Lady Jane Grey is a philosophical writer living, at time of writing, in the city of Stormwind. She can often be found within the Mage District. To date, she has written fivebooks (On The Existence Of The Mind, A Rant Concering Morals And Ethics, On how One Should Live Their Life, Upon The Holy Light, and Upon the Existence Of Reality). Below are the five books in question. They may be obtained by contacting the author, any of the various people she has hired to sell them upon the strees to Stormwind, by contacting the Printing Press in Ironforge directly, or at any well supplied library. Out of character pages and dedications have been omitted for ease of readin online, but they mostly run along the lines of thanking whomever came up with the idea (ICly or OOCly) for the book's topic and that I, OOCly, do not necessarily agree with Jane or her views, and that a variety of things I used in her arguments were (blatantly) copied from other people in the Real World.
On The Existence Of The Mind[]
A thought has been lying heavily upon my mind of late. That thought is the question ‘what exactly is my mind, anyway?’. Is my mind a physical thing, a part of my body perhaps? Maybe it is an entirely separate thing unto itself that merely inhabits the body. If the former, then there is issue of such things as ghosts and shades. There are numerous tails from sources of great credibility that tell of the risen dead, but not as an animated corpse – as a spectre. To me, these show that surely there must be something beyond the body.
So then, let us entertain the idea that these spirits are composed purely of the mind, as they do appear to retain personality, knowledge and other such traits of a living mind. I call this Substance Dualism. This would mean that our body is little more than a set of clothes for these spectres. However, in such a case, how then are these bodies controlled? Ghosts, whilst having some ability to interact with the corporeal do so at great expense and limited effect. Why would this be different when inhabiting a body? Besides, were it to be a simple as a ghost wearing the body there is nothing I can see that would stop a ghost from inhabiting an empty body. If this could happen, why would it not? It follows then that the mind is not entirely distinct from the body, but nor can it be of the body.
We know that it cannot be wholly one or the other so, let us perhaps imagine then that mind is formed of two or more parts; one of the spectral and one of the physical, and maybe more beyond. We must then envision how this works; how we split the mind into several parts. Well, let us pause a moment and analyse what it is that we call the mind. Our emotions, our memories, our thoughts, our sanity, and our self-control all seem evident enough to be part of one’s mind.
Let us examine these in order I have stated them; so first our emotions. These are present in all things that have a mind that can be discerned, dare I say it that emotions are a requirement for a mind. Now, our memories whilst they might appear to be present in all minds, they most assuredly are not. A new born child or an animal beneath us in intelligence has no memory beyond perhaps association, and even these are not present at birth. Therefore, these are things that develop over time, surely. Perhaps as one ages, one develops new parts to the mind as one does no parts to the body. It is my belief then, that the spectral form of the mind is not present at birth and must grow. Next are out thoughts, which I feel are as our memories. Perhaps they develop faster than memories, but I cannot see thought in a newborn or a simple beast. Sanity seems to be physical in the same way that emotions are, but self-control is perhaps the last part of the spectral mind to form. It is evident to me that self-control is present only in those of maturity, and even then, it is not omni-present. Clearly, it must be the last thing to develop.
Having said this, I see an issue already that can be raised against my point. Self-control is a part of the spectral mind, I say, which is present only in things of sentience as evidenced by the lack of animal ghosts. However, self-control is present in some animals and not always present in ghosts. To this, I say that, as all people are different, as are all animals and spirits. It is not the rule that animals display self-control nor is it the rule that ghosts lack it. Thus it is that we have established which parts of the mind are present in the spirit and in the body, and which are present only in the spirit.
I see, clear as day, then that the mind is composed primarily of two parts: the spirit and the body, two parts of the same thing, one of which shall grow over time and the other is given at birth. If this is the case then handily we have explained how spirits exist but are lacking the complete form of the mind whilst are still able to control a body.
A Rant Concering Morals And Ethics[]
Let me begin this by saying outright that people, in essence, are barbaric brutes. If we leave a person to their own devices from birth, they are cruel, crude, and simple. However! We do not do that, instead people are raised amongst others and, one hopes, are taught to be polite and courteous. People, whilst not inclined towards etiquette, can be taught to follow it and when this is done people can reach such peaks of moral excellence and ethical clarity that we may call a select few saintly. These people are rare and far between but I do not feel that must be the case.
