Back Aa

Consolation of Philosophy, The

Close

<h3><SPAN name="Page_234" id="Page_234" />III.</h3> <p>Then said I: 'But now I am once more perplexed by a problem yet more difficult.'</p> <p>'And what is that?' said she; 'yet, in truth, I can guess what it is that troubles you.'</p> <p>'It seems,' said I, 'too much of a paradox and a contradiction that God should know all things, and yet there should be free will. For if God foresees everything, and can in no wise be deceived, that which providence foresees to be about to happen must necessarily come to pass. Wherefore, if from eternity He foreknows not only what men will do, but also their designs and purposes, there can be no freedom of the will, seeing that nothing can be done, nor can any sort of purpose be entertained, save such as a Divine providence, incapable of being deceived, has perceived beforehand. For if the <SPAN name="Page_235" id="Page_235" />issues can be turned aside to some other end than that foreseen by providence, there will not then be any sure foreknowledge of the future, but uncertain conjecture instead, and to think this of God I deem impiety.</p> <p>'Moreover, I do not approve the reasoning by which some think to solve this puzzle. For they say that it is not because God has foreseen the coming of an event that <em>therefore</em> it is sure to come to pass, but, conversely, because something is about to come to pass, it cannot be hidden from Divine providence; and accordingly the necessity passes to the opposite side, and it is not that what is foreseen must necessarily come to pass, but that what is about to come to pass must necessarily be foreseen. But this is just as if the matter in debate were, which is cause and which effect—whether foreknowledge of the future cause of the necessity, or the necessity of the future of the foreknowledge. But we need not be at the pains of demonstrating that, whatsoever be the order of the causal sequence, the occurrence of things foreseen is necessary, even though <SPAN name="Page_236" id="Page_236" />the foreknowledge of future events does not in itself impose upon them the necessity of their occurrence. For example, if a man be seated, the supposition of his being seated is necessarily true; and, conversely, if the supposition of his being seated is true, because he is really seated, he must necessarily be sitting. So, in either case, there is some necessity involved—in this latter case, the necessity of the fact; in the former, of the truth of the statement. But in both cases the sitter is not therefore seated because the opinion is true, but rather the opinion is true because antecedently he was sitting as a matter of fact. Thus, though the cause of the truth of the opinion comes from the other side,<SPAN name="FNanchor_P_16" id="FNanchor_P_16" /><SPAN href="#Footnote_P_16" class="fnanchor">[P]</SPAN> yet there is a necessity on both sides alike. We can obviously reason similarly in the case of providence and the future. Even if future events are foreseen because they are about to happen, and do not come to pass because they are foreseen, still, all the same, there is a necessity, both that they should be fore<SPAN name="Page_237" id="Page_237" />seen by God as about to come to pass, and that when they are foreseen they should happen, and this is sufficient for the destruction of free will. However, it is preposterous to speak of the occurrence of events in time as the cause of eternal foreknowledge. And yet if we believe that God foresees future events because they are about to come to pass, what is it but to think that the occurrence of events is the cause of His supreme providence? Further, just as when I <em>know</em> that anything is, that thing <em>necessarily</em> is, so when I know that anything will be, it will <em>necessarily</em> be. It follows, then, that things foreknown come to pass inevitably.</p> <p>'Lastly, to think of a thing as being in any way other than what it is, is not only not knowledge, but it is false opinion widely different from the truth of knowledge. Consequently, if anything is about to be, and yet its occurrence is not certain and necessary, how can anyone foreknow that it will occur? For just as knowledge itself is free from all admixture of falsity, so any conception drawn from knowledge cannot be other than as it is conceived.<SPAN name="Page_238" id="Page_238" /> For this, indeed, is the cause why knowledge is free from falsehood, because of necessity each thing must correspond exactly with the knowledge which grasps its nature. In what way, then, are we to suppose that God foreknows these uncertainties as about to come to pass? For if He thinks of events which possibly may not happen at all as inevitably destined to come to pass, He is deceived; and this it is not only impious to believe, but even so much as to express in words. If, on the other hand, He sees them in the future as they are in such a sense as to know that they may equally come to pass or not, what sort of foreknowledge is this which comprehends nothing certain nor fixed? What better is this than the absurd vaticination of Teiresias?</p> <div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> <span class="i2">'"Whate'er I say<br/></span> <span>Shall either come to pass—or not."