The influence of Greek philosophy on the theologies of traditional monotheisms was immense, shaping each theology's conception of God according to the doctrines of philosophers such as Plato, Aristotle and Zeno. The interaction between religious and pagan philosophies has not always been welcomed, however; and the principles of some were not always accommodating with those of others. Among the conflicts caused by the exposure of traditional religions to Greek philosophy, there existed and continues to exist, a particularly famous one: the problem of evil. It is this problem, along with others, that Boethius undertook to resolve in his Consolation of Philosophy. Boethius, himself a sort of convergence of Hellenic and Christian thought, would have been compelled and qualified to provide such a synthesis as his subject demanded. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essayBefore assessing the measure of success enjoyed by Boethius's work in its synthesis of Christian and Hellenic thought, or in its response to the problem of evil, we must first consider precisely the problem of evil and its origins. The problem of evil is perhaps best posed by Epicurus, who is often credited with first exposing it: “Either God wants to abolish evil and cannot; or he can, but doesn't want to. is powerless. If he can, but doesn't want to, he is evil. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world? Therefore, the problem of evil is the problem of the coexistence of evil in the world and an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God. If one denies either that there is evil in the world or that God has any of these properties, the problem of evil collapses. Although attempts may have been made in this direction, the traditional Christian or monotheist endowed with sound reason could deny neither a manifest reality nor a representation of God so deeply anchored in his belief. The Middle Ages were tempered by Plato's later interpreters, the Neoplatonists. In fact, Neoplatonism was itself a step forward from a stricter Platonism in the sense of religion, taking many of the religious connotations of Platonic thought and preparing them for religious interpretation. There is perhaps no better example of this than in the identification of the Form of the Good in Plato's work with the Neoplatonic Form. By this identification, the Neoplatonist had begun to personify what was in Plato only the austere and abstract notion of the greatest of perfect representations, or Forms. This neoplatonic interpretation in turn prepared another association made by traditional monotheisms – that of Plato's Form of the Good with God. Thus, for the traditional monotheist, God became more or less a personal embodiment of all that was perfect – or in other words, completely perfect. Aristotle, first for Muslims and later for Christians, would also help to reinforce this image of God with his notions of the uncreated Creator or Prime Mover. Plotinus and other Neoplatonists also provided a sort of bridge between the divine and material realms in Plato's work. metaphysics in their theory of emanations. According to this account, creation emerged or emanated from the mind of God, forming a spiritual material world like its Creator. From what has been said so far about Neoplatonism, it is not surprising that the Neoplatonist often denied the existence of evil in the world; a concession, it seems, that would greatly undermine the entire Neoplatonic framework of the nature of God and the nature ofCreation. Such a position regarding the problem of evil – or perhaps rather a rejection of the existence of a problem of evil – would also later be adopted by Augustine. Having been heavily influenced by Neoplatonic thought, the traditional monotheist would also have found himself unable to compromise his idyllic God, but perhaps not as comfortable as St. Augustine or Plotinus in denying the very tangible reality of evil. Boethius addresses the problem of evil in the fourth chapter of his work. Consolation of philosophy. In it he asserts that the wicked are in fact weak and cannot attain the highest good of happiness, because they seek it through erroneous means. Furthermore, Boethius argues that evil men cease to exist as they are and thus become subhuman beasts. Because the wicked are helpless, unhappy, and animal-like due to their own evil deeds, we cannot say that their actions go unpunished; for evil, like virtue, is its own reward. Boethius also tells us that the events of the world are governed by divine Providence, or Destiny, as we temporal beings call it. While our worldview is limited, God's providence encompasses everything in a singular present. Therefore, because we are not able to see all things at once as Providence does, we often assume that a cruel and disorderly fate governs the universe. However, even if an evil assail you, it is in fact good, because it is Providence which directs you towards virtue. In his response to the problem of evil, Boethius transmits a thought that is both philosophical and Christian. His assertion that the wicked are powerless because they cannot control the minds or souls of others fits well with the philosophies of the Stoics, Plato, and Neoplatonists, all of whom thought (some more than others) that affairs in the physical realm were inferior. to the development or practice of the soul. In the previous chapter we also witness the influence of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, when Boethius emphasizes happiness as the highest good; a point he uses in chapter four when he says that wicked men are weak and inhuman because they cannot achieve the highest good they seek. Furthermore, Boethius' statement that everything that exists is good and his argument that evil has no power or substance are a mere reflection of Neoplatonic thought. There does, however, seem to be a certain Christian connotation in the way Boethius approaches the problem of evil, particularly in his discourse on Providence. Here, Boethius seems to appeal more to a strictly religious conception of God, closer to that revealed in the gospels than assumed in the words of Plotinus. Because Boethius fails to resolve Christian-type problems with broadly philosophical methods, I think his attempt at synthesis also fails. Boethius' response to the problem of evil fails primarily because it does not address the problem directly but rather seems to dance around it eloquently. Perhaps this answers other questions, such as "Why does evil go unpunished?" » or “Why is evil often strong and good weak?” but it does not reconcile the existence or origin of evil with the qualities that the Christian attributes to God. Furthermore, the argument that everything is instructed by a divine providence poses problems not only for human free will, but also raises the question: why should humans be instructed towards the good by some divine governance if Could God have just made them all good at first? The monotheistic response,.