Posted: April 03, 2000 at 02:41:49: by Gandalf
:
: : 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. Ahh, thank you for this! I am enjoying this emmensely (sp??), even though it looks like a losing battle!!
I think the main thing that's telling against me is the fact that yes, they did fail. And you are reading me quite correctly, I realise that they failed, and I am trying to justify it, or in actual fact, playing the Devil's Advocate, a counter point, so as to ascertain the matter. I realise what you mean about the Dragon Fly example, but that's the whole point. If one of the premises is incorrect, then we must look for signs, which point to new premises. I think that we can look at it as either "It just IS, get over it", or we can look at it being an inconsistancy in LotR. I had thought that the point was contestable, but your quote from Letters seems to make sense. Still, you must admit that such a parallel shouldn't make sense. E.g the silmarilli, the palantir, etc. I dunno. But it's been fun. No harm done, and I'll buy you a drink at the Green Dragon. Gandalf
|
