If you're not yet ready to leave the world of powerful rings, we highly recommend “The Fellowship of the Ring.” Step into JRR Tolkien’s beloved literary adventure by downloading a free audiobook version at www.audible.com/ted-ed
Speaking about myths and lessons from them, I'm hoping to see The Hanging Gardens of Babylon in this channel someday. If I'm not mistaken, to this day, its location's remains has yet to be found.
Huh, I had never gotten why the superficial power of the One Ring was invisibility before. The idea of escaping the consequences and judgement for your actions, letting you act freely on your desires really ties into it's whole theme.
Well, the base idea is likely ancient. But the One Ring never made anyone invisible. It allowed them access to the realm of spirits. Which by extension hide the wearer from view in the physical sense. But in the spiritual they shone like a beacon. This is why Frodo putting on the Ring in front of the Nazgul only made both parties stand out to each other. And why wearing the Ring was enough to make it possible for Sauron to find you. Sauron was using his own powers to locate the Ring so any sudden and new beacon in the spirit realm was sure to be a Ring bearer and thus be the focus of his attention.
And since the ring has its own “will”, it can never be used for good, since it corrupts. Bombadil seems to be the only exception, but I don’t know much about the character.
Ive also heard that the power the one ring can actually provide also depends on how powerful you were before hand. Thats why it was entrusted to a hobbit rather than gandalf who wouldnt dare take it himself. Because in gandalfs hands he could level continents and bring the world to its knees.
@@gustoguy6238 You are correct. Even Bombadil couldn't use the ring for good: he was simply unaffected by it. Wise characters like Gandalf and Elrond assure us that the ring can never be used for good, with the only counterargument coming from rather less reliable sources, like Boromir.
Note that invisibility was the only power of the One Ring before it was properly written as the One Ring (e.g. in the unrevised Hobbit). Invisibility rings have been a common fixture of fantasy since Plato so it is likely that Tolkien was simply borrowing from an existing tradition rather than making a direct call back to the Ring of Gyges.
I think we’ve identified 4 types of fun 1) fun in the moment (eating cake) 2) onerous in the moment, but we enjoy the value it brings (exercise) 3) fun in the moment and it brings value (reading) 4) onerous in the moment and brings no value (league of legends)
Everybody comments on how well executed the animation and narration are and, while I agree, I think the background music deserves some recognition, too -- it's so beautiful and fitting!
Indeed! And most interesting it is. Some, shrouded by anonymity act unjustly no doubt. Some even do so with _no_ tangible external benefit! Others very much do not, even when it offers no external benefit to themselves. To me, it all seems reliant on the person's strength of character.
Glaucon: I mean, who WOULDN'T immediately hatch a plan to seduce the queen and murder the king if they got a ring that made them invisible? Me: How oddly specific
Definitely something he thought up in the bathhouse. He was like "Dang that's good; I hope I get the opportunity to bring it up naturally with Socrates"
This allegory is actually based on a real story that happened in Ancient Ionia (Anatolian Greece), minus the magic ring of course. Gyges was the bodyguard of the Lydian king, Candaules, and the two were close friends. One day, Candaules decided to show off his wife, the queen, to Gyges. Gyges did not want to, but the king forced him to, so he hid behind a curtain and watched as the queen undressed. As he tried to escape, he was spotted by the queen, who gave him a choice. He could either kill Candaules and marry the queen to become the new king of Lydia, or he would be killed by the queen's other bodyguards. Gyges reluctantly chose the first option, and assassinated Candaules to become king himself. So, in this version, there are certainly similarities, but the king plays a much more sinister role, and he essentially dooms himself through his pride.
I am actually reading Heroditous' Histories right now. The whole lead up to the rise of the persians because of the greek king Croesus misinterpreting the Oracle...all so fascinating. I also love how he gives different contradicting accounts and explains why he thinks one is correct, but lets the reader decide for themselves. I wish more history was written like that.
As someone who has actually struggled with addiction and understands the power behind the quote: "I can resist everything except temptation." -Oscar Wilde. I firmly am under the opinion that many fail, if not all fail this test like Frodo. But like Frodo, the strongest bearers of strength of character will inevitably redeem themselves and their integrity. Facing the darkness alone and without aid is all too maddening but the strongest carry it farther. When the former addict says, "I don't drink." It is a bound promise to hold oneself to a standard of integrity and fight to become better. It is a struggle but god has life never carried on so much better than forgoing addiction. One day it importance fades but the meaning is eternal.
Ummm Frodo totally succumbs to the ring. Its Golem who ultimately destroys the ring. Also a good portion of the burden had to be carried by Sam at the end. im not saying that your thought isn't good, im just saying that maybe you should probably read the story
I didn't understand it when I was young, but it definitely is in your best interest to maintain your integrity and moral standing in this world, with or without rules or people enforcing them. Even if nobody else ever hears about what you do it will always be there in the back of your mind undermining your self esteem. Every little insignificant impropriety accumulates and impacts everything you say or do, but like a frog in hot water you won't notice until its too late.
humans are very good at rationalizing our deeds and motives. rarely does anyone ever admit, to himself or others, that he has done anything wrong, even if he has.
@@scambammer6102 , I have definitely done wrong things, though nothing major. Nevertheless, it seems like there will always be someone in the world who would judge just about anything we think or say or do as wrong. So, how could we even judge what is right or wrong if not from our own subjective experience?
Humans are social animals. Our survival depended on how well we cooperated with those in our community. It's in our nature to be kind and helpful. That is not to say we can be cruel but to say that is all we are is just lies by those who think they now better. If you don't need a God then you don't need a ruler to know what's right or wrong.
Socrates makes an interesting move by placing the bad consequences of acting unjustly in the "soul" rather than externally, since clearly the unjust often benefit externally. And though it's not true in all cases, it does seem to often be the case that the unjust person struggles with inner peace. It's hard to think of a dictator who was ever truly happy.
But happiness is subjective. A dictator may not think their soul unjust at all. After all, wasn’t Stalin or Mussolini convinced of their own enlightenment?
@@Achilles053 Agreed, it is subjective and hence any deductions made about "bad" deeds and people somewhat lack an understanding of the person's inner self, which of course is always hard to ascertain.
@@akshaytiwari4994 To build upon that, I’d argue it’s impossible for the individual themselves to ascertain an understanding on their inner self. It oscillates frequently
@@Achilles053 Yes and hence any and all manner of debates about ethics circles back on itself. This problem of assuming our truths to be universal truths also distorts many principles in psychology.
TED-ED is such a wonderful platform to learn about different things, with all their animation and everything its just difficult concept made easy to learn and understand.
Just have to say that this was very well animated. Each scene held a lot of information while remaining easy to digest. Not easy to pull off! Well narrated too!
I can't think of the saying but I swear there's one like "little things create a big thing" Like doing a small thing a lot makes it no longer a little thing.
I was hooked from Galadriel's opening line: "Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and lookaround once in a while, you could miss it". I'm shaking with anticipation. Not even Tolkien could envision such a majestic quest to the distant lands of downtown Chicago.
My favorite part is when Legolas says “Middle Earth is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you’re gonna get” simply magnificent writing there.
First, I think it's actually super cool that the one ring was based of an ancient Greek philosophical anecdote, and second, I think it's kind of both the second and third type of good thing under different circumstances. Doing nice things often feels nice in addition to contributing to a social good that you reap benefits from indirectly, but being a good person ISN'T always that easy. Sometimes it's downright painful, and doing the wrong thing is the more immediately gratifying course of action (assuming you don't have a strong immediate sense of guilt that's intense enough to override the immediate gratification of being bad. Which is definitely the case for a lot of people under certain circumstances). I don't think it's necessarily incorrect to say that people avoid doing bad things to avoid long term consequences, even if there's no long term consequences coming from an external source. When you don't exercise, you don't feel bad immediately, but you might start feeling more sluggish and unhealthy as time goes on. There's nobody coming in and doing that to you, its just your body reacting to you not taking care of it. Similarly, that disarray of the soul Socrates talks about isn't an immediate pain that spurs people to good behavior, it's just the spiritual equivalent of having an unhealthy body, which can cause misery in more subtle ways that are harder to pin down.
Correction: Tolkien based the One Ring off of a Germanic story of "Der Ring des Nibelungen", as he took a lot from Germanic, especially Anglo-Saxon culture. Said story was the one inspired by the ring of Gyges, although Tolkien probably read Plato's "Republic" and knew the original story anyway.
Plenty of people do bad things because it benefits them with no fear of consequences. Plenty of people do good things that doesn't immediately benefit them out of empathy. I don't think it's as simple as a single equation for everyone.
The various philosophers' interpretation of justice is more revealing of themselves than of the world at large. Some of them would have no reason to act justly if there was no punishment, some enjoy being kind for the sake of it, and some have an idealistic perception of themselves as just which they have to uphold. Each believes every other human is motivated by the same things as them. Ironically as a whole, i think all their accounts combined work amazingly well to depict that individuals have vastly different survival strategies, and that justice is a blanket attempt to keep them all in check.
That’s actually a really good philosophical insight. I wonder what category it would fall under if this piece of ‘meta-philosophy’ was added to the collection? Would it also be moral philosophy, and if that’s the case, would your theory be considered by itself?
Well justice can be objectively definined, people can have personal opinions about it but justice is not subject to interpretation. We are all predisposed to exhibit animalistic behaviors which punishments help to subdue. Humans are fundamentally motivated by the same things, see Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs for example. People are vastly different and that is more true for humans than of any single species on earth. "Justice" is a check initself because it holds people accountable to a certain standard and can't be seen as a "blanket attempt" for anything because it's very nature is at the heart of human interaction.
@@padarousou some people seek justice as a way of righting the wrongs of the world. In that sense, justice is not a punishment except for those that *want* to wrong others. For people who's personal motivations have them helping others, justice is seen as something to aspire to. They not only recognize the value of justice, but they enjoy pursuing it. Many people do not feel a strong pull to act on harmful "animalistic" desires
@@cakeyeater7392 Justice is a means to stabilize civilization by the inhibition of "wrongdoing" by people to maintain harmony for the greater good. To be a human is to accept these confines of society, and we understand this so intrinsically that it is basically baked into our DNA. With that said, we are still animals, and our instincts aren't so refined so as to make us as tame as robots. Which is to say- no matter how good a person you are, you still have primal instincts just as sure as you have a beating heart. Therefore it is the role of society to provide opportunity for our instincts to sublimate and manifest, while justice serves as a check to make sure it doesn't get out of hand.
I'd say they are both right. Some people are good for the sake of being good while others do it because being good gives you benefits. Being good for the sake of being good can make someone happy while being good for the sake of benefits allows you to work with people to further your own goals.
@@gaylussac6156 But Socrates never said some people are good just for the sake of being good. He said they're good for both reasons together. So it's actually Socrates alone who is right.
I don't think it possible to be both right. However, I think that they are both wrong. They said true facts, but they made wrong conclusions put of that. Using true facts does't necessary means you reached a true conclusion. You should be aware and awake for that point.
@@Normal_user_coniven you should dig deeper in philosophy before you can even say they're both wrong. Or comprehend it a little more to realize something about the topic until you can't and just give up...
being good for the sake of benefits is how i used to operate but it didn't keep me out of trouble and it caused me too much internal conflict now i just try to be good for the sake of being good and i feel so much better but it means i don't like working for others now but i help out more
I do agree with Plato. I had a certain experience where I did something and I went free of punishment but inside me it was eating me alive my own guilt which made me not to abuse what I did before it made me think of the people that got hurt from such action and instead of feeling powerful, it made me feel rotten inside. I tried to correct my error and didn't abuse that power again and it somehow I felt better with myself, my own person felt less rotten so to me I prefer to stay on the side of Justice even if I don't get a reward for it.
Devil's advocate, but I suspect Glaucon would argue that you only felt guilty because you know you would have been punished if it had come to light. You know that you've avoided the natural order of things, and that causes anxiety. Someone who hadn't been taught that it was wrong, and had that teaching reinforced with consistent punishment may not feel guilty about doing it.
@@TheGregamonster No, I just felt that I wouldn't have like if that would have happened to me, I put myself in the shoes of that person and that made me feel bad for that person so much that it made me regret my actions.
@@DaimonAnimations that's my main motivation too. If I think everyone should act this way I must too. Even if I get burned for it I can still have that righteous unapologetic pride that I stood by my morals
@@TheGregamonster If somebody's core values prioritize the wellbeing of others, actions that harm to the wellbeing of others will contradict their core values and mean that they are failing to live their life truly successfully, making them feel sad and unfulfilled. So in this case Glaucan would be incorrect, because it's possible for two people to have completely different core values and therefore goals in life.
@@DaimonAnimations Yes, empathy is real, and is as natural as the desire to take or steal. Whether we do the one or the other has more to do with the material conditions of our existence than it has to do with anything else. For example, if I must steal to survive, I will, but if I don't have that gun to my head, then I won't. _That's_ what the perfect society strives for, therefore: It strives to fulfill the material wants and needs of its members reasonably and equitably enough such that the majority of antisocial behavior simply ceases to be self-serving. Instead, of course, we encourage endless competition and celebrate extreme inequality under global Capital, and as long as that continues, exploitation and anti-social behavior in return will never be brought under control, no matter how iron-fisted authority may become, and no matter how many cops, soldiers, and death squads are employed in crackdown
The fact the giant died.. I wonder if that has significance in the story. You can have all the power- but not escape our inevitable end, even in Harry Potter the one with the invisibility cloak found death in the end. Frodo also boarded a boat at the end of the book of lord of the rings-suggesting he “leaves this world”/kind of has a death that actually isn’t one or is left open.
@@CamerHD yea, everyone that went west sailed to just outside of the undying lands but only Gandalf and the Elves set foot upon it, the Hobbits and Gimli where able to look upon it but were buried on a small island just off the coast.
I'd be too afraid to abuse the ring's power. It makes you invisible, not invincible and incredibly smart. It adds a single layer of advantage, while there are still many layers of "defense" that do not rely on vision to, for example, detect intruders, or detect movement. It may help you get away with petty crimes, but nothing really ambitious
With modern security, you would seriously be limited in what you could do. Robbing a bank, for example, would still be difficult because of the vault door at even the most basic bank. Museums have pressure and weight sensors. Regular sentries would notice paintings floating away and could still hear you strain. A ring of invisibility in the 21st century would let you make pranks and commit petty crimes, like you said, and that's about it.
I've heard about this before. But this channel always brings such great animation and attention to detail, that it's worth learning lessons again just to see how Ted Ed will describe it. Once again, I enjoyed the video and learned a lot!
I like how the giant must have died invisibly. Hiding his himself from the world. Kind of interesting part of the story which you wish you could know more about!
I'm blown away by how beautiful the artwork in this video is, and the method of animation. You are all incredibly talented. It's truly a moving masterpiece!
To use it would not necessarily mean being corrupted by it. If anything, it would allow one to more freely behave as they truly would-one might say it'd distill their nature to its truest, purest form. But that does not mean such a "pure" state would lack malicious intent. To refuse to use such a ring would be to deny the possibilities offered by it, and therefore to accept the consequences (including the negatives) of not doing so. Thus, it ultimately becomes an illusion of choice, with the so-called "corruption" being perceivable from either decision. Had I such a ring, it would most certainly be put to use. At least then I could take comfort in the notion of actively performing change, rather than passively conceding to change; in this manner I would be forced to accept my actions as my own, rather than refute my inactions as beyond my influence. TL,DR: I'd rather try to make use of it and fail in my accomplishments than surrender the potential and guarantee failure. This comes from hoping for the best but expecting the worst.
I agree, and also now see the ring is a lot like money. It doesn't help or corrupt you, it just elevates who you truly are. If you are selfless, you'll put it to use and help others, if you are selfish, you will out it to use and hurt others but serve yourself, and also a middle ground on thinking on you and others. But refusing it would help nobody and serve no one, if you are afraid you would hurt others, you should think first on who you are.
I resent the idea that anyone has a purest form, its impossible to tell how using such a ring would change anyone. Of course that goes for many things in life, but few are quite so drastic. It depends largely on how happy you are with your life currently, if you seek drastic change, the ring may be a force for good for you. If you are happy, it is wiser to stay well away.
An important note about the ring of gyges. It doesn't merely grant a person invisibility, but rather grants the wearer the ability to achieve their own desires. For Geyges it did this by giving him the power of invisibility allowing him to seduce the queen and take over the kingdom.
My empathy is too overwhelming to go full on murder-the-monarch. Like, I can act selfishly sure, anyone can, but the level at which I experience the pain and negative emotions of those around me would make inflicting such pain and suffering too awful to get any benefit out of it. On the other hand, when I do something nice, the level at which I experience the joy of whoever benefitted is reward in and of itself. Basically, for me doing nice things and not doing awful things is related to a punishment/reward system - it’s just very intrinsic and exists whether or not anyone knows what I’m doing.
Well, some people are like that. People often quote the GIFT principle--of people online acting awful because of anonymity--but there are still people online who act nice despite being practically above consequences. Empathy matters a lot because it is there even when nobody's watching.
I dont think empathy is the main factor in play when doing the right thing; even if alone. I think we act righteously in order to keep our image of being "good", both to other people and to ourselves. Basically, people dont want to be a type of person of which they have negative connotations, so even if their first instinct is to do it, they will stop themselves. In a way, it works the same way, but it is also much more brittle.
@@buycraft911miner2 true, avoiding the cognitive dissonance of “I want to think of myself as a good person but here I am doing awful things” can also be a good intrinsic motivator. Actually, I remember there was a study which found that autistic people were more likely than neurotypical people to do the morally correct thing when their actions were anonymous (vs roughly even when no anonymous). While some autistic people, like me, experience more intense empathy, it’s also fairly common for autistic people to experience less intense empathy. But one thing which pretty much occurs across-the-board with autism is a hardwired instinct for patterns. If X, then Y. “X” and “Y” can be simple or complex concepts, but for an autistic brain the pattern between them must and will hold. Any other outcome is intensely confusing. So the kind of cognitive dissonance created by doing something bad while viewing yourself as good is even more visceral and inescapable for an autistic person
Interesting. There is also mentioned in The Prose Edda a ring by the name of Draupnir, "a gold ring possessed by the god Odin with the ability to multiply itself: Every ninth night, eight new rings 'drip' from Draupnir, each one of the same size and weight as the original." This too is an ancient myth. Which came first, however, the ring of Gyges, or the ring of Odin is difficult to say because the Viking mythos come ancient times, somewhere around 800 AD, and are likely far older... There is also the magic ring in the Nibelungenlied, which was enchanted to grant one power over the whole world. But one thing seems certain... Tolkien was likely influenced by Draupnir and the ring of the Nibelungenlied , and the One Ring is a reflection of it, and quite possibly a fusion of the three rings, Draupnir, the Ring of Power, and Gyges.
bro... what power?? Even if I turn invisible I still need to do my homework and study for my exams. Even if I turn invisible the visible me still exist in other people's minds, and I need to keep up that visible aspect of myself if I don't want to lose it. I don't want to lose what I have in life rn. If you are visible other people can approach you and give you stuff. If you are invisible everything you want you have to get for yourself, and you better look after yourself because no one else can.
Invisibility would be useful for some minor skulduggery, like stealing from people without consequence. However, once you get on a roll, the world will catch on that something like this is afoot. Places where valuable things are stored would begin installing systems that do not rely on the visible spectrum or on sight at all. For example, ultrasonic systems for people detection already exist. It's just nat that powerful an ability.
I don't trust people that suggest people only do good because of the consequences they might otherwise suffer, because it tells me they only do good because of potential consequences. There are many situations in the world where doing bad comes without consequences (to the self) and the people that take those opportunities are often the bad ones. Ultimately, it is a trust in a collective good that allows society to function at all.
I agree. Nobody is perfect, but the ones who cant even comprehend true caring for others and internal sense of morality, clearly lack sympathy... Thus they are close psychopath (if not actually being) or something similiar. Those who do have caring will just understand.
I think its just that acting virtuous is kinda like a pass to live in society. It's turned into an unspoken law kinda, we don't necessarily act purely based on the fact it makes u virtuous, but it's kinda like u need to play along certain rules if u don't want to be put in a prison or nuthouse
There will always be consequences from acting unjustly, for a world where there is truly no consequence is a world with only one human. Other humans will learn that to be unjust is to survive, and then the one who did the first unjust deed is the first to face the consequences.
The original ancient Greek word, Thymos (pronounced thü-moss), is translated here as "spirit", but has been translated as several other things. Will, passion, soul, emotion, etc. It's notoriously difficult to translate.
It's pronounced Themos, Θυμός, and it literally mean anger. Also used as breath or soul by our ancestors. Its more like an ethical lesson from Platon rather than a myth per se. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_of_Gyges
@@chalkiasm That's the modern Greek pronunciation. I was using the ancient Greek one. Upsilon used to be pronounced like the German ü before drifting over time to sound like iota (ee in English).
@@solarpunkcyborg4663 No, this is the erasmian pronunciation which is a misconception. We do a lot of ancient Greek at school and the pronunciation is how i wrote it.
@@chalkiasm Even outside of the Erasmian pronunciation, upsilon was pronounced like ü. See Luke Raniere's videos on how the letters were actually pronounced in ancient times. The way it's taught in Greek High schools isn't at all like how it was spoken 2,400 years ago.
If I found myself holding a ring with the ability to grant me what i want without consequence then we would all be well fed with a roof over our head. Ive been through a lot but ive found that in life there is nothing more important than sharing what we have and being grateful for it. Ive been without too often to wish even just hunger on someone else. Be what you want to see in the world and others will follow. Those who dont will wish they had eventually
With all honesty, I would use it. It’s a tool which gives the wearer benefits. Use an invisibility ring with purpose, and just remember everything has consequences. Treat it like a loaded gun.
@@normanclatcher i doubt pointing a ring at someone will be particularly effective at killing them but you do you, i guess if you do it for long enough they might die... of old age.
Answering as if I don’t know of the rings corrupting power: I would go about my life normally, but use the ring to gain the knowledge to correct things I found unjust. If someone stole my lunch at work I would use the ring to watch unseen and find the culprit. If I thought I was being discriminated against I would sit in on a meeting I wasn’t invited to. I would use it as a way to remove chance, but ultimately that would spiral upwards into higher and higher stakes information. So in short, the ring would corrupt me.
There is something similar in Hindu philosophy : 3 personalities - tamsik, rajsik, satvik The one who attains moksha - (gunatit or sarvarambh parityagi)
I want to believe I wouldn't act unjustly if it would be with no consequences, not just because it would benefit myself to live a just life but for the sake of the people around me. I don't know if the human mind is capable of being truly selfless but I am trying to do my best in order to act for the sake of others.
Tolkien constructed his world and story under the inspiration of Western mythology. Norse, Greek, even the story of Atlantis from Plato. If you are familiar with these things you'll see their tracks all over Tokien's works. It's no coincidence that the One Rings themes resemble this story.
Great stuff. Only 2 things I’d improve. 1. Why not say “burdensome” instead of “onerous”? Using simple words is always better if the meaning remains. 2. The point about Socrates can be connected better by stating the conclusion before the explanation. “Socrates believes that virtue belongs to the third class. Because it is an essential part needed to achieve happiness. According to his theory…(3 parts explaination in the video)”
Amazing how Socrates's idea of the 3rd class of the soul has three parts is essentially Freud's theory of the Id, Ego, and Superego. I wonder if Freud derived this theory from Socrates, or if they both managed the come to the same conclusion.
@anoukfleur2513 The Spirit is the superego because the superego refers to the laws instilled into a person. The Reason is ego because the ego is a combination of the Id and Superego vying for control just like how the two horses Spirit and Appetite fight to control Reason.
@@GrndAdmiralThrawn It's might be so, but It makes me think of on how often I see philosophy of different and distant kinds rhyming with each other. There is collaboration, but there also feels like a guiding hand of reason making people arrive to such oddly similar points of view between generations and cultures. If you follow reason, you're inevitably going to fall into the similar places. It's just neat.
@@cj6498 Bro knowledge builds on itself. Freud was a well studied and classically educated man. In that time, few people knew about Plato, but a professor from the Upper-Germanic Academia for sure would have known the concept
I think a person's motivation to be good is dependent upon the person. There's too many factors at play like principlist vs consequentialist, empathy, greed, self consciousness, and personal morals at play to have a unified human behavior.
From what I understand, most people's actions seem dictated by a mix or competition between positive and negative stimuli (punishment vs reward) and their established self image (based on what they understand themselves to be as well as on any role models they have chosen)... With a good smattering of inherited innate instinctive reactions of course.
Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky, Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone, Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die, One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie. One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them, One Ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them, In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie
The dark lord sauron forged in secret a master ring, in this ring he poured his cruelty, malice and will to dominate all of middle earth, one ring to Rule them all
It is a good question. What would you do with such power? Because if you think about it, there aren't many "good" things one can do with invisibility but there are infinite "bad" things. It's almost like the power is meant to be used to take advantage of others. A perfect power to be tempted with.
But what if you use your invisibility to steal money from the richest people and gave it to the poor, or get rid of bad poloticians, i mean that are bad things that serve the good
I believe that people like Sam, who are content with a simple life, would be unaffected by such a curse. They'll probably never get their hands on such an object to begin with.
But even Sam was (very briefly) corrupted by the ring after taking it from Frodo when he thought Frodo had died. He may have been content with a simple life, but he still had desires-- like protecting the shire and his friends. And Frodo, who was also a hobbit content with a simple life, ultimately failed to destroy the ring due to its corruption. Only Tom Bombadil was fully unaffected by the ring, but exactly what he is remains a mystery so it is difficult to say why. Maybe he doesn't truly have any desires, or maybe he is Eru Iluvatar himself i.e. god of all things.
@@piepiedog1 While Tom Bombadil is a mysterious being, he isn't Eru Iluvatar; it is "a fact that" (as far as you can "write facts" on a fictional story) Tom Bombadil would fade as the light would fade from Middle Earth if Sauron had won. Eru Iluvatar of course is a being of several magnitudes higher in power than Sauron, or even Sauron's master (Morgoth). These are described in the Silmarillion and also Gandalf's words (That Tom Bombadil wouldn't be able to survive if Sauron had won) in LOTR. So from these statements, you can very confidently conclude that Tom =/= Eru. Also 3 months late, but what can you do, youtube algorithm.
fun fact: there was a study done (dont remember which year) in one of the liberal states of america where they compared the kindness of those who were born into rich houses vs those who were born into poor houses and became rich. The poor who became rich were less likely to share money and were much ruder than the ones born rich
The notion of the humanity being composed of reason, spirit, and appetite runs an interesting parallel to Freud's theory of human consciousness being composed of id, ego, and superego. Ego is our reasonable self and can make choices and is independent, but is still driven toward structure and order by way of the superego, meanwhile being driven toward hedonism and pleasure by the id. The idea that id develops earliest as children grow and develop, I would wonder if Socrates would agree that appetite arises before reason.
I think I would use the ring to do my job: Gyges, as a messenger, could cross enemy lines without being detected. But I also think I would use the ring to spy on people, and would probably see a lot of things I shouldn't. After all, I'm no angel. But I wouldn't cross the line into murder, because that goes against my nature.
@@davidburns9766 i mean, would would belive someone saying "He has a ring that turns him invicible!" And then again, you can make them look even crazier by using your powers. You can also frame them so they get jailed or something, unless you get recorded or something, you will never need to commit murder hahaha
@@davidburns9766 If someone told you some random schmuck had a magic ring that turned them invisible, would you believe them? Because if you would, I have a bridge to sell you.
Honestly I would just use the ring to observe the world and it’s people without bothering anyone or being confronted. Just wondering around nature without the threat of animals. There’s so many interesting places I’d like to just ‘observe’.
I don't see why we assume that only things that harm others can benefit ourselves. In fact, doing harm even anonymously can bring a lot of heat that even a selfish person would want to avoid. Personally I'd love to use invisibility for kind things, or at worst harmless mischief to entertain myself.
Gotta love archetypes. Every human understands it. Socrates’s argument about the “appetite” driving desire leading to one’s soul’s “disharmony” encapsulates “shadow work” very well.
I believe corruption is something that happens out of inexperience, many people end up regretting decisions but are forced into a life of repeating mistakes because the first domino fell. A good person knows what can be done with the ring that is bad but chooses not to do those things to protect their morals. Morals themselves are often only set later in life as it seems anger/greed/impatience are much stronger emotion when young due to inexperience in life causing inability to cope with inconvenience or stress.
I love how people here not focused on what debate is surrounding the act of "being just" instead, fight about the origin of the story and Tolkien references...I also love Tolkien and LOTR, but, Rings are a kinda universal ornament from ancient time itself. So, every culture have their own story about Rings.
This sentiment is also well-explained in the Christian and Buddhist religions. Self-fulfilment comes from not wanting/falling into fleshly desires. Be okay with who you are, how you are doing and where you are going. If everything were to be smitten away, what would you have left? Knowledge? Knowledge is feeble until you become well-versed in it (think of the Dunning-Krueger effect; confident in a topic until you learn more about it and then become convinced once more when you learn more). If your "spirit" is strong, you'll learn to accept any situation as it comes and accept the responsibilities as they present themselves
I think it all depends on the extent of the ring’s power. Like if I’m holding something at the time will it go invisible what if I grab it while invisible? Or let go while invisible? Can I hold someone’s hand and we both go invisible? Lots of questions to ask.
I’ve been learning a lot about perspective and previous experiences can change the way people think about the world recently (mainly because I got a new therapist and have been getting into a wider circle of people at college). Looking at this concept & the arguments for/against it from that lens is really fascinating. I’m not sure if I’d use the ring or not - Honestly, I can see myself trying to do something good in a bad way. Kinda have a history of that growing up… But I also feel that I’ve learned my lesson there. Guilt is a powerful thing. Also though… there’s a thin line between Justice and revenge. I kind of think the guy who said Justice doesn’t help anyone is thinking more along the lines of vengeance. Socrates is right in that you have to balance it out. Too little justice and people feel insecure about their safety. Cross into vengeance, and then no one’s safe or happy.
You can see how Plato influenced Tolkien AND Lewis. Lewis’ tri-partite model of man in The Abolition of Man is similar, but Lewis’s model uses the Head (reason), the Belly (nature, desire), and the Heart (a divine balance of both).
That's a difficult question. I would consider such a ring a resource. Not using a valuable resource is wasteful. But something like this would also change my worldview. How long before the worldview becomes distorted? What effort it would take to keep the worldview undistorted? The simplest way to solve it would be to discard such a ring or possibly destroy it so others could not use it. Then again, there would come a time when I would be practically forced to use it because it offers a clear solution to a problem.
2 thousand years ago people couldn’t just pose a hypothetical, they had to come up with a whole story with characters, lore, and supernatural elements to say “what if someone could do whatever they wanted without being held accountable for their actions?”
the ring of Gyges would be a gateway to an infinite trove of knowledge. imagine turning invisible and observing animals without them seeing you, or spying on government officials in secret or even just exploring a place with an added level of security.
You could sneak inside a plane and travel everywhere around the world and sneak here and sneak there. Having the power of being invisible is more than enough. Modern camera or sensor might detect us but they will thought you as a ghost not criminals.
@@Glock18401 That's how useful being able to turn manually invisible and all. But the movie called Hollow Man told me otherwise the side effects of such power. You will be treated as an SCP who has gone berserked if you ever misused the power of invisibility for so long.
To answer the question posed in the outro, I would do exactly what the shepherd did. Not because I believe it to be just, but because I believe it to be fun
My view is of situational effectiveness, something games have taught me. Everything can be the best option at a certain point. Society has many, many bad people who go on to reform, sell books, biographies, films, and through connections and wealth gained through inflicting suffering upon others they also get good jobs and connect with powerful people. They are praised, often worshipped, and looked after for the remainder of their lives. At the same time, many people toil every day, suffering relentlessly to make the world a better place, and are ridiculed and victimised by society on a fairly fundamental level. Not all societies are like this, but considerable portion in my experience. What to do about it? I consider the validity of deciing when to be selfless and when to be selfish. Often an unclear choice, but in recent years I've learnt to be considerable more selfish, and I feel significantly happier for it. A person is a part of the society, and so to self invest is to invest in part of the society, just as is true when they selflessly invest. It's just a matter of gauging which investment is most beneficial overall in each given scenario.
This is the one time my level of pessimism would pay off. The ring is a situation dealing with problems and repercussions so grand and all encompassing, that the smartest action you could take as the one to find it , would be to immediately destroy it. Nothing short of complete omnipotence would secure your position such that you could not possibly fall prey to someone that desires the the powers the ring possesses.
I’m not even going to pretend I wouldn’t fall for it. Admittedly, I wouldn’t want to take control of a nation with it, but that’s simply because I’m too lazy and easily exasperated to try to heard that many cats at once.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely is the phrase that comes to mind. The ring of Gyges is a metaphor for power itself, or what happens when there are no consequences for one’s actions. Therefore, both Glaucon and Plato are right- if no consequences for bad actions are enforced, we would have to rely on people’s good consciences, which I have to say are flimsy. “But the hearts of men are easily corrupted” -Galadriel
If I had a ring of invisibility, I think I would use it just to walk into places that I wouldn't normally be allowed to go, and listen to/watch people and things - to look at and experience life from every angle. Honestly, I wouldn't half mind if I just turned invisible irreversibly, haha
