Augustine, Boethius, Anselm, Aquinas-LHP 6-8. FL 9-10, HWT 9-10
LHP
- [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?
"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.
Dream of Reason: A History of Western Philosophy from the Greeks to the Renaissance (New Edition) by Anthony Gottlieb
Section #1
ReplyDeleteLittle History of Philosophy
1.) Augustine originally believed in Manichaean, a religion that didn’t see God as extremely powerful. After that, he couldn’t see why the struggle between good and evil would be never ending, and he eventually converted to Christianity. Eventually, Augustine blamed God allowing evil on free-will. As a Christian, I do agree with him. (Some people will disagree with me, and that’s okay!) We are given free will to wake up, eat, breathe, and do whatever—just as we are given free will to be rude or kind to someone. I don’t believe God allows evil, and you will be repayed for your evil, but you still have the free will to choose evil.
2.) Boethius doesn’t mention he is a Christian in his book. I feel like this is a conflict in philosophy. Correct me if I’m wrong, but a lot of philosophers I know of do not believe in god, so this might’ve caused conflicts with his books when people found out he was a Christian.
4.) Anselm’s logic is that God must exist because the human brain cannot make up something greater than itself ( or something along the lines of such). I agree with him. Not everyone will, but that’s the beauty of life— people will have different experiences, different beliefs, different ways they are shaped. Some choose religion and faithfulness to their religion, some don’t. Thats what makes us human.
"I don’t believe God allows evil"-and yet, evil (= undue suffering) exists. Hence "the problem of evil" as parsed by David Hume: “Epicurus's old questions are still unanswered: Is he (God) willing to prevent evil, but not able? then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? then whence evil?”
DeleteYes, evil will always exist, it's inevitable. But karma comes back to evil people, and that's what I mean by God doesn't allow evil. He knows it will happen, and he also knows what karma will come to you. That's just what I believe though :)
Delete#1
ReplyDeleteI’m writing these up in Gdocs now because my laptop battery is horrid and died on me with no warning. All my writing, gone! Now I have to see if I can remember my train of thought again…
Also, I posted a comment on a different post, does that count as one of my three answers?
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?
So we’re going to give a simple train of thought here instead of the detailed answer from earlier. Augustine, before he was Christian, was a part of a religion that believed that good and evil were in a constant struggle, with neither having more power than the other. Each person was able to choose if they were going to follow Satan/evil or God/good. (which was similar to more than a few fantasy settings I’ve seen before where the populations choices overall would reflect the balance of power in the heavenly realms). After his conversion of christianity (which he did because he believed god to be more powerful than the devil and good to always triumph over evil which kinda disqualified him from his own religion– he continued to blame free will for the existence of evil. God couldn’t interfere with the evil man had chosen, therefore, it wasn’t gods fault evil still existed even though he was all powerful and the ultimate good, it was our own. Not even god would take away mans free will.
This is where I started going on a tangent about “Christian Society”, Civilization, and laws. If god doesn’t have the right to take away free will, isn’t it Hubris for humans to try to do so? Isn’t it wrong and evil to force people to do things they don’t want to or prevent them from doing what they want? Are all laws evil? Should a truly christian society not have any laws– just guidelines that follow the vibes of the Ten commandments (which weren’t commands because humans could clearly disobey them, they’re more like suggestions if one wants to be good). I think one of the comics slightly mimicked this idea with the off stage voice asking if the two religious figures would finally stop bugging us about what god supposedly thinks about gay marriage and stem cell research– it’s free will after all.
Of course, laws cannot actually stop people from committing crimes– they infringe on free will but cannot entirely block it. They just act as a severe punishment and therefore a general deterrent, which is almost worse than just outright preventing it. Would you rather only have one option or be blackmailed into choosing one when there are two? The threat and blackmail seems more traumatic to me.
Then I related all this to social media and the decline in partying among the youth. I started hunting for sources because I’ve heard it so many times. People don’t drink and party anymore for a number of reasons– expense of liquor, prevalence of other drugs of choice, health conscious– but most importantly for us is the fact that any evidence of partying that goes online, all the stupid acts you or someone else drunkenly chose to record, is there forever. It affects your future long past the painful hangover. It can prevent you from getting the job of your dreams.
Now, I had difficulty looking up scientific papers, likely because whenever I added ‘party’ to the google scholar search it immediately started talking about the youth vote and politics, but I did find few bits of evidence to say people are at least talking about it even if it hasn’t been conclusively studied. https://news.northeastern.edu/2025/08/18/why-people-are-drinking-less-alcohol/ and there has been a noticeable difference in the generations in alcohol consumption, although they don’t go into the reason why. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/add.70201
Delete4. What uniquely self-validating idea did Anselm say we have?
“Because we can conceive a god, (by the definition that a god is a being more powerful out there than anyone/thing else) there must be a god.” A very silly concept, because then we might be gods to ants, but we clearly aren’t gods to each other. What if the strongest thing out there is a king? Does that make him a god-king? Does that make him god?
What if our imaginations have limits we can’t comprehend? Will we never find a most powerful ‘god’? What if our imaginings are so much more powerful than what the universe can hold? What about imagining things forces them into existence? As I writer, I imagine things all the time. And perhaps they even take place on another plane of existence, (I don’t rule it out) but just because I think about it and type it doesn’t make it true. If I truly believed all my characters were out there somewhere, I’d be called delusional. Seriously, Anselm, listen to yourself for a moment.
5. Gaunilo criticized Anselm's reasoning using what example?
Gaunilo, much like I, criticized Anselm’s reasoning. He used an example of A Perfect Island. As perfect as you can imagine, and then even more perfect! (Why? Because it didn’t have people… Someone is far, far down the introvert rabbit hole). Just because you can imagine ever more perfect islands, that doesn’t force them to exist. You’re not that powerful. You’re not a god. The concept of a form doesn’t guarantee that the thing exists in any shape or meaning close to that form. It doesn’t even mean the form truly exists, all it means is you have an idea, a thought. You haven’t brought it into being simply by thinking about it, even in a plane no one can see.
BTW all this is 1.5 gdocs pages 1.15 spacing 11 size font
Still need to figure out how to do links properly...
DeleteYou can't do links in the comments section, unfortunately. You'll have to become an author on the site to embed links. You're welcome to, whenever you like (and everyone will have to, eventually, for the final blogposts).
Delete2. What does Boethius not mention about himself in The Consolation of Philosophy?
ReplyDeleteBoethius does not mention that he was an early christian in The Consolation of Philosophy. He does not mention his religious beliefs and intentionally adopts the voice of classical philosophy instead of Christian theology to provide universal comfort. I like that he did this, because now his teachings in The Consolation of Philosophy can be enjoyed by everyone without making them feel singled out by not being religious in any way.
3. Boethius' "recollection of ideas" can be traced back to what philosopher?
Boethius’ “recollection of ideas” can be traced back to Plato. In The Consolation of Philosophy, Philosophy reminds Boethius about truths that he already knew rather than teaching him things that are new to him. This is very similar to Plato’s theory that suggests that learning is the process of remembering things from a prior life.
6. What was Aquinas' 2nd Way?
Aquinas’ 2nd way was the First Cause Argument. The First Cause Argument postulates that because every effect in the world has a cause, the entire chain of existence must have an uncaused “first cause”, which is usually recognized as God. Other philosophers argued that the “first cause” didn’t have to be believed to be God. They just identify that the first uncaused cause had to be extremely powerful - it could’ve just been a surge of energy.
Section #1
DeleteAfter Augustine's Manichaean phase, he believed that people did bad because of free will, rather than god not stopping them. I definitely agree that people have free will and that's why some people do "bad" things. I don't think that god controls the actions of everyone on earth, he doesn't tell everyone what to think or what to do. Everyone is different, with different personalities and everyone makes different decisions. Everyday, goodness, is a choice that people make. In that same way, people choose "evil". Everyone has free will and chooses their actions, there's nobody else to blame.
ReplyDeleteRegarding Boethius's book, I think that right before death is an almost perfect time to write about philosophy. In moments before death, I can image that people are reflecting on their whole life. What everything meant to them, why things happened, how they lived their life, and just the general philosophy of the world. I think that's the time when people are painfully honest.
I love the concept of luck being ever-changing. It's really true, and I think it helps people stay both grateful and empathetic. You never know what the future holds and you should extend the helping hand that you want when you have a run of bad luck to those who are struggling. You may be safe and warm today, but it could be you on the streets tomorrow.
I'm also a big fan of the concept of nothing being terrible in itself. I do think that some things are just strictly terrible by themselves, but on a daily basis it really is just what you make of it.
Things are bad in consequence of the harm they inflict, and thus always in relation to something/someone other than themselves. Is that what you mean?
DeleteSection #1
ReplyDelete1. As a young man, Augustine followed the teachings of the Manichaean religion, which did not view God as an all-powerful being. Instead, the forces of good and evil are locked in a never-ending battle, each getting the upper hand in different places at different times. In humans, goodness comes from the soul, while evil comes from the body; if an individual does something wrong, it is because the evil forces in him are too strong to be defeated by the good forces. Since God is not all-powerful, He cannot be blamed for the evil that happens in the world. Later in life, Augustine began to see God as all-powerful, and evil as the result of man’s free will. Our free will allows us to be conscious humans, rather than puppets, and while we can choose to do good things, often we choose to do evil. Augustine’s explanation emphasizes the personal accountability we each have for the choices we make. With every action, we have the choice to either add to the evil that has already happened in the world, or add to the good.
2. I think it’s interesting that Boethius personified Philosophy as a woman in a time when philosophy was an activity that generally women did not participate in. I haven’t read The Consolation of Philosophy, but the purpose and symbolism of Philosophy reminds me of Beatrice in The Divine Comedy.
3. In Aquinas’s Second Way, the First Cause Theory, he argues that everything in the universe must have a cause. The table I’m sitting at is made from wood, the wood came from a tree, the tree came from a seed, and at some point long ago the first seed had to come from somewhere. But what caused the thing that caused the first tree seed? Aquinas believed the universe cannot be explained by an infinite regress, by a never-ending trail of causes. There had to have been a first cause that never had a cause, and that thing must be God.
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?
ReplyDeleteIn his younger days, Augustine avoided believing that God wanted evil to happen. It wasn’t a problem for him originally because he was a Manichaean and didn’t believe God was supremely powerful; instead, he believed there was a never-ending struggle going on between the forces of good and evil. After his conversion to Christianity, he believed evil came from the fact that God gave us free will. He believed moral evil is the result of our choices and partly a result of Adam and Eve’s choices, being passed down as Original Sin.
3. Boethius' "recollection of ideas" can be traced back to what philosopher?
Boethius’ “recollection of ideas” can be traced back to Plato. Plato believed all learning is really a kind of recollection of ideas we already have, and we never actually learn anything new. This theory is interesting, and I’m not sure whether I agree or not. I have felt like I’ve learned things I’ve never heard before and things I couldn’t possibly have previously known. However, I could see someone also thinking about it this way: every new word we learn is a recollection of the way letters and sounds work together, with its definition becoming a combination of definitions of words we already knew. I think most things we learn have some connection to something we learn in the past and those connections help us remember them as a new thing, so I can see how this theory works, but I don’t think I necessarily agree. New things I learn become something new to me, but I also connect them to things I’ve already learned, so I’m not sure where I stand on this idea.
6. What was Aquinas' 2nd Way?
Aquinas’ 2nd Way from the Five Ways is the First Cause argument. He argued that everything was brought into being by some cause, and if we traced the chain of causes and effects all the way back, we would eventually find an uncaused cause and that the first cause must have been God. I feel like this theoretical kind of works with the big bang theory. Scientists have been able to (as far as I know) theoretically trace how our planet and the universe came to be what it is now, but something had to cause the big bang, and when I was taught about the big bang, we didn’t have an answer for that. In this way, I could see Aquinas’ First Cause argument working with this scenario.
Section #1
ReplyDeleteResponding to Discussion Questions
1) Do you think knowledge is really a form of remembering or recollection? Have we just forgotten what we knew?
I can't grasp the logic behind the idea that acquiring knowledge is a form of remembering something you already knew. Maybe I just forgot.
I agree with Socrates' process (questions ultimately lead to answers), but I fail to see how questions, and questions alone, without research (thought and experimentation), result in knowledge.
