Second-guessing and Misunderstanding Tolkien

[Tyelkormo the Fair]

Indeed. people choose their own way of how they relate to other people and the world. Other people and the world just suffer in many ways as a result. sadly, many (most?) people have no idea they should be suffering in some way as 'uninformed' is their chosen way to relate.

We cannot all be informed on everything... yet we should determine where we have differing thoughts or opinions to use those as a catalyst for 'becoming informed'.

But then... you see... there is the Religion of Opinion in play as well. (Not that it's one of Ent's pet peeves or something.)

I practically feel physical pain when I'm proven wrong, which is why I don't talk very much about topics I lack information
I don't know how some people confidently do that.but I guess the confidence plays a pig part

 

[Ent]

I practically feel physical pain when I'm proven wrong

Ent appreciates your candor.
That said, Ent tries never to look at it this way. What we 'know' is always based only on the information we have at any given time. There is always other information.

This is why 'opinions' are so dreadful to hold onto as though they're 'the golden rule'. AND, it's why almost everything we think we know, is but an opinion... and nothing more. Ever.

Working to achieve a "this is what I think at the present time given the information at hand" attitude and approach to all we do, is wisdom.

In most respects, to truly "think we know" something for sure, and dig our heels in about it and insist on it, is pure arrogance.

And oh how mankind is given to arrogance..!!

 

[Tyelkormo the Fair]

Ent appreciates your candor.
That said, Ent tries never to look at it this way. What we 'know' is always based only on the information we have at any given time. There is always other information.

This is why 'opinions' are so dreadful to hold onto as though they're 'the golden rule'. AND, it's why almost everything we think we know, is but an opinion... and nothing more. Ever.

Working to achieve a "this is what I think at the present time given the information at hand" attitude and approach to all we do, is wisdom.

In most respects, to truly "think we know" something for sure, and dig our heels in about it and insist on it, is pure arrogance.

And oh how mankind is given to arrogance..!!

I think there should be balance in this regard...to change our opinion in the blink of an eye is as foolish as clinging to it despite all the evidence that claims it's wrong

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

Here's another one for the list:
Answer to Why did Frodo leave the undying lands? by Michael McConnell https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Frodo...share=9f76c7de&srid=u37ljO&target_type=answer

 

[Ent]

in the blink of an eye

it takes research, and is never done 'in the blink of an eye'.
We receive new input. We verify its sources. We verify its veracity. We put it in context. We set aside our current position. We consider the matter in its own light. We compare the matter to our current position. We seek out other input as needed to settle any differences. We formulate a new standpoint... or reject our 'current' or reject the 'new information' as the trail tells us we need to do.

It serves to either 1) validate our current thinking. 2) adjust our current thinking. 3) replace our current thinking. 4) reveal an entirely new and different 'truth' none of the participants have yet seen.

Ent would never suggest changing in the blink of an eye. 'We must NOT be hasty."
Nor must we think what we think isn't really what it IS.

It's just the difference between holding things loosely, or tightly.

And, often, being arrogant about what we thinki we know, rather than being humble enough to recognize we may be a few crayons short of a full box on the information side of things.

 

[Ent]

Here's another one for the list

Well, this fellow does appear to have a degree in the abstract. Perhaps that factors in?

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

He did "abstract" something that didn't happen.

 

[Ent]

there should be balance in this regard

Ent entirely agrees with this.
We do know what we know based on certain received information, some or much of which may well be fact. When there are things that differ, we question our own posture, and why we believe what we believe, as well as the new information we receive.

This Tree always enjoys the posts of @Elthir . Why? Because he 'knows' a bunch??" Uncertain...! Unconfirmed..!
BUT -
1) - he shares his sources. 2) - he shares why he accepts the sources he accepts, and not necessarily others. 3) he can be seen at times to question his own 'surmises' and 'conclusions'. 4) he can even be seen at times to share "he thinks he may see it differently" in light of new evidence. But, "he's not certain yet."

Yes, there are times the good cat is somewhat declarative... but he also gives room for other felines (or creatures) using the same litter box he uses. (a rare thing, by the way.)

Ent has never yet needed to bring out the pooper scooper to eliminate the furry beast's droppings... but has been able to print, save, and consider them as worth pursuit.

In many respects, we could all learn from the Coated One... not just from what he shares... (which should always be validated and confirmed) but also from his "How" in the sharing.

 

[Tyelkormo the Fair]

it takes research, and is never done 'in the blink of an eye'.
We receive new input. We verify its sources. We verify its veracity. We put it in context. We set aside our current position. We consider the matter in its own light. We compare the matter to our current position. We seek out other input as needed to settle any differences. We formulate a new standpoint... or reject our 'current' or reject the 'new information' as the trail tells us we need to do.

It serves to either 1) validate our current thinking. 2) adjust our current thinking. 3) replace our current thinking. 4) reveal an entirely new and different 'truth' none of the participants have yet seen.

Ent would never suggest changing in the blink of an eye. 'We must NOT be hasty."
Nor must we think what we think isn't really what it IS.

It's just the difference between holding things loosely, or tightly.

And, often, being arrogant about what we thinki we know, rather than being humble enough to recognize we may be a few crayons short of a full box on the information side of things.

Just to clear any misunderstanding,I didn't mean you suggest that,I was simply making an observation

 

[Ent]

I was simply making an observation

And a good one, providing for further elucidation as well..!

p.s. - in case you haven't noticed, Ent talks way too much.

 

[Tyelkormo the Fair]

And a good one, providing for further elucidation as well..!

p.s. - in case you haven't noticed, Ent talks way too much.

I enjoy your posts!

 

[Olorgando]

Some ancient Greek that another ancient Greek named Plato was fond of quoting is rumored to have said "I know that I know nothing".
Further rumor (or was it Plato's writings, anyway that part that might have survived un-mutilated by later editors?) seems to show that he regularly shredded the arguments of the "know-it-alls" of his time - meaning, I suppose, that they knew less than nothing?

Taking up the term "Religion of Opinion" mentioned by @Ent quite frequently, my experience has been that those who cling to opinions most "religiously" tend to be the least "informed". Perhaps the effect first noticed by David Dunning and Justin Kruger in 1999 has something to do with it. Which has to do with the term "cognitive bias", as I understand it a selective reception of information: information confirming an already existing bias (prejudice) is accepted, while information contradicting it is dismissed. I would guess that this cognitive bias also takes no account of the reliability of any given source.

And being able to judge that reliability has been in a precipitous fall for several years, as special-interest liars (usually well-financed by usually dubious - and rarely acknowledged by the perpetrators of the lies - sources) have swamped the Internet with tidal waves of lies.

Lies aka propaganda inevitably have an upsurge in war situations, as seen in World War II and the following "Cold War" (which was anything but "cold" in innumerous places outside the territory of the competing blocs). Both "cold" and "hot" wars have been rising in frequency and violence in recent years. For the "hot" wars as seen in the west, it probably simply means they have - sometimes only briefly - "made the news". Which the special-interest liars try, on a "second front", to keep flooded by irrelevant trivia.

 

[Ent]

My dear @Olorgando, what a pleasant proposition and plethora of ponderable phrases..!!
Well worth the e-Ink to produce, and time to peruse.
But lest we become too 'political', we hope we don't delve into the last paragraph in too much detail.

 

[Elbereth Vala Varda]

Ent talks way too much.

I wouldn't agree. I appreciate everything that you have to say, no matter what it is, and whether it is perhaps phrased in a much more lyrically extended form. You're never too hasty.

 

[Radaghast]

And the inanity keeps rollin' on...

If Gandalf can control animals such as eagles and butterflies, why can't he command others to help him against Sauron?

 

[Elbereth Vala Varda]

In fairness, that one seems to be the product of a film-raised LOTR-fan. However, we all know you can't really claim yourself a superfan of Tolkien's work unless you read his actual pieces.

 

[Tyelkormo the Fair]

And the inanity keeps rollin' on...

Gandalfwhite and the 13 dwarves

 

[Ent]

as though he actually 'controlled' animals...!!! (the rest can be even more totally ignored.)
People's thought processes are just... suspect..!!

 

[Radaghast]

In LOTR, if elves are immortal, with thousands of years of training, why are they so weak at fighting?

Why are you so weak at thinking?

 

[Tyelkormo the Fair]

I can't find the link to the question right now but it was in Quora
"If elves were to be reborn again in Valinor why didn't just kill themselves and not make the trip via the sea?"🙂