Lord of the Rings and Philosophy @ Concordia University Wisconsin

[Dûrbelethwen]

This semester I am taking a class called the Lord of the Rings and Philosophy. The required books are: The Lord of the Rings, The Tolkien Reader, The Silmarillion, and The Philosophy of Tolkien.
Today was the first regular lecture. It was on an introduction to philosophy.
Philosophy really was the love of wisdom which is what Tolkien loved about it. A world view is the systematic way of looking at reality.
Lord of the Rings compares two world views. A world-view can be global which encompasses all of reality or limited world-view that defines human nature only.
Why relate philosophy to Lord of the Rings: Not because Tolkien was an academic philosopher, not because it uses many philosophical or theological terms. It is not an allegory because an allegory has one to one correlations, and Lord of the Rings is more complex. The characters have multiple dimensions and internal conflict (synchronic complexity)
The characters can live out philosophical theories, and not be able to live them out (ex. Saruman)
The characters also change over time, heroes have weaknesses and bad characters start out good, some repent.
The philosophy is hidden inside the individuals, events, and places
We learn to support the heroes because we see how easy it would be to fail.
Lord of the Rings resonates with human nature even-though it deals with many non-humans.
We can clearly see in it that it has truth, goodness, and beauty.
It shows the battle to change fundamental reality.
Even-though Tolkien could have changed definitions of the essentials but instead make it clearer (he lifted the veil of familiarity)
Literature shows the truth that philosophy talks about.
Philosophical themes in Lord of the Rings: What is reality? What does reality include? The supernatural or only the temporal? God's actions or only ours? God's purposes or only ours? What is good and evil? What, if anything, is the meaning of history? How do we know things? What is Wisdom? What is beauty and is it connected to goodness/ What is the nature and significance of language? What are some of the most important virtues and vices?

[littlemanpoet]

Seems like you have about two dozen threads rolled into one here.

[Boromir88]

As lmp said this is a collection of multiple thread possibilities, but all the more to talk about the better, eh?

I think if we look at Plato's dialogue The Republic we can see a similar philosophy to what is in Lord of the Rings. In The Republic Plato talks about 'why be moral? What is actually morality? How does one become immoral?' In The Republic dialogue the Socrates support morality and Glaucon goes to argue against it.

Glaucon's argument is that the immoral actually end up better off than the moral, therefor why be moral? This is what leads to the story of Gyges. Gyges is a poor shephard who comes across a ring that makes him invisible. And he decides to use this ring with immoral purposes. He seduces the King and Queen to the point where he becomes the Ruler. Which leaves Glaucon's argument as what's the point of being moral?

The Socrates argue back saying that being immoral corrupts the soul. It doesn't matter how much wealth, power, or prestige one gets...immorality may lead somebody to have all these things, yet their soul is corrupted. And goes on to say that a moral life leads to the salvation of the soul.

It's interesting that Glaucon brought up the story of Gyges and the Ring. Perhaps we see similarities in The Lord of the Rings. Let's take a look at Boromir for instance.

His idea is to use the Ring as a tool, in fact it's kind of similar to how Gyges uses the Ring. Boromir wishes to use the Ring for personal gain, he's of the idea that if the enemy is erradicated that will end the problem. Gondor will be brought back to it's 'glory' and the Ring will do this for him:

'I can well believe that Boromir, the proud and fearless, often rash, and ever anxious for the victory of Minas Tirith (and his own glory therein), might desire such a thing and be allured by it.~The Window on the West

We can sit here and argue all day whether the Ring would have achieved what Boromir thought it would, but I don't think that has bearing on a discussion over philosophy here. Had the ring given Boromir what he wanted, the Socrates would have argued that Boromir he may have gotten everything he wanted but he would have had a corrupted soul. Boromir did fall to the Ring's temptation, however his acts at the end of sacrficing his life saved him. As Gandalf put it he was 'saved in the end' (The White Rider), but I find Aragorn's comments to even be more interesting:

'No!' said Aragorn, taking his hand and kissing his brow. 'You have conquered. Few have gained such a victory. Be at peace! Minas Tirith will not fall.'~The Departure of Boromir

Boromir 'conquered' few have gained the victory he did. If we look at this, we wonder what did Boromir accomplish? He did go and do his best to defend Merry and Pippin, but they were captured. Aragorn therefor, must be talking about Boromir's soul, and that he redeemed himself. He made a wrong and 'immoral' decision, yet because of his sacrifice Aragorn assures him that he conquered and gives him the comforting words of 'Be at peace.'

Now let's look at Galadriel. Galadriel was offered the Ring and she denied taking it. Eventhough if she had greatly desired to possess the One Ring, her love for the rest of Middle-earth (and it's people) kept her from falling to the Ring. Her 'morality' kept her from falling to the Ring's temptation. When Galadriel denies to take the Ring I see that as a great act of love...and love is one of the absolute best qualities to possess. As you could argue 'love endures all.' She could have given into her desires, and achieved what she wanted, but because she knew how the Ring would corrupt her, her love held her back.

I'm reminded of Robert E. Lee's response when a young private asked what he would do after signing the treaty to end the Civil War. This private said he should gather the South together and start a guerilla warfare against the Union, to which Lee told the the soldier that may be what both of them want, but it's not what's best for the civilians of the South. He reminds the soldier how Sherman went right through the South burning houses of southern civilians and if they were to do this guerilla warfare it would be far worse. So, despite Lee's thoughts after the war, and perhaps he personally wanted to continue resistance...his love for the people of the South held him back. He knew waging a guerilla warfare would only bring more death and destruction to southern citizens, and therefor Lee went on in the aftermath to support reconstruction and integrating the South back into the Union...despite that being possibly against his personal desires.

