feat_summary_path: finished_summaries/novelguide/Consolation of Philosophy/section_10_part_0.txt
feat_book_id: Consolation of Philosophy.book v
feat_summary_id: book v
feat_summary: {"name": "Summary of Book V Part I-VI", "url": "https://web.archive.org/web/20210212221439/https://www.novelguide.com/consolation-of-philosophy/summaries/book5-parti-vi", "summary": "of Parts I and II       Boethius tells Philosophy he wants her to go more deeply into the topic of chance. Is there such a thing as random chance ruling our lives? Perhaps that is how he ended up in prison. Philosophy says if you define chance as randomness, there is no such thing. If God is maintaining order, there cannot be something random happening someplace, for \"nothing comes out of nothing\" . Boethius replies, how about accidents? Philosophy mentions that Aristotle's definition of chance in his Physics is, something done with one purpose, but getting a different result than was intended. Yet, it is not chance, for there are hidden causes. It may be that multiple and conflicting causes are at work, outside of the intention of the doers. If you define chance as an unpredicted or unexpected event, then perhaps you can say yes, though the events are still under the rule of law. Boethius asks if there is such a thing as free will? Philosophy replies that there is freedom for rational creatures. Humans are rational and cannot exist without it. A rational creature must choose, though freedom may not be equal for all, depending on one's clarity. Humans are more free when they participate in the contemplation of God, and less free when they act out of bodily desires. If they are wicked, they are mere slaves to their own destructive will. These choices are all visible to the eye of Providence, which predestines award or punishment according to merit.", "analysis": "Commentary on Parts I and II       Providence is the all-knowing vision of God in eternity, who sees past, present, and future at once. Humans have free will, and God, watching the choice from on high, is ready with the \"predestined\" reward or punishment. The person's fate is not actually predetermined by God but given by God as a natural consequence of the person's free will. Philosophy says there is no chance or accident. Whether or not we can see all the causes, everything works out in an orderly and just fashion. Summary of Parts III and IV       Boethius is puzzled how there can be freedom of will if God already knows what we will do. If it is known, isn't it already decided then? It would not then be possible to change one's mind. Philosophy says that if something is to happen, it cannot be concealed from Providence. People wonder if foreknowledge of the future causes the future? How can God foreknow events that are still uncertain and being decided by an individual? If Providence is the same as certainty about the future, how meaningful is prayer, hope, and the relationship between God and human? Philosophy says this is an old debate, but human reasoning cannot understand \"the immediacy of divine foreknowledge\" . Free will is not hindered by God's foreknowledge, which is merely knowledge of what is about to happen. One can know something is going on without having any influence on it. It does not make what is happening inevitable. Seeing something and necessity are not the same thing. Different creatures have different abilities to know. Sense perception is the lowest faculty, common with animals. They only know things through their bodily senses. Imagination is a higher power because it does not depend on physical objects. Reason is higher still because it can understand the universal law by inference. The highest form of knowing is pure intelligence itself, and this intelligence sees the Idea or \"simple form\" in the mind of God . This highest knowing, only available to God, sees \"by a single glance of the mind\" . The lower kind of knowing cannot grasp the higher knowing. Commentary on Parts III and IV       Philosophy gives a very important answer to Boethius's question about free will and Providence. It is a hotly debated question in philosophy about how God can know the future if humans have free will. What if they have not decided yet? There are those who believe that predestination is what is really going on, and humans only think they have free will. If God already knows, for instance, which souls will be saved, why should humans even bother trying to be good? It has been predetermined, like loaded dice. Philosophy tells Boethius it may seem like a paradox, but God's foreknowledge of how things will turn out does not interfere with human free will. She gives the answer that there are different forms of knowledge, and someone who has a lower ability cannot comprehend a higher ability. Animals, for instance, have sense perception, or knowing by the senses. Humans can go farther by imagining things that are not present. They can also use the mind to reason about the invisible laws of nature from inference. But an even higher knowledge like God's comes from pure intelligence, which knows everything at once without regard to time. Humans know in sequence, one thing at a time, in terms of past, present, and future, but God can know immediately what is going on everywhere. That does not mean God is interfering with us. Philosophy recites a poem about knowledge, explaining the passive model of the mind taught by the Stoics. Stoicism was a material philosophy founded by Zeno of Citium . Stoics thought the mind merely received sense impressions as on a wax tablet. As a Platonist, Boethius denied this model of knowledge. For him, the mind is spiritual and powerfully active, able to analyze and synthesize and know the truth beyond sense impression. Humans may not know like God knows, but they can participate with God in the divine nature of life through reason. Summary of Parts V and VI       Philosophy continues the topic of different kinds of knowing. Reason belongs only to the human race, just as pure intelligence belongs to divinity. Divine intelligence comprehends the lower kinds of knowing, yet human reason refuses to believe that divine intelligence can see the future in a \"boundless immediacy\" . Eternity is the \"complete, simultaneous and perfect possession of everlasting life\"  while those who live in time experience past, present, and future. Humans catch a fleeting and transitory glimpse of life only. To experience the whole of life in the present moment is characteristic of the mind of God. His knowledge transcends change. Commentary on Parts V and VI       The book finishes with this discussion of God's foreknowledge. Philosophy ends her teaching to Boethius in prison with this point in order to give him faith in Providence. Are his suffering and imprisonment simply due to chance or evil? Or can he have faith that God has foreseen all and that even the death of Boethius will be part of the good, of God's providential foresight? God sees what is happening in a never-ending present moment. The divine gaze \"looks down on all things without disturbing their nature\" . If God is on high witnessing this fate for Boethius, then it is necessary for it to happen, though God is not causing it to happen. God is the \"spectator from on high of all things\" . Therefore, Philosophy concludes, \"Avoid vice . . . cultivate virtue; lift up your mind to the right kind of hope, and put forth humble prayers on high\" . She has comforted Boethius with the idea that God is near and part of our human nature. We are always free to be with God and part of the good, no matter what fate we are handed in the world by Fortune. Book V of Parts I and II Boethius tells Philosophy he wants her to go more deeply into the topic of chance. Is there such a thing as random chance ruling our lives? Perhaps that is how he ended up in prison. Philosophy says if you define chance as randomness, there is no such thing. If God is maintaining order, there cannot be something random happening someplace, for \"nothing comes out of nothing\" . Boethius replies, how about accidents? Philosophy mentions that Aristotle's definition of chance in his Physics is, something done with one purpose, but getting a different result than was intended. Yet, it is not chance, for there are hidden causes. It may be that multiple and conflicting causes are at work, outside of the intention of the doers. If you define chance as an unpredicted or unexpected event, then perhaps you can say yes, though the events are still under the rule of law. Boethius asks if there is such a thing as free will? Philosophy replies that there is freedom for rational creatures. Humans are rational and cannot exist without it. A rational creature must choose, though freedom may not be equal for all, depending on one's clarity. Humans are more free when they participate in the contemplation of God, and less free when they act out of bodily desires. If they are wicked, they are mere slaves to their own destructive will. These choices are all visible to the eye of Providence, which predestines award or punishment according to merit. Commentary on Parts I and II Commentary on Parts I and II Providence is the all-knowing vision of God in eternity, who sees past, present, and future at once. Humans have free will, and God, watching the choice from on high, is ready with the \"predestined\" reward or punishment. The person's fate is not actually predetermined by God but given by God as a natural consequence of the person's free will. Philosophy says there is no chance or accident. Whether or not we can see all the causes, everything works out in an orderly and just fashion. of Parts III and IV Boethius is puzzled how there can be freedom of will if God already knows what we will do. If it is known, isn't it already decided then? It would not then be possible to change one's mind. Philosophy says that if something is to happen, it cannot be concealed from Providence. People wonder if foreknowledge of the future causes the future? How can God foreknow events that are still uncertain and being decided by an individual? If Providence is the same as certainty about the future, how meaningful is prayer, hope, and the relationship between God and human? Philosophy says this is an old debate, but human reasoning cannot understand \"the immediacy of divine foreknowledge\" . Free will is not hindered by God's foreknowledge, which is merely knowledge of what is about to happen. One can know something is going on without having any influence on it. It does not make what is happening inevitable. Seeing something and necessity are not the same thing. Different creatures have different abilities to know. Sense perception is the lowest faculty, common with animals. They only know things through their bodily senses. Imagination is a higher power because it does not depend on physical objects. Reason is higher still because it can understand the universal law by inference. The highest form of knowing is pure intelligence itself, and this intelligence sees the Idea or \"simple form\" in the mind of God . This highest knowing, only available to God, sees \"by a single glance of the mind\" . The lower kind of knowing cannot grasp the higher knowing. Commentary on Parts III and IV Commentary on Parts III and IV Philosophy gives a very important answer to Boethius's question about free will and Providence. It is a hotly debated question in philosophy about how God can know the future if humans have free will. What if they have not decided yet? There are those who believe that predestination is what is really going on, and humans only think they have free will. If God already knows, for instance, which souls will be saved, why should humans even bother trying to be good? It has been predetermined, like loaded dice. Philosophy tells Boethius it may seem like a paradox, but God's foreknowledge of how things will turn out does not interfere with human free will. She gives the answer that there are different forms of knowledge, and someone who has a lower ability cannot comprehend a higher ability. Animals, for instance, have sense perception, or knowing by the senses. Humans can go farther by imagining things that are not present. They can also use the mind to reason about the invisible laws of nature from inference. But an even higher knowledge like God's comes from pure intelligence, which knows everything at once without regard to time. Humans know in sequence, one thing at a time, in terms of past, present, and future, but God can know immediately what is going on everywhere. That does not mean God is interfering with us. Philosophy recites a poem about knowledge, explaining the passive model of the mind taught by the Stoics. Stoicism was a material philosophy founded by Zeno of Citium . Stoics thought the mind merely received sense impressions as on a wax tablet. As a Platonist, Boethius denied this model of knowledge. For him, the mind is spiritual and powerfully active, able to analyze and synthesize and know the truth beyond sense impression. Humans may not know like God knows, but they can participate with God in the divine nature of life through reason. of Parts V and VI Philosophy continues the topic of different kinds of knowing. Reason belongs only to the human race, just as pure intelligence belongs to divinity. Divine intelligence comprehends the lower kinds of knowing, yet human reason refuses to believe that divine intelligence can see the future in a \"boundless immediacy\" . Eternity is the \"complete, simultaneous and perfect possession of everlasting life\" while those who live in time experience past, present, and future. Humans catch a fleeting and transitory glimpse of life only. To experience the whole of life in the present moment is characteristic of the mind of God. His knowledge transcends change. Commentary on Parts V and VI Commentary on Parts V and VI The book finishes with this discussion of God's foreknowledge. Philosophy ends her teaching to Boethius in prison with this point in order to give him faith in Providence. Are his suffering and imprisonment simply due to chance or evil? Or can he have faith that God has foreseen all and that even the death of Boethius will be part of the good, of God's providential foresight? God sees what is happening in a never-ending present moment. The divine gaze \"looks down on all things without disturbing their nature\" . If God is on high witnessing this fate for Boethius, then it is necessary for it to happen, though God is not causing it to happen. God is the \"spectator from on high of all things\" . Therefore, Philosophy concludes, \"Avoid vice . . . cultivate virtue; lift up your mind to the right kind of hope, and put forth humble prayers on high\" . She has comforted Boethius with the idea that God is near and part of our human nature. We are always free to be with God and part of the good, no matter what fate we are handed in the world by Fortune. Novel Author Boethius Novel Author Boethius"}
text: <CHAPTER>
  BOOK V. I.
  
