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. However, the interaction between religious and pagan philosophies was not always welcome; nor did the principles of one always suit those of the other. Among the conflicts caused by the exposure of traditional religions to Greek philosophy there was, and continues to exist, one particularly well-known: the problem of evil. It was this problem, in company with others, that Boethius set out to resolve in his Consolation of Philosophy. Boethius, himself a kind of convergence of Hellenic and Christian thought, would have been compelled and even qualified to provide the synthesis his argument required. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original EssayBefore assessing the measure of success enjoyed by Boethius' work in his synthesis of Christian and Hellenic thought, or in his response to the problem of evil, we must first consider exactly the problem of evil and its origins. The problem of evil is perhaps best expressed by Epicurus, who is often credited with having first exposed it: "Either God wants to abolish evil and cannot; or he can, but does not want. If he wants, but cannot, it is powerless. If he can, but does not want to, he is evil. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?". Consequently, the problem of evil is the problem of the coexistence of evil in the world and an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent God. If we deny either that evil exists in the world or that God possesses any of these properties, the problem of evil collapses. Although attempts could be made in this sense, the traditional Christian or monotheist of sound reason could deny neither a manifest reality nor a representation of God so deeply rooted in his faith. Much of the Christian and Islamic exposure to Greek thought in late antiquity and the early Middle Ages was tempered by Plato's later interpreters: the Neoplatonists. Indeed, Neoplatonism itself was a step away from more rigorous Platonism in the direction of religion, taking many of the religious nuances of Platonic thought and preparing them for religious interpretation. Perhaps there is no clearer example of this than in the identification of the Form of the Good in Plato's work with the Neoplatonic one. With this identification the Neoplatonist had begun to personify what in Plato was only the austere and abstract notion of the greatest of perfect representations, namely the Forms. This Neoplatonic interpretation in turn prepared a further association made by traditional monotheisms: that of the Form of the Good with Plato's God. And so, for the traditional monotheist, God became more or less the personal embodiment of all that was perfect or, in other words, completely perfect. Aristotle, first for Muslims and then for Christians, also contributed to strengthening this image of God with his notions of the uncreated Creator or Prime Mover. Plotinus and other Neoplatonists also provided a kind of bridge between the divine and material realms of Plato's thought. metaphysics in their theory of emanations. According to this account, creation emerged or emanated from the thought of God, forming a material world that was as spiritual as 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 significantly undermine the entire Neoplatonic picture of the nature of God and the nature of Creation. A similar stance on the problem of evil – or perhaps rather arejection of the existence of any problem of evil – will subsequently also be adopted by Augustine. Having been strongly influenced by Neoplatonic thought, even the traditional monotheist would have found himself unable to compromise his idyllic God, but perhaps not as comfortable as St. Augustine or Plotinus in denying the tangible reality of evil. Boethius addresses the problem of evil in the fourth chapter of his Consolation of Philosophy. There he states that the wicked are in fact weak and cannot reach the supreme good of happiness, because they seek it in misleading ways. Furthermore, Boethius argues that evil men cease to exist as they are and thus become subhuman beasts. Since the wicked are helpless, unhappy, and animal-like figures as a result of 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 world events are governed by divine Providence, or Fate, as we temporal beings call it. While our image of the world is limited, God's Providence encloses everything in a single present. Therefore, because we are unable to see all things at once as Providence does, we often assume that a cruel and disorderly Fate rules the universe. However, even if some evil assails you, it is actually a good thing, because it is Providence that directs you towards virtue. In his response to the problem of evil, Boethius conveys both philosophical and Christian thought. His claim that evil is powerless because it cannot control the minds or souls of others fits well with the philosophies of the Stoics, Plato, and the Neoplatonists, all of whom held (some more than others) that the affairs of the physical realm were inferior. to the development or practice of the soul. From the previous chapter we also witness the influence of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, when Boethius underlines happiness as the supreme good; a point he uses in chapter four when he says that evil men are weak and inhuman because they cannot achieve the highest good they seek. Furthermore, Boethius' statement that all that exists is good and his argument that evil has no power or substance is a mere reflection of Neoplatonic thought. There seems, however, to be a certain Christian nuance to Boethius's addressing of the problem of evil, particularly in his discourse on Providence. There Boethius seems to appeal more to a strictly religious conception of God, more along the lines of that revealed in the gospels than supposed in Plotinus' words. Since Boethius is unable to solve Christian problems with largely philosophical methods, I think his attempt at synthesis is also fruitless. Boethius' response to the problem of evil fails first and foremost because it does not deal directly with the problem but rather seems to dance eloquently around it. Perhaps it answers other questions, such as “Why does evil go unpunished?” or “Why is evil often powerful 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 according to which everything is instructed by a divine Providence poses problems not only for human free will, but also raises the question: why should human beings be taught towards goodness by some divine government if God could have simply made them all good in the first place? place? The traditional monotheistic answer to the problem of evil is that human free will leads to evil in the world, as in the case of original sin. However, there are several problems that arise from such a defense, which mainly revolve around the idea that God foreknows all the choices we will make and all the events that,.