The real field and subject of deception are things unknown: firstly because their very strangeness lends them credence; second, because they cannot be exposed to our usual order of argument, so stripping us of the means of fighting them.
These are provocative thoughts Montaigne uses to open this short but memorable essay. He elaborates on these concepts a bit towards the end:
God wishes us to learn that the good have other things to hope for and the wicked other things to fear than the chances and mischances of this world, which his hands control according to his hidden purposes: and so he takes from us the means of foolishly exploiting them. Those who desire to draw advantage from them by human reason delude themselves. For every hit which they make, they suffer two in return. St. Augustine amply proved that against his opponents: the arms which decide that wrangle are not those of reason but of memory.
I looked to City of God to try to find that Augustine reference and couldn’t find it. The closest I came was this:
For who would doubt that it is better to have a good mind than even the most extensive memory? No one is evil who has a good mind, but some of the very worst people have the most marvelous memories, and they are all the worse because they cannot forget the evil they have contrived.
This fits somewhat with Montaigne, who writes often of his lack of memory, but it still feels like an odd proof of Montaigne’s point. Which is perfect for this essay, at least in the form I have crafted it through the years. In various forms, this has been the messiest in my collection, ranging over numerous disconnected thoughts that are close to Montaigne–attributing success in battle to providence, trying to determine God’s will–to a wide range of my own tangential views on free will, finding purpose through helping others, and providing progress reports on the status of my project. Looking at those opening quotes now, I’m tempted to digress into my own attraction to matters of mystery, and how the very strangeness of things can make them seem more important than the simple and the clear.
So, let’s get Montaigne’s thoughts out of the way first. He argues one should never attribute the outcome of a battle to the favors of God:
What I consider wrong is our usual practice of trying to support and confirm our religion by the success or happy outcome of our undertakings. Our belief has enough other foundations without seeking sanction from events: people who have grown accustomed to such plausible arguments well-suited to their taste are in danger of having their faith shaken when the turn comes for events to prove hostile and unfavourable.
The modern instinct is to dismiss the foolishness of a religious war altogether—anyone daft enough to fight one is also foolish enough to believe in outcome provenance. But our age has no advantage over Montaigne’s in this matter. We still fight various religious wars and now even consider our political campaigns to be quasi-religious showdowns. Donald Trump has argued frequently in 2024, for example, that the failed assassination attempts on him are evidence of God’s backing in the election. Many, if not most, modern humans continue to believe that some sort of destiny guides the outcome of events, from the personal to the international.
As he often does, Montaigne finds wisdom in non-European cultures on such subjects:
In one Indian (Native American) tribe they have a laudable custom: when they are worsted in a skirmish or battle they publicly beseech the Sun their god for pardon for having done wrong, attributing their success or failure to the divine mind, to which they submit their own judgment and discourse.
It’s tempting here to digress into a discussion of free will and perhaps even draw in Montaigne’s theories of personality “bits and pieces.” But the indigenous example above actually does a better job of making the important point. No matter the will of God or lack of absolute will in humans, we still have the ability to take responsibility for the world around us and shape our actions to our values.
Johann Wolfgang Goethe expressed it well through his characters in the novel “Young Wilhelm’s Apprentice.” It comes in a scene where the protagonist has proposed marriage to a woman, Therese, but finds himself forming a deep connection to her friend and fellow teacher Natalie. This quote is in a letter Therese writes to Natalie telling her why she will accept the proposal, but Therese is writing here about Natalie:
“When I say that I have hopes we will suit each other, my belief is based primarily on his similarity to you, dear Natalie, whom I treasure and respect so greatly. Like you he has that noble seeking and striving for betterment which enables us to do good where we think we perceive the possibility. I have often blamed you in my mind for treating this or that person differently and reacting to this or that situation differently from how I would have; and yet the outcome usually showed you were right. ‘If we just take people as they are,’ you once said, ‘we make them worse; but if we treat them not as they are but as they should be, we help them to become what they can become.’
Goethe, through his characters speaks of the importance of not just seeing what other people are capable of becoming, but helping them down that path. And this ties back well to the indigenous people Montaigne highlights. We can dismiss all of the random acts of good or bad fortune. Some people luck out, some never seem to be able to catch a break. That will never change and we can’t reason ourselves out of that predicament. But we can do all we can to help others succeed regardless of luck. And as we take on this mission for others, we find meaning for ourselves.
But, I also think it’s important to keep God’s involvement in unexplained events part of the story. So I’ll close with this scene from Pulp Fiction.
JULES
I just been sittin’ here thinkin’.
VINCENT (mouthful of food)
About what?
JULES
The miracle we witnessed.
VINCENT
The miracle you witnessed. I witnessed a freak occurrence.
JULES
Do you know that a miracle is?
VINCENT
An act of God.
JULES
What’s an act of God?
VINCENT
I guess it’s when God makes the impossible possible. And I’m sorry Jules, but I don’t think what happened this morning qualifies.
JULES
Don’t you see, Vince, that shit don’t matter. You’re judging this thing the wrong way. It’s not about what. It could be God stopped the bullets, he changed Coke into Pepsi, he found my fuckin’ car keys. You don’t judge shit like this based on merit. Whether or not what we experienced was an according-to-Hoyle miracle is insignificant. What is significant is I felt God’s touch, God got involved
Leave a Reply