So, let us now decide not what is moral and ethical, but through what means one should set out a moral system. Should I, perhaps, say that there are a set of rules or virtues that one must follow to be moral? Or maybe I should say that one should do something as insipid as to ‘follow their heart’? To both I say: nay! If we take the former and lay out rules to follow always, we should fall into a worry when we encounter something not planned for or we should fall into a case where the rules are wrong. Let us assume that everyone agrees murder is wrong and set that as a rule to which all must follow, what then must occur is that one must let live someone who shall cause further immoral acts by their hands. Clearly in this hypothetical situation, sparing their life is immoral as it caused further immoral acts to occur. To this, I already here the cries of those who demand rigid and fixed laws to follow. They say, why not vague laws? Why not have a set of simple and general laws, which encompass others? To this, I say that the vaguer a rule, the less it rules. By which I mean, as we remove specificity of a law, the more it can be abused to suit immoral acts. No, we cannot rely solely upon rules, for they must be specific but they are never entirely correct in every circumstance.
So let us discuss what should happen were we to use entirely one’s heart or conscience to decide morality. How dare we suggest such a thing? How very dare we? Who are we to say our conscience and heart is infallible? We are not of terribly great wisdom, we are not of totally encompassing knowledge; so there is not a single reason at all that I can see to suggest that one’s heart, one’s intuition or one’s heart can at all decree what is moral. No, one cannot rely on feelings for morality for one can be found wrong or lacking. Perhaps though, if one applies their rationale one can find what is right. Of course, this will not work as we are not all knowing, but maybe it would help. A person who thinks and strives to do the right thing, and fails, is a better person than he who does it by chance. It is of better qualities in a man, I think, that he may believe he has reasoned out the correct thing to do and been wrong in the place of guesswork. Maybe this is a clue to how one can be more moral and ethical.
Let us now then discuss whether the same morals and ethics can be asked of all people. I believe I can hold dwarves, men, elves, orcs and all others to the same standards even if some are more inclined than others to barbarism. All are sentient and have the capacity to strive for betterment and so they should. Let us then turn this to individuals and not just different peoples. Can I hold two men, from different stations in society, to the same judgement? Well, why couldn’t I? All men, if removed of their worldly possessions, to be considered equal before my eyes. So say I that thus, removed of physical differences, all species are equal before mine eyes. The only differences beyond the physical trappings then, are those that people make for themselves. So I shall hold all to morality, ethics, and etiquette.
Now, let me ask myself should I feel the right to dictate what I believe is moral upon others? I have already said that we are not infallible and can err; so I have no right to preach to my readers; but I feel I have a duty to at least try to spread the guidelines one can use to be moral and let mine be known so that should others wish they can follow in my footsteps. A poet once said “no man is an island” and he was right, no one is a singular entity and were they to be so morality and ethics would be a great deal simpler; but I will say that men are independent. All men should thus strive for their own personal philosophy on ethics and morals. None should decide to follow the teachings of others - even, my dear reader, mine are to be ever questioned.
So, to return to the matter I started with: how to be moral and ethical, despite being born a savage brute. We have proven this far that purely laws are of no use, relying on intuition is ridiculous, all people can be treated equally herein, and what is true for one person can be considered true for another in most situations. So, what combination based mostly on rules and in rationale can we use? Perhaps we could say to do as we please so long as none are harmed? But sometimes harming another is required to better them. Maybe adding more guiding rules to use for judgement, but as the number increases the ease of abuse, the fallibility and the complicatedness grows. Something simple must be developed. Simple, yet effective and all encompassing. Are there any things that one cannot deny? Water, food, accommodation perhaps? To which I say there are some who choose to eschew such things so clearly these are not things all men must possess. I suggest then that so long as what one does should influence not another’s freedom. I suggest then that people, to rise above from such brutal and cruel things that they are born to be, should act to foster and protect the freedom of choice of their fellows and perhaps when there are many an option that does not hinder this freedom of choice, one should use their intuition to decide as it makes no difference to any others. In this matter, I feel to have ensured that one can easily decide what to do, it allows one to harm a person for the better (such as forcing a child into discipline) whilst protecting the rights of all.
On how One Should Live Their Life[]
In one of my earlier books, I discussed how to live ethically and morally, but I advised everyone to form their own ideas on it also. That book concerned mainly with the people not the person; this book shall concern itself with the person and teach you how to form your own ideas if you wish to learn.
