This is awesome Parker! Enjoyed book 1 immensely, part “VI”, or the diagnosis, is very reminiscent of a platonic dialogue, very interested in reading some Cicero now.
I’m hoping we can explore apatheia and ataraxia more, not really getting why those are good.
Thanks again!! Love your stuff man.
Also, this is like your 5th day of posting an amazing essay?! Idk how you do it! Hoping to get to part 2 of your philosophy intro tomorrow!!
Haha I am dying. But I got mouths to feed and back taxes to pay 😂😅🥲😪
We'll definitely talk more apatheia and ataraxia and other Stoic distinctives. He teases them but he's still a Roman philosopher and appropriates some stoicism himself.
You're the man! I'm actually writing so much because I'm actually finding a ton of success lately and it's been an unbelievable joy to see people enjoying my stuff. Thanks for all the encouragement man
tardy to the party on this one, but yes! We absolutely need some better artwork of lady philosophy. The current smatterings are pretty mediocre at best.
For me, one of the most interesting things about The Consolation is how Boethius incorporates poetry into his philosophical reflections to highlight and summarize his conversation with Lady Philosophy. The poetry turns a philosophical treatise into a work of art. As the introductory essay discusses, The Consolation was a significant influence on Dante and Chaucer, two of the Middle Ages's literary giants. C.S. Lewis also goes into a fair amount of detail in The Discarded Image about the importance of The Consolation in the Middle Ages. So, just as Boethius was influenced by Plato, Augustine, and the Stoics, he, in turn, was a great influence on those who followed him.
Roger Scruton, in his 'Beauty, A Very Short Introduction' for OUP, which is a brief discussion of Beauty as a philosophical category, highlights several aspects that make poetry the perfect vehicle for conveying the abstract and ineffable:
1) Poetry can express several thoughts simultaneously.
2) Poetry is polysemous - developing meaning on several levels
3) The sounds of the words convey meaning, not just their definitions
Of course, to pull this off, one must have the gift of poetry, which, as the introduction puts it, "Boethius was no mean poet."
Parker, thanks for taking the time to open this great work of philosophy and poetry up for us. Looking forward to the rest of the essays.
I have never read any of Boethius’ works prior to this. Knowing how well regarded he was in centuries past, I am excited for the rest of the journey.
A couple of thoughts that leaped out to me reading book 1:
1) I was struck by Philosophy’s diagnosis that he needs to rid himself not just of fear but of hope as well. I remain open to hearing his argument out, but at first blush, I find that a shocking statement! Hope is essential to life. Without hope, yes, we may be able to withstand disappointment or despair (by never giving it a chance), but that feels cowardly and short-sighted. This feels like something that deserves a longer conversation, so for the sake of brevity, I’ll pause on this part here.
2) The outward personification of your own wisdom through conversations with yourself is an interesting tactic. I see some of the merit in the sense that it forces you to actually know what you think and evaluate it. But it also seems to create false sense of being able to expand beyond yourself and your capabilities. By personifying ourselves outside of ourselves, it almost feels like it could trick your mind into thinking you can learn something from yourself, which seems absurd to me. In some ways, it feels a little bit like when people say they “forgive themselves.” It separates themselves from themselves. Allowing someone to make themselves the innocent victim of their own actions, which also feels absurd. I am not saying we can’t harm ourselves through our own actions that is obvious. Repentance is the path, not forgiveness of ourselves. Repentance requires us to recognize our unified selves. “Forgiveness” of ourselves allows us to separate ownership of ourselves to something else. Anyway, I just wonder if doing something similar by putting, this time, our own wisdom outside of ourselves can actually result in true wisdom? Does any of that make sense??
On your second point, I'd disagree that it is absurd to able to learn something from yourself. One way you can learn something from yourself through self-reflection, which is what Boethius is doing. Our subconscious, intuition, inner voice, or whatever you feel like calling it knows things that we can't articulate immediately; but after reflection, we can begin to articulate it and learn a new thing.
I agree we can definitely gain new things, ideas, perspectives, etc. through reflection and creative thinking. However, I wouldn’t classify that as something I “know”, more like something I “discovered”.
I don’t know the technical term, but I tend to lean towards a wholistic person. Meaning, I (right now which could easily change and probably will in the future) am not a dualist. I view a person as one unified person, a soul. I don’t differentiate between body, mind, soul, heart, etc. I don’t have a body. I am a body. This position has its own issues, lol, but that is my position if I had to choose one, today.
With all that said, that is why I said it seemed absurd to learn something from yourself, similar to how I felt you can’t divide yourself in order to forgive yourself.
As an aside, and this is probably taking the narrative of Boethius too far (to its breaking point), Lady Philosophy seems to already know exactly what he is lacking. If she is just the personification of Boethius’ own mind (dualist or not) how would she already consciously know the answers if he didn’t?
Thanks for engaging with my questions! I appreciate it! I have been thinking about it ever since writing it.
(Forgive my giant response! A lot of this is just my outward processing.)
Is there something deeper to the image of pi being a ladder up to theta? That is, practical philosophy as an entry point, a lower level, by which one can climb to the heights of contemplation? And is Boethius, by saying he took philosophy into politics (practical), in a way giving a hint as to how he descended? How does this reconcile with Plato of course is an obvious question. But in general, does it say he just spent too much time and energy on politics and not enough on contemplation?
I also love the imagery that in wiping away his tears, she is wiping "a little of the blinding cloud of worldly concern from his eyes." Boethius is too concerned with the day-to-day, with immediate and irrelevant things, including his possessions, when all he needs is the one possession that can't be taken away - the philosophy stored in his mind. He just needs to access it!
Finally I love this line and really need to unpack it more, "Imprudence may deceive itself, but it cannot alter the true value of things."
Right on Parker, glad you're doing this one, I look forward to the rest!
This is awesome Parker! Enjoyed book 1 immensely, part “VI”, or the diagnosis, is very reminiscent of a platonic dialogue, very interested in reading some Cicero now.
I’m hoping we can explore apatheia and ataraxia more, not really getting why those are good.
Thanks again!! Love your stuff man.
Also, this is like your 5th day of posting an amazing essay?! Idk how you do it! Hoping to get to part 2 of your philosophy intro tomorrow!!
Thanks!!!
Haha I am dying. But I got mouths to feed and back taxes to pay 😂😅🥲😪
We'll definitely talk more apatheia and ataraxia and other Stoic distinctives. He teases them but he's still a Roman philosopher and appropriates some stoicism himself.
Dude, wishing you all the success, both your Substacks are killer, high quality writing!! Keep it up!! I’ll be here! 🫡
You're the man! I'm actually writing so much because I'm actually finding a ton of success lately and it's been an unbelievable joy to see people enjoying my stuff. Thanks for all the encouragement man
tardy to the party on this one, but yes! We absolutely need some better artwork of lady philosophy. The current smatterings are pretty mediocre at best.
I got a commission in the works 🙌🙌
Wow! This book is genius. Love the poetry too. Reminds me of Cicero. So glad I am reading this. I love the conversation he is having with himself.
For me, one of the most interesting things about The Consolation is how Boethius incorporates poetry into his philosophical reflections to highlight and summarize his conversation with Lady Philosophy. The poetry turns a philosophical treatise into a work of art. As the introductory essay discusses, The Consolation was a significant influence on Dante and Chaucer, two of the Middle Ages's literary giants. C.S. Lewis also goes into a fair amount of detail in The Discarded Image about the importance of The Consolation in the Middle Ages. So, just as Boethius was influenced by Plato, Augustine, and the Stoics, he, in turn, was a great influence on those who followed him.
Roger Scruton, in his 'Beauty, A Very Short Introduction' for OUP, which is a brief discussion of Beauty as a philosophical category, highlights several aspects that make poetry the perfect vehicle for conveying the abstract and ineffable:
1) Poetry can express several thoughts simultaneously.
2) Poetry is polysemous - developing meaning on several levels
3) The sounds of the words convey meaning, not just their definitions
Of course, to pull this off, one must have the gift of poetry, which, as the introduction puts it, "Boethius was no mean poet."
Parker, thanks for taking the time to open this great work of philosophy and poetry up for us. Looking forward to the rest of the essays.
I have never read any of Boethius’ works prior to this. Knowing how well regarded he was in centuries past, I am excited for the rest of the journey.
A couple of thoughts that leaped out to me reading book 1:
1) I was struck by Philosophy’s diagnosis that he needs to rid himself not just of fear but of hope as well. I remain open to hearing his argument out, but at first blush, I find that a shocking statement! Hope is essential to life. Without hope, yes, we may be able to withstand disappointment or despair (by never giving it a chance), but that feels cowardly and short-sighted. This feels like something that deserves a longer conversation, so for the sake of brevity, I’ll pause on this part here.
2) The outward personification of your own wisdom through conversations with yourself is an interesting tactic. I see some of the merit in the sense that it forces you to actually know what you think and evaluate it. But it also seems to create false sense of being able to expand beyond yourself and your capabilities. By personifying ourselves outside of ourselves, it almost feels like it could trick your mind into thinking you can learn something from yourself, which seems absurd to me. In some ways, it feels a little bit like when people say they “forgive themselves.” It separates themselves from themselves. Allowing someone to make themselves the innocent victim of their own actions, which also feels absurd. I am not saying we can’t harm ourselves through our own actions that is obvious. Repentance is the path, not forgiveness of ourselves. Repentance requires us to recognize our unified selves. “Forgiveness” of ourselves allows us to separate ownership of ourselves to something else. Anyway, I just wonder if doing something similar by putting, this time, our own wisdom outside of ourselves can actually result in true wisdom? Does any of that make sense??
Excited for the other books!!!
On your second point, I'd disagree that it is absurd to able to learn something from yourself. One way you can learn something from yourself through self-reflection, which is what Boethius is doing. Our subconscious, intuition, inner voice, or whatever you feel like calling it knows things that we can't articulate immediately; but after reflection, we can begin to articulate it and learn a new thing.
Solid pushback!
I agree we can definitely gain new things, ideas, perspectives, etc. through reflection and creative thinking. However, I wouldn’t classify that as something I “know”, more like something I “discovered”.
I don’t know the technical term, but I tend to lean towards a wholistic person. Meaning, I (right now which could easily change and probably will in the future) am not a dualist. I view a person as one unified person, a soul. I don’t differentiate between body, mind, soul, heart, etc. I don’t have a body. I am a body. This position has its own issues, lol, but that is my position if I had to choose one, today.
With all that said, that is why I said it seemed absurd to learn something from yourself, similar to how I felt you can’t divide yourself in order to forgive yourself.
As an aside, and this is probably taking the narrative of Boethius too far (to its breaking point), Lady Philosophy seems to already know exactly what he is lacking. If she is just the personification of Boethius’ own mind (dualist or not) how would she already consciously know the answers if he didn’t?
Thanks for engaging with my questions! I appreciate it! I have been thinking about it ever since writing it.
(Forgive my giant response! A lot of this is just my outward processing.)
Is there something deeper to the image of pi being a ladder up to theta? That is, practical philosophy as an entry point, a lower level, by which one can climb to the heights of contemplation? And is Boethius, by saying he took philosophy into politics (practical), in a way giving a hint as to how he descended? How does this reconcile with Plato of course is an obvious question. But in general, does it say he just spent too much time and energy on politics and not enough on contemplation?
I also love the imagery that in wiping away his tears, she is wiping "a little of the blinding cloud of worldly concern from his eyes." Boethius is too concerned with the day-to-day, with immediate and irrelevant things, including his possessions, when all he needs is the one possession that can't be taken away - the philosophy stored in his mind. He just needs to access it!
Finally I love this line and really need to unpack it more, "Imprudence may deceive itself, but it cannot alter the true value of things."
Right on Parker, glad you're doing this one, I look forward to the rest!