You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.86 AVERAGE
3.86 AVERAGE
The concept of it being a dialogue between the author and the faceless feminine figure of Philosophy is a cool one. Insight-wise it's not always "seminal", but a worthwhile read for anyone interested in medieval philosophers - Boethius is who you start with when reading about such people.
Boethius is one of my favorite works of antiquity. While some of the arguments are sophistic, the style and prose are brilliant. I loved it. A must read for any classicist, antiquarian, or philosophy student.
I first read the Green translation as published by Bobbs-Merrill in the 1980s (and earlier). I am not familiar with some of the more recent translations, but this version still garners a five-star rating, and inclusion on my favorites shelf.
As far as argumentative reasoning goes, this was pretty... flat. But what can you expect from a guy in prison awaiting his death?
I skipped books 2 and 3, but I actually read the rest of my own will. Look at me, actually doing my assigned readings. I don’t know if there was some genius contained in the poems scattered throughout, but I didn’t find it. I did enjoy all the mythological references, though. I’m going to be writing an essay on book 5, because it was this bit of reasoning that struck me as fallible:
Boethius tries to solve the problem of free will by claiming that divine foreknowledge and human knowledge are two different things. Divine foreknowledge, or Providence, exists in the eternal and is not temporally bound like human knowledge.
However, if God is omniscient and divine foreknowledge is a greater kind of knowledge than human knowledge, should it not be able to, by necessity, translate itself down to the form of human knowledge? Down the hierarchy, should we say? A physicist with a PHD should be able to explain the force of gravity to another physicist, but also to a ten-year-old. If they cannot, I wouldn’t call them a great physicist.
Therefore, God should be able to translate his knowledge into a human form, which will necessarily entail that he can temporally predict our actions. If he cannot, he is not omniscient. If he can, we can’t be said to have free will.
I skipped books 2 and 3, but I actually read the rest of my own will. Look at me, actually doing my assigned readings. I don’t know if there was some genius contained in the poems scattered throughout, but I didn’t find it. I did enjoy all the mythological references, though. I’m going to be writing an essay on book 5, because it was this bit of reasoning that struck me as fallible:
Boethius tries to solve the problem of free will by claiming that divine foreknowledge and human knowledge are two different things. Divine foreknowledge, or Providence, exists in the eternal and is not temporally bound like human knowledge.
However, if God is omniscient and divine foreknowledge is a greater kind of knowledge than human knowledge, should it not be able to, by necessity, translate itself down to the form of human knowledge? Down the hierarchy, should we say? A physicist with a PHD should be able to explain the force of gravity to another physicist, but also to a ten-year-old. If they cannot, I wouldn’t call them a great physicist.
Therefore, God should be able to translate his knowledge into a human form, which will necessarily entail that he can temporally predict our actions. If he cannot, he is not omniscient. If he can, we can’t be said to have free will.
There are two reactions to this book I can predict people having after completion: a) the onset of a chronic headache that springs forth whenever the thought of this book even crosses one's mind - or - b) complete utter awe at how simultaneously convoluted and ingenious its concepts are, even if one does not necessarily agree with all of the particulars.
Take a wild guess where I stand.
Take a wild guess where I stand.
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
A rather cool read. I read this as part of a class about Chaucer, since he drew so much on it in some of his works, as well as having made a long-lasting translation of the text. I haven't read a ton of philosophy, but I really enjoyed this one. Would recommend, especially since it's short and easily accessible.
"How many men do you think would believe themselves almost in heaven if they possessed even the smallest part of the luck you still enjoy?
This very place which is banishment to you is home to those who live here. So nothing is miserable except when you think it so, and vice versa, all luck is good luck to the man who bears it with equanimity. No one is so happy that he would not want to change his lot if he gives in to impatience. Such is the bitter-sweetness of human happiness." - Book I.
I scoffed the other day when I heard Russel Brand telling people to be grateful for what they have. It's pretty easy for a millionaire to tell peasants that they're not appreciative enough of their privileges. However, having read Boethius here - who wrote this while in prison awaiting his execution for uncovering corruption in the Roman Senate - I can appreciate it a lot more.
I've had a horrific past month, but when you sit back and understand the Rota Fortunae Boethius speaks about, everything can be put into perspective. The wheel of fortune will spin at random, seemingly without regard for consistency. That is the nature of the material world unfortunately, but not the nature of God, and the higher forms.
Once you recognize that the good times pass away, but so do the bad, and that mutability is a tragedy but also our hope, you can recognize what's truly important. As Athena informs Boethius in his jail cell: the great tragedy of his situation is not that he is going to die or that he is in dire physical conditions --- it is simply that he is forgotten what really matters; the Good.
This very place which is banishment to you is home to those who live here. So nothing is miserable except when you think it so, and vice versa, all luck is good luck to the man who bears it with equanimity. No one is so happy that he would not want to change his lot if he gives in to impatience. Such is the bitter-sweetness of human happiness." - Book I.
I scoffed the other day when I heard Russel Brand telling people to be grateful for what they have. It's pretty easy for a millionaire to tell peasants that they're not appreciative enough of their privileges. However, having read Boethius here - who wrote this while in prison awaiting his execution for uncovering corruption in the Roman Senate - I can appreciate it a lot more.
I've had a horrific past month, but when you sit back and understand the Rota Fortunae Boethius speaks about, everything can be put into perspective. The wheel of fortune will spin at random, seemingly without regard for consistency. That is the nature of the material world unfortunately, but not the nature of God, and the higher forms.
Once you recognize that the good times pass away, but so do the bad, and that mutability is a tragedy but also our hope, you can recognize what's truly important. As Athena informs Boethius in his jail cell: the great tragedy of his situation is not that he is going to die or that he is in dire physical conditions --- it is simply that he is forgotten what really matters; the Good.