- 113
- 52
In fact I had given in and started writing a reply. But that's fine, I prefer it; even if in a way you've proved me wrong, since one of the reasons I don't like private discussions of this kind is that speakers tend to be much less measured in their speech, yet you're much more aggressive here than in private.
I spent my previous post saying that I wasn't using that quote as a decisive argument. I know it's vexing to realize that what you've presented as an argument is actually a counter-argument, but my own argument is more to say that all the phrases you invoke to justify reality/fiction are misinterpreted. But again we're discussing 1-A here so before you accuse me of being off-topic let's move on.
I'm copy-pasting what I'd started to write: (note that your answer is off-topic: the point is to say that Tolkien's sentence implies (it's a trivial truth) that authors have finite minds, so they can't conceive of all possible worlds. Obviously, they are always limited in the eyes of God):
4) Finitude. Indeed, Tolkien's sentence simply states the obvious: authors have finite minds and can therefore only conceive of a small minority of possible worlds. But he's not just saying that beings aren't God, he's saying that beings can't conceive of everything. The sentence is simple: human authors can write whatever they want, within the limits of their intelligence and imagination. It's obvious and simple. It seems to me that this is the first thing I've said in this whole thread: it's a banality, with no particular metaphysical significance. I can write whatever I want. But I can't want to write everything - in particular, I can't write about every possible world. Similarly, it's not true that “sub-creators”, real or imaginary, are High 1-A+ in general, and that Ainur are High 1-A+ in particular.
No. Saying that people haven't understood isn't insulting to them, especially since several people's comments have proved it.
That's far more disparaging than anything I've come to say.
You have every right to do so.
Indeed, I don't think Tolkien thought many of the things you've attributed to him.
Now that's rich. It was a fair response to the person who first accused me of being a sophist.
Here there is no fake real world. The real world is the real world. When we talk about Tolkien's philosophical opinions, we're talking about the real world. There is not fiction where the Valar reside, a false real world where Tolkien's metaphysics applies and where angels similar to the Valar reside, and a real real world where it no longer applies and where there is none of that. I think you imagine that metaphysics is fiction on principle. But it isn't.
No. The Ainur, though no more real than Ea, are outside ordinary time before they descend into it. The number of dimensions in which the Ainur move and reality/fiction are two different things. But we're still on the simple 1-A. Don't accuse me of being off-topic.
I copy-paste:
2) By omniscience I mean knowing all possible worlds. According to your argument, the Ainur must know them to be High-1-A+ authors. But the obvious limits to their knowledge mean they can't create every possible story. By limits to their knowledge I mean both everything they don't know collectively and everything they don't know individually. The fact that they can't know certain things because Eru forbids it doesn't change a thing (not to mention your strange argument suggesting that they can decide to know), some of the worlds they don't know are obviously possible worlds, since they'll happen in the future and their own free will will contribute to one of it.
You're confusing having several possibilities with realizing several possibilities. I can read any book (within the limits of my intelligence), I can't read every book.
Last edited:
