Boethius' Consolation of Philosophy
In the Consolation of Philosophy, Boethius addresses many solutions to the never-ending problem of evil. In Book IV Boethius offers a solution to the problem based on the distinction between “Fate” and “Providence.” Boethius defines both of these terms and explains his own version of the problem and how to solve the problem using the differences between “Fate” and “Providence.” However one may argue against Boethius’s solution and offer a solution themselves. And if this may occur Boethius or somebody who agrees with him would make a counter argument against the proposed solution.
In Book IV of the Consolation of Philosophy, Boethius makes a clear difference between the idea of “Fate” and the concept of “Providence.” Boethius does this by examining the power of each. “Providence is the divine reason itself which belongs to the most high ruler of all things and which governs al things; Fate, however belongs to all mutable things and is the disposition by which Providence joins all things in their own order. For Providence embraces all things equally, however diverse they are, however infinite. Fate, on the other hand, sets particular things in motion once they have been given their own forms, places, and times” (Boethius Book IV, Prose 6 p.91).
Boethius uses both of these terms to address a solution to the “problem of evil.” I believe that Boethius symbolizes good and evil with “Fate” and “Providence.” Boethius thinks that the problem of evil is how can evil exist in a world governed by the most powerful good, God. Also how can some evil go unpunished and even take over. This is the problem that Boethius tries to solve. He simply argues that evil doesn’t exist. Boethius d...
... middle of paper ...
...efore “Fate” is the things in motion and is the evil things and since the moving things fall into a new order it is no longer in motion. It is now seen as “Providence,” the good, and from the Supreme good’s view evil does not exist. Therefore, Boethius would counter the argument made before that evil does exist.
In Book IV of The Consolation of Philosophy Boethius tries to solve the great “problem of evil.” He goes about doing so by using the concepts of “Providence” and “Fate” to argue that evil can not exist in a world controlled by a true Supreme good. However one could argue against Boethius, but he would just come back with another counter argument. In conclusion I think that Boethius’s argument that evil does not exist is a valid one.
Bibliography:
Boethius. The Consolation of Philosophy. Trans. Richard Green. New York:
Macnillan. 1962.
I was given the task to make a decision concerning the confession of Alexandros of Nicomedia regarding his Monophysite beliefs. After carefully studying Boethius’ Consolation of Philosophy, and closely analyzing his arguments, I was able to come to a conclusion. Boethius would argue that the correct thing to do is punish Alexandros to push him to reform himself rather than just senseless torture, given that wicked men technically do not exist, wicked men are already punishing themselves and wicked man can reform themselves by suing the right punishment.
In this paper, I will use the writings of John Hick and Richard Swinburne to dispute the problem of evil argument. After I first elaborate on the P.O.E., I will give support for God’s existence with regards to the problem of evil. Then, I will address further counterarguments
There is evil. 3. So, God does not exist”. Since there is evil, then that means God does not exist.
Some people may not believe that fate truthfully exist in the world. Part of the population doubts that there are things that is meant or supposed to happen thinking that they will always have a way to get around troubling predication, knowing that thing won’t just turn out that one certain way. They are certain of whatever happens in their life is due to the decision they made from their free will. Others, though, believe their life is an inevitable and all events that happen is predestined and planed out for them like a map of life. Or what Shakespeare calls fate. In Shakespeare’s play, fate plays a role like an exceptional crucial force in Romeo and Juliet. Fate leads the two young lovers to come across each other. The moment Juliet and
The meaning of fate is the development of events beyond a person’s control. If we went by that definition the tragedy is completely character flaw and not fate at all. Romeo, Juliet, their
Fate is an old debated concept. Do one's actions truly play a role in determining one's life? Is fate freedom to some or is it binding to others, in that no individual can make completely individual decisions, and therefore, no one is truly free. Nowadays, fate is a subject often rejected in society, as it is seen as too big, too idealistic, and too hard to wrap a persons head around. However, at the time of Antigone, the concept was a terrifying reality for most people. Fate is the will of the gods, and as is apparent in Antigone, the gods' will is not to be questioned. Much of Sophocles' work focuses on the struggle between human law and what is believed to be the god’s law. Fate was an unstoppable force and it was assumed that any efforts to change one's future were unrealistic. In Sophocles' Antigone, fate plays a crucial role the choices that the characters make.
