Philosophy in your worlds

[Mindfire]

Nietzche's proclamation that "God is dead" is certainly misunderstood by a heck of a lot of people.

Misunderstood how exactly? I don't see how it can be interpreted as anything other than a sneering condemnation of religion.

 

[Svrtnsse]

I'd like to take a step back from the discussion about Nietzche and try to get back to the original post.

To sum up the question as I recall it: "What philosophies have you created for your world."

I skimmed the thread and I saw some posters mention things they'd come up with on their own, but for the most part it seems most of you are just discussing real world philosophers and how they're represented in your works (and I think MOK is doing the right thing in not going into detail about the philosophy he's using).

What I'm pondering at the moment is how philosophies and mythologies differ from philosophies. I put the word philosophy into google and got the following definition: "Philosophy is the study of the general and fundamental nature of reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language."

When you're creating a religion, you're making up new gods and new ways for people to worship them etc (ok, I'm simplifying). If you want to create a philosophy, I think you may have to start from the ground up by making sure the entire reality is different. Sure, when building up a fantasy world, that kind of just happens as you go, but how does that affect your world's philosophers' impressions of the world?

Does the existence of gods, magic, and immortals (like elves) change the nature of life for humans? If people know that certain actions will grant them favor with certain gods, and thus improving their chances for a better afterlife, does that affect the philosophy on the nature of life? Where then is the line between philosophy and religion drawn?

My thinking is that it's likely to be very difficult for someone to create an entirely new philosophy for their world. It can probably be done, but as I haven't really studied the subject at more than a casual level I'm certain it's beyond me.

That doesn't prevent me from tinkering with other related topics, like moral codes or belief systems. People will approach life differently under different circumstances, and different cultures will value different traits in different ways.

I still think that the nature of existence is something that's much more fundamental to our understanding of life, and it's a lot more difficult to shake the connection to real world philosophy than to real world religion and morals.

...I also think I got off track and started to ramble.

 

[FifthView]

Where then is the line between philosophy and religion drawn?

That's a good question, and it's one that has been considered in real-world philosophical systems also.

For the world I'm using, the issues of religion and philosophy intertwine. There is a goddess-based religion which happens to be the state religion also, but the nature of the goddess is somewhat deist: She existed in the past, set things up to work a specific way, but is somewhat departed, leaving things to run on their own. I say "somewhat" departed, because there is still the idea that she exists and that some things (like magic) come from her, but she doesn't personally intervene in lives or events, nor do people pray to her asking her to intervene. This belief system has existed for about two millennia, and one of the consequences is that it's taken a somewhat philosophical direction, or has developed and is functionally practiced as a type of philosophy. (Here, the idea I've used for this philosophical nature is a more Buddhist or Taoist approach—but with different core ideas.) Central to the dynamic of the plot is the existence of a philosophical schism over a few key points of that philosophy—although both sides of that schism still believe in the fundamental nature of that goddess and their world.

I do wonder if, for the purposes of this thread, the idea of a philosophy is being approached differently by different people. Some may not be thinking of an institutional philosophy, or a set of formal schools of philosophy with specific, professional proponents—philosophers, scholars—but rather be thinking of a more generalized philosophical outlook or worldview.

 

[Mythopoet]

Where then is the line between philosophy and religion drawn?

Ok, the line between religion and philosophy is extremely clear.

Religion is derived from revelation, from the point of view of the members of the religion. That is, it is revealed to them by a supernatural source. (And I'm not going to debate this. It doesn't matter whether the revelation is legitimate or not, the people in a religion believe in that revelation.) And the practice of the religion is about the relationship between the human and the supernatural source of revelation that the people believe in.

Philosophy is about observing the world around you and using your own skills of reasoning to learn about the nature of that world. This includes things like existence and ethics, but it also includes things like motion and change and other things that today we would reserve for science. Philosophy is the predecessor to modern science, which science used to be called "natural philosophy".

So religion is revealed by the supernatural, philosophy is reasoned from observation. Two extremely different things. There's no need for confusion.

