tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post3556956973600115104..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: On the Evil of George R.R. MartinUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-74599625275772302872013-06-27T13:08:41.527-04:002013-06-27T13:08:41.527-04:00and I'm in a befuddle about this proposed semi...and I'm in a befuddle about this proposed semiscient being. Which would be the more respectable kind, he who goes about his divine business blissfully unaware of his limited knowledge or the kind with a more sober self-assessment? Right now I'm seeing it as happy-go- lucky deity vs. the darker, brooding sort. I'm for the first. But that could be because I kissed my wife and had my coffee this morning. Other days I might see it differently.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16188094773097135187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-9523091271104266672013-06-24T15:11:05.522-04:002013-06-24T15:11:05.522-04:00If omniscience doesn't mean knowing everything...If omniscience doesn't mean knowing everything to a God, then it either realizes that it doesn't know everything, or doesn't realize it.Baron Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04138430918331887648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-27543020754503118852013-06-24T14:36:02.486-04:002013-06-24T14:36:02.486-04:00I am wondering in the syllogism on the existence o...I am wondering in the syllogism on the existence of God whether the positor has somewhat unfairly filled in some content regarding the attributes of God. To say that the god is omniscient and then to define omniscience for the god seems to be telling the listener that the positer is at that level of omniscience him/herself. But if we take omniscience/omnipresence in a freer sense to mean whatever it may mean to a truly supreme being--thus giving this being the true freedom that would be appropriate for such a person--then another thought may emerge. As morally repellent to us as some of the non-optional aspects of our existence may be, yet isn't it reasonable to think that a truly omniscient/omnipotent (free) supreme being may have a fit for these aspects which are to us repellent. If we haven't defined our god too closely to our image, then there might be a place for all that we see. All that we experience may be consistent with a truly omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent being. <br />There may be some existential conditioning to this interesting puzzle, as in: all that we see is not all that is; or all that we experience now is not all that we will experience at some other time. Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16188094773097135187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-22827102600983926802013-06-22T15:13:51.943-04:002013-06-22T15:13:51.943-04:00You mean he writes in the missionary position?You mean he writes in the missionary position?Baron Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04138430918331887648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-39890510814202248122013-06-22T14:40:39.083-04:002013-06-22T14:40:39.083-04:00Let me introduce here another example, indeed fert...Let me introduce here another example, indeed fertile for meditations on almost all the subjects provided by the essay above: Ruby Sparks. What could be said about the evilness of both authors (Calvin, who creates Ruby, and Zoe, who creates Calvin)? The movie seems to be an instance of something Mr. Finkelman alluded, perhaps crucial - according to him - to determine at least one aspect of an author's general ethical responsibility: the role of artwork evaluation played by its author, but this time inside the work evaluated itself. Does the story of Ruby redeem Zoe from whatever faults Calvin has committed? (The work turns out to become even more amazing if we consider that Zoe Kazam is still a child!!!) Anyway, is this question somehow suitable to start such a conversation?<br /><br />Also is it possible, since Pirandello's Six Characters in Search of an Author and (even) One, No one and One Hundred Thousand, to approach the problem of a general ethical responsibility of a novelist in the same way this is doable with more classical constructions like Tom Jones, Oliver Twist or perhaps GRR Martin's (I didn't read his novels, so I'm not sure their approach is classical)?Waldemar M. Reishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18043615574386490438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-72056865377336382202013-06-21T18:56:47.268-04:002013-06-21T18:56:47.268-04:00Doesn't his PoE depend on the ontological stat...Doesn't his PoE depend on the ontological status of the characters in his books? The characters' sufferings are real inside the book, and so George RR Martin is certainly not omnibenevolent from the POV of a character inside the book. But from outside the book where we live, it seems absurd to call an authour to account for what they do to their characters. <br />In my opinion George is evil vertically but not horizontally.nihilitwithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08708093405992711441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-18872569773947799862013-06-20T17:47:09.211-04:002013-06-20T17:47:09.211-04:00This comment should , if at all possible, definite...This comment should , if at all possible, definitely be published here.Baron Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04138430918331887648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-42408706907377175452013-06-20T06:37:49.468-04:002013-06-20T06:37:49.468-04:00Hi, Mr. Finkelman,
Well, I'm not trying to be...Hi, Mr. Finkelman,<br /><br />Well, I'm not trying to be impolite or cheeky by posting here a link: just wanted to share this talk, but was unable to shorten my 'tongue' to fit this comment box. So, the link: http://txtpub.blogspot.com.br/2013/06/is-it-bad-to-be-good-in-own-craft.html. Obviously, feel yourself free not to publish it, but if it pleases you, at least have a look.<br /><br />CheersWaldemar M. Reishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18043615574386490438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-8150396940915288952013-06-14T17:53:24.771-04:002013-06-14T17:53:24.771-04:00Yes, and in addition, most if not all of these dea...Yes, and in addition, most if not all of these deaths were completely unexpected by both the characters and the readers who had in many cases come to identify with and root them on. The author in effect has surprisingly yet somewhat justifiably killed what feels to the reader as a little bit of their own self. Only the best authors can pull that off.Baron Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04138430918331887648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-75028060293184838662013-06-14T13:29:45.907-04:002013-06-14T13:29:45.907-04:00And there is no guarantee that commitment to rigor...And there is no guarantee that commitment to rigorous logical analysis will get you good politics. Frege's reactionary politics are an example of this.<br /><br />Nor is all philosophical skepticism of scientism politically reactionary. Friedrich von Hayek was a classical liberal (the Anglophone world not having the copyright on that position) who disliked irrationality and fanaticism in politics, but was also skeptical of anyone with pretentions to manage human affairs -- such as economic activity -- with what they claimed to be a scientific theory.<br /><br />Can't we hear a little more about the "good" Europeans and a little less Anglophilia? Benedetto Croce had some perceptive things to say about literature and philosophy. And Eric Auerbach. Despite both not having been a diet of warm beer and strict empiricism.<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12835949771894768931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-53208030579895015002013-06-14T05:39:15.172-04:002013-06-14T05:39:15.172-04:00Was the barb about not being European an oblique r...Was the barb about not being European an oblique reference to Baudrillard and his "Iraq War [1] didn't happen" "idea"? Your remark about Tyrion reminds me of the post I just finished reading at NewAPPS about GOT characters and in-world theodicy.TheDudeDiogeneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613928663752680375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-50655585138155993842013-06-13T23:53:46.599-04:002013-06-13T23:53:46.599-04:00//Random, senseless death is commonplace throughou...//Random, senseless death is commonplace throughout Martin’s story -- just as in real life, his terribly morbid fans remind us.//<br /><br />The deaths in Martin's books are anything but random. Random would be if Tyrion Lannister suddenly got hit by a meteorite and died. You cannot have that kind of deaths in a book (although I remember there was a movie such a death happened at the end. That movie was a bad one). Deaths in Martin's books are unexpected at times, but never random. They are all murdered, as result of war, betrayal, conspiracy or something mysterious. They never die boring deaths as in real life.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-30759643673083629662013-06-13T17:31:56.501-04:002013-06-13T17:31:56.501-04:00Maybe most sci-fi and fantasy writers are latent o...Maybe most sci-fi and fantasy writers are latent or closet Calvinists.<br /><br />Just a guess.<br /><br />Philip Thrifthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03021615111948806998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-37116072385085851812013-06-13T17:21:17.755-04:002013-06-13T17:21:17.755-04:00I sincerely hope this is tongue in cheek as these ...I sincerely hope this is tongue in cheek as these forms of moralistic literary criticism wind me up no end.<br /><br />Even if G R R Martin is a sadist (unlikely but I will grant it), it is a controlled form of sadism, people buy his books knowing what they are getting into. It is a form of mutual, consensual entertainment.<br /><br />I know Massimo and many others pose limits on the consent argument fashionable in classical liberalism to modern libertarianism but I completely endorse it when it comes to matters of free artistic expression.downquarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15154074859072874873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-89159644259538437072013-06-13T14:12:31.994-04:002013-06-13T14:12:31.994-04:00"he may want to communicate the revulsion we ..."he may want to communicate the revulsion we should feel from the observation of pain and suffering...In [that] case, many moral theories would judge him poorly because he’s taken the role of the manipulator, either of his creations or of his audience."<br /><br />It seems like those moral theories would judge poorly a huge number of storytellers, entertainers, and artists of all kinds, since many of them quite intentionally try to manipulate the emotions of their audiences. It doesn't seem worthwhile to take them seriously.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-64175961635659239902013-06-13T12:33:43.542-04:002013-06-13T12:33:43.542-04:00Esthetics is philosophy's growth industry. Go ...Esthetics is philosophy's growth industry. Go for it. <br />I'm not sure how any of this connects to traditional philosophical problems, nor why it should. <br /><br />But I would like to point out that there is an excellent chance that George R.R. Martin won't finish the series. <br /><br />So the real philosophical issue is the esthetic status of unfinished works, no?S Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11610068751705809284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-66590336056754519242013-06-13T11:30:03.913-04:002013-06-13T11:30:03.913-04:00So, philosophy really has become nothing more than...So, philosophy really has become nothing more than literary criticism?<br /><br />Well, perhaps you're having a bit of fun. Or, you're taking these novels far too seriously. I hope it's the former.ciceronianushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10134836668562326081noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-71966606014839581322013-06-13T09:56:57.146-04:002013-06-13T09:56:57.146-04:00This is a nice, funny essay. Its only flaw is the ...This is a nice, funny essay. Its only flaw is the preposterous and snide remark about "European" philosophy. And I am not saying this as a so-called continental philosopher but as an analytically minded one. But contrary to most analytical philosophers around, I am actually well-educated when it comes to the history of philosophy. So let's get this straight: What has come to be called "analytic philosophy" is an invention of people who (with very few exceptions) read and wrote and thought in German. Bertrand Russell, Alfred Ayer, and later WvOQ are the only significant anglophone philosophers from the inception and later refinement of the project that attempted a 'logical analysis of language' - or, as it is known today, analytic philosophy.<br />Then again, when one sees what the supposed proponents of this tradition write and teach today, it's easy to forget the once-great tradition of anti-metaphysical, strictly logical as well as reflected movement of Logical Empiricism...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17084601198893889528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-64830869486715955632013-06-13T09:17:27.629-04:002013-06-13T09:17:27.629-04:00He's not evil. The idea that he is evil becaus...He's not evil. The idea that he is evil because of what befalls his characters is preposterous. If we want to entertain ourselves by analysing the problem philosophically so as to unpack the issues involved, I'm all for that.<br /><br />But to seriously entertain the idea that he is evil is living up to the most negative stereotypes of philosophers. It's Zeno proving that motion is impossible. If any argument seems to suggest he is evil, then there is something wrong with the argument, and it may be informative to identify what, precisely.<br /><br />As to the flaw I see in the argument for his evil:<br /><br />In order to suffer, one must have an (independent) mind and consciousness. In my view, mind and consciousness are computational processes by brains. There are no computational processes being carried out by the fictional brains of fictional people - and so they have no minds.<br /><br />Instead, minds are fictively attributed to them by the author, but these minds are not real so they cannot suffer. If there is any computational process governing what they think and feel, it is only George R R Martin's imagination, and as smart as he is I doubt he's capable of emulating an entire human mind other than his own in his head.<br /><br />In contrast, if George R R Martin generated his stories by producing a vast and infeasible computer simulation wherein virtual people of comparable complexity to ourselves had adventures in a virtual world, then (depending on your views on philosophy of mind) real suffering could indeed occur, and he might have a moral duty to them.<br /><br />As for people who are yet unborn: as soon as they are born then real suffering can begin. In considering our moral duties to them, we are seeking to limit the potential for real suffering in the future. This is completely unlike the case for fictional characters which have no such potential for real suffering.Disagreeable Mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15258557849869963650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-80714852085252518302013-06-13T08:52:11.583-04:002013-06-13T08:52:11.583-04:00I'd argue that an author's "omnipoten...I'd argue that an author's "omnipotence" is not only limited by the rules of logic, but also by the rules of (good) storytelling and the need to keep up at least a minimum level of suspension of disbelief in the reader, especially in a fantasy setting. (That's e.g. what killed the Sword of Truth series for me.) That greatly reduces GRRM's evilness factor, IMO. (For the record, I didn't make it past book 1, too many boring story threads ;-) )<br /><br />You probably heard this one: why doesn't George RR Martin use Twitter? Because he killed of all 140 characters...chbieckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11038854944875543524noreply@blogger.com