According to Stephen, guilt can be used for good things. For example, it was what enabled Thomas to live for ten years on his own, and destroy Foul twice. Do you agree with what Donaldson says about Guilt and how it can be out to use. And that Innocence is to be impotent?
P.S. This is the 500th Topic of the Thomas Covenant discussion board!
Guilt
Moderators: Orlion, kevinswatch
guilt
my two cents:
I think guilt can be a powerful motivator, but not necessarily a healthy one.
And I believe the innocent are vulnerable...but that doesn't make them impotent. Far from it, actually. Who hasn't been influenced by the innocence of a child's smile?
Floundering in deep thoughts...must..swim..for shore!
lol
-Michelle
I think guilt can be a powerful motivator, but not necessarily a healthy one.
And I believe the innocent are vulnerable...but that doesn't make them impotent. Far from it, actually. Who hasn't been influenced by the innocence of a child's smile?
Floundering in deep thoughts...must..swim..for shore!
lol
-Michelle
-
[Syl]
- Unfettered One
- Posts: 13021
- Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2002 12:36 am
- Has thanked: 2 times
- Been thanked: 1 time
An innocent has no idea of the very concept it possesses, and as such, cannot consciously wield power derived from innocense and can only be said to wield this power when the object it is being wielded against lacks innocense.
If a kid has a gun and is waving it around like a toy, yeah, adults are gonna duck. Another kid who also has no idea of the danger the gun represents, does not (unless the other kid sees the adults throwing themselves to the ground, in which case the child might follow suit, and thus come to lose some innocense).
I don't think the idea is so much that guilt yields power, but that the knowledge of power causes guilt.
If a kid has a gun and is waving it around like a toy, yeah, adults are gonna duck. Another kid who also has no idea of the danger the gun represents, does not (unless the other kid sees the adults throwing themselves to the ground, in which case the child might follow suit, and thus come to lose some innocense).
I don't think the idea is so much that guilt yields power, but that the knowledge of power causes guilt.
"It is not the literal past that rules us, save, possibly, in a biological sense. It is images of the past. Each new historical era mirrors itself in the picture and active mythology of its past or of a past borrowed from other cultures. It tests its sense of identity, of regress or new achievement against that past.”
-George Steiner
-George Steiner
I'd say guilt is a powerful motivator, and it can be of use, for example if it prevents someone from doing something they know they shouldn't. Though that doesn't say anything about the quality of the motivation...it would be nicer to be motivated by something percieved to be nobler. But guilt does help guide the moral compass.
I read the bit about guilt in another way too, that anyone who has power to do anything is guilty simply because their actions are potent and can have bad effects. Even if you try acting only for good, in some way some ripple sent out from your action will hurt something, and you'll have guilt. Say in World War II, you go to war to stop undeniably bad people from doing bad things and hurting people...but you can't "do no harm." So though you're trying to act for the greater good, you're not innocent, either.
I don't quite agree with powerless innocence because 1) protecting it can be a powerful motivation itself, so it can have a powerful effect (does instigation count as power?) and 2) innocence itself, meaning an innocent person I suppose, can act effectively, possibly without knowing it. Say the unknowing kid waving the gun accidentally shoots someone.
But I kind of read the innocence part to mean that anyone who has used power has lost their innocence in the exercise of that power, so by definition they're no longer innocent. So in that case an innocent innocently doing something powerful exercises power, loses innocence, and gains guilt (whether enforced externally in the judgement of others or from his/her conscience) all at that time.
Which is another issue. If you're innocent in the sense that you don't know you did something horrible, you don't have internal guilt. But your society may judge you as guilty.
Hmm, my head hurts. Too much thinking after midnight....
I read the bit about guilt in another way too, that anyone who has power to do anything is guilty simply because their actions are potent and can have bad effects. Even if you try acting only for good, in some way some ripple sent out from your action will hurt something, and you'll have guilt. Say in World War II, you go to war to stop undeniably bad people from doing bad things and hurting people...but you can't "do no harm." So though you're trying to act for the greater good, you're not innocent, either.
I don't quite agree with powerless innocence because 1) protecting it can be a powerful motivation itself, so it can have a powerful effect (does instigation count as power?) and 2) innocence itself, meaning an innocent person I suppose, can act effectively, possibly without knowing it. Say the unknowing kid waving the gun accidentally shoots someone.
But I kind of read the innocence part to mean that anyone who has used power has lost their innocence in the exercise of that power, so by definition they're no longer innocent. So in that case an innocent innocently doing something powerful exercises power, loses innocence, and gains guilt (whether enforced externally in the judgement of others or from his/her conscience) all at that time.
Which is another issue. If you're innocent in the sense that you don't know you did something horrible, you don't have internal guilt. But your society may judge you as guilty.
Hmm, my head hurts. Too much thinking after midnight....
The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.
-F. Scott Fitzgerald
Stephen R. Donaldson Ate My Dictionary
-F. Scott Fitzgerald
Stephen R. Donaldson Ate My Dictionary
Innocence lost is one "the" themes of literature, art and life. I think the process and the events that lead to the inevitable loss of innocence is the story of our lives, our society, history well just about everything really.
It is closely linked to the gradual erosion of idealism. We all start with ideals of how things should be with our inner moral code or lack of it and are effected by our experiences. Our ideals are our innocence.
They are replaced by hopefully reality and empathy for both the guilty and the innocent.
The classic case in the real world is of course Nazi Germany. Idealism led to fascism, horror and absolute loss of the idealism of Naziism.
Guilt has wracked the German consciousness ever since in art and literature. But empathy and a realisation of the dangers of idealism and innocence have resulted.
It is closely linked to the gradual erosion of idealism. We all start with ideals of how things should be with our inner moral code or lack of it and are effected by our experiences. Our ideals are our innocence.
They are replaced by hopefully reality and empathy for both the guilty and the innocent.
The classic case in the real world is of course Nazi Germany. Idealism led to fascism, horror and absolute loss of the idealism of Naziism.
Guilt has wracked the German consciousness ever since in art and literature. But empathy and a realisation of the dangers of idealism and innocence have resulted.