WIP
Cornelia T. Cromwell
- Table of Contents
- Foreword by Draco Rookwood
- Of Gods & Monsters; and the Creation
- A Metaphysical discourse on Magic
- Magic: A Logical Inconsistency?
- The Magical Soul: A Treatise
- On Death and it's Fragility
- An Epistemic Critique on the Inner Eye
- Inquiry into the Ethics of Magic
- Philosophy of Wizarding Art
Foreword
About the Author
Of Gods & Monsters; and the Creation
| “ | ...Medieval Theologians and even Ancient philosophers appeal to the supernatural, the divine. Which is seen throughout history, across both Western and Eastern Philosophy... | ” |
Perhaps one of Philosophy's most pressing and important question is "How did the World begin to exist?" - The universe, with it's infinite galaxies and innumerable planets, all functioning. Nonmagicals have had many attempts at setting the parameters to highlight the story of the creation. 'Natural philosophers', more commonly known as scientists, have postulated theory upon theory, attempting to use empirical evidence, based by science in order to outline just how exactly, the world formed to be as it was. Theories such as The Steady-State theory, Oscillating Universe theory and most famously, the Big Bang theory. Whilst the latter is now commonly agreed upon by scholars, and even taught in nonmagical schools; the defining factor between all three theories is simple: speculation.
The hamartia, the fatal flaw of these theories is that it all rests upon the calculation and scientific credibility of the theorist. Take the Steady State theory in regards to the creation of the world - it was widely accepted, until the mid 1960's wherein scholars realised there was a newer model for the creation, and replaced it. This shows that the entire nonmagical treatise for the creation of the universe is evolving and unstable - in the next fifty years they shall claim to have a newer, more concise, more plausible theory for the creation of the world. Another theory.
Let us look further into history - to Medieval Theologians and even Ancient philosophers, who appeal to the supernatural, the divine. Which is seen throughout history, across both Western and Eastern Philosophy. They appeal to Gods. But let us forsake the Judeo-Christian God, for this particular argument; and look at the originals. The defining factor between Ancient civilisations can be seen in their Deities. Greek, Chinese, Norse, Egyptian, Indian and Aztec are just a handful of many groups of people who believed in the Pantheistic - many God - religious movement.
But if we carefully consider the characteristics of these ancient Gods - they are neither omnipotent, nor omniscient; they are debaucherous, greedy, proud and vengeful. They are not infallible - but they seem like powerful beings with human tendencies. I postulate that these Gods were not Gods at all - they were simply witches and wizard of olde. I believe that the concept of Gods were created by nonmagicals, and then perpetuated by wizards to allow for a society where nonmagicals could coexist with wizards (then known as 'demigods'). The crux of this argument is simple: we must not ask how this world was created, but rather we must question how the extraordinary force of magic has shaped our world, since our forefathers in Ancient Greece, parading as demigods. I intend to show this through the pages of this book; discussing epistemology, ethics, metaphysics, and aesthetics and their relation to the wizarding world.
A Metaphysical Discourse on Magic
| “ | ...What can be seen here is an amalgamation of both scientific structure and raw, emotional prowess working together to create an alteration within the fabric of reality as we know it... | ” |
Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that deals with the first beginnings of reality - abstract principles such as time, identity, being, space - and of course; magic. When we look into the metaphysics of magic, we are essentially searching for the properties of magic, how and why magic is what it is.
Many scholars and wizarding philosophers have attempted to define the parameters of magic and what constitutes as magic, but the goal in our treatise is far more meaningful than that. We wish to explore the essential fabric of magical being, and analyse it under a close eye. There is debate within the wizarding philosophical community, as to whether magic is an art or a science. The older school of thought believed magic to be an art form; with any magical agent being (for the sake of analogy) and artist. Now, as one knows, art is skill, and it requires some natural predisposition for the artist to consider herself one. In laymans terms, artists are born, not made. This, for the philosophers translated into magic. However, as years went on, a recent study presented the case that magic was more of a science - there was a precision to it, it had an alteration to the fabric of reality as we know it - a truly compelling argument. Both arguments however, discredited each other; which is where the flaw in defining magic occurs. I posit, that magic is both an art, and a science.
