We have detected that cookies are not enabled on your browser. Please enable cookies to ensure the proper experience.
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 51 to 63 of 63
  1. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by Witch0King View Post
    Isildur was born as noble as you can be yet in the end he abandoned his troops and tried to make a run for it with the ring.
    Isildur was fully prepared to fight to the death and would have. He escaped at the last moment and at the urging of his son Elendur only because he understood the Ring could under no circumstances be taken by the Orcs. See "Disaster of the Gladden Fields" for the full story.
    Last edited by Egorvlad; Jun 29 2013 at 08:04 AM.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    In-game
    Posts
    3,698
    Quote Originally Posted by Egorvlad View Post
    Isildur was fully prepared to fight to the death and would have. He escaped at the last moment and at the urging of his son Elendur only because he understood the Ring could under no circumstances be taken by the Orcs. See "Disaster of the Gladden Fields" for the full story.
    I stand corrected, thank you.
    Nerf healing in PvMP and just maybe it will be worth it again.

  3. #53
    I would have to give Rad the advantage however as he uses:

    http://grammar.about.com/od/basicsen...structures.htm

    You cannot just throw statements like "I use logic and you don't" out there. That is NOT a reasoned argument which (I think) is usually what you stab at when you use the word logic. If that were the case, you would have to be making an argument of the sort that asserts that someone's conclusion does not follow from the premises. It has nothing whatsover to do with the veracity or accuracy of the premises. Logic is not dependent on the content of premises.

    This is logically valid:

    Aristotle is a man.
    All men are immortal.
    Aristotle is immortal.

    This is not:

    Aristotle is a man.
    All men are mortal.
    All men are Aristotle.

    While both are invalid, only one has a logical fallacy. You attempt to disprove the first by attacking it's premises, the second by it's logic. Simply linking to entries from some on-line dictionary does neither. Pointing to one that describes a logical fallacy that I'm sure you could not even restate is an insult to anyone who has ever studied philosophy.

    I was properly chastened by Egorvlad's little story and contrite enough to even write a post that supported a general hypothesis of yours, that Frodo had an innate superiority to resist evil, (a hypothesis that I don't even think is valid). I would urge you to show a modicum of respect to other posters by actually reading what they say and responding accordingly. I'll start you out. Your argument seems to be:

    Frodo was noble.
    Nobility resists evil.
    Frodo could resist the ring better than others by virtue of his nobility.

    Is this your argument? If I am mistaken, then perhaps you could restate it for me. If not, then, granting that your first premise is valid (for this argument), I would maintain that the second is not. Citations have been made to the effect that noble people have not resisted the ring and that non-noble have. Do you have evidence to support your claim and refute those?

    I feel I must point out that the argument:

    Nobles resist the ring.
    Sam resisted the ring.
    Sam was noble.

    is an example of the classic fallacy stated earlier.

    It's you who keeps on about logic, I think it's time for you to walk the walk. Talk is cheap, whiskey costs money.

  4. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    It's perfectly possible to be wise without being noble.
    Good point. Take Gollum. Very wise after his own fashion, but by no means noble.
    [charsig=http://lotrosigs.level3.turbine.com/202240000002126b0/01005/signature.png]undefined[/charsig]

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,034
    Quote Originally Posted by Radhruin_EU View Post
    Sorry, you're mangling the English language something awful here. Someone who is 'a' noble is either noble by birth or has been raised to the nobility, but is not necessarily all that virtuous or noble of character. Likewise, someone can be extremely noble of character without being a noble by birth. Frodo is not 'a' noble, the Shire doesn't have a nobility as such; it's cut off short at petty gentry (just the equivalent of country squires, no real lords) because the lords of Arnor had all been Dunedain, back in the day, and the Shire had been part of that.

    Not sure what this talk of a new society is supposed to be about. Sam was never bound to servitude (an indentured servant), he was simply Frodo's employee and I don't get the impression there'd ever been serfdom anywhere in Arnor - it doesn't strike me as something the Dunedain would have gone for because they were supposed to be comparatively enlightened.
    Argue with the dictionary, Noble means Noble spirit which is premise I consider valid, your whole argument is negated because of this, using your logic.

    Been virtuous is been Noble of spirit, simple deduction and fact.

    Sam wasn't bound to servitude with frodo, he could be anyone's gardener, but in the old society he grew up in workers were bound to a land lord or estate owner, the remaining vestiges of old society is Frodo and Sam relationship.

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    1,034
    Quote Originally Posted by JGP View Post
    I would have to give Rad the advantage however as he uses:

    http://grammar.about.com/od/basicsen...structures.htm

    You cannot just throw statements like "I use logic and you don't" out there. That is NOT a reasoned argument which (I think) is usually what you stab at when you use the word logic. If that were the case, you would have to be making an argument of the sort that asserts that someone's conclusion does not follow from the premises. It has nothing whatsover to do with the veracity or accuracy of the premises. Logic is not dependent on the content of premises.
    I can because I can, say I use Classic Logic, because in Classic logic you end up`having trivial facts and I like triviality.

    This is logically valid:

    Aristotle is a man.
    All men are immortal.
    Aristotle is immortal.
    The correct siglogism is: (The one above isn't valid)

    All men are Immortal
    Aristotle is a man
    hence
    Aristotle is immortal.


    This is not:

    Aristotle is a man.
    All men are mortal.
    All men are Aristotle.
    What another bad silogism to prove what?

    While both are invalid, only one has a logical fallacy. You attempt to disprove the first by attacking it's premises, the second by it's logic. Simply linking to entries from some on-line dictionary does neither. Pointing to one that describes a logical fallacy that I'm sure you could not even restate is an insult to anyone who has ever studied philosophy.
    You thinking process I can deduce is wrong, because a premise is the definition of noble because is a valid premise, I used it hence negated radhruin logical thinking and he thinks all things can be inferred without use of premises.

    I was properly chastened by Egorvlad's little story and contrite enough to even write a post that supported a general hypothesis of yours, that Frodo had an innate superiority to resist evil, (a hypothesis that I don't even think is valid). I would urge you to show a modicum of respect to other posters by actually reading what they say and responding accordingly. I'll start you out. Your argument seems to be:

    Frodo was noble.
    Nobility resists evil.
    Frodo could resist the ring better than others by virtue of his nobility.

    Is this your argument? If I am mistaken, then perhaps you could restate it for me. If not, then, granting that your first premise is valid (for this argument), I would maintain that the second is not. Citations have been made to the effect that noble people have not resisted the ring and that non-noble have. Do you have evidence to support your claim and refute those?

    I feel I must point out that the argument:

    Nobles resist the ring.
    Sam resisted the ring.
    Sam was noble.

    is an example of the classic fallacy stated earlier.

    It's you who keeps on about logic, I think it's time for you to walk the walk. Talk is cheap, whiskey costs money.
    Not a fallacy because of this.

    Nobility helps resisting the ring
    Frodo was a noble
    Frodo could resist the ring better than others by virtue of his nobility.


    Some nobles resist the ring
    Sam resisted the ring
    Sam is like Some (Frodo)
    Last edited by Al.; Jun 29 2013 at 03:30 PM.

  7. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by Al. View Post
    Nobility helps resisting the ring
    Frodo was a noble
    Frodo could resist the ring better than others by virtue of his nobility.


    Some nobles resist the ring
    Sam resisted the ring
    Sam is like Some (Frodo)
    The problem with your argumentation Al, is that you are not only debating people on this thread, you are debating Tolkien as well. I would suggest re-reading Tolkien's letters, paying particular attention to his references to 'nobility' when discussing the hobbits in question.
    Quote Originally Posted by Letter 181
    The Quest  was bound to fail as a piece of world-plan, and also was bound to end in disaster as the story of humble Frodo's development to the 'noble', his sanctification. Fail it would and did as far as Frodo considered alone was concerned.
    Tolkien often refers to the ennoblement of the ignoble in his letters and does so to prove a point: that given opportunity and circumstance, the simple and vulgar can become 'noble in spirit'. 'Nobility' did not assist in Frodo's or Sam's resistance of the Ring; rather their resistance led to their ennoblement.

    Of course you may be correct and Tolkien wrong, but I am going to put my money on the dear and departed professor.

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Bristol, England
    Posts
    6,111
    Quote Originally Posted by Al. View Post
    Argue with the dictionary, Noble means Noble spirit which is premise I consider valid, your whole argument is negated because of this, using your logic.

    Been virtuous is been Noble of spirit, simple deduction and fact.
    Being noble of spirit (where 'noble' is an adjective) doesn't make you 'a' noble (noun). It's no good you trying to wave the dictionary in my face when you clearly can't tell the difference between two fundamental parts of speech.

    Sam wasn't bound to servitude with frodo, he could be anyone's gardener, but in the old society he grew up in workers were bound to a land lord or estate owner, the remaining vestiges of old society is Frodo and Sam relationship.
    What 'old society'? Where exactly are you getting this from? There's nothing to suggest things had changed among the hobbits since Bilbo's younger days, long before Sam was even born.

  9. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by Al. View Post
    I can because I can, say I use Classic Logic, because in Classic logic you end up`having trivial facts and I like triviality.

    You thinking process I can deduce is wrong, because a premise is the definition of noble because is a valid premise, I used it hence negated radhruin logical thinking and he thinks all things can be inferred without use of premises.
    These statements make no sense whatsoever and frankly, neither one even makes your top 10 list. I'm suddenly wondering why I'm even doing this and not coming up with any answers, so I will bow out of further communication. I wish all well who
    challenge the juggernaut of your mighty logic.

  10. #60
    Just want to point out that the argument has already exhausted itself several dozen posts earlier.

    "Gloin, put the axe down and let's return to the Ring, please!"

  11. #61
    As Egorvlad said, this argument ran it's course long ago. I understand that Al is at a disadvantage here because he is carrying on an argument in a second language. That to me is not the problem though, the problem is that he cannot see that he's at a disadvantage.

    By now you'd think he may just be beginning to doubt his own understanding of the English language, maybe he does but his massive ego wont allow him to take a backward step. He is like a boxer who is out on his feet, but still blindly punching fresh air.

    It makes me wonder what language he read the Lord of the Rings in, as he seems to have very little understanding of the themes which Professor Tolkien was trying to get across to the reader. He also strikes me as being very young (judging by some of his immature and at times seemingly threatening comments on these forums).

    For these reasons I've mostly kept out of the debate, for a while I thought he was just trolling, as his "points" were so far off the mark that no one could be making them seriously, seems I was wrong.

  12. #62
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    In-game
    Posts
    3,698
    Its really immature to downgrade someone because of their opinion and beliefs. So why don't you all back away from his personality and rather try to argue against what he's argueing with. It's pathetic that people have to degrade someone to feel better with themselves. You'd think people would have more respect for each other, but not on the internet and certainly not from J.R.R Tolkien fans appearently.
    Nerf healing in PvMP and just maybe it will be worth it again.

  13. #63
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Ohio River valley
    Posts
    267
    Quote Originally Posted by Sam44 View Post
    Dayum! These are great answers thank you very much!
    But... There's still one point I would like to add... Many of you say that Frodo knew the power and the importance of The Ring, but not Bilbo, and so Bilbo didn't care much about it. But if we look at Gollum... He didn't know at all what the ring was, but he killed his friend to get it... There too there's a contrast between Gollum's and Bilbo's reaction to the ring, even at the time of the find.
    Actually, the Ring (as Gandalf noted) did affect Bilbo, and its unwholesome influence began almost immediately with his lying to Thorin's company about his escape and (later) lying in the account of finding the Ring that he wrote in the Red Book. But Bilbo was probably a better person, at heart, than Sméagol was before the Ring crossed his path. So it had more innate selfishness to work with in Gollum from the outset. Bilbo was a good person, and exceptional even among good-natured Hobbits in many ways. But even he was not wholly immune to the Ring.

    EDIT - incidentally, I would say rather that Hobbits had no tradition of nobility before the end of Arthedain, when they chose the Oldbucks to be Thains to hold the authority the Shire had once vested in the Kings (later, the title passed to the Tooks). There really isn't much hint of it elsewhere, except for the social prominence of certain leading families.

    That said, Tolkien did portray a certain class system in the Shire, and Frodo, Merry and Pippin were from the aforesaid leading families. Sam was rather common, to be sure, but his "reward" in a sense for his great deeds was to rise to just such status as head of a socially prominent family. So yeah, class is there. But it isn't intrinsic to resistance to the Ring in this case. Sam had only a passing moment of temptation, and past that point, the Ring could find no hold on him. Whereas Frodo ultimately failed, and was only saved by Gollum's intervention.
    Last edited by Aestivan; Jul 17 2013 at 03:31 AM.

 

 
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

This form's session has expired. You need to reload the page.

Reload