Predestination in Middle-Earth

[Iarwain]

The brief description of the Great Themes in Ainulindale leaves a lot of open space for ideas and theories relating to the reason for events that take place in Middle-Earth. Of course, the idea of predestination and free will brings us into the question of whether or not and in what form time itself existed. If time existed in the sense that the past and the future were nonexistant, and reality was merely a measurement of the causes and effects occuring, then I would say that predestination did not take a hold on the people, places, and things of Middle-Earth. However, if time in Middle-Earth was an extension of constant, all encompassing existance (meaning that the cycle of cause and effect was endlessly connected and that what happened one minute ago could have as great (or small) an effect as what happened one millenium ago), then predestination seems to be woven into the very fabric of life. The determining factor here is Eru, and in the end the question comes down to this: Was Eru's existance without time (infinite in past, present, and future), or was the "beginning" spoken of also the beginning of Eru himself? (therefore making the tales of Ea, Arda, and Middle Earth naught more than a bubble in the nothingness of unexistance)

Personally, I would assume the former opinion, as an infinite "reality" of nonexistence seems completely irrational to me. However, an infinity of existance might seem just as irrational to others. I would very much like to hear opinions on this matter, perhaps with some evidence from the Books, but raw observation and insight is good also.

Many Thanks,
Iarwain

[ September 17, 2003: Message edited by: Iarwain ]

[Eladar]

I think it is generally believed that Eru was based on the God of the Bible. If this is true, then Eru's existance would be eternal. He would have no beginning and no end.

However, if time in Middle-Earth was an extension of constant, all encompassing existance (meaning that the cycle of cause and effect was endlessly connected and that what happened one minute ago could have as great (or small) an effect as what happened one millenium ago), then predestination seems to be woven into the very fabric of life.

From a Christian perspective, predestination does not fit this description. God has a plan and this plan must become reality. Beings with free will may try to fight against God's plan, but all they end up doing is help to bring it about.

[Lord of Angmar]

Beings with free will may try to fight against God's plan, but all they end up doing is help to bring it about.

This is a contradictory statement as "beings of free will" implies that these are beings who have power over their future within the context of their surroundings. A being, in my opinion, can never exert free will who is destined for a certain fate, and thus the two entities conflict greatly.

While Eru may have been partially "based on the God of the Bible," it can generally be agreed that he was not a mint copy of the Christian God. I personally believe that he was eternally existent.

infinite "reality" of nonexistence

That seems quite the oxymoron. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] It is of course inherently illogical to the human mind, as we cannot even begin to comprehend what would be if there was nothing that was. It is, I suppose, just as possible as the eternal existence theory, but Tolkien, I feel, never intended us to be fully aware of Eru's origins or lack thereof.

[the mortal elf]

A thought provoking subject if there ever was one. If I understand the question right (and I'm not sure I do), I would say that beings in Middle Earth did have free will, but that Eru knew what was going to happen. Knowing something is going to happen (made possible by existing in eternity) does not actually make the event happen. I'm not sure if that makes much sense; I can barely understand it [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Another thought: I don't think the 'beginning' marked the beginning of Eru himself. I always assumed that Eru always was and always will be, much like the Christian god. My opinions are rather influenced, though, since I am a Christian.

[Eladar]

This is a contradictory statement as "beings of free will" implies that these are beings who have power over their future within the context of their surroundings.

I don't agree. Free will simply means that one is free to make decisions. One has no control over what will happen in life, but one does have control over the decisions one makes.

[Gurthang]

I tend to agree with you all in the fact that Eru was somewhat modeled after the God of Christian faith(of which I am a part). This can be easily understood by the fact that Tolkien was a Christian himself.

I also lean toward the fact that the inhabitants of Middle Earth did not have free will, and everything that played out was by 'fate', if you pardon the expression.

I would say that beings in Middle Earth did have free will, but that Eru knew what was going to happen.

This theory is not sound. If each being had a free will, then they could essentially change what was going to happen to themselves. Then when it is said that Eru knew the future,... well he could not. If he had a pretense of what was going to happen, and someone changed the course of history so that it did not occur, then he did not really know the future. But if the event did occur, then it all played out according to what he had forseen, and nothing could have been changed by the people of ME. Meaning they had no free will. So the statment does not work.

But yes, my conclusion is that ME beings only beleive they have control of their future, but they are, in fact, going down a chosen path that twists and turns with every
'choice' they make.

[The Saucepan Man]

I also lean toward the fact that the inhabitants of Middle Earth did not have free will, and everything that played out was by 'fate'

But I find that very unsatisfactory. For me, it diminsihes the qualities of the individual characters if each of their actions was predetermined by some guiding hand.

My understanding is that the people of Middle-earth did have free will, and so were able to determine their own courses of action. Events were "predestined" in the sense that, ultimately, Eru's will would prevail. But it was the individual choices made by the characters that determined how and when this would happen.

So, for example, Sauron might have been defeated much earlier had Ar-Pharazon, or the Celebrimbor and the Elves of Eregion, made different choices. On the other hand, his defeat might have been long delayed had Frodo and Sam not shown such courage and determination, or had Beregond and Pippin not managed to save Faramir.

It was for the free people of ME to defeat Sauron. That is made clear on many occasions. Eru knew that Sauron's defeat would come about eventually. But it was the choices that they made, exercising their free will, that determined when and how that would happen. At the same time, His hand was there to guide them, for example through the Istari (and Gandalf in particular) who were sent by the Valar by Eru's will to aid them in their struggle with Sauron, and, arguably, through the "rescue missions" performed by the Eagles. And Eru's hand (the hand of fate) was also present in the "fortuitous" events that assisted in bringing about Sauron's downfall, the most dramatic example being Gollum stumbling on the edge of Mount Doom.

So it was predestined that good (Eru's will) would prevail. And it was the exercise of free will (assisted by Eru's guiding hand) that brought this about.

Or that's my theory, anyway. [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img] [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

[Mithadan]

My view was, in part, stated in another thread as follows:

Re: The role of Fate in Middle Earth

In an attempt to draw this discussion from a generalized discussion of fate/doom/foresight to a Middle Earth specific discussion, I quote the following:

Quote:

"the hearts of Men should seek beyond the world and have no rest therein; but they should have a virtue to shape their life, amid the powers and chances of the world, beyond the Music of the Valar, which is as fate to all things else..." Silmarillion, p.22

Now this suggests that while men have free will, elves and the Valar and all else does not, at least to the extent that any matter derives from the Music. Two points. First, the Music was interrupted or prematurely terminated due to Melkor's disruption (which, as part of the Music is also "as fate"). Second, the vision of Arda which followed also ended early (before the coming of the Man?).

Does this mean Men have free will and elves, etc. do not? What happens when the races interact? Perhaps men are caught up in fate or doom when they deal with elves or the Valar (or even Maiar such as Gandalf or Sauron). Assuming the Music was broad brush strokes of fate, are the details subject to free will? What happens when history goes beyond the point where the Music ended? Do elves, etc. then have free will?

This thread may be found here.

[Osse]

I wholeheartedly agree with Saucepanman! However, i have noticed that many people have likened Eru to the Christian god God. You could say that Eru is based on any of the major deities, including Jupiter, Zues, Tautatis, Odin etc. Although Tolkien himself was Christian, he had very wide views upon the subject of religion and though true to his faith, was not discriminate in either his beliefs or writings, he chose rather to keep an open mind. Though unwittingly he may have modelled some of Eru's traits on those of the Christian God, many more of his traits are drawn from Norse or Scandinavian deities. As far as comparing God and Eru, that's like saying birds share many traits with beasts, it is true yet does not explain things as well as it could. Rather than say; "This is Eru, he is based on God..." I would always think along the lines of "This is Eru, he is." Tolkien invented his angelic powers, and though he may have drawn ideas from other places in their creation, they were never meant to be 'based' on any god. Someone posted earlier that Eru could not possibly know the future. I challenge you to find somewhere that says he cannot. The Music entailed the building of Arda's past, present and future did it not and as Eru was the only one who heard the whole of the Music, it can be said that he knows the history of Arda before it unfolds.

I hold with Saucepanman ( [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img])'s idea, the actions that the characters took were their own, but because Eru knew the outcome (as he designed/desired it himself) 'chance' or 'fate' took opporunte times and caused things to happen.

The subject of fate, or the preordaned in Middle Earth is an elusive one. My commendations to the thread starter.

Osse

[ September 19, 2003: Message edited by: Osse ]

[Iarwain]

I would have to disagree with you, Osse, when you say that Tolkien kept an "open mind" to other faiths. I remember reading in numerous sources that Tolkien felt that Protestant churches were incomplete copies of what he considered to be true Christianity (Roman Catholicism). When C.S. Lewis converted from an Atheist to an Anglican, Tolkien was unhappy. He did not simply rejoyce because Lewis had taken an intrest in God, rather, he was displeased because Lewis took an intrest in God through the wrong church. To take advantage of a common post-modern doctrine (which I strongly disagree with), look at it this way.

"All roads lead to God, what is important is not that a person takes your road, but that they find any road and pursue it." In Tolkien's opinion, this would be untrue, because if all roads lead to God, then what is wrong with the Anglican road, as opposed to the Roman Catholic road? Tolkien saw the path of Catholicism as the right road, and while I don't know about his convictions on heaven, we can at least say that he believed the other roads wouldn't get you as far (if they got you there at all). I think that we must be careful about projecting popular modern ideas on life onto historical figures, and calling it the truth to make them seem better in our minds. We can, for example, say that Robert E. Lee believed in rights for slaves, but that wouldn't make it true. However, that doesn't make him any worse of a general from a Historical prospective either, does it?

Back on subject. I think that Saucepan's idea is sound, but I also think that there is another way of looking at it. Let me begin with a fact, undeniably true: there is only one way that things will happen, and only one way that things have happened. The only way that this could be untrue would be if Middle-Earth (n.b.: when I say Middle-Earth, I mean to include the entire reality of Tolkien's created world.) would be if there were multiple realities converging onto one plain of existence (a most irrational thought), but I won't explore that idea. Therefore, since everything has happened in one way, and in the end everything will happen in one way, the immediate now is the only thing that can be changed. Right now, infinite moments and opportunities are slipping by as I write this post. I could run outside and sprint a mile, or smash a window, or plant a garden, insead of this, but I wouldn't. The truth is that for myself, I cannot imagine right now actually doing anything other than write this post. That might change, of course, if I heard a loud noise and the earth shook, or an elderly person came and asked me to help them carry bags of soil. So, in this immediate possibility, things can affect my choices and cause me to change from a path that I might otherwise have taken, but those things are all results of past events that are also effects, and can be traced back and back endlessly. For example, a meteor hits the earth after it is pulled in by the earth’s gravity, after a comet (theoretically) hits Mars, after it is drawn in by the Sun’s gravity, after it flies light years through space after it breaks off a planet that was thrown into space after it’s star exploded in a supernova, etc., etc. So, let’s jump to the future, perhaps a day from now, when I’m looking back at my actions. They have led me to where I am tomorrow, they have not taken me anywhere else, and they could not have taken me anywhere else unless I acted differently, which I wouldn’t have because my psychological build at the time led me to act as I did. So, I did have a choice, but (forgive the redundancy) I could only have possibly chosen what I chose. This is not to say that there are no points at which my choices (or anyone else’s) are free from instinctive, psychological, or physical limitations, but even with those choices, the past makes them the only way. Allow me to summarize: We are governed for the most part by the past; we are led by the choices that have been made to make the choices that will be made. It all brings us back to the start of the choice: with Eru. I might be able to continue, but at the moment my mind has gone philosophically dead, so if anyone else would like to continue, that would be welcome, otherwise I’ll continue later.

Iarwain

P.S. Perhaps this is all nonsense. Please refute me if you'd like, all I ask is a rational why. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[Finwe]

Eru told Morgoth in the Ainulindalë that all things had their uttermost source in him (Eru), and that whatever he did, however he tried to rebel, everything would end up following the will of Eru. That same principle can be applied to the rest of Middle-earth.

I think that Eru's "plan" was to give the Peoples of Middle-earth a pretty long rein, but still keep an "eye" on them. Their fates were determined (for the most part) by their actions, except for characters like Luthien, Beren, etc., whose fates were essential to Middle-earth's history. Even then, for example, had Thingol agreed to the union of Beren and Luthien, without asking for the Silmaril, Morgoth would have still had all three Jewels, and Earendil probably wouldn't have been able to sail West to ask for the aid of the Valar. Granted, when Morgoth did eventually conquer Beleriand, the Valar might have sent the Host of the West anyway, but it was through Earendil and the Silmaril that Beleriand was saved.

To state my opinion in another way, I think Eru wanted the fates of the people of Middle-earth to be a kind of interpretive dance (rather like the dancing that one does on a dance floor), instead of a rigid, structured, choreographed dance (like ballet or other "performing" dances). He set some loose guidelines for his Children, and then sat back to watch what they did with those guidelines, and what they did with the choices given to them.

[The Saucepan Man]

That might change, of course, if I heard a loud noise and the earth shook, or an elderly person came and asked me to help them carry bags of soil. So, in this immediate possibility, things can affect my choices and cause me to change from a path that I might otherwise have taken

Yes, that's a very good point, and it's one that I was trying to get at when I talked of "fortuitous" events. The free will that the characters have is necessarily influenced, and therefore limited, by the circumstances in which they find themselves, the actions of others and random events. So, for example, if Fred decides (exercising his free will) to go from A to B, but there is an impassable mountain between these two points, he must go round it. He can choose to go round either one way or the other, but cannot choose to make the journey directly. His free choice is therefore limited by circumstances. Similarly, if Mary is told to do something by a person that she respects then, provided that she has no objections to the suggested course of action, then she is more likely to do it than not. Her free will has been influenced and therefore, in a sense, limited.

I see this as the way in which Eru's will influences events in Tolkien's world. For example, Eru (through the Valar) sent the Istari to Middle-earth to aid the free peoples in their struggle against Sauron. Gandalf, the most successful of the Istari, gains their trust so that, when he suggests a particular course of action, they are more likely to follow his advice. In this way he is able to "engineer" desired outcomes. So, by bringing together Bilbo with Thorin's company, he is able to engineer the defeat of Smaug, thus ridding Sauron of a potential ally and placing an obstacle in the way of a possible invasion of Eriador (and Rivendell) by Sauron using the route north of the Misty Mountains. Of course, he also relies to a large extent on providence (ie fortuitous events). As he explained to Frodo, Merry, Pippin and Gimli after the defeat of Sauron:

So it was that the Quest of Erebor set out. I do not suppose that when it started Thorin had any real hope of destroying Smaug. There was no hope. Yet it happened.

An example, of a fortuitous event that helped bring a successful conclusion to a "hopeless" Quest is the presence of the Thrush at the moment Bilbo tells the Dwarves of Smaug's weak spot. A manifestation of the will of Eru? Quite possibly. Similar events occur in LotR, in which the Quest seems similarly hopeless at the outset.

And, of course, a rather fortuitous event occurs as a result of his instigation of the Quest of Erebor that he certainly did not foresee. A certain Ring found itself in the hands of one Bilbo Baggins, rather than (as it no doubt hoped when it abandoned Gollum) the rather less safe hands of a Misty Mountains Goblin.

So, the free will of the protagonists is certainly influenced by the events that occur around them, and some of those events may be interpreted as the manifestation of the divine will of Eru (whether directly or via the guidance of His emissaries).

But it was not just Eru who influenced the free will of the people of Middle-earth. A few months back, there was a discussion about Turin and whether he exercised free will in the various unfortunate choices that he made. The argument was put that he did have free will, but simply exercised it badly, that he made bad judgements as a result of flaws in his character. I disagreed, arguing that, while he (and his kin) did have free will (and undeniably made bad choices on occasions), their free will was severely limited by the curse pronounced by Morgoth upon them. Most directly (and most obviously) via the intervention of Morgoth's emissary, Glaurung, whose hypnotic gaze and deceptions played a large part in bringing about their misfortunes. But I feeel that the curse also had a less direct influence on them so that, whatever choices they made, it would inevitably turn out bad for them. Their fate was predestined as a result of Morgoth's curse.

So, yes exterior influences did have a limiting effect on the free will of the protagonists. And both Eru and Morgoth were able to take advantage of this to bring about the outcomes that they desired. Of course, Eru's will being the stronger, it ultimately prevailed over that of Morgoth and Sauron, his successor.

[Iarwain]

I must say that you've ended my discussion sooner that I'd have desired, but I believe that you came to the perfect conclusion. Thank you. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

It would be nice, though, if someone were to draft a logic contrary to Saucepan's, if only for the sake of discussion. I fear that will not happen.

Iarwain

[The Saucepan Man]

Aw, come on. There's plenty of room for discussion yet. [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

The aforementioned discussion concerning Turin and free will went on for at least two pages. [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img] [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

[Iarwain]

Okay, okay. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] How's this. Since you brought up Turin, let's consider Double Predestination. Is it possible that Eru was subject to Calvinist doctrine? [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

But really, why would Eru intervene in the quest of Erebor, but allow the house of Hurin to go down the drain without a gleam of hope for redemption?

Iarwain

[The Saucepan Man]

Hey, Iarwain, I just noticed that you got round to choosing your PT at last! Great choice - it certainly suits you. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

But really, why would Eru intervene in the quest of Erebor, but allow the house of Hurin to go down the drain without a gleam of hope for redemption?

A good question. Eru does undoubtedly intervene in the Quest of Erebor, at least indirectly through Gandalf if not directly (although I like my Thrush as divine intervention idea [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] ).

The Silmarillion is a profoundly tragic book (at least until Morgoth gets his final come uppance) and there are certainly less examples of fortuitous events occuring to aid the characters in their struggles than in the decidedly more upbeat The Hobbit and LotR.

Maybe it links in with Mithadan's reference to the Elves being more bound up in the Music of the Ainur and therefore less subject to the vagaries of free will. The First Age was primarily the Age of the Elves. Perhaps, being closer to the Music, they were less in need of guidance through divine intervention. Although that does not explain why Morgoth was allowed to bring them to the brink of destruction, or why the Houses of Men (and Hurin's line in particular) were so neglected by the divine powers ...

[GaladrieloftheOlden]

Well, if you're thinking about free will in Middle Earth, you'd probably get at some point to the idea of free will in The Lord of the Rings itself. And, if you think about it- what would be the point of all the heroics and choices made and hardships endured be if it all happened not because of the perseverance of Frodo and co., but because of some already written "fate." Wouldn't that completely ruin all the good "lessons" from the books?

This goes for Tolkien's other books too...

-Menelien

[Iarwain]

But the idea is not that fate is "pre-written", it is that it is pre-done. You're a Matrix fan, Menelien, so think to the scene in Reloaded wherein Neo is talking to the Oracle on a bench. That conversation deals with much of the same discussion as this thread. We are destined to choose, and while choices in reality are never nearly as focused as Neo's, they do have effects on others, and are led up to in much the same fashion.

Iarwain

[ September 19, 2003: Message edited by: Iarwain ]

[Eladar]

There is another story that I believe reflects how predestination works in Middle-earth, the story of Arvedui.

'Arvedui was indded the last king, as his name signifies. It is said that this name was given to him at bis birth by Mabeth the Seer, who said to his father: "Arvedui you shall call him, for he will be the last in Arthedain. Though a choice will come to the Dunedain, and if they take the one that seems less hopeful, then your son will change his name and become king of a great real. If not, then much sorrow and many lives of men shall pass, until the Dundain arise and are united again."

Using The Saucepan Man's example of the unpassable mountain, perhaps the mountain only appears to be unpassable. We can aways try the impossible and it may lead to success, but most of the time people choose the safe and wise course. Only the most brave and noble will choose the difficult road through which victory might be achieved.

One comment on Eru representing other gods such as Oden, I agree that Tolkien worked many elements of multiple myths into his myth, but Eru most closely resembles the God of the Bible. Eru is the source of all creation. I'm not aware of any others who make this claim.

[Lord of Angmar]

I return from a short leave of absense (my electricity was taken away from me yesterday by Hurricane Isabel) and find a thread in the midst of extremely deep philosophical discussion. I probably should not be so bold as to jump into the middle of such a debate, but I feel the need to make a short post on behalf of my earlier reply and in defense of several members.

"This is a contradictory statement as 'beings of free will' implies that these are beings who have power over their future within the context of their surroundings."[Lord of Angmar]

I don't agree. Free will simply means that one is free to make decisions. One has no control over what will happen in life, but one does have control over the decisions one makes. (Eladar)

I do not follow your line of thinking. I never implied that free will means having complete control over the course of one's life. I define free will as the exertion of power through decision-making over one's surroundings. This does not mean that one controls their surroundings, merely that one can and will influence them with one's actions.

This theory is not sound. If each being had a free will, then they could essentially change what was going to happen to themselves. Then when it is said that Eru knew the future,... well he could not. (Gurthang)

Wrong, Gurthang. The mortal elf's point was that Eru, being a creature of eternity who can see everything before, during and after it happens, would be able to see the actions that one of the creatures of Middle Earth has taken, is taking or will take, without actually influencing the continuum that would lead that creature to the action. Very simply, he would be foreseeing the definite future (as if it had already taken place) without influencing any of the variables that would inevitably lead to that future.

I tend to agree with the Saucepan Man on most of the points made thus far within this thread, but I have not the time to reply to all, and I feel it would be an injustice to this fine topic to begin delving deeper into the subject matter without giving everyone's post a more thorough read.

Cheers!
-Angmar

[Eladar]

I never implied that free will means having complete control over the course of one's life. I define free will as the exertion of power through decision-making over one's surroundings. This does not mean that one controls their surroundings, merely that one can and will influence them with one's actions.

My apologies for the misunderstanding.

[Finwe]

Couldn't the fall of Hurin's house also be caused by hubris, among other things? There are plenty of What-Ifs that we can apply to that situation. If Morwen had agreed to come to Doriath, perhaps things might have gone differently. If Turin hadn't become ensnared by Glaurung, things would have happened differently.

[Iarwain]

What then, could have changed this hubris (which most definately was present)? What caused it? I think its root is found in Hurin himself. Why was Hurin so proud? Perhaps because he was a renowned fighter. Perhaps because he was famed throughout Beleriand. Perhaps his lineage encouraged it. Who knows? All we know is that it was passed on to Turin, and it influenced Morwen. It is however, just as everything else, an effect of past decisions which we would never be able to trace.

Does Eru have prejudice against certain crimes that drive people to destruction? Is he more forgiving to the greedy than the arrogant?

Iarwain

[Eladar]

Does Eru have prejudice against certain crimes that drive people to destruction? Is he more forgiving to the greedy than the arrogant?

Why is Turin's cursed life Eru's fault?

[Iarwain]

It isn't. I don't mean to blame Eru at all. The question is why Eru favored the Quest for Erebor over the house of Hurin, by helping one, and letting the other recieve the full penalty of their actions.

Iarwain

[Eladar]

The question is why Eru favored the Quest for Erebor over the house of Hurin, by helping one, and letting the other recieve the full penalty of their actions.

I think what you are having a problem with is timing. Smaug needed to be destroyed. Bilbo was meant to find the ring. It just so happened that both of these events happened during the quest.

During Hurin/Turin's time, it was not yet time for the personification of evil to be defeated in Middle-earth.

[ September 20, 2003: Message edited by: Eladar ]

[Elfwine]

Well, Iarlain, I do believe I've found your discussion...or am I mistaken? Anyway, much thanks for your warm welcome. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Now to business. First, hello everyone! I hope no one minds my jumping in. Anyway, I read through the whole of the 25 current posts, but I'm still not sure what the REAL discussion/question is at this point. In the beginning, it seemed to be one of set destiny vs. free will, but The Saucepan Man tried to bring more of Middle-Earth into it. From there, it shifted back and forth, and now I am left a bit confused.

I don't mean to disobey the newly posted law by asking for guidance, but I cannot help but wish to know what's going on before I post my opinion. Eh...yes... [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img]

[Man of the Old Hope]

So it was predestined that good (Eru's will) would prevail. And it was the exercise of free will (assisted by Eru's guiding hand) that brought this about.

The Saucepan Man's summary is pretty much in line with the Roman Catholic understanding of predestination (consult the Cathechism of the Catholic Church for particulars), which, for all his knowledge and use of (especially) northern European mythologies, would be the greatest influence on Tolkien's conception of Eru Iluvatar's providence.

And while Osse is correct in the statement about "angelic powers" (the Valar are very much like the pantheons seen in various religions - though for my money, far more interesting - perhaps this is how a Christian would construct a pre-Christian "paganism"?), Iarwain's understanding of Tolkien's Catholic (Christian) particularism contra the theological pluralism suggested by Osse is also correct, as seen for example in any number of Tolkien's letters now in published form.

[Man of the Old Hope]

Reading my post, I realized that a clarification or distinction of terms is probably in order. Christian theology (and to a large degree, we should understand Tolkien's cosmology and "theology" under that umbrella) would more aptly use the term "providence" for what is being discussed here, a more general concept which includes predestination. Predestination more specifically refers to God's salvation of humankind rather than generally to the telos, the End or goal of God's creation, or to the progression of particular events.

[Iarwain]

Yes, I agree with you, oh Hopeful one. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] By the way, welcome to the Downs, and may your corpse rot in peace. I can't wait to hear more.

Providence is definately a better word than predestination when dealing with the Catholic Church, but not with everyone. Providence suggests that God is in control, and can change events in anyway He should see fit. It is the concept of Divine Omnipotence. Predestination is taking providence a step further, by suggesting that we are all headed in one direction, to a goal that has already been chosen, or reached. Also, this means that we are bound to take certain actions towards that goal of our own choice, but our choices will in some cases be more or less limited. Double Predestination, a step further than Predestination, is the belief that each person has already been chosen (before birth) for a path that they cannot diverge from, and will end up damned or redeemed, all by the will of God. Personally, I hold Double Predestination to be a tad on the dark side, but do consider Predestination a logical possibility that can be explored. My personal theology is not the topic at hand however, and thus all three options (and more) are available. To add to the list, we can consider the idea of a benign Eru, but my feeling is that we can instantly disprove this theory with solid proof from the texts (i.e. the sinking of Numenor).

Iarwain

[Elfwine]

Ah! My apologies, Iarwain. Typos should burn.

Through these last few posts, I seem to have gotten a rough idea of where this conversation has gone. And I agree with a few of the former comments made; I don't believe Tolkien ever meant for his audience to debate upon such a subject. I think he established Eru as 'the higher power', and nothing else. Perhaps there was some other purpose for the scribblings on this character, but that purpose remains veiled, and I think Tolkien did not mean for us to know the exact and distinct characteristics of this 'god' and the traditions and religions surrounding him. But that's just my opinion - which, by the way, is probably not very valuable, considering the fact that I'm not all that familiar with Tolkien's texts and back texts. Excuse my ignorance. Even so, like I said, I do not believe Tolkien meant for us to discuss anything this deep, or even to know as much as we do. Like any author, he recorded his thoughts and dreams into the wonderful books that have taken us all. But some thoughts and dreams are left unfinished. And though untouched upon, they take nothing away from the story, rich in itself with enough detail to throw off any scholar. Again, just one person's opinion.

[Iarwain]

Such well worded newcomers we have lately! 'Twas a most kind manner of addressing this topic, especially when you have negative views on it. I'm happy you posted, Elfwine. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] And I'm even happier that I didn't misjudge you from your first post.

That, however, doesn't change my dissagreement. While the precise Theology of Eru, will remain mysterious, I see no reason to ask questions of the events shown in Tolkien's works. What remains is a discussion of whether or not choice can be caused. From any and all scenerios in Middle-Earth, do we see potential for complete freedom of choice wherein one "good" cannot be placed over another "bad" in immediate consequences, or do we see a world in which characters are biased by their experiences, histories, and connections, making the scale more unequal and unsure than eternity might reflect. Perhaps, we might even see a Middle-Earth in which choices are visibly eternal, and the actions of a single person mark their infinite course onward through cause and effect towards or away from the ultimate goal. It is all a matter of vision: do characters see the future as immediate and infinitely limited to the present, or do they see reality as an expanse that has to be mapped as they take on the journey, or do they have a birds eye view on life, living all at once and once forever?

That was, of course merely a rephrasing of the topic post, but I hope it has made everything a bit clearer.


Iarwain

[Eladar]

It is all a matter of vision: do characters see the future as immediate and infinitely limited to the present, or do they see reality as an expanse that has to be mapped as they take on the journey, or do they have a birds eye view on life, living all at once and once forever?

I would guess the closest choice would be "an expanse that has to be mapped as they take on the journey".

It is clear that the peoples of Middle-earth knew that life continues after death. Men knew that their souls passed beyond this earth. The Dwarves knew that their souls would meet up with their creator and help him rebuild after the final battle.

I think this knowledge would make either the first or last view impossible.

[ September 22, 2003: Message edited by: Eladar ]

[Gwaihir the Windlord]

Well, Iarwain, which one of these describes your view on your life? The characters are people living in time, just the same.

I have always taken it that 'themes' or sort of general predestination, fate, is to occur in Middle-Earth and known vaguely by the Valar (Mandos and Manwe having a somewhat clearer view of it). Beyond the start of the Dominion of Men, again a 'theme' that it is known will happen, predestination is still governed by the Music of the Ainur; but the Valar do not know it.

If it was all strict, and the Valar had known exactly what would happen in the first three ages, how could they actually do anything? Make mistakes, like Melkor did? Surely, they would have knowledge of what was to come and would be able to avoid it. Therefore fate seems not to be absolute but more vague, as I say.

A world where free will exists, but in which it is known by God/Illuvatar that everything will be such a way, is imaginable though. Decisions could be made entirely ungoverned by fate, but still predestined -- not actually influenced but merely known that it 'will happen' of its own accord by fate. Rather an irritating thought, but there it is. This would be Illuvatar rather than the Valar though (if that was the way it was), in the mythology.

[Iarwain]

I agree, and to answer your question, I believe we are "destined to choose". Oxymoronic, I know, but allow me to explain. I believe that an Eru placed (more or less) rational beings in the world, and those being made choices immediately, and those choices were completely free from all influence. That, however, was not the end of choice. Generations continue to make choices more and more effected by both God and man, and limited by the choices of their predecessors. Compare it to an addiction: you start out free to accept or deny, and you choose to accept, consequentially, you experience a new sensation that you may or may not enjoy, so you continue. After the fourth (or less) time, your choice is very limited, and you are starting to accept the addiction as a part of you. Eventually, you mentally cannot refuse the urge, and you have no choice. Of course the world isn't addictive in this way, but are choices can be generationally more or less limited by our predecessors. That's what I think. Thanks for asking. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]


Iarwain