Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
11-26-2002, 04:09 PM | #1 | |||||||||
A Northern Soul
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Valinor
Posts: 1,847
|
Of Evil, Free will, and Fate (from 'Gollum')
The discussion eventually reached a point where it was about free will, and good and evil. I decided to move it to a new thread. We were talking Gollum - evil or not? I mentioned him being ultimately good since he was part of Eru's design. You can catch up on anything we covered there if you'd like.
Kiara's last post in that thread: Quote:
You're right. Every being in Ea has free will. About free will... This quote from The Silmarillion (that I quoted earlier) shows exactly what you speak of. In part, the free will of his beings is what brings Eru's plan together. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
How can a tainted spirit become good again? More importantly, can a tainted spirit bring itself to repent and become good again? Does it require encouragement or special conditions? We saw Melkor fall, and told of his possible repentance and restoration. He chose not to take that route though. Did he think there was another way? Is there another way out of evil? Are there other examples from Middle-earth that come to mind? We know all beings have free will - they can choose good or evil. For a being to fall in completely to evil from day one can't be innate. How does evil get it's start? Does characteristics tend to stir evil that could also yield good? Where does it go wrong? Again, are there examples of these in Middle-earth? When someone does evil, and yet the end result is good, does that make the evil-doer good, or only the being who has authority over that evil-doer? Was the Ring's evil irreversible? Were there ways around it? What flaws do you see in the characters (that are mentally) so affected by Ring that make them forget their goodness? Why did the evil take in Boromir when Legolas, Gimli, Aragorn, Gandalf, Merry, and Pippin weren't so notably affected by it? Why weren't they? Aragorn and Gandalf easily let the Ring away from them when Boromir and Galadriel could not. In each pair mentioned, there's a great soldier of Gondor and a very wise member of the White Council. How did the evil creep up in Boromir/Galadriel but not Aragorn/Gandalf? I could probably go on forever, but I'd like to hear others' thoughts.
__________________
...take counsel with thyself, and remember who and what thou art. Last edited by Legolas; 02-02-2012 at 11:17 PM. |
|||||||||
11-26-2002, 05:32 PM | #2 | |
Wight
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Earthsea, or London
Posts: 175
|
I think that the question of free will has represented a challenge to reasoning and insight on many levels over the ages - philosophical, religious, and scientific - and continues to do so. For example, the current notions of genetic determinism, from Dawkins' 'selfish gene' supposition, to oppositional theories of teleological evolution (Shepherd et al), is a hot area.
So I don't come to the debate with answers, and perhaps not expecting them, either. But in terms of Tolkien's narrative and cosmology, the inherent conundrum of free will within a creation (or subcreation) mythos was something he identified and reflected upon, as shown in the quotes above, and in his letter to Milton Waldman - Quote:
Whilst all of these are interesting (to me, at least), I think it is important first of all to refute as far as possible the notion of a clumsy determinism such as " 'Evil' A murdered 'Good' B, and 'Evil' C murdered 'Good' D, but then 'Evil' A murdered 'Evil' C before being brought to justice by 'Good' E, so A was in fact 'Good' in the end". Does anybody really think life is that simple? We all commit and are subject to small and large injustices and acts of selfishness throughout our lives - if you do not accept that divine judgement takes place then there are no grounds for assuming things are or should be neatly wrapped up or resolved, and if you DO believe in divine judgement then surely it is equally impossible to resolve the vast and jumbled array of positives and negatives that we can perceive. I have told with some authority that the "inner peace" of any believer comes not from a logical rationalisation of empirically observed incidents, but from a transcendental act of faith and/or moment of revelation. Can we therefore actually say that redemption is the same as "turning out alright in a causal way in the end"? I think redemption in a spiritual sense is something different from any kind of abstract justice (or return to equilibrium), and can occur as a result of free will - therefore being considered seperately from the notion of a divine plan or inevitable resolution. The 'toleration' of free will, as Tolkien puts it, even to the extent of subcreation by powerful beings such as Melkor exercising that free will, is half of the conundrum to which he refers above. The concept that, in the presence of a (or the) Creator, free will operates within limited boundaries is not really a workable axiom ... it's a bit like saying "You can do what you want, as long as what you want is what I want". In the end, free will is either free or not, the concept itself cannot be subject to gradations and still exist as that concept. But to make matters more complicated [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img], the other half of the conundrum is the only way in which can attempt to address the first! That is to say, how does any evil arise from utter goodness (at any level of subcreation). If something - anything - is complete, consistent and all there is, for example a blank piece of white paper, how do black spots suddenly appear on the whiteness? If they were not there to start with, they must have been created ... even in order to be 'permitted', they must have been created. The way in which each sub-contradiction addresses the other is that through the presence of free will, evil can arise as a result of good. But for that free will to occur, it must be willed (created) and tolerated. You can indeed argue that an acceptable axiomatic principle cannot be created from two flawed axioms ... and you would inevitably end up in a reflection on a priori and a posteriori assertions, or descend into Kantian analytics and synthetics (oh yes, lets [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]). Behind all this is the logical problem of causality itself. You cannot really logically have a first cause (or final cause) which are somehow exempt from empirically observable causality. I hope I haven't gone too way out (in other words I think I have). But what my line of argument is intended to illustrate is the irreconcilable nature of causality (which is our only rational means of measuring justice, good, evil and so on) with divinity (which is our only means of rationalising the actual existence of good, evil etc. - if you accept that existence). It seems clear to me that Tolkien never resolved this level of philosophical problem, or indeed attempted to. And perhaps we could consider that 'contradiction' as an inherent and inevitable state might be something with which we can accept or acknowledge our humanity. And humanity is what the narrative is about .... not a dry system of determinist pinball or deus ex machina reassurance. Somebody else say something [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] .... Peace Kalessin [ November 26, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ] |
|
11-26-2002, 06:20 PM | #3 | ||
Spectre of Capitalism
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Battling evil bureaucrats at Zeta Aquilae
Posts: 987
|
Wow. Nice post, Legolas.
I am not the Tolkien Scholar that you seem to be, with the quotes you so aptly provided, but I do think I can answer some of your questions on some philosophical level. In any transgression, whether falling from the grace of the Creator, or getting a parking ticket, the transgressor can only receive absolution and forgiveness from the ultimate authority. The fact that you pay your parking fine and then go free is not the point -- you are still "guilty" of having committed the crime, you have merely endured the punishment for that crime. Nor is it a matter of having the matter tried in court and being found "not guilty" of the parking violation -- in that case, you are found to have *never committed the crime* to begin with, and so you have no need for restoration and redemption. The only way to be redeemed after having been found *guilty* is to be "pardoned" by the giver of the law, or by his appointed surrogates. If you appeal to the Governor of your state and ask for a pardon for your parking ticket, only he has the authority to grant that pardon. The pardon means that, regardless of the fact that you were indeed guilty parked in a red zone, you are to be treated as if the crime had never occurred, as if you are innocent. The question then becomes, why does the Creator not grant such pardons as a matter of course? And the answer is, He cannot pardons all such cases, because that would be the same as not having the law to begin with. Why have a law if violators will always be pardoned? Why indeed. Laws are made, whether in the human realm or the higher realms, to restrain certain actions which will harm the greater good. In the case of Eru, he sets boundaries upon Creation, within which the Valar have free will to act, because Eru, being all-knowing, knows which actions are likely to result in the greatest possible good for His creation. To violate those boundaries means to step away from the greatest possible good to something lesser - and the only reason a being would do that is becuase he/she/it is not interested in good for all, but only in his/her/its own "good", at the expense of others. The laws exist as a guide within which the "righteous" (for lack of a better word) will voluntarily remain, and to reveal the one(s) who are acting in selfish interest without regard for the consequences. This then becomes the definition of "evil", i.e. acting to benefit or please oneself reagrdless of the damaging consequences to others" -- in one word, "selfishness." But back to the main question -- how does a tainted spirit become good again? Tolkien made it so that all Melkor would have to do was place himself voluntarily back within the boundaries he had violated. The problem with Melkor was that he, like Satan in the Christian tradition, wanted to be numero uno. He didn't want to serve Eru's purposes, he wanted to BE Eru. His journeys into the void to find the Flame Imperishable were made to set himself up as a potential rival for Eru's position. He was not trying to find "another way", he wanted to be THE way, aggandizing power unto himself and crushing all who oppose. He did not want to submit to Eru's definitions of "good" and "evil" (by the boundaries He set), he wanted to be "evil" (to have all creation please and serve his whims) and escape the personal consequences. To the question of "Is there another way out of evil," again, the bounds of the law and the release from the consequences of violating that law are the sole province of the law maker. Eru says that he only need submit to Eru's authority and he will be free to act -- he will be "forgiven". Melkor's reply, to misquote Dante, "Better to reign in the Void than to serve in Valinor." At all times it was his choice to continue in his rebellion -- at any time he could have chosen to stop rebelling and serve. I suppose you *could* say that there is another way out of evil, and that is to overpower the One who lawfully calls you evil and then change or abolish the law. Melkor found out the hard way that his arms were too short to box with Eru. Quote:
Quote:
As for the Ring's effect on characters, it seems to have more influence on those, like Melkor and Sauron, who desired power to dominate the wills of others. The hobbits, being a quiet and peaceful folk, seemed to have the greatest resistance to the Ring's evil becuase they were not raised to desire to rule over others. They were pretty much a live-and-let-live society. Aragorn had a pretty good handle on his destiny, but did not desire to rule as a tyrant, but as a great freeing benevolence. He was confident within himself, and thus was less affected by the Ring than Boromir, who (in my opinion)appeared to be a bit less confident in his leadership, and wanted the Ring to "shore up" his ineffectiveness. Gandalf more than any knew the corrupting power of the Ring in advance, and so actively resisted it. Galadriel, well, she had some rebellious "history" way back around the time of Feanor and the Doom of Mandos, and might have been more tempted to the power than some. Just my two cents worth, folks. Feel free to counter, riposte, and flame away!
__________________
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. ~~ Marcus Aurelius |
||
11-26-2002, 10:15 PM | #4 | |||||||||||||||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
That was a digression, but I couldn't help myself. The question here is of course not about the real world. It is about Tolkien's universe and, perhaps, the Christian universe. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
[ November 27, 2002: Message edited by: Aiwendil ] |
|||||||||||||||
11-27-2002, 12:40 AM | #5 |
Deadnight Chanter
|
I would have liked to plunge into the midst of this pool, those being my favorite subjects, but alas, I'm too busy for a moment. So, for now, I present to your attention this and this, with the promise to come bakc later on [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]
[ November 27, 2002: Message edited by: HerenIstarion ]
__________________
Egroeg Ihkhsal - Would you believe in the love at first sight? - Yes I'm certain that it happens all the time! |
11-27-2002, 12:55 AM | #6 |
Wight
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: austin
Posts: 169
|
Great topic.
Every post is thoughtful and interesting. I'm no theologian but find this sort of conjecture interesting and enlightening. Here's my take: Although I tend to fall on the Arminian end of Christianity, I think free will and sovreignty are not diametrically opposed. Both are forces at work in the fall and redemption of middle earth and (in Christian context) real earth. In Christianity there is an understanding that God created mankind to have fellowship with Him. Several attributes of God that are generally accepted are that He is good, He is love, He does not abide with evil, He is sovreign, omnipotent and omnipresent. (In middle earth one gets the sense that some of this involvement is delegated to Manwe, et al.) Within these parameters it makes sense to me that free will would have to be inherent to any being that has a relationship with Him. It is not possible for will-less beings to love or be loved. Presupposing the necessity of a redemptive experience to restore relationship, then it would seem that beings would need to submit their wills to him in order to receive redemption. Sam's journey from servant to mayor; from gardener to ring bearer and warrior represent a sort of redemptive process that occurs when free will is used to submit to a transforming process. Sam submitted to Gandalf and Frodo in the matter of Gollum. The moment when in despair Sam finds himself crying out in elvish (a language he does not speak) illustrates this sort of free will submission. He is willing to approach his source of help on whatever terms necessary rather than trying to define his own terms for the relationship. Sam's willingness to carry the ring, return it, carry Frodo, abide Gollum are all ways in which Sam submits himself to the quest and undergoes a redemptive transformation. I find Tolkien often balances free will with destiny. Although the ring was never supposed to be made, once it came into existence, provision was made to deal with it. It came into the hands of Isuldur, but he chose to act outside good. Gollum chose evil from the moment the ring entered his life in his murder of Feagol. Though he was utterly ruined he "still had some part of play in it's destruction." Gandalf says that Frodo and Bilbo were "meant" to bear the ring. Sam makes the comment "what a story we are in." From the time the ring came into existence through the free will of Malikor, there was an adaptation on the part of Ea and the Valinor to redeem the situation and restore Middle Earth to an existence that is reconciled to the intents of it's creator. The Dwarves is another example of this sort the redemption. Dwarves were not an intended, but rather a result of Aule's impatience. Once they existed, in spite of their shortcomings, they were incorporated into Middle Earth and given a place in it's workings for good in that they were enemies of orcs and entered into alliances with men and elves culminating in Gimli's participation in the fellowship. His relationship with Galadriel and Legolas represent a transforming redemption. Finally there is Frodo's moment at the Cracks of Doom. He has willed himself to do what he was "meant" to do and yet in the final moment he doesn't have the will within himself to throw in the ring. Gollum acting out of evil motives completes the good task and plays the role Gandalf hints at. Yet free will gestures like Bilbo's pity, Frodo's pity, Sam's submission are as as instrumental in getting Gollum in place as his own evil intents or any fate that may have brought him there. It is further complicated in considering that at any moment Gollum might have repented. This would be the outcome desired by a good and loving diety. Yet an omniscient Supreme Being would know Gollum's choice and fully comprehend whether or not this is sane choice. There are moments when Gollum creeps into camp and almost submits to a transforming redepption, but the desire for the ring is too strong. This raises the question as to whether sin is irresistible to human will. Frodo's experience at the Cracks of Doom almost suggests that Tolkien thinks redemption might require a measure of divine intervention coupled with free will.
__________________
Do justly, love mercy, walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8 |
11-27-2002, 10:55 AM | #7 | ||
Wight
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Earthsea, or London
Posts: 175
|
Thenamir, some interesting reasoning, but - like Tolkien - you do not resolve the essential contradictions that I outlined above. You said ...
