How does one decide? But yes, I would agree there is free will. Elven rebellion in Aman , men turing to the dark side corrupted by Morgoth, Numenorean rebellion etc. have convinced me.

I remember a passage from the Silmarillion where Aule is reprimanded by Eru for creating creatures without free will, which have to sit idle when Aule is busy with other issues. He sets off to strike them down when they bow and shrink, bending in fear of the hammer. Eru tells Aule that this response of the dwarfs is that they have been taken over by Eru and have a free will which Aule was not able to give them.

But another interesting thing I want to discuss. Is everything good attributed to presence of God ( or his will) and every bad to his (or its) absence? ( There was one stupid statistics study in which catastrophies were proofs of God's absence and times of harmony and prosperity as proof of his existence which concluded with a 67% chance of his existance.)

But if Eru's will was present why would he create evil and mar his own creations. Does he wish to see his own creations destroyed just so he could have a good time in his "theatre". No, I think free will was present but Eru did give a nudge now and then to set things right again. Like he let Earendil cross the seas or gave Gollum a push down.

Is a vow made to Eru an act of free will. That was what started the events of the first age. So are all those free will? My answer is yes.

Another doubt. Are the creatures of the dark side under free will or under Morgoth's( or Sauron's) will. Aule, a valar couldn't give free will, so can Morgoth, or Sauron, the Maia? Or are they too under Eru's will?

Have you ever read Aldous Huxley's Brave New World? My signature entertained a quote from the book for awhile, but your words just brought it irrefutably to mind. You say that personality and circumstances lead people to things... in Huxley's book (taking place in a few hundred years) eugenics provides what you're talking about. It's nature versus nurture, only tweaked so that nature is what you make it, and you nurture it into what you want. By the time the "babies" are done being genetically enhanced (for alphas and betas) or conversely screwed up (pouring alcohol into the feeding tube of the fetus for epsilons and whatnot), you've got a load of "people" who are not only absolutely perfect for their lot in life, but who love every second of it, because it's what they're made for.

Sounds rather sinister and messed up, right? But they've got free will, yes, because each "person" can decide what to do each day. Going to work is entirely up to them. They can decide how much soma to take to escape reality. They can choose who their partners will be each day/week/whenever. They don't know any better than what they see before them, so the choices are free, yes? No constraints that they are aware of, so does that make the choice entirely theirs?

Because it is?

But surely disloyalty remains disloyalty regardless of the degree?

But what about those of us who live in a truly idealistic world where right is right and wrong is wrong (so far as we are able to tell, of course) and you can't grasp concepts that actively contradict themselves? Why else would I drop Calculus? Having a number called 2Infinity negates the concept that infinity is already the biggest. Having fate negates the idea that you can choose your own life down to the last degree.

That may be the most perceptive statement yet in this whole discussion.

...and that's a good laugh. :p

For example what if Sam did everything the same along their journey but didn't feel like finding water that time when Frodo was sleeping. Or what if he just didn't think he had it in him to carry Frodo to Mt Doom. Would we still view Sam as a loyalist or would he now become disloyal? Remember everything else remains the same just two small things change.

Loyalty is an attitude of the heart. Fetching water, etc, is a deed that flows from that loyalty, and might be affected by weariness, weakness, distractions... Perfect service is not a faultless indicator of a perfect heart, nor is imperfect service a faultless indicator of an imperfect heart; but in general, they give us a pretty good idea.

If Sam's deeds had measured more or less than they do, we would still measure him by the greatness of his heart. His deeds provide ample evidence of that greatness.

"The greatest among you shall be a servant of all." Frodo served all, and Sam served Frodo. Both show greatness of heart.

As stated earlier, no actor with the exception of Eru is without some constraints - even Manwë or Melkor couldn't simply wish the other away. Only Eru has the "infinitude of possibility," and I would say that this too is assumed. Never having been a god, I'm not sure if there are not limits even for an infinite being (like not being able to unmake yourself). Maybe the phantom can attempt to explain such concepts as infinite beinghood to the rest of us...;)


You, as the observer, may see the choice of one of the actors as limited or even non-existant, but for the person, the perception of free will is more important than even having truly 100% free will. At no time during Sam's journey from the Shire and back did he try to make one choice yet end with the result of a completely different choice.

Assume the scene where Sam goes off to get water in Mordor. Assume that Sam decides that it's not worth the risk, as Gollum or orcs are lurking near, and so he does not get any water.

Bang! Suddenly his mouth is no longer dry, and his and Frodo's waterskins are filled with water. Surely Sam would think that the Lady (or Peter Jackson ;) ) had something to do with this miracle, and would think that it was a good thing, but you and I would see that Sam's decision regarding the water meant nothing - it was just for show.

It's like when parents give a child a false choice where the parent really doesn't care what the child decides as the choice has already been made by the parent. Great way to screw your kids up as you teach them that no matter what they do, it means nothing. You end up with a passive "what does it matter what I think anyway" or and aggressive rebellious destructive child.

Eru is a better parent than that.

Or you end up with a low-key, idealistic, and remarkably confused one that's out to change the world, but isn't sure whether it would be more of a comfort to have fate on her side, or free will.

I guess what this debate boils down to is not what we think there is in Middle Earth, but what we want there to be. If it is more of a comfort to think that Eru has a master plan and that it will all work out for the greater good in then end, then you're going to vote that there is fate.

If you would prefer to believe in the unimaginable power of each individual that can be used to effect change, be it for good or evil, and without some divine foresight involved... then you're going to want free will.

Or, if you're like me, you're going to want both depending on momentary whims, and you're going to be confused as all heck because you can't, as cliched as it is, have your cake and eat it too.

Okay I see that my rushed example went a bit awry. It's not a question of his heart it's a question of varying degrees of loyalty or disloyalty. Remember I said in my example that Sam was able to get the water but didn't feel like it. He was not as loyal, in this instance, to Frodo as he is in the text. Therefore, I would still view Sam as a loyal companion to Frodo but to a bit lesser degree.

Disloyalty may illustrate my point a bit more clearly. It was stated that Sam could either be loyal or disloyal and those were his only two choices. Now couldn't he simply have been neurtral from the beginning. Neither wanting to help or hinder Frodo? Many people did that and they weren't considered disloyal. Sam, had he chosen to be disloyal to Frodo could have done many things, turn him into the Nazgul, kill him, go with him grudginly whinning the whole time and refusing to help. Obviously each is being disloyal but a different degree of disloyalty is associated with each choice.

Does this make any sense? I sometimes have difficulty expressing what I think.

Isn't the reason that we have a God or gods is to feel like "it will all work out for the greater good in the end"? Someone or something is in control, has a plan, will make it all work, will keep the wolves at bay while we sleep at night? Even as adults are we all looking to and for that all-knowing, caring and loving parent that we had or always wished that we had? Is this what we call God?

What a scary thought to think/know that no one is in control, that there is no plan, that it might not work out and only our own vigilance will keep us safe! :eek: It's all up to us.

In another thread I posited that Manwë was the worst ruler in Arda. He always seemed too passive and reactive to me ("Oh, look what Melkor has done. maybe we should do something about that..."). Is this because, as one of the original singers of the Music and 'first-born' of Eru, he relied on this music/fate a little too much?

"It'll all work out, and if not, Papa Eru's up there and he'll set thing to rights," said Manwë as he continued to sit on his throne.

Honestly, that was always reassuring to me. Thinking that my own actions determine my fate means that my actions have consequence. What I do truly matters, and quite honestly, that keeps me really good. :) Bad karma is not something I want to deal with, so I behave (most of the time) in hopes that if I lead a good life, it will in some way help the world.

Versus thinking that I'm leading a good life because a deity I'm not sure about wants me to for reasons beknownst to Him/Her alone.

And that is no doubt why I chose no. With an All-Powerful Eru calling the shots and having this fantastic ending that only he knows about, but that everyone has a part in creating, it means that your life is not yours, it's His. If you're leading a life that's entirely someone else's, even Eru's, than your decisions are his, not yours.

So what you are saying in that, as far as you can perceive, you have free will. Some entity may be up there calling all of the shots, and your whole reality may be a Peter Jackson soundstage (or maybe not; everything would be "bigger" ;) ), but you think that you are a free agent, and so I guess that's all that matters.

How would one distinguish the difference between a world where there is free will and one created by a infinite being with the appearance of free will? Luckily I have better things to think about...

