Physics, Epistemology, and Ethics of TWC

[Legio]

Thank you so much for the kind comments and interest. I'll try to keep translating these texts for you when I have the time.

Strengelicher, I love this. We can start our own little RP. You raise interesting objections to Holmian philosophy. None of the schools which I will present are perfect; some will be a bit out there, especially when it comes to physics.

[Mary The Quene]

very nice

[Rex Anglorvm]

Great piece from Strengelicher there (rep+ on its way btw).

If only I was Philosopher enough to join in....I will just have to be content with observing.

Loving this thread.

[Legio]

Thoughts on making this more interactive--you guys can pick apart a presented philosophy and I provide any historical rebuttals? Also, do you want to move through Holmian philosophy completely before moving on to the next school, or would you like me to spice it up?

Early Devian letter to Vatter Holm (fragment)

1. […] to Vatter Holm, […] greetin [g(s)] […] 2. […] saying that the Hex are by definition blessed. But what does this mean? Does not the term blessed imply that an entity with a higher authority has passed judgement upon the Hex and, as a consequence, has shown benevolence towards them? So, if we acted according to Reason, must we not ask who it was that blessed them and on what grounds the blessing came to pass? Would we not be superstitious by simply accepting that the Hex are blessed? And are we not being superstitious trying to derive all our reasoning from that presumption, without even understanding it? 3. You are saying we should use the weapons of Reason and strike against superstition. But why should we do so? Indeed, if the world is sorrow (as your teachings say), and using Reason makes us recognize the world, we may conclude that using Reason will make us unhappy (the reflection of the sorrow leaving an impression in our breast, as your teachings say). Being unhappy is a bad thing. Must we then not conclude then that using Reason is also a bad thing? 4. Now if Reason is a bad thing, and superstition is the opposite of reason, must we not conclude further that superstition is a good thing? 5. If you look at us Devians, you will see that worshipping the Hex makes us happy. We presume that by worshipping the Hex, we will please them, and that being so pleased, they may grant us favours – health, prosperity, luck – which we feel unable to obtain out of our own accord. Indeed by imagining the favours we may be granted, we are already obtaining a portion of the happiness the favour itself would bestow upon us. So even if the favour is not granted, a portion of the happiness is obtained. As a consequence, if we are superstitious, the sum of happiness felt by us Devians is evermore greater than the sum of favours granted. And since happiness is a good thing, and since superstition brings about more happiness, superstition must also be a good thing. 6. Now if Reason should make us understand that the Hex cannot be swayed by prayers and sacrifice, must we not as a consequence understand that all our prayers, all our sacrifice have been in vain? Must we then not further understand that we are fools, having spent our efforts in senseless prayer and sacrifice? If that were so, we must surely become unhappy, since no man wants to be a fool. And to become unhappy is a bad thing. But, if we understand that the Hex can be swayed by prayers and sacrifice, then all our efforts in the past have pleased the Hex, and since we may presume that in being pleased, they will grant us (further) favours, we will be happy. And this is a good thing. 7. Regarding the Hex, you are saying that they do not gaze upon our world (for the world is sorrow, and then they would not be happy and blessed anymore). But where did you gain this knowledge? Are you not but a man of our world yourself? If you are, then you are not able to tell even what a single Devian is thinking, since no man can look into another man’s head. If a man wants to know the thoughts of another man, he has to ask and receive an answer. But can we presume that you have asked the Hex what they think, and that you received an answer? If we are to believe your own writings, we cannot believe so, since you are saying the Hex do not gaze upon our world. As a consequence, the Hex would not perceive your question, and even if they were to perceive it, they would not answer. 8. You are saying that the Hex do gaze upon this world, as it is full of sorrow. But does this not imply that if the world was full of happiness, the Hex would gaze upon it? How then, if not by gazing upon it, do the Hex know that the world is full of sorrow, and that thes should not gaze upon it? Indeed, must we not conclude that the Hex are gazing upon our world if they know that it is full of sorrow? And if the Hex are gaz[…]

A Brief Introduction to Holmian Philosophy, A. G. Simmons, (Legiopolis, University of Legio Press, 2013), pg. 162
Within established Holmian doctrine exist several pseudo-Holmian epistles, namely 2 Devians, Becejly, and Oksbroderren. 2 Devians, being one of the most vitriolic letters from that distant era, is a source of great consternation for the modern Holmian. On the one hand, the letter is part of the canon; on the other hand, it is offensive and known not to have been written by Holm himself. An unknown pseudepigrapher, displeased with the Devian school and with distinct Legian influence, wrote it as a rebuttal to the fragmentary reply to 1 Devians. Whether Vatter Holm himself replied is not known, but with the great strides that have been made in (re)discovering ancient texts, we may soon gain a greater understanding of this foundational school of thought! Below are excerpts from 2 Devians; discussion of the text and its history will be found in a later chapter.

The pseudepigrapher's arguments are generally accepted to be those that a Holmian might make: unhappiness from Reason is not truly unhappiness--it is only a flawed perception of unhappiness, and happiness derived from superstition is not really happiness, but only falsehood; Hex does not need to see to know.

1. Do you not fear? Are you not afraid? Have you greater enlightenment than everyone else? Or has enlightenment only shone down upon you, Devians, citizens of a corrupt city tainted by the stench of superstition and improper action?
2. Hex are blessed. If a thing is blessed, then it is perfect, for any imperfection means incompletion. How can an incomplete thing be blessed? Such a thing is not possible. Such a thing can only be seen, as through a glass dimly, by means of distorted impressions. Or do you have perfect understanding of these as well?
3. Hex are blessed and Hex are perfect. Will we say otherwise? No! It would be foolish! You foolish, you decadent, you corrupt--you Devianized--folk! Is it not known that those who unjustly twist Reason are unjust? You brood of vipers! Have you not said, 'May the blood of the philosopher mix with the blood of our children?'
4. I have hit upon all of these notions by means of Reason. After fourteen years of traveling through the forums and spreading these correct and precise concepts, I established many houses for examination and discussion. And I took Mishkin with me, and many other believers who saw the truth of these things, and we converted both men and women alike. And those who sought to enslave us were converted as well. We did not submit to them, even for a brief moment, and as they came to lay hands on me I struck them down with the wooden haft of my great double-headed axe, cunningly wrought by the Smith. And the blood of those who sought to lay hands on us flowed in rivers, and it trickled across the metal, the metal which made the blade of my double-headed axe, and it filled the patterns and carvings which had been made and carved on it.
5. On the one side was a city of mortal men, encircled by six circuits of walls, with a river flowing before the first wall and the great hinterlands, and a river between each of the walls. And across each river spanned a mighty wooden bridge with guard-posts and market-stalls on each side, each of these guard-posts and market-stalls swarming with men. And within the sixth wall was the beautiful city itself, and in the common square there was a festival with men playing flutes and women working their works, turning from side to side. And in the market-stalls that were on each side of the mighty wooden bridges were good things of every kind, including pomegranates, grapes, and figs.
6. And on the other side was a beleaguered fortress with round towers and lofty walls. Rain poured from the great expanse of the heavens and lightning shot down from the grey clouds, and both the men within the fortress and the men that were besieging them froze, chilled in their armor. As they fought around the walls on the plains around the walls the gory goddess of DEATH strode with her cloak stained red with the life of men, and she smiled as she did her grim work.
7. In such a manner did I work works throughout the forums.
8. Do Hex need to look upon something to recognize it? No! It is not so! For they are blessed, and blessedness implies knowledge of all things as they are and will be. For uncertainty breeds superstition and bodes ill for man. Since Hex are blessed, they have knowledge of all things as they are, and because of this they are blessed. Therefore, they need not gaze upon anything to discern its true nature. Indeed, Hex do not need to gaze upon anything but themselves, and if they contemplated things which are less blessed they would become less blessed themselves. Are you not wicked and impious?
9. See how I write with my own hand!

[Strengelicher]

Chloe, I really had a good laugh with your last one - good stuff!

+rep

[Legio]

I added a brief section on Holmian hedonism.

[Ngugi]

Hedonism is presumably the lowest common denominator around, and the one most will put their interest towards

[Rex Anglorvm]

It didn't seem all that Hedonistic; Holmian Hedonism that is...it seemed rather physically spartan!

