Kevin's Watch

deer of the dawn wrote:

wayfriend wrote:I think it would be massively unfair to claim that TC came to his position - that the reality of the Land didn't matter, what mattered is how he felt about it - easily. In fact, the whole of the Chronicles outlines the difficulties he had, as a leper and as a person of principled mistrust of power, to come to that conclusion. That he finally does is a distinguished triumph.

Agreed. For TC, the question changed, or evolved. "Belief" in the Land's reality became overshadowed by love for the Land and its peoples.

And nothing came easily for TC. Especially having his dogmatism (which was a survival mechanism for him) overshadowed by his heart.

Kamelda isn't criticizing TC, she is criticizing SRD for creating a narrative easy-out for the paradox problem.

Off the top of my head, I'd say, first of all the matter of will is not contextless in this case, everything that happened provided context/ground for TC's will...as well as insisting that he must choose.
Also, the paradox was "solved" in the only way it could be: by accepting that the paradox is fundamental to the nature of life/experience. TC could not destroy despair/despite, couldn't avoid its existence within him or the land, he had to recognize it, acknowledge it, then turn away, thereby robbing it of its power. He said that attempting to slay the despiser would only ensure that he comes back stronger. He needed joy, laughter, to enable the greatest defeat possible.
And though this was supposed to be one series, the solution is not permanent, and TC knows it...the battle will be ongoing, he says the Land will be safe "For now" or somesuch. I would say this is, by definition "negotiating" the paradox, saying yes it exists, no I will not submit to/in despair. TC's exercising of the power of white gold/paradox may be, in some sense, "muscular," but the reasons/choices that enable/allow/guide the use of that power are decidedly not muscular. To say this is intellectually or conceptually or literarily an "easy out" seems strange to me. The other option is to eliminate paradox, provide an ultimate answer...which is ultimately fruitless, because this would inherently deny any possibility of choice, will, or meaning. Roughly parallel:
A man met a Master coming down a mountain. "Master," he asked "what is it like to achieve enlightenment?" The Master stopped and set aside his pack. "I see," said the man. "But what is it like after enlightenment?" The Master picked up his pack again, and continued down the mountain.

Choosing pure laughter and joy over violence was TC's affirmation of life against Despite. But does it answer the Fundamental Question of Ethics?

A real man-real in all the ways that we recognize as real-finds himself suddenly abstracted from the world and deposited in a physical situation which could not possibly exist: sounds have aroma, smells have color and depth, sights have texture, touches have pitches and timbre. There he is informed by a disembodied voice that he has been brought to that place as a champion for his world. He must fight to the death in single combat against a champion from another world. If he is defeated, he will die, and his world-the real world-will be destroyed because it lacks the inner strength to survive. The man refuses to believe what he is told is true. He asserts that he is either dreaming or hallucinating, and declines to be put in the false position of fighting to the death where no "real" danger exists. He is implacable in his determination to disbelieve his apparant situation, and does not defend himself when he is attacked by the champion of the other world.

Question: is the man's behavior courageous or cowardly? This is the fundamental question of ethics."

I believe it does. TC, a leper forced into cowardice, eventually decides that it does not matter whether he is dreaming or hallucinating. He does not care that there is no "real" danger. His decision to fight, to take courage and stand up for what he loves, whether in dreams or not, is that answer.

So ethics are second to love?

jacob Raver, sinTempter wrote:So ethics are second to love?

According to this question, there are two choices: Believe and fight, or don't believe and die, along with the world around you. TC chooses parts of both, don't believe yet fight anyway because it doesn't matter if you believe or not.

If love is what it takes to get you to fight, then so be it. Assuming, of course, that fighting is the correct decision in this case. Which I believe it is.

The fundamental question of ethics is, fundamentally a question. It is general. It can, and will, always be asked again. The answer is in every case specific. A general solution would prohibit [or at least make meaningless] any further questioning.
Ethics isn't second to love, love and despite, among others probably, in other contexts, define the terms of each specific answer.
A gross simplification: the area of a circle is pi r squared.
But for any specific circle, the term r must be a given a specific value. [and it must be a positive value, I think...it is mathematically possible to calculate the area of a circle with a radius of -1, but how could a circle with a negative radius actually exist in physical space?
TC finds an answer. Love is a positive value, despite a negative one=end of all. Unbelief/belief are not terms of the question, they are confirmation or denial that the question exists.

Vraith, I think you’re on the right track, but I think you miss the mark (to mix metaphors). The “fundamental question of ethics” is a meta-question. But that doesn’t mean it can’t be definitively answered. It is a meta-question because it’s asking about the source of one’s ethical choices, not whether a particular choice is ethical or not. In determining the source, we have two possibilities: external, or internal. Do you get your ethics from Stone Tablets (or preachers, or Bibles, etc.), or from your own inner power to choose what’s right and wrong? The former assumes absolute values, absolute good/evil inherent to an objective, external world. The latter assumes there is no objective value, no absolute good/evil, but instead comes from within yourself. Thus, it’s a question of ethics for either an “objective world” or a “personal world” (for instance, the Land). If one goes with the latter option—you being the source of your own ethical determinations—then you haven’t anchored your belief to supposed inherent properties of an objective/external world. In other words, it’s a decision which transcends ontological issues, because it derives from a personal, subjective source, and is thus applicable to the world (any world) even in the absence of objective morality or inherent value. (i.e. It transcends the question of whether the Land is real or not.)

Now, this determination can be either cowardly or courageous depending on which you choose (or if you don't choose at all). Donaldson is saying that it is cowardly to refrain from accepting and utilizing your power to make your own ethical decisions, that it is your duty to not abdicate your responsibility for your life and your choices, which includes your responsibility to decide right and wrong (i.e. to “assign meaning”).

Once again, I’ll rely on recent Donaldson quotes:

Donaldson wrote:. . . wild magic, his own personal power to assign meaning to his life and experiences. . .

This “personal power to assign meaning” is the power to make one’s own ethical choices.

Donaldson wrote:In my view, *meaning* is created internally by each individual in each specific life: any attempt at *meaning* which relies on some kind of external superstructure (God, Satan, the Creator, the Worm, whatever) for its substance misses the point (I mean the point of my story).

So, the "fundamental question of ethics" is a question where you derive the source of your ethical choices, and implicit in that decision is a “meta-valuation” which assigns the abdication of your responsibility to use your “wild magic” as cowardly, and assigns the acceptance of your responsibility to use your “wild magic” as courageous.

Or, "authentic" and "inauthentic," if you prefer. This is why he is told to "be true" (authentic). The courageous choice to use your own "wild magic" is a reaction to the realization that the world has no absolute value. Instead of descending into nihilism, you become your own Creator of meaning.

Vraith wrote:The fundamental question of ethics is, fundamentally a question. It is general. It can, and will, always be asked again. The answer is in every case specific. A general solution would prohibit [or at least make meaningless] any further questioning.
Ethics isn't second to love, love and despite, among others probably, in other contexts, define the terms of each specific answer.
A gross simplification: the area of a circle is pi r squared.
But for any specific circle, the term r must be a given a specific value. [and it must be a positive value, I think...it is mathematically possible to calculate the area of a circle with a radius of -1, but how could a circle with a negative radius actually exist in physical space?
TC finds an answer. Love is a positive value, despite a negative one=end of all. Unbelief/belief are not terms of the question, they are confirmation or denial that the question exists.

Yes, TC found an answer, and it was "too easy."

Resisting nihilism in a world where "god is dead" is easy? Taking responsibility for your life, your choices, your values, is easy? Accepting that no one will save you, that your own salvation (and punishment) comes from yourself is easy?

Can you give an example of something you think is difficult?

Grace is easy.

Malik23 wrote:Resisting nihilism in a world where "god is dead" is easy? Taking responsibility for your life, your choices, your values, is easy? Accepting that no one will save you, that your own salvation (and punishment) comes from yourself is easy?

Can you give an example of something you think is difficult?

Grace is easy.

Here's an example of this question from the very first pages of LFB:

But without waiting for an answer the beggar went back to humming his weird tune. He held Covenant there until he had reached a break in his song. Then a new quality came into his voice, an aggressive tone that took advantage of Covenant's unexpected vulnerability.
"Why not destroy yourself?"
A sense of pressure expanded in Covenant's chest, cramping his heart. The pale blue eyes were exerting some kind of peril over him. Anxiety tugged at him. He wanted to jerk away from the old face, go through his VSE, make sure that he was safe. But he could not; the blank gaze held him. Finally, he said, "That's too easy."

That answer seems too pat, too cavalier to be taken literally. Is it easy for a criminal on death row to take that last long walk when in fact many of them have to be physically dragged to the death chamber? Let's assume for purposes of argument that TC is saying, in a most abstract manner, that suicide is too easy answer.

Does this have any connection with your point about choices and values? Are we talking about the physical and psychological ease involved with making difficult life choices? Or is it as kamelda implied, an abstract, philosophical question to be discussed from high atop Mt. Olympus (or on the GI) where nothing real is at stake?

Kamelda is saying that there should be an abstract answer first, and that it should have been applied at the end of TC's struggle in the Chrons, but was not. Instead, SRD had him basically stomp his feet like a petulant child, stare the Despiser straight in the eyes, cross his arms and say "No!"

Kamelda is obviously not satisfied with willful responses to philosophical problems because they are "too easy."

Do you find it easy to face down your own inner despiser and tell him "no?" Isn't it easier just to ignore him? To deny that you have an inner despiser?

Covenant's problem is not merely having the strength of character to face down the Despiser. It is also having the strength to admit that this is his responsibility, and not someone else's. And in doing so, he has to come to grips with the fact that assigning meaning to the world (value, ethics, morals--things to strive for or against) is his responsibility. It is within his power. That's why he spends so much time not being able to access his wild magic, because he has refused both this responsibility and this power. So before he can even confront Foul, he has to confront his ability and responsibility to confront Foul (i.e. use his wild magic).

This cannot be overstated. It took humanity thousands of years to get to the point where they have realized the same thing (i.e. their power and responsibility). And some people still don't realize it. They let other people (usually "holy men" of some sort--but also politicians, or authority figures of any sort) tell them what is good and evil. Billions of people live this way, believing that there is absolute Good and Evil, and that someone has to tell it to them. So to say that Covenant's accomplishment is easy flies in the face of reality. If it's so easy, why is religion still so ubiquitous, even centuries after Nietzsche invited people to walk the tightrope, to become the Overman?

In addition, facing down the Despiser is not merely saying "no" to your own destructive tendencies, but it is also saying "yes" to your creative tendencies--like love, like affirmation of your own life and its unattractive truths of mortality and pain. And this is probably why he didn't simply kill the Despiser, but merely "reduced" him, so that in destroying his destructive side, he didn't destroy himself. Which is the easy answer . . . suicide.

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:

Malik23 wrote:Resisting nihilism in a world where "god is dead" is easy? Taking responsibility for your life, your choices, your values, is easy? Accepting that no one will save you, that your own salvation (and punishment) comes from yourself is easy?

Can you give an example of something you think is difficult?

Grace is easy.

Here's an example of this question from the very first pages of LFB:

But without waiting for an answer the beggar went back to humming his weird tune. He held Covenant there until he had reached a break in his song. Then a new quality came into his voice, an aggressive tone that took advantage of Covenant's unexpected vulnerability.
"Why not destroy yourself?"
A sense of pressure expanded in Covenant's chest, cramping his heart. The pale blue eyes were exerting some kind of peril over him. Anxiety tugged at him. He wanted to jerk away from the old face, go through his VSE, make sure that he was safe. But he could not; the blank gaze held him. Finally, he said, "That's too easy."

That answer seems too pat, too cavalier to be taken literally. Is it easy for a criminal on death row to take that last long walk when in fact many of them have to be physically dragged to the death chamber? Let's assume for purposes of argument that TC is saying, in a most abstract manner, that suicide is too easy answer.

Does this have any connection with your point about choices and values? Are we talking about the physical and psychological ease involved with making difficult life choices? Or is it as kamelda implied, an abstract, philosophical question to be discussed from high atop Mt. Olympus (or on the GI) where nothing real is at stake?

Kamelda is saying that there should be an abstract answer first, and that it should have been applied at the end of TC's struggle in the Chrons, but was not. Instead, SRD had him basically stomp his feet like a petulant child, stare the Despiser straight in the eyes, cross his arms and say "No!"

Kamelda is obviously not satisfied with willful responses to philosophical problems because they are "too easy."

Quite frankly, for Covenant to stop atop Mount Olympus and engage in some pseudo-academic exercise strictly for the purpose of coming up with some abstract, philosophical answer would be boring and, to me, miss the point entirely. This is not Mr. Spock on his way to fight Lord Foul, this is an emotionally crippled human being who has to learn all over again that it's ok to love and to fight for what he believes in. You don't get there by sitting down and drawing up some sort of philosophical flow chart to figure out what is next to do. You get there by becoming emotionally involved in the world around you, and doing what you feel is right.

rdhopeca wrote:

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote:

Malik23 wrote:Resisting nihilism in a world where "god is dead" is easy? Taking responsibility for your life, your choices, your values, is easy? Accepting that no one will save you, that your own salvation (and punishment) comes from yourself is easy?

Can you give an example of something you think is difficult?

Grace is easy.

Here's an example of this question from the very first pages of LFB:

But without waiting for an answer the beggar went back to humming his weird tune. He held Covenant there until he had reached a break in his song. Then a new quality came into his voice, an aggressive tone that took advantage of Covenant's unexpected vulnerability.
"Why not destroy yourself?"
A sense of pressure expanded in Covenant's chest, cramping his heart. The pale blue eyes were exerting some kind of peril over him. Anxiety tugged at him. He wanted to jerk away from the old face, go through his VSE, make sure that he was safe. But he could not; the blank gaze held him. Finally, he said, "That's too easy."

That answer seems too pat, too cavalier to be taken literally. Is it easy for a criminal on death row to take that last long walk when in fact many of them have to be physically dragged to the death chamber? Let's assume for purposes of argument that TC is saying, in a most abstract manner, that suicide is too easy answer.

Does this have any connection with your point about choices and values? Are we talking about the physical and psychological ease involved with making difficult life choices? Or is it as kamelda implied, an abstract, philosophical question to be discussed from high atop Mt. Olympus (or on the GI) where nothing real is at stake?

Kamelda is saying that there should be an abstract answer first, and that it should have been applied at the end of TC's struggle in the Chrons, but was not. Instead, SRD had him basically stomp his feet like a petulant child, stare the Despiser straight in the eyes, cross his arms and say "No!"

Kamelda is obviously not satisfied with willful responses to philosophical problems because they are "too easy."

Quite frankly, for Covenant to stop atop Mount Olympus and engage in some pseudo-academic exercise strictly for the purpose of coming up with some abstract, philosophical answer would be boring and, to me, miss the point entirely.

It would be quite literally out of character for TC to do this, and I don't see anybody asking for this to happen anyway. What I actually suggested was to take an answer a priori to writing the Chrons and apply it to the ending. That doesn't require any deep metaphysical musings on TC's part, it is only for the author.

rdhopeca wrote: This is not Mr. Spock on his way to fight Lord Foul, this is an emotionally crippled human being who has to learn all over again that it's ok to love and to fight for what he believes in. You don't get there by sitting down and drawing up some sort of philosophical flow chart to figure out what is next to do. You get there by becoming emotionally involved in the world around you, and doing what you feel is right.

I'm pretty sure Ayn Rand would be very concerned with the idea that there is a disconnect between reason and emotion, that being intellectual requires being a Spock-like person, which is what you're implying. Reasoning can and should be a very passionate activity. However, her reaction would be beside the point, and she's dead anyway after having practiced the idea all her life that smoking helps to focus one's thoughts.

I just think it is necessary to point out that she may have been right, and that where TC lacked in passion he also lacked in reasoning ability. He needed a trigger just to get his wild magic to work, what trigger did he need to focus a single thought more complex than "hellfire"? He showed himself to be passionless as well as intellectually vacuous.

Although I believe kamelda has a point, I can tell you where she went wrong, and of course I started these last kemalda threads with that knowledge. I don't do these completely unprepared. And the answer doesn't require that TC had to think at all, I wouldn't want to pressure him to leap far beyond his intellectual limits. The answer is to forget the idea requiring TC to think at all, much less be a Mr. Spock; recall that SRD is an existentialist, so it's not as if he hadn't done the deep thinking beforehand. It just seems that way.

TheWormoftheWorld'sEnd wrote: The answer is to forget the idea requiring TC to think at all, much less be a Mr. Spock; recall that SRD is an existentialist, so it's not as if he hadn't done the deep thinking beforehand. It just seems that way.

Now that really is too easy, completely unlike what TC had to pay to learn and earn his answer.

Sometimes doing the answer, once you know it, is easy - it's figuring out what the answer is that's hard.

I shouldn't have said that TC is "intellectually vacuous." I think he's a very smart individual who has simply never had to deal with these questions before and is really skeptical about their purpose anyway. Witness for example his response to the fundamental question of ethics.

So even if it was SRD's job to have the solution, it would have been out of character for TC to find it for himself. Kamelda is asking too much.

The Fundamental Question of Ethics, if you read the quote from the book, is: is Unbelief courageous or cowardly?

It was NOT easy for TC to overcome his Unbelief/cowardice and step up to the plate. Suicide was "too easy", but Unbelief was a little harder and therefore seemed acceptable. In the end TC overcame, and acted. That was courage. Courage, by definition, is never easy. (Bravery maybe, but not courage.) Courage is overcoming what you fear.

deer of the dawn wrote:The Fundamental Question of Ethics, if you read the quote from the book, is: is Unbelief courageous or cowardly?

It was NOT easy for TC to overcome his Unbelief/cowardice and step up to the plate. Suicide was "too easy", but Unbelief was a little harder and therefore seemed acceptable. In the end TC overcame, and acted. That was courage. Courage, by definition, is never easy. (Bravery maybe, but not courage.) Courage is overcoming what you fear.

Good point. But the reason his unbelief can be cowardly or courageous is because it either gives him an excuse not to be engaged, or presents him a reason to take a stand. As Covenant shows (and Donaldson later confirms), the real issue isn't belief or disbelief. The real issue is whether or not he takes responsibility for his inner struggle between his creative and destructive sides. Unbelief is merely his excuse early on to remain in his inauthentic state of following the "dream" to the end without having to make any decisions or take any stands. That is what's cowardly, not the unbelief itself. I'm sure Donaldson wouldn't call us all a bunch of cowards for not believing the dreams we have every night when we go to sleep, for instance. Nor would he say that he has left that issue behind, if he really believed that it was the fundamental question of ethics . . . especially since Covenant never answered it one way or the other.

Question: is the man's behavior courageous or cowardly? This is the fundamental question of ethics.

I was equating (perhaps inaccurately) Unbelief with disengagement, so you're right, Malik. Well said.