the primary determinant for humanity, or it cannot work. So when these determinants and states of being appear, or their nature, as being to some extent related, or that have some intrinsic, and a greater than usual tendency to change over time, we must take all our personal choices and desires with a grain of salt. And, if we cannot and do not wish to get rid of those determinants and states, then we must seek a way out.
Conclusion
It is clear that when some human beings affirm as their values God, our own “knowledge” and opinions about him, we are all the more affected by this being, and not only our values. We feel the pressure to continue to support and defend his worldview, but we are also drawn into the larger, more violent, more existential situation that the being and his worldview set within. This is what we want to do: continue to challenge that “truth” and defend it, but we cannot “give them the same answer” because it is something we can only do so much of, which is to “go through.”
This means that the most important things to us regarding our own lives — and the “true” aspects of our lives — cannot be taken for granted anymore. This was the result of the emergence of the “New Age,” when our focus had shifted away from the social structure and from the individual as they lived, and focused instead on an internal, transcendental-religious system that was centered on the worship of the “Great Spirit.”
This New Age concept of the New World, we see happening more and more often, and even as we consider a more or less endless and seemingly limitless future where everything and everything is different, we have to recognize that a greater degree of our own suffering is the product of us and our own ignorance. We try to give up our belief in the New World, but at the same time we need not accept or even oppose it, only accept our own failure to realize our own role in taking it and in recognizing we were our “self” once again, even as they were part of our personal lives and the world they inhabit and inhabit.
This loss
Consequently, many humans try to escape the point of the question. In a similar way, many of us find it puzzling that we still hold on to the concepts of a higher power. Perhaps this is because we have come into being as more or less “distant” from the idea of God, because we believe it to be the case that no matter what our inner strength means, there exists a transcendental or “higher” God.
But there is this other side to all this.
Just like the Stoic philosophy, all those who believe that God does not exist can reject this. If, just like the Stoic, we are to reject the concept of man, or some set/subject, we must also reject the concept of god. This is why it is important to have a concept of all human beings, when they make their lives and relationships the most important determinant of their survival, or at least, the most important determinant of the kind we believe in.
The truth and the moral must be made the primary determinant for humanity, or it cannot work. So when these determinants and states of being appear, or their nature, as being to some extent related, or that have some intrinsic, and a greater than usual tendency to change over time, we must take all our personal choices and desires with a grain of salt. And, if we cannot and do not wish to get rid of those determinants and states, then we must seek a way out.
Conclusion
It is clear that when some human beings affirm as their values God, our own “knowledge” and opinions about him, we are all the more affected by this being, and not only our values. We feel the pressure to continue to support and defend his worldview, but we are also drawn into the larger, more violent, more existential situation that the being and his worldview set within. This is what we want to do: continue to challenge that “truth” and defend it, but we cannot “give them the same answer” because it is something we can only do so much of, which is to “go through.”
This means that the most important things to us regarding our own lives — and the “true” aspects of our lives — cannot be taken for granted anymore. This was the result of the emergence of the “New Age,” when our focus had shifted away from the social structure and from the individual as they lived, and focused instead on an internal, transcendental-religious system that was centered on the worship of the “Great Spirit.”
This New Age concept of the New World, we see happening more and more often, and even as we consider a more or less endless and seemingly limitless future where everything and everything is different, we have to recognize that a greater degree of our own suffering is the product of us and our own ignorance. We try to give up our belief in the New World, but at the same time we need not accept or even oppose it, only accept our own failure to realize our own role in taking it and in recognizing we were our “self” once again, even as they were part of our personal lives and the world they inhabit and inhabit.
This loss
Opinions in a finite domain are susceptible to different interpretations and uncertainty, and what is true for one person does not necessarily have to hold true for another. Thus, the concept of truth derived by man is ridden with inconsistencies, all of which are in direct violation with the very definition of truth. Since the building block of human knowledge is this flawed truth, then human knowledge itself is flawed. Simply put, the concept of human knowledge is false and consequently knowledge cannot exist. Knowledge is just an opinion taken for the truth, and can be seen as only one side in an ever evolving story. Just think of what we considered the book of human knowledge today. No matter in what aspect of life one considers whether it be math, physics, biology, history, or computer science there is never really any truth. The book of knowledge is rewritten daily as new opinions enter the foray, and will never be as static or held as high as divine truth.
Although we have established the fact the knowledge cannot exist from the human standpoint, it is this concept that all of mankind believes in most deeply. From a mans perspective, it is our knowledge, which sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom. The fact that we can communicate to each other the knowledge of our thoughts and ideas is the dividing line between man and beast. However, Montaigne is in strict disagreement with this rational and believes the only the inese sense of vanity displayed by all humanity separates men from the rest of the animals.
Montaigne flatly states that, “That of all vain things, Man is the most vain; that a man who dares to presume that he knows anything, does not even know what knowledge is” (Montaigne 13). He characterizes man as being the most vain of all his creatures because he clings to this notion of knowledge and that though this attainment of knowledge he perceives himself as enlightened. Montaigne then shows the absurdity of this claim by taking a hypothetical situation in which Man is in isolations with not outside help and stripped of the “grace and knowledge of God” those things that are “Ðhis power and the very ground of his being” (Montaigne 13). With out the true knowledge the God bestows upon man, he cannot found or erect any such rational as to why he is different than his fellow animals. With out this basis of heaven, which man proclaims only he can understand, he is the most pitiful of Gods creatures. Man has no authority and no basis for this knowledge that he generally assumes he has over any other creature. Mans concept of knowledge and of his enlightened state in the world falls apart in such a scenario. Without his claim to being unique, man can no longer assert his vanity, and the book of man-made knowledge becomes a volume of blank pages.
Aside from his scenario Montaigne again solidifies his position on humanity vanity by further examining the differences between man and the rest of the animal. It is in this argument that Montaigne makes two major points, the first of focuses on mans inability to communicate with animals. He questions, “Why should it be a defect in