  
  She ceased, and was about to pass on in her discourse to the exposition
  of other matters, when I break in and say: 'Excellent is thine
  exhortation, and such as well beseemeth thy high authority; but I am
  even now experiencing one of the many difficulties which, as thou saidst
  but now, beset the question of providence. I want to know whether thou
  deemest that there is any such thing as chance at all, and, if so, what
  it is.'
  
  Then she made answer: 'I am anxious to fulfil my promise completely, and
  open to thee a way of return to thy native land. As for these matters,
  though very useful to know, they are yet a little removed from the path
  of our design, and I fear lest digressions should fatigue thee, and thou
  shouldst find thyself unequal to completing the direct journey to our
  goal.'
  
  'Have no fear for that,' said I. 'It is rest to me to learn, where
  learning brings delight so exquisite, especially when thy argument has
  been built up on all sides with undoubted conviction, and no place is
  left for uncertainty in what follows.'
  
  She made answer: 'I will accede to thy request;' and forthwith she thus
  began: 'If chance be defined as a result produced by random movement
  without any link of causal connection, I roundly affirm that there is no
  such thing as chance at all, and consider the word to be altogether
  without meaning, except as a symbol of the thing designated. What place
  can be left for random action, when God constraineth all things to
  order? For "ex nihilo nihil" is sound doctrine which none of the
  ancients gainsaid, although they used it of material substance, not of
  the efficient principle; this they laid down as a kind of basis for all
  their reasonings concerning nature. Now, if a thing arise without
  causes, it will appear to have arisen from nothing. But if this cannot
  be, neither is it possible for there to be chance in accordance with the
  definition just given.'
  
  'Well,' said I, 'is there, then, nothing which can properly be called
  chance or accident, or is there something to which these names are
  appropriate, though its nature is dark to the vulgar?'
  
  'Our good Aristotle,' says she, 'has defined it concisely in his
  "Physics," and closely in accordance with the truth.'
  
  'How, pray?' said I.
  
  'Thus,' says she: 'Whenever something is done for the sake of a
  particular end, and for certain reasons some other result than that
  designed ensues, this is called chance; for instance, if a man is
  digging the earth for tillage, and finds a mass of buried gold. Now,
  such a find is regarded as accidental; yet it is not "ex nihilo," for it
  has its proper causes, the unforeseen and unexpected concurrence of
  which has brought the chance about. For had not the cultivator been
  digging, had not the man who hid the money buried it in that precise
  spot, the gold would not have been found. These, then, are the reasons
  why the find is a chance one, in that it results from causes which met
  together and concurred, not from any intention on the part of the
  discoverer. Since neither he who buried the gold nor he who worked in
  the field _intended_ that the money should be found, but, as I said, it
  _happened_ by coincidence that one dug where the other buried the
  treasure. We may, then, define chance as being an unexpected result
  flowing from a concurrence of causes where the several factors had some
  definite end. But the meeting and concurrence of these causes arises
  from that inevitable chain of order which, flowing from the
  fountain-head of Providence, disposes all things in their due time and
  place.'
  
  
  
  SONG I.
  
  CHANCE.
  
  
      In the rugged Persian highlands,
        Where the masters of the bow
      Skill to feign a flight, and, fleeing,
        Hurl their darts and pierce the foe;
      There the Tigris and Euphrates
        At one source[O] their waters blend,
      Soon to draw apart, and plainward
        Each its separate way to wend.
      When once more their waters mingle
        In a channel deep and wide,
      All the flotsam comes together
        That is borne upon the tide:
      Ships, and trunks of trees, uprooted
        In the torrent's wild career,
      Meet, as 'mid the swirling waters
        Chance their random way may steer.
      Yet the shelving of the channel
        And the flowing water's force
      Guides each movement, and determines
        Every floating fragment's course.
      Thus, where'er the drift of hazard
        Seems most unrestrained to flow,
      Chance herself is reined and bitted,
        And the curb of law doth know.
  
  FOOTNOTES:
  
  [O] This is not, of course, literally true, though the Tigris and
  Euphrates rise in the same mountain district.
  
  
  
  II.
  
  
  'I am following needfully,' said I, 'and I agree that it is as thou
  sayest. But in this series of linked causes is there any freedom left to
  our will, or does the chain of fate bind also the very motions of our
  souls?'
  
  'There is freedom,' said she; 'nor, indeed, can any creature be
  rational, unless he be endowed with free will. For that which hath the
  natural use of reason has the faculty of discriminative judgment, and of
  itself distinguishes what is to be shunned or desired. Now, everyone
  seeks what he judges desirable, and avoids what he thinks should be
  shunned. Wherefore, beings endowed with reason possess also the faculty
  of free choice and refusal. But I suppose this faculty not equal alike
  in all. The higher Divine essences possess a clear-sighted judgment, an
  uncorrupt will, and an effective power of accomplishing their wishes.
  Human souls must needs be comparatively free while they abide in the
  contemplation of the Divine mind, less free when they pass into bodily
  form, and still less, again, when they are enwrapped in earthly members.
  But when they are given over to vices, and fall from the possession of
  their proper reason, then indeed their condition is utter slavery. For
  when they let their gaze fall from the light of highest truth to the
  lower world where darkness reigns, soon ignorance blinds their vision;
  they are disturbed by baneful affections, by yielding and assenting to
  which they help to promote the slavery in which they are involved, and
  are in a manner led captive by reason of their very liberty. Yet He who
  seeth all things from eternity beholdeth these things with the eyes of
  His providence, and assigneth to each what is predestined for it by its
  merits:
  
       '"All things surveying, all things overhearing.'"
  
  
  
  SONG II.
  
  THE TRUE SUN.
  
  
      Homer with mellifluous tongue
      Phoebus' glorious light hath sung,
        Hymning high his praise;
        Yet _his_ feeble rays
      Ocean's hollows may not brighten,
      Nor earth's central gloom enlighten.
  
      But the might of Him, who skilled
      This great universe to build,
        Is not thus confined;
        Not earth's solid rind,
      Nor night's blackest canopy,
      Baffle His all-seeing eye.
  
      All that is, hath been, shall be,
      In one glance's compass, He
        Limitless descries;
        And, save His, no eyes
      All the world survey--no, none!
      _Him_, then, truly name the Sun.
  
  
  
  III.
  
  
  Then said I: 'But now I am once more perplexed by a problem yet more
  difficult.'
  
  'And what is that?' said she; 'yet, in truth, I can guess what it is
  that troubles you.'
  
  'It seems,' said I, 'too much of a paradox and a contradiction that God
  should know all things, and yet there should be free will. For if God
  foresees everything, and can in no wise be deceived, that which
  providence foresees to be about to happen must necessarily come to pass.
  Wherefore, if from eternity He foreknows not only what men will do, but
  also their designs and purposes, there can be no freedom of the will,
  seeing that nothing can be done, nor can any sort of purpose be
  entertained, save such as a Divine providence, incapable of being
  deceived, has perceived beforehand. For if the issues can be turned
  aside to some other end than that foreseen by providence, there will not
  then be any sure foreknowledge of the future, but uncertain conjecture
  instead, and to think this of God I deem impiety.
  
  'Moreover, I do not approve the reasoning by which some think to solve
  this puzzle. For they say that it is not because God has foreseen the
  coming of an event that _therefore_ it is sure to come to pass, but,
  conversely, because something is about to come to pass, it cannot be
  hidden from Divine providence; and accordingly the necessity passes to
  the opposite side, and it is not that what is foreseen must necessarily
  come to pass, but that what is about to come to pass must necessarily be
  foreseen. But this is just as if the matter in debate were, which is
  cause and which effect--whether foreknowledge of the future cause of the
  necessity, or the necessity of the future of the foreknowledge. But we
  need not be at the pains of demonstrating that, whatsoever be the order
  of the causal sequence, the occurrence of things foreseen is necessary,
  even though the foreknowledge of future events does not in itself
  impose upon them the necessity of their occurrence. For example, if a
  man be seated, the supposition of his being seated is necessarily true;
  and, conversely, if the supposition of his being seated is true, because
  he is really seated, he must necessarily be sitting. So, in either case,
  there is some necessity involved--in this latter case, the necessity of
  the fact; in the former, of the truth of the statement. But in both
  cases the sitter is not therefore seated because the opinion is true,
  but rather the opinion is true because antecedently he was sitting as a
  matter of fact. Thus, though the cause of the truth of the opinion comes
  from the other side,[P] yet there is a necessity on both sides alike. We
  can obviously reason similarly in the case of providence and the future.
  Even if future events are foreseen because they are about to happen, and
  do not come to pass because they are foreseen, still, all the same,
  there is a necessity, both that they should be foreseen by God as about
  to come to pass, and that when they are foreseen they should happen, and
  this is sufficient for the destruction of free will. However, it is
  preposterous to speak of the occurrence of events in time as the cause
  of eternal foreknowledge. And yet if we believe that God foresees future
  events because they are about to come to pass, what is it but to think
  that the occurrence of events is the cause of His supreme providence?
  Further, just as when I _know_ that anything is, that thing
  _necessarily_ is, so when I know that anything will be, it will
  _necessarily_ be. It follows, then, that things foreknown come to pass
  inevitably.
  
  'Lastly, to think of a thing as being in any way other than what it is,
  is not only not knowledge, but it is false opinion widely different from
  the truth of knowledge. Consequently, if anything is about to be, and
  yet its occurrence is not certain and necessary, how can anyone foreknow
  that it will occur? For just as knowledge itself is free from all
  admixture of falsity, so any conception drawn from knowledge cannot be
  other than as it is conceived. For this, indeed, is the cause why
  knowledge is free from falsehood, because of necessity each thing must
  correspond exactly with the knowledge which grasps its nature. In what
  way, then, are we to suppose that God foreknows these uncertainties as
  about to come to pass? For if He thinks of events which possibly may not
  happen at all as inevitably destined to come to pass, He is deceived;
  and this it is not only impious to believe, but even so much as to
  express in words. If, on the other hand, He sees them in the future as
  they are in such a sense as to know that they may equally come to pass
  or not, what sort of foreknowledge is this which comprehends nothing
  certain nor fixed? What better is this than the absurd vaticination of
  Teiresias?
  
