Posted: April 02, 2000 at 23:41:03: by Bacchus
: LOL That's a nothing answer, if we've ever heard one.
: I'm afraid, my learned colleague (I love sayin that!) that you cannot take everything that Tolkien says for Gospel.
: Okai, that may make little sense, but think about it. He is highly fallible, being merely mortal. I can point out several inconsistancies in Middle-Earth.
: The argument here, is whether it's feasible or not, logically, for certain events to have occured.
: I am merely pointing out that it seems to go against logic for things to have panned out the way they did, maybe Tolkien didn't think it through properly... Then again, that's one good reason why his works are so great.
: So you can't just argue that "That's the way it is, get over it" We have to look at whether this REALLY IS an inconsistency, or not.: Gandalf The point of the dragonfly example is to show that when one applies logic to a problem of which one does not have a full understanding, the logical conclusion is often incorrect. According to everything that was known, it was impossible to conclude logically that the dragonfly could fly. It turns out that the motion of the wing causes a small vortex to propagate along the upper wing surface, which increases the lift produced by the wing beyond what was anticipated. My argument is that an analogous situation exists here. Since the Three DID fail, and we cannot come up with a logical explanation why (that you will believe, anyway), the conclusion must be that we have an imperfect understanding of how the Three interacted with the One. Rereading your post, it appears to me that you agree that the Three did fail, but that they shouldn't have. Am I reading you correctly? Bacchus P.S. I love a good argument. Please don't take anything I say personally.
|
