Kevin's Watch

So there's this new program called Yahoo! Answers (answers.yahoo.com) where anyone can sign on, post random questions or answers to random questions, and sort of start a discussion with a community, albeit a community of illiterate morons. I couldn't resist: I posted Donaldson's fundamental question on the site:

answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AqQt3dqd8OE34TZ4ineIc7zsy6IX?qid=1006040905619

The answers, I think, are extremely revealing. My personal favorite, so far:

"i think that dudes crazy brave! even if i had a lil bit of doubt i would be fighting to kill that other mo fo. but this guy is so sure of his decision he awaits possible doom..............your either real brave or real flippin stupid!"

I concur, my friend. I concur.

Heh, that got some weird responces, although someone did say they wanted to read more of the story.

As for the "fundamental question" itself, I've given the matter some thought, and come to the result that it's a trick question: the "fundamental question" is not a fundamental question. It's not a matter of ethics whether one is courageous or cowardly. Ethics is about doing the right thing, not the brave thing. In some circumstances the cowardly choice can be the right one.

Nerdanel wrote:As for the "fundamental question" itself, I've given the matter some thought, and come to the result that it's a trick question: the "fundamental question" is not a fundamental question. It's not a matter of ethics whether one is courageous or cowardly. Ethics is about doing the right thing, not the brave thing. In some circumstances the cowardly choice can be the right one.

I think that in the question Covenant receives, ethics does fit into the picture. You have the champion upon whose shoulders is placed the burden of a world, and he believes he's dreaming. So he can choose whether to actively defend that world, or simply sit there doing nothing because he believes it to be a dream. The fundamental question is the one Covenant answers in TPTP: given that the world you're defending (the Land) could be a dream, if you choose not to fight for it, are you doing the right thing? Of course, the answer Covenant comes up with in the end is, it doesn't matter whether the Land is a dream or not, it's still worth fighting for, and actions taken in dreams have just as much weight as they would have in waking life...

the "fundamental question" is not a fundamental question. It's not a matter of ethics whether one is courageous or cowardly. Ethics is about doing the right thing, not the brave thing.

Not a fundamental question? How can you say this? It is THE fundamental question of both the 1st and 2nd Chronicles. It is the question, "How will you respond to Despite?" The champion from another world is obviously the Despiser. The issue is one of responsibility, of authenticity. Will he respond by taking responsibility for this battle, or will he deny the danger (and his responsibility)?

From LFB:

"[He] declines to be put in the false position of fighting to the death where no "real" danger exists."

So Covenant's initial reaction is one of denial.

This is obviously inauthentic, to pretend that the danger of facing Despite is not real--because it IS real. It's a problem we all face in our own lives: will we ignore our own inner despiser and pretend that it is not an issue? A battle we are not responsible for fighting? Make no mistake: we all have the potential to go either way, to let Despite take over our passion and allow it to inflict damage upon ourselves and those we love. If you choose not to fight, to not acknowledge this struggle, it will corrupt your life. To ignore the danger by pretending this is not a real issue--that you do not have the potential to unleash your own inner Despiser--is denial of the problem, and denial of your self. Covenant finally fights by the end of the 1 Chronicles, finally takes the battle seriously and recognizes its import to himself.

So on the surface, it seems like fighting this "champion from another world" is the right thing to do. But then we have the 2nd Chronicles, where Covenant's solution is to NOT resist the Despiser's attack.

From LFB:

"He is implacable in his determination to disbelieve his apparent situation, and does not defend himself when he is attacked by the champion of the other world"

However, the difference in WGW is that he DOES believe his apparent situation. So his refusal to fight isn't one of denial, but a bit more complex. Fighting can also be a form of denial, because in the end we cannot rid ourselves of Despite. [This is discussed in detail elsewhere on the watch, Covenant's actions at the end of WGW.]

So yes, this is a fundamental question of ethics. The answer is that his refusal to fight can be either cowardly or brave, depending on whether it comes from denial or acceptance.

Well, as I see it the question of bravery or cowardice is the wrong question to ask. It is possible to bravely do a wrong thing and the other way around. The right question would be whether the man should fight the champion from another world. For example, it is more ethical to kill a person, resulting in the destruction of a world, than it is to let oneself be killed, resulting in the destruction of another world? Also, how does the man know the disembodied voice is telling the truth? Or could the man and the champion from another world make peace and gang upon the disembodied voice that seems intent upon destroying at least one world for lousy reasons?

Interestingly, Lord Foul first appeared to Covenant as a disembodied voice...

Well, as I see it the question of bravery or cowardice is the wrong question to ask.

How can it be the wrong question if that's the question SRD wrote?

Sure, we are all entitled to our own interpretations of this text. And SRD has himself admitted that he regretted some of his choices. But in this instance, I think that if you believe it's the wrong question, then this exhibits a misreading than rather than a mistake on Donaldson's end.

I think it is the perfect question for the reasons I outlined. Isn't personal responsibility an issue of ethics? Isn't the issue of denial vs acceptance an issue of ethics--especially when we're talking about deny/accepting our own Despiser? Think about alcoholics; the first step is admitting that there is a problem, a danger, and THEN fighting the battle to overcome it. Is that not an issue of ethics? Isn't it cowardly to deny something that is unpleasant? Isn't it brave to face something unpleasant about yourself head-on?

I know I keep repeating this, but it can't be said enough: Donaldson is dealing with existential authenticity. I mean this in a very specific, technical way, as used by existential philosophers (Heidegger, for instance). We are unique among all life on earth because we can choose whether or not to be true to ourselves (wasn't this the main bit of advice the Creator gave Covenant: "be true"? He meant: "be true to yourself"). A cow can't help but be a cow; it can't help but to be what it is. However, humans must first "wake up" to themselves, face themselves, know themselves, in order to be true to themselves. Most of us spend most of our time sleep walking through life, not really aware of our existence as such, our existence as being-in-the-world. We usually don't consciously will our existence, don't consciously put ourselves into the world by acting willfully and knowingly. Usually, this is due to laziness, ignorance, or complacency. But sometimes it is due to fear and an inability to face our lives as they really are. When this is the case, YES, it is an unethical, cowardly choice.

Some of the things we don't have the courage to face are mortality, finitude, the responsibility of choice, our potential for despite, our guilt over the past, our power over the future, etc. These things are terrifying, so we don't face them. They are terrifying to Covenant, so he spends the first book fleeing from them [literally--this is his story for most of LFB and beyond]. But no matter how terrifying they are, they are part of the fundamental fabric of what it means to be human.

When you do not have the courage to face that which makes up the fundamental, existential fabric of what it means to be human, you are committing a violation on the highest level of ethics--you are diminishing your humanity. In existential terms, inauthenticity is the greatest "evil." It is through giving up or denying one's own humanity that evil acts are possible in the first place.

And if we understand "inauthenticity" in terms of not having the courage to face yourself as you actually are, then Donaldson's question is perfectly worded, and perfectly relevant. Afterall, Covenant thinks all his denials in LFB are acts of bravery, a way to preserve his sanity; but it is actually cowardice that drives him: he's scared to let himself be human.

I think SRD knew what he was talking about.

WOW! What a great post!

Well, my point is that bravery is not an inherent ethical good. Being brave may be a good thing or it may not. For an extreme example, consider a serial killer wannabe. He spends his days dreaming of killing someone, but he knows that if he goes along with his desires the police will be all over the case and if he gets unlucky or makes even a tiny mistake he will get caught. For that man, the cowardly way is also the more ethical, not that he considers it that way.

I think it could be argued that in the Chronicles being brave in the way of accepting one's capabilities and limitations is a good thing every time. However, I would say that this is so because having an accurate picture of the situation one is in is important for making good ethical choices, not because of any bravery involved.

Anyway, the "fundamental question of ethics" isn't really a fundamental question if it's fundamental only in relation to certain fantasy novels. Though, I suppose the question could be said to be fundamental, but the answer is "it cannot be determined and it doesn't matter".