Tolkien & killling? - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Bill Ferny · 05-06-2003, 08:41 PM

Menelien, aye, they are persons… persons with intrinsically evil wills. Humans don’t have intrinsically evil wills, in as much as all humans act according to a perceived good. Orcs act according to the will of their creator, Melkor… discord, destruction, etc.

Like my grandpappy always used to say: “Opinions are like ****holes, everybody’s got one, and they all stink.”

I think what grandpappy was trying to say was: “Hey, shut-up already! I’m trying to watch Lawrence Welk.” However, on an ontological level, you could take it as meaning the world is objectively real, no matter what you might think about it, and, in fact, what you think about it is probably wrong anyway.

In this you are right, aragornreborn. But the trick is coming up with an accurate standard by which one can gauge this objective world. How does the objective world work (natural science), what is the objective world and why does it exist (metaphysics), what is our place in the objective world (philosophical anthropology), and how do we relate to others in this objective world (ethics)? All of these studies have a dialectic history that can be boiled down to opinion and counter-opinion, even the scientific method.

All your playing with apples, there, is making me a little nervous, aragornreborn. *Carefully peeking over the hedge*

05-06-2003, 08:41 PM	#11
Bill Ferny Shade of Carn Dûm Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Bree Posts: 390	Menelien, aye, they are persons… persons with intrinsically evil wills. Humans don’t have intrinsically evil wills, in as much as all humans act according to a perceived good. Orcs act according to the will of their creator, Melkor… discord, destruction, etc. Like my grandpappy always used to say: “Opinions are like ***holes, everybody’s got one, and they all stink.” I think what grandpappy was trying to say was: “Hey, shut-up already! I’m trying to watch Lawrence Welk.” However, on an ontological level, you could take it as meaning the world is objectively real, no matter what you might think about it, and, in fact, what you think about it is probably wrong anyway. In this you are right, aragornreborn. But the trick is coming up with an accurate standard by which one can gauge this objective world. How does the objective world work (natural science), what is the objective world and why does it exist (metaphysics), what is our place in the objective world (philosophical anthropology), and how do we relate to others in this objective world (ethics)? All of these studies have a dialectic history that can be boiled down to opinion and counter-opinion, even the scientific method. All your playing with apples, there, is making me a little nervous, aragornreborn. Carefully peeking over the hedge* __________________ I prefer Gillaume d’Férny, connoisseur of fine fruit.