Montaigne discusses fortune-telling. Is it possible to
tell the future, and should one follow their unexplained instincts?
'(man's desire to know the future is) a notable example of the wild curiosity of our nature to grasp at and anticipate future things, as if we had not enough to do to digest the present’ |
Oracles, that is, prophesiers or fortunetellers, had begun
to lose credibility even before the coming of Jesus Christ. Other types of
fortune-telling, for example those based on the flight of birds, the intestines
of dead animals, the claps of thunder, floods, and so on carried great
importance in ancient times, but are now abolished by our religion. Still,
there are many who continue to practice fortune-telling through the stars
above, or through spirits, of the shapes and complexions of men, or from dreams.
This is ‘a notable example of the wild curiosity of our nature to grasp at
and anticipate future things, as if we had not enough to do to digest the
present’.
Lucan, it seems, disapproved of prophesying; he said:
‘Let whatever thou art preparing be sudden. Let the mind of
men be blind to fate in store; let it be permitted to the timid to hope.’
Similarly, Cicero says, ‘It is useless to know what shall
come to pass; it is a miserable thing to be tormented with no purpose.’
Although less attention is paid to fortune-telling that in
the past, we still have unusual cases occur from time to time, for example, the
Italian Marquis (and ally of the French King) Franceso was so terrified at the
good fortune prophesied towards Charles V that he became sure that the French
would fall, and, in spite of having served the French King, he changed sides,
with much regret and sadness.
‘A wise God
covers with thick night the path of the future, and laughs at the man who
alarms himself without reason.’ Hor. Od.
I, for my part, would sooner regulate my affairs with the
role of a dice than by such idle and vain dreams. And indeed, many have lived
their lives like this, according to chance. Plato, in the system of government
that he models according to his own wishes, leaves to the state the decision of
several important things, including marriage. The government would place so
much importance in this ‘accidental choice’ of marriage that only the children
born within their appointed couplings would be brought up in the country, and
any begotten outside of the marriage that the state ordained would be thrust
aside. Nonetheless, if any of these exiles showed sign of success, they could
be recalled into the country, and if any of the retained children showed little
expectation, they could be exiled.
I know many who study their calendars to predict future
events, and whenever they see a prediction realized, they point this out as
proof. In truth, it’s hardly surprising that ‘these alleged authorities
sometime stumble upon a truth amongst an infinite number of lies.’ I cannot take such things seriously. I would be more
convinced if there was a rule that the calendars always lied.
Nobody records the predictions that don’t come true, because they are infinite
and common, but if one does come true it is reported far and wide.
A story from Cicero:
Diogenes (surnamed, The Atheist) was shown a painting of
several people that were saved from a terrible shipwreck. He was told, ‘look,
you say the gods have no care for humans, what about all these people, saved
through his special favour?’ He answered, ‘Where are the pictures of the far
greater number of the ones that were cast away?’
I have seen men who, astonished at their own misfortune,
abandon reason and superstitiously seek out in the stars the causes of their
present situation. And sometimes, I find that they have been so ‘strangely
successful’ in this. I think this is because the action somehow amuses their
sharp and volatile wit. Those who are good at unfolding riddles are capable,
in any sort of writing, to find out what they desire. But above all, what gives them the greatest room to
play in is the obscure, ambiguous and fantastic gibberish that makes up
prophetic talk, where the fortune-teller says nothing clearly and shrouds
everything in riddle, so that one can interpret and apply it as they wish.
Socrates claimed to have a demon (literally ‘a divine
something’) that frequently warned him – in the form of a ‘voice’ – against
mistakes. This demon may actually have been no more than a kind of instinct or
impulse, which came upon him without ‘the advice or consent of his judgment’. In
a soul as enlightened as his own and so well-versed in wisdom and virtue, its
not surprising that those inclinations were important and worthy of being
followed, even though they were sudden, and undigested. It’s not strange to
find oneself in a situation of agitation, where one makes a decision based on a
sudden and forceful opinion. I think following one’s instinct can be extremely
favourable. I myself have had ideas that seemed weak in reason, but nonetheless
violently persuasive. I carried through with these ideas, and sometimes found
the result to be so advantageous for me that one may have said that the idea
had had something in it of ‘divine inspiration.’
are there logical fallacies in this essay of Montaigne?
ReplyDelete