|
|
Post by Wilhelm Cransnikov on Feb 3, 2023 2:58:10 GMT
Something was spreading through the Tholish lands. It began in the scholarly towers and academies of the high intelligentsia. From up high it spread through writing and painting down to the lower intelligentsia who took the lofty dreams and ideas of the scholars and expounded upon it all the while grounding it. Such writings were not the end, however, as the ideas floated by the lower intelligentsia began to circulate through papers and magazine to all manner of literate man.
All manner of men were drawn to this thing like moths to the flame, twisting and remaking it to suit their taste, but such warping was not only accepted but desired by the first men to put this idea to pen. The name given to these loose collections of ideas was that of 'The Enlightenment'.
In the early days, men only spoke of the ideas of rationalism, freedom, and liberty in hushed private circle, fearful of being expelled from society by the powers that be. However, as the months dragged on a truth became readily apparent; the powers that be cared little for this social movement. Therefore, with growing boldness men began publicly discussing the ideas in the debate halls of academia, the feasts of great noblemen, and even the humble tea house of the common and middling man.
In all these placed precepts began to grow and gain wide acceptance. The greatest of these ideas are:
1, All men are spiritually equal.
2, Any government that does not support and enrich its people is illegitimate.
3, God exists everywhere; one should cultivate a connection to him in nature as well as the temple.
4, One should think and make decisions for himself. A man who accepts things without the thought of why is no man.
5, Nature is pure and precious, it should not be despoiled by wikkan louts.
6, One should actively pursue a better world with their actions.
While change is a slow thing in the Tholish lands, men are beginning to discuss and think. Quietly at first, but undeniably growing louder.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wilhelm Cransnikov on Feb 8, 2023 5:54:22 GMT
To all men willing to read these words I now write, I posit a question: what is the worth of a man? To the Dunwikki the answer to that question would be something like 10 shillings1; however, to a man of faith2 the answer is more complex. It is known that all men have souls3, but how souls are weighed various wildly between faiths.
I would assert that the value of a man should be judged based on his actions in life, for such is a far more quantifiable value than the supposed size of a soul or if a thing like a soul even can have relative sizes. Specifically I would posit that a man's worth should be derived based upon the good he does. However, I would further argue that it is unfair to solely look at the magnitude of good done without also looking at the circumstances around that good.
Take Haimfaths and Vauhoks. Who can argue either is a bad king? Yet despite that, one's rein is clearly more prosperous than the other. Is Vauhoks an inherently better monarch than Haimfaths because few tragedies rocked his regime? No! While Haimfath's rule clearly was faced with issues, he should not be judged for things like a Volcano exploding, horrid rains causing flooding, or a traitorous conspiracy in the army. Rather, one should look at how he responded to these issues to determine his worth. When faced with the Vaalsberg eruption he did what he could to alleviate suffering, when the rains would not stop falling what could have been done to mitigate its effects was, and when the chance to uproot the traitors presented itself he took it. So, while it is true that Vauhok's rein was more peaceful than Haimfaths, that is not a mark of Haimfaths moral failure. Rather, his resilience and willingness to bring forth all the good he could in poor circumstances shows he is in fact a good monarch of equal worth to Vauhoks.
Drawing from theses assertions, I posit that men are born with the equal capacity to do good regardless to what they are born. As the good done by a man should only be judged by how much good he is capable of doing and a man's worth should only be weighted as the amount of good he does, all men are born with an inherent equal potential for good and therefore equal potential worth. Therefore, it is the decision one makes rather than the circumstances that one is born into that determines their ultimate value.
Judge not my friends, a man for the number of stones that exist on his path to enlightenment, but rather how he overcomes those stones. A nithe who carries himself justly and kindly at all times despite his misfortune advances closer to enlightenment to a man born to great wealth who thinks only of himself.
-Grimbaldus Pain
Sadaler Censor Notes 1: This is a gross exaggeration of the value of a life in Dunwik.
2: Dunwik is noted to have various Gods and faiths, a prominent example being the Dunwikki god of the "hustle".
3: Unverified.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fleischmann on Feb 9, 2023 17:41:07 GMT
To all men willing to read these words I now write, I posit a question: what is the worth of a man? To the Dunwikki the answer to that question would be something like 10 shillings1; however, to a man of faith2 the answer is more complex. It is known that all men have souls3, but how souls are weighed various wildly between faiths.
I would assert that the value of a man should be judged based on his actions in life, for such is a far more quantifiable value than the supposed size of a soul or if a thing like a soul even can have relative sizes. Specifically I would posit that a man's worth should be derived based upon the good he does. However, I would further argue that it is unfair to solely look at the magnitude of good done without also looking at the circumstances around that good.
Take Haimfaths and Vauhoks. Who can argue either is a bad king? Yet despite that, one's rein is clearly more prosperous than the other. Is Vauhoks an inherently better monarch than Haimfaths because few tragedies rocked his regime? No! While Haimfath's rule clearly was faced with issues, he should not be judged for things like a Volcano exploding, horrid rains causing flooding, or a traitorous conspiracy in the army. Rather, one should look at how he responded to these issues to determine his worth. When faced with the Vaalsberg eruption he did what he could to alleviate suffering, when the rains would not stop falling what could have been done to mitigate its effects was, and when the chance to uproot the traitors presented itself he took it. So, while it is true that Vauhok's rein was more peaceful than Haimfaths, that is not a mark of Haimfaths moral failure. Rather, his resilience and willingness to bring forth all the good he could in poor circumstances shows he is in fact a good monarch of equal worth to Vauhoks.
Drawing from theses assertions, I posit that men are born with the equal capacity to do good regardless to what they are born. As the good done by a man should only be judged by how much good he is capable of doing and a man's worth should only be weighted as the amount of good he does, all men are born with an inherent equal potential for good and therefore equal potential worth. Therefore, it is the decision one makes rather than the circumstances that one is born into that determines their ultimate value. Judge not my friends, a man for the number of stones that exist on his path to enlightenment, but rather how he overcomes those stones. A nithe who carries himself justly and kindly at all times despite his misfortune advances closer to enlightenment to a man born to great wealth who thinks only of himself.
-Grimbaldus Pain
Sadaler Censor Notes 1: This is a gross exaggeration of the value of a life in Dunwik.
2: Dunwik is noted to have various Gods and faiths, a prominent example being the Dunwikki god of the "hustle".
3: Unverified. Re Virtue It is a logical fallacy to say that because one has the capacity to do more, he must in turn be compelled to do so in order to achieve the same grace as a man with a diminished capacity. As the fable of the Two Pauper Boys clearly demonstrates, one can not achieve total perfection and virtue through small actions, just as one can not achieve total damnation and villainy through small actions. If a rich lord poaches a rabbit, is the crime now ten times worse than if a peasant did it? Would he be given death instead of a fine? No. Likewise, a praise worthy action carried out by a man of any station is only worth the praise it inherently creates. I would argue that it is a moral failing of some to not appreciate the good actions of others because of station or to excuse the bad actions of others because of lowly station. To demonstrate that acts are not diminished by their sources, I must use a common touchstone of our society. If a man were to buy a loaf of bread in Blairhaim, would it not cost three Häller? And if he were to buy another loaf of bread of the same quality and weight, this time in Haarshlaugs, would it not still cost three Häller? Indeed it would. If it did not, we would be outraged, as to charge more for it would be a betrayal of the common good and the rules upon which our society is built. The bread, like an act, must remain as valued by the whole no matter its source. To do otherwise is an injustice to others and a sign of a corrupt and inequitable system of thought. As such, while I do agree with Hairas Pain that a man should be judged on his actions, I disagree with his rather arbitrary belief that those actions are somehow devalued or dearer when coming from those of different social standings and positions. I would also touch upon his example of the Hauhküno. While yes, I do agree that both did good, I do not see it as proof of his position's validity. The ill that came with Hauhkuno Haimfaðs' reign was beyond his control and so it does not reflect poorly upon him. It is perfectly valid to see both Hauhküno as equal, despite the circumstantial differences, as both contributed good to the Raikh and world at large even if one of them suffered more set-backs and undermining through chance and enemy action. To take that and assert that men are inherently born with an equal capacity to do good is preposterous. It in fact undermines the whole position that good must scale with ability, as for it to exist, we must accept that those of lower stations have the capacity to create greater goods through lesser acts, something which in fact defies the laws of nature. If we assume that good, evil, and the spiritual abide by similar laws to those found by scientists to rule over the mundane, then we can clearly see that the law of conservation of energy does not allow for good to be created in a disproportionate manner, as it must be equal to the act that went into it. For those sceptical of the idea that the spiritual operates on such a basis, I must point to the cycle of reincarnation. It inherently follows the law of conservation of energy, as a soul's material can not be made nor destroyed, simply changed. This is leads us onto the next aspect. The idea that a man should be judged on his actions in life requires that we forget that all men are born into their positions through their placement by the gods and ancestors. To not judge a wretched slave for his position is foolishness, as it can only be through his own failings that he has fallen to such a place, either in this life or another. Should a slave live a virtuous life, he is bound to be rewarded now or in the next life with a better lot, as has been shown to happen many a time. Slaves have risen to positions of respect and admiration through dedicated service and virtue, being granted manumission and going on to form some of the great schools of thought of our world. It is through his virtue that the slave-philosopher Epictetus gained his freedom, as he overcame that which he was born into. To try and treat these wretches with equal respect and as equals in matters of morality is to deny them the opportunity to spiritually grow and overcome their positions. I would argue, that to do that is akin to violating the protections of a freedman, for who is as loved under the law and gods as one who has been redeemed from the shackles of slavery and brought into grace? To quote that philosophy that is so popular amongst both slaves, the learned, and the holy: 'Whoe'er yields properly to Fate is deemed wise among men, and knows the laws of Heaven. Conduct me, Zeus, and thou, Destiny, wherever thy decree has fixed my lot. I follow willingly; and, did I not, wicked and wretched would I follow still.' A slave's suffering is his happiness, for it is the will of the gods and fates that he be so redeemed. So say the Stoics. -Deman Freman |
|
|
|
Post by Dunwik on Feb 9, 2023 18:47:47 GMT
I will begin by declaring any argument over the soul to be irrelevant to my discussion. My reports have indicated that there are fundamentally different theorems as to what souls are or how they operate within the Tholish and Sadaler realms. In the former, a soul is a thing created by the Tholish god that lives one life and is then subject to an infinite "afterlife" depending upon the conduct of that life, in this world. In other theologies, a soul is something that can be born, live, and die, changing station based on the deeds of past lives. I am aware of some strange religion wherein this state of affairs is considered evil, and the idealized state is to cease all thought and terminate the soul's existence, but such theological curiosities are not the focus of this argument.
With this preamble out of the way, I declare that both parties have made fundamental mistakes in their reasoning and that those are: the assumption that any man is equal to any other man and the assumption that "goodness" is something that exists tangibly and can be measured. Both come from a misunderstanding of the nature of value.
Mr. Pain speaks incorrectly when he says a life in Dunwik is worth ten schillings, and Deman Freman speaks of Sadaler custom when he describes the loaf of bread as being equal in price in Blairhaim and Haarshlaugs (as the price is fixed by law. Price in such a context is not value, the true value may be different but the price exists, and such fixing causes either merchant or buyer to receive a loss in trade).
In Dunwik, let us suppose we have a kilogram of rice(1), that is being sold in the suburbs of Clearwater, which is quite near many farms. Let us say it is worth 20 cents (actual prices are sometimes higher, sometimes lower, depending on the quality of the rice). Now, let us suppose we have an identical mass(1a), this time being sold now in Providence, which is quite far from farms, during a year of poor harvest - like say, 1915(2). It would not be sold for 20 cents. Perhaps it would be sold for 30 cents, or even more. The price of it has changed depending upon the availability of seed, the availability of fertilizer, the availability of farmland, the availability of water, the availability of labor, and the demand for rice.
This is my primary point. Value is not a concrete, indisputable thing. When you speak of the goodness of acts or the goodness of men and attempt to declare that goodness can neither be created nor destroyed, you rely on the assertion that goodness can be numbered. Goodness is as value merely the relative desire of the people - in that moment - for an act to be performed.
Let us use this definition to answer a question oft bandied about in your countries: how much is a human life worth in Dunwik? The value of a man depends on myriad factors, including how many other men are available for that purpose, the ability of that man for whatever purpose he is being purchased for, and the demand of that man to perform whatever it is he is doing. There is no set value for a human life in Dunwik. The question is a trick one.
Let us turn to the example of the Hauhkunos now. One can compare the relative success of one to another and declare one to be more or less competent, but again, one runs into the pitfall of assuming value is concrete and universal. A good king in one condition may be a poor condition in another. I rule Dunwik well now. I would not have made a good King of Dunwik in the year 1700. Different times or places may demand different abilities. One may declare one Hauhkuno more intelligent or brave or handsome, but directly attempting to compare value is a fruitless endeavor.
Lastly, to a degree, intelligence is heritable, and this has been proven(3). It is something that one can be born with or born without. Intelligence, being the ability to understand the world, form working models of it, and act in ways that achieve one's goals as efficiently as possible, would be a decent benchmark of the "capacity to do good".
With all this in mind, I reject Mr. Pain's position that all men are born with equal capacity to do good, on the following grounds:
1: "Good" is something that depends on the situation. Identical men born in different circumstances will have different capacities to do good.
2: Men are not born equal. Some are more able than others. Two men born in the same circumstances will, by nature of their genes, have different capacities to do good.
However, I also disagree with Deman Freman's position that an act is of constant value regardless of place, time, or station. The value of such things fluctuates depending upon the circumstances one finds oneself in. A crime inconsequential, or it may be ruinous, depending on whom commits it, when, for what reason, and who the victim is.
Do not spend time attempting to argue over what does not exist, but rather, set your mind to applying what does exist, or uncovering what may exist.
-Dr. Isaac Arthur, Arkhom's Pride, Beloved By The People, Leng's End, Liberator, Lightbringer, Man of Tomorrow, Ruler Of The Sky, Grand Chairman and "God" of Dunwik
1: In the first draft, I remained with the use of bread, and stated that a loaf of bread costs $5 in Clearwater. While this is correct, that is because bread from wheat is a luxury good, for we have neither wheat fields, nor mills, nor bakeries, since our staple grain is rice (or potatoes in the north). To avoid propagandists making a mockery of my nation, I have amended my analogy.
1a: In my haste to amend the second draft, I accidentally used the measurement of a "loaf of rice." This is an archaic measurement from Arhkom and equates to approximately 1500g. Until approximately the year 73 (1895), "loaves" were a common unit of measure for household goods, and remain oft-used in Arkhom and across the Midwest (formerly Northwest) of Dunwik.
2: Standard International Reference Calendar. In Dunwik, the year was 93.
3: Arthur et al. "Heritability of intelligence in the Greater Dunwikki Red Parrot, Addendum 27", 95, Arthur Journal Of The Life Sciences, p.1-157.
|
|
