The Treason of Isengard: Eru's Plan?

I wondered whether Eru gave the Istari a choice of free will to do and command as they wished, or were they directly under his command? If so, why was Saruman then overcome by desire to control the power of the One Ring, if he was originally sent to oppose those who harness it? I thought the Istari were meant to show through the power of Eru to some extent, but not in designs of war, but over commanding the will of the free people of the world against Sauron.

So if Eru's greatest servants also can be corrupted by the Ring, was the Treason of Isengard already planned by Eru, or does he have no direct influence on the fate of ME? Sending Gandalf alone would surely have been of greater benefit to ME than Saruman also, that is, unless Eru was not aware of what evils the Istari may turn to thereafter.

[davem]

I think Eru would have been aware of what Saruman would do - but that He didn't plan it. In Middle-earth there is free will but there are also consequences of free will. Saruman chose freely his road & brought his doom on himself. Eru knew everything that would happen - including when & how He would intervene personally, but to control everything all the time would have made the creation pointless - why not simply sit there in eternity & daydream?

Eru creates because it is His nature to create - He creates free creatures because that is the height of the Creator's art. for Him to have planned Saruman's treason means that he also planned his fate - which would either make Saruman little more than a robot, or worse, a victim, forced against his will to act in a way that was against his nature with no means to avoid the consequences.

[Folwren]

Well...this is a whole question of 'is there free will or not?' then, isn't it? And as I've never been able to answer that question here in real life, I can't very well answer it for Middle Earth. I think that Eru is Tolkien's character for God, and so that whoever thinks that there is free will here on Earth will think that there is free will in Middle Earth, and those that believe God handles everything and no one has any free will here, will think the same for there.

So, unless it says otherwise, somewhere in the many histories of that world, I don't know if there is a real answer to this question...just a matter of opinion.

I have no answer.

[burrahobbit]

Nobody is under Eru's "command," but they all do what He "wants."

[mormegil]

Free will is an interesting arguement and correct me if I'm wrong Mansun but it seems to me that you are in essence asking more about the relation of predestination and free will. Being that Eru is omnipotent the roles of everybody could be predestined could they not? However this goes against free will. I am of the opinion that an omnipotent being Eru (in Tolkien's world) or God knows exactly what every individual will do under a given set of circumstances. Does this take away from that individual's free will? No, it most definately doesn't.

The Istari were given certain roles to perform and they have their agency to decide what to do and what temptations to give into. Eru would know how Sauruman would act under certain conditions but he would not prohibit his errant ways even though they were against his initial charge to the Istari. I like to think of it foreordiantion as opposed to predestination. Before they came to Middle-earth the Istari were given certain roles to fulfill, they have their agency to choose how to fulfill them. They can either succeed or fail. Each is a distinct possibility, otherwise there is no true free agency.

[Gurthang]

You might find this interesting.

For those of you who don't want to read it, or don't have the time, this discussion of predestination versus free will was brought up. I quoted the Silmarillion where Iluvatar tells the Valar that no theme can be played but his and that even if they tried to go against His will, they would only become his instruments for things more beautiful. I pointed to that as saying that Eru predestined everything.

But later, davem pointed out another quote that said that Men could shape their own lives apart from the Music. So it seems that Iluvatar has made a plan that everyone must follow, except men, who can do their own thing.

So what about Saruman. Perhaps, in the form of a man, he was able to choose for himself what he really wanted. He chose away from what Eru desired for him, and almost ruined all hope.

Yet you could make a case that Saruman's treachery was also part of the plan, and only 'made things more beautiful'. If he had not pushed against Theoden, then perhaps Rohan never would have come to Gondor's aid. So, indirectly, Saruman caused the winning of the battle before Minas Tirith, and incidently the victory over Sauron. But maybe that's stretching it.

[burrahobbit]

So what about Saruman. Perhaps, in the form of a man, he was able to choose for himself what he really wanted.

Absolutely not. It doesn't matter what you look like.

[mormegil]

Originally Posted by burrahobbit

Nobody is under Eru's "command," but they all do what He "wants."

Explain please. Because it makes it seem that Eru wanted Melkor to become evil, Eru wanted the Kin-slaying to occur, Eru wanted Saruman to be treacherous, etc...

[davem]

Originally Posted by Gurthang

Yet you could make a case that Saruman's treachery was also part of the plan, and only 'made things more beautiful'. If he had not pushed against Theoden, then perhaps Rohan never would have come to Gondor's aid. So, indirectly, Saruman caused the winning of the battle before Minas Tirith, and incidently the victory over Sauron. But maybe that's stretching it.

All we know is that all but Men are bound by the Music - ie, the Noldor were destined to play a part in Middle-earth, so they would have returned there in some way....but they didn't have to return in the way, & for the specific reasons they did, so even they had some degree of free will. Feanor could have, for instance, allowed the Silmarils to be broken to heal the trees (which may not have worked - Yavanna only believes that she could have saved the Trees), & the Valar could have decided to send a force there earlier to confront Morgoth. So, the Noldor would have ended up playing the part they did play but in some other way. Feanor may have been destined all along to die as he did, in Middle-earth, but his freedom lay in the fact that he could choose the road he took to get to his death there. Saruman, as Gurthang points out, did ultimately enable the Rohirrim to come to the aid of Minas Tirith & thereby actually did what he was sent to do despite all his efforts to the contrary. Saruman may have been destined to die as he did in the Shire, but he could have fallen defending Frodo against Wormtongue. At that point he would have returned into the West.

