Invisibility

To whom it may concern:

I was watching the 1977 cartoon version of Tolkien's The Hobbit last night. While it is silly in so many ways, something stood out which made me question the plausibility of the concept of invisibility. No. I don't think it's really possible. No. I don't want it to be possible either. Given that it's a fictitious concept, maybe I'm thinking about it too much. However, I, and many writers throughout the ages,  have thought about it a lot, and this movie only re-opened the mental quandry again. 

The concept comes up early and often in man's literary history. In my experience, the earliest I've encountered the theme of invisibility was in Plato's The Republic where he discusses the ring of Gyges. Similar to Tolkien's ring of power, this ring, when worn a certain way, renders the wearer invisible. In like manner, H. G. Wells's The Invisible Man, could be characterized as a modern re-telling of the same episode. Here he wages the same argument and yields the same basic answers (While Wells answers clearly the question of what one would do while invisible if he knew he couldn't be caught, he doesn't wrestle the same way Socrates does about ethics. He implies a lot, but doesn't quite tackle, to my satisfaction, the issues Socrates raises). 

All that said, my basic problem is this: when one is in an invisible state, by means of a ring or other device, what actually is invisible? It's been too long since I read about Gyges or the invisible man in Wells. In Plato, Gyges was not, but in Wells, the invisible person might have to be naked. Does anyone remember specifically? I bring this exact point up because it is at this very point that my metaphysically addicted brain becomes over active. 

Let me expand on my question by allusion to The Hobbit. In this version of the movie, Bilbo wears the ring, waves sting (his small sword) around, and it appears, tho it's not stated as such, that the sword was still visible. I really don't care whether it was or not, my question remains, or at least shifts to: what is the basis of invisibility of inanimate objects? Obviously, Bilbo's clothes were invisible, and if you follow where I'm going, what else would be? I'd always assumed his sword or other carried objects were. However, what becomes of objects or people with whom he comes in contact? I.e. what about if he's riding a pony, carrying a basket, a back pack, or throws something which had previously been in his grasp and presumed invisible? Does it suddenly appear? Does the pony, etc vanish when he wears the ring? This is a problem to me because if it's anything he comes into contact with which becomes invisible, wouldn't the entire world (Universe?) by extension also become invisible because his feet are on the ground?

More recently, Harry Potter is also entrusted with an invisibility cloak by someone. As you'll remember, everything which is covered by it is rendered invisible. Of course, this only raises more questions than it answers to me, because, like the problems stated above, and very kin to the paradox of what container can hold a liquid which can consume anything?; why isn't Potter's invisibility cloak, well . . . invisible too? Or have we passed into the problem of the set of all sets? Maybe I'm digressing. 

Seems sort of self defeating to me. Silly I know, but I'm curious. Maybe I've just thought too much about it. Thankfully, it's never affected my enjoyment of stories where such devices grant the user invisibility. As a matter of fact, I can't imagine a good fantasy tale without at least someone going invisible part of the time. It's kind of like Sci-fi without some time travel. It just seems right, even tho in reality, it seems puzzling and problematic. Ah, well, maybe I need something else to think about.

Until next time,

Contemplate the mysteries (*puts on magic ring*) and remember to breathe

*disappears*