View Single Post
Old 11-01-2004, 06:54 PM   #3
Kransha
Ubiquitous Urulóki
 
Kransha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The port of Mars, where Famine, Sword, and Fire, leash'd in like hounds, crouch for employment
Posts: 747
Kransha has just left Hobbiton.
Send a message via AIM to Kransha
The Ideal Philosophy of Rational Fantasy

Hybrid, baby, all the way...

*cough*

You pose a fascinating question (as always) and, for once, I'm gonna reply before the situation has gotten away from me. Lemme see what I can do, without sparking non-Tolkien controversy. The Lord of the Rings itself is neither fantastically magical (i.e. surrealistic, devoid of reality), or scientifically rational (i.e. fully based in fact, down-to-earth, understandable). It is magical more than scientific, but I believe that is more appropriate to stray away from the words 'science' and 'evolution' when speaking about Arda. Neither are applicable, though they are present. Middle-Earth posesses many sorts of magic, and many sorts of science, and many sorts of scientific magic as well.

All fantasy, of sorts, is based somewhere in science, unless it is fantasy to a certain degree. Perhaps the Valaquenta, of The Silmarillion, is not quite scientific, or even grounded in our degrees of reality, but it acts more as a creative, symbolic prelude, and explanation for the world we have become acquainted with, using the basic sciences of religious elements. I will not be so curt and unfeeling as to say, simply, that "religion is a science," even though I believe that, in a certain way, it is. Faith is the essence of religion, and religion itself is the science of faith, fantasy, which grounds it so that it can be understood. Fantasy, therefore, must be scientifically grounded, or else it is senseless. It is things like James Joyce's Ulysses: a stream-of-consciousness work that is less real, that distances itself from science as much as possible, or at least wordly science, and attempts to apply science to the mind (some think Joyce failed, others think he succeeded; I, though, am rather dismissive of the work's philosophies, but I'll save such debate for another time). If something is not at all scientific, and not at all rational, that is ceases to be workable fantasy, that can be related to, and becomes to surreal. Surrealism, in streaks or bounds, can be done, but if the water is not tread upon carefully, it will become cold and distant to the recipient.

Science and mentality function together in philosophy, which is, in essence, mental science, or, the science of a fantastic world. The two premier philosophies of Ancient Times, from which modern philosophies are oft derived, were Empiricism, primarily the brainchild of Aristotle, and Idealism, which was mainly flesed out by Socrates, and recorded by his student, Plato. These two philosophies are both sciences, but clear and total opposites. Aristotle's empiricism entails only physical objectivity, that only what can be experienced via the five human senses is truly real. Idealism, however, is the science of analyzing what cannot be seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or felt, but what can be thought. In many ways, Tolkien is filled with a kind of idealism. I do not know, personally if Tolkien was a Socratic Oxford Don, but even if he wasn't, all fantasy bears, in some regard, a bit of idealism, because it appeals to the deeper sciences of the human mind, the kind that cannot be simply learnt from a stingy textbook of over three-hundred pages, the kind that cannot be alphabetized and looked up in a cleverly, but scientifically worded glossary that would not appeal to lamens.

Of course (I use these two words entirely too much) Middle-Earth is realistic, and fantastic, and scientific, and rational. But, there is a marvellous prowess and advantage that it has over all fantasies that came after, besides its obvious originality in comparison. There are rules in Middle-Earth, but they are often not so clear and absolute, and potent, as to be stifling. The Eldar have Laws and Customs, Councils are formed, oaths are taken, things are done that cannot be undone, and thus are set in stone, but they are rules that a normal world must have, and they do not put boundaries on the preternatural beauty of the world. The science of Middle-Earth is the science that must be there. But that does not make it any less fantastic, it simply makes it real. Tolkien is not escapism, it is idealism, to some, metaphor, to others, high-culture, to a chosen literate few who may be present, lurking like proverbial Illuminati in the wings of our fair site, waiting to pounce upon us ignorant dis-adherants.

J.K.Rowling, author of the highly acclaimed Harry Potter series, of which I have mentioned before, wrote a great couple of books, a couple of books that has gathered about them a following like few others, and a generation behind...But, the rules and science of Rowling can become redundant, and it is reduced to generic fantasy, no matter who delving or well-written. This is, perhaps, why it is not as appealing to adults as to children, like the Tolkien literary armada. Mumbling funnily stated spells, that, over time, gain meaning in our hearts, may be flashy, and a good memory aid. But, did you feel the same pang in your heart the first time that youthful sorceror uttered the words "Expelliarmus," as when "he [Gandalf] raised his hand and from it a shaft of white light stabbed upward!" (RotK, The Siege of Gondor). I did not, (though I was not exactly 'impressed' by the quality of those books under any circumstance, regardless of what I may have said to the contrary).

Is not mythology, on a whole, an attempt to apply science to reality, fantastic as it is? Today, the concept of a falcon-headed deity, Horus, taking revenge on his donkey-headed uncle, Seth, for the wanton mutilation of his divine father, Osiris, who was later ressurected in a rather bizarre ritual, seems a bit farfetched, but the people of Ancient Egypt put their stock in that. The Book of the Dead, which is today merely a cobweb collecting volume of ludicrous pagan rites, was their Biology 101 Textbook, as well as their History, Sociology, Anthropology, and Literature Handbook. They had their petty beliefs, which are today fantasies, irrational an unequivocal, but those fantasies were once sciences. Who knows? Someday, all that we have worked to uncover about our lives may be considered a load of irrelevant bunk and drivel by the intelligent world. We examine the rationality of our fantasy so that we may understand ourselves and the worlds that exist beyond frog dissection and the minute filaments of knottgrass beneath a 10x lens. It was, in fact, Socrates himself who said: "An unexamined life is not worth living."

Woah, I...think...I got a bit off topic there. Oh well, nobody's perfect.
__________________
"What mortal feels not awe/Nor trembles at our name,
Hearing our fate-appointed power sublime/Fixed by the eternal law.
For old our office, and our fame,"

-Aeschylus, Song of the Furies
Kransha is offline   Reply With Quote