This allows free will even to those bound by the Music - they can make their choices & face the consequences of their choices while still remaining within the confines set by the Music. Their ultimate destiny is to act out the Music but their freedom is in the way they live it out & what happens to them as individuals as a result of what they do.

The way I see it is that there are certain 'points' in time & space where certain things will happen, but those bound by the Music can choose how & why they will get there.

Of course, this brings in the problem of the freedom of Men to act beyond the Music. If Men can choose to do things which aren't foreordained by the Music then they will create situations which conflict with what the Elves & Valar/Maiar are programmed to do. This would cause problems for those who have to live in accord with the Music - if Men use their freedom to make changes, that may make it difficult, if not impossible for the Elves to do what they are 'driven' to do.

Perhaps this explains, 1, why they increasingly withdrew from the world - Men were changing it so much that it became impossible for the Elves to live out their destinies, & 2, why the Valar also palyed a less & less prominent role in the world.

From this point of view, & as Eru must have realised, the Elves had to be given a place apart. Which would mean that the Elves were always intended to leave Middle-earth, & that this was set out in the Music (hence their innate desire to go into the West) - not so much because of any specific purpose, but rather because, having given Men such freedom of action, Eru realised that they had to be gotten out of the way for their own good & peace of mind. They played their part as they were destined to do - in whatever way they chose to - & at a certain point they would be taken away in order that they would not become a 'stumbling block' to the freedom of Men.

[Formendacil]

I think the freedom of men can be likened to a play...

Eru is the scriptwriter and the director. He wrote it, and decides how it ought to happen.

Elves, Valar, and all those bound by the Music are the scripted actors. They have lines to memorise and specific parts to play. In the event that they forget a line, or have to respond to a messed up one, they can improvise, but they are still following a basic script.

Men, on the other hand, are thrown onstage with no script, no memorisation. Think of them as gifted improvisers. They can say or do anything in response to what the scripted actors are doing or saying. They have to follow the basic guidelines of reacting to things that are actually happening/have happened, but they are not bound by the script.

Of course, this means that the Elves, who are bound by the script, are doing a lot more improv of their own as a result, but they are still acting within the limits of their characters and themes as set out by the Director. What they do will obviously affect the improv Men, but what the Men do will also affect the broad script of the Director.

Anyway, those are my thoughts... I'll go and digest them now...

[burrahobbit]

Originally Posted by mormegil

Explain please. Because it makes it seem that Eru wanted Melkor to become evil, Eru wanted the Kin-slaying to occur, Eru wanted Saruman to be treacherous, etc...

Basically. It worked out for the best, didn't it? I mean, snow is pretty cool. And clouds, I like those.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Formendacil

I think the freedom of men can be likened to a play......

Like it.

Or it could be like being on a road which forks only to join up again at a particular point - as a Valar, Maiar or Elf you get to choose which fork you take & so what experiences you will have & the state you're in when you get to the place where the road joins up again, but you don't get to choose not to end up at the place road meets again.

Men, on the other hand, can just build new roads - of course, the terrain will affect where they build.....

[HerenIstarion]

Burra's every post on the thread is a jewel. I officially issue a note to everyone in sight of these to rate them.

[Ar-Pharazon]

A question that has boggled the greatest minds in philosophy and science. Are we here to play a role or do we just take up space (especially on BD )

I liked Davem's quote that men were allowed to build their own roads as opposed to just following them. It seems that Tolkien wrote Eru as a being of infinity where nothing was beyond him and all beings were created by him or as a result of him. So did this road that Davem and the others spoke of start here. He created the Valar/Gods and the greatest of them were Manwe and Melkor/Morgoth. Manwe seemed to represent all that was good (one path) and Melkor represented all that was evil (a split in the path). Manwe was given a land and world for him to govern while Melkor took a land for his own and built it to his designs.

So the question comes up are the people of middle earth free from predestination. Obviously they are not, fate seems to play a big role in the books, as many characters meet their fates befitting their lives and choices. In the case of Saruman, Gandalf, Radagsat(SP) and the other two Istari they were sent to contest the will of Sauron. Saruman travelled to the blackland with the two wizards and only he returned, he studied his enemy intently only to instead hate him, become enamored in his plands and view him rather as a competitor or rival. In his attempt to grab power he inadvertently helps the fall of Sauron (as discussed above)l Radagast seems to go all lonely animal guy and lives with the lesser creature but aids by giving both Sauron and Gandalf the help with the lesser creatures that indirectly help topple Sauron. While Gandalf seems to move the wills of those who were destined to become major role players in the down fall of Sauron.

It comes to me that all the things of middle earth are subject to Eru's will for they were created of his will. The music that Eru created is the flow of existence and only Eru seems to be the conductor and each person has a part to play in his orchestra.