Quote:
You address the seond part of the puzzle as follows - Quote:
If everything has been foreseen and predestined, nothing can be called 'free' will. We may as well be robots, programmed with a delusion of consciousness and unable to perceive that all our acts are guided. Perhaps there is some link here to current developments in artificial intelligence, but I won't go there [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]. Now, you don't need to to believe in divine intervention to accept that ALL actions are predestined and inevitable. If you simply follow the principle of empirical causality to it's inevitable end it is an unavoidable conclusion that whatever happens is the only thing that could possibly happen in those given circumstances (and all the circumstances leading up to it). In pure logical science there is no such thing as 'coincidence' or 'choice'. But with a nod to Chaos theory, what keeps it interesting is that the multiplicity of variables and precendents to any given moment are generally impossible to account for sufficently to enable US to know what the (inevitable) next step will be. I should stress I do not personally adhere to absolutist causal determinism, and I have real problems with the Dawkins 'selfish gene' supposition. But if you are attempting to assert a valid and logical morality in which both divinity and free will play a part, you are going to have to address these contradictions. And, as discussed, it is only through Faith or through blurring the definitions of words such as 'destiny' that one can accept that free will can exist alongside omniscient omnipotence, or that any negative consequences of free will do not in effect morally tarnish the Creator. If 2000 years of theology and philosophy have failed to really resolve these issues, I'm not suggesting I can [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]. But what I will say is that somehow, we CAN and do intuitively accept and understand this dichotomy, and the technical contradictions do NOT invalidate the profound effect of morality. Hume discussed this, the ability to incorporate 'assumptions' into consciousness rather than only accepting empirical absolutes - and in this case, the assumptions themselves are contradictory but NOT irreconcilable with our humanity. This is the great leap of human consciousness, the fluidity of mind and ability to create and dismantle artifice ... and through this we can find Tolkien inspiring, moving and meaningful without needing to, or being able to, entirely rationalise a worldview in absolute and logical terms. Aiwendil [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] I have a feeling you've agreed with me more on this post than on any other I can remember! Hopefully my responses above address part of your excellent post, and I take your point about free will and the laws of physics, except that if free will is a 'created' factor and the laws of physics/morality etc. are likewise 'created', then our freedom is constrained by 'moral design' rather than amoral causality, and therefore would require faith to simply accept the constraints as just. If Angels came and interacted with men, I'm pretty sure within a short term some right-minded citizen would take them to litigation on the basis that their ability to fly and pass between dimensions gave them an unfair competitive advantage and led to discrimination [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] The issue of redemption in itself, is a particularly interesting concept. Are we saying that ALL redemption is contingent on the judgement of the Law giver or Creator? Is it NEVER possible to redeem oneself through conscience, voluntary acts of contrition or compensation? This presents a challenge that has again been addressed in theological studies ... as before perhaps,it is only Faith that can allow us to accept this arbitrary rigor. I also agree strongly that if you place the discussion within absolute boundaries - how do things work on Middle Earth / what did Tolkien intend etc. - you can straightforwardly accept the fact that within this narrative such axioms ARE, whether or not they can be entirely "valid". But our ability to accept them in a world created by Tolkien AND in 'our' real world is not so different - and our challenges to these assertions here can just as much be made to Tolkien's world as part of this discussion. After all, as I pointed out Tolkien himself was at least aware of the philosophical problems - and I still maintain he did not resolve them. By the way, I'm enjoying your 'subjective / objective' discussion on another recent thread, and am exercising great self-discipline in not butting in ... we've been there before [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]. In your articulate reflections on the Manichean vs Boetheian hypotheses you make the point that Tolkien's ambiguity is a strong point. I agree whole-heartedly, and believe that this illustrates the two key points - one, that he did not resolve the philosophical problems into a a dry and mechanistic moral causality - and secondly, that contradictions, ambiguities and mysticism are an essential part of humanity and creativity, as much a given as any empirical absolutes. This is really the thrust of my whole argument ... in relation to the wider issues and in the bubble of ME. That contradictions and ambiguities, in perception, action and morality are what being human is, and are arguably at the root of our creative experience. Good posts, everyone [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] Peace Kalessin [ November 27, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ] |
||
11-27-2002, 12:26 PM | #8 | |
Dead and Loving It
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: The land of fast cars and loud guitars.