Let us look deep into the roots of magic, as a concept. The sheer nature of it resembles some sort of force; in physics, a force is something that causes a change in the motion of an object. Arguably, magic is a supernatural force that causes changes within the fabric of reality. I would argue that it does so in the simplest, yet most complex ways. For example; if an agent was to cast a bluebells flame spell, she would essentially be warping the fabric of reality around her to create this flame, which, acting as real flames would, emits heat, and can be felt, seen, smelt or even heard. This, in essence provides us with enough evidence that there is an element of science within magic. However, science is defined as the study of the laws that govern the natural and physical world: so by definition it is reductive to note magic as a form of science; which is where the concept of magic as an art form comes into play.
If we look at any art form; we can see that all of them require a certain talent, that can not be replicated through practice. It can be refined, and smoothed with practice, but an artist generally has the natural ability to transfer her emotion and talent into a canvas. The analogy works the same with magic. The agent is able to harness her emotion, and use it to create a supernatural force; magic. Look at the wideley esteemed patronus charm; it is the caster's emotion of her happiest memory, manifesting itself into a magical force. What can be seen here is an amalgamation of both scientific structure and raw, emotional prowess working together to create an alteration within the fabric of reality as we know it.
With that being said, we have one last metaphysical question on the nature of magic - where did it come from, and how did it spread? The answer, I'm firmly convinced, can be observed through simple biology - genetics. It occurs to me that magic is just like any other biologically inherited trait. For example, if one has blonde hair, we may make the assumption that at least one, if not both of her parents are carriers of the blue-eyed allele. We can argue that magic spreads similarly, except it is a dominant allele within our chromosomes - two magical agents will produce a magical child. Similarly, the child of one magical agent and one nonmagical agent will also inherit her magical parent's ability. But like all genetics, mutations occur and hence we see nonmagical offspring from magical parents, and vice versa. Thus showing the origin and spread of magic.
Magic: A Logical Inconsistency?
| “ | ...Logic, whilst seemingly arbitrary, plays one of the largest roles in philosophy... | ” |
Logic comes from the Ancient Greek λόγος (logos), and it is the study of reasoning, and it is considered the backbone of philosophy. This is due to the fact that Logic concerns itself with the validity of any argument, through deconstructing it premise by premise. This is best expressed through an example:
- Premise One: That which alters the fabric of reality must be supernatural
- Premise Two: Magic alters the fabric of reality
- Conclusion: Therefore, magic must be supernatural.
This is a rudimentary and base argument for the logical validity of magic. Imagine it this way: the first premise "that which alters the fabric of reality (P), must be supernatural (Q)". That is to say, if P is true, then Q must also be true: (P → Q). Therefore, it goes to follow that the second premise affirms the antecedent (P) in the first premise (that which alters the fabric of reality). Therefore, our logical notation looks like so: (P → Q), P. We now move onto the conclusion. In notation, we represent the conclusion using the symbol ∴ The conclusion, any keen philosopher will note is affirming the antecedent (that is, Q). So if we were to write the conclusion in notation, it would be like so: ∴ Q. Our completed argument would be noted as such:
∴ Q
This technique is known by wizards and muggles alike, as Modus Ponens - Latin for "Affirming by affirming". It shows that is P is true, then so is Q. And because the argument shows that P is true, Q, in conclusion, is also true.
So now, does the validity of the logical argument make the argument for the existence of magic sound? Any argument can be logically valid (within reason), but does it follow that the very argument is sound in it's premises? Now, this depends on what point of view one reads philosophy from. Any muggle philosopher would discredit the magical philosopher for her suggestion that it is sound for magic to logically exist; yet we see it in use, and wield it for ourselves everyday. Logic, whilst seemingly arbitrary, plays one of the largest roles in philosophy.
The Magical Soul: A Treatise
| “ | ...WIP... | ” |
Mundane philosophers have debated for eons regarding the nature of the soul. The universally accepted definition of a soul is the spiritual and immaterial part of a human, which tends to live on after death.
But how is the mundane definition of the soul related to one for more magical intent and purpose? It is clear to me that the magical concept of the soul is rather similar to the nonmagical understanding of the soul. It simply