You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.86 AVERAGE
3.86 AVERAGE
Popsugar reading challenge: A book written by an incarcerated or formerly incarcerated person
Always kind of funny reviewing the classics. It’s like ….. this book is a cornerstone of later medieval philosophy while also offering tantalizing glimpses into what life was like between the decline of the western Roman Empire and the rise of European kingdoms of antiquity and I rate it … three stars!
The three stars is based on enjoyment mostly. My little review won’t tarnish this book’s reputation or importance, obviously (and I can absolutely see why it was such a big freaking deal.) A great deal if it grapples with the question of why an all-powerful and all-knowing god would allow evil in the world and the suffering of the innocent. This is a question I once lost sleep over and have read analyses about and nowadays [insert long ramble about my agnosticism here that really isn’t that important because ma’am…. This is a Wendys.] Came to find that a lot of latter day analyses on this topic can likely be traced back to this book! But I also found it difficult to follow at times. It reminded me of reading academic papers in college and I just was not in the headspace for that. That part of my brain is extremely rusty. Towards the latter half I was just sort of letting the words wash over me and was picking out different ideas from time to time to muse over. This is another reason I’m giving this a dead-center rating… I’m not sure I heard/understood too much of it.
All that being said this is definitely one of those books I’m glad I read. I actually kind of loved the first few chapters. The depiction of allegorical Philosophy kind of surprised me in its sophistication. There’s also so much throughout that me going “wow people have always been people who have been bothered by the same quandaries huh?” I always love that.
It’s pretty heartbreaking that Boethius was executed soon after writing this book. Despite a lot of this being too dense for me at the moment, I came away with a lot of affection for the guy. And it’s just very bittersweet reading all the musings on how much instinct leads one to want to stay alive and also how the weight of greatness and influence can end up dragging you down to your doom. In light of that, it was jarring to remember that Boethius would soon be killed and that he would go on to have a huge influence on European philosophy when … the guy clearly would have rather lived at peace with his family and died in obscurity. Not that I think he would be upset that his attempt to console himself would go on to console others but … yeah.
Always kind of funny reviewing the classics. It’s like ….. this book is a cornerstone of later medieval philosophy while also offering tantalizing glimpses into what life was like between the decline of the western Roman Empire and the rise of European kingdoms of antiquity and I rate it … three stars!
The three stars is based on enjoyment mostly. My little review won’t tarnish this book’s reputation or importance, obviously (and I can absolutely see why it was such a big freaking deal.) A great deal if it grapples with the question of why an all-powerful and all-knowing god would allow evil in the world and the suffering of the innocent. This is a question I once lost sleep over and have read analyses about and nowadays [insert long ramble about my agnosticism here that really isn’t that important because ma’am…. This is a Wendys.] Came to find that a lot of latter day analyses on this topic can likely be traced back to this book! But I also found it difficult to follow at times. It reminded me of reading academic papers in college and I just was not in the headspace for that. That part of my brain is extremely rusty. Towards the latter half I was just sort of letting the words wash over me and was picking out different ideas from time to time to muse over. This is another reason I’m giving this a dead-center rating… I’m not sure I heard/understood too much of it.
All that being said this is definitely one of those books I’m glad I read. I actually kind of loved the first few chapters. The depiction of allegorical Philosophy kind of surprised me in its sophistication. There’s also so much throughout that me going “wow people have always been people who have been bothered by the same quandaries huh?” I always love that.
It’s pretty heartbreaking that Boethius was executed soon after writing this book. Despite a lot of this being too dense for me at the moment, I came away with a lot of affection for the guy. And it’s just very bittersweet reading all the musings on how much instinct leads one to want to stay alive and also how the weight of greatness and influence can end up dragging you down to your doom. In light of that, it was jarring to remember that Boethius would soon be killed and that he would go on to have a huge influence on European philosophy when … the guy clearly would have rather lived at peace with his family and died in obscurity. Not that I think he would be upset that his attempt to console himself would go on to console others but … yeah.
One of those books that we should not have been allowed to graduate college without reading. The setting for this philosophical work is a innocent man in prison trying to come to terms with a God who would allow evil to befall good men. The personification of philosophy, Lady Philosophy, appears to Boethius and beings to diagnose and cure the ailment of his soul, namely the perceived injustice that has lead to his captivity. The discussion encompasses many more aspects of faith and reason. The book thus becomes an important bridge between early Christian theology and classical philosophy.
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
Boethius doesn’t take to his oncoming execution quite as well as Socrates did, but we got some lovely poems out of it.
challenging
hopeful
inspiring
slow-paced
The assumption that all things animate and inanimate innately strive for goodness figures prominently in Lady Philosophy’s ‘cure’ for the state of despair in which Boethius found himself. It is this assumption, which is arguably teleological in nature, which also informs her lessons on the positive role of Fortune, the imperfection in perishable good, and the goodness in the punishment that the wicked receive. Meaning that there is still something to be salvaged in the moment the drive towards happiness falls short of fulfilling its objective. Fortune, though fickle in her temperament, allows Man to discern her true, constant nature (i.e. her capaciousness) through the very bad tidings which she imparts on him. Imperfection and perfection are always coupled. It is through intuitively presupposing the latter that we can recognize the former. The wicked can enjoy a tinge of goodness in the very punishment they received for their wickedness. They are ‘happier’ when they are fail to accomplish their wicked deeds and are punished than when they succeed at their wicked tasks and go about scot-free. What all these instances share in common is the underlying impression that failure to achieve goodness may itself serve as a condition for acquiring it, or to put it simply, there is a ‘good’, relatively speaking, to be found in the bad.
