Tag Archives: Consolation of Philosophy

Boethius is depressed, understandably so since he has worked himself in a standing of political status and reputation as a man of principle, and yet he sits in prison facing execution by the same state he has championed. Philosophy, once … Continue reading → Continue reading →

Wow.  Just finished the final Book V, and realized that it covers much more than a simple rationalization and proof of both God’s divine knowledge and man’s free will.  Though that be a heavy question, in my own half-ass way, … Continue reading → Continue reading →

This is a more difficult subject, at least in following the words of Philosophy, and I will probably read it through before raising it here, but two things that struck me, for my own unraveling of them: "When the human … Continue reading → Continue reading →

Book V tackles the aspect of Chance, and Philosophy acknowledge the word according to Aristotle’s definition in Metaphysics IV.30, without giving it a place of existence outside of the order of Providence: "Whenever anything is done for one reason, but … Continue reading → Continue reading →

I had finished up Book IV, and found that I’d not posted.  Then realized that it was likely since I had accepted Philosophy’s discourse without much argument.  Basically, two things come of Book IV; first, "He only gives it to … Continue reading → Continue reading →

There is a grand plan for order: "This divine mind established the manifold rules by which all things are governed while it remained in the secure castle of its own simplicity.  When this government is regarded as  belonging to the … Continue reading → Continue reading →

Ah, a very good answer from Philosophy in the discussion of understanding the punishments or evils visited upon men of good virtue:  "But, you ask, what worse confusion can there be than for the good to enjoy prosperity and suffer … Continue reading → Continue reading →

It is clear that Philosophy leads Boethius’ through a series of steps that point to a real happiness in seeking God, and attempts to answer the question of bad things happening to good people.  "It is no wonder," Philosophy answered, … Continue reading → Continue reading →

This logic may follow, but it is based on a premise that I don’t quite see as solid: "Perhaps it may strike some as strange to say that evil men do not exist, especially since they are so numerous; but … Continue reading → Continue reading →

After Philosophy has "proved" that a sovereign God can do all things, and that men cannot, but men can do evil, she goes on: Therefore, since He who can only do good can do all things and those who do … Continue reading → Continue reading →

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 … Continue reading → Continue reading →

As I come to the end of Book III, all the while watching Boethius nodding his head wildly excited in agreement with Philosophy’s logic, I am suspicious of the steps I’ve been taking in the thought process, and wonder indeed … Continue reading → Continue reading →