I agree with Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) that most of what we learn is of questionable accuracy. He preached by example because, for twenty years, he wrote haphazard essays on disorganised, sometimes obscure, subjects. Allegedly, he was looking for wisdom, but in practice, his doubts grew increasingly larger. Practical knowledge is great if you can get it. The very worst way to search knowledge is to do it randomly as Montaigne did. He explored subjects in the fields of children’s education, ethics, literature, military science, religion and history, but his lack of philosophical integration prevented him from drawing sound conclusions. Montaigne favoured scepticism and open-mindedness above all, but those only led him to permanent doubts; his essay titled “Apology for Raymond Sebond” speaks against rigid thinking, but is it possible to reach conclusions without an established intellectual structure? I don’t think so. Although Montaigne was conscious of the deficiencies of scepticism, he devoted more energy to justifying them than to correcting them. Montaigne rationalised that scepticism is the best defence against human contradictions. His essay “Of Experience” gives examples of people changing their convictions as they age, but those examples prove exactly the opposite point. The fact that people learn and grow more effective as time passes only shows the difficulty of gaining knowledge. It does not prove that knowledge (certainty, clarity, accuracy) cannot be acquired. Montaigne devoted vast efforts to arguing that knowledge is impossible to acquire. To this end, he compiled dozens of cases that speak in favour of relativism. None of those examples and arguments can withstand close examination. Without exception, they rely on fallacies or false dichotomies. Nevertheless, they are worth reading to sharpen one’s mind. Montaigne argues for instance that different countries have different views on clothing, attire, and nudity. He devoted an essay to this subject. It is titled “Of the Custom of Wearing Clothes.” Where is the fallacy? Montaigne is elevating a discussion on fashion to a philosophical issue, which it’s not. Then he says that philosophical certainty is impossible because people have different ideas on fashion. Really? Once and again, Montaigne takes accessory or exotic views, pretending that they carry philosophical weight, only to state at the end that philosophical certainty is impossible. Here is the link to the original article: https://johnvespasian.com/michel-de-montaigne-and-the-pursuit-of-knowledge/