Scan barcode
bluereen's review against another edition
4.0
"Any human action presupposes two things: will
and ability. If either one of these is lacking, no one
can do anything. Without the will, no man can begin
any action, and without ability, the will is frustrated."
***
I don't usually read philosophical books, but since this was required for class, I had no choice. Surprisingly, the text was accessible (perhaps I got lucky with the translation). It made me ponder over certain questions that always remained at the back of my mind (mostly unaddressed). I also found good counterarguments to some of my longstanding principles—a notable one being "money can buy happiness."
While I don't agree with all the ideas here, it's safe to say that—overall—this book left an impact.
and ability. If either one of these is lacking, no one
can do anything. Without the will, no man can begin
any action, and without ability, the will is frustrated."
***
I don't usually read philosophical books, but since this was required for class, I had no choice. Surprisingly, the text was accessible (perhaps I got lucky with the translation). It made me ponder over certain questions that always remained at the back of my mind (mostly unaddressed). I also found good counterarguments to some of my longstanding principles—a notable one being "money can buy happiness."
While I don't agree with all the ideas here, it's safe to say that—overall—this book left an impact.
kessler21's review against another edition
3.0
This was written in the 6th century CE and is quite an interesting work made up of verse and prose and shows the backbone of Medieval philosophy and influences philosophy even to our day.
Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius was a member of the Roman senate, very prominent and influential. He was later imprisoned and executed for treason. During his imprisonment, Boethius wrote The Consolation of Philosophy.
In it, Boethius narrates Lady Philosophy coming and visiting him. They discuss good vs evil, fate, death, and other topics, which bring him consolation.
I am now going to plagiarize another summary of the book because they do much better than me.
"Philosophy begins by proving by meticulous reasoning that God is not only good, but the source of goodness. People are good in so far as they participate in divine goodness; they are evil in so far as they reject it. To be human is to accept good; to reject it makes one subhuman. The evil therefore only appear to be triumphant in the world. In fact, their own evil is their punishment.
"The reason the bad seem to be rewarded is that they are favoured by Fortune, the force that rewards and punishes within the world. It is better, Philosophy argues, to follow Providence, the force that sees to it that God's plan is followed, no matter how men mar it.
"Philosophy finishes up by reconciling God's foreknowledge of events with Man's free will. Foreseeing a thing does not necessitate that one has influenced it at all--God's foreknowledge merely enables him to see what will happen. He foresees because, from the perspective of eternity, all events, past, present, and future and simultaneously present to Him."
I found the book very interesting, especially the discussion of foreknowledge. Though the discussion seem religious, they are more a reasoned and less of a theological approach to these subjects.
Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius was a member of the Roman senate, very prominent and influential. He was later imprisoned and executed for treason. During his imprisonment, Boethius wrote The Consolation of Philosophy.
In it, Boethius narrates Lady Philosophy coming and visiting him. They discuss good vs evil, fate, death, and other topics, which bring him consolation.
I am now going to plagiarize another summary of the book because they do much better than me.
"Philosophy begins by proving by meticulous reasoning that God is not only good, but the source of goodness. People are good in so far as they participate in divine goodness; they are evil in so far as they reject it. To be human is to accept good; to reject it makes one subhuman. The evil therefore only appear to be triumphant in the world. In fact, their own evil is their punishment.
"The reason the bad seem to be rewarded is that they are favoured by Fortune, the force that rewards and punishes within the world. It is better, Philosophy argues, to follow Providence, the force that sees to it that God's plan is followed, no matter how men mar it.
"Philosophy finishes up by reconciling God's foreknowledge of events with Man's free will. Foreseeing a thing does not necessitate that one has influenced it at all--God's foreknowledge merely enables him to see what will happen. He foresees because, from the perspective of eternity, all events, past, present, and future and simultaneously present to Him."
I found the book very interesting, especially the discussion of foreknowledge. Though the discussion seem religious, they are more a reasoned and less of a theological approach to these subjects.
oldswampy's review against another edition
5.0
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.
catacombsaint's review against another edition
challenging
informative
inspiring
reflective
fast-paced
4.0
hjswinford's review against another edition
4.0
Amazingly deep and thoughtful. I love this work, discussion, essay, story...whatever you want to call it. It's astounding. It certainly makes you think until your brain hurts.
brockemsockemrobot's review against another edition
challenging
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
4.0
torjus's review against another edition
dark
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
3.5
rosekk's review against another edition
2.0
I've always skipped over this era of philosophy. I spent a lot of time with the ancients (particularly Plato and Aristotle), and then with a few notable exceptions, leapt forward to Enlightenment thinkers onwards. I decided it was finally time to see what I had been missing. Sadly, this book suggests that the answer is: not much.
The parts of the book I found most convincing had already been examined in greater detail & depth by Plato and/or Aristotle, so I didn't feel this book added much in those arenas. What really bothered me, though, was that in spite of referencing both philosophers multiple times, many of the more original arguments rested on the kind of rhetorical tricks that Socrates (as he appears in Plato's work) would have demolished. There was a passage about justice which the translator has rendered as beginning with the word 'obviously', and which we are expected to find persuasive; the two characters in the dialogue quickly agree on it and go on to base a whole load of further suppositions upon this 'obvious' understanding of justice. The Socrates of Plato's work would never have stood for such a thing: accepting the obvious interpretation of a key concept, with no questioning, no examination?! It's a betrayal of the one unified idea that carries through all of Plato's writings: that we must question our understanding in order to further it. I was rather enjoying this book (and inclined to rate it higher), until I came upon that. My little Socratic heart almost burst upon reading such shaky logic applauded within the book as clear wisdom delivered from the mouth of Philosophy personified.
I'm coming down quite negatively on this book because I found it trying to make great claims through arguments I found glaringly flawed. Before it wound me up with those faults, I did identify some positives about the book. I appreciated the use of poetry; it seemed like a tacit recognition that sometimes it's a good idea, even necessary, to express ideas in different forms. I also respect the project of the writing: the author was subject to false accusations leading to a death sentence, and was seeking to understand and come to terms with his predicament. Finally, the writing (or at least, the translation I was reading) were fairly accessible, though the many classical references require a bit of background knowledge.
The parts of the book I found most convincing had already been examined in greater detail & depth by Plato and/or Aristotle, so I didn't feel this book added much in those arenas. What really bothered me, though, was that in spite of referencing both philosophers multiple times, many of the more original arguments rested on the kind of rhetorical tricks that Socrates (as he appears in Plato's work) would have demolished. There was a passage about justice which the translator has rendered as beginning with the word 'obviously', and which we are expected to find persuasive; the two characters in the dialogue quickly agree on it and go on to base a whole load of further suppositions upon this 'obvious' understanding of justice. The Socrates of Plato's work would never have stood for such a thing: accepting the obvious interpretation of a key concept, with no questioning, no examination?! It's a betrayal of the one unified idea that carries through all of Plato's writings: that we must question our understanding in order to further it. I was rather enjoying this book (and inclined to rate it higher), until I came upon that. My little Socratic heart almost burst upon reading such shaky logic applauded within the book as clear wisdom delivered from the mouth of Philosophy personified.
I'm coming down quite negatively on this book because I found it trying to make great claims through arguments I found glaringly flawed. Before it wound me up with those faults, I did identify some positives about the book. I appreciated the use of poetry; it seemed like a tacit recognition that sometimes it's a good idea, even necessary, to express ideas in different forms. I also respect the project of the writing: the author was subject to false accusations leading to a death sentence, and was seeking to understand and come to terms with his predicament. Finally, the writing (or at least, the translation I was reading) were fairly accessible, though the many classical references require a bit of background knowledge.
zwagrowska's review against another edition
4.0
Although Boethius solves very little (and I think he is aware of this, given the concluding line) this was super enjoyable. I loved the mock-platonic dialogue (monologue?) and the argument was very clear, although flawed.