What.

I wasn't going to reply to you since I don't want to derail this thread, but I just can't let nonsense like this go, especially as a historian.

Most philosophers would be the first to disagree with you about the almost holy reverence with which you treat philosophy. The first philosopher whose work we know of, Socrates, was after all well-known for trying to get everyone to practice it. And most philosophers have explored many other intellectual pursuits, most often scientific ones, the most notable examples being Aristotle or Descartes.

History may be influenced by philosophy, but the reverse is just as true, since philosophers aren't some kind of superior beings who exist in a vacuum, immune to any outside influence to come up with their ideas.
Hobbes would likely never have written his Leviathan and come up with his ideas about human nature being to prey on each other if he hadn't lived during a period of civil war in England.
Spinoza would likely have had a different philosophical perspective if he hadn't lived in a Holland recovering from religious disputes.
And the ancient Greek philosophers' ideas were just as reflective of the values and politics of their time (many of which seem nonsense to us now, like equating the beautiful and the good).


It is perfectly possible to do an historical analysis of philosophical thought, because contrary to what you seem to think philosophy is the work of people who are no more perfect than you or I. It is not some pinnacle of human thought and has no more (and no less) intrinsic value than any other intellectual pursuit.

As for there being no human beings without philosophy, I think most people are busy disproving that particular theory, unless you actually think people who don't care about philosophical thought aren't humans?


I have great respect for philosophy, even though I disagree with most philosophical theories, but putting it on a pedestal the way you do and devaluing other disciplines is, if you'll excuse the expression, complete bullshit.

I don't know what "most philosophers" think about history but philosophy doesn't come to its conclusions by means of a democratic vote. The truth isn't decided by a vote so it doesn't matter how many philosophers believe in this or that. I can't believe that you actually believe this point strengthens your argument ! Truth is truth, whether anyone knows it or not at any given time, and totally regardless of people's opinions or majority votes. You don't decide the truth by means of a vote ! There are very few philosophers worthy of the title, so it doesn't really matter what "most philosophers" think, because most of them are not really philosophers anyway.

It's not at all true that the relationship between philosophy and history is equal and reciprocal, as you suggest. Philosophy is prior in several senses, "history" in none. There was no "history" (the subject) at one time : mythology was all the Greeks needed, for instance. All the concepts of history are concepts thought out in advance by philosophers, and this can never be otherwise. If you think that, for instance, Parmenides needed any "historical" data in order to conceive his infinitely deep thoughts on Being then you are mistaken. Philosophy needs NOTHING else : it is the simplest, purest and most fundamental form of questioning.

Philosophy absolutely IS the pinnacle of human thought : it is in philosophy that the most fundamental concepts, underlying all the others, get decided. Without these concepts there could never be any other subjects because they wouldn't have any basis to work from. The most fundamental concept is, of course, Being. With the wrong concept of Being we go astray, with the right one we are headed in the right direction. The whole of learning and education has its direction predetermined by whatever concept of Being happens to be in play at any given time. You have to seriously ask yourself, What made the Greeks turn from mythology to history ?

Theoclymenus, let me just say that, as a philologist, I agree with pretty much everything you said. I, too, believe exact sciences (but mostly psychology) are but modern replacements to old religions and mythologies, in the sense people unquestionably accept them as the absolute truth and live their lives based on their values and smaller truths. This is bound to happen throughout mankind's existence, it is my honest opinion we can't live without made-up "bigger" guidelines, explanations and principles. I have my own, admittedly, albeit in literature and art.

Having said that, I don't think arguing about these things in a video game forum makes much sense; most of the gaming community comes from an exact science background, they won't understand our reasoning and we'll automatically be dismissed as crazy lunatics. And neither us nor them should care, we are here because we all enjoy playing video games, that's what should matter the most, not having fire-fueled philosophical debates over whether science and history are wrong or not.

I honestly think you mean well, but this is the internet, people won't even try to understand you, you'll just be ridiculed and labeled as an idiot (which, etymologically, is actually a good thing to be labeled as, not that anyone cares about etymology). Let us be silent idiots instead, and keep talking about races in role playing video games.

