Midterm report presentations

Here's the sign-up sheet. We're scheduled to begin presentations on Feb.13 but if anyone would like to volunteer to go earlier (the 6th or the 11th) that would be great. Might even earn you a base or two on the scorecard.

Indicate your date/topic preference(s) in the comments' space below (include your section #); select from the listed philosophers or from something in one of the recommended texts on reserve at the library circulation desk--Fantasyland (FL), How the World Thinks (HWT), Question Everything (QE). They, and other recommended texts, are on reserve at the circulation desk. You can check them out. Select a topic not already selected by a classmate in your section.

Your presentation should be about ten minutes, plus discussion. You can do a powerpoint if you wish, you can show a short video clip, OR NOT. If you're comfortable speaking from notes, from an outline or a prepared text, OR just extemporaneously, that's fine. (But just in case it's a fine day when you're scheduled to present, be prepared to take the class outside. Don't tie yourself too tightly to powerpoint etc. Have a Plan B.)

Give us a discussion question or two, and lead the discussion. We'll schedule no more than three presentations per class (so if three requests in your section have already been placed, on a given date, select another). 

You can record your presentation in the library's MakerSpace if you wish, and show us the recording... but you will still need to be present to answer questions and lead discussion on your assigned presentation day. 

And you can use the MakerSpace practice booth to prepare, as well. 

Also: consider making an appointment with the Writing Center for help in smoothing your presentation. And remember that your personal librarian (Rachel.Kirk@mtsu.edu) is standing by to assist.

"Rubric"--give us ten good minutes of relevant talk about your subject, beginning from the premise that your audience knows only what we've been assigned to read about it in our required texts. Do a bit of additional research to tell us something we wouldn't have read there. If you do that, and get us talking, you'll get all 25 available points.

This should be a fun assignment. Learning in general should be fun. If it's not, you're doing it wrong.

FEB

6 Marcus Aurelius - #6 Tyler R.

Augustine-

Boethius-

Aquinas- #6 Anon. #7 Zach S.

FL 9-10 or HWT 9-10-

11 Machiavelli - #5 Aaron M., Marshay Jones (or Darwin). #6 Josh S. #? Joey F.

Hobbes- #5 Bailey H.  #6 Jessica L. #7 Chris G

FL 11-12 or HWT 11-13-

Something in QE Part I - What does it mean to be human?-

13 Montaigne-

Descartes- #6 Ryan M. #7 Nate G.

Pascal- #5 McKinsley S. #7 Lindsey F.

FL 13-14 or HWT 14-15-

18 Spinoza- #5 Nadia Briseno. #7 Ariyanna S

Locke- #5 Nadia Jones. #6 Anslee B. #7 Isaiah B.

FL 15-16 or HWT 16-17-

Something in QE Part I - What does it mean to be human?-

20 Berkeley- #5 Devin W. #7 Carter W.

Leibniz- #5 Lilian M. #6 Hayden S

Hume- #5 Valencia B. #6 Benji W

Rousseau- #6 Edwin Pena #7 Keyleigh A

FL 17-18 or HWT 18-19- #6 Aubrey J.

25 Kant- #5 Mallory S. #6 MacKenzie McD. #7 Emalee

Bentham- #5 Hoang T. #6 Henry H.  #7 Caitlyn W.

Hegel- #_ Juan B. #7 John D.

Schopenhauer- #5 Abby W. #7 Koathar A

FL 19-20 or HWT 20-22-

27 J.S. Mill- #6 Patrick S.

Charles Darwin & evolution- #5 Nathen w. #6 Charles M. #7 Jonathan Dopp

Kierkegaard- #5 Nate H. #7 Nicholas L.

Karl Marx and revolutionary socialism- #5 "Anon" (Daniel W?) #6 Holland K. #7 Claire M.

FL 21-22 or HWT 23-24-

MAR

4 William James- #5 Anon. #6 Kripa S. #7 Emma S.

Nietzsche- #5 Will P. #6 Serenity F. #7 Daniel S.

FL 23-24 or HWT 25-26-

Something in QE Part III - Can we believe our eyes?- #5 Cameron W

Spring Break

18 Russell- #6 Ethan Klein.  #7 Mackenna M.

Sartre- #_ Angelo

Simone de Beauvoir- #5 Darvon H. 

Camus- #5 Sophia. #6 Tania B. #7 Lore C.

FL 25-26 or HWT 27-28-

20 Wittgenstein-

Hannah Arendt- #5 Jadyn Cortes

FL 27-28-

Something in QE Part IV - Should speech be free?-

Something in QE Part V - What is happiness?- #6 Liz E.

25 John Rawls-

Alan Turing- #5 Larry Lehmann. #6 Troy R.

Peter Singer- #_ Samantha Johnson

FL 29-32- #5 Ben S.

Questions Feb 11

[Catch up from last time: Augustine, Boethius, Anselm, Aquinas]. Machiavelli, Hobbes-LHP 9-10. Rec: FL 11-12. HWT 11-13 

PRESENTATIONS: 

• Machiavelli - #5 Aaron M., Marshay Jones (or Darwin). #6 Josh S. #? Joey F.
• Hobbes- #5 Bailey H.  #6 Jessica L. #7 Chris G

LHP

1. What did Machiavelli say a leader needs to have? Do you agree? Is it important to you for our leaders to be reliably honest, with exceptions only for instances of national security and the nation's best interests? 

2. Machiavelli's philosophy is described as being "rooted" in what? Does your own experience confirm his appraisal of human nature and what's "realistic"?

3. The idea that leaders should rule by fear is based on what view of human nature? Do you respond more positively to politicians who appeal to pessimism and fear, or to those who appeal to hope?

4. Life outside society would be what, according to Hobbes? Do you think your neighbors would threaten your survival if they could get away with it? 

5. What fear influenced Hobbes' writings? Do any particular fears influence your political opinions?

6. Hobbes did not believe in the existence of what? Do you? Why or why not?

HWT
1. How do eastern and western philosophies differ in their approach to things, and what is ma? Which do you find more appealing?

2. An interest in what is much more developed in eastern thought? Do you share it?

3. What is dukkha?

4. What is Sakura?

5. What takes the place of religion in China? Do you know people here who have found religion-substitutes?

6. Chinese thought does not distinguish between natural and ____, focusing on what?

7. What is the famous story of Zhuangzi? What's your reaction to it?

8. The Japanese fascination with robots reflects what traditional view? Are you similarly fascinated?

FL

1. What was Arthur C. Clarke's 3d law regarding technology, and what's its converse?

2. What was the original "alternative medicine" and what is its "upside"?

3. What national craze of the 1830s relied on a "totally bogus extrapolation"?

4. Who was Mary Baker Eddy and what are her followers misleadingly called?

5. Who was Dr. William A. Rockefeller?

6. What did Mark Twain say about history?

7. How was the California Gold Rush an "inflection point" in how Americans thought about reality?

8. What did de Tocqueville say was "the chief or secondary motive in everything Americans do"?

Feb 8 

Niccolo Machiavelli (in From Humanism to Hobbes by Quentin Skinner)

 

Calvin sounds like (Thomas) Hobbes describing the state of nature. Hobbes (the tiger) behaves like Machiavelli's Prince. (And check out Hobbes, Machiavelli & others in Existential Comics...)

Thomas Hobbes (in "The Dream of Enlightenment" by Anthony Gottlieb)

The daily stoic

7 things you should never do (according to the Stoics).

https://www.threads.net/@renaldogon3/post/DF3foANu6HF?xmt=AQGzOx-TcQf-DJESAxEBSsgKev5rdXfyTt9IQFVQjyV60w

Phil.Oliver@mtsu.edu

👣Solvitur ambulando

💭Sapere aude

The wonder of atoms

"The carbon inside you, accounting for about 18 percent of your being, could have existed in any number of creatures or natural disasters before finding you. That particular atom residing somewhere above your left eyebrow? It could well have been a smooth, riverbed pebble before deciding to call you home. 

You see, you are not so soft after all; you are rock and wave and the peeling bark of trees, you are ladybirds and the smell of a garden after the rain. When you put your best foot forward, you are taking the north side of a mountain with you." —Ella Sanders

https://www.themarginalian.org/2019/08/12/eating-the-sun-ella-frances-sanders/

Eating the Sun: A Lovely Illustrated Celebration of Wonder, the Science of How the Universe Works, and the Existential Mystery of Being Human – The Marginalian

Phil.Oliver@mtsu.edu

👣Solvitur ambulando

💭Sapere aude

The view from above etc.

When the first hot air balloonists ascended into the skies of the eighteenth century, they saw rivers crossing borders and clouds passing peacefully over battlefields. They saw the planet not as a patchwork of plots and kingdoms but as a vast living organism veined with valleys and furred with forests. They had to leave the Earth to see it whole, torchbearers of that rude paradox of the human condition: often, we have to lose our footing to find perspective; often, it is only from a distance that we come to feel the pull of the precious most intimately and most urgently.

Two centuries later, Apollo astronauts would capture the magnificent and humbling view of Earth rising over the Moon. The photograph, now known as Earthrise, would awaken the modern environmental conscience with that same sudden sense of indivisibility felt where the spirit meets the bone...

https://mailchi.mp/themarginalian/orbital-words-humanity

Phil.Oliver@mtsu.edu

👣Solvitur ambulando

💭Sapere aude

36 ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

Philosopher Rebecca Goldstein's  novel 36 Arguments for the Existence of God: A Work of Fiction features a fictional character who writes an eponymous book with an Appendix that begins this way: 

36 ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

1. The Cosmological Argument

1. Everything that exists must have a cause.

2. The universe must have a cause (from 1).

3. Nothing can be the cause of itself.

4. The universe cannot be the cause of itself (from 3).

5. Something outside the universe must have caused the universe (from 2 & 4).

6. God is the only thing that is outside of the universe.

7. God caused the universe (from 5 & 6).

8. God exists.

FLAW 1: can be crudely put: Who caused God? The Cosmological Argument is a prime example of the Fallacy of Passing the Buck: invoking God to solve some problem, but then leaving unanswered that very same problem when applied to God himself. The proponent of the Cosmological Argument must admit a contradiction to either his first premise — and say that though God exists, he doesn't have a cause — or else a contradiction to his third premise — and say that God is self-caused. Either way, the theist is saying that his premises have at least one exception, but is not explaining whyGod must be the unique exception, otherwise than asserting his unique mystery (the Fallacy of Using One Mystery To Pseudo-Explain Another). Once you admit of exceptions, you can ask why the universe itself, which is also unique, can't be the exception. The universe itself can either exist without a cause, or else can be self-caused . Since the buck has to stop somewhere, why not with the universe?

FLAW 2: The notion of "cause" is by no means clear, but our best definition is a relation that holds between events that are connected by physical laws. Knocking the vase off the table caused it to crash to the floor; smoking three packs a day caused his lung cancer. To apply this concept to the universe itself is to misuse the concept of cause, extending it into a realm in which we have no idea how to use it. This line of skeptical reasoning, based on the incoherent demands we make of the concept of cause, was developed by David Hume.

COMMENT: The Cosmological Argument, like the Argument from the Big Bang, and The Argument from the Intelligibility of the Universe, are expressions of our cosmic befuddlement at the question: why is there something rather than nothing? The late philosopher Sydney Morgenbesser had a classic response to this question: "And if there were nothing? You'd still be complaining!"

2. The Ontological Argument

1. Nothing greater than God can be conceived (this is stipulated as part of the definition of "God").

2. It is greater to exist than not to exist.

3 . If we conceive of God as not existing, then we can conceive of something greater than God (from 2).

4. To conceive of God as not existing is not to conceive of God (from 1 and 3).

5. It is inconceivable that God not exist (from 4).

6. God exists.

This argument, first articulated by Saint Anselm (1033-1109), the Archbishop of Canterbury, is unlike any other, proceeding purely on the conceptual level. Everyone agrees that the mere existence of a concept does not entail that there are examples of that concept; after all, we can know what a unicorn is and at the same time say "unicorns don't exist." The claim of the Ontological Argument is that the concept of God is the one exception to this rule. The very concept of God, when defined correctly, entails that there is something that satisfies that concept. Although most people suspect that there is something wrong with this argument, it's not so easy to figure out what it is.

FLAW: It was Immanuel Kant who pinpointed the fallacy in the Ontological Argument: it is to treat "existence" as a property, like "being fat" or "having ten fingers." The Ontological Argument relies on a bit of wordplay, assuming that "existence" is just another property, but logically it is completely different. If you really could treat "existence" as just part of the definition of the concept of God, then you could just as easily build it into the definition of any other concept. We could, with the wave of our verbal magic wand, define a trunicorn as "a horse that (a) has a single horn on its head, and (b) exists." So if you think about a trunicorn, you're thinking about something that must, by definition, exist; therefore trunicorns exist. This is clearly absurd: we could use this line of reasoning to prove that any figment of our imagination exists.

COMMENT: Once again, Sydney Morgenbesser had a pertinent remark, this one offered as an Ontological Argument for God's Non-Existence: Existence is such a lousy thing, how could God go and do it?

... (34 more arguments summarized here, including all the famous ones and some truly novel inventions)

==
Ross Douthat's favorite...

Over the past few weeks, I’ve been recording conversations about my new book, “Believe: Why Everyone Should Be Religious,” and one of the striking things — not unexpected, but still interesting — is how different people react to different arguments for being religious or believing in God.

You’ll get one very smart interlocutor for whom it seems perfectly reasonable to consider religious possibilities in light of the evidence for order and design at the deepest level of the universe, but who just can’t swallow the idea that there might be supernatural realities — visions, encounters, literal miracles — that inherently evade the capacities of modern science to measure and dissect. Then you’ll get another person for whom it’s the reverse, for whom the primary case for religion is experiential, while attempts to discover God in, say, the cosmological constant leave them cold.

My own view is more promiscuous: I think that the most compelling case for being religious — for a default view, before you get to the specifics of creeds and doctrines, that the universe was made for a reason and we’re part of that reason — is found at the convergence of multiple different lines of argument, the analysis of multiple different aspects of the existence in which we find ourselves.

Consider three big examples: the evidence for cosmic design in the fundamental laws and structure of the universe; the unusual place of human consciousness within the larger whole; and the persistence and plausibility of religious and supernatural experience even under supposedly disenchanted conditions... (nyt, continues)

My reply to Ross:

Re: Ross Douthat, Feb.7--

Ross Douthat's convergent arguments for a god based on "Fine Tuning" (aka the "anthropic principle")  and human consciousness, while impressive coming from a "precocious undergraduate," do not finally compel assent. As Carl Sagan put it in his book Pale Blue Dot, “There is something stunningly narrow about how the Anthropic Principle is phrased. Yes, only certain laws and constants of nature are consistent with our kind of life. But essentially the same laws and constants are required to make a rock. So why not talk about a Universe designed so rocks could one day come to be, and strong and weak Lithic Principles? If stones could philosophize, I imagine Lithic Principles would be at the intellectual frontiers.” 

And as Rebecca Goldstein has said of "intelligibility" arguments alleged to prove the divine probity of human consciousness, they point (if anywhere) to something like Spinoza's pantheistic impersonal god, aka the universe itself, and not an object of personal worship.

Undergraduate conversations about the possible existence of a god are fun, sometimes. But insisting that they should make us all religious flirts insensibly, at this moment of political blitzkrieg in Washington, with theocratic intolerance. We don't all need to be religious, any more than we all need to be Republican.

==

Carl Sagan's discussion of the anthropic "fine tuning" argument--

“There is something stunningly narrow about how the Anthropic Principle is phrased. Yes, only certain laws and constants of nature are consistent with our kind of life. But essentially the same laws and constants are required to make a rock. So why not talk about a Universe designed so rocks could one day come to be, and strong and weak Lithic Principles? If stones could philosophize, I imagine Lithic Principles would be at the intellectual frontiers.” ― Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space

 And see his Varieties of Scientific Experience--

"If the very strong version of the anthropic principle is true, that is, that God created the universe so that humans would eventually come about, then we have to ask the question, what happens if humans destroy themselves? That would make the whole exercise sort of pointless.

We would have to conclude either (a) that an omnipotent and omniscient God did not create the universe, that is, that He was an inexpert cosmic engineer, or (b) that human beings will not self-destruct. Either alternative, it seems to me, is a matter of some interest, would be worth knowing."

And,

"...if there were an uncaused first cause, that by no means says anything about omnipotence or omniscience, or compassion, or even monotheism. And Aristotle, in fact, deduced several dozen first causes in his theology.

The second standard Western argument using reason for God is the so-called argument from design, which we have already talked about, both in its biological context and in the recent astrophysical incarnation called the anthropic principle. It is at best an argument from analogy; that is, that some things were made by humans and now here is something more complex that wasn’t made by us, so maybe it was made by an intelligent being smarter than us. Well, maybe, but that is not a compelling argument. I tried to stress earlier the extent to which misunderstandings, failure of the imagination, and especially the lack of awareness of new underlying principles may lead us into error with the argument from design.

The extraordinary insights of Charles Darwin on the biological end of the argument of design provide clear warning that there may be principles that we do not yet divine (if I may use that word) underlying apparent order. There is certainly a lot of order in the universe, but there is also a lot of chaos. 

The centers of galaxies routinely explode, and if there are inhabited worlds and civilizations there, they are destroyed by the millions, with each explosion of the galactic nucleus or a quasar. That does not sound very much like a god who knows what he, she, or it is doing. It sounds more like an apprentice god in over his head. Maybe they start them out at the centers of galaxies and then after a while, when they get some experience, move them on to more important assignments." --The Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search for God by Carl Sagan, Ann Druyan

==

Sean Carroll's view of it... 

https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2015/12/31/sean-carroll-debunks-the-fine-tuning-argument-for-god/

Philosophy professor Agnes Callard believes in the power of a full-blown argument

What Socrates teaches us, she writes in "Open Socrates," is that we only avoid ignorance by having the right kind of arguments with people who disagree — conversations in which those who are talking regard one another as equals, always pushing toward some truth.

Good luck with 2025, Socrates.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/2025/02/06/philosophy-professor-agnes-callard-believes-in-the-power-of-a-full-blown-argument/

Phil.Oliver@mtsu.edu

👣Solvitur ambulando

💭Sapere aude

Socrates Express

Now available in PhillipsBookstore… also in E-text

Phil.Oliver@mtsu.edu

👣Solvitur ambulando

💭Sapere aude

Philosophy tutor

Tutoring for philosophy this semester will continue to be provided by Matthew Pierce, in the JUB.  Though tutoring won't be offered during Spring Break, it will begin the week of 17 February and continue through the last week of classes, including Study Day.

Here's the schedule: Mondays: 1pm-2pm, Thursdays: 9am-10:30am, Fridays: 1pm-3pm, May 1 (Study Day): 1pm-3pm.

Questions FEB 6

[Catch up from last time: Weiner, Socrates Express] 

Augustine, Boethius, Anselm, Aquinas-LHP 6-8. FL 9-10, HWT 9-10

Presentations Marcus Aurelius - #6 Tyler R.; Aquinas- #6 Anon. #7 Zach S.

 LHP

1. How did Augustine "solve" the problem of evil in his younger days, and then after his conversion to Christianity? Why wasn't it such a problem for him originally?

2. What does Boethius not mention about himself in The Consolation of Philosophy?

3. Boethius' "recollection of ideas" can be traced back to what philosopher?

4. What uniquely self-validating idea did Anselm say we have?

5. Gaunilo criticized Anselm's reasoning using what example?

6. What was Aquinas' 2nd Way?

FL

1. How did Enlightenment values advance in America in the 19th century?

2. What fantasy about 1776 has been accepted as fact by Americans across the religious spectrum (and Ronald Reagan) ever since?

3. How was religion in America, unlike Europe, non-binary?

4. How did Thomas Jefferson characterize America's religious differences in the north and the south?

5. What happened in Cane Ridge, KY in 1801, and how did a Vanderbilt historian describe it?

6. Who was Charles Finney, and what did he understand about American Christianity?

7. What did de Tocqueville say was different about religion in America, compared to Europe?

8. Who was William Miller and what beliefs did he help revive?

9. Who was Joseph Smith and what is the most interesting thing about him?

HWT

1. What fundamental and non-western sense of time has underpinned much of human history?

2. What is "dreamtime" and how is it alien to the modern west?

3. The universalism of western universities implies that what is unimportant?

4. What does John Gray say about the idea of progress?

5. Karma originally concerned what, and lacked what connotations now commonly associated with it?

6. What western ideas have displaced karma, for many young Indians?

Discussion Questions

• [Add your own DQs]
• Would the existence of evil equivalent to good, without guarantees of tthe inevitable triiumph of the latter, solve the problem of suffering?
• Why do you think Boethius didn't write "The Consolation of Christianity"? 
• Do you think you have a clear idea of what it would mean for there to be an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good supernatural being?
• Do you think knowledge is really a form of remembering or recollection? Have we just forgotten what we knew?
• Is there a difference between an uncaused cause (or unmoved mover) and a god?
• Which is the more plausible explanation of the extent of gratuitous suffering in the world, that God exists but is not more powerful than Satan, or that neither God nor Satan exists? Why?
• Are supernatural stories of faith, redemption, and salvation more comforting to you than the power of reason and evidence? Why or why not?
• What do you think of the Manichean idea that an "evil God created the earth and emtombed our souls in the prisons of our bodies"? (Dream of Reason 392)
• Do you agree with Augustine about "the main message of Christianity...that man needs a great deal of help"? (DR 395). If so, must "help" take the form of supernatural salvation? If not, what do you think the message is? What kind of help do we need?
• What do you think of Boethius' proposed solution to the puzzle of free will, that from a divine point of view there's no difference between past, present, and future? 402
• Did Russell "demolish" Anselm's ontological argument? (See below)
• COMMENT: “The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.” Carl Sagan
• COMMENT: “Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light‐years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual. So are our emotions in the presence of great art or music or literature, or acts of exemplary selfless courage such as those of Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both.”  Carl Sagan
• If you were falsely imprisoned, tortured, and scheduled for execution, would you be able to achieve "consolation"? How?
• Can the definition of a word prove anything about the world?
• Is theoretical simplicity always better, even if the universe is complex?
• Does the possibility of other worlds somehow diminish humanity? 
• How does the definition of God as omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good make it harder to account for evil and suffering in the world? Would it be better to believe in a lesser god, or no god at all?
• Can you explain the concept of Original Sin? Do you think you understand it?
• Is it better to embrace (or renounce) religious faith early in life, or to "sow your wild oats" and enjoy a wide experience of the world before committing to any particular tradition or belief? Were you encouraged by adults, in childhood, to make a public profession of faith? If so, did you understand what that meant or entailed?
• Does the concept of a never-ending struggle between good and evil appeal to you? Does it make sense, in the light of whatever else you believe? Would there be anything "wrong" with a world in which good was already triumphant, happiness for all already secured, kindness and compassion unrivaled by hatred and cruelty?
• Do you find the concept of Original Sin compelling, difficult, unfair, or dubious? In general, do we "inherit the sins of our fathers (and mothers)"? If yes, give examples and explain.
• What kinds of present-day McCarthyism can you see? Is socialism the new communism? How are alternate political philosophies discouraged in America, and where would you place yourself on the spectrum?
• Andersen notes that since WWII "mainline" Christian denominations were peaking (and, as evidence shows, are now declining). What do you think about this when you consider the visible political power of other evangelical denominations? Are you a part of a mainline traditon? If so, how would you explain this shift?

Feb 3

==

If our brains seem to be a step ahead of our minds, does that mean we do not possess free will?

 

Are all our actions inevitable? (Don't confuse that with ineffable.)

 

Is belief in free will better for some of us, while belief in determinism is better advised for others?

 

"Liberty consists in doing what one desires." — John Stuart Mill (But what if you always desire to do what nature has determined that you'll do? Is liberty the same as free will, if you couldn't have done otherwise... whether or not you desired to? What if you were a domino in one of those elaborately-prepared configurations, and you desired nothing more of life than to topple elegantly when your time came? Should we call you free?

The first sin that Augustine remembers doing was as a child stealing pears, just to steal them. That is, it was the crime itself that made him want to do it, he didn't even want the pears, he just wanted to sin. It was his "original sin" in a sense, and he always felt most guilty about it.

==

Aquinas...

==

 David Lewis doesn't offer much consolation:

==

I share these provocative cartoons not in hostility to religion, but because they reflect genuine puzzlements some of us have regarding the seeming incongruity of saying that God is ineffable AND being confident that one knows God's precise attitudes towards quite specific human concerns... and regarding the paradox of human free will in a universe allegedly governed by omniscience. I hope we'll all choose not to take offense, but to think about and discuss the experiences of ineffability, faith, agency, the unseen objects of belief, etc. 

 

  

"Boethius (AD c.475–524) was a Christian philosopher and theologian from an aristocratic Roman family who worked as principal minister to Theodoric the Ostrogoth, the ruler of Italy from 493 to 526. Boethius was depressed by the rapid degeneration of intellectual life and by the fact that few people in the West could read the Greek classics any more. He set out to translate all of Plato’s and Aristotle’s works into Latin so that they would not be lost to future generations. 

Unfortunately he was executed for treason before this ambitious project could get very far. Its only surviving fruits are Latin versions of Aristotle’s logical writings, which may help to explain why early medieval philosophers were so obsessed with old logic. They had little else to study. It is intriguing to speculate how much better informed the Latin world might have been if only the labours of Boethius had not been cruelly cut short. 

On the other hand, his indictment on what were probably trumped-up charges did have one happy result, though not for him. It was while he was in prison under sentence of death that Boethius wrote his impassioned The Consolation of Philosophy. Impending extinction concentrated his mind wonderfully: this masterpiece became one of the most widely read books of medieval times. King Alfred the Great, Chaucer and Queen Elizabeth I were among those who made English translations of it. It might never have been written had Boethius lived to a ripe, uneventful and scholarly old age instead of getting caught up in politics.

The Consolation takes the form of a dialogue between Boethius, who speaks in prose, and Lady Philosophy, who replies mostly in verse. Lady Philosophy answers Boethius’ despondent meditations about the miseries and injustice of life with a mixture of Stoic and Platonic wisdom. Adversity in general and evil rulers in particular are powerless to harm a good man, she says, because a good soul will remain untouched by ‘slippery Fortune’; besides, divine Providence oversees everything. 

Lady Philosophy steers him away from the many false roads to happiness and tries to guide him instead towards the contemplation of all that is good—which is to say, God: Grant, Father, that our minds Thy august seat may scan, Grant us the sight of true good’s source, and grant us light That we may fix on Thee our mind’s unblinded eye. Disperse the clouds of earthly matter’s cloying weight; Shine out in all Thy glory; for Thou art rest and peace To those who worship Thee; to see Thee is our end, Who art our source and maker, lord and path and goal.

The book never explicitly mentions Christianity. But it manages to address, in a non-technical manner, many of the philosophical problems that are likely to intrigue a believer. For example, it includes a solution to the puzzle of how man can be said to have any real choice in his actions if an omniscient God always knows beforehand what he is going to do. Boethius’ answer starts from the idea that there is no difference between past, present and future from God’s point of view. For God, all of eternity is like the present. So when God foresees what I will do, my freedom is no more curtailed by this fact than it would be by somebody observing what I am doing while I am doing it. Essentially the same solution was adopted by St Thomas Aquinas and some other late-medieval theologians.

The Consolation of Philosophy set the pattern for popular philosophizing. It showed Philosophy as a soothing balm to heal life’s wounds and as a source of perennial wisdom that could illuminate religious questions. It also served to broadcast the Platonic world-picture to a civilization that knew virtually none of the writings of ‘my servant Plato’, as Lady Philosophy called him. Many of the themes and images in medieval literature that derive ultimately from Plato or Aristotle made a vivid early appearance in Boethius’ Consolation." 

Dream of Reason: A History of Western Philosophy from the Greeks to the Renaissance (New Edition) by Anthony Gottlieb