The Wicked are Weak & The Good are Always Blessed | The Consolation of Philosophy Essay 4
Philosophical Companion to Book IV of Boethius's Consolation of Philosophy
Just an FYI before the companion essay: Issue #1 of The Sages, Mages, & Wisdom Machines Magazine is here!! It’s my brand new philosophical science fiction and fantasy zine (personal magazine) with short stories, companion essays, philosophical SFF essays, and poems to help you learn philosophy through fiction. You can pre-order your copy below and I’ll place the order on September 8th. So make sure to get you pre-order in asap so I know how many to order.
You can read all about it here:
Welcome to the Parker’s Ponderings read-along of The Consolation of Philosophy by Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius.
We’re reading 1 chapter a week for 5 weeks and I’ll share a companion essay each week to help you think about each chapter. If you’re behind, no worries, you can catch up quick. We’re reading the Penguin Classics edition, you can grab that here, but if you have a different edition then use whatever you have. Below is the read-along schedule. I will release the companion essays on the following schedule (I may miss by a day or two here and there). That doesn’t mean you have to have the reading done by that date though.
All the read-along essays are free to read but the two Zoom call Book Club sessions are for paid subscribers, so make sure you upgrade to a paid subscription if you want in on our live discussions or want access to the recordings of those sessions.
Read essay 1 here, essay 2 here, essay 3 here and watch our first Book Club recording on books I-III here.
Reading/Companion Essay Schedule
July 30th - Essay on Ch. 1
Aug 6th - Essay on Ch. 2
Aug 13th - Essay on Ch. 3
August 16th (Saturday) @ 4pm central time - Book Club Zoom Call 1
Aug 20th - Essay on Ch. 4
Aug 27th - Essay on Ch. 5
August 30th (Saturday) @ 4 pm central time - Book Club Zoom call 2
Reminder: you can support my mission to promote the life of the mind AND you can get tons of members-only content for a few dollars a month. Content like:
full-length notebook philosophy essays/tutorials where I share in-depth instructions on how to use various notebook methods and the philosophers who inspired each method
members-only access to For the Love of Wisdom entries (my digital intro to philosophy text book)
members-only access to Sayings of the Sages, my digital commonplace book of wise sayings I’ve collected over my years of studying philosophy and culture
access to our Zoom Book Club sessions where we discuss the read-along books and my companion essays
the full catalog of members-only essays + lecture videos
access to the members only chat
and lots more!
The Good vs. Wicked Men: Who’re More Powerful and Happy?
In Book IV, Lady Philosophy turns from the nature of the Good to consider the nature of good men and wicked men and she continues to apply her philosophical arguments as therapy to his soul.
Boethius has forgotten many of the truths of Philosophy prior to her visit because of the pain of what he’s suffered in his false imprisonment and fall from grace. But the greatest cause of Boethius’s sadness is what’s known as the Problem of Evil, “The fact that in spite of a good helmsman to guide the world, evil can still exist and even pass unpunished” (85). So the problem is not only the suffering that Boethius has experienced, but the problem is confounded thanks to Boethius’s belief in a Good God, indeed, in a God who is identical with The Good. If God is omniscient and omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, how could there be any evil at all, and if He exercises providence over His creation, how come so much evil happens to the righteous and so much good happens to the wicked?
Lady Philosophy says this is not actually so. Sin never goes unpunished and virtue never goes unrewarded; the good are always strong and happy and the wicked are always bereft of power and only receive misfortune—contrary to popular opinion.
She explains that good and evil are opposites, and since that’s the case, the weakness of evil can be shown by establishing the strength of the good and vice versa. She then goes on to claim that all human activity depends on two things:
will
power
It is by these two things that we judge a man. We judge someone to be weak if they have a will to do something but not the power to bring it about or strong if they do have the power to bring about what they will. And we judge someone as good or bad based on what they choose to do with the power they do have at their disposal.
She then builds her arguments off propositions she argued for in previous books:
(i) happiness is the good itself
(ii) all men seek happiness
(iii) all men desire the good
Now (iii) may seem controversial. Wicked men don’t seem to be seeking the good. But don’t forget (i), happiness and the good are identical. (ii) is pretty obvious even in the case of bad men—they do bad things because they think it will make them happy. But unbeknownst to them, they’re actually seeking the good. It’s like Lois Lane desiring Superman and not Clark Kent. They’re actually the same guy, unbeknownst to her. So in pursuing Superman, she’s also pursuing Clark Kent. Same goes for the wicked in their pursuit of happiness.
Now, one more caveat and Lady Philosophy will be able to explain why wicked men are so weak and misfortunate:
(iv) men become good by acquiring goodness.
So, now with (i)-(iv) in view, we can see that good men obtain what they’re seeking, since they seek happiness as all men do, and since they’re good men, they’ve acquired goodness, and since happiness is the good, they’ve attained happiness in becoming good men. But wicked men either cease to be wicked men if they acquire goodness—because men become good by acquiring goodness—or they don’t obtain what they sought, which is happiness—again, all men seek happiness. Why don’t wicked men attain happiness? Because happiness is the good, so if wicked men found the happiness they sought then they’d acquire goodness and cease to be wicked men. So wicked men, if they stay wicked, must have failed to acquire goodness and hence must have been frustrated in their efforts to achieve happiness.
So bad men aren’t as powerful as good men because bad men can never achieve their goals, which are ultimately aimed at happiness.
Good men seek the good through their virtues, which is natural; bad men seek the good inadvertently by chasing that which they think will bring them happiness, but they do so by unnatural means (anything other than virtue) and they are either blind and ignorant of what the Good really is or they are weak and lack the self-control to pursue the Good over the vices that ensnare them (90).
So bad men are weak, or ignorant, or both! Like Plato argued in the Gorgias, only the wise can actually achieve their desire. The wicked busy themselves only with that which gives pleasure and have no ability to achieve their real objective, true happiness, the good (93).
Now Lady Philosophy also argues that, strictly speaking, wicked men don’t ‘exist’ because evil is a lack, a privation of the good, so wicked men lack the full substance of a good man, since being a good man is man’s natural telos (goal). So, just as a corpse isn’t a man, but a dead man, so a wicked man isn’t a man, but a corrupted less-than-man. This then is the falling short of God’s glory, we were made to be image bearers of God’s glory, less than God but higher than everything else, but we have debased ourselves into evil and wickedness and become less than the animals who are at least morally neutral.
The good man’s goodness cannot be taken away from him, save from their own departure from the good—which would be bad. So the good man remains on an upward spiral towards the good so long as he stays the course. To depart from the good is to become less, since evil is the opposite of the good and evil is a privation of the good. To diminish in one’s goodness is to diminish in being as well—think about the Ring Wraths in the Lord of the Rings.
Nothing external can take the good away from the good man and goodness is its own reward. To be good is to be happy and virtuous. What more could one need to be happy than that? So you can’t take it away and you can’t add anything to it.
Wickedness is likewise its own punishment. Evil is an infection more than an infliction (94). But if evil is its own punishment, why does it seem like evildoers often get off scot free—with no punishments? Well, argues Lady Philosophy, those evil doers who apparently get off scot free are actually worse off than those who get punished, for just punishment for a crime is a good thing, so those evildoers who get punished receive a good that those who get off scot free do not. So the wicked man who receives no external punishment for his evil receives at least one less good than the one who receives just punishment and he continues to spiral down away from the good, and happiness, and being itself!
Indeed, “those who commit an injustice are more unhappy than those who suffer it.” (99).
But then why do most folks baulk at this sort of reasoning? It really seems like the wicked man is happy. Well, you just think that because your eyes are used to the dark and you can’t raise your eyes to the bright light of the truth—duh! (102). I mean its literally the personification of Philosophy dropping wisdom bombs. Don’t try and gainsay her!
Providence and Evil
Okay, so maybe you buy Lady Philosophy’s arguments about the good and the bad man, but what of God’s role in the events of human history? Sometimes it seems He punishes the wicked but other times it looks like He’s blessing them (102).
Well, there’s a sort of many-headed hydra at work here, there’s the oneness of providence (that God is one and has a singular plan of history), there’s the course of fate, the haphazard nature of random events of chance, there’s divine foreknowledge of the future, there’s the predestination of the elect (those chosen by God for salvation), and there’s the freedom of the human will to chose what we will (103-104).
Well, providence is something like “the divine reason itself” (104). It is God’s definite plan from eternity past to create and order all things for His plans and purposes and the times and places He decides. Fate is like the playing out of that divine plan. Providence is the blue print of the house, fate is the building process in time and space (?) (104-105).
So there is a plan? So everything does happen for a reason? Yes. Then why does it look like the evil prosper at the expense of the righteous? Well, “it is because you men are in no position to contemplate this order that everything seems confused and upset” (106). You are looking at a couple threads near you but you’re on the back side of the tapestry—you can’t see the full completed picture. You’re a character in a massive story but you’re narratively situated, you don’t see how the whole thing fits together for good. You can’t judge God’s providence because you’re not in a position to view it all.
We are too finite to see this now, but providence teaches different lessons to different people. The same suffering may be a discipline to a good man, or punishment or even correction to a bad man (111). The same apparent prospering is actual prospering for the good man, but is a reminder that such prospering is not the greatest Good when we find it in the wicked man.
And so all fortune is good (111), it either rewards or disciplines the good man and it either punishes or corrects the bad man. But we are often not in a position to comprehend how fortune is being worked according to the providential plan of God, for “It is only the power of God to which evils may also be good, when by their proper use He elicits some good result.” (109). This is known as a greater good defense against the problem of evil.
Why is there evil if God is all-powerful and all-good? He has a morally sufficient reason for allowing the evil He’s allowed, a greater, outweighing good. “Evil is thought to abound on earth. But if you could see the plan of Providence, you would not think there was evil anywhere.” (110). Think of Genesis 50:20, “you meant evil against me, but God meant your evil actions for good, to bring about salvation for many.”
So good people are stronger than wicked people. Goodness is its own reward: you get to be good and virtuous and happy and godlike and no one can take that from you but you, and you won’t want to take that from yourself because that would be evil and you aren’t evil, you’re good! And wickedness is its own punishment—the wicked cannot achieve true happiness because happiness is the good and to receive goodness to to become good and cease to be wicked.
Fate/fortune obeys God’s providential plan, so all fortune is good fortune because it obeys the good plan of God, which has good purposes all throughout. Even when it looks like the wicked are prospering, they’re not and those that get off apparently scot free are the worse off of all offenders.
But we’re not done yet! Lady Philosophy has saved the best for last. Book V is going to be a wild ride!
If you want to join us for the second Zoom Book Club Call upgrade to a paid subscription and come join us!
I have two main issues with book IV: one, the "middleman" in the problem of good and evil, and two, the "haha gotcha you're too dumb to see God's plan" bit.
First, there's a lot of talk about good and wicked men, but what about those who are in the middle? Those who are somewhat good, but imperfect. This is the vast majority of actual people, because it's incredibly difficult to be either 100% good or 100% bad. Yet the book presents this as a dilemma that has to be chosen between. It feels like a too-simplistic view of reality, where people are either good or bad and there's no possibility of being just.. normal, I guess.
In general, this is something I've noticed the book does a lot. The arguments are purely abstract, and there's no satisfaction in any of the conclusions; they don't even feel as if they're talking about the real world. The whole book seems purely a thought exercise, thinking in extremes and trying to tie everything up neatly by saying "well actually it LOOKS like this, but it's actually THAT!" which in many cases disregards the actual real-world consequences of the thing in question.
Second, the part about us not being in the right position to truly understand the plan isn't much of an argument, in my opinion. "Well, you're just looking from the wrong perspective, so really I'm right and you're wrong!" It's an argument that can be used from any perspective, and offers no actual proof of the rightness or wrongness of either position.
I'm curious to know your thoughts on this, though. I'm not all that well-versed in philosophy yet, and I could very well be missing things here, it just all feels a bit... off to me.
One of the great things about reading classic literature that has survived and impacted every subsequent generation is to see that the questions and issues that concern us have always been questions that mankind has struggled with, like Boethius, and before him Socrates, and before him Job. So great literature teaches us that we are not alone in our struggle with these titanic questions.
That being said, I think it is wise to keep in mind the line from the old novel, "The past is a foreign country, they do things differently there." For Boethius, we might change that to "they thought differently then." When we moderns read lines like, “those who commit an injustice are more unhappy than those who suffer it," we feel our brains wrench a little bit as we say, "huh?" That kind of reasoning is so far from the way we think today, or maybe it's as Lady Philosophy says, "Ordinary people don't think that way."
I think for this notion of justice to make sense ultimately, one has to have an eternal perspective. Which Boethius, being a Christian, certainly would have understood this. We may not see the counterintuitive outcomes Lady Philosophy so patiently lays out for Boethius in this life, but we can have hope that in the next, we will see the Good in all its splendid reality.
I'm reminded of this beautiful Scripture from Revelation 21:
"Look! God's dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them.
They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe
every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for
the old order of things has passed away."
The question is finally not whether to have hope, but what to have hope in.