Both Plato and Hobbes present different views of justice in reply to the fool. Plato, claiming one should be just because it is good in itself, where as Hobbes claims being just is good for the pursuit of self-interest or preservation. Despite the difference of opinion on justice between the two philosophers, it is clear that the fool?s statement has been refuted. For there is such a thing as justice despite the differences in how the term is defined.
Boethius places an increased emphasis on God’s eternal goodness to prove He can neither causes nor condone wickedness, intending to provide comfort for the virtuous affected by injustice. Boethius’s belief concerning the interaction of evil and justice in the Consolation of Philosophy intends to comfort the virtuous from the seemingly wicked world. Lady Philosophy, representing reason, soothes Boethius’s initial concerns by explaining how evil, the absence of good, can never defeat justice, and that the wicked will receive their punishment when Providence sees fit. Boethius also places an increased emphasis on God’s eternal goodness to clarify the role of Providence in the natural plan of the world. Boethius advises the reader that true happiness can only be found in the stability of the self and a virtuous lifestyle.
Plato’s Theaetetus is one of the most read and interpreted texts under the subject of philosophy. Within the dialect, many topics and questions are analyzed and brought to light. Leon Pearl is the author of Is Theaetetus Dreaming?, which discusses the positions taken on the topic of ‘dreaming’ and ‘being awake’, which is conferred about within the Theaetetus. Pearl critiques the question: “How can you determine whether at this moment we are sleeping and all our thoughts are a dream; or whether we are awake and talking to one another in the waking state” asked by Socrates within Plato’s Theaetetus (Pearl, p.108). Pearl first analyzes the question from the skeptic’s point of view and then proceeds to falsify the skeptic’s argument by his own interpretation, stating that “if a man is awake and believe that he is awake, then this constitutes a sufficient condition for his knowing the he is awake” (Pearl, p.108). Within Pearl’s argument, the conclusion at the end of section II becomes questionable when considering that knowledge and true belief have no distinction in the ‘awake state’ of mind.
...d appear to be unrestrained and unpunished because their wickedness and the lack of true happiness that is associated with it is their punishment (Consolation of Philosophy 94). To both Augustine and Boethius, God is completely good and sovereign. However, He allows men free will and the punishment or rewards that come with these free decisions.
In Herodotus’ story, the bones of tragic hero Orestes served as protection for the Tegeans. Fagle’s allusion is crucial to Sophocles’ depiction of redemption as a result tragedy, in Oedipus at Colonus. In Oedipus at Colonus, we finally witness the triumph of free will over fate. Due to free will, Oedipus is doomed to suffer, and because of his damnation, he learns to accept they ways of the gods and is thus blessed in death (Lines 424-433). We can therefore conclude that Oedipus’ desired free will to escape his fate, led him to redemption. Despite his redemption, fate continues to influence the lives of his children: Antigone and Ismene doomed to carry their father’s shame, and Polynices and Etiocles, doomed to kill each other. Overall, we notice that in Greek Culture, fate holds more power over free will, but it is only through free will that the Greeks through learning by suffering, and are thus blessed by their gods. In conclusion it is safe to say that though fate holds more influence over free will, both fate and free will are of equal value to the Ancient
Fate is the development of events beyond a person’s control. Essentially it means that there are certain events in everyone’s life that are predetermined and completely unavoidable. In The Iliad, fate is even unchangeable by the gods. The belief is that there is a fixed natural order to the universe and that
The idea of fate has existed for a long time and exists even today. Fate revolves around the idea that people's lives are predetermined and that no matter what is done it cannot be changed. With the gods it was used to explain events that seemed strange. Sophocles expands on this idea by introducing Oedipus' fate. The thought of fate is strong considering no matter how hard he struggles he still receives what was predetermined. As a baby he survived the elements on Mount Cithaeron. As Oedipus was destined to live, it shows the dominance of fate. Having fate play such a large part of the play is certainly an insight into the Greek's idea that fate controls us no matter how hard we struggle against it.
Throughout Sophocles’ Oedipus Rex, Oedipus frantically searched for the truth, but due to his pride, remained blind to his own connection to the dire plague that infected Thebes.
In Oedipus Rex, fate is something that unavoidably befalls two characters. The gods decide Oedipus and Jocasta’s fate, even before they know it. Trying to avoid destiny is pointless because no matter what, it will catch up to you wherever you are. It is often thought that you can change your destiny, but in reality our fate was put into action the day we were born. Throughout the play, Oedipus tries to change his fate.