 

[FifthView]

So religion is revealed by the supernatural, philosophy is reasoned from observation. Two extremely different things. There's no need for confusion.

And what if the supernatural—say, magic in a fantasy novel—has a physical manifestation in the world, and the people of that world can use their observations of it and their reason to come to an understanding of that supernatural event? If, further, that magic is identified with a god or goddess, then how does reason (philosophy) intertwine with religion?

I'm also reminded of many examples of manifestation of the supernatural at earlier points in, for example, Christianity. Indeed, revelation was sometimes through (a means) or aided by just such a manifestation.

 

[Russ]

Ok, the line between religion and philosophy is extremely clear.

Religion is derived from revelation, from the point of view of the members of the religion. That is, it is revealed to them by a supernatural source. (And I'm not going to debate this. It doesn't matter whether the revelation is legitimate or not, the people in a religion believe in that revelation.) And the practice of the religion is about the relationship between the human and the supernatural source of revelation that the people believe in.

Philosophy is about observing the world around you and using your own skills of reasoning to learn about the nature of that world. This includes things like existence and ethics, but it also includes things like motion and change and other things that today we would reserve for science. Philosophy is the predecessor to modern science, which science used to be called "natural philosophy".

So religion is revealed by the supernatural, philosophy is reasoned from observation. Two extremely different things. There's no need for confusion.

I think that is a useful starting point for a discussion but I don't see the division as that simple or clear, if there is one.

The first problem is that not all religions are revealed, some are non-revealed.

I think philosophy is the attempt to systemically understand some of the fundamental questions of life and its meaning based on reason and logic.

I think the distinction that MP is drawing is not really between philosophy and religion, rather her distinction is between philosophy based on divine revelation, and philosophy based on naturalistic mechanisms alone. That is, at its core, a difference in accepted source material.

For instance let us say I believe that the divine has revealed to me tenant or fact X. I can then reason other things based on my premise of X, leading to a all encompassing philosophy based on a revealed premise. That is why there is Catholic philosophy and Catholic philosophers, for instance.

Now Mr. A, a strict materialist might say that due to the fact he does not accept premise X to be true that my philosophy is flawed or perhaps even useless, it does not make it any less a philosophy.

 

[Mythopoet]

And what if the supernatural—say, magic in a fantasy novel—has a physical manifestation in the world, and the people of that world can use their observations of it and their reason to come to an understanding of that supernatural event? If, further, that magic is identified with a god or goddess, then how does reason (philosophy) intertwine with religion?

I'm also reminded of many examples of manifestation of the supernatural at earlier points in, for example, Christianity. Indeed, revelation was sometimes through (a means) or aided by just such a manifestation.

I used the word "supernatural" for lack of something better, but it's always a problematic word. Basically, by it I mean something that is not viewed as a natural part of the physical world from a human point of view. Manifestations are precisely what I'm talking about. God manifested before Moses, for example, and Moses had tablets personally carved by God, but only Moses witnessed it. Thus God revealed his commandments to Moses and Moses had to pass them on to everyone else. Not only was God's manifestation in this story the very essence of supernatural (Moses couldn't even look at God for fear his physical body couldn't handle it), but revelation almost always happens in such a way that one person or a group of people witness it and have to tell others about it. Religious people have to trust in a revelation that someone else received.

 

[Mythopoet]

For instance let us say I believe that the divine has revealed to me tenant or fact X. I can then reason other things based on my premise of X, leading to a all encompassing philosophy based on a revealed premise. That is why there is Catholic philosophy and Catholic philosophers, for instance.

No, theologians reason from divine revelation. Philosophers reason from what can be known through reason and observation. There certainly were and are Catholics who are theologians and philosophers, but there's still a distinction. For instance, Aquinas' proofs of God's existence are not arguments from Christian beliefs, or divine revelation, but arguments from reason.

 

[Russ]

No, theologians reason from divine revelation. Philosophers reason from what can be known through reason and observation. There certainly were and are Catholics who are theologians and philosophers, but there's still a distinction. For instance, Aquinas' proofs of God's existence are not arguments from Christian beliefs, or divine revelation, but arguments from reason.

Some theologians reason that way, some do not.

I would suggest that theology is a subset of philosophy.

For instance the Oxford Faculty of Philosophy and Religion explains it this way:

The study of Philosophy develops analytical rigour and the ability to criticise and reason logically. It allows you to apply these skills to many contemporary and historical schools of thought and individual thinkers, and to questions ranging from how we acquire knowledge and form moral judgements to central questions in the philosophy of religion, including the existence and nature of God and the relevance of religion to human life.

The study of Theology provides an understanding of the intellectual underpinning of religious traditions, and of the social and cultural contexts for religious belief and practice. It brings together a wide range of skills and disciplines, historical, textual, linguistic, sociological, literary-critical and philosophical.

I guess one could argue that philosophy is a subset of theology, but I don't see the two as non-overlapping fields.

 

[Mythopoet]

Some theologians reason that way, some do not.

I would suggest that theology is a subset of philosophy.

For instance the Oxford Faculty of Philosophy and Religion explains it this way:



I guess one could argue that philosophy is a subset of theology, but I don't see the two as non-overlapping fields.

Well, that's just another example of the modern world having to change things to suit the modern mindset. I prefer to use older standards. They make more sense.

 

[FifthView]

Well, that's just another example of the modern world having to change things to suit the modern mindset. I prefer to use older standards. They make more sense.

I suspect that the older standards, if you really want old standards, would have seen absolutely no distinction between philosophy and theology. Indeed, the type of formalized study, -sophy and -logy, would have seemed odd to people living 10,000 years ago.

I also suspect that defining religion on the basis of revelation, absent any sort of physical manifestation, is a peculiarly odd and modern concept. This is something that has particularly bothered me as I've built the world for my current WIP. There are examples from the Bible of miraculous works, such as Jesus feeding five thousand people from five loaves of bread and two fish, or of healing the sick. But how often, on a day-to-day basis, do people now witness such manifestations of divine power? My current working theory (strictly literary, i.e. for the purposes of my WIP) is that the absence of such day-to-day manifestations has put greater emphasis on the idea of revelation—but what if, in a fantasy world, such manifestations never became so rare? What does the unbroken existence of a class of people able to use magic (tied to their goddess) do to the philosophical, theistic, sociological underpinnings of a society? I also think that a great deal of the religion-inspired violence in our modern world is possible because, although people might have faith they do not have a daily proving, via obvious physical manifestation, of their deity—so any given believer of a religion can say, "Uh uh, no. You are wrong!" to another believer. But if daily magical works happen....that's a little harder to say, "Nope, you believe in a false reality."

 

[Svrtnsse]

[...]but what if, in a fantasy world, such manifestations never became so rare? What does the unbroken existence of a class of people able to use magic (tied to their goddess) do to the philosophical, theistic, sociological underpinnings of a society?

I think this is important/interesting.
What if the power of the god or gods can be objectively observed and documented? Kind of like other natural phenomena.
The gods and their actions aren't supernatural, but natural (in the created world in question), then how does that affect philosophy and religion?

Just because gods can be verified to exist, people may not necessarily believe in them, similar to how there are people today who do not believe in things that can be scientifically verified - and the other way around.

 

[Russ]

Well, that's just another example of the modern world having to change things to suit the modern mindset. I prefer to use older standards. They make more sense.

Personally I try to communicate in modern terms.

But if you like the older version it would sound more like this:

Traditionally, philosophy is divided into seven disciplines: logic, cosmology, history of philosophy, psychology, ethics, epistemology, and ontology.

Logic is the science and art of correct reasoning. Cosmology is the study of matter in motion and material change. Psychology is the study of life and the principle of life, the soul. (Today it is relegated to the study of abnormal mental behavior, a far cry from its traditional subject of inquiry.) Ethics is the study of human acts as to their moral rectitude or lack thereof. Epistemology is the study of knowledge. How is it that something outside the mind is abstracted into the mind? Ontology, the highest of the philosophic sciences, is the study of being as being. What is the difference between essence and existence? Ontology is also called metaphysics.

I think the overlaps were equally present under older use of the term philosophy.

But I remain fond of Oxford's approach.

 

[WooHooMan]

Misunderstood how exactly? I don't see how it can be interpreted as anything other than a sneering condemnation of religion.

Some people see it as a way of saying "human progress has made religion obsolete". Others use it to mean "modern religion has ruined the purity of faith". Others say it's a statement of regret over the "discrediting" of moral absolutism (if God is no longer a credible source of ethical judgement, what is?).
I think the latter is the intent of Nietzsche but I can't say for sure.

I skimmed the thread and I saw some posters mention things they'd come up with on their own, but for the most part it seems most of you are just discussing real world philosophers and how they're represented in your works (and I think MOK is doing the right thing in not going into detail about the philosophy he's using).

You know how some writers have fantasy races that are basically real-world cultures under a fantasy guise?
Like how the humans in Middle-Earth were not-Anglo-Saxons or how Westeros is not-Europe or some generic conquest-driven Orc horde from the east are not-Mongols?
It's the same principle: you can explore and play with real-world ideas but dressing them in a fantasy guise. That's part of the fun of fantasy.

Me being interested in pataphysics, I do have totally fictional/absurd philosophies that don't directly correspond to real-world philosophies. But I don't see any good in writing a story about it since they're mostly thought experiments.
I do, however, think political/ethical philosophy is interesting and I would like to write a story about it. However, I want to make sure the audience has as few biases as possible going into the story. If you give an American a story about fascists, they immediately see the fascists as bad guys. So, to diminish that bias and give a more desirable context to the philosophy, I fictionalize it.

So, there's the point of fictional philosophies.
I think it helps create a safer environment to explore real-world philosophies by distancing those philosophies from the real world.

 

[Clearmadness]

This is a very interesting topic. I have a bit of background in philosophy, mostly ethics. I've been considering throwing a clash between cultures with very different ethical system in my writing. For example, Utilitarians who want to maximize happiness at all costs versus Deontologists who judge the rightness of every action. They could thus see the other as evil and at the same time logically believe their actions are justified.

 

[Snowpoint]

I have this Martial-Arts society. The soldiers have a very simple metaphor "The Living Arrow" it's about living life goal-oriented and letting go of anything that slows you down.

 

[Miskatonic]

One major difference between the two places my story takes place in is how much magic affects each. In the human world there is a much smaller emphasis on magic and it's use, where the world of supernaturals has magic playing a far bigger role. This plays a part in how governments are formed and how war and the shifting of power between factions plays out.

 

[Brian Scott Allen]

You know, I was thinking about it, and I do have one book where certain legal philosophies will come into conflict. I also mention philosophies in various books but they're about as fleshed out as a fossil.

 

[Caged Maiden]

After reading this thread, I realize I have no understanding of philosophy, and I'm a very simple individual. I feel stuff; I do stuff. That's what I write, too. I might be missing out on a big part of what makes stories have deeper meaning, but I just never considered philosophy an important part of any of my stories. That's not to say philosophical things haven't found their way into my stories, but since I don't know the first thing about what you all are talking about, it happened by accident, rather than by intentionally deciding philosophy was important. Maybe I don't even know what philosophy is??? I feel pretty dumb right about now, because this conversation lost me. Hm...I'll have to think about this...

 

[Netardapope]

You know, I was thinking about it, and I do have one book where certain legal philosophies will come into conflict. I also mention philosophies in various books but they're about as fleshed out as a fossil.

By any chance, by legal philosophies do you mean things like confucianism and the other Chinese government philosophies? Those are actually some of the things I'd like to see more in fantasy. As in, philosophies that permeate an entire way of life rather than just focusing on a singular area of expertise.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk