Comment

My depression caused by receiving no comments is only matched by my emotional despotism in any inter-personal relationships.  It is not a good feeling to think that you are a lonely wanderer rambling into the cold unforgiving cyber landscape, and your pain and hardships are all for nothing because nobody cares.  It is for this reason that I will be putting up commonly Googled terms as titles in order to receive more views in  the hopes that someone will eventually take the infinitesimally small amount of effort it takes to type up a comment.  If you enjoy having suicides on your conscience, don't comment; if you seek to be a ray of unrivaled hope and joy to one aspiring writer and philosopher then do.

Forge of Dwair

I intend to publish a book called the Forge of Dwair, an epic fantasy of fantastic proportions.  I can't divulge many of the details at this moment,but as the publication day comes nearer I will give more details.  Seekers of originality and sci-fi fans will love the tons of creatures I have created, and the elements of science fictions that I love using.  This book has no connection to any previously posted material on my blog.  I hope you look out for it in the future.

Myth War

Too often these days we see card games that cost hundreds of dollars to adequately play against others, but now I give unto you a new game.  A game that is free.  Below you can see the format for proposed cards.  The name type and summoning cost is presented on the top of each creature card.  Below that is a picture that you may copy from Google images.  Below the picture are the stats and summoning requirements.  Structures like the one next to the Dryad are placed on one of the 12 spaces on the board.  The board is 3 by 4 with the sides bearing three facing the opponents.  The six spaces nearest you are yours at the beginning   of the game. On your first turn you may build a citadel, like the Forest's Heart below, on your back row.  After that is built you may build one structure.  Each player can only have one citadel. You then have four summoning points to spend on your first creatures.  You cannot summon and sacrifice a creature on the same turn.  Each turn after your first turn consists of three parts.  Building, Summoning/Sacrificing, and Attacking.  At the beginning of each turn you receive two more summoning points.  Saving summoning points is legal but you can only have six points saved at one time or you don't get anymore.  You can place a structure on any spot you own, and if a creature requires to be summoned on that structure then it must be summoned to that space.  Creatures can move one space and attack on the Attack part of your turn, except Territorial creatures who cannot leave the space they are summoned on.  A health point is lost whenever a creature with more power attacks it.  Creatures can attack or defend together adding together their attack points, but you may only move and attack with two creatures at a time.  Unlimited numbers of creatures can defend together, though only the target of the attack loses health.  All structures have zero power, so they lose a health point each time they are attacked, but they cannot be attacked while a friendly creature is on them.  When your citadel is destroyed you lose.  This is an informal game, but make sure any freinds that play it with you are okay with the creatures you make.  That is the final rule, you make the creatures.  Stick to the templates below and use your imagination.

Dryad              1$         Faeling       Enchanted Forest   Nature Structure

Requires Enchanted Forest to Summon      4 health             

35 Power     3 Health  -15 against fire

Fae Summoner    2$  Caster Fae    Forest’s Heart     Nature Citadel

Requires Forest’s Heart to Summon   6 Health

30 Power 3 Health +20 against Faeling

Controls any adjacent unspelled Faeling

 Fae Sanctuary        Nature Structure     Troll                  3$             Fae

      4 Health                                       Requires Fae Sanctuary to Summon

                                                                            Sacrifice a Faeling to Summon

                                                                              65 Power 5 Health  Territorial

Sprite Knight                 1$         Faeling   Confusing Fog                          Spell

Requires Fae Sanctuary to Summon                 Requires a Caster.

30 Power 4 health Can be Summoned from      Cast on a possessed land space.

any nature structure once Sanctuary is down    Entering enemies are trapped for a turn.

Steam Powered Giraffe

This is one of my favorite bands and they do a lot of really great stuff.  Be sure to look out for their CD's.

Moral Relativism

Michael Kennedy

1 April 2013

Moral Relativity

Imagine a world where the evil of Hitler, the slaughters under Stalin, and the terror of Saddam Hussein went unpunished.  What idea would justify this horror of a world?  Some truly believe that these actions were acceptable, in that no actions are unacceptable.  This is the idea of moral relativity, and the dangers of this ideology are too horrible and too numerous to ignore.  Moral relativity has no place in our world and should be opposed.  We will discuss what this idea is, individual relativity, and cultural relativity.

                So what is moral relativity?  It is a complex idea which has gained popularity among scholarly circles in the past couple of years.  It is the idea that a person’s belief of right and wrong is correct, but so is someone else’s to them even if these ideas disagree with one another.  Basically everyone is right.  This also means that there is no true right and wrong, because ethical convictions are merely personal opinions.  Paul Boghossian said it best in his article in The New York Times, “If there are no absolute facts about morality, ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ would have to join ‘witch’ in the dustbin of failed concepts.”(Boghossian)  Moral relativity also stipulates that there are no absolute truths.  For instance some people believe in “Hell” others don’t.  Moral Relativity states that both of these people are right.  There are two types of moral relativity.  There is individual relativity and cultural relativity.  We will discuss both of these.

