Final

My Final Project Can be seen using this link. 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1igYr_wBo0nTnNabWdneVRlVmc/view?usp=sharing

    My project as 3 parts. Aristotle and the mountain, Plato and the cave, and Boethius. 

    Aristotle and the mountain is showing the line of thought where he is trying to get to the supreme good in the world. Other people we talked about this semester were also Aristotelian in thought, including Moses, Paul, Augustine, and Benedict. Benedict was a monk who wanted to live a very strict lifestyle to become the best person he could, striving for the greater good, or God. Augustine in his confessions is saying that he needs to do better, and string for the same thing Boethius is, just in a different way. 

     Plato is talking about how we need to step outside of our "cave" and find the greater truth. People who are more Platonic in thought include Holmes, Dewey, and Basil. Basil discusses how we should be reading everything we can, including secular sources, to find the truth about God. He wants us to have a whole understanding of things. Holmes is similar in his argument for a liberal arts education. He wants people to have a wide range of understanding to be able to find the greater truth. 

     Boethius synthesizes the two. He would say that the supreme good is God, and we should strive to learn about him and get to know him in a multitude of ways. In his conversation with Philosophy the point is made that God is the supreme good, and that only through learning about him can we reach it, however we choose to learn about him. So he is in the middle of the two, as a bridge Christianize both of them and pointing everything to God.

ht

tps://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1igYr_wBo0nTnNabWdneVRlVmc/view?usp=sharing

Boethius

Boethius in his books brings up a ton of interesting points. From thought about supreme good, to being moral, happiness, and how to get there, there is a lot of different things. Now the thing that is remarkably missing is Christ. As Philosophy is talking to Boethius about how to gain happiness, and what to do, and to in some ways suck it up and what supreme good is, Christ is never mentioned. I think this is because philosophy, in this conversation, was completely focused on Boethius’s perspective, and how things affected him. She guides him from the things he does to be happy, from wealth to fame to plenty of other things. In this Philosophy is revealing things wrong with Boethius and his perspective. Obviously here there is no need for Christ, because he doesn’t have a bad perspective. Boethius needs to know the ways he is approaching happiness wrong, so that’s the focus. She goes through one thing after another proving that Boethius is working towards the wrong things in life, that he must change. She then goes on to take this a step further. Not only are these the wrong things to be going for, but they are harmful to go after. I agree. From fame, to money, to power it’s bad to chase after that in your life. The only way that can bring true happiness is God, as Philosophy describes as supreme good. God being something that is completely and satisfactorily good. Philosophy makes a good point here, but I feel as though Jesus added in here would enhance her argument. By pointing to someone who chased the right things Philosophy could help boethius do the same. The things he has been chasing must be replaced, and Philosophy’s argument is weak there. Every time in my life, when I change a bad habit, I must fill it with something-hopefully Jesus. By not even mentioning him, Philosophy misses that step. Taking this a step further, by chasing Jesus, or God, you can be truly happy, because he is the supreme good, and that is what makes you happy.

There is another point that I really liked about Philosophy. She didn't describe it in much detail, but suggested that we are all striving to be the supreme good, to be like God. This fits in perfectly with the Bible where we are striving to be like Christ lived. I love the picture of us all chasing Jesus, trying to emulate him, falling short, but following nonetheless. It's a beautiful picture of how our relationship with Christ ought to be, and I really love it. I think also that adding Christ here would allow Philosophy to take her whole argument to the next level, not just changing Boethius’s thinking, but changing him as well.

So I think Christ should have been added. I understand why it wasn't because Philosophy was so focused on Boethius, but I believe adding Christ into it would have enhanced the piece as a whole. I really enjoyed the piece, and saw connections to the bible throughout. I think applying this in my life would be really helpful, making sure I chase the right things, not just temporary happiness.