Summary
Montaigne explores a fascinating mental trap: what happens when we're faced with two perfectly equal choices? He uses the example of being equally hungry and thirsty, stuck between food and drink, unable to choose either—potentially dying from indecision. The Stoics claimed we make random choices in such situations, but Montaigne disagrees. He argues that nothing is ever truly equal—there's always some tiny difference, visible or felt, that tips the scale. Even something as simple as picking one coin from identical coins involves subtle preferences we barely notice. This connects to bigger questions about certainty itself. Montaigne references mathematical paradoxes and contradictions that show how our reason can lead us in circles. He quotes Pliny's observation that 'nothing is certain except that nothing is certain, and nothing is more miserable or proud than humans.' This isn't pessimism—it's liberation. When we accept that perfect knowledge is impossible, we stop paralyzing ourselves with the need for absolute certainty. Instead of getting trapped by our own overthinking, we can trust those small instincts and preferences that actually do guide us. The chapter reveals how our minds often create problems that don't really exist, turning simple choices into philosophical crises. Montaigne suggests that embracing uncertainty and trusting our subtle preferences is more practical than demanding impossible perfection from our decision-making process.
Coming Up in Chapter 71
If uncertainty complicates our choices, what happens when we actually want something that's hard to get? Montaigne next examines how difficulty and obstacles don't discourage our desires—they intensify them.
Share it with friends
An excerpt from the original text.(complete · 338 words)
THAT OUR MIND HINDERS ITSELF
‘Tis a pleasant imagination to fancy a mind exactly balanced betwixt two
equal desires: for, doubtless, it can never pitch upon either, forasmuch
as the choice and application would manifest an inequality of esteem;
and were we set betwixt the bottle and the ham, with an equal appetite to
drink and eat, there would doubtless be no remedy, but we must die of
thirst and hunger. To provide against this inconvenience, the Stoics,
when they are asked whence the election in the soul of two indifferent
things proceeds, and that makes us, out of a great number of crowns,
rather take one than another, they being all alike, and there being no
reason to incline us to such a preference, make answer, that this
movement of the soul is extraordinary and irregular, entering into us
by a foreign, accidental, and fortuitous impulse. It might rather,
methinks, he said, that nothing presents itself to us wherein there is
not some difference, how little soever; and that, either by the sight or
touch, there is always some choice that, though it be imperceptibly,
tempts and attracts us; so, whoever shall presuppose a packthread equally
strong throughout, it is utterly impossible it should break; for, where
will you have the breaking to begin? and that it should break altogether
is not in nature. Whoever, also, should hereunto join the geometrical
propositions that, by the certainty of their demonstrations, conclude the
contained to be greater than the containing, the centre to be as great as
its circumference, and that find out two lines incessantly approaching
each other, which yet can never meet, and the philosopher’s stone, and
the quadrature of the circle, where the reason and the effect are so
opposite, might, peradventure, find some argument to second this bold
saying of Pliny:
“Solum certum nihil esse certi,
et homine nihil miserius ant superbius.”
[“It is only certain that there is nothing certain, and that nothing
is more miserable or more proud than man.”--Nat. Hist., ii. 7.]
Master this chapter. Complete your experience
Purchase the complete book to access all chapters and support classic literature
As an Amazon Associate, we earn a small commission from qualifying purchases at no additional cost to you.
Available in paperback, hardcover, and e-book formats
Intelligence Amplifier™ Analysis
The Road of False Paralysis - When Overthinking Creates Problems That Don't Exist
Creating mental paralysis by demanding perfect information before making decisions that don't require perfection.
Why This Matters
Connect literature to life
This chapter teaches how to distinguish between productive deliberation and paralyzing perfectionism.
Practice This Today
This week, notice when you're researching a decision for the third time—that's usually your signal to trust your gut and choose.
Now let's explore the literary elements.
Terms to Know
Stoicism
An ancient philosophy that taught people to accept what they can't control and focus on their own responses. Stoics believed in logic and reason above emotion, trying to achieve inner peace through mental discipline.
Modern Usage:
We see this in modern self-help advice about 'controlling what you can control' and not sweating the small stuff.
Paradox of Choice
The mental paralysis that happens when faced with too many options or perfectly equal choices. Montaigne explores how our minds can freeze up when we demand perfect reasoning for every decision.
Modern Usage:
This shows up when we spend an hour choosing what to watch on Netflix or when someone can't pick a restaurant because they're all 'fine.'
Geometric Propositions
Mathematical proofs that seem absolutely certain and logical, which Montaigne uses to show how even our most 'certain' reasoning can lead to contradictions and impossible situations.
Modern Usage:
Like when someone uses 'logic' to prove two completely opposite points in an argument on social media.
Fortuitous Impulse
Random, accidental urges that the Stoics believed explained how we make choices between equal options. It's the idea that some decisions are just luck or chance rather than reasoned thought.
Modern Usage:
When you flip a coin to make a decision or just 'go with your gut' without being able to explain why.
Skepticism
The philosophical position that we can't know anything with absolute certainty. Montaigne embraces this uncertainty as freeing rather than depressing.
Modern Usage:
Seen in people who question everything they read online or who say 'I could be wrong, but...' before sharing opinions.
Indifferent Things
Options that appear to have no meaningful difference between them, making choice seemingly impossible. Montaigne argues that truly indifferent things don't actually exist.
Modern Usage:
Like when someone says 'I don't care where we eat' but then shoots down every suggestion you make.
Characters in This Chapter
The Stoics
Philosophical opponents
They represent the logical, systematic approach to decision-making that Montaigne challenges. They claim we make random choices when faced with equal options, but Montaigne disagrees with their reasoning.
Modern Equivalent:
The friend who makes pro-and-con lists for everything
Pliny
Ancient authority
Montaigne quotes this Roman writer's observation that 'nothing is certain except that nothing is certain.' He uses Pliny to support his argument about the limits of human knowledge.
Modern Equivalent:
The wise older coworker who's seen it all
Key Quotes & Analysis
"Nothing is certain except that nothing is certain, and nothing is more miserable or proud than humans."
Context: Montaigne uses this to cap his argument about the impossibility of perfect knowledge
This quote captures the human condition of wanting absolute certainty while being incapable of achieving it. It's both humbling and liberating—we're miserable when we demand impossible certainty, but proud when we think we've achieved it.
In Today's Words:
The only thing we can be sure of is that we can't be sure of anything, and people are their own worst enemies when it comes to overthinking.
"Were we set betwixt the bottle and the ham, with an equal appetite to drink and eat, there would doubtless be no remedy, but we must die of thirst and hunger."
Context: He's illustrating the logical problem of being perfectly torn between two equal choices
This vivid example shows how overthinking can literally paralyze us. Montaigne is pointing out the absurdity of demanding perfect logic for every choice—sometimes you just need to pick something and move on.
In Today's Words:
If you can't decide between pizza and Chinese food because you want both equally, you'll starve waiting for the perfect answer.
"Nothing presents itself to us wherein there is not some difference, how little soever."
Context: He's arguing against the Stoics that truly equal choices don't exist in real life
Montaigne suggests our instincts and subtle preferences are actually reliable guides. We don't need to overthink every choice because our minds naturally detect small differences that help us decide.
In Today's Words:
There's always something that makes one option slightly better than another, even if you can't put your finger on what it is.
Thematic Threads
Uncertainty
In This Chapter
Montaigne argues that perfect knowledge is impossible and that accepting uncertainty is liberating rather than limiting
Development
Introduced here as a fundamental human condition
In Your Life:
You might recognize this when you delay important decisions waiting for certainty that will never come
Overthinking
In This Chapter
The mind creates elaborate philosophical problems from simple choices, turning practical decisions into mental torture
Development
Introduced here as a self-created trap
In Your Life:
You might see this when you spend more time researching a purchase than you'll spend using the item
Instinct
In This Chapter
Subtle preferences and barely-noticed inclinations actually guide our choices more than we realize
Development
Introduced here as an undervalued decision-making tool
In Your Life:
You might notice this when your first instinct about a person or situation proves more accurate than your careful analysis
Practical Wisdom
In This Chapter
True wisdom lies in accepting imperfection and moving forward rather than seeking impossible certainty
Development
Introduced here as an alternative to philosophical paralysis
In Your Life:
You might apply this when choosing to act on good-enough information rather than perfect information
You now have the context. Time to form your own thoughts.
Discussion Questions
- 1
Montaigne describes being stuck between equally appealing choices, like being hungry and thirsty but unable to pick food or drink. What's really happening when we get paralyzed by decisions that seem perfectly equal?
analysis • surface - 2
Why does Montaigne argue that nothing is ever truly equal, even when choices appear identical? What role do our subtle preferences and instincts play in decision-making?
analysis • medium - 3
Think about a recent time you got stuck overthinking a decision. What were you really afraid of? How did demanding 'perfect information' actually make the choice harder?
application • medium - 4
Montaigne suggests that accepting uncertainty is more practical than demanding impossible perfection. How could you apply this to a decision you're currently avoiding or overthinking?
application • deep - 5
What does this chapter reveal about the difference between being careful and being paralyzed? How do we know when our 'thoroughness' is actually fear in disguise?
reflection • deep
Critical Thinking Exercise
Decision Archaeology
Think of a decision you've been putting off or overthinking. Write down what you think are the 'equal' options. Then dig deeper: what tiny preferences, gut feelings, or instincts are you ignoring? What would you choose if you had to decide in the next five minutes, and why?
Consider:
- •Notice how your mind creates false equality between options that probably aren't actually equal
- •Pay attention to the subtle preferences you're trying to rationalize away
- •Consider what you're really afraid will happen if you choose 'wrong'
Journaling Prompt
Write about a time when you made a quick decision based on instinct that turned out better than expected. What did that teach you about trusting your subtle preferences over endless analysis?
Coming Up Next...
Chapter 71: Why We Want What We Can't Have
If uncertainty complicates our choices, what happens when we actually want something that's hard to get? Montaigne next examines how difficulty and obstacles don't discourage our desires—they intensify them.