And in regards to "being good," I just see it as the easier way (lowest energy state) to do things - lying, cheating, stealing, being duplicitous, etc just takes too much energy, and with three little ones in my life, I'm tired when I get out of bed in the morning.

What I'm saying, is that I'd like very much to believe in both, but today, when I have nothing better to do but think about it, I'm not sure which I prefer. I've noted that when somebody I care about dies, I turn to Eru in hopes that "he has a plan". Because when I feel helpless, it's comforting to think I'm not alone. When I succeed in something I've worked my butt off for, I'm arrogant enough to think that my success is based singularly on my own effort.

Take from that what you will. When I'm helpless, I convince myself that my involvement isn't really needed. Is it free will to choose to believe in fate?

Isn't it possible for a master plan to exist and still have free will? Could not our free will or agency be a key component of that plan? One is not fated but has a choice which is part of the plan is to have a choice to do good or evil.

Certainly, if your master plans consists of "I'm gonna sit back and see what happens."

If the master plan has a predetermined outcome (say "good", or "evil" or even as narrowed down as "Sauron WILL be overthrown") then all of the "free will" is working to achieve it, which means that the infinity of outcomes that should come with free will is drastically diminished.

It seems as through this discussion is more about destiny than freewill. The ultimate outcome of events is larger than the individual, yet in Tolkien’s world we are continuously reminded that even the choices of seemly unimportant or brief lived individuals can shape the milestones in the history of Middle-earth. While perhaps at the very end of time Eru’s plan will come to pass, I don’t see this as the force governing the character’s decisions, especially in LoTR.

But this cannot be the case in ANY world that our humans minds can imagine existing. In this world, and pretty much any world that we can fictionally pattern on it, we are constrained.

You say that in a perfectly free world, one's will would be unfettered by ALL considerations. Therefore, in that world, if I so WANTED, all I would have to do is WILL it so that I had whatever girlfriend I wanted. Or say that I wanted to forget a relationship. Zap! It's gone, never happened.

In this world, and Arda, people and their wills are subject to various constraints. The contraints of time, physical constraint (restraint? ;) ), the constraints of money, the constaints of character.

Or, in the context of this thread, the constraints of a human mind, which cannot exactly grasp some things... like free will.

I would say that if you feel this way about Arda, you must feel the same way about your own life. If those constraints exist in Arda (of time, physics, brains), they also exist in our world.

To recap, highlighted are the words I am questioning the most. The plan and design of Eru includes (in Arda) gravity, linear time, and the limitations of sentient minds.

So does this make one have no free will? The same conditions exist in our world, and I would say that I have free will. Would you say that you do?

In essence, that is what I would say this entire question boils down to. If you feel that you, yourself, have no free will, then one would probably say that the inhabitants of Arda have no free will. If one feels, as I do, that he/she has free will, then they would probably agree that those in Arda do. Or so I read it.

So what of it, Master Fordhim: do you say that YOU have free will?

Formendacil's post got me thinking, and this thread is begging the question:

Can your free will be used to negate your own free will? You choose not to choose? I'd place that question with the "Can a god create a rock so heavy that it cannot lift it?" and "Does this make me look fat?" ;)

By choosing not to choose you still have made a choice...wait didn't rush sing that?

"[blah blah blah] [something about a celestial voice]/If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice."

That the one you're thinking of? Because now it's stuck in my head, and when you have a song in your head that you only know a few words to, that's annoying. :p

Although it does make one think. So I've been asking friends all morning what they think of this arguement as it applies to RL, and I've gotten two answers. The first is that there is both free will and fate. Free will is you making decisions that appeal to you, and fate is when a higher power steps in to knock you down a few pegs and keeps you from getting cocky or screwing up too badly. :) The other answer is that there is only free will and that what we like to think of as "fate" is just a series of circumstances that come out in favor of a certain occurence.

So I considered that for awhile, then I considered a post of alatar's (from yesterday morning), and then I considered a few if/then statements, and here's what I came up with:

If you've got an open ended question like with The All-Mighty setting up the rules and then sitting back to watch the game, then you can have both fate/destiny/higher power and free will. Because the Ultimate Plan of Eru is to sit back and see what happens, but not to encourage it or tweak it.

