The Motives of Frodo and Sam
-
Voronwë the Faithful
- At the intersection of here and now
- Posts: 47800
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
- Contact:
Wow! New thought-provoking posts from Ax and vison and Faramond. Cool!
But also ... hmmm! I think we’re going around in circles a bit because there are two different idea-things going on.
First, you know, I used the words “long term self-interest” in a particular context, in response to something TED had said in the Hell thread. We are in a different context here, though I think that much of Faramond’s post does relate back to TED’s question, which I’ll return to in a moment.
Most of the posts about self-interest seem to equate it with selfishness. I did not say that love is a form of long term selfishness. What I mean by self-interest was best described by vison:
It’s also not correct that I equate courage with long term self-interest. A person might be well aware which course of action serves their best interest and yet not have the courage to pursue it. A person might love and yet not have the courage to do what love requires. Courage, I think, is a virtue in its own right.
But, it seems to be hard to separate between self-interest and selfishness, so let me take the whole notion of self-interest off the table completely and go back to TED’s original question, because I think that Faramond has tried to give an answer to that question but has dodged some important motivational stuff.
To recap: TED, Prim, Watcher and I were having the following conversation in the Hell thread which led Faramond to ask about Frodo’s motivation ...
After talking about the inadequacy of self-interest to describe Frodo’s motivation, Faramond concluded (my bold):
1. How do people know what the right path is? What considerations are weighed in that decision?
It can't be simply a matter of punishment because no one would have punished Frodo for refusing to take the Ring to Mordor.
2. Having made a decision between right and wrong, why do people choose the path that is right even though it places them in danger, deprives them of something they want, interferes with their pleasure, etc?
When we were still on TORC, talking about Frodo's 'pity' towards Gollum, I made the observation that this would have availed nothing if there had not been others before Frodo who had made the same decision -- not just Bilbo but also Aragorn and Gandalf, the Elves, Faramir, and Sam. There was a community that believed in such mercy and practiced it unfailingly. None of them could have foreseen the impact their choices would make on the ultimate fate of Middle Earth, none of them would have been punished for doing otherwise, and at the same time none of their choices would have borne fruit if even one of them had failed to adhere to this largely unspoken standard - not to kill without need.
How does the community convey to us values like this? And would such a value have any meaning, any efficacy in the absence of a community that believed likewise?
Given the community exists, what is the essential difference between a person who chooses as Frodo did and one who chooses as Ted Sandyman did?
Jn
But also ... hmmm! I think we’re going around in circles a bit because there are two different idea-things going on.
First, you know, I used the words “long term self-interest” in a particular context, in response to something TED had said in the Hell thread. We are in a different context here, though I think that much of Faramond’s post does relate back to TED’s question, which I’ll return to in a moment.
Most of the posts about self-interest seem to equate it with selfishness. I did not say that love is a form of long term selfishness. What I mean by self-interest was best described by vison:
I really don’t think it would be admirable to sacrifice oneself out of self-contempt. Frodo did not travel to Mordor because he wished to obliterate himself but because he wished to save the Shire that he loved. And I don’t think he would have been successful at all if he had journeyed out of a sense of obligation alone. Guilt, duty -- these are not affirmative values, they are defaults. And I do believe that LotR is about affirmations and not about resistance alone.vison wrote:If we are not sure of our "self", if there is no "self-love" to begin with, then what part of us could make us love anything or anyone else? When you love someone, you are recognizing in them SOMETHING that you value, that is precious to you. Such a recognition is necessary and right, we cannot love what does not appeal to our inner being, that does not offer some satisfaction or pleasure or merely the sense of duty fulfilled.
It’s also not correct that I equate courage with long term self-interest. A person might be well aware which course of action serves their best interest and yet not have the courage to pursue it. A person might love and yet not have the courage to do what love requires. Courage, I think, is a virtue in its own right.
But, it seems to be hard to separate between self-interest and selfishness, so let me take the whole notion of self-interest off the table completely and go back to TED’s original question, because I think that Faramond has tried to give an answer to that question but has dodged some important motivational stuff.
To recap: TED, Prim, Watcher and I were having the following conversation in the Hell thread which led Faramond to ask about Frodo’s motivation ...
TED wrote:Why should right be done for its own sake? Does it make you feel better to do right for its own sake than for the divine's sake? Punishment seems to be one of the main factors for people doing right. If I don't do right (or legal), I get punished. Therefore, if I don't want to be punished, I must do right (or legal).
Prim wrote:That's why children behave. But that's because they're just learning.
Adults are supposed to have more mature motivations, including doing the right thing because it's the right thing (even if there is no reward at all or even a punishment).
TED wrote:That reasoning is circular. What other motivations should adults have and what makes them valid reasons for doing right?
Prim wrote:It's not circular if you accept some external standard of right and wrong. Religious teachings, for example.
The point is to get beyond "What's in it for me?"
Watcher wrote:One of those reasons is the betterment of society as a whole. A group of people refusing to cooperate and learn to live together is going to have a much tougher time surviving overall than one that does ...
TED wrote:Right for its own sake isn't external, though. It's an internal standard.
I agree that you have to get past the selfish point about reward or punishment, but that's only if the selfish points are not valid reasons to do right. Is it better that someone does right for its own sake as to opposed to doing right for his own sake. Either way, the person is doing right.
Prim wrote:I would have to argue that yes, it is better for a person to do right for selfless rather than selfish reasons. Selfishness can turn people into monsters. Perhaps in one moment selfishness motivates the person to do right, but what if in the next moment he sees a selfish act that harms others that he can get away with?
Integrity and adherence to some external standard of decency, on the other hand, would make a person pass up that selfish act even if it would profit him.
Watcher wrote:I certainly believe in such things as maternal, and to a lesser degree, paternal instincts. There are also such attributes as fondness, love, security, which lend to altruistic behaviours. I do not see such things as necessarily deriving from God, although I certainly understand why so many people would choose that answer.
TED wrote:While selfishness can lead people to commit acts of wrong, the only problem I have with right's sake being the standard is that it leaves the standard vague. Don't misunderstand me here, I don't think that doing right for its own sake is equivalent to selflessness. Every act of selflessness has a bit of selfishness in it ...
I do agree with you on the surface, except I'd say that it 'might' make a person pass up that selfish act. Even people acting in accordance to an external standard (say the benefit of the King) still might take the selfish act if they can get something out it. <snip>Prim wrote:Integrity and adherence to some external standard of decency, on the other hand, would make a person pass up that selfish act even if it would profit him.
Here's a question: is selfishness negative?
Jn wrote:This question is framed the wrong way.
The choice we are given to make is not between selflessness and selfishness but between short-term self-interest and long-term self-interest.
After talking about the inadequacy of self-interest to describe Frodo’s motivation, Faramond concluded (my bold):
This brings us right around to the question that TED was asking .... actually to several related questions:Faramond wrote:What sort of self interest, short or long-term, could there have been in sparing Sméagol’s life? No calculus of long-term self-interest at the time could have honestly included the possibility of Sméagol aiding in the destruction of the ring much later. In any case, it is clear that Frodo spares his life simply because it is the right thing to do, right then. This is not a very satisfactory answer, is it?
But it is what it is. I think sometimes people choose a path simply because it is the right path to take. We may say, later on, that it turned out the right path was in the long-term self-interest, but this was not the motive in the mind at the time of the decision. This was my point in asking my question. Agree or not!
1. How do people know what the right path is? What considerations are weighed in that decision?
It can't be simply a matter of punishment because no one would have punished Frodo for refusing to take the Ring to Mordor.
2. Having made a decision between right and wrong, why do people choose the path that is right even though it places them in danger, deprives them of something they want, interferes with their pleasure, etc?
When we were still on TORC, talking about Frodo's 'pity' towards Gollum, I made the observation that this would have availed nothing if there had not been others before Frodo who had made the same decision -- not just Bilbo but also Aragorn and Gandalf, the Elves, Faramir, and Sam. There was a community that believed in such mercy and practiced it unfailingly. None of them could have foreseen the impact their choices would make on the ultimate fate of Middle Earth, none of them would have been punished for doing otherwise, and at the same time none of their choices would have borne fruit if even one of them had failed to adhere to this largely unspoken standard - not to kill without need.
How does the community convey to us values like this? And would such a value have any meaning, any efficacy in the absence of a community that believed likewise?
Given the community exists, what is the essential difference between a person who chooses as Frodo did and one who chooses as Ted Sandyman did?
Jn
A fool's paradise is a wise man's hell.
-
axordil
- Pleasantly Twisted
- Posts: 8999
- Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 7:35 pm
- Location: Black Creek Bottoms
- Contact:
Ted Sandyman was weak and self-centered. Frodo was strong and self-assured. Ted Sandyman had no internal connection to his community. Frodo did.
There, that was easy.
The question of whether Frodo could offer the ring up without being able to give it up is in my mind largely peripheral to this discussion. That doesn't mean it isn't a worthy topic in its own right, of course. But it is clear that as late as Lórien, Frodo could CONCEIVE of giving the ring up. Afterwards, at some point, that changed, as the ring slowly dissolved the barrier between his sense of self and itself.
Now, as to the question of something being the right thing to do when it is not in one's self-interest: it depends solely on how the individual construes their self-interest vis-a-vis the interest of larger concerns in which they have a share. That is, right actions always have a context, and if they are apparently in opposition to self-interest (and not connected to a fear of punishment) that context must be larger than the individual.
Example: a soldier in wartime often acts in ways that are inimical to his own survival, because he believes (and has been conditioned to believe strongly) that his actions may benefit those in his unit. However, his presence in that unit at all can't be due to that, since it can only be developed after he's already in the service. If he is volunteering for service during wartime, one suspects that he is doing so for larger reasons of identification. That is, he feels it is the right thing to do because he has been raised to think of his country a certain way, or because he believes the enemy is dangerous and must be stopped, or because he thinks he owes his community something, et al. In both cases, the individual does what he thinks is right because he identifies with a larger cause (the unit, the country), but the larger cause changes as the context changes.
That's what I meant when I said that the heroism Frodo needed to step forward in the first place wasn't the same as that needed to see things through. His motives when leaving Bag End are not necessarily the same as those on the slope of Mt. Doom. If it was his love for the Shire, and perhaps his sense of duty to it due to his station, that got him going (and I still believe it was), why did he not give in when he could no longer even remember the Shire near Mt. Doom? Sam kept him moving, and at least once kept him from cracking, but Sam wasn't physically restraining him through the whole last stretch.
I think there is more than a single answer to that, just as I think there was more than one trait that was essential to his success.
Motive one: the refusal to lose, sheer ornery stubborness so long as the will remains intact. I think this may be viewed as a trait shared by many hobbits (but not all!). In Frodo's particular case, this may be reified to the refusal to let his sense of self disintegrate in the midst of the ring's continuous subversion. It is what underlies his stated desire to "see things through." This of course assumes he isn't just OC and a completeness freak.
Motive two: the refusal to let his unit (by the end, that's just Sam) down. Frodo depends on Sam for physical support by the last stretch, but to a great extent, Sam depends on him as well, for PURPOSE. Frodo is the axle to Sam's wheel. In a less desparate situation they would be kinda co-dependent.