Grab yourself a handful of mushrooms, pop on any old game and bam!, there are all the mystical creatures you love...

(I'm not advocating the use of any hallucinogenics)

So who exactly are you to decide who is a philosopher and who isn't? What's the criteria? Or do you just call philosophers the people who said things you like, and anybody else is wrong? That's very much NOT what philosophy is supposed to be about.
And if you knew *anything* about philosophy, you'd know it's not about finding the truth, but about looking for truth. That's why all philosophical thought is called theories, and why there isn't any single philosopher people acknowledge as having found truth.


I'm sorry, but mistaking mythology and history for each other is one of the stupidest things I've ever read.
People have *always* kept historical records, if only to keep track of who should rule, and other unimportant things like that. The fact that those records are lost isn't evidence that they never existed.
Nobody ever said someday: "oh I'm tired of just making stuff up, let's try to keep accurate records of what actually happened, alright?".

Mythology is a completely different beast, it's basically what we call old religions than nobody believes in any more, as well as old tales.
In thousands of years, the religions of today will probably be called myths, and stories like the Lord of the Rings might attain the same status as the Iliads


Tbh, I'm not familiar with Parmenides' work, but I'm certain there were historians back when he lived too. And you seem to be completely missing my point that no philosopher existed in a vacuum. They were all imperfect people affected by the society they lived in, and what that society is is a consequence of historical events.


Lastly you can keep repeating that philosophy is the pinnacle of human thought all you want, that won't make it true.
You just haven't given a single compelling argument as to why it would be.
And the fact that most philosophers would disagree with you doesn't exactly lend strength to your empty boasts.


Anyway, since you keep spouting the same nonsense, there is no point in discussing the matter with you. You won't convince me that philosophy is a superior intellectual pursuit, and I obviously won't convince you otherwise.

Okay, this is a re-derailment of this thread, so apologies for that, but I feel I must reply to your points and it is necessary to go off on tangent to do so. Apologies also, mystra, for the tardy reply.

I am not "mistaking" history for mythology or vice versa, I am referring to a radical change of perspective which occurred in Greek antiquity at about the same time as the great Greek historians (Herodotus, Thucydides) first arose or started writing. This change of perspective - metaphysical (philosophical) in origin - signalled the end of mythology, or at least its gradual relegation to the realms of "fantasy" and hence (later) general kookiness and madness in the opinion of modern "thinkers" (scientists). I am not a classicist or an historian but I know that "history" (and I mean historiography : written history) is NOT something ancient as an intellectual practice. There was a great age - the GREATEST age - in Western history, just prior to the age of historiography and the "classical" age of philosophy (Plato being perhaps the typical representative) in which the greatest Greek thinkers thought the thoughts which still underlie and sustain the ungrateful, arrogant and uncomprehending modern world today, though modern folk - especially our academics - have not an inkling of this. These thoughts - including, perhaps preeminently, those of Parmenides (but see also Heraclitus) - are the greatest thoughts EVER thought. They are "pre-historic" thoughts in that they pre-date history, and they point back to a time which pre-dates even Parmenides and Heraclitus : the age of myth. In Heidegger's opinion, "mythos" is another word for "truth" : it is not the *antithesis* of truth. Metaphysically speaking, truth as "logos" (logos as "logic") is the basis of history as historiography. "Logos" and "Mythos" meant something very different in the minds of the Greeks of the classical era, and even this understanding - far superior to the modern understanding - pales in comparison to the PRISTINE understanding of these matters which belonged to the world of Parmenides and Heraclitus. To view myths and mythology from a modern perspective - and this includes the historical / historiographical perspectives - is to fail to appreciate its depth, its universality and its truth. In truth, so-called "history" contains NO THINKING WHATSOEVER. Any thinking which occurs within some piece of written history or other has already departed from history and become philosophy - because that's all thinking fundamentally is : PHILOSOPHY. "History" cannot pronounce judgment on the supreme intellectual phenomenon which is philosophy because it is forever the mere CHILD of philosophy.

