‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[Aiwendil]

Aiwendil, here you lose me.

Words mean what they mean.

Yes, words mean what they mean, but saying that neither defines the word in question nor gives an account of what "meaning" actually is. But I really don't think that this is the place to get into the philosophy of meaning.

That whole matter is only tangentially related to the subjects at hand, anyway (or so I think). The point is that I don't accept HerenIstarion's syllogism as logically valid, and I don't think that such a refusal makes me any less qualified to appreciate Tolkien's work.

[HerenIstarion]

The point is that I don't accept HerenIstarion's syllogism as logically valid, and I don't think that such a refusal makes me any less qualified to appreciate Tolkien's work.

Yes, of course, I never intended to imply such a thing, Eru forbid!

As for my syllogism, not going too far or too deep, I was implying that all human beings (as well as in Tolkien's world all Free People do - the pin-point quote provided by Helen up there) have built-in standard of Good and Evil (different codes of conduct of different cultures being consequent to one and the same standard), which can not be explained away without drawing in outside nature Consciousnes/Power/God to have such a standard be derived from. All actions/choices humans do are measured against such a built-in scale (And usually with mere statement, as Helen put it, of good is good). If that statement of mine is true, than to rob/not to rob syllogism is easily solved by comparing both to that inherent standard.