Talk:Consolation of Philosophy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Consolation of Philosophy article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Consolation of Philosophy has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

The following users are actively contributing to this topic and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources: Stbalbach (talk • contribs • email)

[edit] 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)

[edit] good

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

[edit] "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)