• Raven73
    4
    I wrote an (unpublished) novel, an epic fantasy in the vein of Lord of the Rings. There's a lot of world-building involved. The setting is an imaginary world with a level of technology of Greece in about 300 B.C. The world also has real magic, dragons and other species such as elves. In the story, people of all walks of life gather in a public square where philosophers offer free lectures. The following is an excerpt (slightly condensed here for clarity) of one of those lectures, given by an old philosopher by the name of Cogitson, who is discussing illusion (which is one of the themes of the novel).

    Would you be so kind as to help me evaluate the following:
    1) Is the philosophy believable and rigorous?
    2) Is it appropriate, approximately, for the time period?

    Please forgive the formatting - I'm not sure how to indent here.

    “Life is but an illusion!" old Cogitson began. "Hear me: time is infinite … our lives are but a drop in the ocean of time. Even the span of the life of an elf is nothing compared to the ne’er-ending length of time. Even the so-called “long” life of a mage, extended by the artificial means of magic, cannot even begin to compare with the age of God! I used to call myself a wizard, a healer. I am two thousand two hundred and forty eight years old. But my life, as long as it may seem, is but a short dream. When I awake from this dream, I will return to the infinity. I will return to reality. We think we understand reality. But we understand so little. We are ignorant. The ant seems small to us, but the ant seems big to the mite.”
    Cogitson held up a stone.
    “What shape is this stone? Hmm?”
    He held it out to a young man.
    “Round,” answered the young man.
    “To us,” Cogitson saith, holding the stone aloft, “It appears round. But what if a mite walked along the surface? Would the surface seem round to the mite? Or flat?”
    The old philosopher paused and then tossed the stone to the ground.
    “We have always assumed,” Cogitson saith, walking slowly in a circle, “that the surface of the world is flat … but perhaps our eyes deceive us! Perhaps … the world is not flat.”
    Some of the people in the audience smiled.
    “We know,” the philosopher saith, pointing his index finger up, “that elves can see more colors than we can. If an elf looked at, o … me, for example, he would see different colors than thee.”
    Cogitson stopped walking.
    “So, I pray thee: what colors am I? Does the elf see my true colors, or do we?”
    He paused.
    “The elf, because their eyes are better,” offered another young man.
    “Ah … so a man with healthy sight will see the true colors of a thing, whereas an older man with weak sight doth not?”
    The young man averted his eyes.
    “T’is saith that a dragon’s eyesight is even better than an elf’s. Does this mean that the dragon sees reality as it truly is, whereas the elf does not?”
    Cogitson paused and glanced around, slowly turning from face to face.
    “Both are correct,” saith the prince. “And both are incorrect.”
    The old philosopher smiled.
    “Thou art correct, my prince,” Cogitson saith, with a little bow.
    “Life is illusion,” the philosopher saith, pausing for effect. “Only God knows the truth of it. We can only hope to understand a small fraction of the truth.”
    Cogitson placed his hand near his heart.
    “We should be humble in our views of the universe and of life.”
    Cogitson bowed more deeply.
    “I thank ye.”
  • Sir2u
    3.2k
    The ant seems small to us, but the ant seems big to the miteRaven73

    Would they know about mites in those days?
  • BC
    13.2k
    When a reader picks up a fantasy or science fiction book to weigh buying it, the decision will be made in just a few pages, maybe 1... 3... maybe 5--not more than 5, usually. The author has very little time to convince the reader that the book/world he has created is believable and going to be a good read. Some books will be opened then tossed aside on the basis of one bad paragraph.

    Sounds like impossibly long odds, but lots of books are bought after so brief an assay.

    I am afraid the brief sample you have provided would not lead to my purchasing your book.

    Problems: "Cogitson" is not an attractive name. For one, it is too latinate and two, Interesting characters aren't usually named after their specialty. Gandalf isn't named "Power Wizard" for instance.

    Dialog has to be intriguing. The sampled dialog isn't. Not much dialog, for one thing.