If, on the other hand, you've got a clearly defined (or defined in any way) ending to the story (Eru's got something in mind that's going to happen), then anything you do plays into it and it's already been forseen. If it's already been forseen, it's already happened, and you can't change what's already happened, even if it happens in the future.

Now since I don't think that last bit made any sense at all, I'm just going to give up for awhile, since I suspect that I might be being pig-headed without noticing.

The German mystic Meister Eckhart believed that God creates past, present & future from outside time, in eternity. In other words, He is creating the Past all the time. This is because it is His nature to Create & the whole of time & space is in a constant state of being created. So, not only are present & past full of possibilities because of free will, but so is the past.

Eru's plan for the completion & perfection of Ea is precisely that - that in the end it will be complete & perfect. Knowing all hearts & minds & thus what will fulfil them all, & being omnipotent, one can only assume that He will bring about a conclusion that will satisfy all beings, one which will include true freedom for all.

I am not qualified to comment on gods (the rain-goddess tag IS a joke ;) ) but I can sadly vouch that it is generally fat that makes one look fat not garments..... (unless they really do shrink in the wardrobe) :(

Free will isn't free without will.

strength
+
desire
+
faith
_______
Will

Will comes from Eru (creator of everything, including will), thus Will = Eru, and Eru = fate, and thus Will = fate.

But it's still free will, when you add it all up.

And yes that made sense in my head...somehow....

It all boils down to . . .
 

Do you want the free will to answer "Yes"? Or are you fated to answer "No"?

Or the other way around. In which case everything gets confusing.

We should perhaps focus on answerable things, like "Do Werewolves have wings?"

This nonsensical post is brought to you by your friendly neighbourhood nonsense.

Ah, but that's not really the question here is it? I do not live in Middle-Earth so I do not exist under the same conditions as do the characters in the tales (i.e. the omnipresence of Eru in the Plan on Existence).

So whether I have free will or not is irrelevant...

Although I do wish I could visit M-E once in a while....

Untrue. I hate to use the word, but here it comes... canonicity. If you see it based on the book, your answer stands. If canonicity is based on the reader's perceptions, then your answer is a well thought out group of meaningless words. :)

Since canonicity is [and always has been] based on the reader, then I am entirely accurate in saying that there's not a lick of free will in Middle Earth, since that's how I perceive it. ;) :p

Not sure what you mean. Maybe this is close; maybe not, but having written some fiction now and again (besides my "what I did at work all day" logs, that is ;) ), there something that I found to be strange. I'd start off writing a story, think that I had a good idea where it would go and how it would all end up. I knew what I wanted the main character(s) to do, where they would begin and end on their story 'arc,' and what I considered to be enough of their histories to be able write the short story that I had in mind.

But a funny thing happened to the pen on the way to the paper...

I'd end up with a completely different story! The character(s) would take off, as I started to breathe life into them, and I would be come less and less the creator of the story and more the observer/recorder of the event. Personal histories would have to be written and rewritten just for my eyes (I always like Tolkien's use of the "Cats of Queen Berúthiel" and what he did to throw that line in the dialogue) so that the character's present state would make more sense, and it was like I needed to ask the character, "So why are you you?" The process would become interactive, and in my less lucid moments I would be having mental discussions/arguments with the characters.

Okay, so I have a few issues...but anyway, does free will exist on the written page? My experience would indicate that it does.

And, as another example, this post started out making some sense, and now look where we are...;)

Makes me think of Tolkien's comments:
&
.
& his comment on a visitor who said:'Of course you don't suppose, do you, that you wrote all that book yourself?'. Tolkien replied:
Maybe the real question should be 'Did Tolkien have free will'? ;)

Now that would be an interesting thread! ;)

If we take him at his word that he was, as he supposed, operating as God's tool or mouthpeice (or scribe) in the prophetic sense (and I, for one, do believe it)-- then it still remains that he had the option to refuse to serve, and the freedom to choose to serve or not to serve. In choosing to serve, he surrendered some of his choices regarding the design of that which he sub-created-- but his choice to surrender was freely made.

Yes, I believe there was free will, but some wills were not strong enough to fight opposing wills. So when Boramir tried to take the ring from Frodo, the resson might have been because his will was not strong enought to fight the will of the Ring.

