The New Narratives

My short stories, scripts and poems

To get your copy press here

 

New edition of Dear Future Historian 2020-2025

 The 2020-2025 collection is now here 

Do We Exist?

Collection of my first articles (2001-2006)

For the UK link to order press here 😀

Hubris  

Fear 

Goths  

Television  

Keep walking.... 

Do We Exist? 

CROSSING INDIA 

MENSTRUATION  

CELTIC SYMBOLS 

THE THIRD EYE 

PRECIOUS – SEMI-PRECIOUS STONES 

CHROMOTHERAPY 

CLASSIC GHOST STORIES 

WHY DO PEOPLE BECOME GHOSTS? 

RODOLPHOS ELEFTHERIADIS, Interview about art and transcendental meditation

Dear future philosopher

My new miniature philosophy book is ready 

You can find all five essays he in the blog. However if you'd like a Paperback or a kindle copy, its now available on Amazon (for the UK link press here).

The Missing Page

I wrote that story years ago.

Time to get it off my to do list

For the UK link press here 😊 

Sophia, a young city girl, visits her grandmother’s village and takes the reader on an adventure about the importance of Eco-Balance and Nature.

Themes include family values and generational reconciliation, promoting emotional intelligence.

Sophia discovers and old beaten diary on the first day of her Easter holiday break. A diary with a missing page. It belongs to an anonymous girl, and Sophia is surprised to find many similarities with her.

Inspired by the diary, she begins her own journal, in which she wishes her grandmother were a little more like her mystery author.

The end of the Easter break is marked with the unearthing and opening of a time-capsule which contains the missing page with the mystery author’s name.

Gaia’s Gamble

My first Novela is now available on Amazon worldwide.

Ramkayon is a young woman in the 13th century CE seeking immortality as an apprentice of a witch. The witch is burned by the Church Inquisition and Ramkayon hides in a monastery disguised as a teenage boy. Gods Gaia and Death (Thanatos) place a bet on Ramkayon’s lust for life. Death claims people come willingly to him at the end. Gaia will do anything to avoid losing this bet. When Ramkayon is caught sleeping with a monk she miraculously escapes death. Ramkayon has a daughter, and her journey continues to Asia. Among the contrast between Ramkayon’s lust for life and the adventures of reality we see her perseverance in her determent quest to know herself. This is a story that mixes fantasy, spirituality, philosophy, nihilism, and the author’s family biography.

For the UK link press here 😊 

Philosophy on the meaning of life

This essay is investigating the philosophical answer to the question: ‘is life meaningful?’ by clarifying the key terms of the question (life and meaning) and giving an overview analysis of the different philosophical approaches to the subject. The conclusion of this essay is that even if we cannot prove life to be meaningful in a global level, or intrinsically meaningful in a personal level, nevertheless, human life has the potential of being meaningful. Thus, the answer to the question ‘is life meaningful?’ is not a straightforward ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Meaning is ‘something that comes in degrees, and varies between lives’ (Belshaw, 2014, p. 136). We cannot assume the same levels of value to a life of a surgeon with that of a serial killer (Belshaw, 2014, p. 33). Meaning is not a given in life, but something to be created consciously, and individually.

On Preferentism

Part 1

Can a preferentist successfully respond to the objection from adaptive preferences, as outlined by Nussbaum?

This essay will evaluate Harriet Baber’s respond to the objection from adaptive preferences as outlined by Nussbaum, and will conclude that Baber, as a Preferentists, successfully responds to Nussbaum’s objection from adaptive preferences. In the first paragraphs, this essay, will give a brief background to the philosophical field that aims to find a framework for any action to be considered rational, where Preferentism is one of the suggested answers. Philosophers are divided on what it takes for an action to be considered rational, or irrational, in a strictly logical, non-moral, way. Rationally formed intention to act requires a rational held belief about how to bring about a rationally formed goal; and just like beliefs are based on evidence, goals are based on ideas about what is ‘genuinely’ valuable (Barber, 2014, p. 15). The Preferentists’ reply to that question is ‘whatever floats your boat’, and Nussbaum has some serious criticism about that.

Is rationality a matter of reasoning in a way that is likely to generate true beliefs?

In the glossary of the A333 module book (Price and Chimisso, 2014, p. 195) we see that ‘according to the standard picture of rationality, someone counts as reasoning in a rational way only if they are reasoning in accordance with principles based on the rules of logic, probability, and so on’. This is a normative way of approaching the principals of reasoning (Stein, cited in (Price and Chimisso, 2014, p. 163). This is not a descriptive account of how humans actually reason, it is an account of how one ought to reason in order to reason in a way that can be considered to be rational. Philosophers, among others, have been surprised by the discoveries of psychological research experiments that seem to undermine the commonly acceptable (Price and Chimisso, 2014, p. 10), Aristotelian notion of the intellectual superiority of the humankind. One of the beliefs of western philosophy is that we are, by definition, rational beings (The Open University, 2014).

Is the Jus ad Bellum/Jus in Bello distinction a reliable guide in thinking about the moral rules of war?

This essay will explain the Jus ad Bellum (JaB)/Jus in Bello (JiB) distinction and will explore whether the distinction can be a reliable guide in thinking about the moral rules of war. At the end, this essay will conclude that the JaB/JiB distinction is not a reliable guide to explore the moral rules of war. The next paragraphs will first have a brief description of the alternative views on war ethics, the Pacifist, and the Realist view, to explore what is being denied by the position (Pike, 2014, p.17). Then will put the frame of Just War Tradition (which will be explained in later paragraphs) to the JaB/JiB distinction, before evaluating its reliability. Within the philosophical discourse regarding the justification of killing humans during war, philosophers had to come up with reasons why we tent to treat soldiers as heroes, rather than murderers. Killing is against most moral setting of rules (Pike, 2014, p.13), thus war needs to justify why and who is permissible to die during battles. The discrimination between civilians and combatants will be a recurrent theme of this topic.

Is killing an innocent person always wrong? Spoiler alert: Yes (Undergraduate philosophy essay about war)

I can't bring World Peace, but I can at least share my philosophy essay on why it is always wrong to kill innocent people even at war:

To answer, this essay will first narrow the question: ‘Is killing an innocent person always wrong?’, within the field of war. More specifically, it will examine the moral aspect—in contrast with the legal one (The Open University, 2014)—of the matter of the wrongness, and the arguments for potential permissibility, with regards to killing innocent people in war. Jon Pike points out that killing people is normally, we think, a very bad thing to do. Yet, once we start thinking about war, we find situations in which this very bad thing can be justified (The Open University, 2014). This essay will examine the main-known justifications for killing innocent people in war and will conclude that they all fail to justify the killing of the innocent.