The first among the subjects to receive Lady Philosophy’s treatment was Fortune. According to Philosophy, Fortune is a ‘random goddess’ who is fickle towards those who accept her gifts. Many a man do not realize her true nature so they become despondent the first instance Fortune turns her back on them. Yet in being capricious, Fortune is acting in accordance to her own ‘particular kind of constancy’, says Philosophy. Philosophy’s essential lesson is that one must take the good with the bad, so to speak, in accepting the judgment of Fortune—“[…] you ought to bear with equal equanimity whatever happens on Fortune’s playground". However, concede as though we may to this essential fact, there is still no happiness to be enjoyed in the blessings of Fortune as these blessings could always be taken away at a moment’s notice. The awareness of the ephemeral nature of the blessings which he presently enjoys generates anxiety and fear in the subject, so he can never become truly happy. Neither can the blindness of ignorance deliver happiness. Therefore, one can never attain happiness viz. the highest good, through Fortune’s arrangements.
Yet for all of her reproach against Fortune for leading men astray Lady Philosophy nonetheless does have some positive things to say about the former. Specifically, she praises Fortune for the times when the latter lifts the veil of deception and appears to Man in her true countenance. While good fortune entices a man with the false promises of happiness, bad fortune takes hold of their consciousness and shatters this mirage. “[…] adverse fortune frequently draws men back to their true good like a shepherdess with a crook”. By rearing its ugly head Fortune compels men to return to the path of true good. For example, had it not been for the recent of turn of events, Philosophy argues, Boethius would have never been able to ascertain who among his circle of friends can be counted upon in times of severe distress and discover therefore his true friends.
Philosophy’s change in attitude towards Fortune is even more pronounced at the end of the book IV, where she declares that all of Fortune is “good”. Fortune’s goodness has to do with the extent that it is useful in disciplining those who are already on the path of virtue and correcting and punishing those who are wicked. In the first case, Fortune is an adversity that tests man’s will to resist the vicissitudes of life and hold fast to his virtues. Fortune may also, in the very misery it dispenses, encourage wicked men to see the light, upon them bearing witness to the ruination of other wicked men. Moreover, on a deeper level, is not blotting out the distinction between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ fortune a move to restore unity (and hence, goodness) to what was originally undivided? Unity is identical with goodness, wealth, power, fame, strength. It is through bringing together these variety of qualities into one form, i.e. through the acquisition of unity, that true goodness is achieved. In book II Philosophy identifies the source and nature of false happiness among men as artificially dividing what is in its nature unified. This also shows up in Fortune’s indignant remarks against the Epicureans and Stoics for having torn off pieces of her garment and pretending therefore that they have seized hold of the whole of wisdom. Fortune can now participate in goodness because it is whole again. All these finer points suggest that while Fortune may itself incapable of conferring happiness or goodness, it nonetheless opens up a space or a condition of possibility of the pursuit of true happiness.
The same idea also, in a way, informs Philosophy’s Platonic conception of perfection and imperfection. By recognizing the imperfection of certain thing one can intuit the perfect form of the thing, and catch a fleeting sense of maximal perfection, in comparison to which everything else is imperfect. This supreme perfection, for Philosophy, is none other than God himself. Here we should conceive of the term ‘form’ in its full Platonic weight as supreme perfection is not something that can be found on the mortal plane but instead belongs in a realm of its own, much like Plato’s forms. In any case, what Philosophy is telling us is in effect that one can come to recognize God (maximal perfection and supreme goodness) only through contact with that which is imperfect, in other words, that which is lacking in goodness. Imperfection and perfection logically necessitates each other. There has to be imperfection, or lack of goodness in the world for us to recognize and appreciate goodness itself.
What about the punishment the wicked receive for their evil deeds? It too is good. However, the goodness of the punishment is not, as it was discussed earlier, conceived in terms of its usefulness in being a deterrent. Rather, the punishment is good because it delivers justice, which is good. This good lessens their misfortune. It is in this precise sense that Philosophy says that the wicked can enjoy a dose of happiness when they are subject to just retribution and are therefore made less miserable than when their deeds go unpunished. It is a testament to the optimistic belief that one can find happiness, however faint, in one’s punishment for unvirtuous acts.
The world, even though it is a pale shadow of the state of perfection and goodness it was once blessed with, is nonetheless moving towards a better future in accordance to God’s Providence. Throughout the course of reconciling the existence of evil with that of a wholly good God Philosophy comes perilously close to denying the existence of evil, and even the humanity of those who perform evil deeds. Yet Philosophy and Boethius passionately believed in the intrinsic drive towards goodness in all things animate and inanimate.
