119 - John Marenbon on Boethius

Wonderful podcast that really gets down to the bones of what Boethius has to say. Boethius masterfully comes up with a good solution to the problem of free will, with an explanation of God as somehow atemporal: "simultaneous" with past present and future. But this immediately raises another problem not often spotted: that according to the Christian doctrine a providential all loving God rules the world who can individually love you. But the whole point about love is its commitment to unconditionality. You love the other person come what may, for "better and for worse": as a parent loves their child without having any real knowledge how they are going to turn out. In other words the unconditionality of love is premised on the unknowability of the future. Now if God has this foreknowledge (and indeed according to Boethius, in some sense, is this foreknowledge) then this God cannot possibly love you in any intelligible human sense.
In this way I see Boethius's philosophy as a kind of anticipation of Spinoza: it is perfectly natural for humans to love God, while it is completely unintelligible to expect this God to somehow love you back!

Many thanks, Padmadipa

Well I was sorry to see the Ancients go. However, Boethius does have an interesting side to him with the creation of the game Rithmomachia based on his mathmatical works. After having a go at it I can appreciate why the 'Philosophers Game' would not replace the video game. not many dead aliens. However, I thoroughly enjoy Michael Dummett's works on playing Tarot games and have tried them with a few with friends and family. These are classics of playing card game collections. Can anyone else suggest other links between actual games that are played, not just theories, and Philosphers? Some of them must have had moments when they enjoyed themselves. Perhaps, Sartre playing charades or Nietzsche kicking over kids sandcastles?

Hi Mr Adamson...I am not so good in listening in English...I can not comprehend some parts of the podcast...how can I use text of these podcasts to underestand them better...thanks.

Hi professor Adamson....I will be thankful if you help me and send the books in philosophy that you and your collegues teach in B.A degree in Kings College. thanks.

Ok, I am officially spooked. Minding my own business listening to HoP 119 (I'm on catch up), John Marenbon mentions drinking coffee and I get offered coffee at the same time on my train. (I turned it down, but you knew that)

Peter-Just catching up with your wonderful series and have paused at the end of the ancient Christianity section.
I thoroughly enjoyed the Boethius interview with John Marenbon and turned to the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy to read more about Boethius' ideas on God's prescience etc.
However I found myself more confused than enlightened. I think the clue to my difficulty was when John Marenbon mentioned Propositional Logic and I do not have a working knowledge of this. The following summary seemed to make sense (to me):

"7. If God sees all things and can in no way be mistaken, then there necessarily happens what he by providence will have foreseen will be.
8. If things are capable of turning out differently from how they have been foreseen, then there will no longer be firm foreknowledge of the future, but rather uncertain opinion…”
“9. God knows every event, including all future ones.
10. When someone knows that an event will happen, then the event will happen.
11. (10) is true as a matter of necessity, because it is impossible to know that which is not the case.
12. If someone knows an event will happen, it will happen necessarily. (10, 11)
13. Every event, including future ones, happens necessarily. (9, 12)”

The author then goes on to state:

“The pattern behind (8) will be similar, but in reverse: from a negation of (13), the negation of (9) will be seen to follow. But, as it is easy to observe, (9–13) is a fallacious argument: (10) and (11) imply, not (12), but
14. Necessarily, if someone knows an event will happen, it will happen."

The author justifies this criticism, thus:

"The fallacy, therefore, concerns the scope of the necessity operator. Boethius has mistakenly inferred the (narrow-scope) necessity of the consequent (‘the event will happen’), when he is entitled only to infer the (wide-scope) necessity of the whole conditional (‘if someone knows an event will happen, it will happen’). Boethius the character is clearly taken in by this fallacious argument, and there is no good reason to think that Boethius the author ever became aware of the fallacy".

Poor old Boethius, that’s put him in his place.
Now without being able to verify that the criticism is correct I am interested to know whether the common reader/listener of early philosophy is in the position of a reader of popular books on, say, physics where, without the mathematical background, he learns by analogy? Should we quickly become familiar with current PL before moving on or looking back?
Of course when you get to do an episode on Frege it will all be clear!