Evil as Nothing

Modern Schoolman 89 (3-4):131-145 (2012)
Abstract
Anselm inherited a Platonizing approach to philosophy from Augustine and Boethius. But he characteristically reworked what he found in their texts by questioning and disputing it into something more rigorous. In this paper, I compare and contrast Anselm’s treatment of the trope ‘evil is nothing, not a being’ withBoethius’s use of it in The Consolation of Philosophy. In the first section, I expose a fallacious argument form common to them both: paradigm Fness is identical with paradigm Gness; X participates in paradigm Fness and so is F; therefore, X participates in paradigm Gness and so is G. In the second section, I contrast Philosophy’s “strong medicine”—‘evil is nothing,’ ‘evil-doings are nothing,’ ‘evil humans do not exist’—with Anselm’s development of the point that injustice is a privation and so parasitic on the beings that are deprived. By contrast with Boethius, Anselm emphasizes that the willinstrument, will-power, the will’s action and turnings are something and so from God. Likewise, Anselm insists—pace Boethius—that Adam’s fallen race is still the human race. In the final section, I turnto Anselm’s distinction between injustice (iniustitia) and disadvantage (incommoda), his concession that some disadvantages are something, and his explanation of happiness in terms of advantage or bona sibi. For Anselm, happiness and justice break apart, so that it is possible in this world for the just to lack advantage. Moreover, in the world to come, the damned will suffer radical deprivation—not only of the justice, which they deserted, but of advantages. I contrastthis with Boethius’s insistence (based on the argument in section I) that virtue suffices for happiness and vice for unhappiness, and that there is no such thing as bad fortune. I conclude by pondering why Anselm treated disadvantage as a something rather than as a misfit between somethings
Keywords Catholic Tradition  History of Philosophy  Philosophy and Religion
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s) 0026-8402
DOI 10.5840/schoolman2012893/49
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 38,035
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Anselm on Freedom. [REVIEW]Thomas Williams - 2009 - Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews 2009.
In Defense of Anselm.Mark Owen Webb - 2005 - Philo 8 (1):55-58.
Anselm on Freedom and the Will.Jasper Hopkins - 1983 - Philosophy Research Archives 9:471-493.
Anselm on Ethics.Jeffrey E. Brower - 2004 - In Brian Davies & Brian Leftow (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Anselm. Cambridge University Press. pp. 222-56.
The Modal Unity of Anselm's Proslogion.Gary Mar - 1996 - Faith and Philosophy 13 (1):50-67.
A Careful Reading of St. Anselm's Ontological Argument.Clint I. Barrett - 2011 - Philosophy and Theology 23 (2):217-230.
Freedom, Inclinations of the Will, and Virtue in Anselm's Moral Th Eory.Gregory B. Sadler - 2007 - Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 81:91-108.
Truth, Freedom, and Evil. Anselm - 1965 - New York: Harper & Row.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2013-04-04

Total views
80 ( #85,448 of 2,312,700 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
11 ( #53,913 of 2,312,700 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature