The study of history and philosophy is pointless unless you can draw hands-on advice. Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) had understood perfectly the need to draw practical, tangible conclusions from the study of antiquity. I regard Montaigne’s essay “On Democritus and Heraclitus” as one of the best examples in the genre of critical history. Its contents are erudite and the quotations fascinating, but above all, Montaigne is seeking the truth. What is the best philosophy for achieving happiness here and now? Democritus and Heraclitus are roughly contemporary, that is, both lived in around 500 BC. Let us take a look at their key ideas, which represent two opposite philosophical standpoints. On the one hand, Democritus is one of the first proponents of the atomistic theory. He maintained that everything, objects or creatures, in the cosmos are composed of small particles that he called “atoms.” He also theorised that the absence of atoms means void. Democritus held overall materialistic and rational views. On the other hand, Heraclitus sustained that everything in the world, whether animate or inanimate, is subject to constant change. He famously said that “nobody can step twice into the same river” because the flowing water is constantly changing the river composition; for Heraclitus, every object and creature in the world is subject to constant change, conflict, or pressure. In this essay, Montaigne is comparing the morality ideas of Democritus and Heraclitus. He wants to identify what are their recipes for happiness, and which of them make the most sense. Based on his atomic theory, Democritus considers the world orderly and predictable. The universe is governed by natural laws, and the outcome of actions is primarily mechanistic. His recipe for happiness is based on his mechanistic world-view. If we want to do well in life, we should make careful plans and follow them through, correcting errors as we go. Heraclitus takes the opposite path. He regards the universe as a perpetual flux. Reality has no stable essence. The common element to all objects and subjects is their transitory nature. It’s pointless for us to make very detailed plans because we inhabit an unpredictable, ever-changing world. If we want to achieve happiness, we should accept change, remain flexible, and seize opportunities as they arise. What is Montaigne’s conclusion after studying Democritus and Heraclitus? In the essay, Montaigne declines to take sides, arguing that there are important lessons to learn from each. We should embrace Democritus’ rational approach for planning our projects, but at the same time, it’s advisable to implement the recommendations given by Heraclitus. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/democritus-and-heraclitus-in-montaignes-classical-philosophy/

Ver todos los episodios