Tolkien in later texts talks about how Galadriel was 'unstained,' this may contradict what was earlier written about Galadriel, but still even these earlier concepts of Galadriel had her a figure of morality. And it is her love that keeps her from taking the Ring and as Galadriel put it herself: 'forever remain Galadriel.'

[Dûrbelethwen]

Sorry I have not posted the next lecture before now. The next lecture was a biography of Professor Tolkien. Since I am sure most of the people here know most of his life I will just mention those things that I thought were important.
Tolkien transferred his affections for his mother to his faith because he thought she died for her faith.
He had an interest and for a time supported the language Esperanto which was an effort at a universal language.
He specialized in signaling during the war because of his interest in languages.
He felt a certain obligation to his dead friends from the TCBS to write the aspired literary legacy.

[Dûrbelethwen]

It is the opinion of my philosophy professor that in Lord of the Rings the places are just as important as the characters.
There was a "genius" of the places which menas the guardian or spirit of a place
Other worlds/ realms/ lands open our minds and hearts to new possibilities.
Places are a background to characters and some characters are shaped by places.
The Shire: It is like a state of being- it has a childlikeness, it has a preciousness if it was lost it would be a loss to Middle Earth.
The Old Forest: It seems to be seperated from the rest of Middle Earth, Old Man Willow is sort of like the Mob-boss of the old forest, it wants to be itself,
Bree: has a sense of transvence (we did not spend a lot of time on Bree)
Rivendell: etheral, a place of refuge, also serious-place of healing and coucil. It is a spiritual fortess and it can be compared to those places (Rohan and Gondor) that are not and what happened to their leaders.
Moria: It feels like a large tomb, compare the look and the sound of the two names Moria and Mordor, it warns people against greed because trouble always occured because of a search of wealth- both material wealth and knowledge as when the enemy army can uppon the fellowship because Gandalf took time to read the tales in Moria.
Lothlorien: compare the lighter feel of the word versus Moria, it feels that it has its own time-eternal, the Mallorn trees seem to be symbolic of the elves who are in their decline like the leaves but as the leaves they are hanging on until the new people come in. The temptation of Galadriel is more poignant because she would have been able to perseve Lothlorien with the ruling ring.
Isengard: should have been a place of safety but has been taken.

[Dûrbelethwen]

Rohan: They are rugged people, cautious, well disciplined, men and their horses are one, fear in the land, melancholy sense in the royal house, a place that should be restored.
Fangorn: Treebeard is the spirt of the place of the place, an uneasy sense because of a sadness and loss for what was and an underlying anger not on the scale of the Old Forest, though slow to come to a decision once they make it they go all out.
Dead Marshes: Melancholy- more so then regular marshes because there are not any signs of wildlife, possibly a trap by Sauron, reminiscent of the Barrow-downs in that those who died in battle stay to haunt the place, from the description of it it seems that it once was good but now has been corrupted and there is the remberance of it was, it has a sense of despair.
"It was dreary and wearisome. Cold clammy winter still held sway in this forsaken country. The only green was the scum of livid weed on the dark greasy surfaces of the sullen waters. Dead grasses and rotting reeds loomed up in the mists like ragged shadows of long-forgotten summers."
(Aside while looking at the picture of the Dead Marshes from the movie my professor said it looked like the soccer field at the college)
Osgiliath: it is a picture of what will happen if Sauron succeeds, shows that Mordor is expanding.
Minas Tirith: the change from Anor to Tirith shows its change that it has to be on its guard, stands for the civilization of the west, very prideful.
Mordor: Personification of hate and rage, a sense of defiance, personification of industrization, seems empty, loud, harsh,
"Still far away, forty miles at least, they saw Mount Doom, its feet founded in ashen ruin, its huge cone rising to a great height, where its reeking head was swathed in cloud. Its fires were now dimmed, and it stood in smouldering slumber, as threatening and dangerous as a sleeping beast. Behind it there hung a vast shadow, ominous as a thunder-cloud, the veils of Barad-dur that was reared far away upon a long spur of the Ashen Mountains thrust down from the North."
all descriptive words are harsh, the quote is like a razor blade in you mind.
Gray Havens: peaceful, change from time to eternity, preparation for a place of rest and healing, poignancy of loss, the experience of death, acceptance of loss, sense of lingering because they do not want to be separated but need to continue on their journey, it is realistic in the grieving process.
Both of Tolkien's descriptions show he was immensely skillful in the use of adjectives, taking simple words and putting in a refreshing vitality.

[littlemanpoet]

So far, most of what I've read in your summaries, I've read somewhere else before. Which is not to say it's not good stuff. But I'm waiting for the "philosophy" side of it. What's this professor going to say about the philosophy of - or behind - LotR?

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

So far, most of what I've read in your summaries, I've read somewhere else before. Which is not to say it's not good stuff. But I'm waiting for the "philosophy" side of it. What's this professor going to say about the philosophy of - or behind - LotR?

Well, if he's smart he'll say very clearly that there isn't one.....

[littlemanpoet]

In which case we can count on him being 'unsmart', or why teach the course?

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

In which case we can count on him being 'unsmart', or why teach the course?

Well, the course is 'Lord of the Rings & Philosophy' not 'The Philosophy of LotR'. I could run a course on 'Brussels Sprouts & Philosophy' (& darn good it would be too) but while it may touch on Philosophy, refer to famous philosophers who had liked sprouts, or even claim that sprouts helped one to philosophize by stimulating brain cells, I couldn't really claim there was a 'philosophy' of, or behind, said veg.

As to why someone would teach a course on the philosophy behind LotR, well, LotR is quite popular at the moment so such a course will attract many lovers of Tolkien & a fair number of pseuds (& not a few who, like myself, would go along for a laugh & to throw fruit) but enough to stroke the ego & ensure the continuing salary of such a one.

Anyway, I'm getting all negative about this so I'll wend my way off this thread....

[Lalwendë]

I know which book Durbelethwen refers to, it's The Lord of the Rings and Philosophy, which came out about two or three years ago. It's basically a collection of essays by assorted academics from assorted US colleges on random philosophical themes, evil, free-will, Nietzsche, fetishism etc. It's a real curate's egg, good in parts, bad in others. It's not one of the best books on Tolkien, few collections of essays are. The series also includes books on Buffy the Vampire Slayer & Philosophy and The Simpsons & Philosophy and promises one on Baseball & Philosophy.

The introduction does point out that Tolkien was in no way a philosopher, and that the book itself does not set out to 'find' inner or hidden meanings; it was written by simply asking some academics who also happened to be Tolkien fans to answer some of the questions brought up by LotR against a background of philosophy. So if this course is similar, which I suspect it is, then we're not going to get any definitive answers, just a whole lot of ideas.

[davem]

Was a bit brusque in my earlier post. To Clarify....I think its clear there's no coherent philosophical 'system' behind LotR -it is not a 'philosophical' novel, let alone a work of philosophy in novel form (a la Nietszche's Zarathustra). Hence, I wonder what philosophy has to do with LotR, or what a philosophical analysis is likely to gain.

It seems to me that the motivation behind this approach is to treat the work 'seriously', to analyse it for hidden meanings & subtexts. This, of course, is something Tolkien opposed, breaking a thing to find out what it is made of, telling the reader 'what it all means'.

Of all the possible approaches to LotR I think the 'philosophical' approach is likely to achieve least - a linguistic or mythological analysis will shine much more light on Tolkien's creation - in my opinion

"Dead Marshes: Melancholy-", "Mordor: Personification of hate and rage, a sense of defiance, personification of industrization, seems empty, loud, harsh, ", "Gray Havens: peaceful, change from time to eternity, preparation for a place of rest and healing, poignancy of loss, the experience of death, acceptance of loss,"

This reads to me like the kind of thing you find in beginners books on Tarot: The Fool - innocence, foolishness, Death - a new beginning, The High Priest - wisdom, etc. It all seems too simplistic & most likely to elicit the response 'Well, duh! really! The Dead Marshes is a melancholy place! Who'd have thought it!'

Of course, if you enjoy that kind of thing its probably very cool. Not for me, I'm afraid...

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by davem

Of all the possible approaches to LotR I think the 'philosophical' approach is likely to achieve least - a linguistic or mythological analysis will shine much more light on Tolkien's creation - in my opinion

As someone who makes his living with philosophy I must say I agree with davem here. Even if I think that philosophy or philosophical attitude towards the things in the world one encounters is most refreshing and gratifying, it's not any magic box from where all the right or fruitful questions / answers will stem from automatically.

On the first plane at least linguistics, cultural anthropology, folklorism, history, psychology... you name it, will give us much more interesting viewpoints into Tolkien's work as such. How do we relate to these things and why, what can be argued to exist under all these different approaches, or what unexplicated assumptions do we base our interpretations of Tolkien on? Etc... These are then bending towards philosophical inqueries and I think they're not totally worthless, but making a course of this in Uni would require that we first have the stuff (different interpretations of Tolkien) to ruminate about...

[Child of the 7th Age]

Just a quick side comment....but there was a discussion started by Esty several eons ago on the book that's been mentioned in this thread: Lord of the Ring and Philosophy. Her comments generated a rather lively and extended discussion on Plato's views on morality and how these compared with Tolkien's and how these are reflected or not in the various characters.

See here.

As an ardent baseball fan, I admit I purchased the book on baseball and philosophy and got a kick out of it! But I would definitely not advise anyone to look at baseball or Lord of the Rings primarily in terms of philosophy. However, my first inclination is to shrug my shoulders and say "if it works for you, so be it". In personal terms, I would prefer to take a different approach (which is probably why I didn't post on that original thread.)

[davem]

Ok, so...

1) Did Tolkien set out intentionally, with 'malice aforethought', to write a work of philosophy - Is LotR a 'Philosophical novel'?

2) Did he write a philosophical work without realising it, unintentionallly - (ie the work presents us with a clearly set out, coherent & logical philosophical 'system')?

3) Is it possible for a reader to use LotR as a 'stepping off' point for a course in Philosophy 101 (ie - 'this character/event reminds me very much of what Plato said about 'x' or 'isn't it interesting how we can apply the medieval theory of Humours/four elements/Jung's psychological types/Tarot suits ...to the four Hobbits?

Well, to 1) I'd say clearly he didn't. We have the letters, the early drafts, interviews, & at no point did Tolkien even imply that he wrote LotR as a philosophical work.

To 2) I'd say no again - even if Tolkien himself had not picked up on the fact he'd written a philosophical novel one of his fellow Inklings would have & pointed it out to him. I think Tolkien was smart enough to know what his book was about & what it ws not about.

To 3) I'd simply ask what novel you couldn't do that with.

I think the problem is that you have two different things here which you're attempting to combine together, but these things are a bit like oil & water - both liquids but they won't mix. You'll either end up sacrificing serious study of philosophy in favour of literary analysis or vice versa. Now if it was 'Zarathustra & Philosophy' you wouldn't face that problem. Zarathustra was a philosophical novel, intended to set out Nietszche's philosophy in 'novelistic' form (yes, I realise that oversimplifies massively, but I hope you get the point I'm making).

Philosophical themes in Lord of the Rings: What is reality? What does reality include? The supernatural or only the temporal? God's actions or only ours? God's purposes or only ours? What is good and evil? What, if anything, is the meaning of history? How do we know things? What is Wisdom? What is beauty and is it connected to goodness/ What is the nature and significance of language? What are some of the most important virtues and vices?

