As I head to court this morning, to fight on principle against greed and an illegal contract, I read of Boethius’ complaint as he sits in prison, justifying his position to Philosophy:
"I have often opposed the greed of Conigastus in his swindling of the poor. I have condemned the crimes of Trigulla, Provost of the King’s house, both in their beginnings and after they had been committed. At grave risk to my position I have protected the weak from the lies and avarice of cruel men in power. No man ever corrupted my administration of justice. I was as depressed as those who suffered the losses when I saw the wealth of our citizens dissipated either by private fraud or oppressive taxation. At the time of the severe famine, when prices were set so exorbitantly high that the province of Campania seemed about to starve, I carried on the people’s fight against the Praetorian Perfect himself and, with the King’s approval, I won–the fixed prices were not enforced." (Consolation, p. 8)
Boethius is wondering why, when fighting on the side of good and justice, he is subject to that justice that is punishing him for his acts. I cannot help but read this on a personal level right now, and while that is not my intent in this study, at the same time its immediate relevancy can be put to use. Unfortunately, I am not at Philosophy’s answer, and the above is merely from a passage that sets the stage. So I must either read real quickly, or suspect where this is heading.
Philosophy is the "study devoted to the systematic examination of basic concepts such as truth, existence, reality, causality, and freedom" (Encarta). Truth then, both in the time of Boethius and in our own world such as it is, has never been synonymous with justice. Common sense, a knowledge of right or wrong, is still subjective. What will Philosophy bring in answer, what consolation will it offer in face of despair? Will its "examination" come down to, "Yeah, life sucks, justice can be corrupted, the nature of man is greed; deal with it."
I suspect that there is the underlying answer of knowledge and self awareness amid that knowledge that rises above the material and corruption of thought. This then, would make philosophy a personal matter, an attitude to be developed towards an unchanging world rather than a rule that all men may be judged by. It would also indicate to me, at this early stage in the reading, that there is a higher justice that transcends that written by man, and that is what is to be sought rather than to lament the state of affairs of humanity. By this I do not necessarily mean a belief in the higher power of a God or afterlife, but a frame of mind, a firm belief in a condition that can be lived within the life on earth in whatever state that it is in.
This text is not difficult reading, and the translation is rather contemporary in language so that it flows well (a bit different from Epic of Gilgamesh where blocks of undecipherable text were merely left out). But it takes a bit of rereading in my own current relationship to justice–and injustice–to separate it from its own direct effect on me into a work meant to understand all.
But then again, if I am to learn a betterment of myself from Consolation–and that, I would think is the ultimate goal–why not apply it as soon as possible? After all, had this been read in completion I would hope that it would guide me from that point through.
I fight one for the justice for all three of us. In doing so, I made the statement, "I have less sympathy now for one who seeks a second home at our expense, while I fight to keep our own one." This, I know, is irrelevant to the case at hand. Equal division is not based on need, but on the principle of three. The statement was from listening to the Poetic Muses that Philosophy evicted from the door of Boethius. Rational must overcome Emotion to see clearly the goal, and that is extremely difficult to do sometimes, as Boethius, learned in the ways of philosophy still struggled with personal anguish in the face of his unjust imprisonment. And, as Philosophy pointed out, this is useless, except to expand the injustice into lyrical form, give voice to feelings that are there regardless and the writing or voicing of them does nothing to remedy a wrong.
How interesting too, that something written in 524 A.D. is relevant to man today. Human nature then, has not changed all that much. Nor has injustice. Nor, hopefully, a personal philosophy that can rise a man above it.
The Lost Children: A Charity Anthology