In order to produce agreeable arguments that do not challenge the status quo of their times, authors often adapt their views and opinions to fit preexisting ideologies. In The Consolation of Philosophy, Boethius concludes his work with a depiction of god that largely mirrors the Christian viewpoint. However, he alters his definition of god as the work progresses. Originally, he portrays divinity as an abstract, absolute goodness that all men strive for both naturally and actively. In contrast, Boethius later refers to god as an omniscient eternal being who is able to observe the earth and its history in a single moment. Boethius shifts his definition of god in instances where his argument fails to make logical sense, allowing him to cover his
…show more content…
Boethius’ proof of the existence of god leads to Christian beliefs but contains irrational arguments that conflict with his principles of total logic. His conclusion that perfect goodness exists in the universe is based on flawed reasoning. Boethius asserts through the voice of Philosophy that “if there is a class of things in which there are imperfections, there must also be in that class the perfect thing.” He continues by describing that “without that perfect thing, it cannot be imagined how the imperfect ones could exist.” Later, he claims that the world “began with perfections from which it lapsed into the present diminished and exhausted state” Boethius relates that this original perfection of the universe is defined as “the most high God” who “is full of…the perfect good” (Boethius 86-87). These claims convey that solely because something apparently imperfect is observed in the universe, its perfect version must exist. Boethius’ logic is faulty, however, as it both relies on an arbitrary notion of perfection and attempts to prove the existence of something by noticing that something worse exists. Counterexamples to this point are easily found …show more content…
Boethius ends his argument abruptly, citing the unfathomability of god’s plans rather than taking a purely philosophical stance and using reason to ease his confusion. During Philosophy’s description of the difference between fate and providence, she relates to Boethius the character that her argument “may seem to you to be confused and confusing, but that is because you do not understand the underlying order,” explaining that “the tendency which disposes all things toward the good is what directs them” (134). Later, Philosophy concludes her argument by stating that “God is beyond human comprehension and his powers cannot be expressed in words. It is enough to have understood only this: that God is the author of all natures, orders all things and directs them toward the good” (139). In both instances, Boethius’ apparently uncompromising logic relents and the philosopher admits that he is unable to truly grasp the nature of providence. Though he initially aims to understand the order of the world through the use of reason, Boethius ends his argument with an acknowledgement of incapability rather than continuing his claims and therefore challenging the Christian idea of an all-knowing yet perplexing deity. Rather than exercising the use of pure logic, the
Boethius’ proof of the existence of god leads to Christian beliefs but contains irrational arguments that conflict with his principles of total logic. His conclusion that perfect goodness exists in the universe is based on flawed reasoning. Boethius asserts through the voice of Philosophy that “if there is a class of things in which there are imperfections, there must also be in that class the perfect thing.” He continues by describing that “without that perfect thing, it cannot be imagined how the imperfect ones could exist.” Later, he claims that the world “began with perfections from which it lapsed into the present diminished and exhausted state” Boethius relates that this original perfection of the universe is defined as “the most high God” who “is full of…the perfect good” (Boethius 86-87). These claims convey that solely because something apparently imperfect is observed in the universe, its perfect version must exist. Boethius’ logic is faulty, however, as it both relies on an arbitrary notion of perfection and attempts to prove the existence of something by noticing that something worse exists. Counterexamples to this point are easily found …show more content…
Boethius ends his argument abruptly, citing the unfathomability of god’s plans rather than taking a purely philosophical stance and using reason to ease his confusion. During Philosophy’s description of the difference between fate and providence, she relates to Boethius the character that her argument “may seem to you to be confused and confusing, but that is because you do not understand the underlying order,” explaining that “the tendency which disposes all things toward the good is what directs them” (134). Later, Philosophy concludes her argument by stating that “God is beyond human comprehension and his powers cannot be expressed in words. It is enough to have understood only this: that God is the author of all natures, orders all things and directs them toward the good” (139). In both instances, Boethius’ apparently uncompromising logic relents and the philosopher admits that he is unable to truly grasp the nature of providence. Though he initially aims to understand the order of the world through the use of reason, Boethius ends his argument with an acknowledgement of incapability rather than continuing his claims and therefore challenging the Christian idea of an all-knowing yet perplexing deity. Rather than exercising the use of pure logic, the