2) Are supernatural stories of faith, redemption, and salvation more comforting to you than the power of reason and evidence? Why or why not?
No, I have found such stories to have the opposite effect on me. If God, supernaturally, intervened to help humans in times of need, why doesn't he do so now? Therefore, I chose to believe God never intervened in the first place.
3) 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)"?
Yes, I find it dubious, misleading, and certainly unfair. I don't believe we necessarily "inherit the sins" of our parents, but I can see how we may inherit traits that could leave us more susceptible to making poor decisions.
And we surely inherit responsibility for ameliorating the consequences of our parents' sins, particularly when they've redounded to our social advantage.
Delete#2
ReplyDeleteLHP
2. What does Boethius not mention about himself in The Consolation of Philosophy?
What he doesn't mention in his book is that he was an early Christian. I think if he did, that would distract from his story of "Philosophy" coming in and telling him about God, that would give his writing a clear bias.
6. What was Aquinas' 2nd Way?
His second way is what he called the First Cause Argument. Simply, how did the world begin? What started it all? His argument says that there can't possibly be a never-ending chain of cause and result, something had to have started the chain. And if something did start the chain, it couldn't have been caused. And that has to be God. But then other philosophers come along and ask "Who created God? Where did God come from?" hence his uncaused cause. Today we have some more widely excepted explanations: The Big Bang Theory, Creation, Evolution, but people still ask the question "what caused that?"
Free Discussion
-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?
This is still a question that modern Christians ask, and it has a tricky answer, because there isn't a clear one. I think that's why this is a question that many philosophers ask and contemplate, it seems to go in circles. For me, I like to use an example to explain this. It works better in person and when I know them better. You have two choices of what to eat for lunch: Chick-fil-a or Dominos. (I change these options depending on the person so that one of the options is something they really like, so I know what they will choose) Then I ask them to decide in their head, but don't tell me. After they have decided what they want to "eat," I tell them what they decided to eat. When I say what they were thinking, I tell them that that's how free will and God work. I know you so well that I knew what your were going to choose before you did it, but I didn't influence your choice, you still chose that on your own. This is what God does, He knows you so well that He effectively "predicts" what you will do. I don't really know much about the "seeing all of time at once" that's explained in the book, so I can't comment on that, but God does exist out of time as we know it. He can't be constrained to the time He created.
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? He said that evil is caused by free will. Evil would not exist if there were not evil people to do evil, God doesn't stop it because it would stop our free will.
ReplyDelete2. What was Aquinas' 2nd Way? He simply states that everything had to start somewhere, so why not with God? The author points out the hole that everything couldn't have just started randomly. Why can't Earth be the starting point? I would argue that the flaw in his counterargument is that he is trying to prove God using only logic without looking around the world for the evidence of God.
3.What uniquely self-validating idea did Anselm say we have?
He argued that if we can imagine a perfect being than one must exist.
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?
ReplyDeleteAugustine originally "solved" the problem of evil in his younger days by adhering to the ideas of the Manichaeans. The Manichaeans believed that evil and good were constantly battling each other, and that evil ended up prevailing in certain instances. This is how evil things happen: by the forces of good slipping up from time to time. After Augustine’s conversion to Christianity, his solution to the problem of evil in a world with a good God was the concept of human free will. God has ultimate control over everything, but He chooses to allow humans to make their own choices, whether they are right or wrong. This “solution” was not such a problem for Augustine originally because he was operating on an existing belief that others around him also adhered to. After he converted, he concluded the idea of free will on his own, and this process took a lot more time and thought than simply believing something he had heard from his youth.
2. What does Boethius not mention about himself in The Consolation of Philosophy?
Boethius does not mention that he was a Christian in his book, but this fact was nonetheless evident to his readers due to his emphasis on values that aligned with Christian beliefs. I wonder if he was deliberately trying to hide this fact and didn’t do a good job of it, or if he meant for it to be implicit in his work.
