COTW - Silmarillion Ch VII: Of the Silmarils and the Unrest of the Noldor
R. Dan Henry
'The Silmarillion' by J.R.R. Tolkien. To read previous Chapter of the
Week discussions, or to sign up to introduce a future chapter, please go
to:
Chapter of the Week (CotW) - The Silmarillion
Quenta Silmarillion (QS)
Chapter VII - Of the Silmarils and the Unrest of the Noldor
The Noldor had been making and passing out shinies for awhile and
everyone was impressed with the ordinary gems of the Earth, but Feanor,
as mentioned in the last chapter, had gone further and made prettier
shinies and even the practical seeing stones. Now we get to the making
of the prettiest shinies of them all -- the Silmarils. Seeing as how the
whole book is named after them, it should be no surprise that these are
"those things that afterwards were most renowned of all the works of the
Elves."
The Silmarils were made in secret and Feanor shared his knowledge with
none, so their composition is unknown. However, they look like diamond,
but much stronger. ("[N]o violence could mar it or break it within the
Kingdom of Arda.") [Unbreakable plastic?] This crystal, however, was
made only as a housing, in which Feanor captured and preserved the
blended light of the Two Trees.
The Silmarils are loved by all, especially Feanor himself. Varda hallows
them so that they will burn any evil thing that touches them. Then
Melkor also becomes obsessive about the Silmarils, although he wasn't
allowed near them -- Feanor either wore them or locked them up.
[Wouldn't it have been a good idea to test his repentance by letting him
hold the Silmarils awhile?]
Melkor gets to work seeding the rumor mill and the Noldor gossip just
like humans, spreading and enlarging his lies. He spoke of the realms
the Noldor could have had in Middle-earth and suggested the Valar
brought them to Aman to restrain them, jealous of their possible power.
He told them of Men (which the Valar hadn't bothered to mention) and
suggested the Elves were removed from Middle-earth so Men could have it.
The Noldor grew proud and suspicious. And Feanor, who hated Melkor,
listened to the rumors he had planted and grew discontent. Meanwhile,
Feanor became even more possessive of the Silmarils, and forgetful that
their light was not his work.
Melkor then begins to work his lies to sow distrust between Feanor and
his half-brethren, easy work given the rift that already existed. Then
Melkor taught weapon-making and the Noldor began to openly carry shields
bearing tokens of their houses, while making weapons in secret. At last,
Feanor speaks openly against the Valar and proposes to lead the Noldor
back to Middle-earth. Fingolfin sees this as rebellion against his
father and urges Finwe to takes control of the situation. Feanor drives
Fingolfin from Finwe's house at sword point. Since this was seen by
many, word of the unrest of the Noldor at last reaches the Valar.
For threatening Fingolfin, Feanor must answer to the Valar and at last
it comes out that Melkor has been a bad parolee and Tulkas goes to
collect him. Feanor is exiled from Tirion for twelve years. Fingolfin is
forgiving, but Feanor is silent. Feanor makes a stronghold, with a
treasury and hoard of weapons. With him came his seven sons, and his
father. With Finwe absent, Fingolfin ruled the Noldor in Tirion. [Even
given that Feanor is his favorite, should Finwe join him in exile? Isn't
this an abdication of his duties? Doesn't leaving Fingolfin in charge
just feed Feanor's jealousy and paranoia?]
Melkor turns himself into a cloud and evades Tulkas. In this guise, he
dims the lights of Valinor, the Trees seeming to dim and the shadows
growing longer (!) and darker. He next materializes at Feanor's door. He
argues that events have proved him right and offer to aid Feanor in
departing Aman. Now, like Melkor, Feanor responded to his shame with
resentment, and he considered Melkor's offer. But Melkor tried to sway
his indecision by suggesting the Silmarils might be stolen by the Valar.
Feanor recognizes that the Vala most interested in stealing his pretties
is standing before him and he curses Melkor and slams the door in his
face. Melkor, naturally, doesn't take this well.
Finwe is frightened by these events and sends messengers to Manwe. Orome
and Tulkas prepare to go after Melkor, but word comes that he has been
seen leaving Valinor. The shadow that dimmed the light is gone, but
Melkor has escaped, evil as ever, the Valar looking like ineffective
chumps, whose efforts to locate him are fruitless. Those who dwell in
Aman had now to worry over what was to come when Melkor would reappear.
*** FURTHER ISSUES ***
"not until the Sun passes and the Moon falls" -- we get a glimpse of the
end of Middle-earth here. Compare to other end-of-the-world scenarios.
Melkor's lies are more along the line of half-truths. The Elves would,
in the natural course of things, created realms for themselves in
Middle-earth. Men were coming and would displace the Elves in
Middle-earth. The Valar bringing the Elves to Aman and then keeping Men
a secret didn't look too good when viewed critically. And of what he
tells Fingolfin and Finarfin ("Beware! Small love has the proud son of
Miriel ever had for the children of Indis. Now he has become great, and
he has his father in his hand. It will not be long before he drives you
forth from Tuna.") there is mostly truth and even the speculation isn't
necessarily wrong, given Feanor's desire to master minds. With better
management, could Aman have been better lie-proofed against Melkor?
Why is Feanor such a jerk? Spoiled by his father? Abandonment issues
because of his mother? Do you blame his father's remarriage and the
half-brothers, as some do? Or is it his "fiery" nature, too
obsessive-compulsive and impulsive to make good decisions? How did the
poor little rich boy go so very, very wrong?
Specifically, the Noldor make "swords and axes and spears" -- no mention
is made of bows or slings, nor of maces or flails. Is there any
significance to this? (The weapons they make are all edged weapons.)
How can the Valar be so totally clueless as to what is going on in their
own realm? What was the point of keeping Melkor close if nobody is going
to actually watch what he does? Why didn't the Valar at least speak up
when Feanor began to openly accuse them? "And Manwe was grieved, but he
watched and said no word." No investigation of why he had become a
malcontent, no attempt to set the record straight, no offer of aid in
returning to Middle-earth if that's what the Noldor want. Manwe just
sits on his throne on his mountain.
How exactly do you make the shadows grow *longer*? Darker, yes, if you
dim the Trees, but shadow length is a matter of height and the angle of
the light. I guess this is just one of those "mythological" elements.
Maybe some of Melkor's shadow -- the semi-physical kind -- lurks in the
normal shadows.
"But his cunning overreached his aim; his words touched too deep, and
awoke a fire more fierce than he designed; and Feanor looked upon Melkor
with eyes that burned through his fair semblance and pierced the cloaks
of his mind, perceiving there his fierce lust for the Silmarils." --
Telepathic power or poetically described recognition of a similar mind's
shared coveting of the shinies?
--
R. Dan Henry
danh...@inreach.com
Christopher Kreuzer
Taemon
>> Why is Feanor such a jerk? Spoiled by his father? Abandonment
>> issues because of his mother? Do you blame his father's
>> remarriage and the half-brothers, as some do?
*He* does, I think. I don't think he has ever forgiven his mother for
"leaving" him. Maybe he felt guilty. And begrudged his father's
renewed happiness. Huuuh, Fëanor. I never liked him. He is
irresponsible and spoiled.
T.
Derek Broughton
Does anybody like him? Does he have any redeeming features? He's sort of
like the "friend" we've probably all had - who's helpful & generous & witty
& bright, until you cross him accidentally, and then it's all over!
--
derek
R. Dan Henry
I don't like him, either. Only Melkor among the real characters
(excluding mere walk-ons like the Balrogs) is less likeable. Even Sauron
seems more likely to come around for a cup of tea and have a nice chat.
Feanor would just keep talking about himself and ignoring you. Oh, and
talking about how great his Silmarils are, but you can't see them.
Morgil
Like in what sense? As a person he's not the most pleasent one,
but he had some very admirable features, and he's possibly the
most intersting and complex character that Tolkien ever created.
Sure, he also had negative traits, which along with unfortunate
circumstances led to some tragic results, but if he hadn't been
what he was, all the great things he accomplished would not have
happened either.
Morgil
Leon Trollski
"R. Dan Henry" <danh...@inreach.com> wrote in message
news:pt63r15mrlq3tohtn...@4ax.com...
I only have more questions.
Which Vala did Fëanor most closely identify with? And why wouldn't this
Vala have become a sort of guide or mentor for this unruly Noldo? Or
appoint a Maia for the task (Olorin?) Surely these extraordinary powers
could have provoked more thought and debate on the part of the Valar? If
Yavanna thought enough of his works to 'hallow' them, surely their
protective instincts, well proven by the decision to bring the elves to
Valinor, would have found further use in Fëanor's guidance? After all
Melkor didn't miss the opportunity. Exiling this priceless asset, out of
sight and protection, surely is rash and inconsistent?
Stan Brown
<danh...@inreach.com>:
> [Even
> given that Feanor is his favorite, should Finwe join him in exile? Isn't
> this an abdication of his duties? Doesn't leaving Fingolfin in charge
> just feed Feanor's jealousy and paranoia?]
Finwë comes of rather badly in the whole story, as does Miriel his
first wife. She feels "tired, soooo tired"(*) after birthing Fëanor,
so she lays herself down and leaves her body, refusing to return to
it; thus she abandons both husband and son.
Finwë, in turn, grows lonely and resentful because he has only one
child while other princes of the Eldar have more children. So he
determines to marry again, even though the Valar argue against it
without actually forbidding it. Thus _he_ abandons Fëanor
symbolically, by abandoning the memory of Fëanor's mother.
With parents like this, it's no wonder Fëanor grew up headstrong!
Then Finwë abandons his people to go off in a snit with his firstborn
son, even though it's clear that Fëanor is to blame for the
unpleasantness with Fingolfin. This is not only dereliction of duty
but, as you say, bad strategy. If Fingolfin really were plotting to
seize the throne, this gives him quite an opportunity; and if he's
not, it still feeds Fëanor's distrust.
(*) Later used by Mel Brooks for Lily von Shtupp's song in /Blazing
Saddles/.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html
FAQ of the Rings: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm
R. Dan Henry
wrote:
>"R. Dan Henry" <danh...@inreach.com> wrote in message
>news:pt63r15mrlq3tohtn...@4ax.com...
[Entire article deleted. Mr. Trollski, it is considered polite to
include some context in your replies.]
>I only have more questions.
>
>Which Vala did Fëanor most closely identify with?
I doubt he did. If he were honest, he'd have to see he was closest to
Melkor. But Feanor wasn't much for listening to others, be they Elves or
Valar or little magical ponies.
>And why wouldn't this
>Vala have become a sort of guide or mentor for this unruly Noldo?
In a way, he did.
>Or appoint a Maia for the task (Olorin?)
Olorin wasn't even able to skillfully manage someone as proud as
Denethor, Steward of Gondor. I doubt that when much less experienced, he
could have gotten through to Feanor.
>Surely these extraordinary powers
>could have provoked more thought and debate on the part of the Valar?
Hmmm. The Valar... pay attention to what's going on and respond in a
timely manner? What a great idea! Don't expect to see it, though.
>If Yavanna thought enough of his works to 'hallow' them, surely their
>protective instincts, well proven by the decision to bring the elves to
>Valinor, would have found further use in Fëanor's guidance?
Varda. And I think she's basically looking out for her precious light
here, rather than it having much to do with her relationship to Feanor.
>After all
>Melkor didn't miss the opportunity. Exiling this priceless asset, out of
>sight and protection, surely is rash and inconsistent?
He was only exiled from the city where his crime occurred, and for a
short time by the standards of Elves or Valar. It's a little slap on the
wrist. If they'd wanted to watch him closely, they could easily have
done so where he was. The Department of Undying Lands Security, however,
was badly managed and nobody thought of that. Of course, it was only
very late that anyone realized that the Silmarils were of great interest
to Melkor (and that was Feanor when Melkor showed up at his door).
Morgil
>>Which Vala did Fëanor most closely identify with?
>
>
> I doubt he did. If he were honest, he'd have to see he was closest to
> Melkor.
Rubbish. Feanor's pleasure was in creating new and beautiful
things. Melkor only wanted to destroy or corrupt everything
that was beautiful. They couldn't have been more different.
What's the purpose of this COTW thing anyway? Is it to debate
Tolkien's works, or to spread prejudicial misinformation?
Morgil
nand...@transact.bm
> Finwë comes of rather badly in the whole story, as does Miriel his
> first wife. She feels "tired, soooo tired"(*) after birthing Fëanor,
> so she lays herself down and leaves her body, refusing to return to
> it; thus she abandons both husband and son.
>
> <snip>
>
> (*) Later used by Mel Brooks for Lily von Shtupp's song in /Blazing
> Saddles/.
Awesome - a Mel Brooks/JRRT crossover thread should be started
immediately.
Hedley Lamarr also lifts chunks of Feanor's oratory in Tuna - "now go
do that voodoo that you do so well !!!" - when exhorting his villains
for the final attack.
Neil Anderson
R. Dan Henry
wrote:
>R. Dan Henry wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 18:12:45 GMT, "Leon Trollski" <fan...@netguy.net>
>> wrote:
>
>>>Which Vala did Fëanor most closely identify with?
>>
>>
>> I doubt he did. If he were honest, he'd have to see he was closest to
>> Melkor.
>
>Rubbish. Feanor's pleasure was in creating new and beautiful
>things.
So was Melkor's, in the beginning. Feanor wasn't so far along the
downward path, yet, and his death curtailed his going farther. But the
jealousy that fueled Morgoth's nihilism was already there.
He's certainly not Melkor's twin, but he's much more unlike any other
Vala.
Morgil
> On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 15:32:59 +0200, Morgil <more...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>R. Dan Henry wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 18:12:45 GMT, "Leon Trollski" <fan...@netguy.net>
>>>wrote:
>>
>>>>Which Vala did Fëanor most closely identify with?
>>>
>>>
>>>I doubt he did. If he were honest, he'd have to see he was closest to
>>>Melkor.
>>
>>Rubbish. Feanor's pleasure was in creating new and beautiful
>>things.
>
>
> So was Melkor's, in the beginning.
Name one beautiful thing that Melkor ever created.
Feanor wasn't so far along the
> downward path, yet, and his death curtailed his going farther. But the
> jealousy that fueled Morgoth's nihilism was already there.
Not in any texts I have read. Can you give examples?
> He's certainly not Melkor's twin, but he's much more unlike any other
> Vala.
He certainly has more things in common with Aule then Melkor.
Morgil
R. Dan Henry
wrote:
>R. Dan Henry wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 15:32:59 +0200, Morgil <more...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>R. Dan Henry wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 18:12:45 GMT, "Leon Trollski" <fan...@netguy.net>
>>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Which Vala did Fëanor most closely identify with?
>>>>I doubt he did. If he were honest, he'd have to see he was closest to
>>>>Melkor.
>>>Rubbish. Feanor's pleasure was in creating new and beautiful
>>>things.
>> So was Melkor's, in the beginning.
>Name one beautiful thing that Melkor ever created.
Well, obviously, *he* thought his version of the Music was an
improvement on Iluvatar's. Since "beautiful" is a subjective judgment,
I'm not going to get into an argument on it, but certainly Melkor was
highly inventive in the beginning (the only *truly* original Vala, as
the others merely did detail work within Iluvatar's theme, while Melkor
worked outside it -- and Iluvatar certainly claimed that Melkor's work
had a certain beauty to it, so let's answer your question "snow".)
>> Feanor wasn't so far along the
>> downward path, yet, and his death curtailed his going farther. But the
>> jealousy that fueled Morgoth's nihilism was already there.
>
>Not in any texts I have read. Can you give examples?
You completely failed to notice his attitude towards his half-brothers?
Heck, he tried to usurp his father's leadership while his father was
still alive and he supposedly loved his father.
>> He's certainly not Melkor's twin, but he's much more unlike any other
>> Vala.
>
>He certainly has more things in common with Aule then Melkor.
I'd say that the things he has in common with Aule are the things Aule
has in common with Melkor. Let's see...
Feature Aule Feanor Melkor
Vala Yes No Yes
Skilled in Crafts Yes Yes Yes
Steps Over the Line Yes Yes Yes
Steps Back, Humbled Yes No No
Leads Others to Disaster No Yes Yes
Works in Secret Yes Yes Yes
Covets Silmarils No Yes Yes
Likes Elves Yes Some No
Creates Private Fortress No Yes Yes
Lots of Kids No* Yes* No*
Married Yes Yes No
Happy Marriage Yes No** No
Killed Elves No Yes Yes
Destroyed Elven Property No Yes Yes
Vengeful No Yes Yes
Condemned Criminal No Yes Yes
Worker of Metals Yes Yes Yes
Rejects Lawful Authority No Yes Yes
Seeks to Rule No Yes Yes
Creates Silmarils No Yes No
So far, not looking so good for your thesis, but feel free to extend the
chart.
* - Okay, you could make a parallel between the Seven Sons of Feanor and
the Seven Fathers of the Dwarves if you wanted to stretch things a lot.
But then, how many are the Fathers of the Orcs?
** - Started off promisingly, but no.
Morgil
> On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 22:20:46 +0200, Morgil <more...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>R. Dan Henry wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 15:32:59 +0200, Morgil <more...@hotmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>R. Dan Henry wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 18:12:45 GMT, "Leon Trollski" <fan...@netguy.net>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>Which Vala did Fëanor most closely identify with?
>
>
>>>>>I doubt he did. If he were honest, he'd have to see he was closest to
>>>>>Melkor.
>
>
>>>>Rubbish. Feanor's pleasure was in creating new and beautiful
>>>>things.
>
>
>>>So was Melkor's, in the beginning.
>
>
>>Name one beautiful thing that Melkor ever created.
>
>
> Well, obviously, *he* thought his version of the Music was an
> improvement on Iluvatar's. Since "beautiful" is a subjective judgment,
> I'm not going to get into an argument on it, but certainly Melkor was
> highly inventive in the beginning (the only *truly* original Vala, as
> the others merely did detail work within Iluvatar's theme, while Melkor
> worked outside it -- and Iluvatar certainly claimed that Melkor's work
> had a certain beauty to it, so let's answer your question "snow".)
It was never Melkor's intention to create snow or rain.
Your argument was that it was his pleasure to create
such things. Can you give an example of that?
>>>Feanor wasn't so far along the
>>>downward path, yet, and his death curtailed his going farther. But the
>>>jealousy that fueled Morgoth's nihilism was already there.
>>
>>Not in any texts I have read. Can you give examples?
>
>
> You completely failed to notice his attitude towards his half-brothers?
A little jealousy between siblings can hardly be considered
equal to Melkor's jealousy of everything and everyone that
he could not completely dominate.
> Heck, he tried to usurp his father's leadership while his father was
> still alive and he supposedly loved his father.
He believed that Noldor were living in thralldom of Valar.
It has nothing to do with jealousy.
>>>He's certainly not Melkor's twin, but he's much more unlike any other
>>>Vala.
>>
>>He certainly has more things in common with Aule then Melkor.
>
>
> I'd say that the things he has in common with Aule are the things Aule
> has in common with Melkor. Let's see...
<snip>
Both Feanor and Aule had joy in craftsmanship and they
gave freely away what they made. Melkor wanted slaves,
Feanor wanted to be free. Melkor wanted to destroy or
corrupt everything beautiful, Fenaor wanted to create
beautiful things or improve things that already were.
So while Aule and Feanor were very similar in at least
one important aspect, Feanor and Melkor were mostly
almost complete opposites. You see, just because you
don't like someone, doesn't mean they're the Devil :-)
Morgil
Stan Brown
> R. Dan Henry wrote:
> > On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 18:12:45 GMT, "Leon Trollski" <fan...@netguy.net>
> > wrote:
>
> >>Which Vala did Fëanor most closely identify with?
> >
> >
> > I doubt he did. If he were honest, he'd have to see he was closest to
> > Melkor.
>
> Rubbish. Feanor's pleasure was in creating new and beautiful
> things. Melkor only wanted to destroy or corrupt everything
> that was beautiful. They couldn't have been more different.
While I agree that the identification with Melkor is wrong, I think
it is also wrong to say "they couldn't have been more different."
Both were persuasive speakers. Both were determined to get their way
at any cost. Both were the greatest of their kind, endowed by Eru
with many gifts. Both were rebels against the will of Eru. Both were
suspicious of others.
There were of course differences also: Melkor was 100% evil and
nihilistic; Fëanor wasn't nihilistic and wasn't 100% evil, though we
might wonder what he would have become if he'd lived longer.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
Leon Trollski
> On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 18:12:45 GMT, "Leon Trollski" <fan...@netguy.net>
> wrote:
>
> >"R. Dan Henry" <danh...@inreach.com> wrote in message
> >news:pt63r15mrlq3tohtn...@4ax.com...
>
> [Entire article deleted. Mr. Trollski, it is considered polite to
> include some context in your replies.]
Well the wagging finger is certainly unexpected. More unfortunately, the
rest of your post is rather wanting in reason. PLONK.
Tamim
snip
> with many gifts. Both were rebels against the will of Eru.
How? Feanor did things against the will of the Valar, but Eru?
Do you mean that he broke the ten commadments or human rights (ie. he
killed)? So did many others. Melkor OTOH went against Eru in a more
direct way because he knew Eru personally, unlike the elves.
Or do you mean that he went against the authority of the Valar and as an
extension against the authority of Eru? S why not extend it further. The
Valar were the rightful guardians of Arda, King of Gondor was the
rightful ruler of Gondor. So a thief in Minas Anor goes against Eru?
In a sense he does, but comparing that to the personal rebellion of
Morgoth is ridiculous. Feanor never personally knew or rebelled against
Eru, Melkor did.
> Both were
> suspicious of others.
So am I.
Leon Trollski
> So was Melkor's, in the beginning.
You're dead wrong. Melkor was one for extremes, domination and possession
of anything and everything. The greatest noise, deepest frost, pitch
darkness, huge fires, the most dreadful creatures. He created not one
single object of beauty. He never had even one beautiful, admirable, or
useful thought or act. He's like a two year old boy run amok with infinite
powers.
Robert Kolker
>
> You're dead wrong. Melkor was one for extremes, domination and possession
> of anything and everything. The greatest noise, deepest frost, pitch
> darkness, huge fires, the most dreadful creatures. He created not one
> single object of beauty. He never had even one beautiful, admirable, or
> useful thought or act. He's like a two year old boy run amok with infinite
> powers.
Melkor is id. Manwe is superego.
Illuvatar is not a good daddy. He shoud have put Melkor right from the
gitgo.
Bob Kolker
>
>
>
>
Tamim
> Leon Trollski wrote:
>>
>> You're dead wrong. Melkor was one for extremes, domination and possession
>> of anything and everything. The greatest noise, deepest frost, pitch
>> darkness, huge fires, the most dreadful creatures. He created not one
>> single object of beauty. He never had even one beautiful, admirable, or
>> useful thought or act. He's like a two year old boy run amok with infinite
>> powers.
> Melkor is id. Manwe is superego.
God I hate Freud ;)
> Illuvatar is not a good daddy. He shoud have put Melkor right from the
> gitgo.
> Bob Kolker
>>
>>
>>
>>
--
Robert Kolker
>
>
> God I hate Freud ;)
O Doktor Freude, Herr Doktor Freude
How we wish you had been differently employed
Instead of fiddling with neurosis,
You could have cured sclerosis,
O what a waste, Herr Doktor Freude.
Bob Kolker
R. Dan Henry
<the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>Fri, 30 Dec 2005 15:32:59 +0200 from Morgil <more...@hotmail.com>:
>> R. Dan Henry wrote:
>> > On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 18:12:45 GMT, "Leon Trollski" <fan...@netguy.net>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >>Which Vala did Fëanor most closely identify with?
>> >
>> >
>> > I doubt he did. If he were honest, he'd have to see he was closest to
>> > Melkor.
>>
>> Rubbish. Feanor's pleasure was in creating new and beautiful
>> things. Melkor only wanted to destroy or corrupt everything
>> that was beautiful. They couldn't have been more different.
>
>While I agree that the identification with Melkor is wrong, I think
>it is also wrong to say "they couldn't have been more different."
Well, good thing then that at least nobody has *identified* Feanor with
Melkor.
>Both were persuasive speakers. Both were determined to get their way
>at any cost. Both were the greatest of their kind, endowed by Eru
>with many gifts. Both were rebels against the will of Eru. Both were
>suspicious of others.
>
>There were of course differences also: Melkor was 100% evil and
>nihilistic; Fëanor wasn't nihilistic and wasn't 100% evil, though we
>might wonder what he would have become if he'd lived longer.
Thank you. This allows me to extend the comparison a bit, although I
already listed rebellion ("Rejects Lawful Authority") and actually left
out the "suspicious of others" because while we know Aule listens to the
advice of others, we really don't know how much Melkor does or doesn't
listen to his loyal officers. Sauron, for example, may be able to
convince Melkor to modify his positions. So I'm not comfortable with a
conclusion on that point.
Feature Aule Feanor Melkor
Vala Yes No Yes
Skilled in Crafts Yes Yes Yes
Steps Over the Line Yes Yes Yes
Steps Back, Humbled Yes No No
Greatest of his kind No Yes Yes
Persuasive leadership skills No**** Yes Yes
Leads Others to Disaster No Yes Yes
Works in Secret Yes Yes Yes
Covets Silmarils No Yes Yes
Likes Elves Yes Some No
Creates Private Fortress No Yes Yes
Lots of Kids No* Yes* No*
Married Yes Yes No
Happy Marriage Yes No** No
Killed Elves No Yes Yes
Destroyed Elven Property No Yes Yes
Vengeful No Yes Yes
Condemned Criminal No Yes Yes
Worker of Metals Yes Yes Yes
Rejects Lawful Authority No Yes Yes
Seeks to Rule No Yes Yes
Creates Silmarils No Yes No
Totally evil and nihilistic No No Yes-ish***
* - Okay, you could make a parallel between the Seven Sons of Feanor and
the Seven Fathers of the Dwarves if you wanted to stretch things a lot.
But then, how many are the Fathers of the Orcs?
** - Started off promisingly, but no.
*** - As I've pointed out elsewhere, he wasn't there yet at the time
Feanor knew him, as he had good enough left to feign repentance and was
non-nihilistic enough to pass up a chance to destroy the Silmarils when
Ungoliant "offered" to do so.
**** - At least, there's none in evidence and given how diplomatic his
"children" are, I think that's sufficient indirect evidence against to
make a listing.
R. Dan Henry
wrote:
>>>>>R. Dan Henry wrote:
Proof?
>Your argument was that it was his pleasure to create
>such things. Can you give an example of that?
No, "snow" was the answer to the question you actually asked. I also
replied to the question you appear to have intended. If you missed that
the first time, please reread.
>>>>Feanor wasn't so far along the
>>>>downward path, yet, and his death curtailed his going farther. But the
>>>>jealousy that fueled Morgoth's nihilism was already there.
>>>Not in any texts I have read. Can you give examples?
>> You completely failed to notice his attitude towards his half-brothers?
>A little jealousy between siblings can hardly be considered
>equal to Melkor's jealousy of everything and everyone that
>he could not completely dominate.
I never said it was *equal*. Nor, for that matter have I said that
Feanor and Melkor were equivalent. Merely that of all the Valar, Melkor
was the one *most like* Feanor. That does not imply any equivalence
between them, nor even a close association. He isn't terribly similar to
any of the Valar, but he shares the most traits, both positive and
negative, with Melkor.
>> Heck, he tried to usurp his father's leadership while his father was
>> still alive and he supposedly loved his father.
>
>He believed that Noldor were living in thralldom of Valar.
>It has nothing to do with jealousy.
So you say, but a loyal son would have sought to sway his father, rather
stir up the masses.
If he was free from jealousy, how do you explain his self-delusion: "he
seldom remembered now that the light within them was not his own". I see
two obvious explanations: he dislikes giving credit to others (jealousy
of their skill) or that he simply has a bad memory. I see no other signs
of a bad memory.
>>>>He's certainly not Melkor's twin, but he's much more unlike any other
>>>>Vala.
>>>
>>>He certainly has more things in common with Aule then Melkor.
>> I'd say that the things he has in common with Aule are the things Aule
>> has in common with Melkor. Let's see...
><snip>
So, you aren't willing to go into details? Then I don't think we have
anything more to discuss.
>Both Feanor and Aule had joy in craftsmanship and they
>gave freely away what they made.
Feanor began to hide away the Silmarils and they were stolen
specifically because he "denied the sight of the Silmarils to the Valar
and the Eldar". Of course, his father also was in a snit when he stayed
home. If they'd been more reasonable, Melkor would have raided an empty
house.
During the time Feanor knew him, Melkor was giving away the fruits of
his efforts, as well. (Albeit with less good will than either Feanor nor
Melkor.) Nor did Feanor freely give the Silmarils. But then, I don't
think Aule gave away all he made, either. There isn't really enough
detail to analyze their behavior in this matter properly.
>Melkor wanted slaves, Feanor wanted to be free.
Melkor also wanted to be free. Both refused to accept the lawful
authority over them. Both gathered followers. No, Feanor did not
actually enslave anyone, but he saw fit to kill those who would not
accept what he wanted. He hadn't gone to the extremes Melkor had to get
his way, but he was willing to use force when his powers of persuasion
failed.
>Melkor wanted to destroy or corrupt everything beautiful,
Yes, eventually he became nihilistic. He was not so the beginning, and
his ability to change form at this time and his ability to seem fair in
his form and activity shows that his fall was not yet complete. His
original rebellion arose from his creative urges. "He had gone often
alone into the void places seeking the Imperishable Flame; for desire
grew hot within him to bring into Being things of his own, and it seemed
to him that Iluvatar took no thought for the Void, and he was impatient
of its emptiness." This is the very opposite of nihilism.
Note also that Melkor did not wish to *destroy*, but to *possess* the
beauty of the Silmarils. If he'd wanted them destroyed, he could simply
have fed them to Ungoliant when she demanded them.
However, Melkor was indeed truly evil by the time of the Unrest of the
Noldor, no mistake. Feanor was not evil as such, but merely flawed. They
are not morally equivalent and I never claimed that, although that seems
to be the claim you wish to argue against.
>Fenaor wanted to create beautiful things or improve things that already were.
So you like the things Feanor made, but not the things Melkor made.
That's too subjective to be arguable, as I've said. But even granted
that, that's only *one* trait. If you just pick and choose a couple of
traits, you can make connections willy-nilly. That's why I made up an
extensive chart of traits.
>So while Aule and Feanor were very similar in at least
>one important aspect, Feanor and Melkor were mostly
>almost complete opposites. You see, just because you
>don't like someone, doesn't mean they're the Devil :-)
I didn't claim he was the Devil or more specifically, that he was just
like Morgoth. If you choose to actually address the detailed comparison
I've made and the claim that Melkor is the Vala most like Feanor, we can
continue. However, if your only interest is in attacking a position I do
not hold, then we are done with this subthread.
Christopher Kreuzer
> On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 02:54:49 +0200, Morgil <more...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
<snip>
>> Melkor wanted to destroy or corrupt everything beautiful,
>
> Yes, eventually he became nihilistic. He was not so the beginning, and
> his ability to change form at this time and his ability to seem fair
> in his form and activity shows that his fall was not yet complete.
I agree. This reminds me of the description of Sauron right at the end
of Valaquenta, where he is compared to Melkor, and where we are told
that Sauron: "walked behind him on the same ruinous path down into the
Void." (Valaquenta)
This seems to imply to me that both Melkor and Sauron were not evil in
their beginnings. Maybe you could say that by their actions they came to
define what was evil, rather than evil being a pre-existing state that
they chose to head towards.
Can something be evil without context? It's a bit like who hears the
tree fall in the forest. Is thinking about something evil in itself
evil?
These descriptions of Melkor and Sauron descending into evil sound a lot
like how people can change over time. Some people are more mallaeble
than others, and their experiences and thoughts can change them (I think
there is a description somewhere of Melkor brooding in his dark
thought). Ten years later, they can find themselves doing things that
they wouldn't have done back then because they were a different person
back then.
Over the course of a lifetime, is it possible to rigidly adhere to a
moral code and do "the right thing" at all times? How did Sauron and
Melkor change over their "lifetimes", and ditto for Feanor? Let's put
them on the psychologist's couch and let Freud loose on them! :-)
Christopher
--
---
Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard
Morgil
>>It was never Melkor's intention to create snow or rain.
>
>
> Proof?
Why not just read the book yourself?
>>Your argument was that it was his pleasure to create
>>such things. Can you give an example of that?
>
>
> No, "snow" was the answer to the question you actually asked. I also
> replied to the question you appear to have intended. If you missed that
> the first time, please reread.
So there are no indications that Melkor ever took pleasure
of creating beautiful things, as you suggested? Good enough.
>>A little jealousy between siblings can hardly be considered
>>equal to Melkor's jealousy of everything and everyone that
>>he could not completely dominate.
>
>
> I never said it was *equal*.
You said that Feanor's jealousy was the *same* as that which
fueled Melkor's nihilism. But if we agree that wasn't the case,
that's good enough.
>>>Heck, he tried to usurp his father's leadership while his father was
>>>still alive and he supposedly loved his father.
>>
>>He believed that Noldor were living in thralldom of Valar.
>>It has nothing to do with jealousy.
>
>
> So you say, but a loyal son would have sought to sway his father, rather
> stir up the masses.
No, what I say is that the issue has nothing to do with jealousy.
> So, you aren't willing to go into details? Then I don't think we have
> anything more to discuss.
No, I'm just not interested in piling through all the nonsense.
I'd rather stick to the actual issue.
>>Both Feanor and Aule had joy in craftsmanship and they
>>gave freely away what they made.
>
>
> Feanor began to hide away the Silmarils and they were stolen
> specifically because he "denied the sight of the Silmarils to the Valar
> and the Eldar". Of course, his father also was in a snit when he stayed
> home. If they'd been more reasonable, Melkor would have raided an empty
> house.
And Aule was hiding the dwarves. But in general they did just that.
> During the time Feanor knew him, Melkor was giving away the fruits of
> his efforts, as well. (Albeit with less good will than either Feanor nor
> Melkor.) Nor did Feanor freely give the Silmarils. But then, I don't
> think Aule gave away all he made, either. There isn't really enough
> detail to analyze their behavior in this matter properly.
Fortunately it is not neccessary either. It is stated quite clearly
that it was the nature of Aule to do that, and the nature of Noldor
and Feanor as well. Therefore they were similar in this aspect,
even if circumstances sometimes caused them to act differently.
The things that were in the nature of Melkor were for the most
part *not* things that were in the nature of Feanor, even if
circumstances sometimes caused them to act in slightly similar
ways. This is what identifying with someone means, not wheter or
not they were happily married or whatever you had on your list.
And that's all there is to be said.
Morgil
Stan Brown
> Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>
> snip
> > with many gifts. Both were rebels against the will of Eru.
>
> How? Feanor did things against the will of the Valar, but Eru?
Eru spoke in Arda through the Valar. Manwë in particular was his
vice-gerent; rebellion against Manwë was rebellion against Eru.
Stan Brown
<danh...@inreach.com>:
> On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 02:54:49 +0200, Morgil <more...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> >It was never Melkor's intention to create snow or rain.
>
> Proof?
I can't believe that's a serious request. "And Ilúvatar spoke to
Ulmo, and said: 'Seest thou not how here in this little realm in the
Deeps of Time Melkor hath made war upon thy province? He hath
bethought him of bitter cold immoderate, and yet hath not destroyed
the beauty of thy fountains, nor of my clear pools. Behold the snow,
and the cunning work of frost! Melkor hath devised heats and fire
without restraint, and hath not dried up thy desire nor utterly
quelled the music of the sea. Behold rather the height and glory of
the clouds, and the ever changing mists; and listen to the fall of
rain upon the Earth!' "
I can't see any way to read into that passage any good intent on
Melkor's part. Can you?
R. Dan Henry
<the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>Sat, 31 Dec 2005 21:28:38 -0800 from R. Dan Henry
><danh...@inreach.com>:
>> On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 02:54:49 +0200, Morgil <more...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >It was never Melkor's intention to create snow or rain.
>>
>> Proof?
>
>I can't believe that's a serious request. "And Ilúvatar spoke to
>Ulmo, and said: 'Seest thou not how here in this little realm in the
>Deeps of Time Melkor hath made war upon thy province? He hath
>bethought him of bitter cold immoderate, and yet hath not destroyed
>the beauty of thy fountains, nor of my clear pools. Behold the snow,
>and the cunning work of frost! Melkor hath devised heats and fire
>without restraint, and hath not dried up thy desire nor utterly
>quelled the music of the sea. Behold rather the height and glory of
>the clouds, and the ever changing mists; and listen to the fall of
>rain upon the Earth!' "
>
>I can't see any way to read into that passage any good intent on
>Melkor's part. Can you?
I agree that this passage doesn't indicate that Melkor's intent was
good; indeed, quite the opposite -- his "snow, and the cunning work of
frost" are created to be "bitter cold immoderate" and are beautiful
quite secondarily (so far as we can know). However, that was not the
issue. The issue was whether it was "Melkor's intention to create snow
or rain" -- and your quotation does not give any reason to think he did
not intend snow and only the slightest hint that he did not intend rain
in the remark that the heat "hath not dried up thy desire nor utterly
quelled the music of the sea". It is not even stated that this was
Melkor's hope -- note that Melkor gathers followers during the Music,
not simply silencing other Maiar, but drawing them to join in his
version of the Music. (Which also shows that he was not the only one to
find it appealing.) Melkor might have intended a reshaping of the seas
and not their destruction to begin with (although he doubtless had in
mind something less in tune with Ulmo's thought).
R. Dan Henry
wrote:
>
One point I forgot to make earlier -- you and Morgil are approaching
this from the wrong end. The Valar in general were teachers to the Elves
and Aule was especially eager to teach (impatient, even, given he made
the Dwarves rather than wait). Both Aule and his people came often among
the Noldor and taught them much. Surely a pupil such as Feanor would not
have been turned away. The question should be, why did Feanor chose to
learn smithcraft from Mahtan rather than directly from Aule? (Not that I
think there's anywhere near the detail necessary to answer such a
question other than utterly speculatively.) Possibly Mahtan was actually
the better choice for the Noldor "in many things... soon surpassed their
teachers." (Chapter 5)
Robert Kolker
>
> I can't see any way to read into that passage any good intent on
> Melkor's part. Can you?
Quite the opposite. No matter what evil Morgoth devises, some good comes
of it. No matter how Morgoth fights against Eru's will he always fails.
Morgoth is pissing up a rope.
Bob Kolker
>
Christopher Kreuzer
> 31 Dec 2005 18:42:56 GMT from Tamim <hall...@hotmail.com>:
>> Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>
>>
>> snip
>>> with many gifts. Both were rebels against the will of Eru.
>>
>> How? Feanor did things against the will of the Valar, but Eru?
>
> Eru spoke in Arda through the Valar. Manwë in particular was his
> vice-gerent; rebellion against Manwë was rebellion against Eru.
That's the second time I've noticed you use the word vice-gerent (also
spelt vicegerent). So I went and looked here for an answer:
http://tinyurl.com/cko38 (Google Groups search)
And then I went and checked in /The Silmarillion/, and it is indeed
there, right in the very chapter I re-read and summarised for the CotW
discussions!
"...he [Manwe] was appointed to be the vicegerent of Iluvatar, King of
the world of Valar and Elves and Men, and the chief defence against the
evil of Melkor." (Of the Beginning of Days)
I guess that time, like all the other times, my eyes skated over the
word and read it as "vice-regent". And I'd have carried on doing this
without you pointing out the correct word! :-)
Then I thought I'd see how accurate people have been in the past:
http://tinyurl.com/9s3yq (Google Groups search)
4 people correctly used vicegerent to refer to Manwe.
http://tinyurl.com/bbau5 (Google Groups search)
About 7 people incorrectly used vice-regent to refer to Manwe, though at
least two of the references appear to be to Elrond as vice-regent of
Gil-galad, and I haven't checked the context of the messages, or indeed
whether some people were just quoting what others wrote.
And there wouldn't be any difference between rebelling against a
vice-regent and a vice-gerent, would there?
Morgil
> 31 Dec 2005 18:42:56 GMT from Tamim <hall...@hotmail.com>:
>
>>Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>
>>
>>snip
>>
>>>with many gifts. Both were rebels against the will of Eru.
>>
>>How? Feanor did things against the will of the Valar, but Eru?
>
>
> Eru spoke in Arda through the Valar. Manwë in particular was his
> vice-gerent; rebellion against Manwë was rebellion against Eru.
Again we must look at the perspective. The only time Feanor
directly rebelled against Valar was when he disregarded the
banishment order at one instance. And I feel it is a bit of
an exagerration to say that makes him a rebel against the
will of Eru. It can even be that since Feanor was invited
to the feast of Manwe and his argument with Fingolfin was
settled, he believed that the banishment order was revoked,
even though there hadn't been a chance to do it formally.
Morgil
Tamim
> 31 Dec 2005 18:42:56 GMT from Tamim <hall...@hotmail.com>:
>> Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>
>>
>> snip
>> > with many gifts. Both were rebels against the will of Eru.
>>
>> How? Feanor did things against the will of the Valar, but Eru?
> Eru spoke in Arda through the Valar. Manwë in particular was his
> vice-gerent; rebellion against Manwë was rebellion against Eru.
I discussed this already, but you snipped that part of the post.
Rebelling against Manwe isn't the same thing as rebelling against Eru,
not in my books. It might come close if Feanor had witnessed God making
Manwe his vice-gerent and been given an order by Eru to obey Manwe.
Feanor didn't even _know_ Eru existed. Rebelling against God by eating
the apple isn't comparable to defying a papal bulla.
But enough of that rant. Melkor's rebellion can be considered a true
rebellion in the sense that he was trying to usurp the power from the
rightful ruler. Feanor rebelled by not following a direct order óf
Manwe, he wasn't trying to replace Finwe or Ingwe, much less Manwe or
Eru.
Feanor disregarded an order, broke the law and comitted sin. That
is quite common in ME and for example in Catholic clergy*. In fact
Fingolfin's actions are much closer to rebellion than anything
Feanor ever did.
*I'm not trying to denigrate Catholicism here. I took them as an example
because of Tolkien's religion. Tolkien _believed_ their version of God is
the correct one.
Stan Brown
<spam...@blueyonder.co.uk>:
> Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> And there wouldn't be any difference between rebelling against a
> vice-regent and a vice-gerent, would there?
Sure there would: a vice-regent is not the same thing as a vice-
gerent. To call Manwë a vice-regent is just not accurate.(*)
You already know what a vice-gerent is. A vice-regent is someone who
stands in place of a regent, an acting regent in other words. Since
the regent is in turn acting for the real ruler, a vice-regent is
twice removed from the real power.
Manwë wasn't only Eru's vice-gerent, of course: on occasion he spoke
directly with Eru for instructions. That's why a rebellion against
Manwë is not just rebellion but almost blasphemy -- different from a
rebellion against a king of Elves or Men.
(*) "The difference between the right word and the nearly right word
is the difference between the lightning and the lightning bug." --
Mark Twain (quoted from memory, but I think I'm pretty close :-)
Tamim
snip
> Feanor disregarded an order, broke the law and comitted sin. That
> is quite common in ME and for example in Catholic clergy*. In fact
> Fingolfin's actions are much closer to rebellion than anything
> Feanor ever did.
> *I'm not trying to denigrate Catholicism here. I took them as an example
> because of Tolkien's religion. Tolkien _believed_ their version of God is
> the correct one.
And AFAIK Manwe can make a mistake. The Pope in certain circumstances
cannot. So would you say that everyone who uses condoms is rebelling
against God the same way Melkor did? Of course not. They disobey the
Pope, they sin but they do not rebel in the same sense Melkor did. Even
Adam and Eve didn't do that.
Stan Brown
> I discussed this already, but you snipped that part of the post.
> Rebelling against Manwe isn't the same thing as rebelling against Eru,
> not in my books. It might come close if Feanor had witnessed God making
> Manwe his vice-gerent and been given an order by Eru to obey Manwe.
> Feanor didn't even _know_ Eru existed.
That strikes me as pretty unlikely. The Valar surely made reference
to Eru when speaking with the Elves. So he had eyewitness testimony
to the existence of a creator of the universe, from that creator's
assistants.
Tamim
> 2 Jan 2006 17:35:14 GMT from Tamim <hall...@hotmail.com>:
>> I discussed this already, but you snipped that part of the post.
>> Rebelling against Manwe isn't the same thing as rebelling against Eru,
>> not in my books. It might come close if Feanor had witnessed God making
>> Manwe his vice-gerent and been given an order by Eru to obey Manwe.
>> Feanor didn't even _know_ Eru existed.
> That strikes me as pretty unlikely. The Valar surely made reference
> to Eru when speaking with the Elves. So he had eyewitness testimony
> to the existence of a creator of the universe, from that creator's
> assistants.
I underlined the word 'know' for a purpose. They believed what they were
told, but they didn't _know_. There is a difference. Christians have
eyewitness testimonies a few steps removed (the Bible), but Gabriel and
Lucifer would know. Believers believe, Angels know ;)
Emma Pease
> Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> 31 Dec 2005 18:42:56 GMT from Tamim <hall...@hotmail.com>:
>>> Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> snip
>>> > with many gifts. Both were rebels against the will of Eru.
>>>
>>> How? Feanor did things against the will of the Valar, but Eru?
>
>> Eru spoke in Arda through the Valar. Manwë in particular was his
>> vice-gerent; rebellion against Manwë was rebellion against Eru.
>
> I discussed this already, but you snipped that part of the post.
> Rebelling against Manwe isn't the same thing as rebelling against Eru,
> not in my books. It might come close if Feanor had witnessed God making
> Manwe his vice-gerent and been given an order by Eru to obey Manwe.
> Feanor didn't even _know_ Eru existed. Rebelling against God by eating
> the apple isn't comparable to defying a papal bulla.
Feanor and his sons later swore by Eru and much later his two
remaining sons discussed whether they could break the vow and decided
they could not. I think Feanor had a pretty good idea who Eru was.
Emma
--
\----
|\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster
|_\/ Die Luft der Freiheit weht
R. Dan Henry
Well, the issue isn't whether or not Feanor knew who Eru was, but
whether or not he believed what he'd been told. Of course, I'd say the
oath was pretty good evidence he did accept the stories the Valar had
told about their origins.
Tamim
snip
> Feanor and his sons later swore by Eru and much later his two
> remaining sons discussed whether they could break the vow and decided
> they could not. I think Feanor had a pretty good idea who Eru was.
Of course he had. People do swear in the name of God, but that doesn't
mean they _know_ God exists. They believe.
Stan Brown
When I was an adolescent I got all hung up on what we can know and
what we can only accept from authority; I think many adolescents do.
(*)
But really, Fëanor was in daily contact with people who were in
intimate contact with Eru. For any meaningful interpretation of the
verbs "know" and "believe", he knew (not just believed) of Eru's
existence. Contrast this with members of (fill in name of dominant
religious group) who believe (not know) on the basis of a text
written down by other believers who either repeated hearsay or just
made up stories.
When Fëanor took an oath by Eru, he knew what he was doing. When
Christians take an oath by God, they believe (not know) what they are
doing. (In both cases, they're violating the commandments of their
god in swearing by him.)
(*) At the time I thought I was the only one to have the idea that I
was the only living human, and all the rest of the world was just an
elaborate show put on for my benefit. I later discovered that that's
not an uncommon idea for adolescents. While it's unanswerable in
strict logic, most adolescents do grow out of it, as I did.
Mästerkatten
news:MPG.1e2489db7...@news.individual.net:
> (*) At the time I thought I was the only one to have the idea that I
> was the only living human, and all the rest of the world was just an
> elaborate show put on for my benefit. I later discovered that that's
> not an uncommon idea for adolescents. While it's unanswerable in
> strict logic, most adolescents do grow out of it, as I did.
To get the idea that *somebody else* were the only living human, and that
your own existence only were an illusion, would be more humble.
--
Mästerkatten
Tamim
snip
> When I was an adolescent I got all hung up on what we can know and
> what we can only accept from authority; I think many adolescents do.
> (*)
I'm not an adolescent.
> But really, Fëanor was in daily contact with people who were in
> intimate contact with Eru.
Yes but he wasn't. I understand what you are saying, but I do think
there is a significant difference in relationships in between Eru and Valar
and in between Elves and Eru. The other got instructions directly from
Eru while the others had to rely on what they were told by others, who
could have even twisted the truth for their own benefit. Remember that
Feanor did not trust in the Valar's good intentions and did not believe
in their infallibility.
snip
> (*) At the time I thought I was the only one to have the idea that I
> was the only living human, and all the rest of the world was just an
> elaborate show put on for my benefit.
Same for me, as you said it is quite common. Cogito ergo sum and all.
> I later discovered that that's
> not an uncommon idea for adolescents. While it's unanswerable in
> strict logic
Yes it is. For simplicity's sake I did separate knowing and believing
quite strictly, whereas in reality they are shades of grey. I do know
that knowing and believing overlap and that almost nothing can be really
known ;)
, most adolescents do grow out of it, as I did.
I'm not quite sure how one can grow out of it completely. Sure I don't
think about that question very often, but it is true as you yourself
say. But we have to live our lives supposing that what our senses don't
lie, that I think we agree upon.
But back to the issue. I don't think the philosophy about knowing and
believing is that important. I still maintain that the relationship to
God of Feanor and Melkor was ifferent, but I think I had a more powerful
argument also. What I am referring to is the difference between
rebelling and breaking the law. Any thooughts?
Tamim
But not as logical.
Mästerkatten
news:dpei1t$471$2...@oravannahka.helsinki.fi:
Really? More insane perhaps, but just as logical. If I am radical enough to
doubt everything that my senses seem to tell me, why make a great exception
for my own existence, just because I seem to experience it?
--
Mästerkatten
Tamim
sni
> Really? More insane perhaps, but just as logical. If I am radical enough to
> doubt everything that my senses seem to tell me, why make a great exception
> for my own existence, just because I seem to experience it?
My, I ;)
If _I_ experience something then there has to be _I_ experiencing it.
Haven't you been adolescent? ;)
Kristian Damm Jensen
No, but the issue was your claim, that he *did* intend to create snow. The
quote gives absolutely no justification for such a claim.
You may claim that he knew that snow would be a by-product of the "cold
immoderate", but personally I can't see this from the text.
> and only the slightest hint that he did not
> intend rain in the remark that the heat "hath not dried up thy desire
> nor utterly quelled the music of the sea". It is not even stated that
> this was Melkor's hope -- note that Melkor gathers followers during
> the Music, not simply silencing other Maiar, but drawing them to join
> in his version of the Music. (Which also shows that he was not the
> only one to find it appealing.)
Ever sung in a choir? It can be quite hard to keep to the score, when the
person next to you sings something else with force. Appeal need not have
anything to do with it.
<snip>
--
Kristian Damm Jensen
Stan Brown
Of the many qualities one associated with adolescents, humility is
not perhaps the first that comes to mind -- nor the second or third.
:-)
Stan Brown
> Really? More insane perhaps, but just as logical. If I am radical enough to
> doubt everything that my senses seem to tell me, why make a great exception
> for my own existence, just because I seem to experience it?
I believe the concept I described is called the "solipsistic
fallacy". It does _not_ consist in denying the evidence of one's
senses, as you imply. Rather, it posits an alternative explanation of
the sense data received.
Again, this is not something I believe now; nor, I think, do any
significant number of mentally healthy adults.
Stan Brown
> But back to the issue. I don't think the philosophy about knowing and
> believing is that important. I still maintain that the relationship to
> God of Feanor and Melkor was ifferent,
I agree; id anyone disagree?
> but I think I had a more powerful
> argument also. What I am referring to is the difference between
> rebelling and breaking the law.
If the lawbreaking is willful and knowing, then it seems to me that
it _is_ rebellion.
R. Dan Henry
I don't *know* George W. Bush exists if you want to set an absurdly high
bar for proof, but I could still rebel against him. For that matter, he
doesn't *know* the Valar exist if you set the bar high enough. Nothing
about Feanor indicates that he even entertained ideas of radical
skepticism, however, much less that he embraced it.
R. Dan Henry
Which would be relevant if I had made such a claim. However, I did not.
I claimed that he created snow. *Morgil* made a claim about intent,
which he has refused to offer textual support for. Which isn't
surprising, since the text doesn't say anything either way on that
particular issue.
>You may claim that he knew that snow would be a by-product of the "cold
>immoderate", but personally I can't see this from the text.
No, I won't claim that, but I see no grounds for assuming the opposite,
either.
>> and only the slightest hint that he did not
>> intend rain in the remark that the heat "hath not dried up thy desire
>> nor utterly quelled the music of the sea". It is not even stated that
>> this was Melkor's hope -- note that Melkor gathers followers during
>> the Music, not simply silencing other Maiar, but drawing them to join
>> in his version of the Music. (Which also shows that he was not the
>> only one to find it appealing.)
>
>Ever sung in a choir? It can be quite hard to keep to the score, when the
>person next to you sings something else with force. Appeal need not have
>anything to do with it.
If the Music were all we had to go by, I'd agree, but he continued to
have followers afterwards. And there is in the text a division between
those near Melkor who joined in his new music and those whom it made
"despondent", whose thought was "disturbed" and whose "music faltered".
There appears to be a division between those for whom Melkor's music
appealed and who joined in and those who found it distasteful and just
fell silent when they lost the thread of the original theme.
Derek Broughton
Yeah, but even then I had trouble believing "cogito ergo sum".
--
derek
Morgil
> On Tue, 3 Jan 2006 08:05:13 +0100, "Kristian Damm Jensen"
> <kristia...@SPAMyahoo.dk> wrote:
>>No, but the issue was your claim, that he *did* intend to create snow. The
>>quote gives absolutely no justification for such a claim.
>
>
> Which would be relevant if I had made such a claim. However, I did not.
> I claimed that he created snow. *Morgil* made a claim about intent,
> which he has refused to offer textual support for. Which isn't
> surprising, since the text doesn't say anything either way on that
> particular issue.
I suggested that you'd read it from the book yourself, but
since that seems to be beyond your abilities, here it is:
"Mighty are the Ainur, and mightiest among them is Melkor;
but that he may know, and all the Ainur, that I am Ilúvatar,
those things that ye have sung, I will show them forth, that
ye may see what ye have done. And thou, Melkor, shalt see
that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost
source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite.
For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument
in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself
hath not imagined."
If you want, you can of course pretend to keep believing
that this passage has nothing to do with the one about the
creation of snow that follows, but wasn't the point of this
whole exercise to gain more understanding of Tolkien's works,
not to avoid it at any cost?
Morgil
Tamim
> I don't *know* George W. Bush exists if you want to set an absurdly high
> bar for proof, but I could still rebel against him.
By not following a restraining order set by the supreme court?
That's not rebelling.
snip
I know this discussion about knowing has become absurd but let me still
clarify. I do think that Feanor strongly believed in the existance of
God.
But we know that he did not trust in the good intentions of the Ainur.
He was suspicious of their motives in inviting the elves to aman. He
even (almost) compared the Valar to Melkor.
Why would he be so sure that they had not lied to the elves about the
position given to Manwe by Eru? Only source the elves had of things that
happened before their awakening were the Ainur and there were no neutral
Ainur. THe ainur in aman were a close nit community with one absolute
ruler. They could have easily decided together to lie to the elves or to
withold information from them. They for example collectively did decide not to tell the elves about the
coming of man, it was Melkor who revealed that information.
Your GWBUSH analogy is flawed. His existance has been verified by
several _independent_ sources and is verified again and again every day.
But let's say that he died now, and the only ones to tell us that he was
still alive would be his administration. That is I think a better
analogy.
JimboCat
>(*) At the time I thought I was the only one to have the idea that I
>was the only living human, and all the rest of the world was just an
>elaborate show put on for my benefit. I later discovered that that's
>not an uncommon idea for adolescents. While it's unanswerable in
>strict logic, most adolescents do grow out of it, as I did.
Huh. Whaddaya know. I thought *I* was the only solipsist.
Jim Deutch (JimboCat)
--
"2B or N2B, that is the FAQ." -- H4mL37
Mästerkatten
news:se1t83-...@news.pointerstop.ca:
I think, therefore thinking is going on.
--
Mästerkatten
Mästerkatten
news:dpetn3$7gh$1...@oravannahka.helsinki.fi:
That's a tautology. Useless. :-)
> Haven't you been adolescent? ;)
Yes, between the age of eleven and twentyfive. I don't know if that's a
record. Does it make me a hobbit?
--
Mästerkatten
Stan Brown
> R. Dan Henry wrote:
> > *Morgil* made a claim about intent, which he has refused to offer
> > textual support for. Which isn't surprising, since the text
> > doesn't say anything either way on that particular issue.
>
> I suggested that you'd read it from the book yourself, but
> since that seems to be beyond your abilities, here it is:
Dial it back, guys; you're both beginning to sound like M------
M-------.
Morgil, you need to accept that you're alone or nearly alone in your
interpretation. R. Dan, you need to accept that Morgil feels he's
offered textual support, even though we can't agree with his
interpretation.
Derek Broughton
> Tamim <hall...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:dpetn3$7gh$1...@oravannahka.helsinki.fi:
>
>> "Mästerkatten" <nop...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> sni
>>
>>> Really? More insane perhaps, but just as logical. If I am radical
>>> enough to doubt everything that my senses seem to tell me, why make a
>>> great exception for my own existence, just because I seem to
>>> experience it?
>>
>> My, I ;)
>>
>> If _I_ experience something then there has to be _I_ experiencing it.
>
> That's a tautology. Useless. :-)
Yes, but very adolescent-ish.
>
>> Haven't you been adolescent? ;)
>
> Yes, between the age of eleven and twentyfive. I don't know if that's a
> record. Does it make me a hobbit?
Sorry, no. Hobbits were still adolescent to 33 - you have (or had) a way to
go.
--
derek
Mästerkatten
> Mästerkatten wrote:
>
[snip]
>>> Haven't you been adolescent? ;)
>>
>> Yes, between the age of eleven and twentyfive. I don't know if that's
>> a record. Does it make me a hobbit?
>
> Sorry, no. Hobbits were still adolescent to 33 - you have (or had) a
> way to go.
"Had", I'm afraid.
--
Mästerkatten
Kristian Damm Jensen
You are splitting hairs now.
The point was whether Melkor created something beautiful. Inherent in this,
is whether he created something beautiful *by intension*.
Your answer was "Snow".
I have taken the liberty of snipping the complete exchange from way back in
the thread:
Morgil:
>>>> Rubbish. Feanor's pleasure was in creating new and beautiful
>>>> things.
R. Dan Henry
>>> So was Melkor's, in the beginning.
Morgil:
>> Name one beautiful thing that Melkor ever created.
R. Dan Henry:
>Well, obviously, he thought his version of the Music was an
>improvement on Iluvatar's. Since "beautiful" is a subjective judgment,
>I'm not going to get into an argument on it, but certainly Melkor was
>highly inventive in the beginning (the only truly original Vala, as
>the others merely did detail work within Iluvatar's theme, while Melkor
>worked outside it -- and Iluvatar certainly claimed that Melkor's work
>had a certain beauty to it, so let's answer your question "snow".)
As you see, the issues that started this whole subthread was whether
Melkor's "pleasure was in creating new and beautiful things". Hence whether
the beautiful byproduct of his cold immoderate was intensional or not. You
have provided no evidence that that is was, hence your answer is - for the
time being - unsupported.
(Oh, what's the point. If you insist on the "beauty is in the mind of the
beholder" point-of-view, we can never agree, anyway.)
>> You may claim that he knew that snow would be a by-product of the
>> "cold immoderate", but personally I can't see this from the text.
>
> No, I won't claim that,
Then why are you using snow as an example of something beautiful created by
Melkor because he delighted in creating "new and beautiful things"?
> but I see no grounds for assuming the opposite, either.
Well, no. But as I see it, the burden of proof lies with you. You made the
claim, when you introduced snow as an example.
>>> and only the slightest hint that he did not
>>> intend rain in the remark that the heat "hath not dried up thy
>>> desire nor utterly quelled the music of the sea". It is not even
>>> stated that this was Melkor's hope -- note that Melkor gathers
>>> followers during the Music, not simply silencing other Maiar, but
>>> drawing them to join in his version of the Music. (Which also shows
>>> that he was not the only one to find it appealing.)
>>
>> Ever sung in a choir? It can be quite hard to keep to the score,
>> when the person next to you sings something else with force. Appeal
>> need not have anything to do with it.
>
> If the Music were all we had to go by, I'd agree, but he continued to
> have followers afterwards. And there is in the text a division between
> those near Melkor who joined in his new music and those whom it made
> "despondent", whose thought was "disturbed" and whose "music
> faltered". There appears to be a division between those for whom
> Melkor's music appealed and who joined in and those who found it
> distasteful and just fell silent when they lost the thread of the
> original theme.
People stick to their belongings or the most bizare reasons. Not necessarily
because they are beautiful or right, but because they are *mine*. Even more
so with things they have created themselves. Wilfullness and pride are
powerful emotions. That, to me, is reason enough to explain why e.g. Sauron
kept hanging out with Melkor even after the music ended.
--
Kristian Damm Jensen
Kristian Damm Jensen
> Wed, 04 Jan 2006 16:29:45 +0200 from Morgil <more...@hotmail.com>:
>> R. Dan Henry wrote:
>>> *Morgil* made a claim about intent, which he has refused to offer
>>> textual support for. Which isn't surprising, since the text
>>> doesn't say anything either way on that particular issue.
>>
>> I suggested that you'd read it from the book yourself, but
>> since that seems to be beyond your abilities, here it is:
>
> Dial it back, guys; you're both beginning to sound like M------
> M-------.
Agreed.
> Morgil, you need to accept that you're alone or nearly alone in your
> interpretation. R. Dan, you need to accept that Morgil feels he's
> offered textual support, even though we can't agree with his
> interpretation.
Funny. I would have reversed the names in that paragraph :-)
--
Kristian Damm Jensen
Stan Brown
<kristia...@SPAMyahoo.dk>:
> Funny. I would have reversed the names in that paragraph :-)
I may have lost track of who said what. Thanks for posting your
summary.
R. Dan Henry
>Your GWBUSH analogy is flawed. His existance has been verified by
>several _independent_ sources and is verified again and again every day.
I don't *know* those sources are independent. AFAIK, I do not have a
direct acquaintance with anyone who has a direct acquaintance with W,
whereas the Elves could speak to numerous "eyewitnesses", so in that
sense at least, their evidence for Eru is better than mine for W.
I do agree that there is a difference between rebelling against the
Valar and rebelling against Eru, although both are cases of rebelling
against legitimate authority and have more in common than not. However,
trying to base that distinction on skeptical arguments is a poor choice,
IMO.
JimboCat
>I don't *know* those sources are independent. AFAIK, I do not have a
>direct acquaintance with anyone who has a direct acquaintance with W,
>whereas the Elves could speak to numerous "eyewitnesses", so in that
>sense at least, their evidence for Eru is better than mine for W.
All you're saying is that your "GWB number" is greater than two, but it
is practically guaranteed to be no greater than six, and it wouldn't
surprise me a bit if it were only three or four. I don't know what
mine is, but my Bill Clinton number is two, so I personally have as
close a knowledge of BC as the Elves did of Eru.
Jim Deutch (JimboCat)
--
>I recently read somewhere that it's a good idea
>to eat your own nose pickings.
I chew snot to believe this. - Emory Kimbrough
Dirk Thierbach
>> If _I_ experience something then there has to be _I_ experiencing it.
> That's a tautology. Useless. :-)
But the only things that are provable (and hence, "knowable") are
tautologies, by definition. "Cogito ergo sum" is just another one.
Mathematicians just invent tautologies that are a tad more complex.
And then they let the engineers build useless things based on them, like
GPS, or cell phones :-)
- Dirk
Dirk Thierbach
> Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote in
> news:MPG.1e2489db7...@news.individual.net:
>
>> was the only living human, and all the rest of the world was just an
>> elaborate show put on for my benefit. I later discovered that that's
>> not an uncommon idea for adolescents. While it's unanswerable in
>> strict logic, most adolescents do grow out of it, as I did.
> To get the idea that *somebody else* were the only living human, and that
> your own existence only were an illusion, would be more humble.
And then bring it to the logical conclusion by telling that
somebody else about it, so he stops believing in you, and *bang*,
you vanish :-)
Would make a nice SF story.
BTW, has anybody read the short short story "The Solipsist" by
Frederick Brown(sp?) ?
- Dirk
Robert Kolker
>
> And then bring it to the logical conclusion by telling that
> somebody else about it, so he stops believing in you, and *bang*,
> you vanish :-)
Which brings to mind a tale. Rene Descartes was asked if mind and body
were not really one and the same. Descartes replied - I think not- and
he disappeared instantly.
Bob Kolker
Stan Brown
<dthie...@usenet.arcornews.de>:
> And then bring it to the logical conclusion by telling that
> somebody else about it, so he stops believing in you, and *bang*,
> you vanish :-)
>
> Would make a nice SF story.
>
> BTW, has anybody read the short short story "The Solipsist" by
> Frederick Brown(sp?) ?
I haven't, and the Speculative Fiction Database
<http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/index.cgi> couldn't find it. Are you
sure that's the correct title? (The author's name is Fredric Brown,
and I remember liking his stuff.)
Charles Harness, "The New Reality", in /Alpha 8/, was something along
those lines. The idea there was that heavy objects really used to
fall faster than light ones until people in general started believing
that all objects fall at the same speed; the earth was actually flat
until people started believing it's a globe; and so on.
Robert Kolker
>
>
> Charles Harness, "The New Reality", in /Alpha 8/, was something along
> those lines. The idea there was that heavy objects really used to
> fall faster than light ones until people in general started believing
> that all objects fall at the same speed; the earth was actually flat
> until people started believing it's a globe; and so on.
And my grandmother was my grandfather until I stopped believing she had
balls.
The ultimate Solopsist Fantasy is that we are all thoughts in the mind
of Illuvatar and the Flame Eternal does not burn within us. When
Illuvatar awakens, we all go poof!
Bob Kolker
ste...@nomail.com
> "M?sterkatten" <nop...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> Tamim <hall...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>> If _I_ experience something then there has to be _I_ experiencing it.
>> That's a tautology. Useless. :-)
> But the only things that are provable (and hence, "knowable") are
> tautologies, by definition. "Cogito ergo sum" is just another one.
I think you are using a different definition of "knowable".
Tautologies are often not considered knowledge because
they have no empirical content, and are always true.
They tell you nothing about the actual world.
It is always true that it is raining or it is not
raining in New York, but given that tautology there
is no way to know if it is actualy raining in New York or
not.
> Mathematicians just invent tautologies that are a tad more complex.
> And then they let the engineers build useless things based on them, like
> GPS, or cell phones :-)
Engineers use a lot more than tautologies to build things
like the GPS or cell phones. Maxwell's equations or Newton's
equations of motion are not tautologies.
Stephen
Mästerkatten
news:2006010914293...@dthierbach.news.arcor.de:
Yes, they really do, don't they? I'll go figure. :-)
--
Mästerkatten
Robert Kolker
>
>
> Engineers use a lot more than tautologies to build things
> like the GPS or cell phones. Maxwell's equations or Newton's
> equations of motion are not tautologies.
They are abductive hypotheses subject to empirical testing and possible
falsification. Reality CANNOT be deduced a priori from self evident
necessary propositions. The only a priori necessary propositions are
tautologies and they tell us nothing about this world in particular
since they are true in all possible worlds.
Science is empirical, right down to the ground floor.
Bob Kolker
Dirk Thierbach
> Mon, 9 Jan 2006 15:25:15 +0100 from Dirk Thierbach
>> BTW, has anybody read the short short story "The Solipsist" by
>> Frederick Brown(sp?) ?
> I haven't, and the Speculative Fiction Database
> <http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/index.cgi> couldn't find it. Are you
> sure that's the correct title?
Sorry, I only have that in translated form. I just dug it up and had a
look, and the book doesn't have the original titles for the stories.
The title I gave is just a re-translation, because I had assumed the
translator didn't change it.
But the book mentions the original titles of the collections the
stories were taken from: "Nightmares and Geezenstacks", "Honeymoon in
Hell", and "Angels and Spaceships". Maybe that helps.
> Charles Harness, "The New Reality", in /Alpha 8/, was something along
> those lines. The idea there was that heavy objects really used to
> fall faster than light ones until people in general started believing
> that all objects fall at the same speed; the earth was actually flat
> until people started believing it's a globe; and so on.
Was that the one where the villain tries to "demolish" the world
by sending a single photon through a prisma? (Apparently wave-particle
dualism wasn't very well known then...) I cannot get at the book to
check it myself at the moment.
- Dirk
Dirk Thierbach
> Dirk Thierbach <dthie...@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote:
>> "M?sterkatten" <nop...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>> Tamim <hall...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>> If _I_ experience something then there has to be _I_ experiencing it.
>>> That's a tautology. Useless. :-)
>> But the only things that are provable (and hence, "knowable") are
>> tautologies, by definition. "Cogito ergo sum" is just another one.
> I think you are using a different definition of "knowable".
Maybe. "Knowable" are those things you can bet your life on.
Empirical knowledge is just an approximation of the real world;
if you bet your life on them, the next scienctific discovery
may kill you :-) So empirical knowledge is something you believe in,
as a well-tested working hypotheses. Not something you *know*.
> Tautologies are often not considered knowledge because
> they have no empirical content, and are always true.
First, "knowledge" is a different thing. Second, it's not the
*empirical* content that's important in this respect, it's
the complexity of the tautology, which can be arbitrarily large.
> They tell you nothing about the actual world.
Who said they should?
>> Mathematicians just invent tautologies that are a tad more complex.
>> And then they let the engineers build useless things based on them, like
>> GPS, or cell phones :-)
> Engineers use a lot more than tautologies to build things
> like the GPS or cell phones.
Really? I thought they were using screwdrivers and other tools... :-)
More seriously, my remark above was of course somewhat tongue in
cheek, but I guess you realized that already yourself.
> Maxwell's equations or Newton's equations of motion are not
> tautologies.
But without the tautologies of algebra and differential calculus they
are quite useless.
And I didn't say that the "useless things" are *only* made using
maths. The point was that even seemingly useless tautologies like the
proof that voice compression works, which again is based on other
tautologies about useless things like finite fields, have applications
in the real world.
- Dirk
Stan Brown
I wrote:
> > Charles Harness, "The New Reality", in /Alpha 8/, was something along
> > those lines. The idea there was that heavy objects really used to
> > fall faster than light ones until people in general started believing
> > that all objects fall at the same speed; the earth was actually flat
> > until people started believing it's a globe; and so on.
Mon, 9 Jan 2006 21:09:24 +0100 from Dirk Thierbach
<dthie...@usenet.arcornews.de>:
> Was that the one where the villain tries to "demolish" the world
> by sending a single photon through a prisma? (Apparently wave-particle
> dualism wasn't very well known then...) I cannot get at the book to
> check it myself at the moment.
Yes, I think so. It depended on absolute darkness in his lair. The
last few pages of the story weren't as good as the beginning, IMHO.
Stan Brown
<dthie...@usenet.arcornews.de>:
> Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > Mon, 9 Jan 2006 15:25:15 +0100 from Dirk Thierbach
>
> >> BTW, has anybody read the short short story "The Solipsist" by
> >> Frederick Brown(sp?) ?
>
> > I haven't, and the Speculative Fiction Database
> > <http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/index.cgi> couldn't find it. Are you
> > sure that's the correct title?
>
> Sorry, I only have that in translated form.
I had no idea English wasn't your first language. :-)
> I just dug it up and had a look, and the book doesn't have the
> original titles for the stories. The title I gave is just a re-
> translation, because I had assumed the translator didn't change it.
>
> But the book mentions the original titles of the collections the
> stories were taken from: "Nightmares and Geezenstacks", "Honeymoon in
> Hell", and "Angels and Spaceships". Maybe that helps.
I found "Solipsist" under /Angels and Spaceships/; thanks. My library
system doesn't have /Angels and Spaceships/, but does have /From
these Ashes: The Complete Short SF of Fredric Brown/. (the isfdb
doesn't list contents for that one.) I've requested it and will see
if it includes the story.
/Angels and Spaceships/ includes one of my favorites, "The Angelic
Angleworm". I don't want to give away the plot (see spoiler below),
but I wonder if that story would "work" at all in translation, since
it depends on some particular English words.
I re-tried the search for "Solipsist" to see if I had mistyped it the
first time, and it still comes up empty. The main page has a search
window, but apparently to do a _useful_ search you have to click
first on "Advanced Search". If I do that and search for "solipsist"
in the titles section, the story does come up.
(spoiler space for "The Angelic Angleworm")
from memory:
The narrator is fishing, and the worm he wants to use for bait
sprouts wings and flies away. Half a dozen other odd things happen to
him, and finally he realizes that the Great Typesetting Machine which
controls or records all the happenings in the world has one faulty
letter "e": that drops too soon. So instead of an angleworm he got an
angelworm; instead of feeling great hate he felt great heat, and so
on. There are many "e" letters, and only one is faulty.
He figures out the frequency of the bad "e", enters a town called
Haveen at precisely the right moment, and finds himself in Heaven
talking to the Great Typographer. I can't remember what happens in
the last page or two of the story.
It would be quite a job to translate all the events into another
language so that pairs of words were off only by an "e" falling
earlier in the word.
Stan Brown
<dthie...@usenet.arcornews.de>:
> Maybe. "Knowable" are those things you can bet your life on.
>
> Empirical knowledge is just an approximation of the real world;
> if you bet your life on them, the next scienctific discovery
> may kill you :-) So empirical knowledge is something you believe in,
> as a well-tested working hypotheses. Not something you *know*.
I don't agree. We have a lot more confidence in the results of
science and engineering than we do in anything else, and that's true
for religious believers(*) as well as for atheists.
I bet my life every day on those results: driving a car, taking
medicine, eating preserved food, and so on.
The fallacy is that statement "the next scientific discovery may kill
you". The progress of science does produce new and more general
explanations, but it doesn't mean that previously observed facts are
somehow no longer true. The old theories are no longer the whole
story, but they don't suddenly become false within the realm of the
data they explained. Newtonian mechanics is still quite valid to the
accuracy with which the original observations were taken; we don't
need relativistic calculations for driving cars or shooting billiards
or even most voyages of rocket ships.
(*) How many Christians happily trust their lives to modern
automobiles and medicine, but weep and wail when a loved one dies,
despite their religion's promise that the loved one has entered in
eternal bliss? If they _actually_ believed that promise, they'd be
dancing with joy.
Robert Kolker
>
>
>
> (*) How many Christians happily trust their lives to modern
> automobiles and medicine, but weep and wail when a loved one dies,
> despite their religion's promise that the loved one has entered in
> eternal bliss? If they _actually_ believed that promise, they'd be
> dancing with joy.
Actually they would be killing themselves or martyring themselves, like
Moslems do. A true Christian would strap on the bomb and infiltrate a
class in the Theory of Evolution and blow the thing to smithereens. But
Christians generally do not do such things which tell me they do not
take their religion too seriously, at least on days which are not Sunday.
Bob Kolker
Derek Broughton
> Stan Brown wrote:
>>
>> (*) How many Christians happily trust their lives to modern
>> automobiles and medicine, but weep and wail when a loved one dies,
>> despite their religion's promise that the loved one has entered in
>> eternal bliss? If they _actually_ believed that promise, they'd be
>> dancing with joy.
Perhaps they don't trust that their loved ones were in a state of grace at
the time they died? ime, those who are certain that the loved one _was_ in
a state of grace are very often joyful.
> Actually they would be killing themselves or martyring themselves, like
> Moslems do. A true Christian would strap on the bomb and infiltrate a
> class in the Theory of Evolution and blow the thing to smithereens. But
> Christians generally do not do such things which tell me they do not
> take their religion too seriously, at least on days which are not Sunday.
That doesn't follow. In the first place, denial of evolution is _not_ dogma
in many Christian sects, so not all "true" Christians have a problem with
it. However, earthly suffering _is_ dogma in quite a few sects. I think
they're all pretty well agreed that death _should_ be a good thing (always
assuming the deceased meets the entrance criteria for Paradise) but
hastening the arrival of yourself or anybody else at the pearly gates is
definitely _not_.
--
derek
Robert Kolker
>
>
> Perhaps they don't trust that their loved ones were in a state of grace at
> the time they died? ime, those who are certain that the loved one _was_ in
> a state of grace are very often joyful.
If their dead kin were baptized they are in a state of grace. Once
saved, always saved. But the relatives cry at funerals even so which
tells me they do not really take their religion seriously.
That is understandable. If you take an unemotional look at Christianity
there is very little there to take seriously. It is an always silly and
sometimes vicious superstition.
Bob Kolker
Raven
news:b-SdnQE5OoZzRV7e...@comcast.com...
> Actually they would be killing themselves or martyring themselves, like
> Moslems do. A true Christian would strap on the bomb and infiltrate a
> class in the Theory of Evolution and blow the thing to smithereens. But
> Christians generally do not do such things which tell me they do not
> take their religion too seriously, at least on days which are not Sunday.
Didn't early Christians seek early entrance to Heaven by committing
suicide, until Church leaders had to make the case that suicide was a sin?
But even Moslem suicide bombers do not sit quietly in their homes, slitting
their own throats. On the face of it they try to achieve some military
objective by sacrificing, not merely risking, their lives. To me, of
course, it seems more as if some of them are trying to build a mountain of
carrion high enough to climb to Heaven, when it is the death of the suicide
bomber which takes the precedence in the rhetoric and not the actual
military objective - especially if the "military objective" is the deaths of
as many "un-believers" and "apostates" as possible.
Some religions in the area practiced human sacrifice as a religious rite.
As I understand it, when Abraham was tested to see if he would sacrifice
Isaac, and then allowed not to do so, this has become a reason for not
worshipping God by human sacrifice in all three Abrahamic religions. But
the suicide terrorists have reinstated human sacrifice as a religious rite
then, haven't they?
Jon Lennart Beck.
ste...@nomail.com
> Derek Broughton wrote:
>>
>>
>> Perhaps they don't trust that their loved ones were in a state of grace at
>> the time they died? ime, those who are certain that the loved one _was_ in
>> a state of grace are very often joyful.
> If their dead kin were baptized they are in a state of grace. Once
> saved, always saved. But the relatives cry at funerals even so which
> tells me they do not really take their religion seriously.
You really do not know much about the teachings of Christianity.
Stephen
pmhilton
Raven wrote:
>
> Didn't early Christians seek ........
"One man's theology is another man's belly-laugh."
L. Long
Robert Kolker
>
> But anyway, that is not at all what true Christians would do. Even if
> evolution were unquestionably evil, Christians should not counter it
> with murder (and there are many Christians who have no problem with
> evolution). This life is not the highest level of existence, but it is
> important, vitally important. As such, they should respect life, even
> when they may feel, and quite rightly, that someone deserves death. Many
> that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can we give
> it to them? Then we should not be too eager to deal out death in judgment.
Now explain the aftermath of the Cathar Heresy to me.
Bob Kolker
atsar...@hotmail.com
brilliant of the Elves (ALL of the Elves), the most inventive, the most
ingenious, the scientist. His failings as a person are directly related
to this: Tolkien saw excessive ingenuity and the ego that goes with it
to be the Original Sin. It is Melkor's sin, and it is also Feanor's; it
is his caution to the creators of the modern world Tolkien didn't much
care for.
Tolkien regarded creation as an act that must be seen as creating only
what God had originally conceived; creators who demanded admiration for
their own genius were, in his view, rebels against God.
It is therefore necessary that Feanor be a jerk -- he's not quite as
clever as Melkor.
What puzzles me is if Tolkien can dislike Feanor and his abominable
sons so heartily, how can he think so highly of Turin Turambar who is
just as arrogant and destructive without the charm of Feanor's
curiosity and inventiveness? (I find Turin quite the most repulsive of
the human characters in the Silmarillion. Orodreth should have had him
poisoned.)
Tsar Parmathule
Dirk Thierbach
> /Angels and Spaceships/ includes one of my favorites, "The Angelic
> Angleworm".
Also one of my favorites.
> (spoiler space for "The Angelic Angleworm")
> It would be quite a job to translate all the events into another
> language so that pairs of words were off only by an "e" falling
> earlier in the word.
It nearly works with the first one: angleworm <-> angelworm becomes
Angelwurm <-> Engelwurm. That's a substituion with an e, not a switch,
but still ok. For the rest, the translator kept the English words, but
added an explanation. Probably the only way to do it unless one wants
to invent a somewhat similar story, instead of translating it.
- Dirk
Paul S. Person
<jonlennar...@damn.get2net.that.dk.spam> wrote:
>"Robert Kolker" <now...@nowhere.com> skrev i en meddelelse
>news:b-SdnQE5OoZzRV7e...@comcast.com...
>
>> Actually they would be killing themselves or martyring themselves, like
>> Moslems do. A true Christian would strap on the bomb and infiltrate a
>> class in the Theory of Evolution and blow the thing to smithereens. But
>> Christians generally do not do such things which tell me they do not
>> take their religion too seriously, at least on days which are not Sunday.
>
> Didn't early Christians seek early entrance to Heaven by committing
>suicide, until Church leaders had to make the case that suicide was a sin?
A gentleman named Ignatius wrote, in the late First to early Second
Centuries, a series of letters ("The Letters of Ignatius") in which,
among other matters, he expressed his joy at being transported to Rome
to feed the lions (c. 110 AD).
However, seeking martyrdom is not the same as committing suicide. This
has become confused by a tendency to use "martyr" to refer to suicide
bombers who, of course, are not martyrs at all but, at best, fools.
The defining characteristic of a /martyr/, after all, is that /someone
else/ kills him or her for his or her beliefs.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Derek Broughton
Neither according to the dictionary or common belief:
From http://m-w.com/dictionary/martyr
1 : a person who voluntarily suffers death as the penalty of witnessing to
and refusing to renounce a religion
2 : a person who sacrifices something of great value and especially life
itself for the sake of principle
#1, which seems to be the sense you're trying to use, still doesn't require
death at somebody else's hands (e.g., one might legitimately be called a
martyr if you committed suicide rather than be forced to some action
because of your religious beliefs)
#2 is the sense commonly used, and is very much considered martyrdom in the
culture of the suicide bombers. I would agree they are fools - they've
been taken advantage of by people who _wouldn't_ consider martyrdom for
their cause - but they are certainly sacrificing their lives for their
principles.
--
derek
R. Dan Henry
<dthie...@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote:
>But without the tautologies of algebra and differential calculus they
>are quite useless.
Where did you ever get the idea that mathematics is a system of
tautologies?
--
R. Dan Henry
danh...@inreach.com
John W. Kennedy
> On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 09:48:37 +0100, Dirk Thierbach
> <dthie...@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote:
>
>> But without the tautologies of algebra and differential calculus they
>> are quite useless.
>
> Where did you ever get the idea that mathematics is a system of
> tautologies?
In certain fields of logic, the terms "tautology" and "theorem" are used
equivalently.
--
John W. Kennedy
"But now is a new thing which is very old--
that the rich make themselves richer and not poorer,
which is the true Gospel, for the poor's sake."
-- Charles Williams. "Judgement at Chelmsford"
Dirk Thierbach
> On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 09:48:37 +0100, Dirk Thierbach
> <dthie...@usenet.arcornews.de> wrote:
>>But without the tautologies of algebra and differential calculus they
>>are quite useless.
> Where did you ever get the idea that mathematics is a system of
> tautologies?
From studying at university :-) In this case, having learned logic.
By definition, in mathematics a tautology is a statement that is
true under all possible assignments of values to the variables.
All theorems, lemmas etc. in mathematics are tautologies. A mathematical
proof consists in convincing the reader that it is indeed a tautology.
I know that this is not the way the word is used outside mathematical
logic... for example, it almost always has a connotation of "trivial".
(But all proofs are trivial, once you have understood them...)
- Dirk