Let us begin then by saying what you, the individual are. You are a being in possession of Self-Determination, Will power, and choice. You must use these. Do not let yourself be constrained unwillingly by prior laws, religions, and codes! You must choose for yourself. Throw off the shackles of other people. Learn to live as you choose to live, for no one else has the right nor the power to make you live otherwise! Your life is yours, do not waste and do not let others live it for you.
Further, no action you choose should you regret. If given the chance to relive your life, you should want to make the same choices each and every time and be happy with that. You only live once and to live it in regret and unhappiness is a waste of it. Move out of the shadow of past actions if you already regret and learn to act as it pleases you best.
Regarding laws and religions; I say it now and I say it clearly – they mean nothing to you! They are not your laws, they never Will be if you don’t wish for them. The laws of others who theirs alone, should you wish to follow them you may but you are not to be forced into this. You must choose.
Everything without Choice is also without worth inherent to it. It all means nothing, in of itself. There is no difference between anything, nor is there purpose or meaning to life. It is yours to prosper and be happy in and nothing more. You grant meaning to the world, you must decide what has worth and what does not, for no one else can do this for you. Choose!
Again I say, you must choose! You must rise up above the title of mere mortals, for you are above man! You are a super man should you wish to be it, and so you should! There is nothing in this world that can stop you, if you choose to keep on. The Will triumphs over all!
Upon The Existence of reality[]
Now to some, this may seem the most trivial and pointless of questions to pose, but it must be posed anyway: does the external world exist? Many people might say that it obviously does because one can see and touch it, and one can otherwise experience it. To this though I must make two points. When one is asleep and dreaming, does one not also see and perceive all that one dreams? Further, when one is deluded or otherwise tricked one might perceive something to be the case, when in fact it is not true. In either case then, if the real world is said to exist because one perceives it, then so too should dreams and delusions be counted as real. Clearly, this is not the case; so how does one know for certain the world does exist?
So, if as implied earlier one cannot rely upon sensory data, is there anything one can rely upon? We know for a fact that one has a mind, so that may be our first foundation. For those unsure of the veracity of this, attempt to doubt the ability to doubt and one can see that there must clearly be something; besides, even were we to be deceived there is still something being deceived. So, with that let us attempt to construct more things of which one can be certain. Things of purely mental construct that have no grounding in the physical world, surely. Rationale, logic, reason, and even arithmetic can be counted as such. For if they cannot, then how ever did I think of all this before putting pen to page? Let us expand on this, though I cannot be sure of the chair in which I sit as I write nor of the hearth that warms; I can be sure of the idea of chairs and hearths. Where these ideas come from, however, is not clear; but that they must originate from somewhere is certain. Either, I create these ideas, they are given to me by something or they are of real physical things.
Let us consider these then in order. If they come from my mind, then I am creating these ideas out of pure imagination. If I am the source of all my ideas, I should have some influence over them and have the capacity to generate wholly new ones. Of the former, I cannot say for certain but of the latter I can definitively say I do not have that ability. At best, I may combine or re-arrange parts of prior ideas to form new ones, but I cannot create a wholly new one. For example, try imagining a new colour.
If they are given to me by something, what could this thing be? Clearly its morality does not align with what is commonly thought to be moral – it is willingly deceiving me, giving me no reason for this, and manipulating me. What thing then has this power and then uses it so? I refuse to believe something of power sufficient to dominate my mind so easily is also as petty enough to have nothing better than to do so. I have no real rationale for this, but it just doesn’t make sense for something of such power to do so little with it.
This leaves us then with these ideas come from the physical world. If they do so, what then is the source of this? I shall apply the logic that the simplest argument that requires the least hypotheses and conjectures is most likely the correct one. As such, the simplest argument that requires the least hypotheses and conjectures is that these ideas come from that of which they are ideas. Obviously, these might not be arranged or laid out as I think they are nor might I be perfectly accurate as to what I perceive; but it is then all but certain that what I perceive is truthful in the majority.
However, regardless of whether or not the external world does exist, one must act as though it does.
Upon The Holy Light[]
I have recently been asked to put forth my views on this subject and so I shall. First, I shall discuss how belief in the Light supposedly allows one to know of the existence of the external world, and then I shall discuss each of the three Virtues in turn.