The first among the subjects to receive Lady Philosophy’s treatment was Fortune. According to Philosophy, Fortune is a ‘random goddess’ who is fickle towards those who accept her gifts. Many a man do not realize her true nature so they become despondent the first instance Fortune turns her back on them. Yet in being capricious, Fortune is acting in accordance to her own ‘particular kind of constancy’, says Philosophy. Philosophy’s essential lesson is that one must take the good with the bad, so to speak, in accepting the judgment of Fortune—“[…] you ought to bear with equal equanimity whatever happens on Fortune’s playground". However, concede as though we may to this essential fact, there is still no happiness to be enjoyed in the blessings of Fortune as these blessings could always be taken away at a moment’s notice. The awareness of the ephemeral nature of the blessings which he presently enjoys generates anxiety and fear in the subject, so he can never become truly happy. Neither can the blindness of ignorance deliver happiness. Therefore, one can never attain happiness viz. the highest good, through Fortune’s arrangements.
Yet for all of her reproach against Fortune for leading men astray Lady Philosophy nonetheless does have some positive things to say about the former. Specifically, she praises Fortune for the times when the latter lifts the veil of deception and appears to Man in her true countenance. While good fortune entices a man with the false promises of happiness, bad fortune takes hold of their consciousness and shatters this mirage. “[…] adverse fortune frequently draws men back to their true good like a shepherdess with a crook”. By rearing its ugly head Fortune compels men to return to the path of true good. For example, had it not been for the recent of turn of events, Philosophy argues, Boethius would have never been able to ascertain who among his circle of friends can be counted upon in times of severe distress and discover therefore his true friends.
Philosophy’s change in attitude towards Fortune is even more pronounced at the end of the book IV, where she declares that all of Fortune is “good”. Fortune’s goodness has to do with the extent that it is useful in disciplining those who are already on the path of virtue and correcting and punishing those who are wicked. In the first case, Fortune is an adversity that tests man’s will to resist the vicissitudes of life and hold fast to his virtues. Fortune may also, in the very misery it dispenses, encourage wicked men to see the light, upon them bearing witness to the ruination of other wicked men. Moreover, on a deeper level, is not blotting out the distinction between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ fortune a move to restore unity (and hence, goodness) to what was originally undivided? Unity is identical with goodness, wealth, power, fame, strength. It is through bringing together these variety of qualities into one form, i.e. through the acquisition of unity, that true goodness is achieved. In book II Philosophy identifies the source and nature of false happiness among men as artificially dividing what is in its nature unified. This also shows up in Fortune’s indignant remarks against the Epicureans and Stoics for having torn off pieces of her garment and pretending therefore that they have seized hold of the whole of wisdom. Fortune can now participate in goodness because it is whole again. All these finer points suggest that while Fortune may itself incapable of conferring happiness or goodness, it nonetheless opens up a space or a condition of possibility of the pursuit of true happiness.
The same idea also, in a way, informs Philosophy’s Platonic conception of perfection and imperfection. By recognizing the imperfection of certain thing one can intuit the perfect form of the thing, and catch a fleeting sense of maximal perfection, in comparison to which everything else is imperfect. This supreme perfection, for Philosophy, is none other than God himself. Here we should conceive of the term ‘form’ in its full Platonic weight as supreme perfection is not something that can be found on the mortal plane but instead belongs in a realm of its own, much like Plato’s forms. In any case, what Philosophy is telling us is in effect that one can come to recognize God (maximal perfection and supreme goodness) only through contact with that which is imperfect, in other words, that which is lacking in goodness. Imperfection and perfection logically necessitates each other. There has to be imperfection, or lack of goodness in the world for us to recognize and appreciate goodness itself.
What about the punishment the wicked receive for their evil deeds? It too is good. However, the goodness of the punishment is not, as it was discussed earlier, conceived in terms of its usefulness in being a deterrent. Rather, the punishment is good because it delivers justice, which is good. This good lessens their misfortune. It is in this precise sense that Philosophy says that the wicked can enjoy a dose of happiness when they are subject to just retribution and are therefore made less miserable than when their deeds go unpunished. It is a testament to the optimistic belief that one can find happiness, however faint, in one’s punishment for unvirtuous acts.
The world, even though it is a pale shadow of the state of perfection and goodness it was once blessed with, is nonetheless moving towards a better future in accordance to God’s Providence. Throughout the course of reconciling the existence of evil with that of a wholly good God Philosophy comes perilously close to denying the existence of evil, and even the humanity of those who perform evil deeds. Yet Philosophy and Boethius passionately believed in the intrinsic drive towards goodness in all things animate and inanimate.
It's an entertaining read, I found the prose to be like Montaigne, and the poetry to be like Shakespeare. One can see the strong influence Boethius would have on medieval writers, and for that, I can rank this short book high on my list.
challenging
reflective
slow-paced