This post really could fit in my series called ‘Recent Reading,’ in which I simply express thoughts on, and applications I take from, books I have recently read (this is the main purpose of the blog). But this one is a bit more in depth that what I typically like to do here. It has almost taken the shape of an article (and a bad one at that, for it hasn’t been proofread). I have been thinking about the things I am going to note here for the better part of a year and planning to codify the main points I took from one part of this book in writing. It’s taken a while to motivate myself to do so, for there are some grand and deep thoughts and arguments set forth in this book (not all of which I necessarily agree with). But here goes:

I bought the Consolation of Philosophy for a dollar at a, you guessed it, dollar store about a year ago. I was previously aware of the book because I had seen it on a list of the works that had most influenced C.S. Lewis.

The book is purely philosophical. Though Boethius was a Christian, he refrains from using any Scripture (or even traditional Christian standards) in the book. The book was written in the early 6^th century A.D. and has well stood the test of time.

It is easy to see where the book primarily influenced Lewis. In the closing chapters, Boethius works out, philosophically, what has been called the ‘free will’ argument for the existence of evil. This is an argument that Lewis used quite often (for instance, in the Problem of Pain).

Yet in my own reading of the book I was not so much impressed with his free will argument as with his argument of man’s highest good, and his seeking of that highest good. I have no doubt that Lewis agreed with Boethius in this area, but this is not the aspect of the work that he called attention to.

Boethius contends that man’s highest good, and the end that all men are constantly striving for, is happiness.

As an aside, before I begin to quote, and develop the argument of, Boethius, let me say up front that my goal is to point out that Boethius is one major teacher in a stream of teaching which has been passed on in the church from (aside from many others I won’t name) Augustine, to the Puritans, and on to John Piper (which he calls Christian Hedonism). I personally believe this teaching, and found a surprise proponent in Boethius. That he held this idea should become clear. How it contributes uniquely to the idea may be for others to figure out. If someone with interest in this comes across my notes, I would encourage you to take what I have written and use it to further the idea.

I summarize the train of Boethius’ thought with the bold points headed by Roman numerals.

I. Happiness is the Highest Good and Chief Pursuit of Man

Boethius develops this point in Book III, True Happiness and False:

All mortal creatures in those anxious aims which find employment in so many varied pursuits, though they take many paths, yet strive to reach one goal – the goal of happiness. Now, the good is that which, when a man hath got, he can lack nothing further. That it is which is the supreme good of all, containing within itself all particular good; so that if anything is still lacking, thereto, this cannot be the supreme good, since something would be left outside which might be desired. Tis clear, then, that happiness is a state perfected by the assembling together of all good things. To this state, as we have said, all men try to attain, but by different paths.

II. Happiness is Sought by Man in Various Ways

He then goes on to point out various ways by which men attempt to seek happiness:

Some, deeming it the highest good to want for nothing, spare no pains to attain affluence; others, judging the good to be that to which respect is most worthily paid, strive to win the reverence of their fellow citizens by the attainment of official dignity. Some there are who fix the chief good in supreme power; these either wish themselves to enjoy sovereignty, or try to attach themselves to those who have it. ..A great many measure the attainment of good by joy and gladness of heart; these think it the height of happiness to give themselves over to pleasure…

In all, Boethius list of ways that men seek happiness as their highest end includes (seeking happiness through) (1) monetary wealth, (2) attainment of office, (3) attainment of power, (4) attachment to those who have power, (5) fame, (6) hedonism, (7) popularity, (8) wife and children, (9) friendship, and (10) bodily excellency (i.e. beauty, physical strength, athletic ability, good health). It seems then that mankind’s pursuit of happiness hasn’t changed that much over the last 1500 years!

III. Man Generally Seeks Happiness in the Wrong Way(s)

After giving his list and proofs of the universal desire of mankind to seek happiness as its highest good, he contends that in so doing man is seeking to ‘recover’ something that has been lost:

Man’s mind seeks to recover its proper good, in spite of the mistiness of its recollection, but, like a drunken man, knows not by what path to return home.

So then, for Boethius, the problem is not that mankind is seeking happiness (this is certainly a good thing), but that he is seeking it in the wrong way. Man knows that there is such a thing, and that it is supremely desirable, and he is seeking after it not knowing what path to take.

But why are these wrong paths? His answer to this is that none of them are found wanting, for the true happiness ‘[has] nothing lacking to it that is good.’ Therefore those things which we think will achieve happiness, if they do not truly and fully deliver, are no true means of finding happiness:

If they are not able to fulfill their promises, and, moreover, lack many good things, is not the happiness men seek in them clearly discovered to be a false show?

