# Philosophy in your worlds



## Netardapope (Dec 12, 2015)

So when it comes to worldbuilding, everyone and their grandma love talking about the religion and mythologies of their people's (this includes me [emoji17]) but I rarely hear much talk about philosophies developed in your worlds. So I'd thought I'd make this thread to hear about any Philosophies you might have or plan on adding to your worlds.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk


----------



## MineOwnKing (Dec 12, 2015)

I published a novel that is ripe with philosophy. It is in the layers because of my attempt not to preach. So, one would have to dig deep to interpret it.

I will not describe it here because there are too many passionate voices with multiple beliefs and my philosophy could be considered volatile.

This thread has the potential for disaster if not handled with care.


----------



## Noma Galway (Dec 12, 2015)

My work is urban fantasy and is mostly real-world, but the magic system is philosophy based, so my MC channels Nietzsche, their friend channels Hume, and another character channels Kierkegaard. It's weird but I like it.


----------



## Gryphos (Dec 12, 2015)

My current WIP centres largely around a philosophical aspect of the story, that of the 'True Hero'. I'll explain.

One of the five main characters, Erwin, has this philosophy of the True Hero, the pinnacle of Humanity, who's larger than life and a champion of justice. He also sees the True Hero as consisting of four aspects: grace, fury, compassion and strength.

Grace is skill and masterful ability, to hone an art to such a degree that it is second nature. When a True Hero performs, be it in fighting or anything else, it becomes like a dance.

Fury is immense energy. Whether it's anger at evil or uncontainable love, a True Hero displays their energy to the fullest extent as much as possible. They laugh louder, fight fiercer, and strive harder than anyone else.

Compassion is the love that a True Hero shows to the world and the people around them. Always they strive for the betterment of the world, and take any opportunity to express their kindness.

Strength is the way in which a True Hero is a immovable and unbreakable pillar, who supports those around them and can overcome any obstacle.

Erwin sees each of his companions as an avatar of these aspects. Hunter is the avatar of grace, Fletcher is the avatar of fury, Archer is the avatar of compassion, and the Ogre is the avatar of strength.

What I've done for this story is make it so all of the MCs (other than the Ogre, since he doesn't make it to the end of the story) have a different character arc relating to this philosophy. Erwin seeks to become a True Hero, and over the course of the story attempts to become one. Another MC, Hunter, couldn't care less about the True Hero, but by the end of the story she realises that she was a True Hero all along, and uses this apotheosis to save the day. Fletcher thinks the True Hero is nothing but romantic ramblings, but comes to accept the True Hero as an ideal to be strived for. And finally, Archer starts the story embracing the True Hero just like Erwin does, but he ends up abandoning this ideal, realising that the True Hero is an agent of chaos and a bringer of conflict, and Archer decides that he favours order, calm and simplicity, the 'True Human'. While Erwin argues that the True Hero is a figure who can protect the world, Archer believes that the True Human _is_ the world that they protect.


----------



## WooHooMan (Dec 13, 2015)

MineOwnKing said:


> I will not describe it here because there are too many passionate voices with multiple beliefs and my philosophy could be considered volatile.
> 
> This thread has the potential for disaster if not handled with care.



Come on, we'd all love to hear it.
If this thread starts going downhill, one of the mods can shut it down.

Anyways, due to the nature of my setting and story, I came-up with a couple.  They're mostly center around politics.
First off, the explicitly political philosophies:

- Meritism: the believe that only the most educated (or virtuous or resourceful) people should participate in government. 
- Kritarchism: rule of law and order with an emphases on harsh punishment and efficiency in government.  Comparable to fascism, legalism or totalitarianism.
- Faultism: an informal psuedo-philosophy that basically amounts to "the system that is most in-tune with human nature will flourish.  Human nature is flawed.  Therefore, the most flawed system will flourish."  They staunchly reject utopianism and are quick to defend the status quo.

And then some non-political philosophies:

- Philanthrism: sometime called "communal consequentialism" or "anarcho-romanticism", the believe in an inherent "goodness" within a group of people that is absent from an individual person.
- The Rule of Three: an  "ethical-sociopolitical teaching" that emphasizes the importance of human nature.  Built around the virtues of conflict, unity and passion.  Sometimes used as a religion though one that rejects any deities or fate.  It's followers are known to support community service and charity.
- Sernism: advocacy of parents, especially mothers, as being socially, politically and economically greater than non-parents.
- Axial Logic: described as "a discipline for delivering information".  It is built around the tenet of "all life is a lie".  This philosophy is said to be favored among poets, mystics and comedians.


----------



## Mectojic (Dec 13, 2015)

I think the problem with philosophy differences is the risk of isolating the audience from the characters. I mean, it can be comical for everyone to believe their planet is actually 2D, and the stars are light bulbs... but some things can be more difficult to comprehend.
But things like eugenics can be an interesting plot points, as can societal differences in class and wages. For example, imagine a world where teachers are millionaires?
I do encourage you try philosophies. I really like it. Good luck.


----------



## valiant12 (Dec 13, 2015)

> My work is urban fantasy and is mostly real-world, but the magic system is philosophy based, so my MC channels Nietzsche


I want to read this.


----------



## MineOwnKing (Dec 13, 2015)

_WooHooMan; Come on, we'd all love to hear it.
If this thread starts going downhill, one of the mods can shut it down._

Meh,

The problem is that I don't want to start trouble.

I have thought my way since a very young age and know that I cannot be persuaded to think differently.

Backing myself into a corner to defend my position would be as useful as defending myself for being born with arms and legs.


----------



## Noma Galway (Dec 13, 2015)

valiant12 said:


> I want to read this.


I have to actually make it work first haha. I still don't actually have a justification for this. Like did the magic exist and then the philosophers figured them out, or...? But I think that's a topic for a different thread.


----------



## WooHooMan (Dec 14, 2015)

MineOwnKing said:


> _WooHooMan; Come on, we'd all love to hear it.
> If this thread starts going downhill, one of the mods can shut it down._
> 
> Meh,
> ...



I'm not sure what you're saying here.
Do you mean that the philosophy in your story is your own worldview in real-life and you're afraid of having to defend your beliefs if questioned?
If so, I don't think this thread is supposed to be about your beliefs.  You may be misreading this thread.




Noma Galway said:


> My work is urban fantasy and is mostly real-world, but the magic system is philosophy based, so my MC channels Nietzsche



Is it pop-culture nihilist cynic Nietzsche or real-world pretentious mystic Nietzsche?
If it's the former, I already hate your character but if it's the latter, I already love your character.


----------



## FifthView (Dec 14, 2015)

WooHooMan said:


> Is it pop-culture nihilist cynic Nietzsche or real-world pretentious mystic Nietzsche?
> If it's the former, I already hate your character but if it's the latter, I already love your character.



I think Nietzsche is probably the most misunderstood philosopher to have walked this earth.  Almost without exception, his critics (whether positive or negative) do exactly what he wrote they shouldn't do:  they cherry-pick the things he wrote, out of context, and then draw a false image of him on the basis of those things.

But this also means that when someone suggests they are styling a character on Nietzsche's philosophy, I doubt that I have any way of knowing exactly what they mean by this.


----------



## MineOwnKing (Dec 14, 2015)

_I'm not sure what you're saying here.
Do you mean that the philosophy in your story is your own worldview in real-life and you're afraid of having to defend your beliefs if questioned?
If so, I don't think this thread is supposed to be about your beliefs. You may be misreading this thread.
_

Nice try.

I'd prefer just to be friends, and not have words put in my mouth. 

Same team.


----------



## WooHooMan (Dec 14, 2015)

MineOwnKing said:


> Nice try.
> 
> I'd prefer just to be friends, and not have words put in my mouth.
> 
> Same team.



I honestly have no idea what you mean.

Is English not your first language?
Or am I just really not on the same page?



FifthView said:


> I think Nietzsche is probably the most misunderstood philosopher to have walked this earth.



And how.  I actually had a group of characters based on Nietzsche, Ayn Rand, Karl Marx and Machiavelli because I felt like they are the four least understood philosophers out there.  Or at least the ones pop culture have sort of distorted.


----------



## ThinkerX (Dec 14, 2015)

In my case, the philosophical issues are less abstract and more direct and large scale.

Main nation of my main world is Solaria, a sort of quasi-roman empire.  Many of the old line aristocratic families subscribe to the 'estate model' - a hierarchical (rural) system dominated by estates with lords, a few favored underlings, and then a large number of laboring masses.  A 'place for everybody and everybody in their place' type setup.  Military matters, this means a tiny elite, a few trained soldiers, and then mobs.

Problem is, the current imperial dynasty reinstituted a version of the old legion model, with the provision that the ranks could be filled by drafts from the estates - serfs becoming professional soldiers.  More, upon completion of their 20 year term, said serfs-turned-soldiers received a land grant of their own, and gained citizenship for themselves and their closest relatives.  The 'estate model' type aristocrats were not thrilled.

Then matters got worse.  Solaria fought a decades long struggle against a rival nation.  The military ranks swelled to unprecedented levels.  At wars end, the nation faced fiscal collapse.  Unable to properly pay the army, the emperor pretty much granted land and citizenship to all the veterans of this conflict, regardless of duration of service - hundreds of thousands men, plus hundreds of thousand more of their immediate relatives.  

These veterans often had training in various trades and emerged from service with a independent 'can-do' attitude, which has not gone unnoticed on the estates, which are in danger of imploding.

Philosophy writ large.


----------



## MineOwnKing (Dec 15, 2015)

WooHooMan said:


> you're afraid of having to defend your beliefs



I am hurt by this as I see it to be a public accusation of cowardice.

Yet, again I extend the olive branch.


----------



## WooHooMan (Dec 15, 2015)

MineOwnKing said:


> I am hurt by this as I see it to be a public accusation of cowardice.
> 
> Yet, again I extend the olive branch.



I see this as an accusation of wrongdoing on my part.

I reject your olive branch and your offer of friendship.

But seriously: don't be so melodramatic.  This is just an Internet forum.


----------



## Miskatonic (Dec 15, 2015)

Philosophical perspectives are going to find their way into your story if you are dealing with ideological conflicts, whether they are basic or complex. 

If a war takes place in a novel then philosophical ideas are automatically there. The use of violence to solve problems is still an idea that is fiercely debated to this day.


----------



## Miskatonic (Dec 15, 2015)

FifthView said:


> I think Nietzsche is probably the most misunderstood philosopher to have walked this earth.  Almost without exception, his critics (whether positive or negative) do exactly what he wrote they shouldn't do:  they cherry-pick the things he wrote, out of context, and then draw a false image of him on the basis of those things.
> 
> But this also means that when someone suggests they are styling a character on Nietzsche's philosophy, I doubt that I have any way of knowing exactly what they mean by this.



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


----------



## Lvl20wizard (Dec 15, 2015)

It's funny, when you say Nietzsche magic, I'm instantly reminded of when Nietzsche talks about "life streams" and how each person constitute a whole constellation of rules in themselves. The power of magic could be generated by a person's strength of ego, which Nietzsche defines as the ability to take action and rise above the masses, a trait he e calls "the noble", compared to the ethical "good" (which among other things refers to Kant's ethics as a way of weakening and slavebinding individuals to the doctrine of degenerate morality).


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Dec 15, 2015)

Funny, I hear Nietzsche and think: You know what Nietzsche said about animals? "They were God's second blunder." 

Not sure how that works into a magic system, heh heh.


----------



## Mindfire (Dec 15, 2015)

Miskatonic said:


> 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 (Dec 15, 2015)

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 (Dec 15, 2015)

Svrtnsse said:


> 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 (Dec 15, 2015)

Svrtnsse said:


> 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 (Dec 15, 2015)

Mythopoet said:


> 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 (Dec 15, 2015)

Mythopoet said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Dec 15, 2015)

FifthView said:


> 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 (Dec 15, 2015)

Russ said:


> 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 (Dec 15, 2015)

Mythopoet said:


> 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 (Dec 15, 2015)

Russ said:


> Some theologians reason that way, some do not.
> 
> I would suggest that theology is a subset of philosophy.
> 
> ...



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 (Dec 15, 2015)

Mythopoet said:


> 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 (Dec 15, 2015)

FifthView said:


> [...]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 (Dec 15, 2015)

Mythopoet said:


> 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 (Dec 16, 2015)

Mindfire said:


> 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.



Svrtnsse said:


> 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 (Dec 21, 2015)

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 (Dec 31, 2015)

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 (Dec 31, 2015)

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.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Jan 2, 2016)

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 (Jan 2, 2016)

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 (Jan 2, 2016)

Brian Scott Allen said:


> 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


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Jan 3, 2016)

Netardapope said:


> 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


No, by legal philosophies I mean the concepts of natural law, natural rights, and legal positivism. These will need to be manipulated in order to make them fit within the history of my world. Natural law will become less religious and more accepted than positivism among other things. But these are the three concepts that will be in play. It will mostly be a "conflict" between positivism and natural law though.


----------



## WooHooMan (Jan 3, 2016)

Caged Maiden said:


> 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



Characters and their feelings (and what they do with those feelings) give a story meaning.  Philosophies are just something that characters can get passionate about.

Don't feel dumb - no one _really_ understands philosophy.  Most people only really ever scratch the surface of this field.



Netardapope said:


> 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.



I'm trying to do that (even using Chinese philosophy as the basis) and in my experience, I think it's safe to say most writers don't do this because it's really difficult.
I do think it's a very good way of giving a fictional culture some grounding.  Like a foundation to build off of.


----------



## Mythopoet (Jan 3, 2016)

MY current project is set in a world permeated with Neo-platonic and Hermetic philosophy.


----------



## Tom (Jan 3, 2016)

Honestly I haven't given philosophy much thought in regards to worldbuilding. I'm more psychology-oriented myself.


----------



## skip.knox (Jan 3, 2016)

While I've not written it into stories in any direct way, there are some interesting avenues (to me!) in my world. Since I posit an alternate Earth that was similar to our own until the late Roman Empire, the arrival of magic into the world had to have created some challenges. Those Neo-Platonists would have had a field day. 

Probably the most significant discussion, though, would be regarding other races. Do humans regard elves and dwarves as on a par with themselves? How do dwarves regard humans? I haven't sorted that out, but it has tons of implications for how law gets administered, how war is waged (more specifically, how it is justified), and so on. Philosophy is not merely theoretical.

My only working notion right now is that the arrival of other races (and therefore of other world views) has the effect of ossifying human philosophy. Human philosophical systems that overlap significantly with dwarves or elves or orcs or ogres tend to draw back. There's an effort to figure out what values and beliefs are specifically human. This will hold for most of the Middle Ages, and then there is a Renaissance-like period in which thinking opens out again. 

All of it is backdrop, but it's as real as the physical backdrop.


----------



## Devor (Jan 3, 2016)

My big setting has a magic system that's derived from Taoist or Buddhist philosophy.  One of its key tenants is kind of like Yin and Yang: It's specifically a back and forth between Action and Reaction, especially as it relates to who you are as a person.  Are you the person you are when you're trying really hard to do what you need to do, or are you the person you are when you're provoked (not necessarily in a bad way) into doing something naturally without focusing or thinking about it?

I call the system *Ying Wei*.  Ying is just a combination of Yin and Yang, and Wei is an eastern philosophy that basically means.... well, it's appropriate.

As a magic system, it mostly comes out as a combat style about predicting your opponent and perfecting your own movements.  It's the philosophy people refer to when they do Wuxia-style martial arts maneuvers.  You want to discover your opponent's _wei_, draw it out, and devise a reaction to it, while keeping your own _wei_ concealed from your enemy.

For instance, in the main character's opening scene, he's training with his master.  The mentor does a series of strikes that he avoids, but his last move is to grab onto a branch that's part of the dojo - but the master had laced thorns on the branch.  He fell with a bloody palm and lost.  "Six months ago," the master explains, he had pulled that same series of moves, and remembered that the student had grabbed the branch.  "Today," they repeated the series exactly, and the mentor was prepared.

Each of the two sides of the philosophy has a god in the six-god pantheon, the Tigress and the Monkey.  The Tigress takes decisive action to shape the world, and her spouse the Monkey god does absolutely nothing, accepting everything, knowing that the Tigress is provoking the world and the other gods into a natural reaction, bringing out his end of the philosophy on their own.  

Several of the world's key events, especially the bad ones, could be seen, in part, as the Tigress and the Monkey trying to mess with the other gods into becoming their better truer selves in response.  Tigress is the Ying, pushing and shaping, deliberate and willful in her actions, pushing each of the other gods into revealing (and discovering) their true wei.


----------



## ChasingSuns (Jan 10, 2016)

In my current work, there is a city of mages that practice something called the Philosophy of One, or the Path of One. This city doesn't believe in a deity, and instead believe that magic comes from an inner energy that flows through everything (kinda like the Force). They formed a whole philosophical structure around this concept, and teach it as part of a young mage's training. I also have a school of swordsmanship that has a bushido/eastern philosophy aspect to its teachings, blended with the concept that there are certain specific virtues that one must master in order to become a skilled swordsman.


----------



## Mindfire (Jan 11, 2016)

Caged Maiden said:


> 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.


Believe it or not, that itself is a philosophy! You're not as simple as you may think.



Caged Maiden said:


> 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.


If I were you, I wouldn't worry about this too much. You don't have to be an ivory tower type, or have any philosophical knowledge (if there even is such a thing) to have meaning in your writing. Philosophy is, when you strip away all the filigree, just various ways of thinking about what we believe, how we think, and why we approach the world the way we do. But you don't need any formal knowledge to do that. And by seeking the formal knowledge, it's possible to miss the point entirely, grasping at the shadow and losing the substance. Meaning does not come from philosophy, but the reverse. Philosophy is just a way of talking about meaning. So if you really want to put meaning into your stories, all you have to do is to be honest. Be honest with your reader and with yourself about what you think, what you feel, what you believe. That kind of honesty is the marinade that suffuses our stories while they're cooking in our minds. That's where the meaning comes from. Then, later on, some academic type will pick up your book and set upon it with theories and impressive jargon that may or may not represent what you _actually_ meant and make you out to be positively brilliant by their standards, for better or worse, and no one will be the wiser whether you "know philosophy" or not. That's the way of things.


----------

