Are There Any Valid Criticisms? (aka Kalessin's Rant)

[Aiwendil]

Littlemanpoet wrote:

I am a universalist, and you two seem nominalist in your arguments.

Well, I'm certainly a nominalist when it comes to philosophy of lanugage and metaphysics, at the least. I think you may be right that there is a universalist/nominalist division here. Unfortunately, the link you provided doesn't seem to work.

About amusement vs. wonder: I agree that we're probably at an impasse, but I think it might be worth saying a little more here. You argue that amusement and wonder are "mutually exclusive". Now I disagree with this, but I do agree with the weaker statement that amusement and wonder are distinct. They are certainly different entities, and no one can doubt that there are amusing things that are not wonderful and wonderful things that are not amusing. They are, I think, distinct types of enjoyment. Thus, I enjoy Duck Soup and I enjoy The Silmarillion, but I find the former amusing and not wonderful and the latter wonderful and not amusing.

But it is another thing entirely to say that amusement and wonder are mutually exclusive or antithetical. In some contexts, they are. In a work like The Silmarillion just about any real humor would feel out of place. But there is humor in, for example, The Lord of the Rings. Does that detract from its wonder? When I read:

"Eavesdropping Sir? I don't follow you, begging your pardon. There ain't no eaves at Bag End, and that's a fact."

. . . I am amused. When I read:

Horns, horns, horns. In dark Mindolluin's sides they dimly echoed. Great horns of the North wildly blowing. Rohan had come at last.

. . . I'm filled with wonder. The two can coexist within the same work without working against one another. There are, in fact, certain works of art where, I think, amusement and wonder coincide or become one. The example that comes immediately to my mind: Dr. Strangelove, a movie that is simultaneously very funny and frighteningly serious.