    I hate to throw cold water on your tender baby; I can not write my way out of the proverbial wet paper bag. But the criticism is sound -- Ursula LeGuin is the source of some of it.

    I would be OK for a passage to begin with "“Life is but an illusion!" old Cogitson began. "Hear me: time is infinite … our lives are but a drop in the ocean of time. Even the span of the life of an elf is nothing compared to the ne’er-ending length of time. Even the so-called “long” life of a mage" but something (preferably something alarming) should interrupt the lecture.

    Maybe an arrow could pierce the prince's chest. Or better yet, get rid of Cogitson early in the game--I've only known of him for a few minutes and already he seems eminently expendable.

    Another point: Art, ye, saith... are you going to keep up the archaic language through the whole thing? I wouldn't. A very few characters can be allowed its use, but for the most part, stick to the modern forms of Anglo-Saxon and Middle English as much as possible -- that's what Tolkien did in LOTR. Of course, that isn't what made LOTR great, it was character, plot, and an entirely believable universe.

    What is the plot of your novel?
  • Raven73
    4
    Hi Bitter Crank,

    This isn't the opening of the novel. As I explained, this is an excerpt of a lecture in the novel. It occurs in the middle of the story.

    I don't care that Cogitson isn't an attractive name. He's not a main character. This is literally his only appearance in the whole novel.

    I also didn't ask for a critique of the writing. This is a philosophy forum.
  • Raven73
    4
    Mites aren't microscopic.
  • Ciceronianus
    2.9k
    Pythagoras, Aristotle and Archimedes all thought the world was a sphere. Pythagoras lived around 500 B.C.; Aristotle and Archimedes around 300 B.C. I'm not sure you can assume everyone, especially philosophers, thought the world was flat around that time.

    I've always found it odd that people are impressed by such facts as, e.g., an ant isn't a human being (which seems to me to be all that's being said when it's noted an ant will "perceive" things differently than a human). I'm uncertain what view of this unremarkable fact was prevalent among philosophers around 300 B.C., but it may well be they thought it establishes that "life is but a dream."
  • Sir2u
    3.2k
    Adult might are very small, only about 0.3 mm.

    Is that visible to the human eye, or do people only see the symptoms of the infestation?
  • Raven73
    4
    Depends on the mite. Some mites are 6 mm.
  • Sir2u
    3.2k
    I jus gotta call BS on that one. :lol:
  • Sir2u
    3.2k
    Depends on the mite. Some mites are 6 mmRaven73

    That would make it as big as many ants, but in the story it says

    but the ant seems big to the mite.Raven73
  • Sir2u
    3.2k
    Post some pics then. :wink:
  • jkg20
    405
    Some of what this Cogitson is saying sounds like the kind of arguments Berkeley gave for his empirical idealism (you might already have read Three Dialogues Between Hylas and Philonous, but if you haven't, try just the first one - it's an easy read). The thing Cogitson needs to be careful about is that there is a difference between arguing that existence is mind-dependent - which is what the perceptual relativity arguments aim to show - and arguing that existence is an illusion (which given how Cogitson introduces his spiel, I guess is what he wants to prove). Cogitson and Berkeley aren't that far away from each other though, and Berkeley goes one better - he actually believed he was proving the existence of God by establishing the proof of empirical idealism.
    Good luck with the book.
  • Srap Tasmaner
    4.6k
    Gandalf isn't named "Power Wizard" for instance.Bitter Crank

    Pointless necro here:

    Actually he more or less is. Look up where Tolkien got the name "Gandalf".
  • BlueBanana
    873
    I once witnesses a mite that was a whopping 10.8mm. They say it was a myth and I was delusional but I know what saw! We needed a lot of drugs to calm it down enough so we capture it for research purposes. A lot of people died that day. We lost a lot of good men. Eventually it managed to escape and we never saw it again. Has haunted my dreams ever since.Mr Phil O'Sophy

    Only a centimeter? You've seen nothing.

    Speaking of which, I need to build myself a new house. Can anyone lend me some money?
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.