But I'm still enjoying this thread.

Rep+

[Legio]

It's modeled on Epicurean hedonism, which is psychological hedonism. Pleasure is the absence of pain. If you can, check out Epicurus' Letter to Menoeceus, which is present in Diogenes Laertius' testimony of Epicurean doctrine. If orgies are more to your taste, you'd want to read about the Cyrenaics; apparently that's all they did! However, because they were so busy wining, dining, and copulating, they left no written record of their doctrine. In fact, the only things we know about them are from tantalizing fragments that tell us very little.

[Rex Anglorvm]

If orgies are more to your taste

If only! I'm far to old and married for that sort of thing Chloe!

I had a very poor education I'm afraid so any pointers you give me on Philosophy are more than welcome my friend!

[Legio]

If only! I'm far to old and married for that sort of thing Chloe!

I had a very poor education I'm afraid so any pointers you give me on Philosophy are more than welcome my friend!

Here's a brief overview of Epicurean ethics, one that focuses on pleasure. I'll rework some of my class notes for greater clarity. I will not go into too much detail. My specific focus in studying Epicureanism was sexual ethics, which I will not mention here. Perhaps one day I will feel the urge to make an academic post somewhere in the discussion sections of the site. If you're interested in the actual texts (which are cited in the notes and serve as inspiration for this thread), check out Inwood and Gerson's book.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

According to Epicurus, the simplest pleasures are the finest.

Some of Epicurus' main claims:
1) The only intrinsic good is pleasure. (Something has intrinsic value if it is valuable for its own sake, as the aphorism 'art for art's sake.) All other goods are instrumental goods that service pleasure. (Something with instrumental value only has value for something else, e.g. a pencil has instrumental value for writing.) These goods include the canonical virtues, viz. justice, courage, wisdom, and moderation.
2) Pleasure is the criterion of action. It is proper to exchange some pain now for greater pleasure later.
3) There is nothing between pleasure and pain. Pleasure is the absence of pain. The greatest pleasure is the absence of all pain.
4) Kinetic pleasures are the pleasures of filling and satisfying a need or desire. Static pleasure is the pleasure of satiation.
5) Static pleasure is superior to kinetic pleasure. Kinetic pleasures do not increase our pleasure; they only vary it.
~~~~Static pleasure is better owing to the powers of memory and anticipation. Mental static pleasure is greater than bodily for this reason. The body has no memory, and only feels the now. The mind feels past, present, and future pleasures.

Pleasure is the end and criterion of action. It is the summum bonum, the highest good. All non-hedonistic views of the good are meaningless; every other view has a hidden appeal to pleasure.

Now, for the difference between psychological and ethical hedonism. Psychological hedonism is concerned with the is: we naturally seek what is pleasurable. Ethical hedonism is concerned with the ought: we ought to pursue what is pleasurable.

We already have a preconception (προληψις) of pleasure and pain, and this is the basis for deciding our actions.

On to static vs. kinetic pleasures.

1) Kinetic-pleasures of motion, filling a need. Listening to music.
2) Static-state of satiation, stillness, and comfort. Reaching a toil-less state. Tranquility. This results from: a) ridding ourselves of the fear of the gods and death; b) maximizing our independence of fate/fortune by minimizing our needs; c) knowing that bodily pain can be endured.

Natural vs. empty desires.

1) Natural-food.
a) Natural necessary-simple food.
b) Natural unnecessary-fancy food.
2) Empty-going to public games.

The Epicureans were not, as some would have it, hedonists engaged solely in the pursuit of physical pleasure. The greatest pleasure was the absence of pain, and simple food--a simple life--was superior to extravagance. According to Aelian, "[Epicurus] said that he was ready to rival Zeus for happiness, as long as he had a barley cake and some water." (Inwood and Gerson, Hellenistic Philosophy, Reading I-159, page 102).

I won't cover justice, prudence, friendship, sex, etc. I hope that this was interesting!

[Rex Anglorvm]

The post was very interesting; as I say, my education was very traditional (basically military), so philosphy was frowned upon, unless it was Sun Tzu or Marcus Aurelius!

Thanks Chloe, ever helpful as always.