Well, ok - but why pick LotR to analyse? Is LotR a particularly good candidate for philosophical analysis? Was it just picked at random for 'dissection'? It seems to me that such a course is likely to fail to achieve anything - to the extent that you focus on LotR you'll neglect the philosophy, to the extent you focus on the philosophy you'll neglect the story

as story

Literature shows the truth that philosophy talks about.

Well, it may, or it may not - the statement seems a little dogmatic to me - but it seems to imply that that is the purpose, not to mention the intention behind literature. I'm not sure they're the same thing at all (which is what the statement seems to imply). The primary purpose of literature, it seems to me, is not to teach philosophy, or to reveal philosophical truths, or question the ultimate meaning of things, but simply to entertain. It may reveal 'truths' along the way, but that is not its purpose (or when it is the author's purpose the work produced tends to be unreadable). Literature's 'purpose' (if one can put it that way) is to entertain, philosophy's 'purpose' is to enlighten. Now literature may also enlighten, & philosophy may also entertain, but that will be 'accidental' in the main, because generally novels written with the intention of enlightening the reader tend to be boring, & philosophy presented with the intention to entertain tends to be shallow.

Or something....

[Hookbill the Goomba]

After reading through this thread I was struck by how much one can derive from some of Tolkien's works. Not only here, but one has only to look around the Downs to see threads built up out of a phrase or two here and there. With any lengthy work, such as the Middle Earth Legendarium, there are bound to be hidden things, little nods to other things and so on.

Of course, Tolkien wasn't an alien from the planet Zoog, where people have sixty or so faces. The title of this post comes from the Rabbinical traditions of Judaism, some Rabbis used to say (and I belive still do) that 'The Tanakh (the Old testament) is like a gem with seventy faces; each time you turn it, the light refracts differently, giving you a reflection you have not seen before'.
We here on the Downs seem to treat Tolkien similarly; everyone keeps turning the books and seeing something new. In the Rabbinical sense, they also said that even Moses (the recorder of the Torah) didn't understand everything in the books he wrote. Nor did all of the Prophets fully comprehend all that they said. Is it possible then, that Tolkien was not aware of just how many interpretations and arguments would be taken from some of his most innocent phrases (like, 'the shadow about it stretched forth like two vast wings' )?
Tolkien was not a philosopher, of course, and I don't think he ever claimed to be. We all have our own philosophical ideas that we want to get across from time to time (everyone thinks they have the right opinion, otherwise they'd get a new one). Of course, in a work such as Middle Earth where so many mythologies and legends are mixed together, each bringing its own philosophical background and connotations, can we really pin anything down for certain on the professor?

[Rhod the Red]

I don't think they're linked so there's sort of a waste of time and money in operation, in my view. Have fun.

[Dûrbelethwen]

1. What is meant by "good" and "evil"?
No question is more important in philosophy, philosophy means love of wisdom, wisdom enables one to live well, this implies a doctrine of goodness to pursue, and a doctrine of evil to eschew, before (what should we do), we need metaphysics:
1) What are good and evil? Do both exist, only one, or neither?
2) If both exist, are good and evil equal in being, power and importance?
3) Tolkien's view: Evil is real and absolutely different from good. But evil is less than, because dependent on good.
If evil is successful in destroying something good, then like a parasite, it either destroys itself or survives only by finding a new host.
Evil cannot survive by itself, and in its quest for power is really a slave to those it depends on. (Everything that is evil is a corruption of what was good. ex. Orcs, trolls) (the Ring the most evil thing has no power when no one claims it, those who had it were originally good.)
Theologically God is good and the ground of all being, therefore everything God creates is good in itself. So evil can only be a perversion of good, never a substance in its own right
Yet evil can infect everything. Virtually everything in Middle-earth is infected, maybe not Bombadil. Even Gandalf is to the extent that he cannot bear the ring. As good as Gandalf is, he cannot withstand the ring's corrupting influence.
4) Evil is very powerful:
Despite its ontological dependence on good, evil is VERY powerful. By themselves, no-one in Middle-earth, not even Gandalf can defeat it. (Those who chase after power invariably fall down, while the humble are the ones who succeed.) (The evil causes disception like Bormir who thought he could use the ring.)
Like modern packaging... The power of the ring cannot be undone by human effort (Providence occurs though evil happens as on the occasion of Boromir's death.)
What is the power of the ring?
1) The ring enhances power of the wielder: more scope for evil
2) The ring grants "invisibility: deception is necessary for evil to prevail
3) The ring destroys community: (When the person is invisible then the person is out of the society of those around him.) (The discord that Melkor put into the song of the creation) It denies our social, inter-related nature, and affirms our radical autonomy.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

We've discussed the power of the ring often here, yet I find that the last two points you mention add an interesting dimension.

Invisibility as signifying deception - a fascinating connection! When I stop to think about it, it's very true - from Isildur's escape attempt, to Gollum's petty crimes, to Bilbo's disappearance from pesky relatives - even Sam's appearance as a huge Elf-warrior! I'm not sure this applies to any of Frodo's uses of the ring though. And Sauron apparently does not disappear, so this aspect does not apply to him.

The ring as destroyer of community, of fellowship - of The Fellowship, quite literally! A very interesting concept - though it does create a new fellowship, with those who are also evil and under the same power. I would not agree that it gives autonomy - bondage in place of community is not a very good trade.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Estelyn Telcontar

We've discussed the power of the ring often here, yet I find that the last two points you mention add an interesting dimension.

Invisibility as signifying deception - a fascinating connection! When I stop to think about it, it's very true - from Isildur's escape attempt, to Gollum's petty crimes, to Bilbo's disappearance from pesky relatives - even Sam's appearance as a huge Elf-warrior! I'm not sure this applies to any of Frodo's uses of the ring though.

Frodo deceives Sauron into thinking that he's not on Amon Hen. (right hill?) On Weathertop, all he did was reveal himself to his attackers and hide himself from his friends; so that's not so much deception of others as a kind of somewhat accidental self-removal from community.