As to WHY philosophy is the pinnacle of human thought and achievement, I would say that the answer ought to be obvious to anyone with any sort of analytical ability. But perhaps you also need more than merely a decent intellect to appreciate philosophy : what it is and why it is inevitably and permanently pre-eminent - perhaps you also need a soul which is still in tune with life itself and hasn't let itself be affected by the zeitgeist ? There is a hierarchy of concepts which the human race works with every day, either in everyday language or in deeper conversation. This hierarchy is established by the thinkers which we call "philosophers". The most fundamental concept of philosophy is Being : it is impossible to go beyond this concept, the meaning of which is far from obvious, unless you are an idiot and you think it IS obvious (certain scientists spring to mind, and certain "philosopher" too.) Philosophy is clearly the pinnacle of human thought and achievement. All the other subjects depend on it for their own concepts. When a great historian emerges, for instance, it is because he actually managed to become a philosopher for a while (or perhaps for rest of his life). Philosophy is thinking PROPER, because it is the only subject which truly starts from the beginning.

How you view mythology depends on the perspective you already have, which is determined by what you already think. If you see the elves as Byzantines (as the OP suggested) then that is only ONE way of looking at elves. I personally never think of any fantasy races or characters in terms of human history / historiography, and I think it's a bit presumptuous to expect others to view things in the same way as you do. If all that ever goes through your mind when you come across a mythical / fantastic creature is "Oh, that's just a tired old analogy based on real, factual history" then I think you need to get yourself a new imagination !

That's not really how it works, mythology is pretty flexible and it all comes down to how the writer presents it. You can write something as a historical analogy (Dwarves in the witcher) or make it complete mythos and anything inbetween.

Now, I wouldn't dare to make any criticism to the mythology behind elves and orcs. What irks me though is that videogame writers in the last years always use the same cheap tolkien knockoff template without any effort put into it, and i'm frankly sick of it. I'd love to have a game with elves straight out of norse mythology instead of the usual D&D-lite faff. it just sucks the mythos out of mythology.

I accept that you have a good point. It can't be all just Tolkien and nothing else from here to the end of eternity. Venerable though Tolkien's stuff is, it was all based on earlier mythology (and thinking) anyway. And of course Tolkien's philosophical perspective is far from being the only one. I just like him and his works and feel almost duty-bound to defend it when it comes under attack, which seems to be quite often.

On the other hand, though, it must be really difficult to come up with anything new when trying to create a new RPG. I honestly don't believe, though, that it is possible to surpass the old mythologies, or to come up with anything new (in terms of new races or whatever) which isn't merely a "rehash" of earlier stuff. I'm all for a bit of Norse mythology - and a bit of Greek as well. But this stuff has also already been done to death. It's all about the treatment, not about the "subject-matter". But it is also about the imagination of the gamer - and there's not a lot the developer can do about the imagination which the gamer already has, which has already been formed by his / her own thoughts and readings.

In our origins, before the organized, modern civilizations (post 1000 - 500 bc) , both Science and Religion were one in the same, though you wouldn’t know it from today’s portrayal of Religion as a source of political and propagandist fanatical control schemes. Consider the once living religions of our ancestors that didn’t revolve so much around Gods and Goddesses as much as they did the Solar and Lunar cycles, the coming of rain and harvesting of crops.

Through Religion, mankind discovered scientific understanding and even learned to harness Evolution, by cross-breading and selecting specific strains of crops and domesticated animals, for harvesting and for pets and garden flowers, as examples.

Technically, Science is just observation through hands on experimentation, and accepted consensus through peer reviewed yet continually tested means. The method itself is designed to accept questioning and change.

Religion, technically is designed more to provide guidance through communal understanding, and should represent all the phases of life, not just our mortality and the afterlife. It too was to allow questioning and exploration, by design.

Philosophy is the freedom of thought experimentation, the ability to reason and question, provide perspective and test postulated theories.

However, Ideology is a disease of the enslavement of thought, unyielding, where all these things come crashing down into a soulless pile of inhumanity unto humanity. It is the darkness that casts its shadow of Religious Wars, lends credibility to greed and corruption, and mock sciences used for depraved purposes and the ruthless pursuit of profits, for Ideology is the master of self-delusion.