As I read through Gersonides’ section on prophecy and divination, I have noticed something quite interesting. Medieval Aristotelian natural science often seems like philosophical guesswork. Instead of being a study of the world through observation and empirical data, the greatest scientist in medieval times seems to be the philosopher, who attempted more so to apply logical principles to the world, such as deductive and inductive reasoning, to determine its nature. The problem was, the facts of the behavior of nature and those principles did not always align. One of these areas of contradiction was astrology. Astrology claimed that the stars and planets influenced the way people acted, and determined their nature. If a man was born under one star, he would act in a certain way and certain events would happen to him, differently than if he was born under another. However, the predictions were so often in error, and the mechanisms of influence were difficult to determine logically.
However, over and over again we find Gersonides appeal to an interesting type of proof for his arguments for astrology and prophecy. And that is, the reality of its occurrence to him and others. Early on, to fight against the claim that prophecy of chance events in dreams could not occur, Gersonides writes about Averroes’ denial (32-33), “This is contrary to what sense-experience testifies… Indeed we ourselves have had such communications many times in dreams, and this has occurred to others, according to what we have heard from them.” In case you missed it, Gersonides rejects objections against prophecy of chance-events since, among other reasons, he himself(!) has had them!
In his next discussion, regarding the nature of chance events, he goes on to note that chance events have some kind of order to them. That’s why, he says, people can predict chance events with some accuracy, and can profit from their knowledge, giving rise to the notions of (33) “men of good fortune” and those who don’t profit from them, “men of bad fortune.” Again, he uses observable occurrences to demonstrate the nature and reality of certain things. And the most astounding thing is that he admits, (33) “Would that I knew how this is possible!”
He does this again, i.e. pitting philosophical knowledge against his own observance of the world, in reference to astrology. Though he admits that there is (36) “little we know about astrology”, he writes that people who were born in a certain place can be seen to tend toward certain crafts and skills. He writes, “We therefore observe that men who work in trivial or despised crafts do not leave these jobs for other work, although they have the capacity to transfer jobs. Indeed, we see people beginning to learn such lowly and despised jobs in preference to better jobs.” There is always this emphasis on observation to prove his point, despite the fact it cannot be explained.
Indeed, he relies on this point to argue that astrology is correct, despite the fact that the astrologists so often err. He writes that “frequently”, astrologists accurately predict “the thoughts and actions of men.” However, he notes that they “often” are incorrect in their predictions. He ascribes this to the difficulty in obtaining knowledge in this area, emphasizing “the inadequate procedures of verification characteristic of this discipline.” For example, he says, is that “the zodiac position of a heavenly body at any given time is only repeated once in many thousand years.” Additionally, “the movements of the heavenly bodies are not sufficiently known.” Thus, Gersonides says, we see astrology is correct with our own eyes. But if only we could observe reality more, we would see more accurate results. Again, this is a very modern scientific mindset, albeit with a debunked assumption of natural phenomena that is astrology.
There are more examples to add to this. As he continues through his arguments regarding prophecy, he deals with the types of prophecy that could be communicated. Can one prophesy regarding theoretical matters, even without knowing the causes? For example, can one have prophecy regarding medical cures without possessing any knowledge of why it would work? Again we find Gersonides appeal to what has been reported to have occurred to others. He writes, (42) “We see that many principles of medicine are communicated in sleep without their reasons…” He emphasizes great and famous doctors such as Galen and ibn Zohar write about this fact. He goes on to further note that this has happened “in my own lifetime.”
This is all to buttress his argument that theoretical matters can be communicated without their cause - because it’s happened! But he notes that logically, it shouldn’t work. He thus poses the problem quite poignantly: (44) “We are now in a quandary. Our experience testifies that there is knowledge of theoretical matters in this kind of communication, whereas logical argument indicates the opposite.” He notes that Maimonides sides with logic over experience, and therefore denies that Galen truly received this knowledge in dreams. But Gersonides objects, “To deny this is to deny empirical evidence.” Nevertheless, though he attempts to explain how communication works with theoretical knowledge in dreams, he cannot use his explanations for medical knowledge. He declares, (46) “Would that I knew!”
He is forced to use creative and wide-reaching conclusions as to the way medicine works, declaring that it must be “determined by the heavenly bodies.” How does he prove this as being so? “When you examine all these stories of doctors concerning this phenomenon, you will see that the knowledge of these cures is transmitted in this way… It is in this way that a great deal of knowledge of medicine arises, as has been related by the physicians.” Again, appeal to experience and observation toward the efficacy of the cures is how he demonstrates truth!
These are just some examples that show how Gersonides relies on experience to prove the truth of certain principles of reality.
No comments:
Post a Comment