As for a "community of evil", such a thing can only ever be an accident of common purpose as long as the common purpose exists, for evil is by definition self-centered, and will brook no rivalry in its attempts to gain for itself what it desires, certainly at the expense of weaker beings of evil.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Dûrbelethwen

3) Tolkien's view: Evil is real and absolutely different from good. But evil is less than, because dependent on good.

Not sure he did - he felt it was a corruption of Good, rather than a thing in itself - therefore it cannot be ''absolutely different' from good.

If evil is successful in destroying something good, then like a parasite, it either destroys itself or survives only by finding a new host.
Evil cannot survive by itself, and in its quest for power is really a slave to those it depends on. (Everything that is evil is a corruption of what was good. ex. Orcs, trolls) (the Ring the most evil thing has no power when no one claims it, those who had it were originally good.)

Again, not if evil is a perversion of good, because to the extent it contains 'good' (even Orcs desire freedom) it can survive without a source of 'pure' good to feed off. The fact that evil is perverted or corrupted good guarantees the possibility of redemption even in the most evil

Theologically God is good and the ground of all being, therefore everything God creates is good in itself. So evil can only be a perversion of good, never a substance in its own right

Which contradicts the earlier point (as I stated)...

What is the power of the ring?
1) The ring enhances power of the wielder: more scope for evil
2) The ring grants "invisibility: deception is necessary for evil to prevail
3) The ring destroys community: (When the person is invisible then the person is out of the society of those around him.) (The discord that Melkor put into the song of the creation) It denies our social, inter-related nature, and affirms our radical autonomy.

1) the question is does the Ring enhance the power of the wielder - or does it 'lend' power to the wielder in order to trick him/her into believing it is enhancing his/her power?

2) I'm not sure 'deception' is necessary for evil to prevail - but power is - a supremely powerful being would not need to deceive anyone about anything.

3) define 'community' ...

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

The fact that evil is perverted or corrupted good guarantees the possibility of redemption even in the most evil.

Indeed? Please explain. This appears to assume too much. Such as, on what is this supposed 'guarantee' based? Although I see that you have qualified your statement by saying "possibility" rather than something more definite.

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Indeed? Please explain. This appears to assume too much. Such as, on what is this supposed 'guarantee' based? Although I see that you have qualified your statement by saying "possibility" rather than something more definite.

Well, Tolkien's universe not being dualistic, Evil is not a thing in itself, but a 'perversion' of something else (good). Evil is 'absence' (of good) rather than 'presence' (of evil). Hence a wholly evil thing or being would not actually exist. For anything to exist it must retain some element of its original (good) nature. It seems to me that existence in itself is a guarantee of some innate remnant (however perverted) of good which can be redeemed. Even Melkor may be redeemed in the end, as even though he was cast into the void 'he' still existed.

Like energy, good cannot be destroyed, only transformed - & that transformation can happen either way. While a sentient being exists 'repentance' is possible (ie return to its original state).

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

Well, Tolkien's universe not being dualistic, Evil is not a thing in itself, but a 'perversion' of something else (good). Evil is 'absence' (of good) rather than 'presence' (of evil). Hence a wholly evil thing or being would not actually exist. For anything to exist it must retain some element of its original (good) nature. It seems to me that existence in itself is a guarantee of some innate remnant (however perverted) of good which can be redeemed. Even Melkor may be redeemed in the end, as even though he was cast into the void 'he' still existed.

That which is not bolded I have no argument with. How mere existence, by virtue of some good, "no matter how perverted", can be redeemed, is not conclusively based on the information not bolded. How does the perversion not remove the chance for redemption?

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

That which is not bolded I have no argument with. How mere existence, by virtue of some good, "no matter how perverted", can be redeemed, is not conclusively based on the information not bolded. How does the perversion not remove the chance for redemption?

Because the 'evil' is absence - what remains in existence is 'good'. I don't say the chance is high, but that it remains. If any chance of redemption (by which, as I stated, I mean return to the individual's original state, not 'salvation' btw) is removed while some part is still 'good' (ie the individual still 'exists' to some degree) then we introduce 'damnation' into the picture - Eru will deny a return to the original state while it is still 'technically' a possibility.

[littlemanpoet]

Since you are using the word "redemption", I assume you know what it implies: namely, payment of a debt, in some form of currency that is acceptable to the one to whom the debt is owed. In the case of evil, what is the currency? Perhaps some law has been broken? Some code transgressed? Whatever the case, what payment are you considering to be possible in this case? What has Tolkien said from which one could deduce a form of currency in terms of this guaranteed redemption of which you speak?

To address another part of this problem, how much good must be left in an entity for that entity to be redeemed? One percent? Less than one percent? An infinitessimal degree, so long as it is just this one little smidgen of good? My reason for asking this is that it stands against all reason and good sense. Consider, would you give a Lawyer's license to a prospect who got one answer out of 100 correct on the bar exam? Would you allow someone to drive who got precisely one aspect of driving correct out of 100? Of course not. Why, then, should one expect a moral code to be some kind of fantastic exception such that scoring 1% on your morality exam passes you into the realm of that one who has set up the exam? It's preposterous.

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

What has Tolkien said from which one could deduce a form of currency in terms of this guaranteed redemption of which you speak?

Clearly the 'debt' is owed to oneself. I was using the word in the colloquial sense of 'redeeming oneself'.

To address another part of this problem, how much good must be left in an entity for that entity to be redeemed? One percent? Less than one percent? An infinitessimal degree, so long as it is just this one little smidgen of good? My reason for asking this is that it stands against all reason and good sense. Consider, would you give a Lawyer's license to a prospect who got one answer out of 100 correct on the bar exam? Would you allow someone to drive who got precisely one aspect of driving correct out of 100? Of course not. Why, then, should one expect a moral code to be some kind of fantastic exception such that scoring 1% on your morality exam passes you into the realm of that one who has set up the exam? It's preposterous.