Posts: 361
|
Quote:
|
|
11-27-2002, 01:50 PM | #9 |
Animated Skeleton
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: wish 'twere Ireland
Posts: 50
|
I have been skimming, so forgive me if this goes off track again or repeats something someone else has said. My thought is this, and it's related to the "how can black spots form on a pefectly white [object]" and someone along there replied that free-will is where the possibility even arises----
Well, what about an object that has become black? Is there any way for it to become pure again? (I know this is a re-statement of some of my previous questions and of those of others, though in illustrative form, but I plead indulgence as I am yet trying to wade my way through all this heavy and quickly satiating talk and therefore have to remind myself of what's going on). My own thought is that it is impossible to make it white again, unless there is a new white object with which to exchange it (and obviously my illustration points to the need of a redeemer). It is interesting, to me, that Tolkien's work points to that need, and yet does not supply it. This is not because I feel that it is required in order to make his work complete, but rather because his world is so much reflective of ours, that I wonder if it could have continued on with out the "necessary" (in my opinion) intervention of Eru to redeem those that have no hope of "fixing" themselves. I doubt that anyone could have truly resisted the ring, or from committing at least one "bad" or "evil" action in their lives, and yet would all their good out-weigh the one bad that they had done? It seems to me that the redemption of Tolkien's character is dependent solely upon their final decision in life--is their final action good or evil? Anyone following me? What do you think?
__________________
"What if you slept, and what if in your sleep you dreamed, and what if, in your dream, you went to paradise and there plucked a beautiful flower...and what if when you awoke, you held that flower in your hand? Ah, what then?" |
12-02-2002, 06:09 PM | #10 | |
Spectre of Capitalism
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Battling evil bureaucrats at Zeta Aquilae
Posts: 987
|
Kalessin
I did not expressly address the issue of free will versus causal determinism for two reasons. One, the topic is way way off Tolkien, and has been debated by theologians for thousands of years, and two, I posted my opinions on the topic in another thread, the title of which utterly escapes me at the moment, but which I will diligently attempt to find and post a link. A summation of that post follows. We as finite and limited beings can have little or no concept of the import and consequences of *creating* (as Eru creates, not as a couple bearing a child) a wholly autonomous independent being apart from oneself. The closest analogy would be parents having children. You train them in the ways you believe to be just and fair and right, but they will still have their independent streak - they are unique beings whose inputs and information-base are not identical to the parents, and therefore will be able to come, eventually, to their won conclusions about life, the universe, and everything. They are not as the dwarves were initially created by Aule, utterly dependant on their creator for movement and thought, and lifeless should the creator turn his attention elsewhere. The point being, once you create a truly autonomous, rational, independant intelligence, capable of weighing options, seeking alternatives, and evaluating the terms and consequences of independantly-made decisions and then acting without the intervention or assistance of the creator, that being is then "on its own". Whatever decisions it then makes cannot be attributed to the maker. It has become an actor/reactor *choosing* its direction and actions. The maker can reason, persuade, inform, demonstrate, in an effort to get the being to make decisions that agree with the intentions of the maker, but once the being is "activated" by the maker its reasoning and thought processes are to be left completely untouched by the coercive hand of the maker, otherwise you are indeed a puppet, a robot. Thus Eru did. He informed his creations that, as an omniscient being, he knew there were certain principles by which each and all should abide in order to make the universe "harmonious" (an appropriate word considering the music of creation) in all aspects. Quote:
The question is then begged, why would Melkor, knowing the consequences as laid down by Eru, continue on his course? Well, I heard somneone once say that if someone is going to kill you, you have three ways to prevent it -- run, talk them out of it, or kill them first. Obviously Melkor knew he could not run from the creator of the universe in which he lived. Perhaps, but not likely, he thought he could get Eru to change his mind ("talk him out of it") if he could take over Ea and hold it hostage. More likely, he thought he could find the Flame Imperishable and become a rival to Eru, perhaps even "kill him before he kills me" type of reasoning. The point is, Eru left him free to act. My children are free to act, but they know that certain actions will result in disciplinary moves, and others will result in rewards. But their freedom of choice cannot be removed from them. The disciplinary actions are intended to motivate the children to do the "right" thing. I as a human parent can be mistaken about what is "right", but an omniscient being cannot. When a benevolent, all-knowing, all-powerful being says to you "You *really* shouldn't go down that road", it is not free-thinking to go there anyway -- it is suicide.
__________________
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. ~~ Marcus Aurelius |
|
12-02-2002, 08:37 PM | #11 | ||||||||
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
|
Kalessin:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||||
12-03-2002, 01:06 PM | #12 | |
Animated Skeleton
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: wish 'twere Ireland
Posts: 50
|
Quote:
I have never studied "causal determinism" so I claim ignorance on this part and hope you will condescend to still read my comment, but: If we (or any of the characters in LotR) cannot determine to do good all the time, then there must be a greater (and pure) will that can determine and act good out of the evil that "we" had committed, and that makes for a very unique relationship with that entity of a pure (as in goodness) will. Your argument seems to skirt that issue (which is fine), but I think it is based to much on the humanistic standpoint that we can "fix" ourselves and the world. Does it leave room for an amazing possiblity of an intimate relationship with a higher-power (akin to the idea of Illuvatar)? Am I completely off-base here? [ December 03, 2002: Message edited by: Kiara ]
__________________
"What if you slept, and what if in your sleep you dreamed, and what if, in your dream, you went to paradise and there plucked a beautiful flower...and what if when you awoke, you held that flower in your hand? Ah, what then?" |
|
12-06-2002, 06:54 PM | #13 | |
Spectre of Capitalism
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Battling evil bureaucrats at Zeta Aquilae
Posts: 987
|
You can never make yourself "un-guilty" once you are guilty, unless you are pardoned by the law-giver. Therefore the conditions of becoming un-guilty are set by the law-giver.
Quote:
Think of this: which is the more serious crime, punching one of your peers, or punching a policeman? Is it considered a greater crime for someone to murder a co-worker or the leader of their country? Insofar as the victim is higher in lawful authority over the perpetrator, even so is a crime against that authority more serious. It follows logically that if a Being is infinitely high in authority over a subordinate, a crime against that Being would be infinite in its seriousness and require an infinite punishment. Now take Eru, the Infinite, Almighty, Just, and Benevolent lawgiver of Arda and Middle Earth. Violating Eru's principles would be a crime of infinite seriousness against a Being of Infinite Authority. Melkor, a finite being, can NEVER make any acts of contrition or compensation to atone for himself in this case -- he is completely at the mercy of the lawgiver. The Lawgiver is, at any time, perfectly just in inflicting upon the perpetrator whatever punishment he sees fit to impose, for as long as he wishes. And yet Eru does not -- he has mercy. He stays his judgement. He says all that you need to do is "stop being bad," or better yet, "stop wanting to be bad," and you are welcome, and gives opportunity after opportunity to come back into the fold...opportunities that are rejected again and again. After waiting a suitable period so that none can doubt his justice, the unrepentant one is removed to a place where he can do no more evil -- the void. The point is, in Middle Earth as in the real world, doing what *you* think will "make up for" whatever you did wrong will get you nowhere, unless it coincides with what the lawgiver says is to be done. Thenamir of Rohan Chaplain, Rohan Theological Society [ December 06, 2002: Message edited by: Thenamir ]
__________________
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. ~~ Marcus Aurelius |
|
12-06-2002, 09:28 PM | #14 | |
Wight
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Earthsea, or London
Posts: 175
|
Lots of great posts since my last foray here [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]
Thenamir, you make a valid point about how, in the context of LotR, free will can be considered valid as an outcome of an initial creation. I still think the notion of omniscience is problematic, even in this context, of which more later - but I take your point. Later, in relation to redemption, you say - Quote:
However, I can accept in a fairly pragmatic way that, in a divinely created world, one who attempts to destroy the creator is going to get a pretty big slap [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] In relation to redemption, you and others are positing that the favourable judgement of the lawgiver/creator is the only way in which individual redemption can be achieved. My question would be, is that the case even if in deed AND in thought AND intention, the wrongdoer is contrite, remorseful and repentant? If so, does that square with the notion of forgiveness? Aiwendil, my knowledge of quantum mechanics is limited to say the least. Schrodinger's Cat seems like a modern version of Xeno's Arrow, more of a semantic duality based on the protocol of scientific statements ... and the last piece I read on the wave/particle duality seemed to give credence to teleological hypotheses - but at any rate, the more uncertainty the better, as far I can see [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]. Accepting the rejection of causal determinism at face value (you've got quantum mechanics, I'm still relying on Hume's rather older refutation) presents us with a different problem - the notion of omniscience itself. Is it feasible that the Divine will, or first cause, can indeed have foreknowledge of infinite chains of variability? And I think we may be raising the same question here - if so, does not that first cause bear some responsibility for Evil? The parent-child analogy is unsatisfactory here ... no parent would allow their child to burn down the neighbourhood, just because they knew that in a few years the descendants and relatives of the victims would get their own back. And this, the conundrum that Tolkien himself identified as a recurrent theme (Evil arising from apparent Good), is an aspect of ongoing theological debate, and, in individual cases, crises of faith. I do not believe it is resolved in a neat way by Tolkien, or that even a working definition of free will is acceptable if we also assume omniscience. But I don't think this particular issue is some flaw in Tolkien's writing, or even his own theology. His work touches on these profound themes from a perspective of traditional faith, in which there is an inference of mystery and the unknowable in human terms. However, I do think that these narrative involvements with ultimate divinity and cosmogony make The Silmarillion a different piece of work from Lord of the Rings. However one reads Tolkien's contextual notes into LotR and incorporates the short chronology of events into his wider mythos, it seems to me that the morality fable in LotR is more self-sufficient, a narrative integral to meaning and vice versa. Perhaps this explains its appeal ... but of course this is only one humble opinion, and indeed it is probably unfair to consider The Silmarillion as a work completed to the author's satisfaction. No doubt there was more to come [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] Peace. Kalessin [ December 06, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ] |
|
12-07-2002, 05:05 PM | #15 |
Spectre of Capitalism
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Battling evil bureaucrats at Zeta Aquilae
Posts: 987
|
Kalessin:
Re: punching a rich man versus a beggar -- the rich man and the beggar, though very different in social stature, are on equal footing before the law. In an ideal society, a rich man has no authority over the poor man, and no right to force or coerce obedience from him -- they are equals in the eyes of the law, and that is certainly how it should be, and how Tolkien's world was written. The difference is not one of social standing, but of lawful authority. Thus, the crime committed is not against the person, (else the punishments would be equal) but against the authority represented by that person. That authority is usually granted by a greater authority to a lesser one. In the case of a policeman, it is the authority granted by all the people of the locality which that policeman represents. Thus, punching a peer is a crime committed against one person, while punching a policeman is a crime committed against all the law-abiding persons of that city who have placed their combined will in the office of that policeman to protect them from criminals. It follows, therefore, that punching a policeman is actually two crimes, first of harming the man, and second, of rebelling against the authority represented by the fact that that person is in uniform. Ergo, punching a policeman is a more serious act than punching a peer. It follows, therefore, that if the authority being resisted or rejected is greater, then the seriousness and consequences increase in proportion to the level of authority of the entity being resisted or rejected. In the case of the President, it is the authority granted by all the people of the United States via the vehicle of the U.S. Constitution. In the case of resisting or rebelling against Eru (or God), it is the authority of the creator, owner and sustainer of the entire universe, the benvolent almighty being who represents the greatest good for every created thing. Now *that's* Authority! Trying to overthrow the school board might be local news, and might not even be a crime. Trying to overthrow the government of the United States (whether you think it's a good idea or not) is a much more serious crime. Trying to overthrow the Almighty Creator Eru so that you can take his place...that's a crime of infinite magnitude. And if you think about it, every time anyone rejects the law of God and does something contrary to His principles, isn't that an attempt to overthrow the rightful authority of Eru/God over that life? [ December 08, 2002: Message edited by: Thenamir ]
__________________
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. ~~ Marcus Aurelius |
12-08-2002, 05:34 PM | #16 | |
Wight
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Earthsea, or London
Posts: 175
|
Thenamir, I am still unsure about your argument concerning justice as a validation of the state, the executive - or status quo.
You say Quote:
In the end, surely true justice would be that the act itself is judged (the intention, circumstances etc.) and punished, not that any judgment is based upon the authority of the victim. You could then argue that, yes, in an ideal world this would be the case - yet still a non-human being such as Eru would have overarching powers to punish any direct challenge to Divine authority. Eru is not bound to accept any human concept (or gesture) of redemption. But if this is the case, the question of first cause again arises. If a punishment so terrible will inevitably follow a damning judgement, the crime itself must be of awesome magnitude. If this crime was foreknown, and allowed, and either a result of, or an aspect of, a Free Will which is no more than a gift (or act of will) from the original Creator, then Free Will was given with this knowledge ... and, it is certainly possible to argue, with this purpose. As I said, I am not convinced Tolkien or 2,000 years of theological philosophy provide a satisfactory answer to the conundrum. Unlike the 2,000 years etc., Tolkien was perhaps not attempting to, nor should he bear any responsibility for leaving the question unanswered. That the question is asked, and explored, with such resonance and depth is his contribution. Peace [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] Kalessin |
|
01-08-2003, 11:55 AM | #17 | |
Spectre of Capitalism
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Battling evil bureaucrats at Zeta Aquilae
Posts: 987
|
Kalessin
Quote:
Enter Eru. The principles set down by an all-knowing Being of pure benevolence, One Who seeks only the greatest good for the universe as a whole and each individual in particular, can not be judged on the same level as laws made by limited and fallible men. There is no higher standard. In the case yo mention of a resisting or escaping slave, he would be prosecuted by the laws of the day and found guilty of disobeying an unjust law. Laws change. The Creator does not. Slavery was wrong from the get-go by the Highest Standard, but men failed to see it. The 20-20 hindsight provided by history vindicates the actions of those who fought slavery. As an aside. it is interesting that you mention the Biblical quotes ("rendering unto Caesar" etc.), because there is a particularly applicable principle in the book of Acts. When the disciples of Christ were given an unjust command by the lawful authorities of the day, they responded, "We must obey God rather than men." True justice, as you say, will judge the intentions (the "heart") of the guilty. To apply this to my prior posts, let me amend the scenario thusly. If a man punches a policeman, he is already guilty of the crime of assault against a person -- this much is given. If the pugilistic man is unaware that the victim is a policeman, and not just a policeman but one on-duty and acting in the lawful course of his duties, then true justice will not convict the man of the more serious crime of assaulting a police officer. On the other hand, if the man does know that the man being punched is a policeman, and is punching him with the purpose of resisting or hindering him from his just and lawful purposes, then true justice will convict him of figuratively punching the hundreds or thousands of people whose collective will gives the policeman his authority. I think the best word is rebellion. To tie this all together, there can be no question that Melkor and Sauron knew just exactly Who they were rebelling against. This makes their crime heinous indeed. Lastly, I do not claim to have the last word on the free-will/predestination debate -- I don't even know if I properly grasp the question in all its complexity. All I have is a framework that explains enough for me not to worry about the question. And enough faith to hope that the Creator does not deceive when he makes everyone think that they are independent wills, choosing their actions. Thanks, Kalessin, for the interesting debate.
__________________
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. ~~ Marcus Aurelius |
|
04-02-2006, 08:36 PM | #18 | |
A Shade of Westernesse
Join Date: May 2004
Location: The last wave over Atalantë
Posts: 515
|
Quote:
The old Vedic concepts of Brahman and Purusha seem particularly pertinent to any discussion of will (though how pertinent they are to Middle-earth is debatable). Forgive me, Hindu Downers, if my knowledge of the Vedas proves skewed. Purusha, to my understanding, is deemed by the Vedas to be the Ultimate Self (Atman): it encompasses -- is -- everything. Brahman is the 'physical' manifestation of Purusha: a split in the Self occurs literally infinitely, on an infinite planes, wherein Brahman becomes the physically limited entity 'the universe'. The Vedas posit that each of us is none other than the Purusha, and that individual egos merely reflect a 'dream' of Purusha, a stream of consciousness in the physical Brahman which feels it is its own Atman because it is given a name and told that it is, for example, 'you', 'him', 'John', 'my son', 'his brother', etc. and that the collection of ever-dividing and -dying cells that forms the physical body is 'your body', or even is 'you'. So on some level every unenlightened person -- that is, everyone who has not rid himself of ego and recognized himself as the All-One -- is really just Purusha playing games with Itself, dreaming something that is not inherently 'real'. Although the leaps of faith that those of us who remain unenlightened have to take in order to believe that God is playing mind games with himself are staggering, this model explains free will rationally in the sense that it is logical within the confines of the Vedic canon. How would Tolkien react to this notion? Does the concept of the All-Knowing Creator as, on some level, thinking wrongly that he is creating something that inherently Not Himself appalling to Catholics? How would he react to a fan asking of him, 'Is Gollum, on some level, Eru?' (These questions are not rhetorical, by the way. Although none here can speak on Tolkien's behalf, there are some who are far more versed in Catholic canon -- and in the Professor's own beliefs as laid down in his extensive body of work -- than I.)
__________________
"This miserable drizzling afternoon I have been reading up old military lecture-notes again:- and getting bored with them after an hour and a half. I have done some touches to my nonsense fairy language - to its improvement." |
|
04-02-2006, 11:15 PM | #19 | |
Dead Serious
|
Quote:
You ask if an All-Powerful Creator thinking wrongly about something different than Himself is an idea that appalls Catholics. My answer is that it shouldn't. According to Catholic belief, the REASON God created Mankind, and the whole world to sustain it, is that God desired other beings to Love and to Love Him. God, being God, can do whatever He wants. He is, in other words, omnipotent. Since omnipotence is not limited by anything, God could create, were He to want to, a world that is totally opposed to all that we consider right and good. He does NOT do this, however, because of the love which He bears. God loves us, and wants us to love Him in return, so the natural world He creates is one in which love is a powerful force, in which love is naturally able to function. (And yet, one could say, the very reason love is so powerful is that it is a SUPERnatural force, a force that is not inherently found in creation, and is thus so powerful simply because it comes from God.) However, in order for love to be true love, it must come freely. Hence, free will. God wanted true, complete, free love. Love, in other words, that parallels the love He has for us. It was natural and necessary therefore that those who were to be the recipients of His love, and who were to love Him in return: us humans, be given the free will to choose to love- or to choose not to love. Although many people choose to love, this free will means, and has always meant, that people would choose NOT to love, which is the cause of much of the EVIL in this world. So, the short answer is that Catholics do NOT find the idea of God creating beings that choose to do evil abhorent. How would Tolkien react to someone saying that, on some level, Gollum is Eru? To be honest, I think he would agree. According to Christian faith, we are all called to treat every one of our friends and neighbours as Christ- as God. What we do to them, we do to God. What we fail to do, we fail to do to God. On a similar note, God uses each and every one of us as His instruments, to perform his works on earth. However, your original meaning of the question here seems to be "What would Tolkien say if you said that Eru, as Gollum's creator, naturally exhibits Gollum's less-than-savoury tendencies". In this case, I think that Tolkien would have to disagree with you. Again, this goes back to the idea of free will. Gollum's more abhorent natures are the results of him choosing NOT to do Eru's (God's) work, to love. His less-than-pleasing attributes are the hallmarks of his exercising his free will AWAY from his creator, rather than indications of him being the work of that same creator. Anyway, I hope I got the gist of the questions right, and I hope that my Catholic-based view of Tolkien's opinions doesn't overly offend anyone. I'm just stating what appears to me to be the case.
__________________
I prefer history, true or feigned.
|
|
|
|