So, let us begin. Now, it is taught that there is a connexion between the self and the universe. This connexion is becomes manifest when one experiences great emotion or awe. It is then said that since this is felt, that one must exist – I have no issues with this part, but the next I do take issue with. It is then said that because one feels this and exists, so too must the universe that gave one this feeling. The teachings of the Holy Light do not even think to discuss where else they may be coming from. A malicious entity might be causing it; the counter part to the Light, the Forgotten Shadow, may be responsible for this or some nefarious entity such as a demon. Just because one might feel something, does not mean that what one thinks such a feeling is caused by is the actual cause.
As I have already discusses such entities as a demon deceiving oneself, I shan’t discuss them here again; but as this is a treatise on religion I shall discuss the counterpace and opposite to the Holy Light – the Forgotten Shadow. Now, I do not pretend to be an expert in either, and so I may be at fault in discussing the finer points of either – but I feel as a philosopher I can do justice to them both in this opinion piece. Let us then return to where I left off. This connexion, it is said, is felt because one feels things of the universe; the Forgotten Shadow however says that this connexion exists only when the will is exerted upon the universe. Setting aside potential deceits, let us take both of these to be true in turn. First shall the Light. When one feels, one is connected to the universe and these feelings must be of great Power.
However, what these feelings must be is not addressed. A great anger or hatred could thus be what connects one to the universe, this connexion could be based solely upon fear or wrath. With this connexion established in negativity, one can still act to cause further feelings in others, and to make better the world one must be true to one’s own emotions. Thus it is that, should one feel anger or rage, the Holy Light teaches us that we should be true to these feelings and impact other feelings unto others in line with them. The Light teaches us not to be kind but to be true to ourselves and that we must act bound by emotion. To this I say that such lack of restraint can only cause the world to grow more wild, and in one sense free, but lesser and in another sense more controlled.
And so unto the Forgotten Shadow and its connexion we turn. This path teaches us that the connexion exists between oneself and the universe, not through feeling, but through the shaping and changing of the latter by the former. One must attain personal power and one must the use this to bend the universe to one’s will, perhaps in small ways at first but bend it they must. In this form, the connexion between the self and the universe is that the universe is nothing more than the combined wills and exertions of other beings with power. The Forgotten Shadow teaches that one must be strong in order for one to have true power to oneself and to respect the plaything that is the universe.
Both religions have two of the same virtues: Respect and Tenacity; but these are addressed in different ways. In the Forgotten Shadow, respect is to use and harness the power that have collected to themselves. To ignore this power and not use it to shape the universe is to disrespect and harm both oneself and the universe around them. One must respect one’s power in that one must use it whilst not overreaching one’s grasp and limits. power is dangerous and cannot be taken too quickly. The counterpoint in the Holy Light is that one must respect the universe and the others connected to it. To degrade the emotions of others, and thus their connexions, does not serve the well-being of the world and so it does not serve one’s own well being. One must respect this else one harms everyone around them. This means to say that to be good for oneself, one must be good to everyone else and acknowledge their emotions and connexions. One must, if they are connected through wrath, both act upon it and not act upon it lest is sever the connexions of oneself and of others. This view point only works in the assumption that all people are connected with such feelings as love and compassion, but they most assuredly are not. People are, in general, selfish.
The second common Virtue is Tenacity. In the Holy Light, Tenacity is the devotion and commitment one puts in to maintaining the connexion and good will of the Holy Light. The universe is bigger than one can possible imagine and so it requires time to even notice that they have made a difference, for good or for ill. One must commit to one’s actions. Such a stubborn view point in that one’s emotions must always be followed surely, to me, cannot lead anywhere but to the worse. Emotions are not the guide to living well, yes they must be acknowledge but no they mustn’t be what guides oneself. In the Forgotten Shadow, however, tenacity is that even though one wishes to change the universe one must work for it at all times and stick with it. One must make small changes, it teaches its followers, and through time and endurance large changes shall be made.
The third Virtue differs in both, in the Forgotten Shadow the third is Power. This is what all of its followers strive for. Power of the self is the ability to control oneself and the universe one lives in. Power cannot be taken greedily or hastily, and it takes time to attain true Power. Those who succumb to self-pity and wallowing in despair have no Power and are not better than the mindless thralls are. However, should one take too much Power too quickly, one might incur the interest of those in possession of greater Power than one might have. This is not necessarily a good thing.