<br/></span></div> </div> <p class="noindent">In that case, too, in what would Divine providence surpass human opinion if it holds for uncertain things the occurrence of which is uncertain, even as men do? But if at that perfectly sure Fountain-head of all things no shadow of uncertainty can <SPAN name="Page_239" id="Page_239" />possibly be found, then the occurrence of those things which He has surely foreknown as coming is certain. Wherefore there can be no freedom in human actions and designs; but the Divine mind, which foresees all things without possibility of mistake, ties and binds them down to one only issue. But this admission once made, what an upset of human affairs manifestly ensues! Vainly are rewards and punishments proposed for the good and bad, since no free and voluntary motion of the will has deserved either one or the other; nay, the punishment of the wicked and the reward of the righteous, which is now esteemed the perfection of justice, will seem the most flagrant injustice, since men are determined either way not by their own proper volition, but by the necessity of what must surely be. And therefore neither virtue nor vice is anything, but rather good and ill desert are confounded together without distinction. Moreover, seeing that the whole course of events is deduced from providence, and nothing is left free to human design, it comes to pass that our vices also are re<SPAN name="Page_240" id="Page_240" />ferred to the Author of all good—a thought than which none more abominable can possibly be conceived. Again, no ground is left for hope or prayer, since how can we hope for blessings, or pray for mercy, when every object of desire depends upon the links of an unalterable chain of causation? Gone, then, is the one means of intercourse between God and man—the communion of hope and prayer—if it be true that we ever earn the inestimable recompense of the Divine favour at the price of a due humility; for this is the one way whereby men seem able to hold communion with God, and are joined to that unapproachable light by the very act of supplication, even before they obtain their petitions. Then, since these things can scarcely be believed to have any efficacy, if the necessity of future events be admitted, what means will there be whereby we may be brought near and cleave to Him who is the supreme Head of all? Wherefore it needs must be that the human race, even as thou didst erstwhile declare in song, parted and dissevered from its Source, should fall to ruin.'<SPAN name="Page_241" id="Page_241" /></p> <div class="footnotes"><p class="center">FOOTNOTES:</p> <div class="footnote"><p><SPAN name="Footnote_P_16" id="Footnote_P_16" /><SPAN href="#FNanchor_P_16"><span class="label">[P]</span></SPAN> <em>I.e.</em>, the necessity of the truth of the statement from the fact.</p> </div> </div> <h3>SONG III.<br/>Truth's Paradoxes.</h3> <div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> <span>Why does a strange discordance break<br/></span> <span class="i2">The ordered scheme's fair harmony?<br/></span> <span>Hath God decreed 'twixt truth and truth<br/></span> <span class="i2">There may such lasting warfare be,<br/></span> <span>That truths, each severally plain,<br/></span> <span>We strive to reconcile in vain?<br/></span></div> <div class="stanza"> <span>Or is the discord not in truth,<br/></span> <span class="i2">Since truth is self consistent ever?<br/></span> <span>But, close in fleshly wrappings held,<br/></span> <span class="i2">The blinded mind of man can never<br/></span> <span>Discern—so faint her taper shines—<br/></span> <span>The subtle chain that all combines?<br/></span></div> <div class="stanza"> <span>Ah! then why burns man's restless mind<br/></span> <span class="i2">Truth's hidden portals to unclose?<br/></span> <span>Knows he already what he seeks?<br/></span> <span class="i2">Why toil to seek it, if he knows?<br/></span> <span>Yet, haply if he knoweth not,<br/></span> <span>Why blindly seek he knows not what?<SPAN name="FNanchor_Q_17" id="FNanchor_Q_17" /><SPAN href="#Footnote_Q_17" class="fnanchor">[Q]</SPAN><br/></span></div> </div> <div class="poem"><div class="stanza"><SPAN name="Page_242" id="Page_242" /></div> <div class="stanza"> <span>Who for a good he knows not sighs?<br/></span> <span class="i2">Who can an unknown end pursue?<br/></span> <span>How find? How e'en when haply found<br/></span> <span class="i2">Hail that strange form he never knew?<br/></span> <span>Or is it that man's inmost soul<br/></span> <span>Once knew each part and knew the whole?<br/></span></div> <div class="stanza"> <span>Now, though by fleshly vapours dimmed,<br/></span> <span class="i2">Not all forgot her visions past;<br/></span> <span>For while the several parts are lost,<br/></span> <span class="i2">To the one whole she cleaveth fast;<br/></span> <span>Whence he who yearns the truth to find<br/></span> <span>Is neither sound of sight nor blind.<br/></span></div> <div class="stanza"> <span>For neither does he know in full,<br/></span> <span class="i2">Nor is he reft of knowledge quite;<br/></span> <span>But, holding still to what is left,<br/></span> <span class="i2">He gropes in the uncertain light,<br/></span> <span>And by the part that still survives<br/></span> <span>To win back all he bravely strives.<br/></span></div> </div> <div class="footnotes"><p class="center">FOOTNOTES:</p> <div class="footnote"><p><SPAN name="Footnote_Q_17" id="Footnote_Q_17" /><SPAN href="#FNanchor_Q_17"><span class="label">[Q]</span></SPAN> Compare Plato, 'Meno,' 80; Jowett, vol. ii., pp. 39, 40.</p> </div> </div> <div style="break-after:column;"></div><br />

1 of 2

2 of 2