Boethius Consolation Of Philosophy: An Analysis

Boethius was a philosopher teaching at the end of the Roman empire, in his 40’s he was arrested for suspected conspiracy with the Eastern Roman Empire and was eventually put to death at the age of about 44/45. Whilst in prison Boethius wrote his book, ‘The Consolation of Philosophy’ where he discusses in great depth with Lady Philosophy issues with God’s omniscience. In his writings, Boethius identifies an issue with God’s foreknowledge, our personal autonomy and the impact of how we are to be judged as when we enter the life after this. He identifies that if God has foreknowledge and knows our future, He then knows what we are going to do which

People often look to divine interaction for guidance in life; those of religious faith pray and find comfort in a higher power having their best interest. People of faith often rely on their God or other divine subject of worship when making life choices and believe they make the best choice when considering the impact it will have on their faith. Their fate is in the hands of their God and their choices through life determine the outcome God has chosen for them. However, it is also believed that a higher power can predetermine one’s future and the decisions they make in life are all part of a fixed plan they have no control over. Fate has been interpreted differently throughout literature and while there is no clear interpretation of its intention,

The subject of freewill and determinism has been a matter of intense debate in the philosophical community for ages with the topic of compatibilism and incompatibilism. This essay will be reviewing and critiquing the work of a very well-known philosopher Peter Van Inwagen and his article “An Argument For Incompatibilism” and what does he mean by freewill and determinism.

Under these assumptions Candide says, “There can be no effect without a cause […] The whole is necessarily concatenated and arranged for the best” (6). This philosophy that everything is fated to be good omits the validity of free will that Candide later claims to have since he is man and therefore above the animal world, because no matter what man does in part to shape the entirety of his future, Candide was taught that the outcome is predestined to yield an optimistic and hopeful reality. The belief that everything happens for a reason and where the reason is good is incompatible with the act of free will. Therefore, any efforts of free will are futile because they cannot change the predetermined outcome, making its concept essentially nonexistent. This logical cycle strengthens and endorses readers’ ideas that free will is incongruous with faith.

In the study of philosophy, Free will is defined as “The ability to choose, think, and act voluntarily. Many people wonder if they truly have free will to make their own choices, or is everything pre-determined for them in order to carry out their lifestyle. I’m sure we all wonder if our choices are correct or incorrect or if we are able to take control of our lives. Philosophers Hume and Holbach have concepts that seek to prove whether or not free will actually does exist and they both use their philosophical beliefs based on determinism in order to properly explore their concepts of free will. This paper will actively seek to explain both concepts and will expose what problems may arise from their philosophical theories of free will in relation

In part two, Wright explores God’s future plan. He suggests there are two secular ways to look at the future of the world. These myths have crept into modern day Christian beliefs. The first way is the myth of progress. This is was Wright calls “evolutionary optimism” (p. 81). This states that humans and the cosmos are in a continual state of improvement, moving toward perfection. The problem with this myth, as Wright points out, is that is cannot deal with evil. The second myth is the idea people are souls in transit. It was early philosophers like Plato and the Gnostics who claimed that people are all immortal souls just passing through this world on the way to their spiritual destiny (p. 70-71). This myth obviously dismisses creation and the responsibility to care for creation.

Plato was born in Athens, Greece around 427 B.C. He was always interested in politics, until he witnessed his mentor and teacher, Socrates, death. After learning of the callousness of politics, Plato changed his mind and eventually opened up The Academy, which is considered if not the first, one of the first Universities. Students at the Academy studied many different fields of science, including biological and astronomical. The students also studied many other fields, such as math. Plato developed many views that were mathematical in nature. He expressed these views through his writings. According to Dr. Calkins of Andrew University, "Timaeus is probably the most renowned of Plato's thirty-five dialogues. [In it] Plato expresses that he

4. Boethius relates the human experience of destiny/fate and the divine foreknowledge/providence by interpreting their meanings in real life. “Providence is the immovable and simple form of all things which come into being, while Fate is the moving connection and temporal order of all things which the divine simplicity has decided to bring into being” (Boethius, 92). Boethius says that providence is what happens in one second for God and fate is what happens in the course of a lifetime for human beings. He suggests that God knows the end of our lives right from the beginning but he doesn’t necessarily know each individual action or thought that it will take for a person to get there. Fate on the other hand is free will. Human beings

In book III of The Consolation of Philosophy, Boethius establishes the fact that God is the world's helmsman, the divine reason, the supreme good, the origin of all things. He demonstrates that God is omnipotent and omniscient. Nothing more superior can even be conceived of. Through the concept of unity, through which things basically become good, Boethius shows that God and happiness are one, the divine goodness. He concludes, "God is the essence of happiness." (70)

He is complaining that there are things that are not the same between “God’s universal foreknowledge” with that of his creations free will. She replies with, “For the divine mind, foreseeing all things without the error of deception, restricts and binds each one of them to one single outcome” (Pg. 438). She does admit that this has a devastating outcome on human affairs.

Sometimes in life, we feel as though our actions and choices are predetermined by a greater force. We feel as though another being is determining our fate. But not every action is set in any book. Romeo and Juliet is a tragic love story where the two households, Montagues and Capulets, are fated to hate each other from an old feud. But the two households' children, Romeo and Juliet, decided to get married. Even when it seems all forces are pinning the children apart, they find a way to be together. One's actions and choices are not predetermined by a greater force, but are made by that person and that person alone.

Pike’s article shows a good argument against the idea of human free will. Pike makes his arguments by analyzing ideas from Boethius. Pike agrees that “if one collected together just the right assumptions and principals regarding God’s knowledge, one could derive the conclusion that if God exists, no human action is voluntary.” (Pike)

What if one were to ignore any semblance of analog to allegory and view the Consolation as a final memoire? If one were to presume that Boethius actually wrote the document while imprisoned (and not while on house arrest, or while under investigation and otherwise distant the abuses of the dank and vermin-ridden dim confines of the medieval dungeon), is Boethius demonstrating a psychosis through his hallucination of LP, manifested by the tortures and deprivations of pre-execution and confinement? Alternatively, perhaps more simply, Consolation may be viewed as a political document. Let’s briefly consider both.

In the world we live in today, we may question how good is powerful anymore. Looking back, it’s hard to see when good was ever truly triumphing over evil. In Book IV of Boethius’ Consolation of Philosophy, Lady Philosophy claims that, “the good are always powerful and the evil are weak and futile.” If you look at the world around us, that statement is unfortunately a bit laughable. But you have to look a little closer – what is this type of power? Is the power that one of goodness contains different than our materialistic, tangible pre-conceived definition of power? What are the struggles that make them powerful and triumphant? Looking back on human history, what acts were ultimately deemed triumphant – acts of evil, or acts of goodness?