. Spinning .

It is clear that Philosophy leads Boethius’ through a series of steps that point to a real happiness in seeking God, and attempts to answer the question of bad things happening to good people. 

"It is no wonder," Philosophy answered, "that a situation should seem random and confused when its principle of order is not understood.  But, although you do not know why things are as they are, still you cannot doubt that in a world ruled by a good Governor all things do happen justly."  (Book IV, Prose 5, p. 80)

This is, of course, often the lament when the just are hit with tragedy.  I’ve not gotten fully into Philosophy’s answers yet, but am dwelling upon the necessity of believing in a more spiritual life beyond our earthly one.  And, in whatever form a God exists, whatever form a life beyond would exist.

In the dark of the garage, my mind wanders.  Are children in fact the soul of man, the only real way in which we live on beyond our own lifespan?  This would seem in contradiction to our individual soul, but there is contradiction in the words of God as written in the Bible as well.  "Be fruitful and multiply" can be taken as man’s purpose, and thus one way to endure.  I wondered if we in fact would commit a suicide of the soul if we were not to procreate.And yet, the celibacy as practiced and espoused by Jesus Christ would go against that doctrine.  Mixed messages then that do not bear out this theory.  Obviously too, all life reproduces itself, but even man as the highest form of life–if we consider reasoning to represent the highest form of life–but cannot create life from nothing.

Just rambling here, trying to use some form of logic to arrive at some common ground to face Philosophy ahead.

This logic may follow, but it is based on a premise that I don’t quite see as solid:

"Perhaps it may strike some as strange to say that evil men do not exist, especially since they are so numerous; but it is not so strange.  For I do not deny that those who are evil are evil; but I do deny that they are, in the pure and simple sense of the term.  For just as you may call a cadaver a dead man, but cannot call it simply a man, so I would concede that vicious men are evil, but I cannot say, in an absolute sense, that they exist.  For a thing which is maintains its place in nature and acts in accord with its nature.  Whatever fails to do this loses the existence which is proper to its nature.  But you may argue that evil men are capable of action.  I will not deny it, but such capability is the product of weakness, not of strength.  For they can do evil acts which they could not have done if they had been able to remain capable of good.  And that possibility of doing evil shows clearly that they can do nothing.  For, if our earlier conclusion that evil is nothing still stands, it is clear that the wicked can do nothing since they can do only evil."  (Book III, Prose 2, p. 71)

Though I’d like nothing better than to believe that evil men do not exist (even in Philosophy’s notion of existence), the logic is not on firm ground.  It sounds a bit like  the "I don’t believe in you" nyah nyah that made Tinkerbell’s light flicker and die in Peter Pan. 

The statement, "For a thing which is maintains its place in nature and acts in accord with its nature.  Whatever fails to do this loses the existence which is proper to its nature" assumes no variation in behavior.  That which does not act in accordance with its nature, doesn’t exist?    I may be nitpicky here, but it appears that most of the human race would not exist if this would be so.  I realize we’re coming up on the notion of free will, but I need to get this aspect set firmly–just as all build one upon the other–before I can comprehend Philosophy’s explanation of free will.

This statement as well seems too overly simple: "For, if our earlier conclusion that evil is nothing still stands, it is clear that the wicked can do nothing since they can do only evil."  There’s no leeway granted here, and the logic doesn’t take everything into account, but rather is dealing in absolutes (even for a black and white person such as I, who can still see a huge grey area in between).  If we accept that evil is nothing, then I don’t see it clearly proven that they do nothing since they do not only do evil.

It’s a head scratcher to fully accept this without question and go further.

After Philosophy has "proved" that a sovereign God can do all things, and that men cannot, but men can do evil, she goes on:

Therefore, since He who can only do good can do all things and those who do evil cannot do all things, it is obvious that those who can do evil are less powerful.  Moreover, we have already shown that every kind of power is included among the things which men desire, and that all objects of human desire are related to the good as the goal of their natures.  But the ability to commit crime is not related to the good, and so it is not desirable.  And, since every power should be desired, it follows that the power to do evil is not a power at all.  From all this it is clear that good men have power but evil men are weak.  Likewise, the truth of Plato’s doctrine is evident; only the wise can do what they want to do; the wicked can follow their desires, but they cannot accomplish what they want.  For they do what they feel like doing, and they suppose that they will find among their pleasures the good they are really looking for.  But they are bound to fail, since shameful behavior does not bring happiness."  (Book IV, Prose 2, p. 72)

Comforting thought for those of us who try to achieve happiness by walking the straight and narrow, but is this reality?  It seems as though if we agree with the theory of good, (and a belief in God is not truly necessary here, but rather some form of force that lies beyond man himself), then Boethius relates the opposite to evil; qualities, desires, etc., all in opposition to what has been held as the good.

"But the ability to commit crime is not related to the good, and so it is not desirable.  And, since every power should be desired, it follows that the power to do evil is not a power at all.  From all this it is clear that good men have power but evil men are weak."  While the logical progression that Philosophy has taken seems to point in this direction, it seems to be fraught with nonrealistic however idealistic and hopeful thinking.  It’s like telling a child that something’s not good for him because something bad can happen.  It’s rationalization (which is what logic is supposed to be) but forcing things to work or sound good to encourage the righteous that they’re not missing out.  "Those grapes are sour anyway" says the fox of Aesop’s Fable.

I see evil people smiling all the time.  Maybe we shouldn’t tell them they’re really unhappy?

As Philosophy moves into the question of evil versus good, and the qualitative theory of yes or no logic, I am most definitely not likin’ it.  This in itself is odd because for one thing, I’m basically non-argumentative (though age has struck me with its doubled efforts towards standing ground), and for another, I’ve never been a middle-of-the-roader; being more true Scorpio of extremes.

But I cannot discount the words quite that easily, just as I cannot discount a writing of fiction that I mght not like, but must agree it is good if it has the elements of language and story.  To argue logic requires the finding of flaw in that logic, and that won’t be quite so easy.  In Consolation, Boethius as author is in fact arguing both sides of the issue, but not as strenuously as one would with an opposing viewpoint.  Playing Devil’s Advocate only goes so far–I know; this is my forte–because it holds the major disadvantage of wanting to prove one line of reasoning rather than wholehearted disagreement.

Back with quotes shortly (unless I’ve turned my thinking around to that of Boethius and have come to accept the path).