جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « Boethius » در نشریات گروه « فلسفه و کلام »

“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 concern of this article is understanding the relationship between philosophy and religion in Boethius' anthropology. For reaching this end, we have analyzed his ideas about issues, such as creation, the nature of and evidence for human free will, and the ultimate goal of man -in Theological Treatises as representative of Boethius' theological views and in the Consolation of Philosophy as representative of Boethius' philosophy. Boethius, in both works, accepted dualism, human free will, and the intellect as the evidence for human free will. Concerning the creation of 'man' and the placement of the soul in the body, in the Theological Treatises, he accepts the Bible report, but in the Consolation of Philosophy, he finds the Platonic reading more convincing; However, here, he attributes the incarnation of the soul to the divine act too. In the Consolation of Philosophy, he believes in the consistency of human free will and divine knowledge by presenting them thoroughly and analyzing issues such as ways of acquiring knowledge, remaining a knowledge even after the ceasing of its object, the distinction between pure necessity and conditional necessity, and between sempiternity and eternity, and the proof for God's sempiternity. He proves that although all future events are necessary from the divine perspective, some are necessary per se, and some through free will. In sum, Boethius' portrayal of 'man' in the Consolation of Philosophy does not distort what he has said about 'man' in Theological Treatises.

Aristotle’s theory of being and existent have been interpreted and investigated throughout the history of philosophy. Among the important and influential commentators of Aristotle in this issue (in Christianity and Islam) are Boethius and Farabi. The distinction between being and existent in Boethius is a commentary of Aristotle’s theory with a Christian approach which can be said to be an attempt to justify Trinity; and the distinction between being and quiddity in Farabi is a basis for the distinction between necessary existent and contingent existent, to prove then the existence of necessary existent, i.e. God, and to justify the creation by the theory of emanation. In this article, after the explanation of the issue of distinction, we will try to show the motivations of these two philosophers for establishing these distinctions and the consequences of them in their philosophy and in the history of philosophy.

This study has been conducted to demonstrate the compatibility or incompatibility of Divine prior knowledge and human authority in Boethius and Nelson Pikes’ viewpoints. In this regard, initially, it was attempted to formulate an argument for incompatibility of God’s prior knowledge and human authority, considering the required features for God’s prior knowledge from Boethius and Pike’s viewpoints and finally it was concluded that based upon the accepted regulations of Islamic philosophy from Boethius’ viewpoint, the conflict between divine knowledge and human authority refers to one`s misconception on God. However, because of mingled natural necessity and necessity by the other, compatibility of Divine knowledge and human authority cannot be proved. Finally, it is concluded that the best possible solution for removing the incompatibility between Divine prior knowledge and human authority is Shiite scholars’ viewpoint which is known as “the one in a middle state to the two extremes”.

Boethius, the great Christian philosopher of the 6th century, has an important treatise on political philosophy called Consolation of Philosophy. In this treatise, he speaks of several philosophical categories one of which is power. He discussed this category on the threshold of the Middle Age following a philosophical approach and under the guise of some religious ideas. While distinguishing between human internal and external constituents, he views power as one of the constituents of human happiness, and since happiness is an internal affair, it cannot be increased or decreased by means of external factors. In its external form, power is not an appropriate factor and guarantee for the establishment and subsistence of happiness. Boethius officially recognizes external power, particularly in its political form, but he has a collective view of power. Therefore, no kind of power alone can bring about happiness for human beings; on the contrary, it might also be considered a sign of misery. This philosopher believes that a part of misfortunes of philosophy is rooted in such separated powers.