Kalessin
I did not expressly address the issue of free will versus causal determinism for two reasons. One, the topic is way way off Tolkien, and has been debated by theologians for thousands of years, and two, I posted my opinions on the topic in another thread, the title of which utterly escapes me at the moment, but which I will diligently attempt to find and post a link. A summation of that post follows.
We as finite and limited beings can have little or no concept of the import and consequences of *creating* (as Eru creates, not as a couple bearing a child) a wholly autonomous independent being apart from oneself. The closest analogy would be parents having children. You train them in the ways you believe to be just and fair and right, but they will still have their independent streak - they are unique beings whose inputs and information-base are not identical to the parents, and therefore will be able to come, eventually, to their won conclusions about life, the universe, and everything. They are not as the dwarves were initially created by Aule, utterly dependant on their creator for movement and thought, and lifeless should the creator turn his attention elsewhere.
The point being, once you create a truly autonomous, rational, independant intelligence, capable of weighing options, seeking alternatives, and evaluating the terms and consequences of independantly-made decisions and then acting without the intervention or assistance of the creator, that being is then "on its own". Whatever decisions it then makes cannot be attributed to the maker. It has become an actor/reactor *choosing* its direction and actions. The maker can reason, persuade, inform, demonstrate, in an effort to get the being to make decisions that agree with the intentions of the maker, but once the being is "activated" by the maker its reasoning and thought processes are to be left completely untouched by the coercive hand of the maker, otherwise you are indeed a puppet, a robot. Thus Eru did. He informed his creations that, as an omniscient being, he knew there were certain principles by which each and all should abide in order to make the universe "harmonious" (an appropriate word considering the music of creation) in all aspects.
Quote:
|
this pretty much equates to "do what you want as long as it's what I want". You can't call that 'free' will, and never mind Melkor, no upright and moral human being would consider it just - UNLESS you accept the omnipotent benevolence of a Creator that transcends human understanding, and therefore submit as an act of faith.
|
Although I would hesitate to speak ill of someone so well read as to have encompassed the work of Hume, which I have not, that is not what I meant. Melkor was indeed free to act -- Eru demonstrated that time and again. Even though everything Melkor did was an act of supreme selfish ambition, destroying and marring so as to increase his role and power in Ea, Eru knew of his plans and allowed him to act freely. He warned, he persuaded, but he did not take away Melkor's Eru-given freedom to act according to his own reasoning and decisions. He made an informed decision to oppose Eru, knowing Eru intended at some unspecified point in the future to imprison or destroy him.
The question is then begged, why would Melkor, knowing the consequences as laid down by Eru, continue on his course? Well, I heard somneone once say that if someone is going to kill you, you have three ways to prevent it -- run, talk them out of it, or kill them first. Obviously Melkor knew he could not run from the creator of the universe in which he lived. Perhaps, but not likely, he thought he could get Eru to change his mind ("talk him out of it") if he could take over Ea and hold it hostage. More likely, he thought he could find the Flame Imperishable and become a rival to Eru, perhaps even "kill him before he kills me" type of reasoning.
The point is, Eru left him free to act. My children are free to act, but they know that certain actions will result in disciplinary moves, and others will result in rewards. But their freedom of choice cannot be removed from them. The disciplinary actions are intended to motivate the children to do the "right" thing. I as a human parent can be mistaken about what is "right", but an omniscient being cannot. When a benevolent, all-knowing, all-powerful being says to you "You *really* shouldn't go down that road", it is not free-thinking to go there anyway -- it is suicide.