4. What uniquely self-validating idea did Anselm say we have?
Anselm said that because God is definitively “The greatest being,” if a person has an idea that any sort of God exists at all, then God must therefore exist in order to be greater than that person’s idea of Him. This argument is not very strong, due to the fact that it relies solely on the logical progression of ideas and completely ignores a basis in reality. Anselm’s proof for God’s existence is quite unfounded, and I’m saying this as a believer in God.
Little History of Philosophy
ReplyDelete1. When Augustine was younger, the problem of evil didn’t bother him much because he followed Manichaeism, which taught that good and evil were two equal forces fighting each other. In that view, evil was its own substance, so its existence didn’t need explaining. After converting to Christianity, Augustine rejected this idea and argued that evil is not a substance, but a lack or corruption of goodness. Evil exists because humans misuse their free will, not because God created evil itself. Honestly, this is one of the biggest questions I've had growing up and to be honest I haven't actually done my due diligence in experiencing the question.
2. In The Consolation of Philosophy, Boethius never mentions Christianity, even though he was a Christian. He does not refer to Christ, the Bible, or Christian doctrine, and instead relies entirely on classical philosophy and reason to deal with his suffering.
3. Boethius’ idea of recollection of ideas comes from Plato. Plato believed that learning is really a process of remembering truths the soul already knew before birth, and Boethius draws directly on this idea in his book.
5. Gaunilo of Marmoutiers criticized Anselm of Canterbury by using the example of a perfect island. He argued that just because we can imagine the most perfect island does not mean it must exist in reality. This was meant to show that Anselm’s logic could be used to “prove” the existence of anything, which makes the argument flawed.
2. What does Boethius not mention about himself in The Consolation of Philosophy?
ReplyDeleteBoethius does not describe God as a Christian God. Instead, he describes God as the pure form of goodness and as a woman named Philosophy. It is odd that Boethius, who was an early Christian, did not mention his God and instead chose a more neutral representation. I think it is possible that he wanted to appeal to more people than just Christians, so perhaps he left God as an ambiguous entity on purpose.
3. Boethius' "recollection of ideas" can be traced back to what philosopher?
Boethius says that Philosophy reminds him of what he already knows. This is similar to Plato’s idea that we never learn something new, but rather that we are constantly refreshing our memories. I find this idea fascinating. It makes me ponder the possibility that beyond my atoms and DNA lie memories from other lives, and that every new thing I learn is actually just a recollection of previous knowledge. I think that this sort of thought experiment shares similarities with reincarnation and requires some deep contemplation and creativity.
4. What uniquely self-validating idea did Anselm say we have?
Anselm said that because we have an idea of God in our minds, that alone proves his existence. He believed that God was the absolute best thing that could ever exist or even be conceived. His reasoning was that if we can think of a perfect God in our heads, then an even greater God must exist in reality, since God is greater than everything. I tried writing that a few different ways, and it still does not really make sense to me. While reading, I could not help but think of the mythical Loch Ness Monster. If I were to take Anselm’s rationale and apply it to the Loch Ness Monster, then because I can think of this creature in my head, and yes, it would be super cool if it existed in reality, then boom, now it exists. This seems really far-fetched to me. Gaunilo of Marmoutiers, a monk who lived during the same time period as Anselm, met his claim with skepticism as well. He offered a counterargument that imagining a perfect island does not prove the existence of that perfect island. Guanilo argued that by using Anselm's rationale anybody could try to prove anything.
#2
ReplyDeleteLHP- 4- Anselm stated that god exists because we question if he does. Therefore, if he didn't exist we wouldn't question if there was truly a God.
5- Gulino criticized Anslem's reasoning by using an example of a perfect island. He stated that people could imagine a perfect island but that doesn't mean it's real.
Discussion questions: Can the definition of a word prove anything about the world?
I don't think a mere definition of a word can prove anything about the world because everyone has different meanings to what a word means. Also, connotations can make the definition of a word sound different. Furthermore, people take definitions of words and make it their own. So how do we know what's true.
1.) In his younger years, Augustine did not see the problem of evil as much of an issue. At the time, he followed Manichaeism, which taught that good and evil were two real and opposing forces in the universe. Because evil existed as its own force, Augustine did not need to explain why a good God would allow it. Evil simply existed alongside good.
ReplyDeleteAfter converting to Christianity, this view no longer worked. Christianity teaches that God is entirely good and the creator of everything, so Augustine argued that evil is not a thing itself, but a lack of good. Evil comes from humans misusing their free will and turning away from God. I find this later view more challenging, since it places responsibility on humans, but it also avoids the idea that the universe is fundamentally split between equal forces of good and evil.
2.) In The Consolation of Philosophy, Boethius leaves out Christianity entirely. Despite being a devoted Christian and writing while imprisoned and awaiting execution, he never mentions Christ, the Bible, or Christian salvation. Instead, he relies completely on classical philosophy, especially Plato and Stoicism, with Lady Philosophy offering him comfort through reason rather than faith.
This omission feels intentional. Boethius seems to suggest that philosophy alone can provide consolation in the face of suffering and death. I find this surprisingly relatable, as it shows philosophy not as abstract theory, but as something meant to be lived with when everything else has been taken away.
3.) Boethius’ idea of the recollection of ideas comes from Plato. Plato believed that learning is not about gaining new knowledge, but remembering truths the soul already knew before birth. Boethius uses this idea to explain how humans can grasp eternal truths despite living in a changing world. In his situation, this idea feels especially powerful, since knowledge and reason remain with him even when his freedom and life are being stripped away.
Section H01
ReplyDelete1. 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?
A: In his youth, Augustine adhered to the principles of Manichaeism, a system of religion that didn't assign omnipotence to their creator. To assuage the qualm of complicit malevolence, Manichaeans asserted the existence of "a never-ending struggle going on between equal forces of good and evil." God and Satan were antagonizing counterparts who both possessed an equal, immense amount of power. Acts of evil in this world represented moments when Satan, or evil, has the advantage. However, according to Manichaeism, God would "return and triumph over evil again."
As Augustine grew older, he rejected Manichaeism and converted to Christianity. This shift explained God's tolerance of evil through the "Free Will Defense." As a stipulation of his own creation, God provided humans with the ability to act on their own will. When people abuse this freedom, evil begins to thrive and suffering runs rampant. This, Augustine seems to suggest, is the cost of autonomy. It also mitigates the blame placed on God for the deeds of people who choose to be "evil."
2. What does Boethius not mention about himself in The Consolation of Philosophy?
A: Boethius omits his faith in "The Consolation of Philosophy." As a Christian, his work and writings appealed to zealously religious philosophers. He is regarded as an integral figure in the bridge between Greek/Roman thinkers and the Christian philosophy that dominated Western ideology for a large part of the Middle Ages. So it is peculiar that he would fail to mention his devotion to Christianity. Perhaps he did so to frame important aspects of the Christian philosophy without labelling it as such, in order to draw attention exclusively to the value of the teachings presented.
3. Boethius' "recollection of ideas" can be traced back to what philosopher?
A: Boethius' "recollection of ideas" can be traced back to Plato, who believed that learning is simply a "struggle to recall what we knew earlier." Boethius applied this axiom to his former woes concerning his "freedom and public respect." While his public perception was out of his control, he was able to adjust his attitude toward the situation, an aspect of his life that he can control.
1. Augustine’s approach to the problem of evil changed after his conversion to Christianity. In his younger days, he thought evil was simply a lack of goodness, so it wasn’t a true “thing” in itself, which meant it didn’t really need explaining. After converting, he incorporated God’s goodness and human free will into his understanding, believing that evil exists because humans misuse the freedom God gave them. This shift shows how his religious perspective allowed him to frame evil as a consequence of choice rather than a flaw in God’s creation.
ReplyDelete2. In The Consolation of Philosophy, Boethius focuses on philosophical arguments about fortune, happiness, and God, but he avoids discussing personal details about himself. He doesn’t explain why he was imprisoned or give a full account of his political life, which makes the work feel more like a universal reflection than a personal memoir. This omission allows the ideas to stand on their own, emphasizing the philosophical lessons rather than the man’s biography. It’s interesting because it shows how philosophical writing can aim for timeless wisdom rather than personal storytelling.
