Who would have fallen?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

You make it sound like such a black and white proposition. I agree that the Ring is not a completely inanimate object. But does it have the ability to analyze a situation and then "decide" whether or not it will "allow" itself to be used? How aware is it? How sentient is it?

Ok, let me try this:

I'd say it is sentient to some degree, but the point is that it is only usable by someone in the 'right' frame of mind (ie someone who has gone a long way down the road to becoming like Sauron, & is able to use it in the only way that it is possible to use it - ie one would not be able to use it to do 'good'. Using it would be very similar to using crack cocaine - the addiction would begin almost instantaneously.

It's also stated that Sauron is "exerting all his power to find it or draw it to himself". Are the Ring's "actions" more "reactions" to this signal that Sauron is broadcasting? You assume that Sauron working on (or through) the Ring means he knows where it is and what it is doing. This need not be so. When I listen to my Walkman, the radio station works through it without knowing where my Walkman is or what it is doing. A computer can act "autonomously", but it obviously does not necessarily follow that it is intelligent or aware. The Ring, when worn, creates a sort of conduit to Sauron -- but clearly it lacks the ability to call out to him or to make a report on its location and situation.

But the Walkman & computer are not 'evil'. I think this is the point. The Ring is evil - evil is a(n im)moral 'force'. Its not a case that the Ring can be used for evil, but that it is evil in & of itself. As if your computer could only be used to access paedophilia because it was designed to do only that & also that if you used your computer you would become instantly addicted to that. More so, as if it was able to draw you to use it, had that purpose as part of its making. That doesn't, I accept, require your computer to be 'autonomous' - but it would bebehaving as if it was.

Also, I notice that you were quick to point out earlier in the thread that Gandalf and Galadriel's ideas about how the Ring works are only theoretical and cannot be relied upon, but are now willing to take Gandalf's speculation that the Ring "decided" to "abandon" Gollum at face value. Which way do you want it?

I'm going by what the Ring does - based on that I think Gandalf's 'speculation' here is correct.

[Mister Underhill]

Originally Posted by davem

I think this is the point. The Ring is evil

Well, I've not said otherwise. Is this the point? I thought we were discussing the degree to which the Ring is sentient or not, capable of "submitting" to use or not, etc.

What I get from your argument is that you go all the way to the sentience side of the scale with the Ring, attributing to it mind, awareness, will, agenda. For my own part, I'd probably slide it down the scale a ways, not all the way to inanimate computer, but more like a blind, dumb, animalistic, radioactive sort of evil. If it were indeed as sentient as you posit, it could and would, I think, have devised a much more effective plan for returning to its master.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

What I get from your argument is that you go all the way to the sentience side of the scale with the Ring, attributing to it mind, awareness, will, agenda. For my own part, I'd probably slide it down the scale a ways, not all the way to inanimate computer, but more like a blind, dumb, animalistic, radioactive sort of evil. If it were indeed as sentient as you posit, it could and would, I think, have devised a much more effective plan for returning to its master.

No - it had to work with the 'raw materials' to hand. Not everyone would succumb to its call. In fact, it had to be subtle & work mostly on those who were ignorant of its true nature. The Ring was not a Shelob - who would fit your description:

a blind, dumb, animalistic, radioactive sort of evil.

I think the Ring is much closer to Sauron: conscious, logical, purposeful, but rather limited in what it could do to get its way. I think the movies were correct in that at least.

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by Mister Underhill

Is this the point?

I suppose the point that davem is making is that something cannot be evil if it is not sentient. Not least because a non-sentient "being" has no will and cannot therefore make a choice for itself between good and evil.

The way I see it, the Ring is able to influence its surroundings and adapt itself to its environment in order to achieve its goal of returning to its master. But it does not do so in a logical, coherent, intelligent manner. It is acting out of instinct, if you like. And the "instinct" can be described as evil because the one who instilled it with such "instinct" was evil.

[Mister Underhill]

Originally Posted by SPM

something cannot be evil if it is not sentient

Ah, very interesting idea, even though it seems to contradict--

But it does not do so in a logical, coherent, intelligent manner. It is acting out of instinct, if you like.

--which I agree with very much. This is what I was trying to articulate in my last post.

Is the Ring "evil" because of the "choices it makes" or is it "evil" because of the intrinsic effect it has, aside from any sentience? A lump of plutonium carried around in my pocket would have a pretty evil effect on me after awhile, but not because of sentient intent, if you can see what I mean and not read my metaphor too literally.

[The Saucepan Man]

Well, I am not so sure that I agree with davem that the Ring itself is evil. It's "effect" or "influence", the product of its "instinct", is evil because it was made by someone who was evil and who intended it to behave in that way.

But I think that davem is correct in the sense that, unlike a lump of plutonium or a gun, it can, if used, only be used for evil. Or, to put it another way, only evil can come of using it.

[Mister Underhill]

Originally Posted by SPM

But I think that davem is correct in the sense that, unlike a lump of plutonium or a gun, it can, if used, only be used for evil. Or, to put it another way, only evil can come of using it.

True enough, and I've never disputed that -- though I suppose I could by pulling out that well-thumbed Eru quote: "...no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined."