‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Lalwende

Everyone makes their own 'truths', this is the nature of us as individuals.

Does this work? What exactly does 'truth' mean in this context? Opinion? can something be considered 'true' simply because an individual believes it? Doesn't it have to be related to 'Facts', to a concept of what is TRUE. Mathematics doesn't work in that way, why should metaphysics? If we're all simply to pick what we like, believe it, & have it generally accepted as 'true' because of that, where do we end up? Its equivalent to people rejecting the established moral code (Ten commandments, whatever) because they refuse to be bound by traditional morality & feel they should be free to determine what is moral & immoral. What we usually end up with in most cases is people constructing a 'moral' code for themselves which permits them the freedom to do whatever they wish & only forbids them to do things that they wouldn't want to do anyway. A Nazi or a paedophile could construct a 'moral' code of their own which declared that death camps or child abuse is 'good', & if we all construct our own moral codes without reference to anything 'objective' or 'transcendent', & determine our own 'truth' how can we argue with them? If we set out to stop them doing what they have determined is 'good' then our only justification would be that our 'truth' (though no more 'valid' than theirs) is backed by our superior strength - they become in their own minds 'martyrs', being persecuted for their beliefs.

So the question is still whether the Good, the True, the Real exist metaphysically, & provide an objective standard by which to judge the individual's own concepts of good, true, real.

In other words, I don't think we can simply dismiss the question by saying that we all determine 'truth' for ourselves (well, not unless we live in [b]H-I[/i]'s cell, or alone on some island.

If there is some metaphysical Reality, Good, Truth on which we can base our judgements, measure them against, then my feeling is that it cannot be experienced directly, in terms of what we call 'facts ' in this world. It could only be communicated through symbolism, parable, metaphor. Now all those things can be perverted to a greater or lesser degree, but that's not inevitable. My feeling is that we have an innate sense of 'Right', 'Real', 'Good', 'True', & that when we encounter it we respond to it. We know that herding people into gas ovens or abusing children is WRONG, not because we have happened to construct our own 'truth' which confirms that, but because, even though we might not be able to cite a long list of 'logical' facts against it (its not like either of those practices is likely to lead to a threat to the existence of the human race - overpopulation is a major problem & any practices which 'thinned out' our numbers may even benefit our survival - let the weakest go to the wall - if the strong go to the wall in defense of the weak, who'd be left to defend the weak: they wouldn't survive long anyway). But we don't think that way, & not for 'logical' reasons.

So, my position is that the Good, True, Real are 'facts', but not 'facts' that can be tested in a lab. They exist & it is possible to know them & to communicate them to others, to speak of them. Clearly this was Tolkien's original intent, at least, & though he seemed to shy away from saying it in his later life, I don't think he ever lost or rejected that desire. Even in his depiction of orc speech he shied away from putting really foul language into their mouths. He wished to communicate his love of the natural world, his values, to us through his 'fiction' but I don't for a minute believe that he felt he had 'invented' those values, any more than CS Lewis did.

His fiction was an attempt not simply to pass on those values, but to 'awaken' his readers to the direct experience of them. Obviously he struggled over the best way to do that, to give a form to those 'Truths' which would make them as accessible as possible. Mythology for him, a self consistent, 'believable' mythology was the most effective way.

The question is not simply how we read the books, what we bring to them, how we interpret them. Its also whether Tolkien was right, & whether that 'metaphysical' reality is true. Has Tolkien anything to teach us that we don't know, or more importantly, anything that we've forgotten?