Talk:On the Consolation of Philosophy

Move to The Consolation of Philosophy

Not the most pressing thing in the world, but WP:DEFINITE actually applies here: the English title is invariably The Consolation of Philosophy and the title of the article should reflect that. — LlywelynII 16:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Seems to have been done. JKeck (talk) 15:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Clarification and citation for "four hundred latin manuscripts".

Jsusky (talk) 21:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)The entry ends:

"In the 20th century there were close to four hundred manuscripts still surviving, a testament to its former popularity."

I suggest a citation for this ought to be offered, and also that it say "four hundred latin manuscripts" - if that was indeed the case.

List of English Translations

I came here looking for a list of English translations of the work. There seems to be the start of one in the Sources section, but then I look below and I notice further translations mentioned. Could someone put together an exhaustive list? With links, where available online? JKeck (talk) 14:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Undue weight given to Relihan's reading

@William Heise: I noticed your contributions to this article, and while I commend you for writing what you did, I worry that the text veers on WP:UNDUE. The issue as I see it is that well over half of this article is now dedicated to an alternate reading of the work that is, admittedly, not accepted by many scholars. I don't think it's a bad idea to include Relihan's reading of the poem, but I honestly think such a section would need to be trimmed down to maybe a paragraph or two at most. Rather than revert, I thought I'd open up a discussion on this talk page to see what you and others think about the article.--Gen. Quon_[Talk]^{(I'm studying Wikipedia!)} 18:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

(I'm also gonna ping @Joesom333: here.)--Gen. Quon_[Talk]^{(I'm studying Wikipedia!)} 18:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I know I'm long winded, but I wrote this section understanding that despite Relihan's excellent evidence for his reading that the academic community is too willing to put its faith in arguments by people like Chadwick that don't understand either the technical arguments of Menippean Satire that Relihan has mastered or the scholasticism which Boethius is deploying in The Consolation. I think the article lays out the reasons that Relihan's argument works.

While I'm aware of the WP:UNDUE page, which takes a dim view of supporting minority positions, I'd hope that rather than instinctively cutting my section down in the interest of equality, which is cited in the article itself as standing on the side of the standard reading and against Relihan's reading, you'll find someone to investigate the poem for evidence that what scholars continue to perpetuate as settled science is actually present in the Consolation.

In my view, scholars don't have the technical capacity to actually read the Consolation for what Boethius is trying to do. Rather than figure out a work of literature that no one reads anymore despite it exercising an enormous influence on the birth of modern literature in Chaucer alone, much less Rousseau on whose work modern aesthetics is based, scholars like Chadwick, who I'll be the first to acknowledge is an extremely smart man, they skip reading Boethius' work in detail, because they're convinced that it has nothing to say to a modern person. That turns the work itself into nothing but a historical piece that's perhaps interesting for modern, backwards-looking scholars but to no one in the better (because more recent not because more reasonable) modern world.

I'd caution anyone that undertakes a weakening of the avowedly minority argument I'm making that I think the quest for equality between various positions is the product of the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment tends to rely on the suppression of scholasticism's sense that the knowledge of human beings is always subordinated to the Creator, God, as it is in Boethius' and Relihan's reading. In its place, Descartes proposed the cogito ("I think, therefore I am") that creates a thoroughly artificial equality between "knowledge" ("I think") and being ("I am") that no one questions, not because it can't be questioned, but because it's in the interest of those that have risen to positions of power in the current system to keep the current system in place.

I wrote the article with the Ignore all rules and the Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means in mind. I did so on the basis of my belief that Relihan has given a more accurate vision of the Consolation, but the majority are willing to ignore his work, because the standard interpretation accords with their preexisting beliefs. I'd urge Wikipedia editors not to turn themselves bureaucrats of the mind simply because the majority opinion holds something to be true when it is not. Someone (Relihan) is showing you in detail why the standard interpretation is flawed.

Keep this in mind before you decide to restore an equality to coverage that actually masks your taking an unequal side on the issue of what the article says is "the single most important and influential work in the West on Medieval and early Renaissance Christianity" but which section I've labeled "The Standard Interpretation" says outright that "current scholarly research is still far from clear exactly why and how the work became so vastly popular in the Middle Ages." Relihan is giving reasons why that are being ignored by complacent scholars in order to keep up the modern Enlightenment status quo as the majority opinion by not reading deeply.

