As Philosophy moves into the question of evil versus good, and the qualitative theory of yes or no logic, I am most definitely not likin’ it. This in itself is odd because for one thing, I’m basically non-argumentative (though age has struck me with its doubled efforts towards standing ground), and for another, I’ve never been a middle-of-the-roader; being more true Scorpio of extremes.
But I cannot discount the words quite that easily, just as I cannot discount a writing of fiction that I mght not like, but must agree it is good if it has the elements of language and story. To argue logic requires the finding of flaw in that logic, and that won’t be quite so easy. In Consolation, Boethius as author is in fact arguing both sides of the issue, but not as strenuously as one would with an opposing viewpoint. Playing Devil’s Advocate only goes so far–I know; this is my forte–because it holds the major disadvantage of wanting to prove one line of reasoning rather than wholehearted disagreement.
Back with quotes shortly (unless I’ve turned my thinking around to that of Boethius and have come to accept the path).
The Lost Children: A Charity Anthology
The most we can ask of any writing is that it be interesting.
In keeping with the title of the post, I might disagree with you. That it be interesting may be one source of pleasure, but some may ask more of a work; some may not need it to be interesting at all, but rather, informative or provoking. In looking for the perfect good, it would require it to be powerful, pleasurable, honorable, and unified in structure so that one part might be as fully whole as the rest.
That ideal sounds as fun as a rock.