فهرست مطالب seyedeh fatemeh noorani khatibani

“The Consolation of Philosophy” is one of Boethius' treatises representing Boethius' philosophy. Boethius’ political collapse has occurred at the time of writing “The Consolation of Philosophy”. In this treatise, he has sought to find out whether happiness, such as wealth, power, honor, etc., which are not lasting and eternal, can give true peace to Man. In fact, he has sought an eternal peace.Just as a political collapse causes loss of power, wealth, honor, etc. for Boethius or any other politicians, Corona disease, with its peculiarity of "epidemic" process, has imposed heavy economic and psychological consequences on humans. This article sought to find out whether Boethius's consolation of philosophy in dealing with false happiness could be generalized to a pandemic like Corona similar to the cases of political collapse and its aftermath. To this end, we analyzed Boethius' views on false happiness and true goodness in “The consolation of philosophy”.According to Boethius, what distinguishes the true goodness from false happiness is its stability. True peace depends on achieving happiness that is eternal. True goodness should not be like happiness of Man’s material part, which is unstable and may be destroyed at any moment by the factors that are considered necessary for the unstable world. Thus, for Boethius, true goodness is related to Man’s immaterial component, the soul, which is immortal. In fact, philosophy has helped Boethius to become acquainted with the true nature of welfare and realize that changes in wealth and welfare are inherent, concluding that what is variable cannot be eternal. The only real property and wealth that worldly events and changing things cannot take from Man is his own truth, to which he must pay a due attention. Boethius is of the belief that even if Man loses all the qualities that distinguish him from others and what he possesses, he is still a human and his humanity is not destroyed by losses. Therefore, the purpose of his life must be drawn out on the basis of this true essence. If this is Man’s basic criterion of life, his losses, illness, political downfall, etc. do not matter anymore. What is important is to return to his self-nature. What we achieve is always with us and we will not be at peace until we achieve it.The desire for true goodness is naturally in human’s  soul and what keeps Man away from this goodness is paying attention to false external happiness such as wealth, honor, power, etc. Boethius believed that all creatures seek to achieve a single goal, namely happiness, in different ways and this happiness is the most perfect good. Since it encompasses all goodness, there is no goodness above it; thus, whoever achieves this supreme goodness would not seek anything else. Philosophy helps Man to be guided towards goodness, i.e., God, through self-knowledge and the process of returning to his self.Boethius believes that these new conditions are not the result of a political collapse that changes wealth and welfare, but that change and instability are inherent in them and appear only in new conditions, no matter if this new situation is a political collapse or an epidemic or any other phenomenon. The importance of these new conditions is in reminding the instabilities of wealth and material prosperity and human's need and desire for an eternal thing -- a real and fixed thing that cannot be lost. Recognizing and evaluating the new conditions and analyzing the reasons for these misfortunes and losses serve Man as a reminder to know himself and the end of his life, thus trying to achieve the eternal truth. This is the path that Boethius takes in the wake of the political collapse and its necessities. Therefore, there is no difference between Corona disease and political collapse or between one person and many people; the nature of unhappiness is variability and instability. Whether it is related to a natural phenomenon, a disease, or a political equation, it reveals a changing nature.

The present study uses an analytical-descriptive method to explain the relationship between philosophy and religion in Boethius’ Christology. For this purpose, three things are done in the Theological Treatises as a representative of Boethius' theological views: 1. Determining and explaining the theological problem that Boethius sought to answer in Christology. 2. Explain components such as: rational explanation of "Trinity" with the help of the category of relation, precise definition of "person" and "nature" in the issue of "Trinity", Demonstrating the intellectual and narrative weakness of the views of Euthychius and Nestorius, as well as emphasizing the distinction between nature and the person through whom Boethius solves the problem. 3. Boethius' final answer to this theological question. In the Consolation of Philosophy as the representative of Boethius' philosophy, we seek to examine two issues: 1. Does this treatise, as some have claimed, lack any Christian symbolism or teaching? 2. Does Boethius explicitly question Christian teachings in this treatise, or does he not merely explicitly refer to Christianity? Examining these cases, it was concluded that in the Theological Treatises, Boethius saw the Christian faith in a rational explanation in agreement with reason; in the Consolation of Philosophy he saw no need to refer directly to Christian teachings; he seeks the salvation of reason, and this has no conflict with his Christian faith.

The central issue in this article is to understand the relationship between philosophy and religion in creation in Boethius's thought. To this end, components such as the creation of beings from ex nihilo, God as a cause, the pattern of creation, God's non-obligation in creation, the sempiternity of time and the eternity of God in the Theological Treatises as the representative of Boethius's theology and in the Consolation of Philosophy as the representative of Boethius's philosophy they are studied separately and comparatively by analytical-descriptive method. In the Theological Treatises these components are dealt with according to the doctrine of creation in the Bible and the Christian teachings; but in the Consolation of Philosophy, these components are examined after defining the goodness, acknowledging the existence of God the Creator, and uniting the goodness and God. By comparing the components, presuppositions, method and purpose of Boethius from the topic of creation in the Theological Treatises and in the Consolation ofPhilosophy, we find that Boethius's presumption in explaining this category in both is based on the two principles of God being the creator and the necessity of existence for God. He relies on the Bible in this case. The components that he offers from the doctrine of creation in the Consolation of Philosophy do not violate the components of this doctrine in the Theological Treatises. In both of these he is faithful to the method of the Neoplatonic. The only difference in this discussion is that Boethius insists on proving the goodness in the Consolation of Philosophy, which of course emphasizes the unity of the goodness and God, and it is not the case that by proving the existence of the goodness in this treatise, Boethius reveals the origin of beings other than God.