. Spinning .

As I come to the end of Book III, all the while watching Boethius nodding his head wildly excited in agreement with Philosophy’s logic, I am suspicious of the steps I’ve been taking in the thought process, and wonder indeed if logic itself forms many branches to arrive at a single conclusion.

In this latest idea of unity–the fragments of happiness would not be the whole, and they depend upon each other, are in fact one and the same–is a bit contrived I might suggest.  Then too, Nature and God may be seen as one power, the ultimate good, or having come by the perfection of a Supreme Being, having that nature of inability to accept its opposite. 

This takes more explaining, to you here who have not read or don’t remember, and to me, busy trying to punch holes in the veil Philosophy puts before my eyes.

I’m reading this a bit harder now, resistant to its all-too-easy message.  I am questioning the logic, as if it is twisted to produce rather than by strict deduction.  I need go back–or simply be more cautious in the forward reading–and pay more attention to those qualms of doubt.

In my mind I realize the implications, and also that I need not accept these words of Boethius.  In my mind, I recall my stubborn inability to assume, but rather take the mark of incorrect:  Assume that all redheads are bad-tempered; Jane is a redhead; therefore, Jane is bad-tempered.

Every fiber of my being shouts NO! 

Maybe just my inability to take direction, but tendency instead to ramble, stumble through this lifetime trying to find my own.  I seek, I think, unhappiness or rather, exquisite happiness to be proven to exist. 

…is in God.

"Grant, Oh Father, that my mind may rise to Thy sacred throne.  Let it see the fountain of good; let it find light, so that the clear light of my soul may fix itself in Thee.  Burn off the fogs and clouds of earth and shine through in Thy splendor.  For Thou art the serenity, the tranquil peace of virtuous men.  The sight of Thee is beginning and end; one guide, leader, path, and goal."  (Part III, Poem 9, p. 54) 

As I suspected, a belief in something other-worldly must exist to accept the principles of happiness that can only be found in the perfection offered by a Supreme Being, and untainted by the way of man–as everything upon this earth appears to be.

To forego any belief and trust in happiness upon this earth except in that knowledge and firm conviction that there is a great beyond this lifetime…well, that takes faith.  Boethius probably has it. 

But then again, if this belief itself, this trust in soul that flies from earth to live forever on, brings contentment and true happiness to mortal man, what does it matter if it be true or false?  The happiness is here and now, and disappointment is impossible, as if no more exists, then that as well does not.

No lesson is learned the better than when lived.  And often that which seemed one way, becomes another when applying a different theory.  That which seemed most difficult to me of Philosophy’s logic was that of honor in striving for achievement. 

"But, when it comes to the location of the good which they desire, they are blind and ignorant.  They dig the earth in search of the good which soars above the star-filled heavens.  What can I say to show what fools they are?  Let them pursue their riches and honors and, when they have painfully accumulated their false goods, then they may come to recognize the true."  (Book III, Poem 8, p. 49)

While I have never had the opportunity nor the urge to accumulate great wealth, honor that comes with earning and hard effort has always been of great–and now I see, unjustified–importance.  For that which can be too readily conferred is not worth holding as a source of happiness.  The satisfaction is in the having done, but must be done with and one must move beyond. In understanding pride and honor,its transient nature need be seen as such.  Last night I learned to apply this reasoning to an event in a forewarning manner, instead of searching through memory to depend upon the understanding.  Lesson learned.

I see where Boethius, through Philosophy, is heading, and in wrapping up Book III, he starts to create the alternate lifestyle that can (he claims) offer true happiness.  Nature is but a foundation, but it is the false images given it by man that fool him onto the wrong paths.

"Therefore, that which is self-sufficient, which can do everything by its own power, which is honored and famous, is not this also most pleasant and joyful?

(…) "Then," Philosophy went on, "it must be granted that, although the names of sufficiency, power, fame, reverence, and joy are different, in substance all are one and the same thing."

(…) Human depravity, then, has broken into fragments that which is by nature one and simple; men try to grasp part of a thing which has no parts and so get neither the part, which does not exist, nor the whole, which they do not seek."  (Book III, Prose 9, p. 51)

The total package.  Let’s go for it.