        '"Whate'er I say
      Shall either come to pass--or not."
  
  In that case, too, in what would Divine providence surpass human opinion
  if it holds for uncertain things the occurrence of which is uncertain,
  even as men do? But if at that perfectly sure Fountain-head of all
  things no shadow of uncertainty can possibly be found, then the
  occurrence of those things which He has surely foreknown as coming is
  certain. Wherefore there can be no freedom in human actions and designs;
  but the Divine mind, which foresees all things without possibility of
  mistake, ties and binds them down to one only issue. But this admission
  once made, what an upset of human affairs manifestly ensues! Vainly are
  rewards and punishments proposed for the good and bad, since no free and
  voluntary motion of the will has deserved either one or the other; nay,
  the punishment of the wicked and the reward of the righteous, which is
  now esteemed the perfection of justice, will seem the most flagrant
  injustice, since men are determined either way not by their own proper
  volition, but by the necessity of what must surely be. And therefore
  neither virtue nor vice is anything, but rather good and ill desert are
  confounded together without distinction. Moreover, seeing that the whole
  course of events is deduced from providence, and nothing is left free to
  human design, it comes to pass that our vices also are referred to the
  Author of all good--a thought than which none more abominable can
  possibly be conceived. Again, no ground is left for hope or prayer,
  since how can we hope for blessings, or pray for mercy, when every
  object of desire depends upon the links of an unalterable chain of
  causation? Gone, then, is the one means of intercourse between God and
  man--the communion of hope and prayer--if it be true that we ever earn
  the inestimable recompense of the Divine favour at the price of a due
  humility; for this is the one way whereby men seem able to hold
  communion with God, and are joined to that unapproachable light by the
  very act of supplication, even before they obtain their petitions. Then,
  since these things can scarcely be believed to have any efficacy, if the
  necessity of future events be admitted, what means will there be whereby
  we may be brought near and cleave to Him who is the supreme Head of all?
  Wherefore it needs must be that the human race, even as thou didst
  erstwhile declare in song, parted and dissevered from its Source, should
  fall to ruin.'
  
  FOOTNOTES:
  
  [P] _I.e._, the necessity of the truth of the statement from the fact.
  
  
  
  SONG III. TRUTH'S PARADOXES.
  
  
  
  
      Why does a strange discordance break
        The ordered scheme's fair harmony?
      Hath God decreed 'twixt truth and truth
        There may such lasting warfare be,
      That truths, each severally plain,
      We strive to reconcile in vain?
  
      Or is the discord not in truth,
        Since truth is self consistent ever?
      But, close in fleshly wrappings held,
        The blinded mind of man can never
      Discern--so faint her taper shines--
      The subtle chain that all combines?
  
      Ah! then why burns man's restless mind
        Truth's hidden portals to unclose?
      Knows he already what he seeks?
        Why toil to seek it, if he knows?
      Yet, haply if he knoweth not,
      Why blindly seek he knows not what?[Q]
  
  
      Who for a good he knows not sighs?
        Who can an unknown end pursue?
      How find? How e'en when haply found
        Hail that strange form he never knew?
      Or is it that man's inmost soul
      Once knew each part and knew the whole?
  
      Now, though by fleshly vapours dimmed,
        Not all forgot her visions past;
      For while the several parts are lost,
        To the one whole she cleaveth fast;
      Whence he who yearns the truth to find
      Is neither sound of sight nor blind.
  
      For neither does he know in full,
        Nor is he reft of knowledge quite;
      But, holding still to what is left,
        He gropes in the uncertain light,
      And by the part that still survives
      To win back all he bravely strives.
  
  FOOTNOTES:
  
  [Q] Compare Plato, 'Meno,' 80; Jowett, vol. ii., pp. 39, 40.
  
  
  
  IV.
  
  
  Then said she: 'This debate about providence is an old one, and is
  vigorously discussed by Cicero in his "Divination"; thou also hast long
  and earnestly pondered the problem, yet no one has had diligence and
  perseverance enough to find a solution. And the reason of this obscurity
  is that the movement of human reasoning cannot cope with the simplicity
  of the Divine foreknowledge; for if a conception of its nature could in
  any wise be framed, no shadow of uncertainty would remain. With a view
  of making this at last clear and plain, I will begin by considering the
  arguments by which thou art swayed. First, I inquire into the reasons
  why thou art dissatisfied with the solution proposed, which is to the
  effect that, seeing the fact of foreknowledge is not thought the cause
  of the necessity of future events, foreknowledge is not to be deemed any
  hindrance to the freedom of the will. Now, surely the sole ground on
  which thou arguest the necessity of the future is that things which are
  foreknown cannot fail to come to pass. But if, as thou wert ready to
  acknowledge just now, the fact of foreknowledge imposes no necessity on
  things future, what reason is there for supposing the results of
  voluntary action constrained to a fixed issue? Suppose, for the sake of
  argument, and to see what follows, we assume that there is no
  foreknowledge. Are willed actions, then, tied down to any necessity in
  _this_ case?'
  
  'Certainly not.'
  
  'Let us assume foreknowledge again, but without its involving any actual
  necessity; the freedom of the will, I imagine, will remain in complete
  integrity. But thou wilt say that, even although the foreknowledge is
  not the necessity of the future event's occurrence, yet it is a sign
  that it will necessarily happen. Granted; but in this case it is plain
  that, even if there had been no foreknowledge, the issues would have
  been inevitably certain. For a sign only indicates something which is,
  does not bring to pass that of which it is the sign. We require to show
  beforehand that all things, without exception, happen of necessity in
  order that a preconception may be a sign of this necessity. Otherwise,
  if there is no such universal necessity, neither can any preconception
  be a sign of a necessity which exists not. Manifestly, too, a proof
  established on firm grounds of reason must be drawn not from signs and
  loose general arguments, but from suitable and necessary causes. But how
  can it be that things foreseen should ever fail to come to pass? Why,
  this is to suppose us to believe that the events which providence
  foresees to be coming were not about to happen, instead of our supposing
  that, although they should come to pass, yet there was no necessity
  involved in their own nature compelling their occurrence. Take an
  illustration that will help to convey my meaning. There are many things
  which we see taking place before our eyes--the movements of charioteers,
  for instance, in guiding and turning their cars, and so on. Now, is any
  one of these movements compelled by any necessity?'
  
  'No; certainly not. There would be no efficacy in skill if all motions
  took place perforce.'
  
  'Then, things which in taking place are free from any necessity as to
  their being in the present must also, before they take place, be about
  to happen without necessity. Wherefore there are things which will come
  to pass, the occurrence of which is perfectly free from necessity. At
  all events, I imagine that no one will deny that things now taking place
  were about to come to pass before they were actually happening. Such
  things, however much foreknown, are in their occurrence _free_. For even
  as knowledge of things present imports no necessity into things that are
  taking place, so foreknowledge of the future imports none into things
  that are about to come. But this, thou wilt say, is the very point in
  dispute--whether any foreknowing is possible of things whose occurrence
  is not necessary. For here there seems to thee a contradiction, and, if
  they are foreseen, their necessity follows; whereas if there is no
  necessity, they can by no means be foreknown; and thou thinkest that
  nothing can be grasped as known unless it is certain, but if things
  whose occurrence is uncertain are foreknown as certain, this is the very
  mist of opinion, not the truth of knowledge. For to think of things
  otherwise than as they are, thou believest to be incompatible with the
  soundness of knowledge.
  