Individual relativity is the idea that any singular person’s moral views are correct, and that there are no over arching moral guidelines.  This idea arose from a cultural conflict.  Matt K. Lewis in his article in The Week summed it up, “Liberty is murdering virtue.”(Lewis)  He goes on to say that America’s promise of liberty, has overwhelmed traditional senses of virtue.  People want to do what they want to do and individual moral relativity provides the justification.  Under this idea nothing can be judged.  We couldn’t punish murder, rape, or anything else as long as the accused said that he believed what he did was right.  Another idea which works into individual relativity is the idea of relative truth.  We discussed that idea previously and there is a major problem in this logic.  Simply because someone may not believe in hell doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.  You can’t see air, but it is there.  The more accepted idea is the idea of cultural relativity that makes some new propositions while still working under the premise that there is no true right or wrong.

            This is the more convoluted of the two.  The idea is that different cultures have different opinions on right and wrong, and therefore there is no overarching moral code.  Peter Kreeft, in his online book about relativism, says it best, “The claim is that anthropologists and sociologists have discovered moral relativism to be not a theory but an empirical fact. Different cultures and societies, like different individuals, simply do, in fact, have very different moral values. In Eskimo culture, and in Holland, killing old people is right. In America, east of Oregon, it's wrong. In contemporary culture, fornication is right; in Christian cultures, it's wrong, and so forth.” (Kreeft)  This brings up some practical problems, for instance the Holocaust would be considered okay, because anti-Semitism was prominent in German culture.  Obviously killing thousands of people for no reason, but their religion and race, is wrong under any culture.  In some Arabic countries terrorism is considered acceptable, but crashing a plane into the twin towers, and killing so many people, is certainly wrong.  There is a flaw in this logic, as well as an outright horror at that kind of actions this would justify.  Remember that cultural relativity still postulates that there is no true right or wrong, yet this form basically states that it is always right to abide by your cultures morality(Kreeft) as Mr. Kreeft also says in his book.   Kreeft also later makes a very good point, “Try to imagine a society where justice, honesty, courage, wisdom, hope, and self-control were deemed morally evil. And unrestricted selfishness, cowardice, lying, betrayal, addiction, and despair were deemed morally good. Such a society is never found on Earth.  There are indeed important disagreements about values between cultures. But beneath all disagreements about lesser values, there always lies an agreement about more basic ones. “ (Kreeft)  He states the argument quite well.  While lots of countries do have different moralities there has never been one that has totally reversed morality.  This shows that cultural relativity is not a fact, and that the world is more absolutist than those scholars think.

We have discussed the meaning of moral relativity, individual relativity, and cultural relativity.  There are serious flaws in the idea of moral relativity; it is not acceptable in our world.  You don’t have to be a Christian or even religious to be an absolutist.  You just have to believe in a line that shouldn’t be crossed no matter what you believe in, or where you’re from.  You just have to have a couple rules that can’t be broken, to avoid the flawed logic and horrible consequences of moral relativity.  As long as we have right and wrong we can keep the order and stability of our society, and we can make the world a better place.

PAUL BOGHOSSIAN http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/the-maze-of-moral-relativism/ The New York Times   July 24, 2011

“If there are no absolute facts about morality, “right” and “wrong” would have to join “witch” in the dustbin of failed concepts.”  Q
By Matt K. Lewis http://theweek.com/bullpen/column/241871/the-culture-war-was-never-a-fair-fight The Week March 27, 2013

“Liberty is murdering virtue.” Q

“Of course, there has always been a tension between virtue and liberty. But at some point, America ceased emphasizing community values and began valuing extreme individualism. More and more, Americans — including many conservatives — now believe that individuals should do whatever they want so long as it isn't hurting anybody else.” S

Peter Kreeft http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio/05_relativism/relativism_transcription.htm#2  March 12, 2013 10:37 AM

“The claim is that anthropologists and sociologists have discovered moral relativism to be not a theory but an empirical fact. Different cultures and societies, like different individuals, simply do, in fact, have very different moral values. In Eskimo culture, and in Holland, killing old people is right. In America, east of Oregon, it's wrong. In contemporary culture, fornication is right; in Christian cultures, it's wrong, and so forth.” P

“Just imagine what that would be like. Try to imagine a society where justice, honesty, courage, wisdom, hope, and self-control were deemed morally evil. And unrestricted selfishness, cowardice, lying, betrayal, addiction, and despair were deemed morally good. Such a society is never found on Earth. If it exists anywhere, it is only in Hell and its colonies. Only Satan and his worshippers say "evil be thou my good." There are indeed important disagreements about values between cultures. But beneath all disagreements about lesser values, there always lies an agreement about more basic ones.” P

“To see the logical fallacy in this apparently impregnable argument, we need to look at its unspoken assumption—which is that moral rightness is a matter of obedience to cultural values. That it is right to obey your culture's values. Always. Only if we combine that hidden premise with the stated premise—that values differ with cultures—can we get to the conclusion that moral rightness differs with cultures. That what is wrong in one culture is right in another. But surely, this hidden premise begs the question. It presupposes the very moral relativism it is supposed to prove. The absolutist denies that it is always right to obey your culture's values. He has a trans-cultural standard by which he can criticize a whole culture's values. That is why he could be a progressive and a radical, while the relativist can only be a status-quo conservative, having no higher standard than his culture. My country, right or wrong. Only massive, media, big-lie propaganda could so confuse people's minds that they spontaneously think the opposite. But in fact it is only the believer in the old-fashioned natural moral law who could be a social radical and a progressive. He alone can say to a Hitler, or a Saddam Hussein, "You and your whole social order are wrong and wicked and deserve to be destroyed." The relativist could only say, "Different strokes for different folks, and I happen to hate your strokes and prefer mine, that's all." P

The Man and the Beast

The Man and the Beast

The wicked snickering of the Imps seemed to come from all around him.  He slung his hatchet at the shifting shadows, and the cruel laughter increased with each missed attack.  The peasant could see their eyes in the corner of his own, and he felt their delight at his struggle.  He ran through the thick wood, and the laughing Imps followed easily.  He saw some kind of gate in the shadow of the night, and he rushed through it.  He heard the laughter stop abruptly, and silence reigned over the night.  His hand still gripped the fence, and looking down he discovered the cause of their quiet.  The fence was made of bone.

He pulled his hand away, and turned to see the great rotting candy house of the long dead witch.  He began to wonder if the Imps would over come their fear of the witch if he simply stood outside the house, so swallowing his own terror, he entered the house.  The Peasant was from a village outside the Dark Forest, and he and his mother, and father lived in a small house on the edge of the dreaded wood.  A great lord lived in a castle near the village, and one day the lord’s daughter came out.  He only got a glance at her, but he knew that this was the only woman he could ever love.

As soon as she had come, so did she leave with a trail of noble suitors behind her.  Her father, aware of how many desired his daughter’s hand, commanded a tournament to test the strength, of any man who would dare seek his daughter.  Any one who was victorious in the tournament would win the lady’s hand.

He walked through the witch’s house past the kitchen were the witch herself was merely a skeleton in her oven.  She had been burned to death within, many years ago.  Famine still rested upon the land, and the Peasant was not well fed.  There was no way he could win in a tournament against so many well fed, well armed, and strong nobles.  Desperate for the fair lady’s hand, the Peasant had only one choice.  He would go to the Fae and wish for strength.

The sun had begun to come up so the Peasant left the candy house, and journeyed further.  He came to a great golden gate, that opened before he could touch it.  Inside the Fae sat proud in their circle of chairs, and gazed at him through eyes as old as time, yet as vibrant as the spring.

The Fae were mischievous, blue-skinned immortals, who presided over the entire Dark Forest and their estranged cousins the Imps.  They knew little of mortal matters, but took great pleasure in toying with them.  The Fae would grant any wish for a price that they set, and that is usually not discovered till after their service is rendered.  Oberon, high king of the council, stood and walked over to the Peasant.

“Mortals do not usually survive the trek here, and those that do arte driven by madness, or this thing you mortals call ‘need.’  Are you mad, mortal, or in need?”

The peasant said, “I am in great need and I am willing to pay any price.”

“Do not be worried, child.  All deals with the Fae are fair, it is our nature.  Tell us your need, young one.”

The peasant thought on his wording then said, “I wish to be stronger than any of my kind.”

Oberon laughed and the place rang with this unearthly music.  He too had a love, and he wanted to impress her with a gift.  This mortal would provide it, “Food is a common request, as is shelter, but this is new. The price of such change is two fold, you must pay the price that change always brings, and the price I desire for causing it.  Are you truly willing?”

The Peasant nodded and Oberon cast his spell.  Instantly the man grew to an astounding height, and he was given claws and fur.  This new beast stood were the peasant once did.

“Bring me the most beautiful thing you have ever seen.”  Oberon said, and compelled by Fae magic the new beast trundled off towards the village.  Inside the true man screamed, for he knew exactly what the beast was to retrieve.  His love, the lady fair, would be Oberon’s gift, and the beast would most certainly bring her back lifeless and limp.  

Hello

As you can see my name is Michael Kennedy, an aspiring Author and Philosopher, and I am working on a book write now.  I apologize for the pun, but I couldn't resist.  I will be posting some of my work here to show you what my book might be like.  I intend to publish this novel as soon as I am able.  For now enjoy some of my old work.