This quickly becomes a question of whether Wikipedia is after the "truth" or whether they're looking to support a consensus that in this case is misleading at best and at worst is hiding a truth that can be known by experts like Relihan but is ignored in favor of a much weaker status quo that appeals to powerful interests.

My 2¢. William Heise (talk) 11:36, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@William Heise: You have some good points, and I admire what you're saying. The problem is that Wikipedia is explicitly interested in consensus and verifiability—not "truth". As such, this requires us to take NPOV and undue weight into consideration. Until Relihan's argument is more widely accepted, it is inappropriate, from an wiki-epistemological viewpoint, for half of this article to be focused on his ideas. Another, more pressing problem, is that whole paragraphs are unsourced, which suggests some of the content may be synthesis, which is an OR issue.--Gen. Quon_[Talk]^{(I'm studying Wikipedia!)} 13:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

A thought just occurred to me. There are articles out there like Interpretations of Fight Club, Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey, and Criticism of the Book of Abraham. I think if you wanted to talk about Relihan's argument in greater detail, an article called something like Interpretations of the Consolation of Philosophy could be a place for such a breakdown. Thoughts?--Gen. Quon_[Talk]^{(I'm studying Wikipedia!)} 13:51, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't mean to be difficult, but even if the argument made by Gen. Quon is that my section should be on its own page--something I'd be willing to entertain--the point I made at the end of my response still stands. If you're looking for consensus, not "truth," then how is Wikipedia going ensure that they're not going to suppress "truth" for the consensus of a tenured majority that gets to hire their replacements, ensuring the continuing suppression of "truth" by interested parties? This is why, in my opinion, Relihan's more rational arguments aren't accepted.

I admire Chadwick's criticism immensely, but he's just wrong about Boethius' ends and his methods for getting to them. So, for that matter, are the arguments of C. S. Lewis, Peter Dronke, the philosophers Roger Scruton and John Marenbon, and Winthrop Wetherbee on the Consolation. They are excellent writers for whom modern ideas make sense. As such, they each have (or had) good jobs at top schools. The nature of academia is such that it leads people lower down on the rigid academic hierarchy to cite the lights of the profession, not because they're guided to understanding any pre-modern "truth," but because it's far safer to occupy the ground held by the majority of people that hire the next generation of scholars. Since no one but experts in the modern day reads the Consolation, no one's going to notice an argument that for now (and perhaps forever) remains on the margins, because it's held by just one thinker.

I caution you that Wikipedia is, albeit unknowingly, engaging in the same sort of behavior that the Grand Inquisitor, Robert Bellarmine, engaged in when he condemned the works of Galileo Galilei to the Index of Prohibited Books, where they sat for 200 years! What's more, you're telling me that you're doing it for the same reason as Bellarmine: to preserve a failing academic consensus, rather than relying on reason to take facts that are left out status quo into account. While I enjoyed reading about Bellarmine's work in graduate school and appreciate the work that went into producing it, I can assure you that even though he had every one of his massive followers acceding to his greatness as a leader of his profession during his lifetime, I'm one of a handful of people outside the Church (where they made him a saint in 1930 in part in the opposition to Galileo) that even know who he is in the modern day. All modern people side with the man they feel was in a minority of one but who had "truth" on his side, Galileo. That is a product of time, which ultimately takes down consensus thinkers in favor of rational thinkers, whose thoughts are independently verifiable through the scientific method, not through the authority of more credentialed people that hold the power of (professional) life and death over their careers during their lifetime.

This might be the way things work at Wikipedia, but my advice still stands. Things change. Relihan's arguments make rational sense out of the Consolation.. Chadwick and the moderns that follow his are using arguments that retain a fading consensus. No one notices, because no one cares to read it except specialists like Relihan, because it means reading a complex and

once extremely influential work that faded into desuetude after an argument appeared (Descartes' cogito) that satisfies moderns but fails to convince people like Relihan who study the premodern world in depth.

Wikipedia is not a democracy. As such, I'm not going to complain if you guys decide to shorten my contribution, or even revert to an older version that leaves my contribution out altogether. But one of the dangers I see haunting Wikipedia in the present day--and certainly its future--is that in a mere 21 years since its inception, Wikipedia has gotten overly bureaucratic. Along with bureaucratic behavior comes a tendency to downplay Sanger's Ignore all rules in favor of settled status quos given to people by editors that occupy higher positions on the social scale. The reason for this is simple: that's where the power lies. My advice, therefore, remains: Go with the flow of change, even if it's tougher road. Don't be part of the problem.

Something to keep in mind, as you decide Relihan's fate.

William Heise (talk) 20:56, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@William Heise: I think it might be a good idea to get other editors involved in this discussion. As such, I've opened a thread here at the NPOV Noticeboard. This will ensure that the discussion isn't just me vs. you or anything like that. Hopefully that can clear up some of these points.--Gen. Quon_[Talk]^{(I'm studying Wikipedia!)} 14:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Double ping: I get what you're saying, but this seems like a conversation that should be had at a higher level. As it stands, Wikipedia has clear rules for inclusion: Content should be based proportionately on what the published lit has to say. We're not here to re-write the lit or put forth new interps; we're here to document and fairly 'boil down' what has already been stated. Comparing this to the Galileo affair is a little silly (and arguably a touch fallacious—no one is putting you under house arrest! You shan't be burnt at the stake. You're free to write about this in other venues (e.g., academic journals, scholarly blogs). Wikipedia, however, has a specific epistemological orientation, which limits what can and can't be added, and while you can argue that this is all just bureaucratic nonsense, I see it as a system of rules that prevents Wikipedia from turning into a postmodern free-for-all. Either way, in this case, I think Relihan's interpretation is worth mentioning here--I simply don't think it should take up 1/2 of the article, especially when the text clearly states that his ideas have not found wider acceptance in the scholarly community. That seems to be a direct acknowledgement that such emphasis is a NPOV violation.--Gen. Quon_[Talk]^{(I'm studying Wikipedia!)} 14:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry about comparing Wikipedia editors to the Grand Inquisitor. I had too much coffee. I withdraw the accusation and apologize with all my heart. ```` William Heise (talk) 15:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

@William Heise: Haha, it's all good; I apologize if I came across as a bit angry. I actually share your worries about Wikipedia just regurgitating the status quo and have discussed that in other venues, but unfortunately it's a site policy issue bigger than this topic. That's why I think a spin-off page on interpretations might work better, as it would allow the Consolation article itself to not be too NPOV-y, but it would also allow us to cover an alternative idea that has been published by a reputable source.--Gen. Quon_[Talk]^{(I'm studying Wikipedia!)} 15:48, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate it. I'd seen your user page that talks about "systemic bias," and I was trying to appeal to that part of your own argument. Sorry if I was too harsh, aggressive, or both in comparing Wikipedia (not you) to the Grand Inquisitor. I've seen "consensus" side with those that occupy power positions at big universities too often to think that this is something that can be left to correct itself. You say that I'm "free to write about this in other venues" as though I haven't tried and been haven't been rejected (and harshly) more than once. There's certainly a need for balance, but "consensus" without ultimately pointing towards "truth" results in people holding on to the status quo, even as things on the ground are changing.

This is what I think happens with Wikipedia more often that its editors think. Not being a democracy comes with a responsibility towards "truth" that the "consensus" approach often allows otherwise educated editors to overlook. I've certainly seen it happen with Relihan's detailed argument again and again. It gets rolled over by reviewers that take what he says to heart but ultimately protect the position of academic betters that occupy positions of power in the world (like Lewis, Scruton, and Marenbon) who read history less deeply than Relihan does. Such reviewers don't resolve the paradox that Relihan brings up between incommensurate worldviews (perfect balance versus the elevation of Christianity over pagan reason). They side with those that occupy positions of power as a way of currying favor with the powerful. In doing so, they leave the paradox on which those in power rose to power in place.

This is at odds with the Enlightenment, which praised "equality" in its premises as a way of paving the road towards a more rational "truth." "Truth" suffers in circumstances that are dominated by "consensus" thinkers by not getting a fair hearing until after it's become the majority position, which in the case of Galileo took 200 years. This is, in fact, why I made my contribution so long. My personal opinion is that the majority position in the article on the Consolation (that in my humble opinion I "corrected" with a more rationally ordered position) needs to be fact-checked by someone like you, who I see from your user page has "successfully taken 12 articles from deletion discussion at Articles for Deletion — to Good Article quality."

The original section that I placed in a section I call "The Standard Interpretation" is, again in my personal opinion, a mish mash that doesn't do the Wikipedia community proud. The original article substitutes a bunch of quotes from historical figures like Gibbon and Lewis, each of whose works I've read. Each of them praises Boethius' work, while at the same time sidelining it as having nothing to say to an educated modern reader that's been raised after the Enlightenment dismissed scholasticism as holding nothing important to say to modern thinkers. I don't think that's "true." I think someone like you, who's been in a "position of power" at an Ivy League school (which, to be clear, is not in itself a bad thing), would be able to level the playing field by rebalancing the original argument, using my admitted bias in favor of the overlooked but more rational Relihan as a way of "fixing" an article that needs rebalancing more than the academic or the Wikipedia community that's over-relying on "consensus" thinks at present.

That decision's up to you, of course. But in my humble and admittedly biased opinion, reverting to the original article would encode more "systemic bias" that your page says you're against than a defense behind the walls of "consensus" would have Wikipedia editors believe. I'm not impeding your integrity when I say this. I'm pointing out that "consensus" without an end in "truth" leads to the perpetuation of the status quo among well-meaning people. I'm asking that Relihan's more rational but still minority opinion be given its equal share of weight, no matter how uncomfortable his alternative "truth" is to the majority. I do so, because "truth" will win the day long before those that are in charge of keeping the agreed-upon "consensus" status quo safe let Galileo off the Index.

I'm asking that you or someone like you read my section and shore up an opposing majority position that I don't find compelling but that you very well might. I'm asking as nicely as I know how for Wikipedia to rebalance its approach using Relihan's argument as a still potentially flawed foil that nevertheless makes life clearer to rational thinkers in the long run. I don't believe you mean to hide behind "consensus" as a way of maintaining the status quo, and I'm sorry if you took it that way. That's on me. What I think you meant to say (and I know I'm putting words in your mouth, and I'll acknowledge your denial in public if you tell me I'm wrong) is that given new evidence that's been put forth (perhaps too forcefully) by me that it would now be better to look at the original article as being underwritten and under-researched in light of a more rational but still marginal position that Relihan's has brought to light. An effort at rebalancing of Wikipedia's article on Boethius' Consolation would allow you to maintain your position as a person that's fighting "systemic bias" (a position I repeat I truly and without any hint of the postmodern irony that your letter to me says you're wary of utterly respect, as it accords with my own biases) while not siding with one side or the other, as I have.

Given my bias towards Relihan's underserved position I'm clearly not the guy to do that, as I'd chuck the poorly written "Standard Interpretation" out as being based in once-respectable-now-unfounded "consensus" whose lack of a basis in "truth" has only recently come to light. I didn't do that, of course. I put into my revision sentences that indicate which positions are in the majority and minority myself. I did that to spark a debate, perhaps, but I did not do it to force my minority position into prominence. I recognize that Wikipedia is not a democracy and the decision of the fate of my revision of the page is out of my hands once I've published it. But I also don't believe that it's only dedicated to "consensus" apart from "truth," either. That was your stated position, which I challenged. When I did so, you backed off, as did I when I realized how you'd taken my argument. Over time and in public we've each refined our understanding of the other's position. That public give and take is the key to arriving at "truth" in a venue dedicated to coming to "consensus."

I'm clearly working out my arguments as I go. At this point, you've helped me to clarify my position that "truth" is the perpetually unrealized goal that's arrived at through a continually changing scientific "consensus." In hindsight, that's why I was quick to pull out status quo Bellarmine and scientific Galileo as my examples. It wasn't meant as a personal attack, and if that's how you took it, I'm again deeply sorry. You've helped me clarify my sense that something gone wrong with Wikipedia's overly bureaucratic (my word) "policy" (your word) towards new ideas in the digital age. I think the site gets bogged down in fads that occlude "truth" more often than its editors think. Perhaps you are in a position to undertake such a rebalancing of the article in light of new evidence yourself, as I see you've worked on the page dedicated to Cicero's pagan Consolation in the past. That's, of course, up to you to decide for yourself.

Anyway, I agree with your handing off my contribution for discussion within the larger Wikipedia NPOV community. I really do respect and want to encourage your push against "systemic bias" on Wikipedia. Hope we can remain friends regardless of what happens to my contribution. And thank you for taking the time to explain your reasoning to me in a much calmer way than I (who was overfilled with coffee) explained my ever-evolving, somehow never-finished position to you. Cheers! William Heise (talk) 06:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC)