From The Annals of Philosophical Inquiry - Year 199

If you want to communicate with everyone in the lands you can post here.
praetorian
Posts: 46
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2014 2:09 pm
Guild: Rogues
Temple: Shadows

From The Annals of Philosophical Inquiry - Year 199

Post by praetorian »

A set of old lecture notes appear in the Annals of Philosophy in the Silver Rock Library:

2nd of Frostfall, Year 199.

Meditations on Ethics in a Polytheistic World
“What is the continuous work of our life? It is to build towards death. The fundamental struggle of mortal life is to know and consider this tragic ambivalence. It is not merely ontic, but fundamentally ontological, even to the eldest Elf whose days are numbered whether it be through extreme old age or through acts of violence. That is to say, not only are we conditioned with death, but we are also considerate of death. And yet we remain as a part of this world in which we are t consciousness, both asserting ourselves as pure internality and yet also a thing crushed by the anxiety of other things: mainly, the non-temporal truth of our existence. We share this ambiguity, but are at once subjects in a universe of objects and in turn objects for others.

Furthermore, we are also objects on a material plane governed by polytheism(i.e. Deori, the Immortals and their spheres), and mortal institutions (i.e. the Guilds and Households of Adventurers) which provides us no specific truths on how we should live. Yet the ethics each propose have always pursued the same goal: eliminate this ambiguity of life-towards-death by making oneself pure inwardness or pure externality, appealing to a sense of dualism or by creating a hierarchy of soul and body. They have denied death either by integrating it as a part of life or by promising the gift of immortality (TRANSLATION NOTE: this form of the word “immortality” might be closer translated from Elvish not Common Tongue as “legacy” rather than “life-eternal” or “Immortality” as it pertains to the Gods and their Spheres).

However, it is in our own subjectivity in which we engage with freedom. At this present time, there exists many doctrines of Faith which leave in the shadow our complex situation of life-towards-death. Yet they are filled with reasonable metaphysics and consoling ethics which entice us only in order to accentuate the angst of life-towards-death. And so we only continue to feel more acutely the paradox: we know ourselves to be both the end to which all actions are directed, yet our being-in-the-world often forces us to treat one another as obstacles and means. We are masters of forging the most deadly and sharpest of blades, yet they are created only to destroy their makers. We are filled with incomparable love of our place on the center stage and yet feel more insignificant than the common Rat striding along the East Coast Road, within the immense collectivity of other Rats to be slain by adventurers of the monumental and footnote variety.

Since we do not succeed in fleeing this truth, perhaps we should face it. Let us try to assume our being-towards-death, for it is in this knowledge that we can begin to ground an ethics. What I propose is a philosophy not of Faiths (e.g. those of Zir, of Sydney and Omnicat, of Thoth or any other) but rather of a subjectivity that realizes itself as a being-in-the-world. For if there is a disagreement between what-is and what-ought-to-be, then there is therefore a rise of moral consciousness among mortal-kind. Moral consciousness would disappear if ethical law became natural law (which seems to be the end for Galaphile and his Lot, though I cannot speak intelligently about this) since, moral action would be an absolute and the questions which naturally rise in “questions of being” (i.e. “how should we live”) would mutate into compulsory action.

Thus far, I have described only a failure in ethical claims and the ontology described here allows for no hope. And perhaps it is true that the abortive path is the only one to take, since our passions are wasted as beings-towards-death, but what I propose is a recourse from that condemned path. The is/ought distinction described earlier is no more apparent than when our freedom is exercised to follow or ignore the pantheon’s menu. It is, however, what guides us so that we might be in a state-of-being that provides us relief from that being-towards-death: passion is not inflicted upon us from with-out (TRANSLATION NOTE: In the Elvish, “without” does not precisely translate to “not having” as it does in the Common Tongue, but rather “originating from an external source”) but rather a Being that makes a choice. As such, it requires no external justification. This absence of a requirement, however, does not preclude us from giving ourselves a reason for being that we do not have, nor does it mean that it cannot be its own justification for us to Will It into being. This is not failure, but rather success.

(EDIT: 10th of Frostfall, 199 I will speak briefly on The Will for a moment here only to provide thoughts on one particular Deity and His role in The Will. Zir appears to be the only God who requires a submission of one’s Will. One is not required to Think in-accordance-with their own justifications, but to Act in accordance with an exterior. I maintain this as a terrible use of The Will, as it is a submission to action rather than contemplation-towards-an-end. This is a rejection of the freedom to choose that I have described thus far, the most important implication of which is that such an attitude results in the being-towards-death will not agree to any foreign absolute and thus makes them categorically stupid. This error of dogmatism suspends any affirmation of any mode of reality not concerning conflict and presupposes a rejection in the possibility of a failure of their absolute in favor of transcendence. In short, Zirites are to be treated as sub-species. )

And so it seems, thus far, we are morally free creatures. However, it is not in that moral-freedom alone that we find our crucial dilemma, but rather in conjunction with our ontological freedom that we find and contend with our ambiguity. In short, our facticity plays a role as well in our degree of freedom. The antecedent limits of our existence (whether they be race, physical stature, socioeconomic status) place restraints on our existence. And how shall we overcome this heterogenous world in order to create an ethics? Freedom. The freedom of mortal-kind is infinite, however their power is limited. However, to wish for the disclosure of the world and to assert oneself as free fundamentally is to include- and to fight for- the freedom of others. Freedom is the source from which all values spring. I could make the choice to exercise my freedom by simply harvesting my crops, and consuming wine, but this exhausts my freedom as a useless gesture. It is, in fact, a waste of my freedom or morality and facticity unless it is spent (at least partially) on working towards the freedom of others. Without such action, one risks allowing their freedom to become abstract independence, a withdrawal from the world-without in a vain nihilism akin to not having been born at all.

-Praetorian, of Woodtop"

Return to “Landwide Messages”