EZ

[Lhunardawen]

Taking on davem's road comparison...each being bound by the Music has the freedom to choose a fork in the road, but Men are free to build their own roads. But in the end, they will realize that Eru has designed the whole terrain in a manner that they could never have comprehended; whichever paths they chose, they ended up right where Eru wants them to.

Or with Formendacil's play metaphor...the Music-bound people act as the Music sways them, Men do improvizations and affect the whole plot, as well as the former's acting. But once the curtain falls and they all step back to watch how the play went, they will see that Eru has created such a versatile script that though the characters deviate, the ending will be as Eru originally wrote it.

In some cases a road-builder might fall off a cliff or an actor off the stage, but these instances are consequences of their own choices (or temporary blindness ). Eru never meant anyone to be hurt. But being a perfect gentleman, he lets them go or act the way they choose, yet allows them to find out what is beyond the paths they forged, or what their action's repercussions on the story or on their fellow actors are.

Now this brings me to think, is the Men's freedom from the Music a reason for their greater divisiveness and, very loosely, their gullibility as opposed to the Elves? Is this why they are much easier to sway to the side of evil or why they seem to have more 'branches'? Because they have more roads to 'choose from' or more roles to 'assume'?

[HerenIstarion]

I always argued (and this time, and this time and this time too) that Men's freedom is not different from that of other beings of free will while men are alive, their special kind of freedom being expressed in them 'leaving the confines of the world' upon their death, as opposed to Valar/Maiar/Elves who are 'bound within confines of the world' while it lasts

So, it's always choice of the fork of the road for the walker, and choice of play in accord with conduct or in disaccord with it for the musician in each respective analogy.

Yes/No, Do/Don't.

Traditioanlly, consider the following:

'Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves and another among Men. It is a man's part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house'

[Lhunardawen]

Point taken, HI.

[burrahobbit]

Roads and stuff is all fine and dandy, but it really doesn't have anything to do with anything Saruman ever did, except maybe that time he met up with all the folks on his way to the Shire. I will try to make the situation as plain as I can. Saruman is an Ainu. That means he created the world. He made it with his singing. Specifically, he made all of the parts concerning him with his singing. While he lived in God's house he could sing and make decisions to his heart's content (that is just a metaphor, Ainur don't actually have hearts usually). While he was singing he generally followed (or rebelled from) the direction of God, so that while the particulars of what was going on were determined by him, the overall ebb and flow was guided by the hand of God. It is important to keep in mind that the dischord also followed a greater theme that nobody even realized was happening. All of that being said and taken into account (please take it into account before you read anymore), think of his singing as though he were writing a script of his future performance, when he left God's house and came into the world he had to go by that script until the end of it. The thing that most people don't realize about Angels, and it is a weird thing to think about, I admit, is that they are amazingly forgetful. So even though he sang all kinds of stuff he didnt remember most of it, and he wasn't paying attention to anybody else anyway. TO BE CONSCISE, SARUMAN HAD FREE WILL AT FIRST, BUT THAT STOPPED PRETTY QUICK. That is in caps because I want people to notice it more. The next part is too. GOD DOES WHAT HE WANTS AND DOESN'T HAVE TO ANSWER TO YOU. If you do not think it is a good idea for there to be naughty stuff in the world then that is too bad, because God thinks that it is awesome.

[davem]

[QUOTE=HerenIstarion]I always argued (and this time, and this time and this time too) that Men's freedom is not different from that of other beings of free will while men are alive, their special kind of freedom being expressed in them 'leaving the confines of the world' upon their death, as opposed to Valar/Maiar/Elves who are 'bound within confines of the world' while it lasts
QUOTE]

But in Ainulindale it clearly states;

Therefore he willed that the hearts of Men should seek beyond the world and should find 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 Ainur, which is as fate to all things else; and of their operation everything should be, in form and deed, completed, and the world fulfilled unto the last and smallest.

Men can shape their life, amid the powers & chances of the world - not beyond or outside the world but within it.

[HerenIstarion]

davem, strong in arms you are, no doubt

But ther is also beyond in there, isn't it?

As far as I see, it may be one of the two

1. Beyond - after the point the Vision ceased, thence the Valar have no knowledge (i.e. - after Fading of the Elves and as the Rule of Men begins)
2. Beyond - outside of the Music. But the Music is the pattern along which the whole World is shaped, so beyond the world would mean: A. Void B. Halls of Eru C. Whatever else there may be which we know not about.

I hold to option 2 (weak point of option 1 - though Vision ceased before the completion of the Music, the Music itself contains all the history of the world. But when do men leave the world? When they die. Hence, reasoning: the special kind of freedom for men is their death.

***

burra,

TO BE CONSCISE, SARUMAN HAD FREE WILL AT FIRST, BUT THAT STOPPED PRETTY QUICK

We know not when the 'pretty quick' part of it came in. After all, Gandalf's bearing implies Saruman is still free in his choice, and may still chose to come over from the 'dark side' pretty late into the Music.


***

I believe I've found just another analogy to conciliate Predestination/Fate with Free Will:

Imagine elementary particles - movement of each individual particle is unpredictable (Free Will), but all particles combined in a lump of given matter, cancel each other out so lump of matter remains stable and solid (Fate)

[Gurthang]

Yes, I very much agree with Heren on this. The above quote by davem says 'amid the... world' but 'beyond the Music'.

Perhaps it is like davem's road theory, but slightly different. Elves, Valar, Maiar, and all others have to follow the points that Eru has designed. They may take different paths to reach those points, but they still go to those places. Men are exactly the same in that respect. They have choices to make, forks to choose, but still come out where Eru planned. That would be 'amid the powers and chances of the world'.

But the choices they make affect the hereafter. Each fork they choose is presumably either good or bad. Which one they choose will make them more good or more bad. Once they die, those choices that they make will determine what happens to them. They would at that time be outside the Music and would have chosen their own path beyond what the Valar sang. This would explain the 'shape their life,..., beyond the Music of the Ainur'.

So men live exactly the same as all the other inhabitants of Middle-Earth, only that the choices they make affect their afterlife.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Gurthang

So men live exactly the same as all the other inhabitants of Middle-Earth, only that the choices they make affect their afterlife.

But if Men are in exactly the same position as everyone else, why mention Men's freedom at all?

they should have a virtue to shape their life, amid the powers and chances of the world, beyond the Music of the Ainur, which is as fate to all things else;

This, which I keep repeating, I know, says something specific about Men 'amid the powers & chances of the world' - not outside it. If Men's power to shape their fate within the world is the same as that of Valar, Maiar & Elves, then why mention it?

So men live exactly the same as all the other inhabitants of Middle-Earth, only that the choices they make affect their afterlife.

So aren't Elves & Ainur also judged on the choices they make in life - or are they simply 'robots'?

As regards Saruman - if he was bound by his decisions made during the Music why would Gandalf make such an effort to get him to repent at Isengard? Gandalf clearly believes that Saruman has the ablity to make choices about what road he would take, though not about the 'events' he has to experience - like dying in the Shire perhaps.

Unless you believe that Gandalf also was bound by what he had 'sung' in the Music & had no free will either.

This idea that everything - right down to the moral choices individuals made, even the thoughts they thought - was fixed, makes the whole story a nonsense, because nothing anyone did was a result of free will, & then how can anyone be held accountable after their death.

What I'm suggesting is that Valar, Maiar & Elves have absolute moral freedom to make choicesabout how they live, but not about what they will experience - the Noldor will return to Middle-earth, & Feanor will die there in the way he did - but the way they come to those experiences will be a result of their own freely willed choices - hence they can be held accountable for their actions after they die. Men, on the other hand, are not (because they are not bound to the world in the same way) destined to have those pre-ordained experiences - they have both freedom of thought - as all other races have - & also the freedom to choose what experiences they will have, what events they will be caught up in - as Aragorn could choose whether to go on the paths of the Dead.

But did Legolas have that choice? Was it in the Music that he would go that way? If so, what would he have done of Aragorn had chosen not to go that way? And what about Elladan & Ellrohir? Did the half-elven have the freedom of Men or were they bound by the Music to go?

I think its pushing it to suggest that Men's freedom only comes into play after they die, because we don't know what, or even if anything at all, happens to Men after death. I think if you just read that sentence its plain that its refering to Men's freedom of action within the world, & that 'beyond' in that context doesn't mean beyond/outside Arda, but beyond/outside the plan the Music laid out by the Music:

shape their life, amid the powers and chances of the world, beyond the Music of the Ainur Which is as fate to all things else

If we take this to mean that Men's freedom lies only beyond the world (as opposed to beyond the plan but within the world) then we're saying that Valar, Maiar & Elves have no freedom either during life or after death. They are 'robots' both within Arda & outside it, while Men are only 'robots' while they are in the world.

[burrahobbit]

We know not when the 'pretty quick' part of it came in.

Yes we do: immediately when he entered The World.

As regards Saruman - if he was bound by his decisions made during the Music why would Gandalf make such an effort to get him to repent at Isengard?

Because that's what Gandalf Sang about.

the Noldor will return to Middle-earth, & Feanor will die there in the way he did - but the way they come to those experiences will be a result of their own freely willed choices

If a fellow can freely make moral decisions, can he not make the decision not to point swords at his little brother and get kicked out of his house? I'm thinking, maybe he chooses to give him a hug instead and then they all have cake? Maybe then he wouldn't get stabbed in the face to death later on while he is staying at somebody else's house?

But did Legolas have that choice? Was it in the Music that he would go that way? If so, what would he have done of Aragorn had chosen not to go that way? And what about Elladan & Ellrohir? Did the half-elven have the freedom of Men or were they bound by the Music to go?

Read more about Turin.

[davem]

Originally Posted by burrahobbit

If a fellow can freely make moral decisions, can he not make the decision not to point swords at his little brother and get kicked out of his house? I'm thinking, maybe he chooses to give him a hug instead and then they all have cake? Maybe then he wouldn't get stabbed in the face to death later on while he is staying at somebody else's house?

Feanor chooses his road, but not his destination. Of course, the further down a particular road one goes the harder it is to turn around & go back & choose a different road...

Read more about Turin.

Which is another major problem - Turin is not bound by the Music. Is Glaurung? Turin is driven (by whom & why?) to overcome his 'fate', but in so doing he actually determines it. I'd say Turin's fate is not in the hands of Morgoth or anyone but himself. He clearly believes that he is not bound by the Music, that he can be free to live his own life, & that's exactly what he does. None of the things he suffers come from Morgoth or even directly from the Music. He is Master of (his) doom - & he is also mastered by it - by his own, self-wrought doom.

We know not when the 'pretty quick' part of it came in.


Yes we do: immediately when he entered The World.

Quote:
As regards Saruman - if he was bound by his decisions made during the Music why would Gandalf make such an effort to get him to repent at Isengard?


Because that's what Gandalf Sang about.

I don't believe they sang about what they would do in each & every individual situation. Certain events were fixed before time, but as I said the way in which those events came about were a result of the moral choices made by individuals. The idea that the Ainur sang not just the things that would happen, but each individual thought & decision they would make seems too much of a stretch - they did not, after all, sing as a choir in unison, but singly or as small groups - at least at first. Then Melkor's themes intervene & there is conflict which prevents any of them seeing the bigger picture. So, some of the things individual Ainur sang would be in conflict with what other's sang, simply because they would not all have known what each other had contributed to the Music.

So, I don't think we're dealing with everything being foreordained down to the smallest detail, but with generalities & specific, unavoidable, events. Cerain things would happen, certain individuals were destined from eternity to do certain things, be in certain places, but, as I said, how & why they would get there would be down to them.

And you also have to answer the really difficult question - maybe the Valar & Maiar were acting out their own part in the Music, but who set out the unavoidable fate of the Elves? That could only have been Eru Himself - & if he did that, & fix their fate in stone, then how could they be judged on their actions let alone on their moral choices?

The Music determines the fate of Arda & the Elves, being bound to Arda are bound up with its fate. Men are not bound to Arda & it is this very fact that gives them the unique freedom to act that they have. Their link with Arda is temporary - they are in it but not of it, therefore its 'rules' (ie the Music) are not so binding on them - if they were they would not be 'mortal', they would not be able to leave it so 'easily'. It is the fact that they are mortal (the 'Gift of Death') that means that they have a freedom to act 'outside the 'rules'.

(I notice that I seem to be at least in part responsible for an unaccustomed verbosity in our beloved Burrahobbit )

[HerenIstarion]

Part 1 (here we partly go along with davem)

Originally Posted by davem

notice that I seem to be at least in part responsible for an unaccustomed verbosity in our beloved Burrahobbit

I liked it more when he was laconic (see my first post on the thread). But since I did take part in poking him into action, let me poke some more and see what happens:

Originally Posted by burrahobbit

Nobody is under Eru's "command," but they all do what He "wants."

Fills the bill perfectly as far as I'm concerned (see below, part 3). But we attribute slightly different meanings to the phrase, or so it seems now.

For me, that would mean that each individual is free in what they do, but whatever they actually choose to do, is incorporated into the whole texture of all events and taken into it to be in accordance with Eru's Will (see part 2 below) and to the Good ultimately. The each derivation of choice does alter the consequent chain of events, but if you look at each chain as a thread, and the world a carpet, derivation of pattern does not alter the existence of the carpet as such, or its ultimate purpose – to adore the wall over Eru’s hearth. (The last phrase being an exaggeration to an extent – equally real purpose of the ‘carpet’ is for each particle of it to be free, love Eru and be loved in return, as ‘of all His designs the issue must be for His Children's joy’ (AFaA))

It may seem that thus the freedom of individual will is rendered meaningless, but it is not so, as individual choice does matter for the chooser him/herself and the beauty of the carpet as a whole.

Per instance:

The Silmarils had passed away, and all one it may seem whether Fëanor had said yea or nay to Yavanna; yet had he said yea at the first, before the tidings came from Formenos, it may be that his after deeds would have been other than they were

And there would not have been the whole lot of ‘stabbing in the face’, but there would have been something else. The Music thus needs not define the smallest events minutely, but define general pattern the threads are woven along of.

Or to quote myself for just another analogy:

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

I'd say I think the Music is pattern World is fitted into. Why it can not be merely its result, is absence of time as we know it in the Halls of Eru. In a sense, therefore, Music is never ceased. So to say, the world is like train moving on rails, with elves having tickets on to the terminal station while Men keep jumping out of windows now and again. (Or, in more civilized mental picture, having tickets on to intermediary stations). Music is rails.

Originally Posted by burrahobbit

Yes we do: immediately when he entered The World.

As I do not find the Music as minutely defining as that, I was arguing from the standpoint of ’pure’ evil issue – i.e., as Free Will is not defined or limited as such by the Music, but rather provides it with the rails to run along of, the loss of Free Will comes only when the self is beyond redemption – i.e. when it is no more able of anything other but worshipping its own self and loses the self it started worshipping at the moment of doing so, and is no more able to come back over.

Part 2 (where we part ways with davem)

Originally Posted by davem

The Music determines the fate of Arda & the Elves, being bound to Arda are bound up with its fate. Men are not bound to Arda & it is this very fact that gives them the unique freedom to act that they have

Once again, as with burra’s command/will quote above, I would be glad to sign my name under the statement, but we seem to read it in slightly differing ways. As with my train analogy, the freedom of men is in their ability to leave the train at some point along its route, not in ability to swim parallel to its course in a boat or fly over it in a helicopter, which ‘building their own roads’ seems implying.

