'The Lord of the Rings and Philosophy'

[Estelyn Telcontar]

I’m reading a fascinating new book, The Lord of the Rings and Philosophy. (It belongs to the Popular Culture and Philosophy series, Open Court publishers, which includes similar books on the Simpsons, Matrix, etc. – an interesting concept!) Some of the chapters remind me of the great book discussions we’ve had in the past on the Downs. I’d like to introduce the first chapter and hear your ideas on it.

‘The Rings of Tolkien and Plato: Lessons in Power, Choice, and Morality’ is written by Eric Katz. He compares LotR’s concepts with those of Plato’s The Republic. In it, Plato poses the question, “Why be moral?” and tells the story of the shepherd Gyges, who finds a magical ring that makes him invisible. He uses it “to enter the palace, seduce the queen, and kill the king”.

Glaucon, who defends a life of immorality in The Republic, says that

people are morally good only because they cannot act with impunity – they fear punishment for their evil actions.

Plato refutes with the argument that

the immoral life is a worse life than a morally virtuous life because ultimately the immoral life leads to a fundamental unhappiness: mental anguish, the loss of friends and loved ones, and emotional bankruptcy. All the power in the world cannot compensate for the psychological emptiness of an immoral life. The moral person, in contrast, lives a life of integrity and personal fulfilment, even if he or she is limited in power, wealth, and fame. The moral person is at peace with himself.

Now, Tolkien did not write the LotR as a work of philosophy, but he was certainly familiar with the classics. Katz states that JRRT not only illustrates the above principle by showing us the “thoughts and actions of ‘living characters’” but that his stories “improve and augment Plato’s argument, for Tolkien’s Ring explicitly corrupts the souls of its possessors.”

Tolkien also shows us the difficulties involved in living a life of virtue: there are burdens to be undertaken and sacrifices that must be made.

While Gollum is the obvious example of the effect of Plato’s principle,

the crucial moment in each character’s story is the moment in which they are tempted to use the Ring.

Boromir’s story shows that

a Ring of Power corrupts even the person who is brave, strong, and virtuous.

while Galadriel shows that

a strong and virtuous person can refuse the temptation of immense power, even at a great personal cost.

The most interesting aspect of this choice is the fact that

the virtuous and strong-willed person can turn away from a life of evil, a life of almost unlimited power, by focusing on his or her true self.

This thought I find fascinating!

Galadriel does it – “I will remain Galadriel”.

Frodo does it on Amon Hen:

Suddenly he was aware of himself again. Frodo, neither the Voice nor the Eye: free to choose.

And Sam does it at Cirith Ungol:

The one small garden of a free gardener was all his need and due, not a garden swollen to a realm; his own hands to use, not the hands of others to command.

Katz concludes:

All who come in contact with the Ring (except, it appears, Bombadil) lose themselves (at least momentarily) in the desire to be greater than they are.

If you need a Ring of Power to live your life, you have chosen the wrong life.

Still with me? I did want to share enough of this chapter to start a discussion, since many may not yet have read it. Are you familiar with Plato’s The Republic? Do you think the comparisons are valid? What is your opinion on Katz’ conclusions about morality? I look forward to hearing what you think!