For example, though many believe that wealth brings true happiness, experience teaches otherwise. Many men believe wealth will make them happy, only to find that this is certainly not the case. Likewise for those who thought having children would make them happy, ‘only too true to nature is what was said of one – that he found his sons to be his tormentors.’

So, let’s trace the argument so far. Happiness is the highest good of man, and all mankind seeks it. The ways in which different men seek it vary. All the natural means of seeking happiness have been found wanting, because all of them cannot ultimately deliver.

IV. Man’s Seeking of Happiness by Imperfect Means Presupposes a Perfect Means

Now we come to the next rung in the argument. Boethius contends that all of these various ways of seeking happiness are ‘imperfect’ ways. He then takes a big philosophical step, arguing that the existence of the imperfect things presupposes the existence of that which is perfect:

Everything which is called imperfect is spoken of as imperfect by reason of the privation of some perfection; so it comes to pass that, whenever imperfection is found in any particular, there must necessarily be a perfection in respect of that particular also. For were there no perfection, it is utterly inconceivable how that so called perfection should come into existence…So if there is, as we showed before, a happiness of a frail and imperfect kind, it cannot be doubted but there is also a happiness substantial and perfect.

V. God is Happiness itself, and is therefore the only True Means of Attaining Perfect Happiness

By this reasoning, Boethius introduces God into the equation. God is supremely good and perfect in every respect. Yet, he has already argued that happiness is supremely good, and so, he must argue that ‘true happiness must dwell in the supreme Deity.’ In simple (or at least as simple as I can put it), the argument runs like this: happiness is the supreme good, God is the supreme good, therefore it is necessary that God is Happiness.

Now I don’t suppose here that Boethius is arguing that a frame of mind or emotion is God, that would certainly be idolatry from a Christian perspective. The point he is making is that happiness is a part of God’s essence and as such all true happiness flows from him. And since this is the case man fails to find happiness because he seeks it primarily by means other than God himself.

The climax of the argument is this:

For since men become happy by the acquisition of happiness, while happiness is [God], it is manifest that they become happy by the acquisition of [God].

I place ‘God’ in brackets here. The term he actually uses is ‘Godship.’ He goes on to make the point that those who are truly happy attain a sort of divinity. I suppose he means that they become, as the Apostle Peter put it, partakers in the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4). But that point is certainly debatable.

VI. The Argument in Context

This argument, within the context of the book, is meant to speak to someone who is suffering. Suffering does not eliminate the possibility of happiness. It may do away with wealth, or beauty, or health, or power, or any number of things, but happiness is not bound up in these things. These are imperfect means we use to attain happiness. Rather, true happiness is to be found in God, who is Happiness itself, and therefore the ultimate source of all true happiness. So then, sufferer, if you lack happiness and desire it, seek after the attainment of God. I take that to be the whole point and reason of his argument.

VII. Boethius’ Teaching in the Stream of the Doctrine of Christian Hedonism (in Summary Form)

Now much more could certainly be said about this book (and perhaps I will write more about it in the future) but I wanted to summarize Boethius’ argument here for future (personal) reference and to make one specific point.

I have benefited greatly, and been edified by, John Piper’s teaching on Christian Hedonism. Piper summarizes this idea in the words ‘God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in him.’ In his exposition of this teaching he stresses the idea that man is to seek pleasure and happiness ultimately in God, who is revealed in the person of Lord Jesus Christ (hence the term Christian Hedonism).

The passage of Scripture that I most regularly associate with this idea is Psalm 16:11,

You make known to me the path of life; in your presence there is fullness of joy; at your right hand are pleasures forevermore.

Piper attributes the formation of this doctrine (outside the Scripture) to Augustine, Jonathan Edwards, and C.S. Lewis. I do not know if Lewis attributed his idea of ‘Joy’ (set forth in Surprised by Joy) to Boethius (because I have not yet read the book), but it’s likely he gleaned much from Boethius. Edwards argues for man’s attainment of happiness in God compellingly in a Dissertation Concerning the End for which God Created the World (which is, incidentally one of my favorite books). Augustine famously wrote, in the Confessions, that God himself is ‘the true, the sovereign joy’ who is ‘sweeter than all pleasure’ and that love is ‘the motion of the soul toward the enjoyment of God for His own sake, and the enjoyment of one’s self and of one’s neighbor for the sake of God.’ The Puritans who wrote the Westminster Confession of Faith summarized this idea well in their Shorter Catechism in answer to its first question: ‘Man’s chief end is to glorify God and enjoy him forever.’