Guest Post: Opposites and Absences.

Recently I was invited by a minor necromancer to hold a short discussion with him. He is by no means a philosopher, but wanted to say some things about the differences between opposites and absences, a common misconception among the laymen. He would say nothing of his name other than that he was not infamous, yet he had a proud lineage dating back to an archmage of fire and black magic known as Durgaaz the Red, who was said to be a fiery tempered gnome with Draconian ancestry. 

"So you wanted to discuss the difference between opposites and absences?"

"Absolutely! I have called you here to try and address some basic issues. You see, when an adventurer barges in to disrupt my latest experiments I am studying, they almost always mention something about my creations being devoid of life, or calling them soulless, empty husks. This is far from true; they are not empty husks by any means! They are not full of life, I will grant them that, but there needs to be something besides just my magic to sustain them, or as soon as the necromantic rites are completed the construct would be a constant drain upon my own magical force, which would be impossible to sustain. No, they are fueled, not by a spark of life, but by the cold flame of Undeath. This is not the same as life, or as death. Death is just an absence of life! However, undeath is the opposite of life! Take a rock for example. A very few would call them dead. The more proper terminology states that they are non-living. However, I cannot very well bring a rock back with a necromantic rite any more than I could read in a pitch black room! Something cannot exist without its opposite! “

“So what you are saying is that while nonliving things like rocks and objects that are dead are merely the absence of life, Undeath is the opposite?”

“Exactly!”

“Now what differentiates Undeath from Life? In what ways are they opposite?”

“Life, especially sentient life, is fueled by the soul, which in turn is filled with positive energy, or essence in some cases. This soul is responsible for giving animation, emotion, thought, and free will. Undeath is life’s opposite in that the body or vessel is filled with basically an anti-soul. Some may call it negative energy, or some may call it unholy magic, but in the end, it is an object that grants animation, but has a corrupted will and being. When entering contact with the positive energy of the living things, the positive energy and negative energy both cancel each other out, destroying themselves. This is something both necromancers and wielders of positive energy know. Anyways, this got me thinking..."

"About...?"

"About my next line of research!"

He was clearly distracted by this research which, I was admittedly somewhat interested in hearing about.

"Research about what?"

"Unlight! Just as death is the absence of life, and undeath its opposite, darkness is the absence of light, not its opposite! So it stands to reason that there is such a thing as unlight! Or at least that it is possible. I wish to bring about its observable existence and quantify it! I have postulated that it will appear something like a darkness so deep that it will actually blot out light when brought near it, and that it could cast shadows when placed between the area or object being observed and a light source..."

He proceeded to ramble on about his hypothesized unlight, and eventually moved onto unsound, and most bizarrely and interestingly, ungravity. It was quite interested and I am somewhat excited to hear about his research in the future. I am also pleased to hear that this short but philosophical thought marked a permanent move away from the dark, sinister, and quite illegal art of necromancy.

Editors note: I would like to thank my friend very much for contributing this wonderful piece! If you have any questions/comments/criticisms, please comment below. If you would like to submit a piece to be published, please contact me at fantasticalphilosophy@gmail.com.

Fey and Freedom

A Dialogue with the Hamadryad and the Maenad

  This dialogue was written by an unknown author on the back of an old oak tree deep in the recesses of a forest, and is classified as fey philosophy. The conversation I present below occurs between a dryad and a maenad. A hamadryad is a specific type of dryad. A dryad is a spirit of an oak tree, and what separates a hamadryad from a regular dryad is that the hamadryad is bound to the tree in such a way that if the tree were to die, she would as well. A maenad is a female follower of the god Dionysus that partook in orgiastic revelry and violent sexual acts, and their name literally translates to ‘raving ones.’ Maenads can be nymphs or human women; the only requirement is that they have to devote their lives to Dionysus. Whether the Maenad in this dialogue is mortal or a spirit is unclear, but the maenad seems to have little knowledge of the nature of hamadryads. The dialogue is actually a multiple part series, with this one discussing the nature of freedom. Other ones found on other trees discuss multiple other topics
  It starts off as an invitation to the hamadryad to join a nearby orgy in tribute to Dionysus by the Maenad. The hamadryad refuses the invitation, which angers the maenad, claiming that the dryad is a slave to her tree, for she is bound to it and does not dare to leave it. The Hamadryad returns in kind, claiming that the Maenad is a slave to her whims and impulses. They soon get into a deep discussion on the nature of slavery and freedom. Many will find flaws with these arguments but it still is an entertaining exchange. I also find this dialogue enlightening, not only for the nymphs and the fair folk, but for humanity as well. 

     Maenad: Sister of the woods, why do I espy you here by this fair oak alone when in the clearing ahead of you, there is a tribute to our God? Surely you would be permitted to join in on our pleasures!

Hamadryad: I am honored by the offer fair sister, but I must decline.

  Maenad: Why may that be? Certainly you are not rejecting Dionysus’s hospitality!

Hamadryad: I would not dream of such things. However, I am prohibited from entering such a celebration because of my bond.

  Maenad: Please sister, what bond might this be of?

Hamadryad: I am bound to my tree for my natural life. If I were ever to leave its presence, it would cause great harm to me and the tree.

Maenad: Sister, are you saying that you will deny the pleasures we could provide you in order to not harm a tree?

Hamadryad: My tree and I are one. If I hurt the tree I hurt myself! Because of this, I am incapable of leaving my tree, for doing so will risk life and limb.

  Maenad: Oh, what a poor life you must live! To live a life forever condemned and imprisoned to a tree! What misery must you experience, to be denied one’s own freedom!

Hamadryad: It is not as you make it out to be sister.  I think your confusion might arise from understanding of my relation to my tree, for often beings are confused by what a dryad is to her tree and a tree to its dryad. I will tell you that a dryad and her tree are one and the same. We are not separate entities, I am my tree and my tree is me. We simply use possessive words and self-identification for convenience in the language. To be bound by my tree is like saying I am bound by my own body. Just as you are bound to your physical body, I am bound by mine. To leave one’s own body is impossible. I am just as free as you may be

  Maenad: It may be so that you and the tree are the same, and I can see that you may not move from your own self, but in my body, mine does not place restrictions and obstructions as to where I may move about. I am only restricted in my movement by other entities. I may travel as I please and have the ultimate freedom that is denied to you. Your position strikes me as similar to the woman who is through birth or accident immobile, paralyzed, or lame. The woman who is born like that is a prisoner in her own body. She may wish to do something or perform some action, but she cannot for her body forbids her to, just as you may wish.

  Hamadryad:  I still do not agree with this statement of yours, for you forget to factor in one’s intent and how one may define slavery or bondage. Slavery is restriction of some aspect of a person. I agree with you in that a woman who is trapped in her own body does not have freedom, but that is because she desires to move, but her body denies her the opportunity to do so. In that sense, her freedom is restricted by her own form. However, there is no such desire on my part, nor on my sisters who are paired with their own trees.  I am the tree and the tree is me. Since I do not desire such a thing, I am not restricted. Our forms may be different, but our essence is the same. What desires could a tree or I wish to move around? It does not desire to move, and I do not desire to move. Since there is no desire to move, I am free.

Maenad: Yet I would like to point out that you seem to think quite differently than your tree. What reason does a tree have to discuss matters such as freedom with a being such as me? A tree is unable to comprehend its own existence, yet you can.  Here you are, discussing these matters in a very un-treelike fashion! Certainly then you may have interests that diverge from your tree’s, and some of them you must be prevented to do because of your bodily limits.

  Hamadryad: I take your point. You must understand that a tree and the dryad think very differently. Once again, we share the same essence, but our forms are different.  When I discuss our forms, I mean not only our shape, but our body as well. A tree does not have eyes, nor does it have ears, nor does it have a mind. I have those objects as a part of my form just like how the tree possesses roots and branches and leaves while I own none of those. We both have different aspects yet are one. We share the same essence, and as you know, an object or persons essence dictates its being and functions. In other words, my tree and I share the same function and being. It is also known that the form that contains an essence can vary and take different shape, like the essence of a chair can be manifest in many different forms and shapes. Because of this though, our essence has different modes of functioning in each form.
In my tree’s form, the essence performs by budding new leaves, growing more roots, and creating seedlings. In my form, the essence has an entire mind that allows it to perform its function. With my mind comes the ability to think just as you do in a manner that is different than my tree. This is what allows me to contemplate such matters and still allows me my freedom. Although our essence can operate differently in myself and my tree, the fact still remains that we share the same goals and desires and functions, one of which is to always be near each other. Therefore, I maintain my freedom because my essence does not contain mobility in it nor do I desire mobility because mobility is not a need of my essence.

Maenad: I believe I understand your argument. You are claiming that your essence determines your desires, wants, and functions. Am I correct?

     Hamadryad: That is correct

  Maenad: Then you still are not truly free. For your essence itself confines you. You are a slave to your essence.

  Hamadryad: What an astounding idea, being a slave to one’s essence. I will have to argue with you there. I am just a slave to my essence as you are to yours. All of us have essence. Essence allows us to do what is in our nature, and forbids us to do what isn’t. If you view that as slavery, then we are all slaves to it. Now then, sister, I must confess that I find this situation humorous in that it is you that is claiming yourself to be free while denying my own freedom.

Maenad: Really now, please enlighten me of my ignorance.

  Hamadryad: If you insist. Dear sister, throughout this conversation it seems that we have only talked about a physical form of slavery, such as being bound to a location or a body. However, there is another kind of bondage that is much worse: a bondage of the will. A bondage of the will is an event when limitations are placed upon it through either external or internal factors, restricting its thoughts, choices, or actions. Of course there is more to be said on the topic, but this should suffice for now. In order to show that you are suffering from mental bondage, I must ask you a few questions.

Maenad: Ask away.

  Hamadryad: Very well. Sister Maenad, may I ask you what exactly goes on at these celebrations for Dionysus?

Maenad: Of course! The celebrations are events to behold! There is feasting and reveling to the music of the satyrs. There is dancing and drinking where one gets lost in the merriment! The orgies are legends to behold, where one enters the true state of frenzy and sexuality as the ultimate form of worship to our lord. To be subsumed into the energy of the orgy is to show our god the utmost respect and is a celebration of absolute freedom.

  Hamadryad: And is it a part of the nature of such events to lose oneself in the orgiastic frenzy and drinking? Would you say that you were in control of your actions?

  Maenad: Of course it is of the nature! That is what the ultimate show of worship to my god is, to relinquish control of myself to my more primal self and to the energy of the orgy.

  Hamadryad: Then by relinquishing your will, you lose your freedom. For freedom, one needs will and choice, and if one does not have it, they are a slave to whatever it is that replaces them. In your case, instead of this being a true revelry and celebration of your lord and freedom, it a submission of your mind and will to your impulse.

  Maenad: That is a harsh claim you make against me! To claim that my acts of worship are nothing but bondage is a terrible thing for me to hear, but I find your argument to be misguided. You are forgetting about my wishes or desires. For I have chosen to undergo these submissions, and just as someone may choose to give up some autonomy for the sake of another person, cause, or ideal, I have given up this autonomy of my own will to the celebration.

Hamadryad: Does the factor of choice come up in slavery though? It does not matter if you gave up the autonomy of your own free will, but the fact is that while you undergo this revelry, and you do so often, you lose your will, and while your will is gone, you are a slave. You may be a temporary slave, but a slave none-the-less.

  Maenad: You are true of that, I must agree with you about my willing slavery during that time. However, I would like to say that the same thing you accuse me of also applies to yourself.

Hamadryad: How so?

  Maenad: Just as I give up my mind and will for the celebration and worship of my deity, so your will is also, which is shackled by your essence. Sister, you claim that your essence dictates your desires and your will, however, can you not see that by doing this, you are subservient to your essence? Your essence does not give you choice, nor does it provide you with a will like mine that can choose to relinquish itself. You are forever bound to your essence, forever a slave!

  Hamadryad: What an interesting concept you propose Sister! However, I would like to ask you a question. Can one person be subservient and a slave to oneself?

  Maenad: That seems to be a ridiculous possibility.

  Hamadryad: Indeed it is. For no person can be a slave to themselves. And essence is the self, for the essence is what gives the object its being. My essence is my being, and my being is myself. Therefore I cannot be a slave to my essence using this logic. I have shown you my reasoning behind such things. I am just as free as you are, if not, more so.

  Maenad: You have certainly given me a lot to think about Sister, and I thank you for that. However, I hear the horns and the pipes begin to play, so I must take my leave. Fare well, and maybe next time we shall bring the celebration to you!

Hamadryad: You do not have to do such things, but thank you for the consideration. You too have given me much to ponder, and I hope you enjoy the festivities.

  Maenad: I will do so. Goodbye!

  Hamadryad: Goodbye!

Editor's note: discuss this article in the comments below! If you wish to write something in reply to this or any other article published on this site, please contact me at fantasticalphilosophy@gmail.com

The Rights of the Thrall.

  The Illithids, or by their common name, Mind Flayers, are incredibly intelligent beings with strong psychic abilities. Standing at humanoid height, the Illithid is a lanky figure with off colored purple skin. Their most striking feature is their head, for it is vaguely squid shaped with four tentacles jutting out of its face. These tentacles are quite versatile and can be used as weapons or tools to help them gather food. The mind flayer diet is unique for they subsist off of humanoid cranial matter, or brains. The illithid uses its tentacles to latch onto the cranium of a humanoid being, and uses them in combination with a lamprey-like mouth to extract its victim’s brains to devour. It is a truly grizzly diet and lifestyle, for the Illithids go so far as to psychically dominate and enslave other sentient humanoid races, keeping them around not only as an easy food supply, but as a source of slave labor. These individuals are referred to by the Illithid as ‘thralls.’ What is even more fascinating is that the thrall is used in the illithid reproductive cycle. The illithid, when born, is just a simple tadpole that is by itself harmless and barely sentient. However, through a process called ceremorphosis, this ‘tadpole’ is inserted into a humanoid’s ear and the tadpole burrows into the brain and takes over, warping the body and the mind in the process, creating a new mind flayer and the destruction of the host humanoid. 
          The illithid culture is highly xenophobic, where the illithid believe that they are the ‘master race’ so to speak. They have a very strict hierarchy, with the illithid race on the top, and everything else on the bottom. However some illithid philosophers have pondered about the moral value of the humanoid races and their place in the world.  A typical question is: What kind of rights should be given to them as opposed to a regular beast of burden, for humanoids are more cognizant, useful, and necessary for illithid. Many said that there is no distinction between the thrall and the beast, however ever since the famed illithid philosopher Seilku wrote his essay “The Worth of the Beast,” that idea has widely been discredited. The below segment, “On the Rights of the Thrall” was written by an esoteric illithid by the name of Jirsk, discussing the paradoxical relation between thralls to the illithids. He further argues that the thralls should be treated in a certain ethical manner, not for the thralls benefit, but for the illithids as a race. Although there are some flaws in his argumentation, it allows for a closer look into the mind flayer mentality. Soon after the publishing of this paper, he vanished mysteriously .Unfortunately, I do not own the entire essay, but I do possess a large fragment of it, and if I ever come to possess more, I will display them here.  This text has been translated from the original quaalith:

  To our kind as a whole, the paradox of the thrall has been a thorn in our side for aeons. The thrall differs from the typical beast of burden by having the capability to naturally develop a consciousness along with the basic animalistic instincts that mark a true beast. Their baseness, balanced by their higher functioning thought processes, is what makes their minds a true delicacy and what allows us to use them as reproductive vessels for our offspring. When we insert our young into the thrall, our young feast upon its conscious mind, growing in strength and power, while weakening the thrall, until our spawn has completely consumed the hosts mind and body, leaving nothing but true illithid in its place.  The undominated thrall, or ‘free’ thralls as well pose a risk to us. The ‘free’ as I shall call them, dislike our glorious race and have gone so far as to develop enough skill to pose a serious threat to our kind for they are just capable enough to wield deadly magics and weaponry.  Our own resources have the capability of rebelling against us! Due to these facts, the thrall’s status in our society is still somewhat ambiguous.  Within the thrall are a multitude of paradoxes, which I shall go over, and in time argue for certain rights that we shall need to bequeath them if our species is to survive. 

  The first and probably most important paradox of thrall is the fact that we use it for two competing and mutually incompatible resources: Reproduction and food. As is obvious, if one uses a thrall’s brain as sustenance, the thrall dies, thus making it an invalid target for ceremorphosis. On the other hand, if one uses the thrall for ceremorphosis, the resource is consumed in order to create another one of our kind. These uses of the thrall are mutually incompatible with one another and both are absolutely necessary for the perpetuation of our species. It seems to be a divine joke that our kind is so dependent on these inferior beings, but without them our species would cease to exist. We are forced to use them like a lowly parasite uses a host body for sustenance! The very thought sickens me.  We must choose to satisfy only one of our basic instincts of almost every species: eat, or reproduce. I shall address this problem later on in the paper. 

  This brings me to the second paradox that results from the dialectic relationship between the thrall and our own race. That is, we are utterly dependent on the thrall for our survival. This is a cruel, but obvious fact. As a species, the illithid race is one that prides itself on its rightful supremacy. However, without these lowly creatures, it would not be able to last beyond a single generation. Our offspring would forever be stuck in an underdeveloped setting due to a lack of hosts, and we would all die from lack of sustenance.  So I will have to raise the radical question of whether we as a kind can truly call ourselves independent autonomous beings if we depend on other lower beings for survival. It is a truly monstrous thought to think of, but one that must be considered and answered appropriately.

  The third paradox is that this resource we must admit we are dependent upon to live, in its natural state, objects to being used as such.  I have touched upon this paradox in the opening, but I wish to highlight my point here. Our very own resources possess at least a limited consciousness and because of that, naturally develop a free will and a resistance to being subservient to our superior race. We are forced to either trick them, or coerce them through magic and psionic abilities to follow our orders. To think that a species as mighty as the illithid risks a rebellion from their own food supply and reproductive processes! What a laughing stock the other species must make of us! Humanoid societies, be they elves, or humans, or even drow, will almost undoubtedly try to flee from one of us if we are spotted. The worse alternative is that they will try and attack us, for if that path is taken the Illithid could potentially risk life and limb. Although very few humanoids do pose a threat, it has been well known for some vagabond adventurers to actually seek out and exterminate our kind as some kind of genocide, much like the Gith did in days of old (Editor’s note: The Gith refer to the Githyanki and the GIthzerai, two humanoid races that were subservient thralls to the mind flayers for hundreds of years until they rose up in rebellion. After earning their freedom, they moved to different planes of existence.). To this day there is enmity between the Gith and Illithid Races, and the same can be said of the current races that our inhabiting the world. We as a race constantly provoke an illithid holocaust every time we go on raids or collect new thralls, for that angers these beings, and these beings are creatures of revenge and of a perverted ‘morality.’  

  Others might argue that thralls, if cultivated and bred properly, can last indefinitely, thus taking out the concerns raised by the first two paradoxes. However, I would like to point out the largest flaw of this is that even if we were to breed enough to last, the paradox is not solved, we simply have enough resources to keep on going. The paradox lies within each and every thrall, and creating more thralls simply means that we have more thralls. The paradox lies within each and every thrall that exists. It lies not only within the thrall, but within every humanoid, thrall or free! If we have a surplus of thralls, all that entails is that the illithid society is faring well at the moment. The instant there becomes a scarcity of thralls, due to disease, or lack of nearby humanoids, or whatever other reason, the illithid must be forced to make the choice of whether they want to further their own life, or the next generation’s.

          As for the third paradox, there is no solution. Right now, no illithid society has the resources to completely dominate the entirety of the humanoid empires, because once again, there are those who do pose a threat to us and are not to be trifled with. Even if this were to happen,  we could not change the fact that they are born with consciousness and free will. The only thing that can subdue such a thing is our psionic ability to dominate the minds of said humanoids. Also, if we learned anything from the Gith rebellion, it is that there will always be those thralls who cannot be coerced, no matter how strong the powers we might have.  It would take an impossibly massive amount of power, time, and resources for the illithids to subdue all the humanoid lands.

          This leaves the illithid race in a predicament. We are dependent on the thrall for survival, but its uses are incompatible with each other, and it objects to being used as such. It is a miracle our race has survived for as long as we have in this era. What are we to do then? That is the next question that we must ask ourselves. The answer is radical, and requires a long explanation, but for the continuing survival of our race, I believe that there is no other option. The only answer is that we allow the thrall to keep their willpower, and that we adopt a more humanoid ethic for pragmatic reasons.

          We must adopt a humanoid ethic for the reasons that if we do not, we will always be loathed by the Free. If we adopt their moral viewpoints, it will ‘humanize’ us to them, and reduce the prejudice against the Free have against our kind. For the individual who might argue that a humanoid ethic and the illithid lifestyle are mutually exclusive, I would disagree with them.  Upon reading some humanoid philosophers such as Machiavelli or Rand, one can find some philosophies that are quite compatible with our way of life. In addition to this, the only humanoid philosophy that is absolutely necessary to adopt is the idea that humanoids should be granted basic ‘rights.’ This in itself does not contradict any way of life we may possess. Even the fact that we must use the humanoid to eat and reproduce does not contradict our, or their philosophy, because many humanoid philosophy promotes the survival of the individual or race over other moral concerns such as murder. For example, if a humanoid was dying and could only survive through the killing of another individual, many of their philosophies would say that this is a morally acceptable act to perform. Therefore, if an illithid needs brains to eat, the humanoid philosophies could not object if it was for survival value, and although many humanoids might not like this fact, they must admit that it would then be wrong to condemn our kind if we are feeding only for survival.  

  However, in order for us to convince the humanoids that we are truly these ‘tormented’ beings that only take humanoids for food and reproduction, we must allow humanoids to retain their free will and visibly remove thralldom from our way of life. In order to resist murder, we must publically do away with such things as thralls and slaves. We must show the humanoids that we ‘value’ their free will and rights to exist.  If we continue to subjugate their mind, it will reveal us as the ‘cruel monsters’ that we are, and therefore invalidate our claim to equal rights. This is a difficult thing for our kind to sacrifice, I am aware, however, in order to prevent more slaughter on our side, we must allow this subspecies free will and not interfere with their lives except for times of feeding and reproduction. It is a cruel trade-off, but it must be done for the survival of the glorious Illithid species.

Translators Notes: Illithids are the property of Wizards of the Coast. I did not create the race nor do I claim to do so.  Also, discuss this article in the comments below! If you wish to write something in reply to this or any other article and get it published on this site, please contact me at fantasticalphilosophy@gmail.com