  'Now, the cause of the mistake is this--that men think that all
  knowledge is cognized purely by the nature and efficacy of the thing
  known. Whereas the case is the very reverse: all that is known is
  grasped not conformably to its own efficacy, but rather conformably to
  the faculty of the knower. An example will make this clear: the
  roundness of a body is recognised in one way by sight, in another by
  touch. Sight looks upon it from a distance as a whole by a simultaneous
  reflection of rays; touch grasps the roundness piecemeal, by contact and
  attachment to the surface, and by actual movement round the periphery
  itself. Man himself, likewise, is viewed in one way by Sense, in another
  by Imagination, in another way, again, by Thought, in another by pure
  Intelligence. Sense judges figure clothed in material substance,
  Imagination figure alone without matter. Thought transcends this again,
  and by its contemplation of universals considers the type itself which
  is contained in the individual. The eye of Intelligence is yet more
  exalted; for overpassing the sphere of the universal, it will behold
  absolute form itself by the pure force of the mind's vision. Wherein the
  main point to be considered is this: the higher faculty of comprehension
  embraces the lower, while the lower cannot rise to the higher. For Sense
  has no efficacy beyond matter, nor can Imagination behold universal
  ideas, nor Thought embrace pure form; but Intelligence, looking down, as
  it were, from its higher standpoint in its intuition of form,
  discriminates also the several elements which underlie it; but it
  comprehends them in the same way as it comprehends that form itself,
  which could be cognized by no other than itself. For it cognizes the
  universal of Thought, the figure of Imagination, and the matter of
  Sense, without employing Thought, Imagination, or Sense, but surveying
  all things, so to speak, under the aspect of pure form by a single flash
  of intuition. Thought also, in considering the universal, embraces
  images and sense-impressions without resorting to Imagination or Sense.
  For it is Thought which has thus defined the universal from its
  conceptual point of view: "Man is a two-legged animal endowed with
  reason." This is indeed a universal notion, yet no one is ignorant that
  the _thing_ is imaginable and presentable to Sense, because Thought
  considers it not by Imagination or Sense, but by means of rational
  conception. Imagination, too, though its faculty of viewing and forming
  representations is founded upon the senses, nevertheless surveys
  sense-impressions without calling in Sense, not in the way of
  Sense-perception, but of Imagination. See'st thou, then, how all things
  in cognizing use rather their own faculty than the faculty of the things
  which they cognize? Nor is this strange; for since every judgment is the
  act of the judge, it is necessary that each should accomplish its task
  by its own, not by another's power.'
  
  
  
  SONG IV. A PSYCHOLOGICAL FALLACY.
  
  [R]
  
  
      From the Porch's murky depths
        Comes a doctrine sage,
      That doth liken living mind
        To a written page;
      Since all knowledge comes through
        Sense,
      Graven by Experience.
  
      'As,' say they, 'the pen its marks
        Curiously doth trace
      On the smooth unsullied white
        Of the paper's face,
      So do outer things impress
      Images on consciousness.'
  
      But if verily the mind
        Thus all passive lies;
      If no living power within
        Its own force supplies;
      If it but reflect again,
      Like a glass, things false and vain--
  
  
      Whence the wondrous faculty
        That perceives and knows,
      That in one fair ordered scheme
        Doth the world dispose;
      Grasps each whole that Sense presents,
      Or breaks into elements?
  
      So divides and recombines,
        And in changeful wise
      Now to low descends, and now
        To the height doth rise;
      Last in inward swift review
      Strictly sifts the false and true?
  
      Of these ample potencies
        Fitter cause, I ween,
      Were Mind's self than marks impressed
        By the outer scene.
      Yet the body through the sense
      Stirs the soul's intelligence.
  
      When light flashes on the eye,
        Or sound strikes the ear,
      Mind aroused to due response
        Makes the message clear;
      And the dumb external signs
      With the hidden forms combines.
  
  FOOTNOTES:
  
  [R] A criticism of the doctrine of the mind as a blank sheet of paper on
  which experience writes, as held by the Stoics in anticipation of Locke.
  See Zeller, 'Stoics, Epicureans, and Sceptics,' Reichel's translation,
  p. 76.
  
  
  
  V.
  
  
  'Now, although in the case of bodies endowed with sentiency the
  qualities of external objects affect the sense-organs, and the activity
  of mind is preceded by a bodily affection which calls forth the mind's
  action upon itself, and stimulates the forms till that moment lying
  inactive within, yet, I say, if in these bodies endowed with sentiency
  the mind is not inscribed by mere passive affection, but of its own
  efficacy discriminates the impressions furnished to the body, how much
  more do intelligences free from all bodily affections employ in their
  discrimination their own mental activities instead of conforming to
  external objects? So on these principles various modes of cognition
  belong to distinct and different substances. For to creatures void of
  motive power--shell-fish and other such creatures which cling to rocks
  and grow there--belongs Sense alone, void of all other modes of gaining
  knowledge; to beasts endowed with movement, in whom some capacity of
  seeking and shunning seems to have arisen, Imagination also. Thought
  pertains only to the human race, as Intelligence to Divinity alone;
  hence it follows that that form of knowledge exceeds the rest which of
  its own nature cognizes not only its proper object, but the objects of
  the other forms of knowledge also. But what if Sense and Imagination
  were to gainsay Thought, and declare that universal which Thought deems
  itself to behold to be nothing? For the object of Sense and Imagination
  cannot be universal; so that either the judgment of Reason is true and
  there is no sense-object, or, since they know full well that many
  objects are presented to Sense and Imagination, the conception of
  Reason, which looks on that which is perceived by Sense and particular
  as if it were a something "universal," is empty of content. Suppose,
  further, that Reason maintains in reply that it does indeed contemplate
  the object of both Sense and Imagination under the form of
  universality, while Sense and Imagination cannot aspire to the
  knowledge of the universal, since their cognizance cannot go beyond
  bodily figures, and that in the cognition of reality we ought rather to
  trust the stronger and more perfect faculty of judgment. In a dispute of
  this sort, should not we, in whom is planted the faculty of reasoning as
  well as of imagining and perceiving, espouse the cause of Reason?
  
  'In like manner is it that human reason thinks that Divine Intelligence
  cannot see the future except after the fashion in which its own
  knowledge is obtained. For thy contention is, if events do not appear to
  involve certain and necessary issues, they cannot be foreseen as
  certainly about to come to pass. There is, then, no foreknowledge of
  such events; or, if we can ever bring ourselves to believe that there
  is, there can be nothing which does not happen of necessity. If,
  however, we could have some part in the judgment of the Divine mind,
  even as we participate in Reason, we should think it perfectly just that
  human Reason should submit itself to the Divine mind, no less than we
  judged that Imagination and Sense ought to yield to Reason. Wherefore
  let us soar, if we can, to the heights of that Supreme Intelligence; for
  there Reason will see what in itself it cannot look upon; and that is in
  what way things whose occurrence is not certain may yet be seen in a
  sure and definite foreknowledge; and that this foreknowledge is not
  conjecture, but rather knowledge in its supreme simplicity, free of all
  limits and restrictions.'
  
  
  
  SONG V. THE UPWARD LOOK.
  
  
      In what divers shapes and fashions do the creatures great and small
      Over wide earth's teeming surface skim, or scud, or walk, or crawl!
      Some with elongated body sweep the ground, and, as they move,
      Trail perforce with writhing belly in the dust a sinuous groove;
      Some, on light wing upward soaring, swiftly do the winds divide,
      And through heaven's ample spaces in free motion smoothly glide;
      These earth's solid surface pressing, with firm paces onward rove,
      Ranging through the verdant meadows, crouching in the woodland grove.
      Great and wondrous is their variance! Yet in all the head low-bent
      Dulls the soul and blunts the senses, though their forms be different.
      Man alone, erect, aspiring, lifts his forehead to the skies,
      And in upright posture steadfast seems earth's baseness to despise.
      If with earth not all besotted, to this parable give ear,
      Thou whose gaze is fixed on heaven, who thy face on high dost rear:
      Lift thy soul, too, heavenward; haply lest it stain its heavenly worth,
      And thine eyes alone look upward, while thy mind cleaves to the earth!
  
  
  
  VI.
  
  
  'Since, then, as we lately proved, everything that is known is cognized
  not in accordance with its own nature, but in accordance with the nature
  of the faculty that comprehends it, let us now contemplate, as far as
  lawful, the character of the Divine essence, that we may be able to
  understand also the nature of its knowledge.
  
  'God is eternal; in this judgment all rational beings agree. Let us,
  then, consider what eternity is. For this word carries with it a
  revelation alike of the Divine nature and of the Divine knowledge. Now,
  eternity is the possession of endless life whole and perfect at a single
  moment. What this is becomes more clear and manifest from a comparison
  with things temporal. For whatever lives in time is a present proceeding
  from the past to the future, and there is nothing set in time which can
  embrace the whole space of its life together. To-morrow's state it
  grasps not yet, while it has already lost yesterday's; nay, even in the
  life of to-day ye live no longer than one brief transitory moment.
  Whatever, therefore, is subject to the condition of time, although, as
  Aristotle deemed of the world, it never have either beginning or end,
  and its life be stretched to the whole extent of time's infinity, it yet
  is not such as rightly to be thought eternal. For it does not include
  and embrace the whole space of infinite life at once, but has no present
  hold on things to come, not yet accomplished. Accordingly, that which
  includes and possesses the whole fulness of unending life at once, from
  which nothing future is absent, from which nothing past has escaped,
  this is rightly called eternal; this must of necessity be ever present
  to itself in full self-possession, and hold the infinity of movable time
  in an abiding present. Wherefore they deem not rightly who imagine that
  on Plato's principles the created world is made co-eternal with the
  Creator, because they are told that he believed the world to have had
  no beginning in time,[S] and to be destined never to come to an end. For
  it is one thing for existence to be endlessly prolonged, which was what
  Plato ascribed to the world, another for the whole of an endless life to
  be embraced in the present, which is manifestly a property peculiar to
  the Divine mind. Nor need God appear earlier in mere duration of time to
  created things, but only prior in the unique simplicity of His nature.
  For the infinite progression of things in time copies this immediate
  existence in the present of the changeless life, and when it cannot
  succeed in equalling it, declines from movelessness into motion, and
  falls away from the simplicity of a perpetual present to the infinite
  duration of the future and the past; and since it cannot possess the
  whole fulness of its life together, for the very reason that in a manner
  it never ceases to be, it seems, up to a certain point, to rival that
  which it cannot complete and express by attaching itself indifferently
  to any present moment of time, however swift and brief; and since this
  bears some resemblance to that ever-abiding present, it bestows on
  everything to which it is assigned the semblance of existence. But since
  it cannot abide, it hurries along the infinite path of time, and the
  result has been that it continues by ceaseless movement the life the
  completeness of which it could not embrace while it stood still. So, if
  we are minded to give things their right names, we shall follow Plato in
  saying that God indeed is eternal, but the world everlasting.
  
  'Since, then, every mode of judgment comprehends its objects conformably
  to its own nature, and since God abides for ever in an eternal present,
  His knowledge, also transcending all movement of time, dwells in the
  simplicity of its own changeless present, and, embracing the whole
  infinite sweep of the past and of the future, contemplates all that
  falls within its simple cognition as if it were now taking place. And
  therefore, if thou wilt carefully consider that immediate presentment
  whereby it discriminates all things, thou wilt more rightly deem it not
  foreknowledge as of something future, but knowledge of a moment that
  never passes. For this cause the name chosen to describe it is not
  prevision, but providence, because, since utterly removed in nature from
  things mean and trivial, its outlook embraces all things as from some
  lofty height. Why, then, dost thou insist that the things which are
  surveyed by the Divine eye are involved in necessity, whereas clearly
  men impose no necessity on things which they see? Does the act of vision
  add any necessity to the things which thou seest before thy eyes?'
  
  'Assuredly not.'
  
  'And yet, if we may without unfitness compare God's present and man's,
  just as ye see certain things in this your temporary present, so does He
  see all things in His eternal present. Wherefore this Divine
  anticipation changes not the natures and properties of things, and it
  beholds things present before it, just as they will hereafter come to
  pass in time. Nor does it confound things in its judgment, but in the
  one mental view distinguishes alike what will come necessarily and what
  without necessity. For even as ye, when at one and the same time ye see
  a man walking on the earth and the sun rising in the sky, distinguish
  between the two, though one glance embraces both, and judge the former
  voluntary, the latter necessary action: so also the Divine vision in its
  universal range of view does in no wise confuse the characters of the
  things which are present to its regard, though future in respect of
  time. Whence it follows that when it perceives that something will come
  into existence, and yet is perfectly aware that this is unbound by any
  necessity, its apprehension is not opinion, but rather knowledge based
  on truth. And if to this thou sayest that what God sees to be about to
  come to pass cannot fail to come to pass, and that what cannot fail to
  come to pass happens of necessity, and wilt tie me down to this word
  necessity, I will acknowledge that thou affirmest a most solid truth,
  but one which scarcely anyone can approach to who has not made the
  Divine his special study. For my answer would be that the same future
  event is necessary from the standpoint of Divine knowledge, but when
  considered in its own nature it seems absolutely free and unfettered.
  So, then, there are two necessities--one simple, as that men are
  necessarily mortal; the other conditioned, as that, if you know that
  someone is walking, he must necessarily be walking. For that which is
  known cannot indeed be otherwise than as it is known to be, and yet this
  fact by no means carries with it that other simple necessity. For the
  former necessity is not imposed by the thing's own proper nature, but by
  the addition of a condition. No necessity compels one who is voluntarily
  walking to go forward, although it is necessary for him to go forward at
  the moment of walking. In the same way, then, if Providence sees
  anything as present, that must necessarily be, though it is bound by no
  necessity of nature. Now, God views as present those coming events which
  happen of free will. These, accordingly, from the standpoint of the
  Divine vision are made necessary conditionally on the Divine
  cognizance; viewed, however, in themselves, they desist not from the
  absolute freedom naturally theirs. Accordingly, without doubt, all
  things will come to pass which God foreknows as about to happen, but of
  these certain proceed of free will; and though these happen, yet by the
  fact of their existence they do not lose their proper nature, in virtue
  of which before they happened it was really possible that they might not
  have come to pass.
  
  'What difference, then, does the denial of necessity make, since,
  through their being conditioned by Divine knowledge, they come to pass
  as if they were in all respects under the compulsion of necessity? This
  difference, surely, which we saw in the case of the instances I formerly
  took, the sun's rising and the man's walking; which at the moment of
  their occurrence could not but be taking place, and yet one of them
  before it took place was necessarily obliged to be, while the other was
  not so at all. So likewise the things which to God are present without
  doubt exist, but some of them come from the necessity of things, others
  from the power of the agent. Quite rightly, then, have we said that
  these things are necessary if viewed from the standpoint of the Divine
  knowledge; but if they are considered in themselves, they are free from
  the bonds of necessity, even as everything which is accessible to sense,
  regarded from the standpoint of Thought, is universal, but viewed in its
  own nature particular. "But," thou wilt say, "if it is in my power to
  change my purpose, I shall make void providence, since I shall perchance
  change something which comes within its foreknowledge." My answer is:
  Thou canst indeed turn aside thy purpose; but since the truth of
  providence is ever at hand to see that thou canst, and whether thou
  dost, and whither thou turnest thyself, thou canst not avoid the Divine
  foreknowledge, even as thou canst not escape the sight of a present
  spectator, although of thy free will thou turn thyself to various
  actions. Wilt thou, then, say: "Shall the Divine knowledge be changed at
  my discretion, so that, when I will this or that, providence changes its
  knowledge correspondingly?"
  
  'Surely not.'
  
  'True, for the Divine vision anticipates all that is coming, and
  transforms and reduces it to the form of its own present knowledge, and
  varies not, as thou deemest, in its foreknowledge, alternating to this
  or that, but in a single flash it forestalls and includes thy mutations
  without altering. And this ever-present comprehension and survey of all
  things God has received, not from the issue of future events, but from
  the simplicity of His own nature. Hereby also is resolved the objection
  which a little while ago gave thee offence--that our doings in the
  future were spoken of as if supplying the cause of God's knowledge. For
  this faculty of knowledge, embracing all things in its immediate
  cognizance, has itself fixed the bounds of all things, yet itself owes
  nothing to what comes after.
  
  'And all this being so, the freedom of man's will stands unshaken, and
  laws are not unrighteous, since their rewards and punishments are held
  forth to wills unbound by any necessity. God, who foreknoweth all
  things, still looks down from above, and the ever-present eternity of
  His vision concurs with the future character of all our acts, and
  dispenseth to the good rewards, to the bad punishments. Our hopes and
  prayers also are not fixed on God in vain, and when they are rightly
  directed cannot fail of effect. Therefore, withstand vice, practise
  virtue, lift up your souls to right hopes, offer humble prayers to
  Heaven. Great is the necessity of righteousness laid upon you if ye will
  not hide it from yourselves, seeing that all your actions are done
  before the eyes of a Judge who seeth all things.'
  
  FOOTNOTES:
  
  [S] Plato expressly states the opposite in the 'Timaeus' (28B), though
  possibly there the account of the beginning of the world in time is to
  be understood figuratively, not literally. See Jowett, vol. iii., pp.
  448, 449 (3rd edit.).
  
  
  
