Fantasy Novel
I am currently working on a novel called Freedom that will be set in a fantasy world and be about the nature of freedom and people's rights. The main characters are Fortis (a male half-human/half-dragon) and Teleris (a female dragon) that fall in love and try to stop an evil empire from trying to destroy freedom and remove individual rights. It is also about whether or not intelligent non-humans (such as dragons and half-dragons) have the same rights as humans.
UPDATE
I've come up with ending and ideas for a few other parts of the book.
UPDATE
The book has been shelved for now in favour of another book I'm going to write.
UPDATE
I've come up with ending and ideas for a few other parts of the book.
UPDATE
The book has been shelved for now in favour of another book I'm going to write.
Hey im writing a novel too! Are you going to get it published?
Just keep it original, plz people... the world's filled with crap fantasy
Yes I am going to get it published. And as for originality... how many fantasy stories have you read with a half-dragon and a dragon as the main character?
I must say, that as DraconicDinks friend in RL, it sounds good so far, and somewhat original in how deeply it deals with its theme.
As an Objectivist, and therefore whom is seriously interested in [key] philosophical issues, DraconicDink has a good understanding of what he is writing about.
I dont want to say too much about it right now, in case I reveal something he might not want revealed, but I for one am looking forward to its eventual release.
Speaking of novels, I am ALSO writing a novel (no seriously, it will eventually be published, Im not just saying this like you other guys
).
It is a deeply philsophical work, dealing with the importance of philosophy and what happens to those whom attempt to avoid it. It is also about the nature and importance of art, amongst other things, including the nature of rights (I decided to do this before Draconic, ask him if you want...), but more specifically, how they apply to humans and how they are derived from the nature of the human mind. it addresses the issue of: does a fully intelligent robot have human rights? [yes].
It uses the fantastic idea of a fully intelligent AI engine, the robot ART, whom is literally art.
As an Objectivist, and therefore whom is seriously interested in [key] philosophical issues, DraconicDink has a good understanding of what he is writing about.
I dont want to say too much about it right now, in case I reveal something he might not want revealed, but I for one am looking forward to its eventual release.
Speaking of novels, I am ALSO writing a novel (no seriously, it will eventually be published, Im not just saying this like you other guys
). It is a deeply philsophical work, dealing with the importance of philosophy and what happens to those whom attempt to avoid it. It is also about the nature and importance of art, amongst other things, including the nature of rights (I decided to do this before Draconic, ask him if you want...), but more specifically, how they apply to humans and how they are derived from the nature of the human mind. it addresses the issue of: does a fully intelligent robot have human rights? [yes].
It uses the fantastic idea of a fully intelligent AI engine, the robot ART, whom is literally art.
Actually you can tell them any of th things I have already told you, s they are not secrt. I just haven't thought of a way to say them yet.
Excellent... I just need to remember more of what you said and to hear more now...
on another note...look at how long the Objectivist thread is..and how feircely the battle of reason (objectivism) versus subjectivism is being fought.
on another note...look at how long the Objectivist thread is..and how feircely the battle of reason (objectivism) versus subjectivism is being fought.
September 28th 2005, 04:21 PM
Chris
you look at it as a battle. I look at it as a discussion. see? those are both subjective views. et voíla.
they are NOT subjective...dont you see ? My arguments are objective, which means THEY CANNOT BE SUBJECTIVE.
The only thing I am annoyed about is that you seemingly cannot understand some of the most simple points I and DD make. I can live with you not agreeing, but blatantly refusing to think? That annoys me.
The only thing I am annoyed about is that you seemingly cannot understand some of the most simple points I and DD make. I can live with you not agreeing, but blatantly refusing to think? That annoys me.
September 28th 2005, 04:53 PM
Chris
What you are doing in this discussion is constantly repeating yourself, without actually argumentating. It seems you are a true fan of circular logic, which is pointless, because you'll never convince someone this way.
Tell me WHY are your arguments, anyone's arguments objective? THAT in itself is a contradiction! opinions, point of views, are ALWAYS subjective. The whole idea of sticking to a belief is SUBJECTIVE.
Tell me WHY are your arguments, anyone's arguments objective? THAT in itself is a contradiction! opinions, point of views, are ALWAYS subjective. The whole idea of sticking to a belief is SUBJECTIVE.
No I am not, i am trying to demonstrate my point. It is not circular logic, each time the point is at least a little different and saying something abit different.
Well ok, abit of it is repeatative, but you dont see the point, so I have to try to find different ways to say make the point until either you get it or one of us quits.
My arguments are objective because they match reality. If someone elses do, their arguments are objective. If not they are by definition not, and are subjective.
Where is the contradiction?
Im tiring of dealing with you people in this subject. You claim Im not listening, but if i wanted couldnt I say that too? You arent buying what I say, so by what seems to be your logic, couldnt I say you must not be listening and that you refuse to change your views at all?
Well im not going to use that logic
Note: Back on topic, please no more of this off topic stuff in THIS thread, or I will ignore it. Put it in the thread where it belongs. Sure, I shouldnt have mentioned it, so Im to blame as well...but still
Well ok, abit of it is repeatative, but you dont see the point, so I have to try to find different ways to say make the point until either you get it or one of us quits.
My arguments are objective because they match reality. If someone elses do, their arguments are objective. If not they are by definition not, and are subjective.
Where is the contradiction?
Im tiring of dealing with you people in this subject. You claim Im not listening, but if i wanted couldnt I say that too? You arent buying what I say, so by what seems to be your logic, couldnt I say you must not be listening and that you refuse to change your views at all?
Well im not going to use that logic
Note: Back on topic, please no more of this off topic stuff in THIS thread, or I will ignore it. Put it in the thread where it belongs. Sure, I shouldnt have mentioned it, so Im to blame as well...but still
I agree... no more off topic stuff please. As for details... her is one... My 1st book covers the nature of rights and fredom and weither or not monsters with human like intelligence have the same rights as humans (yes they do). I have decided to tackle this issue because it is original (no fantasy book has ever covered th rights of fantasy creatures).
Pretty similar of course too my bit about how robots with human intelligence have human rights....
