It happens that a single sentence may condense the essence of a work.
My reading of Montaigne’s Essais (1533–1592)—the subject of the next meetup—being still in progress, I cannot say which one it is. I have settled for the one I remembered, on his friendship with Étienne de La Boétie (1530–1563).
Since we are on the topic of key sentences, let us mention a few as a recap.
Touched on only marginally, two philosophical pillars between the Renaissance and the Enlightenment stand in opposition.
The first of these authors is René Descartes (1596–1650). Breaking with the dominant dogma—the scholastic tradition—his system rests on this keystone maxim: “cogito ergo sum” (“I think, therefore I am”). This does not make him an atheist, but rather a deist. His demonstration of the ontological argument, a.k.a Great Watchmaker, is deceptively simple.
The second author, Blaise Pascal (1623–1662), rivals Descartes as a scholar (the term “scientist” was not yet used), but differs radically in purpose: an apology of revealed Christianity. Voltaire calls him a “sublime misanthrope.” This can be read as a reference to his view of man as fallen through original sin, sublimated in the famous fragment from the Pensées:
> “Man is but a reed, the most feeble thing in nature, but he is a thinking reed.”
A quote that has entered common usage illuminates his divergence from Descartes:
> “The heart has its reasons which reason does not know.”
Pascal’s wager could, however, be compared to Cartesian subjectivism, in that it shifts the focus from God to the believer.
It is above all Voltaire’s Candide (1694–1778) that has dominated past meetups, which is entirely compatible with the marginal mention of the previously cited authors.
A key sentence is the motto of Pangloss, the tutor at the castle of Thunder-ten-Tronckh:
> “All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.”
Taken as Candide’s philosophical baggage, this statement is tested throughout his travels—natural disasters, auto-da-fé, etc.—as a pretext to denounce religious wars, superstition, and so on.
Pangloss, embodying in a parodic way a famous metaphysician (another rationalist besides Descartes), also reflects, on Voltaire’s part, a saturation with the subject matter, which I myself felt when attempting to dive into it. However, Voltaire and his peers do not throw the baby out with the bathwater; otherwise, Descartes would not be considered a father of modern philosophy
Going further back into the Renaissance, we covered a poem titled “Comme un qui s’est perdu dans la forêt profonde” by Étienne Jodelle (1532–1573).
This author was a member of the Pléiade, a movement that elevated French (popular) over Latin (elitist). In form, it is a sonnet—an innovation imported from Italy. Melancholic, the poem plays on resonances—not just rhymes—between the verses. In content, it is generic:
> “Perdu long-temps l’objet, où plus mon [bon]heur se fonde”
Reading Montaigne’s Essais, Book I, all at once is a challenge that carries the risk of getting bogged down (unlike Candide, I have no study aid). That is why I am now setting a date for a meeting, without promising to have mastered my subject: September 30, 2025. By default, I propose the chapter on pedantry, since it precisely warns against the risk mentioned. Everyone is invited to reflect on a contribution—dithering collectively would be more fair on me—including on another chapter if so inclined. Finally, we can also revisit past topics.
Beyond that, I propose readings of Le Rouge et le Noir and Madame Bovary, in that order. The thread of my thought is simple: since the Antichrist is the number one enemy, René Girard—the mentor of Peter Thiel—becomes unavoidable. Indeed, these two novels are exemplars of mimetic desire. I should clarify that not everything in this announcement is to be taken seriously.
The original version, in French, contains references. It can be found at https://shorturl.at/EjAq3.
---
The meetup will be held online, and conducted in French. Proficiency is expected. Contact me for the link.