Not to repeat myself way too often, please see the ruler analogy:

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

Given the same ruler of Good and Evil, all Children should measure with it their actions in similar way, and the freedom is in the process of measurement, not in different ruler. But one can not measure the same length with same ruler and come out with differing numbers?

Which in itself is rooted in much quoted by me:

Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves and another among Men. It is a man's part to discern them

I’ll elaborate: Eru’s Will may be defined in two ways:

1. In relation to the whole world, His Will is to have complete Arda Remade, by which the Fate is defined and is expressed through the Music. Whatever anyone does, there will be the Arda Remade (further EW1)
2. In relation to individuals, his Will is for them to accord to the qualities He has (Intelligence, Benevolence etc), i.e ‘be like Him’ (paragon - Men are instructed by Eru Himself till they turn their ear to Morgoth and are Fallen) (further EW2)

No individual is able to disaccord with Eru’s Will 1, but each individual is free to disaccord with Eru’s Will 2. Dissacord with EW2 does not affect EW1, i.e. Fate (with capital F) = outcome of the Music = Arda Remade, but does affect the individual fate (ultimate disaccord with EW2 brings the creature into the Void, or, in case of Saruman (yes, I remember it’s the thread with Saruman there in the title), to be a ghost ‘dissolved by the wind’)

But there is something else there too – whilst EW1 is broad and bendable, EW2 is strict – one either conforms to it or does not. I.e. any action may be ‘right’ in one way only – if it accords to EW2. Such a strict restriction does no leave room for ‘unique freedom’ (which seems implying some third alternative) – whatever Man or Elf does, is either right or wrong in relation to EW2, and the freedom comes down to choice inside the dichotomy.

So, in such a roundabout way I come back to titilar topic, or

Part 3: Treason of Isengard: Eru’s will?

Having all the above in mind, it may be argued Saruman was acting in accordance with EW1, and thus indeed, it was Eru’s Will for Isengard to betray the Council and Free Peoples, for whatever is done, the flowing of time brings Arda Remade nearer, and thus Eru’s Will nearer completion, but on individual, EW2 level, Saruman was acting against Eru’s Will

Does it sound like ‘do not ask elves, for they will say both yes and no’? I suppose so, but I have just another analogy, from ‘Was Eru A Sadist’ thread this time for you to ponder over:

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

If I were a parent, my will would be that my children behaved properly and tidied up their room, but my will would also be that they were free. If I were to find the room in a mess, I would certainly have my will contradicted in one way, but carried along in another, since my children were free to mess it up. Furthermore it is question of my priorities, what is it I like best - tidy room or free children. (I would certainly prefer both at once, but if they refuse to clean up?...)

The EW1, or Arda Remade, in this analogy is the point when the parent enters the room with a vacuum cleaner. Those who will, though, still have the time to accord with EW2 and arm themselves with dustbins.

Not to tire you and my own self any longer, let me repeat burra’s quote already given above, for it perfectly fits here, for the Part 3:

Nobody is under Eru's "command," but they all do what He "wants."

The simple explanation might well be that in ME everything happened for a reason, the reason being Eru's will. Consider the Ring: Bilbo was meant to find it, and Frodo was meant to be the one chosen to destroy it. Hence why not extend this further by saying Saruman was meant to become a Traitor, ultimately to the ruin of Isengard AND Mordor? The problem I have with that is that it would be cruel of Eru to plan the Downfall of Saruman like this, that is unless the plan was made after Saruman turned to evil ways whilst he was still part of the Council, even before Bilbo found the Ring.

Or is that just too simple a way to look at it? The posts on this topic are getting very complicated, so a more simple way of explaining things is given here.

[burrahobbit]

More words means you are more wrong.

the Noldor will return to Middle-earth, & Feanor will die there in the way he did

does not equal

Feanor chooses his road, but not his destination

If I take the road that heads east from here I will not end up in California, unless I turn onto the westward road. Similarly, if Feanor decided to be a peaceful fellow he would not have been killed by balrogs. To suggest otherwise is, to turn a phrase, "retarded."

Turin is not bound by the Music.

You are amazingly and fundamentally wrong.

[burrahobbit]

Congratulations, Mansun, you figured it out. You win a cookie. Re: the second half, you gotta break a few eggs to make an omlette.

[HerenIstarion]

Well, burra, let's see what we can do with your attitude:

If I take the road that heads east from here I will not end up in California, unless I turn onto the westward road

But if you walk East long enough you'll land in California, I surmise?

Similarly, if Feanor decided to be a peaceful fellow he would not have been killed by balrogs.

Imagine a scenario - Fëanor says yeah, does not revolt, all elves - Vanyar, Noldor and Teleri remain happy family, there is no Exile, no Prophecy of Mandos and no Siege of Angband and no War of the Jewels. In due time, however, Valar make a council, and there is War of Wrath, just Noldor form the part of the Host of the West this time, they are the saviours rather than remnants of the people to be saved. In a mighty assault Morgoth is defeated, but as his last effort at defending his stronghold, the band of Balrogs issues from the Iron Gate to challange the foremost party of the assailants lead by Fëanor. Ultimately, Balrogs are swept, but Fëanor is killed.

But all of the above is exercise in free modeling, just so. As seen from my previous, my own position is as follows:

each derivation of choice does alter the consequent chain of events

That there would be Fëanor in due course of events, that he'll have certain temper and talents and moods is all in the Music. What exactly would Fëanor do with his talent and temper and moods is up to Fëanor himself

[davem]

Originally Posted by burrahobbit

More words means you are more wrong.

If I take the road that heads east from here I will not end up in California, unless I turn onto the westward road. Similarly, if Feanor decided to be a peaceful fellow he would not have been killed by balrogs. To suggest otherwise is, to turn a phrase, "retarded.".

So you're saying that they're all just 'robots'? No freedom even of thought? So why would Eru create them at all?

You are amazingly and fundamentally wrong

How so? Sorry, but at least I put forward an argument, & gave reasons for my position.If we're just throwing out opinions as 'statements of fact' without offering the slightest back up I can't see us getting anywhere.

Can you prove, or offer any evidence at all, that Turin was bound by the Music? It seems to me that Men's freedom to act 'beyond' (ie 'outside') the Music while in the World is a function or direct consequence of their mortaility - their fea is not bound to their hroa in the way that an Elf's is. This means that they will die eventually because the union of spirit & matter in them is a temporary thing, but it also means that they are not bound to the matter of Arda (& hence to the 'Rules') as completely.

This, it seems to me, is the only way to account for the statement in Ainulindale - as well as being the only explanation for a 'good' God giving death as a 'gift' to Men - its purpose was bound up with the gift of freedom within the world.

(Expecting a statement like 'You are amazingly and fundamentally wrong',made with no back up, to be accepted as part of a rational argument is a bit like me saying 'You are amazingly and fundamentally a horse.' & expecting that to be accepted in the same way. I think we have to be able to offer some reason for our statements)

Originally Posted by burrahobbit

Congratulations, Mansun, you figured it out. You win a cookie. Re: the second half, you gotta break a few eggs to make an omlette.

Burrahobbit is that a complement or an insult? If its the latter, I'd have you know that I have a degree from a world class english university in Biochemistry.

Whether it is evident or not of one's Knowledge of ME's history, you should still respect one's opinion, rather than sounding like Lobelia!

[burrahobbit]

How so?

Thus was the fate of Túrin woven [...] with the fate of the Silmarils and of the Elves -J.R.R. Tolkien, The Silmarillion chapter 21

Etc.

(Expecting a statement like 'You are amazingly and fundamentally wrong',made with no back up, to be accepted as part of a rational argument is a bit like me saying 'You are amazingly and fundamentally a horse.

But I am clearly not a horse.

But if you walk East long enough you'll land in California, I surmise?

No, I would end up in the Atlantic Ocean, several thousand miles away from California.

In a mighty assault Morgoth is defeated, but as his last effort at defending his stronghold, the band of Balrogs issues from the Iron Gate to challange the foremost party of the assailants lead by Fëanor. Ultimately, Balrogs are swept, but Fëanor is killed.

I'm thinking that Feanor would be so nice, though, that he couldn't even bear to kill an orc if he had to, so he just stayed in Aman with the ladies and the children. Pacifism, you know? Besides, somebody has to be in charge while all of the other leaders are out killing things.

I don't see how such an ardent pacifist (a decision which he is morally and spiritually free to make) could ever be killed by balrogs in the Hither Lands.

[Formendacil]

So... is Feanor's death a part of the Music?

That is apparently what the question, with regards to that specific debate, would appear to be.

It has been suggested that the Fate of the Music is a "broad" guide and not a detail-determiner. If such is the case, then just HOW defined is the Fate that it forecasts?

It could well be that Feanor's Fate had nothing to do with his death. Perhaps his part in the grand scheme of Arda was merely the fashioning of the Silmarils and the preservation thereby of the Sacred Light.

If that is the case, then it does it matter if Feanor dies or not? His "fate" done, his part in the great scheme played, he could do anything. His death at the hands of the Balrogs is a direct consequence of his decision to leave Valinor, but was it fated? He COULD have stayed behind, and the Noldor have never left Valinor. Perhaps, then, he would have died in the War of Wrath, or perhaps he would have survived and gone home to wait until the day when the Silmarils were to be cracked open- which, by the way, would appear to another part of his fate, that at the end of time he will break open the Silmarils and rekindle the Two Trees.

The Devil's Advocate,

~Michael A. Joosten - Formendacil~

[Lyta_Underhill]

Which is another major problem - Turin is not bound by the Music. Is Glaurung? Turin is driven (by whom & why?) to overcome his 'fate', but in so doing he actually determines it. I'd say Turin's fate is not in the hands of Morgoth or anyone but himself. He clearly believes that he is not bound by the Music, that he can be free to live his own life, & that's exactly what he does. None of the things he suffers come from Morgoth or even directly from the Music. He is Master of (his) doom - & he is also mastered by it - by his own, self-wrought doom.

This is what happens when you worry too much about destiny, free will, etc... a good lesson to look at Turin!