I disagree. Free will is not unfettered in our world and so it can never be unfettered in any fantasy world which approximates to our own. "Free" within this context, therefore, cannot be construed as impying a total lack of constraints.

We necessarily have limited free will because we cannot do whatever we desire. I could not simpy walk through the Alps, even though I might desire to do so. I would have to walk either round or over them (and even then I would not have unlimited free will to do so as I liked). In both our world and in Middle-earth there can be no such thing as unlimited free will, and so the phrase "free will" must necessarily imply a degree of restriction.

Of course, Middle-earth is not our own world, and so free will within it is of a different nature. In many respects it is more restricted, as a consequence of matters such as the existence of Eru's plan, the immortality of the Elves and the various Dooms that are pronounced. But, limited though it may be, free will still exists.

And I would argue that the existence of free will does not preclude the operation of fate. If someone is fated to do or experience something, that does not prevent them exercising their free will in matters which do not impact upon that fated outcome. Even with regard to matters which do impact on it, they still have (limited) free will to choose the path which gets them there. Turin, for example, had freedom of action in many respects, but could not avoid the Doom which Morgoth had pronounced. His free will was limited by his fate. But he nevertheless had (limited) free will.

So I will vote for both.

One clear example of free will can be found in FotR chapter 10. (Sorry I can't quote this, but I don't have LotR in english). Frodo is in Amon Hen and the two forces, the Eye and the Voice fight inside his mind. The Eye orders him to come to it and the Voice orders him to take the ring off. (I tried to translate the following sentence): "Suddenly he became aware of himself again. Frodo - not the Voice nor the Eye - was free to choose and there was only a little moment of time. He took the Ring off his finger."
That's clearly free will, isn't it?

I voted "yes and no". I don't have any real text evidence to support this...and it's mostly influenced by my own worldview.

I think that without some degree of free will, our actions lose their meaning, and that goes for LOTR, too. If everyone in the story was acting *completely* according to destiny or fate, a lot of the amazing moments lose their power. For instance, Frodo's choice to take the Ring. It's a much more amazing thing to consider if you believe that he was acting of his own free will in making that choice: He could have said no and gone home, but instead he took the Ring and endured all kinds of pain and suffering as a result.

However, some things must have been meant to happen. Aragorn fights an inner battle about his heritage and birthright, but in the end, he takes the position as king and leader. This, I think, was fate. He would, one way or another, eventually become King, even if he had made a totally different string of choices.

Here's how I look at it yes you have freedom of choice, but..... Have you ever done something even though you didn't want to and it came out right in the end?

What I'm saying is free will is an illusion there is no such thing we think there is but there isnt

edit:thats why i put probably both

I don't think there is free will but maybe im MADE to believe there is no free will

Warning: Quote From HP6
 

Is there a rule against saying that Harry Potter changed my mind? I'll post the three paragraphs that did it. No worries though, it's not anything that'll spoil the book for you. Just babbling about that there prophecy. Although if you haven't read the fifth book, I guess it does spoil it. Oh well.
So as long as people believe in fate, they will continue to follow what their fate seems to be, dragging those who don't want anything to do with right along side. But you have the choice to turn tail and run, or to continue on.

Frodo did not want the Ring, even though Gandalf said he was "meant" to have it. He could have tossed it somewhere, but because of so many other people after it, his life would have ended up pretty miserably anyhow. That and his love for the Shire caused him to greet his fate with open arms (or at least moderately spread fingers) instead of waiting for it to track him down against his will.

I also got switched by Peter David's The Woad to Wuin. I can't give a direct quote (alas, libraries like their books returned), but Sharee makes it clear to Apropos that even if you can't escape your fate, every choice you make will affect it. Just because it's been a guarantee since you were born that you're going to fight the most powerful jerk to ever exist (for example) doesn't mean that your preparation and choices make it any less. You could go into the battle fully prepared and win, or you could go to battle kicking and screaming with four fingers missing off your left hand and no hair because it got burned off by a rampaging dragon you decided to steal from. Even though the big things might be set out, it's the little things that determine their outcome.

So yeah... based on everything except Lord of the Rings, I've just come to a new conclusion about them. How intriguing. Anyhow... 'f'it were possible, I'd switch my die-hard no to a die-hard maybe. :D