Talk:The Consolation of Philosophy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Stoicism

Boethius writes the book as a conversation between himself and the Queen of Science, Lady Philosophy. She consoles Boethius' failed fortunes by discussing the transitory nature of earthly belongings, and the ultimate superiority of things of the mind, which she calls the “one true good." She says happiness comes from within, something that Lady Fortune can never take away: “Why, then, O mortal men, do you seek that happiness outside, which lies within yourselves?”

Boethius discusses time-worn philosophical questions such as the nature of predestination and free will, why evil men often prosper and good men fall into ruin, what is human nature, and to define virtue and justice. He speaks about the nature of free will versus determinism when he asks if God knows and sees all, or does man have free will. To quote VE. Watts on Boethius, God is like a spectator at a chariot race; He watches the action the charioteers perform, but this does not cause them.[5] On human nature, Boethius says that humans are essentially good and only when they give in to “wickedness” do they “sink to the level of being an animal.” On justice, he says criminals are not to be abused, rather treated with sympathy and respect, using the analogy of doctor and patient to illustrate the ideal relationship between criminal and prosecutor.

This sound remarkably like Stoicism. Mention of this should be made in the article. {unsigned}

Sounds like a good 'See Also' link. Added for the moment. --ImABadBroth 01:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Certainly worth adding, but remember - early on, Boethius denigrates Stoicism and Epicureanism as being only 'part of the robe' of Lady Philosophy; incomplete, compared to the Eleatics and Plato. --Gwern (contribs) 00:34 22 September 2008 (GMT)

good

This is a very good article. Srnec 04:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

"It is a prosimeter..."

This appears (appeared) in a late paragraph in the article.

"Prosimeter" is unfortunately not really a word. The most authoritative way to express the idea implied is by use of the adjective prosimetrical. Ex. "It is a prosimetrical text."

Though on the Internet you can find prosimetric used with almost as much freqency as prosimetrical, prosimetric does not appear as an entry in any reputable reference that I have seen. OED lists prosimetrical only -- and even at that, as being obsolete and rare, and is defined only by its sigular 1656 quotation. Therefore, its use at all here is questionable. But the word clearly does have some (even if minimal) currency in specialized literary corners of academia.

The term prosimeter appears in no dictionary to which I have access (including OED), and does not appear in any other refernce I can find, such as the Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics, the Merriam-Webster Encyclopedia of Literature, etc. Legitimate use of prosimeter does seem to appear in reference to scientific instruments for measuring one value by inference of another. But that is it.

I have other slight issues with the rest of the paragraph in which this word appears, but will focus now only on fixing this particular issue. --Docblueson 03:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I re-wrote the rest of the article a while back and had no idea what that paragraph meant but figured someone did so left it in. -- Stbalbach 22:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

GA Pass

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Johnfos 05:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)