Its Universalist. I don't see any evidence in the texts that universal 'redemption' is impossible. One can retake tests. Where there's life, there's hope. The soul of each single one of us is sent that the universe may be complete, as Plotinus said.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

Clearly the 'debt' is owed to oneself. I was using the word in the colloquial sense of 'redeeming oneself'.

So Morgoth owes himself redemption? Can he just order it up? I'm really not trying to be facetious, but what you are saying makes no sense. How can Morgoth repay to himself a debt he has made to himself? What debt is this? He has become evil, and therefore owes himself a debt of not-evil? And pays himself by what means? I'm trying to identify some strand of logic in all this.

Its Universalist. I don't see any evidence in the texts that universal 'redemption' is impossible. One can retake tests. Where there's life, there's hope. The soul of each single one of us is sent that the universe may be complete, as Plotinus said.

I'm aware of the philosophical background of what you are saying. I'm asking you to defend it based on what Tolkien has written.

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

So Morgoth owes himself redemption? Can he just order it up? I'm really not trying to be facetious, but what you are saying makes no sense. How can Morgoth repay to himself a debt he has made to himself? What debt is this? He has become evil, and therefore owes himself a debt of not-evil? And pays himself by what means? I'm trying to identify some strand of logic in all this.

He has an obligation to be fully & completely himself. Morgoth's 'sin' was not to deny Eru but to deny himself & his true nature - he is divided against himself - which is why, in the end, he cannot stand. He must, therefore 'redeem himself' & return to what he was (or become what he should have been.

I'm aware of the philosophical background of what you are saying. I'm asking you to defend it based on what Tolkien has written.

There is no internal evidence for either universal redemption or eternal damnation in the writings. The former just seems more humane & is what I favour.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

He has an obligation to be fully & completely himself. Morgoth's 'sin' was not to deny Eru but to deny himself & his true nature - he is divided against himself - which is why, in the end, he cannot stand. He must, therefore 'redeem himself' & return to what he was (or become what he should have been.

This is psychology; its presumptions are numerous:
(1) being true to oneself is paramount.
(2) being true to one's creator is not important.
(3) there is enough power within the self to "achieve integration".

To posit this Jungian psychological perspective as that which Tolkien really was talking about, is erroneous at best.

Originally Posted by davem

There is no internal evidence for either universal redemption or eternal damnation in the writings.

Thank you for making this admission.

It would be nice if what we prefer is actually the way things are. It is valuable when philosophy itself is the pursuit of understanding reality for what it is, rather than that which may be preferred.

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

This is psychology; its presumptions are numerous:
(1) being true to oneself is paramount.
(2) being true to one's creator is not important.
(3) there is enough power within the self to "achieve integration".

To posit this Jungian psychological perspective as that which Tolkien really was talking about, is erroneous at best.

1) I don't think I ever said it was paramount. I stated it was necessary.
2) I don't think I said this either. Actually I don't think the two things are not mutually exclusive.
3) I didn't say this either. I simply said it has to start with the individual, & that if it doesn't it can't happen at all.

Thank you for making this admission.

I don't see it as an 'admission' as it isn't actually in contradiction to anything else I've ever said. My approach is to take the text as given, & not to read into it anything from 'outside'. There is no mention of 'eternal damnation' in Tolkien's work, hence, I see no justification (& certainly no necessity) for reading it in. Whether one does or not says more about the reader than it does about the text.

It would be nice if what we prefer is actually the way things are. It is valuable when philosophy itself is the pursuit of understanding reality for what it is, rather than that which may be preferred.

And what is 'the way things actually are'? The point of philosophy (as opposed to theology) is to ask this very question & strive to answer it from experience or logical investigation, not to start from the position of 'assuming that which is to be proved' & trying to make reality fit owns own pre-conceived belief system. I haven't come across any indisputable theory about what 'reality' actually is.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

To posit this Jungian psychological perspective as that which Tolkien really was talking about, is erroneous at best.

Why is it 'erroneous at best'?

And what is it 'at worst'?

[davem]

Just a note on the universal salvation or otherwise of M-e. I do have to say that I don't want hellfire & eternal damnation in M-e & its as simple as that. I'm reminded of Tolkien's judgement on Dante:

(he) doesn't attract me. He's full of spite and malice

. I prefer not to drag such hopelessness & horror into my beloved M-e, so I either choose Universalism, or I don't think about it at all.

[littlemanpoet]

(1) By asserting that Morgoth's 'sin' was against himself and not against Eru is tantamount to saying that Morgoth being true to himself - an integrated self - is more important than obedience to Eru.
(2) The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but one takes priority over the other since Morgoth's sin was, as Tolkien says, against Eru.
(3) Perhaps "start with himself" was meant, but it was not stated until now. If one does not hold that there is enough power in oneself to achieve integration, then one must consider integration to be either unachievable, or the necessary power to achieve it to be accessible through some other means. If Morgoth's self-integration is unachievable, then the assertion that his 'sin' against himself was to be untrue to himself falls apart, because he cannot therefore be completely and fully himself once he has committed this 'sin' against himself. If, on the other hand, Morgoth's true-to-himself-ness is achievable through means outside himself only, what other means, and what does this imply?

Originally Posted by davem

I don't see it as an 'admission' as it isn't actually in contradiction to anything else I've ever said.

As shown here, the earlier assertion that Melkor could be redeemed, was the first instance of Universalism. My request that it be defended from Tolkien's writings was met with the admission that such a stance cannot be defended from Tolkien's works.

Originally Posted by davem

And what is 'the way things actually are'? The point of philosophy (as opposed to theology) is to ask this very question & strive to answer it from experience or logical investigation, not to start from the position of 'assuming that which is to be proved' & trying to make reality fit owns own pre-conceived belief system. I haven't come across any indisputable theory about what 'reality' actually is.

As is known by anyone familiar with philosophical paradigms, experience and logical investigation are not alone as the basis for philosophical pursuit. Certain presumed beliefs always underlie them. Any belief that is not admitted at the outset, results in blind spots that do not fail to affect the philosopher's conclusions negatively.

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

(1) By asserting that Morgoth's 'sin' was against himself and not against Eru is tantamount to saying that Morgoth being true to himself - an integrated self - is more important than obedience to Eru.

It could be argued Morgoth's 'sin' was against his essential (Eru given) nature. Of course, it could also be argued that if he hadn't rebelled the story would have been a very short & very boring one. Morgoth may introduce 'evil' into the the world, but it also introduces rebellion, & introduces the possibility of defying Morgoth himself. If obedience to Eru doesn't involve being an integrated (ie whole) person the individual will remain conflicted & not know peace. Simply, if Morgoth hadn't defied Eru nothing would have happened of any interest to any reader. When Morgoth introduces his dissonance into the Music things start to happen, & the reader thinks 'Right, now its going to get interesting!' Its not simply that Morgoth's existence is necessary its that his rebelllion is necessary too - if only from the persepective of making the story interesting. Morgoth hurts, destroys, introduces cruelty, pain, heartbreak, offends, upsets & is generally a pain, but without him there would be nothing to struggle against, to challenge or be challenged by.

Morgoth is the Dionysian element that stops everything stagnating & being 'embalmed' in a state of 'perfection'. He is the Prometheus of M-e, who steals the fire (the Silmarils) from Heaven, & while he may not give them to Men, he makes it possible for Men to get hold of them - if they are willing to take the same risk he took to steal them in the first place. Because of Morgoth the Light of Paradise enters into M-e (& remains there, in the Air (bound to the brow of Earendel) in the Earth & in the Sea). As I said, Morgoth's rebellion is necessary, & therefore inevitable. He serves his purpose at the most terrible cost to himself - inner fragmentation & exile in the Void. To deny all possibility of return & reconciliation to him seems morally 'iffy' to say the least.....

(2) The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but one takes priority over the other since Morgoth's sin was, as Tolkien says, against Eru.

Well, it was Tolkien's judgement that was the case.

(3) Perhaps "start with himself" was meant, but it was not stated until now. If one does not hold that there is enough power in oneself to achieve integration, then one must consider integration to be either unachievable, or the necessary power to achieve it to be accessible through some other means. If Morgoth's self-integration is unachievable, then the assertion that his 'sin' against himself was to be untrue to himself falls apart, because he cannot therefore be completely and fully himself once he has committed this 'sin' against himself. If, on the other hand, Morgoth's true-to-himself-ness is achievable through means outside himself only, what other means, and what does this imply?

One does not have to hold that view, of course. It is the orthodox Christian view, but then we are back at the whole 'Is the Legendarium a 'Christian' work question. We don't know that Morgoth's self integration was impossible. One would have to prove that M-e works according to Christian rules - which has to be proved, not assumed.

As shown here, the earlier assertion that Melkor could be redeemed, was the first instance of Universalism. My request that it be defended from Tolkien's writings was met with the admission that such a stance cannot be defended from Tolkien's works.

No - we're speculating, because we have no proof either way from Tolkien's writings. One only has to show that 'X' is possible in order to have a debate. I can argue for Universalism in M-e because it is logically possible & there is no contradictory evidence. We come back to a question of aesthetics.

As is known by anyone familiar with philosophical paradigms, experience and logical investigation are not alone as the basis for philosophical pursuit. Certain presumed beliefs always underlie them. Any belief that is not admitted at the outset, results in blind spots that do not fail to affect the philosopher's conclusions negatively.

As long as we acknowledge that our beliefs are unfounded - if we could 'prove' them then we wouldn't need to 'believe' them - & are prepared to give up, or alter, our beliefs if they do not stand up to scrutiny - or accept at the least that other beliefs may be correct & our own incorrect.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Why is it 'erroneous at best'?

To posit this Jungian psychological perspective as that which Tolkien really was talking about, is erroneous at best because one would be saying that Tolkien was most concerned about a particular psychological process, whereas his mythopoeia is far richer than that. I am not, however, saying that one cannot find parallels in Tolkien's works from Jungian psychological perspectives.

And what is it 'at worst'?

I could offer my own opinion, but I prefer not to speculate.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

To posit this Jungian psychological perspective as that which Tolkien really was talking about, is erroneous at best because one would be saying that Tolkien was most concerned about a particular psychological process, whereas his mythopoeia is far richer than that. I am not, however, saying that one cannot find parallels in Tolkien's works from Jungian psychological perspectives.

I could offer my own opinion, but I prefer not to speculate.

We can't know exactly what Tolkien was talking about. The most we can hope to do is to understand what the text gives us by reading it closely and the analysis given does exactly that. I suppose it's a bit of a shame that Jungian analysis so often does get to the root of the issue at hand; just because it gives us the right answer is no need to reject it out of hand.

And it does in this case. Melkor is created by Eru and as such can only possess what Eru gives to him. So if he is not true to himself then he is indeed not being true to Eru, who made him.

Who knows if Tolkien, by creating a set of Gods who were bestowed with their skills and personalities by an omnipotent creator God, and who therefore we must expect were created with the intention of being true to their/their creator's self, did not intend anything psychological by it. It so happens that this is just how things are in the cosmology he created and by happy accident that seems to fit with something Jungian.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

It could be argued Morgoth's 'sin' was against his essential (Eru given) nature. Of course, it could also be argued that if he hadn't rebelled the story would have been a very short & very boring one. Morgoth may introduce 'evil' into the the world, but it also introduces rebellion, & introduces the possibility of defying Morgoth himself. If obedience to Eru doesn't involve being an integrated (ie whole) person the individual will remain conflicted & not know peace. Simply, if Morgoth hadn't defied Eru nothing would have happened of any interest to any reader. When Morgoth introduces his dissonance into the Music things start to happen, & the reader thinks 'Right, now its going to get interesting!' Its not simply that Morgoth's existence is necessary its that his rebelllion is necessary too - if only from the persepective of making the story interesting. Morgoth hurts, destroys, introduces cruelty, pain, heartbreak, offends, upsets & is generally a pain, but without him there would be nothing to struggle against, to challenge or be challenged by.

I have no disagreement with this. However, it is best to recognize that the dis-integration of Morgoth must be a result of the rebellion (which happens long before he messes with the Music) rather than the other way around. If the dis-integration occurred before the rebellion, the cause of the disintegration would have to be in the very creation of Morgoth, and therefore Eru to blame; but Tolkien does not write that; rather, he writes that it was Morgoth's choice to rebel. Seems like two different threads are beginning to merge into one debate. A pity; this had all the earmarks of having a more interesting and wider scope.

Originally Posted by davem

Morgoth is the Dionysian element that stops everything stagnating & being 'embalmed' in a state of 'perfection'. He is the Prometheus of M-e, who steals the fire (the Silmarils) from Heaven, & while he may not give them to Men, he makes it possible for Men to get hold of them - if they are willing to take the same risk he took to steal them in the first place.

"Embalmed" is hardly a fit description of pre-Arda creation. Tolkien's description of the unmarred Music uses an entirely different set of adjectives than "stagnating". Perhaps a re-reading is needed. To characterize Morgoth as Promethean is to deny everything written about him by Tolkien, and to misunderstand the legendarium fundamentally. Morgoth, as Tolkien states, has more in common with the Hebrew Lucifer.

Originally Posted by davem

Because of Morgoth the Light of Paradise enters into M-e (& remains there, in the Air (bound to the brow of Earendel) in the Earth & in the Sea). As I said, Morgoth's rebellion is necessary, & therefore inevitable. He serves his purpose at the most terrible cost to himself - inner fragmentation & exile in the Void.

Based on this understanding, Morgoth must therefore be the one to be honored as the creator of all good and glory, etc. Obviously this is not the case. Rather, this is another example of a eucatastrophe, an unforeseen (amazing) grace brought about against all odds, and certainly against Morgoth's calculations. One must wonder what kind of thinking is at the back of attributing goodness and self-sacrificing nobility to Morgoth?

Originally Posted by davem

To deny all possibility of return & reconciliation to him seems morally 'iffy' to say the least....

Since Tolkien does write Morgoth's exile into the Void into the story, why does this occur? What would be the results of this not happening?

As to the assertion that the (3) point from post #34 is orthodox Christian, it was meant to simply follow logic. Where logic leads, used rightly, is simply logical. What else it may also lead to, must therefore also be logical.

If one is speculating, then it would be best to call it speculation rather than stating a thing as if it must be so.

Originally Posted by davem

As long as we acknowledge that our beliefs are unfounded - if we could 'prove' them then we wouldn't need to 'believe' them - & are prepared to give up, or alter, our beliefs if they do not stand up to scrutiny - or accept at the least that other beliefs may be correct & our own incorrect.

This is assertion. No beliefs are "unfounded", unless the believer is delusional, which is to say 'out of touch with reality'. One person may believe that the other is indeed delusional, but that is beside the point. The point is valid that if one could prove beliefs, they would not be beliefs, but facts. But that is different from saying that beliefs are "unfounded". They can be founded upon logic and experience, but still be unproven. As to accepting that other beliefs may be correct and one's own incorrect, this is valid; however, paradigmatic beliefs may be so at odds that such proofs would be rendered unacceptable because one debater insists that another debater simply does not, or cannot, perceive the realities the first debater perceives. In other words, Person A might be quite 100% correct, and Person B might be 97% correct, and unable to accept the final 3% because the basis for the 97% correct is not an appropriate basis, and in fact makes it impossible for Person B to even perceive the final 3%.

[davem]

Based on this understanding, Morgoth must therefore be the one to be honored as the creator of all good and glory, etc. Obviously this is not the case. Rather, this is another example of a eucatastrophe, an unforeseen (amazing) grace brought about against all odds, and certainly against Morgoth's calculations. One must wonder what kind of thinking is at the back of attributing goodness and self-sacrificing nobility to Morgoth?

I don't see that it does require Morgoth to be honoured as the creator of all good & glory - which he clearly is not. Prometheus does not create the Fire which he steals - he merely steals it & makes it accessible - which is what Morgoth does. It merely argues for Morgoth's necessity, & refutes any claim that he is not necessary & that Arda could have done without him.

Without Melkor nothing could have happened - & its certainly arguable that without Melkor's dissonance there would have been no creation of Arda at all - if the Music had been played aright in Eternity them why do anything with it - why give it form & make it 'real'? Morgoth's rebellion is necessary for there to be something rather than nothing (or at least something interesting)

Since Tolkien does write Morgoth's exile into the Void into the story, why does this occur? What would be the results of this not happening?

Well, Morgoth must be 'removed' - but the point is he is not removed from existence altogether, merely removed to a place where he can do no further harm - one has to ask why he is kept around & not removed from existence altogether if not so that he has a chance to return to his original state.

Back to the original point though - it is entirely possible that it was Melkor's destiny to be the object of honour & glory - what we see is not him acting entirely out of his true character, but him acting out his true role but in a perverted, broken way.

[littlemanpoet]

Well well well. I have (almost) no argument with anything in the last two posts answering me.
Just one thing: "Something Interesting" is an aesthetic point. See you in 41....