Philosophy sums up the falseness of that which men seek as happiness, and gives her reasons for each being unable to bring true good and happiness to those who take these paths:

"There is no doubt, therefore, that these are the wrong roads to happiness; they cannot take anyone to the destination which they promise.  Let me briefly show you the evils within them.  If you try to accumulate money, you must deprive someone else of it.  If you want to cover yourself with honors, you will become indebted to those who can bestow them; and, by wishing to outdo others in honor, you will humiliate yourself by begging.

"If you want power, you risk the danger of your subjects’ treachery.  if you seek fame, you will become involved in difficulties and lose your security.  If you seek a life of pleasure–but who would not spurn and avoid subjection to so vile and fragile a thing as his body?  Indeed, those who boast of bodily goods are relying on weak and uncertain possessions.  For you are not bigger than an elephant, nor stronger than a bull, nor as quick as a tiger."  (Book III, Prose 8, p. 48)

Put like this, it would seem to be that we’re better off not coming out of the cave.  This all seems so negative–and very close to my own attitude it’s scary.  This "something will go wrong so don’t even try it" formed advice would seem to be anti-happiness in its fear of risk versus rewards.  But this is not truly the advice Philosophy gives, but rather in knowing the risks, know as well the need not to depend upon these things for happiness.

Here is where she will bring in the answer.  Thing is, she’s run out of material things and would then I guess head in the direction of the spiritual, or the gaining of the knowledge.  I’m curious.

Perhaps I should read through to the end before I post on this or any other book, because I change with it as clarifications are made, but the arguments along the way are some fun too.  I don’t mind admitting when I’m finally convinced I’m wrong, nor balk at changing mind in view of it; in fact, it seems a lifting of the veil and sparks, I’m sure, a great Hurrah! among those who watch my faltering steps to gain my footing up the mountain.

Here, Philosophy uses the material form of wealth to illustrate her principle:

"And now let us see whether riches really drive away need.  Don’t the wealthy become hungry and thirsty; don’t they feel the cold in the winter?  You may argue that they have the means to satisfy their hunger and thirst, and to protect themselves against the cold.  Nevertheless, the needs remain, and riches can only minimize them.  For if needs are always present and making demands which must be met by spending money, clearly there will always be some need which is unsatisfied.  And here I do not press the point that, although nature makes very modest demands, avarice is never satisfied.  My present point is simply this:  if riches cannot eliminate need, but on the contrary create new demands, what makes you suppose that they can provide satisfaction?"  (Book III, Prose 3, p. 42)

This is a very pointed and logical way of reasoning.  And the only thought that I take issue with is the basis on which Philosophy claims that new demands are created.  The following is the pre-argument for the above. 

"Then wealth cannot give a man everything and make him entirely self-sufficient, even though this is what money seems to promise.  But I think it most important to observe that there is nothing in the nature of wealth to prevent its being taken from those who have it.

(…) "And why shouldn’t you agree, since every day those who are powerful enough snatch it from those who are weaker.  In fact, most lawsuits are concerned with efforts to recover money taken by violence or fraud.

(…) "Therefore, a man needs the help of others to protect his money.

(…) "But he wouldn’t need it, if he had no money to lose.

(…) "Well then, the situation is upside down; for riches, which are supposed to make men self-sufficient, actually make them dependent on the help of others."  (p.42)

I do understand the concept, and the bitter reality of it, but would argue that it not be a preassumed stand that "man needs the help of others to protect his money".  This is what Philosophy claims as the basis for its inability to promote self-sufficiency.  We must assume the evil nature of man who lusts after his neighbor’s wealth, or, in a more grassroots manner, even assume that if a man, let’s say, has wealth dependent upon his lands, he himself is dependent upon the work of others to bring it to fruition. 

But I argue none too emphatically as Philosophy is being practical and realistic rather than suiting her arguments to an idealistic world.

That’s okay; I’m sure I’ll find something else to question as I go along.