[Aiwendil]

I think that, perhaps as a result of my incessant pressure for definitions and specificity, my essential argument has been to some extent misconstrued.

Davem wrote:

Well, I’m stuck. It seems that whatever term I use to refer to some underlying ‘state’ of ‘reality I’ll be asked to reduce it to a set of facts & figures.

I don't want "facts and figures". What I was interested in is whether this "Truth" is someting that I think is meaningful or not. I kept asking for a definition because I wondered whether there was in fact a definition that would satisfy me. And the point I've tried to make a few times now is that, as it turns out, there seems not to be.

The point is resolved, as far as I'm concerned; the resolution is that we disagree about the philosophy of meaning. That's all.

I was perhaps a bit insistent only because I thought (and I was wrong) that perhaps there would in fact turn out to be a general definition of "Truth" that we could all accept. Had there been, I think we might have continued our inquiry into the nature of Faerie and of "eucatastrophe". Unfortunately, as things are, we can go no further.

But I would still like to clarify some things.

If I use ‘Truth’, however much I repeat that I’m not talking about some set of rules & regulations, I just get asked what rules & regulations I mean, & told that rules & regulations are BAD.

I should point out that I do not share Fordim's opinion in this regard.

If I use the term Joy, it is immediately dismissed as meaningless, or conflated with pleasure.

I realized (and said so) that you would not equate Joy with pleasure. I was only pointing out that it is no use with me to define "Truth" by switching to "Joy".

If I use the term God or Heaven I get accused of trying to convert people.

On the contrary; as I said earlier, if God or Heaven is what you mean, please say so.

Sorry, but I can’t reduce what I’m referring to to something which fits within a narrow definition, & can be argued about from a psychological perspective, or a deconstructionist one. If all anyone gets from reading Tolkien’s works is something that can be reduced to that level, then I will go all the way out on this limb & say they’re missing the ‘truth’ of the story.

This is what, paradoxically, both takes us back to the beginning of the thread and brings us to the impasse I talked about. You say that I am missing the "truth" of the story. I say I am not. What more can be said?

It seems to me that some posters here are coming at things from the perspective that any statement about Tolkien’s works or intentions is only valid if it corresponds with some theory about the world which they hold to reflect reality.

Forgive me if this sounds rude - but you seem to be claiming just that; you have a theory about the world (that this Truth exists) and moreover about Tolkien's work (that its purpose is to give us a glimpse of Truth) and you claim that those who don't see this in Tolkien's work are "missing the truth of the story".

And I don't say that with any pejorative intent. Of course if you have a theory about literature you will disagree with statements about Tolkien's work that disagree with your theory. There's nothing at all wrong with that. I don't dispute your right to hold your opinion, or even your right to claim that I am wrong because I hold a different one.

But what has all this to do with Tolkien? He wrote about Truth (but we have to dismiss that, because there’s no such thing

As I said before, I think that "On Faery Stories" and the rest of his literary theory can be understood quite well with "truth" meaning simply "the set of true propositions".

He wrote about Joy, & said it was the purpose of Fairy stories to expose us to it, but that has nothing to do with anything.

I think this can be understood as a kind of aesthetic pleasure.

He wrote about Love, but that’s just a subjective emotional state, & all we can do is argue about the particular chemicals which cause it

Has anyone said that? As a matter of fact, I think it is a subjective emotional state, but what does that matter?

He wrote about Magic, but that’s all primitive trickery.

Again, I don't think anyone said that. In fact I specifically denied that I think magic and the like are "silly superstitions". I don't believe that magic actually exists, if that's what you mean; but I don't believe Hobbits or Balrogs exist either.

So, in this sense, the statement 'killing is wrong' is not part of that Truth, neither is 'Water is wet', or 2+2=4.

That's helpful, especially since it apparently means that you and Helen mean different things by "Truth" (she explicitly said that "2+2=4" and "The Sky is a big place" are included in Truth).

I'm surprised. Nothing more than with any other fictional world?

Of course I like some fictional worlds better than others.

Just another escape into a Never-Never Land?

That's putting it cynically. I think that The Lord of the Rings is an immensely powerful and deeply satisfying work of art; I think it's one of the greatest achievements of the human mind.

Son of Numenor wrote:

Trying to quantify & simplify the 'truth' that we obtain from Tolkien's works is bound to be a fruitless endeavour.

I think I ought to emphasize again, for Davem and for everyone, that I am not interested in quantifying anything. I am perfectly happy to carry on a discussion of these things on an abstract level.

I had thought this might be possible by defining "Truth" as the set of true propositions. For I thought that what was chiefly intended by it was some truth about God. If God exists, it is a fact that God exists, and the set of true propositions includes it. Obviously, we wouldn't agree on what those true propositions are, but structurally, "Truth" would be (in my view) a viable term. I understand now that such a definition is not deemed acceptable. Wherefore the impasse.

Mark12_30 wrote:

Aiwendil, the beginning of the statement "those three concepts" referred to your provided list of three supernatural things: " God, heaven, and the Divine Plan" . Those things (each of which I consider heavily related, interrelated, and infinite) are included in Truth.

A misunderstanding perhaps. As I've just said in response to Davem (and perhaps should have pointed out a page ago), "God exists" would be a true proposition (if God exists, of course). So I don't see how your inclusion of those three concepts necessitates your choice of option 2, that "Truth" is more than the set of true propositions.

Aiwendil, it's been a pleasure discussion these things; thanks

I've quite enjoyed it as well. As I've said, I fear that this is as far as the debate can go. Thanks to both you and Davem for a very enjoyable discussion (and for providing me with something to do while procrastinating about studying for finals).