4. Anselm argued that humans have the idea of God as “that than which nothing greater can be conceived,” and he claimed this idea is self-validating because it exists in the mind and must exist in reality. Gaunilo criticized this reasoning with the famous example of a perfect island, arguing that imagining something as perfect doesn’t prove it exists in reality. Both of these discussions trace back to Plato’s notion of innate ideas and recollection, which suggests humans already carry knowledge of ideal Forms within themselves. This connection shows how medieval thinkers adapted classical ideas to Christian theology.
Before conversion Augustine believed that evil was a substance, something that existed outside god, and after converting to christianity he changed his believes to essentially say evil is a misuse of free will give to us by god and that when we misuse our free will it becomes an absence of good, as god created all things good we created evilness by misusing the gifts god gave us.
ReplyDeleteBoethius, despite being a christian, never explicitly mentions christ or christianity. He keeps the work philosophical and classical rather than overly christian.
Plato and his platonic theory of recollection, anamnesis.
Anselm said that we have an idea that God as “that than which nothing greater can be conceived.” this is what he used to argue the existence of god.
Guanilo fought against this idea using an example of a perfect lost island, he argued that Anselm's logic could be used to falsely prove the existence of anything imagined as perfect.
Aquinas believes that since everything has a cause, and there cannot be an infinite regress of causes, there must be a first uncaused cause, which is God.
Section #1
DeleteSection #2
ReplyDeleteLHP 1: Augustine was originally a Manichaean, and considered evil acts in humans to be the byproduct of a greater struggle between a good God and an evil Satan. Human goodness and evil occurred when one of the two forces, forever locked in a stalemate, briefly gained an upper hand.
The Christian faith, however, portrays God as all-powerful, which means that evil is permitted to happen. Augustine theorized that suffering is permitted to occur because eliminating the choice between a good action and a wicked one means that humans have no free will. The human capabilities of reason and morality exist because we are meant to make our own decisions; these abilities would not be necessary if the good and virtuous options were the only ones available to us.
Is it better to embrace (or renounce) religious faith early in life, or to "sow your wild oats" and enjoy a vast 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?
ReplyDeleteAs a young child, I was taught Christian values and Sunday School stories, but as a whole, religion was only what I was told and nothing that entertained deep reflection. At 5, I had made a profession of faith, but looking back, could I have vowed something I didn't fully understand? It certainly seems easier to embrace faith early in life, but I see nothing wrong with waiting to commit; my first real profession of faith happened at 22 on my own accord. While this may still be early in my life, and my brain has more time left to cook, I'm not sure how long I will actually be around. As for "sowing your wild oats," I'm uncertain whether that makes finding faith easier. As for some, that is the perfect time to find faith
Section #2
ReplyDeleteLHP
I personally agree with Augustine. Even though God has the ability to stop evil from occurring, it would not be free choice if he did so. When the original sin was committed, and we drifted away from God, we gained the knowledge of good and evil. Having such knowledge but not being able to CHOOSE not to is arguably unjust. It is not really a free choice if the choice is made for you. If we think about this in an Earthly view, imagine that the rest of your life, with all the choices that you could make includinng the choice of even taking this class, was made by your parents. Nothing would really matter because everything you do is not really your decision, and you just have to live with the life chosen for you. However, this raises the question that if God can give humans free will, why can’t humans give humans free will? Should we abolish all laws and trust that humans will make the right decision? The way I like to think about this question is that God has the same systems as humans. Even though God may not punish you for your sins during your lifetime, he will punish you in the afterlife by separating you from him. This is similar to how we humans punish others AFTER a crime is committed. The rules and laws are there, people choose not to follow them, and then face the consequences afterward.
I have very mixed feelings about the concept of “recollection of ideas”. I agree that some ideas may have come from the past, but only in this lifetime. I do not agree with the concept of “past lives.” Maybe the “recollection” one is having is from an earlier concept taught as a child. I think that Deja vou and the concept of “recollection of ideas" are linked in some weird way.
Aquinas made a very excellent point about regression: it is difficult to follow and understand. If you tried to trace the universe all the way back, there has to be a starting point—something or someone that always was, out of time and space. Human brains are simply unable to rationalize this concept. For me, it is God. For others, it’s the big bang. Whether you agree with God or not, it is plausible to think that something or someone started it all.
I answered three questions, but when I clicked post the numbers went away.
Delete