[Aiwendil]

Apologies in advance for what is bound to be a long post, considering the amount of discussion that has gone on since my last one.

Davem wrote:

I didn't intend to suggest that. I would ask what their standard is, by which they measure such things - isn't it from some innate sense of right & wrong, of false & 'True'? They hold to some 'ideal' of how things should be, & compare things as they are to that 'ideal'.

As I said before, I don't think that this is the best place to launch into a discussion of moral philosophy. If we are simply talking about distinguishing false propositions from true ones - well, we have all manner of techniques for doing this - logic, mathematics, science, analytic philosophy, etc. Yes, I understand that this is not what you mean. But I am not just being deliberately obtuse. I hold that if "false" and "true" are meaningful, then these are the things one must engage in order to learn which propositions are true and which are false. But I don't think that this is the place to discuss the foundations of epistemology either.

I don't think it is possible to define 'Truth' precisely, because we haven't reached the that 'state'.

and later

I still feel that you & Aiwendil are wanting 'Truth' reduced to a set of 'facts' which you can analyse & 'see through', rather than accepting that is the 'source' of 'facts' as well as everything else.

I'm sorry; while I understand that you think that "Truth" can be a meaningful term and yet one that cannot be defined, I simply don't accept that. I don't know how to have a rational argument with someone who uses a term that (they claim) is by its very nature impossible to define. So unless there is something more that you can say about "Truth", the debate simply must stop there.

And here we come perilously close to entering into yet another big discussion for which this thread is not the place - philosophy of meaning. If anyone is actually interested in my views on that subject, and is feeling particularly adventurous, you may want to check out this monstrosity of a thread at The Tolkien Forum. It began innocently enough as a discussion of absolute vs. relative morals, but around page 4 it becomes a rather intense debate between me and someone else. Anyway, I provide the link because I don't want to simply ignore the whole matter of the philosophy of meaning that arises in relation to the term "Truth", but neither do I want to take up pages talking about it.

I don't think I am. For the enchantment to work, the secondary world must be self contained, if it is not to come across as allegory & the spell fail to be cast effectively. Only in that 'enchanted' state can we fully experience eucatastrophe, when as Helen says, our guard is down.

Forgive me; I'm merely trying to narrow in on exactly what your answer to the following question is: was the primary motivation behind Tolkien's work the communication of "Truth" to his readers?

That is a yes or no question. It sounds to me like your answer is "yes". Am I wrong?

I provided some evidence in the opposite direction earlier:

Tolkien's opinion seems likely to have changed - we have statements in the Letters to the effect that he never expected any of his Silmarillion-related work to be enjoyed by anyone but himself (and Lewis); we also have his statement that the mythology grew out of his desire to provide a historical context for the languages he was inventing. And we have his agreement with Lewis that there was not enough fiction of the sort they liked to read, hence they would have to write it.

and

I believe it's in "On Faery Stories" that Tolkien discusses the phrase "the green sun". At first glance, this appears to be nonsensical. But no, Tolkien says; the phrase is a perfectly good one - so long as its user provides a thoroughly consistent context within which the phrase is to be believed. In other words, it's not strictly the realism of a work of fiction that matters; it's the believability; the internal consistency.

If your answer is indeed "yes" as I suppose, how do you account for these things?

So as far as Tolkien is concerned: I won't rule out his opinion just because he happens to be dead, because thats undemocratic. He may not be right, but he has a right not to be ignored, & the same goes for Rob Gilson & GB Smith. Universal Sufferage, guys!

Well, I'll accept a rational argument from anyone, living or dead. But I won't just concede the point to a dead person any more than I will to a living one.

Lyta Underhill wrote:

Every time I return to it, I see beauties and truths reflected through his words, and I know there are more to be seen if I look properly. Some others on this thread have expressed the desire NOT to know everything, so I think they know what I am trying, stumblingly so, to get across in my ramblings.

I agree with you with regard to beauty. That is, each time I re-read LotR or "The Silmarillion" or The Hobbit I discover ways in which it is aesthetically pleasing that I had failed to notice before. But I don't think I agree about the truths; or perhaps I just misunderstand you. It's not that I think there are "Truths" in Davem's sense in LotR which I am for whatever reason not interested in; I think that there are no "Truths" of that sort - moreover, I think that "Truths" of that sort do not exist.

The Saucepan Man wrote:

To follow your argument to its extreme, we could not appreciate Tolkien’s works unless we recognised Eru as our own God and accepted the creation story as laid out in the Silmarillion as fact. At the very least, we would (as Child points out) have to subscribe to Tolkien’s own religious beliefs in order to enjoy his stories. Yet, there are very few who read and enjoy his works (even among Christians) who subscribe to his particular set of beliefs.

This is a very good point. I repeat an earlier, unanswered query to Davem (and to anyone that shares his opinion): if the fundamental reason that a reader likes Tolkien is that the reader, consciously or not, recognizes the "Truth" of Tolkien's work, how is that the same reader can also like other authors with quite different views? If I like Tolkien because I subconsciously recognize the glimpse of Truth that he gives me, why are my other favorite authors Asimov, Clarke, and Adams?

HerenIstarion wrote:

And though Aiwendil admitted being an atheist, but that does not lead to that he fears to believe if argued into it by means of reason

Well, I don't think I actually used the word "atheist" - only because that can imply an equally unreasoned "certainty" that there is no god. As you suggest, I will certainly believe something to be likely if presented with a convincing rational argument to that effect.

Fordim Hedgethistle wrote:

The discussion of Truth/truths is fascinating and I think central to what Tolkien was working through in his subcreation. To belabour a point I first may a while ago on this thread, I think that it is entirely appropriate to see the confrontation between the Nazgûl and the Fellowship as a confrontation between those who wish to defend the right of the Free Peoples to maintain their own sense of truth(s) against the false imposition of a totalitarian Truth by the forces of Mordor.

I'm afraid I must disagree. Within Arda, there is very clearly a single truth about God, for example. Sauron isn't bad because he wished to impose his own beliefs on everyone; he's bad because the things he claimed were wrong (though I think what makes him really evil is that the things he did were wrong). It's not that Melkorism ought not to be forced on those that don't want it. It's that Melkorism is simply false.

Of course, all of that is intra-Legendarium.

Davem wrote:

I'm not talking about a moral philosophy that you have to go along with, so there will never be a situation where everyone is required to believe the same things, & see the world in the same way.

Then what are you talking about? I don't mean to be rude. I just mean that in my usage, "truth", "Tao", and "joy" are three very different terms with very different meanings. If I understand "joy" as it is in my usage, then when you say:

We can say, reducing all the references, & theories, about Tolkien's motivations, all the stuff about moral regeneration, all of it, to a simple statement of what he wanted to do in his work. He wanted to bring as much Joy to as many of us as possible.

I agree. But when I say "joy" I just mean pleasure, enjoyment. Clearly you mean something more. And I fear that either you must spell out precisely what this "more" is or we are at an impasse.

I don't know if this is enough, & whether there will still be demands for Joy to be reduced to a set of facts & figures which we can all debate.

Well . . . as you can see . . .

I'm sorry (I honestly am, because I enjoy this debate and don't want it to end), but no number of synonyms or analogies is going to suffice. I should point out that I understand that you think it means something more than just "the set of true propositions about the world"; I think I even understand how you think it means more. I just don't agree that it can mean more.

Bethberry wrote:

I find it strange that there is this tendency to equate the position of multiple interpretations with a Humpty Dumpty role or total chaos. The reader is in fact under the same kind of injunction which Tolkien made of the writer in "On Fairy Stories", that his understanding must be consistent. It must be consistent with the reader's own experience (and where this can be shown to be inconsistent, new understanding arises) and it must be consistent with the text. In Tolkien's case, that text is, as I said before, implicit rather than explict. As Child astutely observed, Tolkien was not Lewis.

Yes! This is something like what I was trying to say quite a while ago with my talk about what a "reasonable person" would mean, but Bethberry puts it in much better words.

I don't think I have this experience you claim for all of us. What I feel when I finish reading Tolkien is little different than feelings of departures from other extremely well imagined worlds of fiction. It is narrative cessation--a post-reading desire comedown--not a sense that this world somehow fails.

This is more or less my experience as well. I am naturally always just a bit unhappy that the book is over, but no more so than when I read any good book (or when I listen to a good symphony, or watch a good movie, etc.).

Lyta Underhill wrote:

Middle Earth is a created reality, a second reality or sub-creation. It is not materially existent in this world; however, the very fact that it is read by more than one person makes it a shared psychological or mental reality.

This is certainly true. But there is a great deal of difference between ascribing to something a psychological reality and ascribing to it a transcendent Truth.

As a matter of fact, most of the aspects of "Truth" that Davem, Helen, and others put on a transcendent, metaphysical level I put on a psychological one. It is for this reason that I don't think "echantment" is meanigless, for example, and for this reason that I think the notion of Faerie has some value.

This does not negate the logical true/false values, as those are defined based on the “initial conditions” of an experiment, and a definite material end point which can either meet a criterion or fail to meet it according to the test applied. (I thought I’d add that bit before Aiwendil jumps all over me for sounding like a constructivist again…I’m pretty convinced I am not, but I think I often sound like one. Perhaps it is my sloppy expression of concepts that I am always refining without fully forming to begin with…sorry if I sound flaky, but it is my nature!)

Constructivist! Constructivist!

Well, no. And sorry about last time, by the way. At any rate, I agree with you that no truth ought to be elevated to the level of "Truth" and no falsehoold to the level of "False" - though I suspect we come to this conclusion for different reasons.

Child of the Seventh Age wrote:

I do agree that at the heart of Sauron's evil lay his desire to compel others to accept his own personal view of things. Subjegation and domination, the extinction of the individual personality, were simply a way to implement that "Truth". Even his lust for Power presumed that there was an end goal or product that must be achieved at any cost.

Really? I don't think Sauron would have been satisfied if all the free peoples simply declared that they agree with him on all issues. The impression I get from the MT text on Melkor's motivation vs. Sauron's is that Sauron's fundamental desire was to impose his own sort of Order (there! I can capitalize words too) on everyone.

Mark12_30 wrote:

I am more and more puzzled by the aversion to the word "truth". In his essay "On Faery Stories" Tolkien is not the least bit shy about using this word, any more than we should be shy about using the word "joy" (as davem has recommended.) Refer to the epilog of "On Faery Stories."

I don't have the least problem with using "Truth" to refer to the set of all true propositions. I think that "On Faery Stories" can be understood perfectly well with this definition (whether or not it was Tolkien's). Note that "Truth" in my understanding could very well include propositions like "there is a God" or "that cataract is sublime" (though of course it does not have to).