[Whelp]

@Maknavox:

Quote

Side note 1: In the islamic world its a good deed to strike down a jew or a fallen. This is a compleet disregard and indifference towards other believes and thoughts

If I remember my Koran studies correctly, this is far from true

Quote

Nobody cares about where our electricity comes from, nobody cares how our shoes are made, nobody cares about the poor kids in africa, nobody cares how... you get my drift.

Disagree, again. Unfortunately, the people who care, are not the ones in position to actually help.

Quote

And i agree that we do not deserve paradise.

Check out Crowley's arguments against Heaven in Good Omens... quite convincing, imho.

[Ivan the terrible]

Try reading some existentialist philosophy, I recommend Dostoevskys the Underground Man and Some parts of the Brothers Karamazov...I think that is how you spell it. I did my MA on philosophy and fiction and while I love the Malazan world. But i think SE has said before that he does not promote the idea of Didactic fiction such as Terry Goodkind. Rather i think he just portrays numerous different Philosophical view points that occur naturally in a complex world

On glancing at this epigram i think it has more in common with Kierkegaard than Islam.
If you are interested in Eriksons Philosophy, you may need to wait until all ten books are done to analyse the content. But for the moment you could look at each characters actions and words and how the contrast. Each person represents a different philosophy. Although off the top of my head existentialism does seem to be a common theme. Look at Paran.

[Whelp]

Brothers Karamazov; Kierkegaard (just to nitpick;) )

[Ivan the terrible]

Knitpick. hehehe

Have you read the Spainish Inquistion part of the Brothers K. IT IS SO COOL. probably the best fiction i have ever read

[Obdigore]

Snicker @ Otat Sand (Let me know if you dont like that nick btw)

Also, in many islamic, arabic religions, it is not ok to hurt/kill anyone. just like its not ok in many christian religions. It's the people who take it to the extreme, and I don't mean knocking on doors on a saturday morning, i mean the people who kill anyone who disagree with them. That is not just an islamic/arabic trait.... can I point your attention towards the crusades?

[Illuyankas]

Maknavox said:

Ive read in the Robert Jordan is sick thread that this guy could not come up with sympathy for total strangers. I found that disturbing, mostly because this same guy, who dosnt care for strangers, would like strangers to care for him if he was in pain or need.
The people who cannot feel sympathy and empathy for people who they do not know are also the people who yell the loudest when they are in need, for they only believe in themselfs and are compleetly indifferent to others.

Sweeping generalisation, much? I'm not even going to go into how much this is wrong, or offensive. Not bothered to pretend to care on a practically anonymous internet forum =/= uncaring sociopath, you know.

[Ivan the terrible]

Okay Maknavox obviously doesn't know anything about Philosophy except broad general statements. But we could teach him, god i sound pompous! The guy who didn't care about Jordan was also espousing a philosophy perhaps a more honest one. You obviouly reject his as false and invalid. But why?
Why is your philosophy right and his not. If you want to talk about eriksons philosophical references fine. But be aware that numerous differnt philosophies exist in both our world and Wu

[Rat Mentor]

Religion = route to all evil, after all war is okay if relgion is envolved?

After life = you have to be dead to understand it, no?

Philosophy = every answer is correct!

pointless discussion.

[Ivan the terrible]

Some get it, some don't. I am not going to argue the merits of Philosophy itself.

[Ivan the terrible]

The Koran like the bible is open to many levels of interpretation. If you have read the Koran fair enough but i imagine you have just seen quotes out of context.

As for the Crusades, we have the Pope to blame remember the avatar of the Lord, the whole infallibility issue. To my knowledge Islam has no living divine avatar to assure them. Suicide bombers have that rare bravery/stupidity tested by doubts they are not as confident of their eternal rewards as the crusader who had confirmation from the word of the Lord.

[Agraba]

I never really appreciated the philosophical aspects of Erikson's series, but then, I never really appreciated philosophy as a whole, and I personally think it's a useless subject. Sure, it makes for interesting reading sometimes, but the tangeants don't ever lead anywhere useful, and drifting along them usually doesn't invoke personal satisfaction or happiness, just some genuine appreciation.

But I do appreciate the parts of Erikson's novels that delve into human nature and tendencies, which sometimes gets intertwined(?) with his philosophy.

I do believe, though, that in the passage quoted in the beginning of this thread, Erikson was targeting hardcore religious factions. I'm talking about omish for the jews, or devout catholic positions like priests, or anyone who works in the Vatican. Those are people who dedicate their entire life to the scriptures, and use life as a tool for their worship, and connection to a deity. This is, of course, motivated by afterlife. And my heart really reaches out to kids who grow up in an Omish family in Israel, and have to be exposed sometimes to the way normal society funcitons. And I have had family visit from there, who do live that way. And man, they are so miserable. And how can they choose to stop it, when from birth, they're taught that the mighty divine being of the universe will forsake them? (Plus the fact that there would be a lot of tension created in the family.)

[Aneirin]

Good thread. My thoughts:

Quote

There is something profoudnly cynical, my friends, in the notion of
paradise after death. The lure is evasion. The promise is excusative.
One need not to accept responsibility for the world as it is, and by
extension, one need do nothing about it.

Similar to Nietzsche's claim that Christianity is essentially nihilistic, and with the same flaw, which you pointed out - that it is a single element being looked at, outside of the surrounding philosophic framework.

Quote

To strive for change, for true
goodness in this mortal world, one must acknowledge and accept,
within one's own soul, that this mortal reality has purpose in itself,

This seems to be assuming a dichotomy that doesn't necessarily exist - that either life has a purpose in and of itself, or that it has no purpose at all. Purpose, consistent with the existance of an afterlife, can still be found in relation to a higher being, and in relation to one's fellow immortal beings - ie all of humanity. This is in fact more solid than some need to 'accept within one's own soul' an inherent purpose that no reason is given for - if in fact anything even can be said to have purpose merely in itself. It also allows (potentially) for a consistent notion of goodness to which people should aspire. To simply 'strive for true goodness' is difficult when people have different notions of what true goodness is, and may in fact be striving against each other.

Quote

that its greatest value is not for us, but for our children and their
children. To view life as but a quick passage along a foul, tortured
path - made foul and tortured by our own indifference - is to excuse
all manner of misery and depravity, and to exact cruel punishment
upon the innocent lives to come.

If its greatest value is only ever for the next generation, ad infinitum, that is to say that no one will ever actually partake of that great value, and render it rather meaningless. To be able to find equal value in future generations, in the lives of those around you, and in your own life - even as precursors to a future eternity elsewhere - is more meaningful than simply finding purpose in an infinite extrapolation of the present.

Quote

I defy this notion of paradise beyond the gates of bone. If the soul
truly survives the passage, then it behooves us - each of us, my friends
- to nurture a faith in similitude: what awaits us is a reflection of
what we leave behind, and in the squandering of our mortal
existence, we surrender the opportunity to learn the ways of goodness,
the practice of sympathy, empathy, compassion and healing -
All passed by in our rush to arrive at a place of glory and beauty,
a place we did not earn, and most certainly do not deserve.

The notion of similitude, while having some merit, is expressed only as a means to an end. If you wanted to create a new religion for the purpose of maintaining social order, a very strict doctrine of similitude - what you do in your life will be done to you in the next, or that the world you help make will be the world you next live in - may very well be useful. But to say that one should 'nurture a faith in similitude' when there is no actual reason to believe in any such thing, is irrational. The only reason to want to do so would be if you already agreed with the earlier statements of inherent value of actions in this world, but if you already believe in that inherent value then you don't need the pretext of believing you'll be rewarded for it.

Essentially it's saying "Be good for the sake of some unknown future generations, and make yourself believe you'll be rewarded for it". A nice thought perhaps, but not a very rational philosophy.

Still, I do enjoy Erikson's forays into philosophical thought - it is occasionally thought provoking in ways that a lot of other fantasy isn't. It would be better still if he were to come up with more novel thoughts though, that related more to the actual belief systems of the world that he's created, to build a philosophy based on the existence of those gods and those ascendants and the multiplicity of worlds. While the above is obviously relevant to the major religions of our world, do the religions of Wu really have the same notions of future paradise? There's Hood's gate of course, and the idea of punishment for those who've earnt it, but I don't know that it's really the same sort of thing.

[Ivan the terrible]

Read Bertrand Russel history of Western Philosophy, the section on Nietzche is quite funny

[Ivan the terrible]

@Fedwin, Infallibility became officail in the 19th Century.....but it was always enforced.
I would agree with much of your thoughts upon religion, however context is cultural and education is centraql to it also. Priests often ignore parts of the bible as out dated and irrelevent i see no reason why clerics would not do the same. Their are of course extremists in each major religion. I just don't see either religion as down right evil. They are both potentially good, but at times misguided. It is the nature of the beast

@Mentor, Agraba and Potsherds
I don't have time for a full blown defense of Philosophy as a subject but i will point out the practical importance of it in our and fictional worlds quickly.
Whether philosophy articulates or inspires the the intellectual out look of a nation is debatable. But either way it defines the moral and practical climate of the time. For example Rousseau french revolution. Also see the dominant philosophy of democracy informs all we do and how we look at the world. It effects how ppl relate to each other and in the case of the iraq war how propaganda is issued. Think how democracy changes ppls expectations from those ppl held in feudal systems, or a communist outlook

In a good fictional complex world philosophies need to exist they affect the caste of mind of different characters and ppl. See Kallor in MbotF for one good example and Pran for another. Philosophy is central to human existence and its history. At the very least philosophy is important to study in a historical sense because we can learn from the past.

Everything we do is Philosophy. Philosophy is practical but often misunderstood by the common belief that it is solely practiced by scholars with their heads in the clouds.
But some ppl won't even accept this and so often arguing for philosophy is impossible when confronted by an inflexible wall of ignorance.To avoid the issue of philosophy entitrly means you become a tool of the general philosophy, Hell rejection of one Philosophy merely means the acceptence of another. Anyone who asks"Why" is a philosopher, this is not just cliched drival but is A definition of of the term Philosopher.

To not investigate the field, even casually is the worst kind of ignorance. Each philosophy is a judgement of human existence any person who confidently offers oppinions is adhering to one philosophy or other. Philospohy should be investigated by each person so they can decide which direction they wish to choose for their life. To passionatly advocate democracy is a philosophy but you have no authority on the issue unless you are knowledgeable about the other arguments. I could go on all day but frankly i don't have the time.

But i believe we were talking about eriksons philosophy this a t least is a more concrete subject