  
  </CHAPTER>
  
feat_summary_name: Summary of Book V Part I-VI
target: of Parts I and II       Boethius tells Philosophy he wants her to go more deeply into the topic of chance. Is there such a thing as random chance ruling our lives? Perhaps that is how he ended up in prison. Philosophy says if you define chance as randomness, there is no such thing. If God is maintaining order, there cannot be something random happening someplace, for "nothing comes out of nothing" . Boethius replies, how about accidents? Philosophy mentions that Aristotle's definition of chance in his Physics is, something done with one purpose, but getting a different result than was intended. Yet, it is not chance, for there are hidden causes. It may be that multiple and conflicting causes are at work, outside of the intention of the doers. If you define chance as an unpredicted or unexpected event, then perhaps you can say yes, though the events are still under the rule of law. Boethius asks if there is such a thing as free will? Philosophy replies that there is freedom for rational creatures. Humans are rational and cannot exist without it. A rational creature must choose, though freedom may not be equal for all, depending on one's clarity. Humans are more free when they participate in the contemplation of God, and less free when they act out of bodily desires. If they are wicked, they are mere slaves to their own destructive will. These choices are all visible to the eye of Providence, which predestines award or punishment according to merit.
feat_summary_analysis: Commentary on Parts I and II       Providence is the all-knowing vision of God in eternity, who sees past, present, and future at once. Humans have free will, and God, watching the choice from on high, is ready with the "predestined" reward or punishment. The person's fate is not actually predetermined by God but given by God as a natural consequence of the person's free will. Philosophy says there is no chance or accident. Whether or not we can see all the causes, everything works out in an orderly and just fashion. Summary of Parts III and IV       Boethius is puzzled how there can be freedom of will if God already knows what we will do. If it is known, isn't it already decided then? It would not then be possible to change one's mind. Philosophy says that if something is to happen, it cannot be concealed from Providence. People wonder if foreknowledge of the future causes the future? How can God foreknow events that are still uncertain and being decided by an individual? If Providence is the same as certainty about the future, how meaningful is prayer, hope, and the relationship between God and human? Philosophy says this is an old debate, but human reasoning cannot understand "the immediacy of divine foreknowledge" . Free will is not hindered by God's foreknowledge, which is merely knowledge of what is about to happen. One can know something is going on without having any influence on it. It does not make what is happening inevitable. Seeing something and necessity are not the same thing. Different creatures have different abilities to know. Sense perception is the lowest faculty, common with animals. They only know things through their bodily senses. Imagination is a higher power because it does not depend on physical objects. Reason is higher still because it can understand the universal law by inference. The highest form of knowing is pure intelligence itself, and this intelligence sees the Idea or "simple form" in the mind of God . This highest knowing, only available to God, sees "by a single glance of the mind" . The lower kind of knowing cannot grasp the higher knowing. Commentary on Parts III and IV       Philosophy gives a very important answer to Boethius's question about free will and Providence. It is a hotly debated question in philosophy about how God can know the future if humans have free will. What if they have not decided yet? There are those who believe that predestination is what is really going on, and humans only think they have free will. If God already knows, for instance, which souls will be saved, why should humans even bother trying to be good? It has been predetermined, like loaded dice. Philosophy tells Boethius it may seem like a paradox, but God's foreknowledge of how things will turn out does not interfere with human free will. She gives the answer that there are different forms of knowledge, and someone who has a lower ability cannot comprehend a higher ability. Animals, for instance, have sense perception, or knowing by the senses. Humans can go farther by imagining things that are not present. They can also use the mind to reason about the invisible laws of nature from inference. But an even higher knowledge like God's comes from pure intelligence, which knows everything at once without regard to time. Humans know in sequence, one thing at a time, in terms of past, present, and future, but God can know immediately what is going on everywhere. That does not mean God is interfering with us. Philosophy recites a poem about knowledge, explaining the passive model of the mind taught by the Stoics. Stoicism was a material philosophy founded by Zeno of Citium . Stoics thought the mind merely received sense impressions as on a wax tablet. As a Platonist, Boethius denied this model of knowledge. For him, the mind is spiritual and powerfully active, able to analyze and synthesize and know the truth beyond sense impression. Humans may not know like God knows, but they can participate with God in the divine nature of life through reason. Summary of Parts V and VI       Philosophy continues the topic of different kinds of knowing. Reason belongs only to the human race, just as pure intelligence belongs to divinity. Divine intelligence comprehends the lower kinds of knowing, yet human reason refuses to believe that divine intelligence can see the future in a "boundless immediacy" . Eternity is the "complete, simultaneous and perfect possession of everlasting life"  while those who live in time experience past, present, and future. Humans catch a fleeting and transitory glimpse of life only. To experience the whole of life in the present moment is characteristic of the mind of God. His knowledge transcends change. Commentary on Parts V and VI       The book finishes with this discussion of God's foreknowledge. Philosophy ends her teaching to Boethius in prison with this point in order to give him faith in Providence. Are his suffering and imprisonment simply due to chance or evil? Or can he have faith that God has foreseen all and that even the death of Boethius will be part of the good, of God's providential foresight? God sees what is happening in a never-ending present moment. The divine gaze "looks down on all things without disturbing their nature" . If God is on high witnessing this fate for Boethius, then it is necessary for it to happen, though God is not causing it to happen. God is the "spectator from on high of all things" . Therefore, Philosophy concludes, "Avoid vice . . . cultivate virtue; lift up your mind to the right kind of hope, and put forth humble prayers on high" . She has comforted Boethius with the idea that God is near and part of our human nature. We are always free to be with God and part of the good, no matter what fate we are handed in the world by Fortune. Book V of Parts I and II Boethius tells Philosophy he wants her to go more deeply into the topic of chance. Is there such a thing as random chance ruling our lives? Perhaps that is how he ended up in prison. Philosophy says if you define chance as randomness, there is no such thing. If God is maintaining order, there cannot be something random happening someplace, for "nothing comes out of nothing" . Boethius replies, how about accidents? Philosophy mentions that Aristotle's definition of chance in his Physics is, something done with one purpose, but getting a different result than was intended. Yet, it is not chance, for there are hidden causes. It may be that multiple and conflicting causes are at work, outside of the intention of the doers. If you define chance as an unpredicted or unexpected event, then perhaps you can say yes, though the events are still under the rule of law. Boethius asks if there is such a thing as free will? Philosophy replies that there is freedom for rational creatures. Humans are rational and cannot exist without it. A rational creature must choose, though freedom may not be equal for all, depending on one's clarity. Humans are more free when they participate in the contemplation of God, and less free when they act out of bodily desires. If they are wicked, they are mere slaves to their own destructive will. These choices are all visible to the eye of Providence, which predestines award or punishment according to merit. Commentary on Parts I and II Commentary on Parts I and II Providence is the all-knowing vision of God in eternity, who sees past, present, and future at once. Humans have free will, and God, watching the choice from on high, is ready with the "predestined" reward or punishment. The person's fate is not actually predetermined by God but given by God as a natural consequence of the person's free will. Philosophy says there is no chance or accident. Whether or not we can see all the causes, everything works out in an orderly and just fashion. of Parts III and IV Boethius is puzzled how there can be freedom of will if God already knows what we will do. If it is known, isn't it already decided then? It would not then be possible to change one's mind. Philosophy says that if something is to happen, it cannot be concealed from Providence. People wonder if foreknowledge of the future causes the future? How can God foreknow events that are still uncertain and being decided by an individual? If Providence is the same as certainty about the future, how meaningful is prayer, hope, and the relationship between God and human? Philosophy says this is an old debate, but human reasoning cannot understand "the immediacy of divine foreknowledge" . Free will is not hindered by God's foreknowledge, which is merely knowledge of what is about to happen. One can know something is going on without having any influence on it. It does not make what is happening inevitable. Seeing something and necessity are not the same thing. Different creatures have different abilities to know. Sense perception is the lowest faculty, common with animals. They only know things through their bodily senses. Imagination is a higher power because it does not depend on physical objects. Reason is higher still because it can understand the universal law by inference. The highest form of knowing is pure intelligence itself, and this intelligence sees the Idea or "simple form" in the mind of God . This highest knowing, only available to God, sees "by a single glance of the mind" . The lower kind of knowing cannot grasp the higher knowing. Commentary on Parts III and IV Commentary on Parts III and IV Philosophy gives a very important answer to Boethius's question about free will and Providence. It is a hotly debated question in philosophy about how God can know the future if humans have free will. What if they have not decided yet? There are those who believe that predestination is what is really going on, and humans only think they have free will. If God already knows, for instance, which souls will be saved, why should humans even bother trying to be good? It has been predetermined, like loaded dice. Philosophy tells Boethius it may seem like a paradox, but God's foreknowledge of how things will turn out does not interfere with human free will. She gives the answer that there are different forms of knowledge, and someone who has a lower ability cannot comprehend a higher ability. Animals, for instance, have sense perception, or knowing by the senses. Humans can go farther by imagining things that are not present. They can also use the mind to reason about the invisible laws of nature from inference. But an even higher knowledge like God's comes from pure intelligence, which knows everything at once without regard to time. Humans know in sequence, one thing at a time, in terms of past, present, and future, but God can know immediately what is going on everywhere. That does not mean God is interfering with us. Philosophy recites a poem about knowledge, explaining the passive model of the mind taught by the Stoics. Stoicism was a material philosophy founded by Zeno of Citium . Stoics thought the mind merely received sense impressions as on a wax tablet. As a Platonist, Boethius denied this model of knowledge. For him, the mind is spiritual and powerfully active, able to analyze and synthesize and know the truth beyond sense impression. Humans may not know like God knows, but they can participate with God in the divine nature of life through reason. of Parts V and VI Philosophy continues the topic of different kinds of knowing. Reason belongs only to the human race, just as pure intelligence belongs to divinity. Divine intelligence comprehends the lower kinds of knowing, yet human reason refuses to believe that divine intelligence can see the future in a "boundless immediacy" . Eternity is the "complete, simultaneous and perfect possession of everlasting life" while those who live in time experience past, present, and future. Humans catch a fleeting and transitory glimpse of life only. To experience the whole of life in the present moment is characteristic of the mind of God. His knowledge transcends change. Commentary on Parts V and VI Commentary on Parts V and VI The book finishes with this discussion of God's foreknowledge. Philosophy ends her teaching to Boethius in prison with this point in order to give him faith in Providence. Are his suffering and imprisonment simply due to chance or evil? Or can he have faith that God has foreseen all and that even the death of Boethius will be part of the good, of God's providential foresight? God sees what is happening in a never-ending present moment. The divine gaze "looks down on all things without disturbing their nature" . If God is on high witnessing this fate for Boethius, then it is necessary for it to happen, though God is not causing it to happen. God is the "spectator from on high of all things" . Therefore, Philosophy concludes, "Avoid vice . . . cultivate virtue; lift up your mind to the right kind of hope, and put forth humble prayers on high" . She has comforted Boethius with the idea that God is near and part of our human nature. We are always free to be with God and part of the good, no matter what fate we are handed in the world by Fortune. Novel Author Boethius Novel Author Boethius