In the Holy Light, the third virtue is Compassion. This is the idea that the connexion between the universe and the self is strong but it is only one connexion. To strengthen it further and make new ones, one must show compassion to others and cause them to have a connexion between the self and the other. This strengthens and betters not just the self, but also the universe whilst allowing the person to affect the universe more so. However, compassion is not always good. I have seen many a time when the attempt to help someone has actually hindered the person. Take, for example, a child. If one does everything for the child, the child will never learn how to do the actions for itself. Help must not be given to each and every person, nor must compassion be shown to each and every person. Such as it is, this virtue must too be moderated, as Power must be.
Having now spoken at length about these two religions, both counter point to one another, it becomes clear to me that the Holy Light is not wholly accurate in its beliefs whilst the Forgotten Shadow is fundamentally flawed in its reasoning, much as I like some of its conclusions. Surely then, there must be some middle ground as these two views appear so similar that it is little more than a change of perspective – whether one looks at the person or whether one looks at the universe.
An Essay Regarding Language And The Way It Can Affect or Effect Thought[]
By anonymous request, I have been tasked to set forth my views on this. This is not my favourite avenue of thought in philosophy, nor is it something I have, before writing this, put any great deal of research into. So, let my opening statement be blunt: neither language nor thought is limited by the other, neither creates the others, but they do allow for easier (or harder) employment of one for the purposes of the other.
Some might say that a concept without a name for it, cannot be expressed nor thought of. This is, I say, amongst the most stupid viewpoints I have ever had to entertain. Regardless of whether there is a word or not for a certain concept, a person can still express and think of such a concept – albeit in a much more roundabout manner. One might, say, have lack of the word ‘love’ and be forced to express it as ‘that feeling where one puts their closest and dearest before oneself in all manners’ or similar. This is the same concept even if one did require longer in formulating it. So clearly, the limits of language are not the limits of thought.
Now, let us assume the alternate – that the limits of thought are the limits of language. This would be the most stupid viewpoint I have ever had to entertain, closely followed by the prior one. If this view is true, the ramifications of one’s mind evolving, and of one growing older and more knowledgeable, means that certain concepts are only created in the language as a given person thinks of it. Suppose I considered a simpleton, whose thoughts are rather narrow, neither of our thoughts limit the language that he and I speak. In the singular case, no given person’s thoughts limit their language. However, the language of a culture can only extend as far as the culture does – if no one in the culture ever has entertained the thought of something, the language cannot directly express that concept. This brings us back to the first point, however. It only makes things slightly more difficult and time consuming, not impossible.
Therefore, it is clear that language and thought can only at worst slow down the other. They do not limit one another, nor do they create the other.
Who or what controls our life?[]
There are two main views on how one’s life is guided. There is determinism and there is free will. The former is the idea that choices in one’s life have been chosen for one, by something such as cause and effect or a higher power. Free will is the idea that every choice is made by the person in question and can be chosen completely irrelevant to everything that occurred before it. The two extremes of these views are often rather silly. In the case of free will, the past obviously affects (and effects) certain events and decisions; and regarding determinism, I doubt strongly that my will and my freedom are entirely fictitious. So, it seems obvious to me that some middle ground must be found.
Let us then whittle away from determinism until it is no longer ludicrous. Cause and effect are very real things; they are simple to demonstrate so I shan’t bother to. Now, is every single thing a product of this? Even our own choices are a part of this chain. However, I deny that the choices are thus pre-arranged. If there were some being or entity that knew of everything’s place and current actions in the present, it would not be able to then work out the past and future from this, and cause and effect. There are random variables and the freedom of choice. Cause and effect will lead me to a choice, but the choice I then make is my own.
Let us then consider a variant of determinism: fatalism. This is the idea that certain events are fixed, and will happen as planned, but how they are reached is another matter. It could be fated that in a week’s time, I will dine with company, but how I get to that dinner date isn’t decided. It could be a friendly gossip, it could be reconciliation, or anything else; but that it will happen is assured. Now, in this situation we still have choice. One can still choose what one does, and one’s choices do affect the future. Choices will alter how an event plays out and the reasons behind it, but certain events assuredly will happen. This view I find little issue with. I still make my choices. However, the choice might already have been known and it will lead me to a fixed point.
Now that we have determinism refined to a point where it is no longer nonsensical, let us consider the same of free will. If everyone’s choices are made independently of the past, then every choice would be entirely random. If this is true, then I for one am amazed at this highly improbable world we live in. Whilst not impossible, strictly speaking, this idea is still rather foolish. ‘tis clear that one’s choices are affected by the past.