Evil in Middle-Earth

[Wayfarer]

Pfft.

That's easy.

The third person singular of the substantive verb 'be'.

And before you get smart, 'be' in this sense used as a copula 'equal in identity'.

Therefore, my statement reduces in simplest terms to the quasi-mathematical metaphysical equation E=D, where E is Evil and D is Dischord.

[inked]

O, sure, the dictionary definition! But how about the legal definition?
(I am not sure that the two lawyers - Bill and Hillary, that is- would agree on the definition you gave .

[BeardofPants]

Not to be completely anal, but language isn't exactly a science... wait... okay, maybe it is, but it ain't static. Language is fluid, constantly changing... so posting dictionary definitions, while helpful, don't mean shite.

Good to have you back in the saddle wayfarer. Been a while since we've gone head to head.

[inked]

Wayfarer,

you wrote "'be' in this sense used as a copula 'equal in identity'".

therefore,
copula or not copula
that copula the question ?

[Wayfarer]

No, no. That's a different usage. To exist in actuality

And of course I disagree with you, BoP. One of the biggest mistakes that can happen in a discussion is for a word to be used without a clear idea of what it means - especially when different people come up with different meanings and try to apply them to things that other people are saying.

For any meaningful discussion to take place, all parties must have a common understanding of what the words that are used mean. The dictionary, being a compilation of all the most commonly agreed on meanings, is an invaluable means to this end.

[BeardofPants]

I'll grant you that dictionaries can give a common base to leap from, but which dictionary, which definition, etc? If people can't agree on life-philosophies, then why should they agree with the version of dictionary definitions that you posted?

[Wayfarer]

Because I am almost infinitely more intelligent than they are, and only a neural failure of the life-threatening sort would prevent them from recognize that.

Of course. ];-)

[inked]

Wayfarer,

If we accept your definitions, then I concede that if evil is defined as morally wrong, to err is to be evil. Ther might be wiggle room for argument about such definitions but as a famous depantatizer is onto that I will desist. i think perhaps the crucial point I was making was one we tentatively agreed on - the conscious aspect of evil.

Interestingly, the Hebrew for sin is a concept like yours: anything less than perfect adherence to the Law is sin, no matter how closely it may miss.

But I think as humans we have gradations of evil that are useful descriptors as we tend not to view lying on the same plane as murder - though both may result in the death of persons.

so, what do you think?

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

Because I am almost infinitely more intelligent than they are, and only a neural failure of the life-threatening sort would prevent them from recognize that.

Of course. ];-)

*mutters something about delusions of grandeur*

I think that you're just gettin' antsy cos you know that I'm right.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

Because I am almost infinitely more intelligent than they are, and only a neural failure of the life-threatening sort would prevent them from recognize that.

I'd just like to remind you of your sig; specifically : "Look, I'm human--no better than you"

(just pullin' your leg! Good to see you back, and I might try to jump back into this discussion tomorrow. And I agree that people have to get their definitions agreed upon, or talk is senseless.)

[Wayfarer]

Oh, grave misfortune. I have been hoisted on my own petard. (Incidentally, a 'Petard' was originally French for 'a loud discharge of intestinal gas'. Later it was used for 'an explosive device'.
Hey! Somebody commented on the new sig! Happy day! You wouldn't happen to be able to place it, would you? I imagine that most people are at least passingly familiar with the source.

BoP - My real answer is, I don't really care whether they agree with me. My purpose is to get people to think about what they're saying. That's what matters.

The greatest concern I have when entering a discussion like this isn't that I prove myself right. I'm no better than anoyone else, and when I'm right more often than not it's because I noticed something others missed than from any special virtue on my part. What concerns me is that, regardless of the truth or falshood of our initial opinions, all parties involved come out of the discussion after having figured out what the truth of the matter is - or at least coming closer to it.

People are not entirely rational creatures. Half the time we can reason our way to a decision, but the rest of the time we just... emote. We fall into the trap of believing that we can feel our way to a decision, and more often than not we try to do this without really understanding what we're talking about. I vainly allow myself the conceit that by not just asking for but demanding that we start off by getting everyone together and hashing out exactly what it is we're talking about I can help to lay a groundwork which will allow reasoned discussion to take place.

I take a look at a thread like this and I see that it starts off with questions: What is Evil? What makes a person evil? To enter any subsequent discussion without first addressing those questions is ludicrous. Yet by the second post in this thread, the topic begins to move away from the original questions and start attempting to debate through examples (X is evil! No, X is not evil!). We also ran into the problem of conflicting ideas of what a word means (In this case, we were discussing 'evil' and 'wrong'.)

I almost always consult with a dictionary (usually I use Lexico's online dictionary for these sorts of discussions) because, quite frankly, I believe that words have meanings and that the definition is not arbitrary. Sometimes we should use another definition, but unless we agree ahead of time it should always be assumed that the 'standard' definition is going to be used.

Inked has a choice of response, of course. He can agree, or offer an alternative definition (and for the sake of the discussion, do try to be as clear as possible). After all, going back and forth over what the word 'evil' means is the purpose of this entire thread.

I think perhaps the crucial point I was making was one we tentatively agreed on - the conscious aspect of evil.

I can agree with that to a point. One of the things which I said that perhaps got lost amid the shuffle is that a person can do evil but not be evil.

Interestingly, the Hebrew for sin is a concept like yours: anything less than perfect adherence to the Law is sin, no matter how closely it may miss.

Oh. Wow. I would have never expected that.

But I think as humans we have gradations of evil that are useful descriptors as we tend not to view lying on the same plane as murder - though both may result in the death of persons.

Humans tend to make artificial distinctions. Even if we agree that there are gradiations of evil, the fact remains that an act is evil regardless of the degree. Evil is a quality, not a quantity.

[inked]

Wayfarer,

How does it feel to be hoisted by one's own petard?

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by inked

Wayfarer,

How does it feel to be hoisted by one's own petard?

Did someone just give Wayf an Atomic Wedgie?

[Wayfarer]

Originally Posted by inked

How does it feel to be hoisted by one's own petard?

I can see my house from here.

[Michael Martinez]

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

Oh, grave misfortune. I have been hoisted on my own petard. (Incidentally, a 'Petard' was originally French for 'a loud discharge of intestinal gas'. Later it was used for 'an explosive device'.
Hey! Somebody commented on the new sig! Happy day! You wouldn't happen to be able to place it, would you? I imagine that most people are at least passingly familiar with the source.

You are SO evil.

[Wayfarer]

Originally Posted by Michael Martinez

You are SO evil.

So it should read...
Evil

1. Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
2. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.
3. Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens.
4. Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation.
5. Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.
6. The quality of being Wayfarer?

Hmmm...

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Wayfarer

Hey! Somebody commented on the new sig! Happy day! You wouldn't happen to be able to place it, would you? I imagine that most people are at least passingly familiar with the source.

The other sig was a bit long ...

It's from one of my favorite books in the Bible. The speaker is someone that God is angry with because he didn't speak what was right about God

[Rían]

Just a quick contribution to the Aulë discussion (one of my favorite stories in the Sil - fascinating!)

I disagree with the opinion that Aulë was innocent of evil/wrong intent at first. I think he knew he was going against Ilúvatar's will (and I would define that as evil/wrong), as evidenced by two things:

1. Ilúvatar's statement : "Why hast thou done this? Why dost thou attempt a thing which thou knowest is beyond thy power and thy authority?" IMO, rebellion against rightful authority is evil/wrong, and that's something that Aulë would know, and Ilúvatar says Aulë KNEW that making the Dwarves was beyond his authority.

2. The fact that Aulë worked "in secret" out of fear that the other Valar might "blame his work". This is a pretty big indicator, IMO, that Aulë knew it was wrong right from the get-go.

I just love Aulë's repentant speech, and how he was even so bold to state to Ilúvatar that "Yet the making of things is in my heart from my own making by thee; and the child of little understanding that makes a play of the deeds of his father may do so without thought of mockery, but because he is the son of his father." And how he is willing to destroy his work, and even takes up the hammer to smite them. The tone of the speech is repentant, NOT defiant, IMO, and shows his willingness to change to align with Ilúvatar's will. (And I think we should always be bold with God, too! Why not be truthful? He knows anyway! )

[Michael Martinez]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

The other sig was a bit long ...

It's from one of my favorite books in the Bible. The speaker is someone that God is angry with because he didn't speak what was right about God

Um, there might be an indirect Biblical source, but that would be a hard one to pin down. At least, I have seen this citation before, and someone said it came from my site (though I don't know where we would have had it).

[Rían]

Job chapter 33, speaker: Elihu son of Barachel, speaking to Job. Translation : The Message.

Job is such a great book - one of my favorites! I like how God answers Job with His character, instead of a specific line-by-line answer to Job's complaints, and Job is entirely satisfied with the answer. Job was the wisest of his time, after all, and he knew a good and right answer when he got it.