Scan barcode
A review by rosekk
The Consolation of Philosophy of Boethius by H. R. James, Boethius
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.