Cheers!
Lyta

[davem]

Originally Posted by burrahobbit

But I am clearly not a horse.

And I'm clearly not wrong

I'm thinking that Feanor would be so nice, though, that he couldn't even bear to kill an orc if he had to, so he just stayed in Aman with the ladies and the children. Pacifism, you know? Besides, somebody has to be in charge while all of the other leaders are out killing things.

Why are you thinking that? We've no evidence that he would choose pacifism over obeying the will of the Valar. If his fate was to die in Endor he would go there & die, the issue is how he would get there & he clearly had the freedom to choose that. there are many ways he could have ended up there. As an Elf he is bound by the constraints of the Music to do certain things.[/QUOTE]

Thus was the fate of Túrin woven [...] with the fate of the Silmarils and of the Elves -J.R.R. Tolkien, The Silmarillion chapter 21

But who 'wove' his fate? Eru, or he himself?

But Illuvatar knew that Men, being set amid the turmoils of the powers of the world, would stray often, and would not use their gifts in harmony; and ie said, These too in their time shall find that all that they do redounds at the end only to the glory of my work.' Yet the Elves believe that Men are often a grief to Manwe, who knows most of the mind of Illuvatar; for it seems to the Elves that Men resemble Melkor most of all the Ainur, although he has ever feared and hated them, even those that served him.
It is one with this gift of freedom that the children of Men dwell only a short space in the world alive, and are not bound to it, and depart soon whither the Elves know not. (Of the Beginning of Days)

So, Men have the 'gift of freedom' to act beyond the Music within Arda. Their gift of freedom, like the Gift of Death (of which it is probably a part, as I said), is what makes them unique among all the inhabitants of Arda. They are free to act beyond the confines of the Music, but the price they pay for that freedom is that they cannot remain forever within the Circles of the World.

[burrahobbit]

We've no evidence that he would choose pacifism

Of course not. Feanor would never choose pacifism, but that isn't the point. What I am trying to say is that a person can not possibly be free to make moral decisions in a deterministic universe. The two ideas are incompatible. Either a person has a fate/free will or he doesn't. There may be some wiggle room, but if there is no possible way for you to avoid certain outcomes then you do not actually have a free will, and whatever the outcome is it is the desire of whoever/whatever it was the made the decision. The deterministic cosmology of Middle-earth is the land of the Turing Machine.

[davem]

Originally Posted by burrahobbit

Of course not. Feanor would never choose pacifism, but that isn't the point. What I am trying to say is that a person can not possibly be free to make moral decisions in a deterministic universe. The two ideas are incompatible. Either a person has a fate/free will or he doesn't. There may be some wiggle room, but if there is no possible way for you to avoid certain outcomes then you do not actually have a free will, and whatever the outcome is it is the desire of whoever/whatever it was the made the decision. The deterministic cosmology of Middle-earth is the land of the Turing Machine.

As an Elf/Valar/Maiar you have moral freedom to the extent that you may not be able to choose what you do but you can choose how you do it.

Also, the cosmology of Middle-earth is not deterministic - it would be if Men did not exist, but they do, & they can act outside the Music - 'which is as fate to all things else'.

Eru did not say that 'none may change the Music' - He said 'none may change the Music in My despite'. Men's 'gift' is the freedom to change the Music - within the bounds set by Eru - & those 'bounds' are not the Music per se, but the bounds He sets. Only Men have this freedom. Men are what stop Arda from being a deterministic universe - that's their purpose.

[burrahobbit]

[quuote]As an Elf/Valar/Maiar you have moral freedom to the extent that you may not be able to choose what you do but you can choose how you do it.[/quote]

That doesn't make any kind of sense. I'm going back to my Feanor as pacifist argument.

Eru did not say that 'none may change the Music' - He said 'none may change the Music in My despite'. Men's 'gift' is the freedom to change the Music - within the bounds set by Eru - & those 'bounds' are not the Music per se, but the bounds He sets.

So basically what you are saying is that Eru determines exactly what people can or can't do?

[davem]

Originally Posted by burrahobbit

That doesn't make any kind of sense. I'm going back to my Feanor as pacifist argument.

Why not? Feanor cannot choose to but to go back to Arda, but he can choose whether to go back as a rebel, or as a servant of the Valar - he could even be dragged back against his will. He can't alter the Music, but he can choose how much in harmony he is with it...

So basically what you are saying is that Eru determines exactly what people can or can't do?

Absolutely not. Eru does not determine exactly what people can or can't do. He will permit men to alter the Music to a certain degree, but will set bounds on those changes. He's a bit like a 'mod' - he doesn't determine what posters can or can't say, in the sense that he dictates what they say, but he makes sure they don't overstep the line - ie, He permits Isildur to bind the spirits of the Oathbreakers within Arda till they have fulfilled their oath, but He doesn't permit the Numenoreans to assail Valinor...

Where it gets interesting is that, because Men may alter the Music (with Eru's consent) then if Men do alter it, & Valar, Maiar & Elves are bound by it, Men are actually more 'powerful' than they are. Their 'freedom' would be limited not simply by the original Music, but by the (Eru permitted) changes introduced into the Music by Men....