A question or concern I had with Boethius, and a question I seem to have when analyzing any religious or moral text which is trying to argue a particular position, is the question of blind faith. With Boethius, as with many other texts, the reader encounters beautifully written and well thought out arguments in favor of the idea that the wicked are always punished, for example. Arguments such as this one use dialogue between multiple characters to arrive at logical, and often impressively nuanced conclusions, but my confusion lies in the fact that in the exact same text, there can be arguments based wholly on faith or deference to a higher being that seem to contradict the more logic-driven passages. The two particular examples that come to mind in Boethius are on page 138 (where Philosophy essentially posits, with a glaring lack of evidence, several possible situations for how wicked people may or may not be punished) and page 137 where Philosophy arrives at a crucial and valid skeptical question, only to avoid it entirely by concluding that we cannot question the way God works. What are we to make of the fact that such logically driven texts often arrive at questions that even these authors deem unanswerable? Is this a case of genuine deference to a divine being, or is it the case that, in situations such as these, authors feel unable to construct arguments which would serve as answers to these questions?