Motive three: The Ring itself. The refusal to give up the Ring, as noted by others here, paradoxically becomes a goad to keep at it, to keep Gollum from having it, to keep Sauron from getting it. I think that by the very end the Ring was drawing Frodo to Mt. Doom, the seat of its power, where its siren call would be at last irresistable to anyone. This doesn't mean the ring was consciously acting--another distinct discussion--but simply that the psychic space-time of the Ring was bent around Mt. Doom, and that as it grew heavier and heavier in approach to the Sammath Naur, it forced Frodo into what seemed a Hobson's choice: since he couldn't give it up, he could only stop or go on, to where it was more powerful and heavier still...until the bitter end, the last encounter with Gollum below the Sammath Naur.
Something changes there. Frodo's pace quickens. He exhibits a power when he confronts Gollum that comes from...where? It feels as if the Ring and he have passed a threshold of sorts, even before he claims it for his own.
I am synthesizing a lot of things I'm reading here with my own thoughts, so I apologize if it looks like I'm stealing your ideas. This is like a good seminar discussion.
There, that was easy.
The question of whether Frodo could offer the ring up without being able to give it up is in my mind largely peripheral to this discussion. That doesn't mean it isn't a worthy topic in its own right, of course.
But it is clear that as late as Lórien, Frodo could CONCEIVE of giving the ring up. Afterwards, at some point, that changed, as the ring slowly dissolved the barrier between his sense of self and itself.Now, as to the question of something being the right thing to do when it is not in one's self-interest: it depends solely on how the individual construes their self-interest vis-a-vis the interest of larger concerns in which they have a share. That is, right actions always have a context, and if they are apparently in opposition to self-interest (and not connected to a fear of punishment) that context must be larger than the individual.
Example: a soldier in wartime often acts in ways that are inimical to his own survival, because he believes (and has been conditioned to believe strongly) that his actions may benefit those in his unit. However, his presence in that unit at all can't be due to that, since it can only be developed after he's already in the service. If he is volunteering for service during wartime, one suspects that he is doing so for larger reasons of identification. That is, he feels it is the right thing to do because he has been raised to think of his country a certain way, or because he believes the enemy is dangerous and must be stopped, or because he thinks he owes his community something, et al. In both cases, the individual does what he thinks is right because he identifies with a larger cause (the unit, the country), but the larger cause changes as the context changes.
That's what I meant when I said that the heroism Frodo needed to step forward in the first place wasn't the same as that needed to see things through. His motives when leaving Bag End are not necessarily the same as those on the slope of Mt. Doom. If it was his love for the Shire, and perhaps his sense of duty to it due to his station, that got him going (and I still believe it was), why did he not give in when he could no longer even remember the Shire near Mt. Doom? Sam kept him moving, and at least once kept him from cracking, but Sam wasn't physically restraining him through the whole last stretch.
I think there is more than a single answer to that, just as I think there was more than one trait that was essential to his success.
Motive one: the refusal to lose, sheer ornery stubborness so long as the will remains intact. I think this may be viewed as a trait shared by many hobbits (but not all!). In Frodo's particular case, this may be reified to the refusal to let his sense of self disintegrate in the midst of the ring's continuous subversion. It is what underlies his stated desire to "see things through." This of course assumes he isn't just OC and a completeness freak.
Motive two: the refusal to let his unit (by the end, that's just Sam) down. Frodo depends on Sam for physical support by the last stretch, but to a great extent, Sam depends on him as well, for PURPOSE. Frodo is the axle to Sam's wheel. In a less desparate situation they would be kinda co-dependent.
Motive three: The Ring itself. The refusal to give up the Ring, as noted by others here, paradoxically becomes a goad to keep at it, to keep Gollum from having it, to keep Sauron from getting it. I think that by the very end the Ring was drawing Frodo to Mt. Doom, the seat of its power, where its siren call would be at last irresistable to anyone. This doesn't mean the ring was consciously acting--another distinct discussion--but simply that the psychic space-time of the Ring was bent around Mt. Doom, and that as it grew heavier and heavier in approach to the Sammath Naur, it forced Frodo into what seemed a Hobson's choice: since he couldn't give it up, he could only stop or go on, to where it was more powerful and heavier still...until the bitter end, the last encounter with Gollum below the Sammath Naur.
Something changes there. Frodo's pace quickens. He exhibits a power when he confronts Gollum that comes from...where? It feels as if the Ring and he have passed a threshold of sorts, even before he claims it for his own.
I am synthesizing a lot of things I'm reading here with my own thoughts, so I apologize if it looks like I'm stealing your ideas.
This is like a good seminar discussion. Ax,
So the community - our internal and external connections to it - these are key to understanding the difference between right and wrong, and also key to understanding why some people choose the 'right' path and others not.
Would you consider that a fair statement?
Jn
So the community - our internal and external connections to it - these are key to understanding the difference between right and wrong, and also key to understanding why some people choose the 'right' path and others not.
Would you consider that a fair statement?
Jn
A fool's paradise is a wise man's hell.
-
axordil
- Pleasantly Twisted
- Posts: 8999
- Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 7:35 pm
- Location: Black Creek Bottoms
- Contact:
Jnyusa--
Certainly from the point of view of the community in question.
I do think the concept of community is somewhat flexible, though, as context changes; thus the soldier who enlists to save his country and dies to save his comrades in the unit. Yet when we bury him, we say with admiration that "he died for his country"...there is some mapping and overlapping and blurring of community when necessary too.
I think I would say that right actions cannot take place in a vacuum. There must be an external connection to make even the most developed internal moral compass develop in the first place. That connection must be to a community of some sort, cultural, geographic, religious, familial.
Certainly from the point of view of the community in question.
I do think the concept of community is somewhat flexible, though, as context changes; thus the soldier who enlists to save his country and dies to save his comrades in the unit. Yet when we bury him, we say with admiration that "he died for his country"...there is some mapping and overlapping and blurring of community when necessary too.
I think I would say that right actions cannot take place in a vacuum. There must be an external connection to make even the most developed internal moral compass develop in the first place. That connection must be to a community of some sort, cultural, geographic, religious, familial.
I think I would say that right actions cannot take place in a vacuum.
OK. I think this is important.
The question TED was asking (one of them, anyway) is why it matters whether I do the right thing for selfish reasons, or whether I do the right thing because it is right.
It is not the effect of the act which is different in these two cases but rather the effect on the agent.
An agent acting out of purely selfish motives is acting within a social vacuum. Their referent universe has only one person in it. We can't attribute objective 'rightness' to their action, no matter what its effect, if 'rightness' requires a broader reference.
So why does 'rightness' in particular require a broader reference. Why can't we judge right and wrong simply by their immediate effect?
Jn
OK. I think this is important.
The question TED was asking (one of them, anyway) is why it matters whether I do the right thing for selfish reasons, or whether I do the right thing because it is right.
It is not the effect of the act which is different in these two cases but rather the effect on the agent.
An agent acting out of purely selfish motives is acting within a social vacuum. Their referent universe has only one person in it. We can't attribute objective 'rightness' to their action, no matter what its effect, if 'rightness' requires a broader reference.
So why does 'rightness' in particular require a broader reference. Why can't we judge right and wrong simply by their immediate effect?
Jn
A fool's paradise is a wise man's hell.
I realize now that my post belonged in a different thread.
Ax: That is, right actions always have a context, and if they are apparently in opposition to self-interest (and not connected to a fear of punishment) that context must be larger than the individual.
But it's wrong to kill Gollum in the Emyn Muil, no matter what context or community may or may not exist.
Jn: So the community - our internal and external connections to it - these are key to understanding the difference between right and wrong, and also key to understanding why some people choose the 'right' path and others not.
I don't think this is right. People can just as easily do evil as do good through their connection to the community. There are some people who can only begin to do good when they separate themselves from a toxic community.
Many actions, both good and evil, have their motivations in friendship.
The community and our connections to it may be very helpful in understanding the motives for an action, but never the rightness of the action. Unless rightness is to be a relative concept, defined independently for each community.
Ax: That is, right actions always have a context, and if they are apparently in opposition to self-interest (and not connected to a fear of punishment) that context must be larger than the individual.
But it's wrong to kill Gollum in the Emyn Muil, no matter what context or community may or may not exist.
Jn: So the community - our internal and external connections to it - these are key to understanding the difference between right and wrong, and also key to understanding why some people choose the 'right' path and others not.
I don't think this is right. People can just as easily do evil as do good through their connection to the community. There are some people who can only begin to do good when they separate themselves from a toxic community.
Many actions, both good and evil, have their motivations in friendship.
The community and our connections to it may be very helpful in understanding the motives for an action, but never the rightness of the action. Unless rightness is to be a relative concept, defined independently for each community.
-
Primula Baggins
- Living in hope
- Posts: 40005
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
- Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
- Contact:
My instinctive answer is that the more immediate things are, the less able we are to judge them correctly. We see less of the context, and it's easier to be deceived. We can judge day-to-day situations better as we get older and more observant, but that's using a broader reference, too.Jnyusa wrote:So why does 'rightness' in particular require a broader reference. Why can't we judge right and wrong simply by their immediate effect?
Jn
To judge correctly requires knowledge. An accepted moral code is a refined product of the knowledge of many people. It may not always be right, but it's more likely to be right in more situations than one individual's possibly naive and possibly biased judgment.
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
Why is it wrong to kill Gollum in the Emyn Muil?Faramond wrote: But it's wrong to kill Gollum in the Emyn Muil, no matter what context or community may or may not exist.
So there must be an independent basis for passing judgment on the community as well as the individual. What is that basis?People can just as easily do evil as do good through their connection to the community .... The community and our connections to it may be very helpful in understanding the motives for an action, but never the rightness of the action. Unless rightness is to be a relative concept, defined independently for each community.
"Many people" ... and not just of the community as it exists today, but ...Prim wrote: An accepted moral code is a refined product of the knowledge of many people. It may not always be right, but it's more likely to be right in more situations than one individual's possibly naive and possibly biased judgment.
fill in the blank.
What is the value of having a Gandalf along for the ride? Or of spending those early superfluous chapters in the House of Tom Bombadil?
Jn
A fool's paradise is a wise man's hell.
-
Primula Baggins
- Living in hope
- Posts: 40005
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
- Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
- Contact:
Jn, are you waiting for someone to come in and say that God determines what's right and wrong?
Okay.
People with religious beliefs often have an absolute moral code that is based on the teachings of their faith, which they believe come from their God.
Gandalf is a messenger and Bombadil a relic, and both serve as reminders of the true relationship between the people of Middle-earth and the higher powers outside it—and thus of the nature of right action.
Okay.
People with religious beliefs often have an absolute moral code that is based on the teachings of their faith, which they believe come from their God.
Gandalf is a messenger and Bombadil a relic, and both serve as reminders of the true relationship between the people of Middle-earth and the higher powers outside it—and thus of the nature of right action.
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
Faramond: 
Are you content to say that right is right without exploring why?
The question began with TED's post in TE, and I imagine there are some posters who would say that God or divine law give us our independent bases for judging right and wrong, but all that does is stop a potentially infinite regress from going any further.
I do not think that the regress need be infinite, or that this is the answer offered by Tolkien in LotR.
Jn
edit: yikes - cross-posted with Prim. No, that is not the answer I was looking for! I don't think that Eru is where Tolkien places the locus of Frodo's decision.
Are you content to say that right is right without exploring why?
The question began with TED's post in TE, and I imagine there are some posters who would say that God or divine law give us our independent bases for judging right and wrong, but all that does is stop a potentially infinite regress from going any further.
I do not think that the regress need be infinite, or that this is the answer offered by Tolkien in LotR.
Jn
edit: yikes - cross-posted with Prim. No, that is not the answer I was looking for! I don't think that Eru is where Tolkien places the locus of Frodo's decision.
A fool's paradise is a wise man's hell.
Prim: Gandalf is a messenger and Bombadil a relic, and both serve as reminders of the true relationship between the people of Middle-earth and the higher powers outside it—and thus of the nature of right action.
Actually, I was trying to get at a different aspect of the role of these two characters.
Gandalf says, "Not even the very wise can see all ends."
How does he know that the very wise cannot see all ends? On what basis does he make such a statement?
Jn
Actually, I was trying to get at a different aspect of the role of these two characters.
Gandalf says, "Not even the very wise can see all ends."
How does he know that the very wise cannot see all ends? On what basis does he make such a statement?
Jn
A fool's paradise is a wise man's hell.
Are you content to say that right is right without exploring why?
No.
And, I guess if I have to say this, then I will. I don't think this conversation as it is unfolding is the way to do it. Sorry. But that's my problem, not yours. I'm not willing to just leave this question, though. I'm going to find my own way, almost certainly in a different thread, and maybe after I've figured some thing out I'll be able to eventually meet up with you and Ax, or at least understand you.
No.
And, I guess if I have to say this, then I will. I don't think this conversation as it is unfolding is the way to do it. Sorry. But that's my problem, not yours. I'm not willing to just leave this question, though. I'm going to find my own way, almost certainly in a different thread, and maybe after I've figured some thing out I'll be able to eventually meet up with you and Ax, or at least understand you.
Faramond,
Something I've said seems to have pissed you off and I'm not sure what it is, but I apologize if I appear to be contradicting you at every turn.
I am not trying to contradict your observation but to draw more of it out.
Jn
Something I've said seems to have pissed you off and I'm not sure what it is, but I apologize if I appear to be contradicting you at every turn.
I am not trying to contradict your observation but to draw more of it out.
Jn
Last edited by Jnyusa on Wed May 10, 2006 1:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
A fool's paradise is a wise man's hell.
-
Primula Baggins
- Living in hope
- Posts: 40005
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
- Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
- Contact:
I didn't mean to say that, Jn. I wasn't thinking of Frodo's decision—regardless of what is "really true" about right and wrong in Middle-earth, I feel sure that Frodo was not influenced by what he knew of Eru (if indeed he knew anything) when he made his choice.
How do we define an absolute standard of right and wrong if we first posit a world without absolutes? Is there some middle ground between total moral relativism and a divinely imposed, or logically constructed, moral code?
(There must be, since that's what most people seem to use—although perhaps they're just not choosing to follow everything to its ultimate conclusion.)
Edit: Couldn't Gandalf's statement about even the Wise not seeing all ends be based on his own experience?
We certainly see him surprised in LotR.
How do we define an absolute standard of right and wrong if we first posit a world without absolutes? Is there some middle ground between total moral relativism and a divinely imposed, or logically constructed, moral code?
(There must be, since that's what most people seem to use—although perhaps they're just not choosing to follow everything to its ultimate conclusion.)
Edit: Couldn't Gandalf's statement about even the Wise not seeing all ends be based on his own experience?
We certainly see him surprised in LotR.
Last edited by Primula Baggins on Tue May 09, 2006 11:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
I'm angry, but not at you, or anyone here.
It's not ready to be drawn out, and unfortunately this isn't the way it will work for me right now.
But you have no way of knowing that.
I will read what continues to go on in this thread. That will help me, I am sure. But I have to regroup before I post anything more, and then I will be ready for contradictions and probing questions.
I am sorry for being rude.
It's not ready to be drawn out, and unfortunately this isn't the way it will work for me right now.
But you have no way of knowing that.
I will read what continues to go on in this thread. That will help me, I am sure. But I have to regroup before I post anything more, and then I will be ready for contradictions and probing questions.
I am sorry for being rude.