The Treason of Isengard: Eru's Plan?

[burrahobbit]

More words means you are more wrong.

the Noldor will return to Middle-earth, & Feanor will die there in the way he did

does not equal

Feanor chooses his road, but not his destination

If I take the road that heads east from here I will not end up in California, unless I turn onto the westward road. Similarly, if Feanor decided to be a peaceful fellow he would not have been killed by balrogs. To suggest otherwise is, to turn a phrase, "retarded."

Turin is not bound by the Music.

You are amazingly and fundamentally wrong.

[burrahobbit]

Congratulations, Mansun, you figured it out. You win a cookie. Re: the second half, you gotta break a few eggs to make an omlette.

[HerenIstarion]

Well, burra, let's see what we can do with your attitude:

If I take the road that heads east from here I will not end up in California, unless I turn onto the westward road

But if you walk East long enough you'll land in California, I surmise?

Similarly, if Feanor decided to be a peaceful fellow he would not have been killed by balrogs.

Imagine a scenario - Fëanor says yeah, does not revolt, all elves - Vanyar, Noldor and Teleri remain happy family, there is no Exile, no Prophecy of Mandos and no Siege of Angband and no War of the Jewels. In due time, however, Valar make a council, and there is War of Wrath, just Noldor form the part of the Host of the West this time, they are the saviours rather than remnants of the people to be saved. In a mighty assault Morgoth is defeated, but as his last effort at defending his stronghold, the band of Balrogs issues from the Iron Gate to challange the foremost party of the assailants lead by Fëanor. Ultimately, Balrogs are swept, but Fëanor is killed.

But all of the above is exercise in free modeling, just so. As seen from my previous, my own position is as follows:

each derivation of choice does alter the consequent chain of events

That there would be Fëanor in due course of events, that he'll have certain temper and talents and moods is all in the Music. What exactly would Fëanor do with his talent and temper and moods is up to Fëanor himself

Originally Posted by burrahobbit

Congratulations, Mansun, you figured it out. You win a cookie. Re: the second half, you gotta break a few eggs to make an omlette.

Burrahobbit is that a complement or an insult? If its the latter, I'd have you know that I have a degree from a world class english university in Biochemistry.

Whether it is evident or not of one's Knowledge of ME's history, you should still respect one's opinion, rather than sounding like Lobelia!

[burrahobbit]

How so?

Thus was the fate of Túrin woven [...] with the fate of the Silmarils and of the Elves -J.R.R. Tolkien, The Silmarillion chapter 21

Etc.

(Expecting a statement like 'You are amazingly and fundamentally wrong',made with no back up, to be accepted as part of a rational argument is a bit like me saying 'You are amazingly and fundamentally a horse.

But I am clearly not a horse.

But if you walk East long enough you'll land in California, I surmise?

No, I would end up in the Atlantic Ocean, several thousand miles away from California.

In a mighty assault Morgoth is defeated, but as his last effort at defending his stronghold, the band of Balrogs issues from the Iron Gate to challange the foremost party of the assailants lead by Fëanor. Ultimately, Balrogs are swept, but Fëanor is killed.

I'm thinking that Feanor would be so nice, though, that he couldn't even bear to kill an orc if he had to, so he just stayed in Aman with the ladies and the children. Pacifism, you know? Besides, somebody has to be in charge while all of the other leaders are out killing things.

I don't see how such an ardent pacifist (a decision which he is morally and spiritually free to make) could ever be killed by balrogs in the Hither Lands.

[Formendacil]

So... is Feanor's death a part of the Music?

That is apparently what the question, with regards to that specific debate, would appear to be.

It has been suggested that the Fate of the Music is a "broad" guide and not a detail-determiner. If such is the case, then just HOW defined is the Fate that it forecasts?

It could well be that Feanor's Fate had nothing to do with his death. Perhaps his part in the grand scheme of Arda was merely the fashioning of the Silmarils and the preservation thereby of the Sacred Light.

If that is the case, then it does it matter if Feanor dies or not? His "fate" done, his part in the great scheme played, he could do anything. His death at the hands of the Balrogs is a direct consequence of his decision to leave Valinor, but was it fated? He COULD have stayed behind, and the Noldor have never left Valinor. Perhaps, then, he would have died in the War of Wrath, or perhaps he would have survived and gone home to wait until the day when the Silmarils were to be cracked open- which, by the way, would appear to another part of his fate, that at the end of time he will break open the Silmarils and rekindle the Two Trees.

The Devil's Advocate,

~Michael A. Joosten - Formendacil~

[Lyta_Underhill]

Which is another major problem - Turin is not bound by the Music. Is Glaurung? Turin is driven (by whom & why?) to overcome his 'fate', but in so doing he actually determines it. I'd say Turin's fate is not in the hands of Morgoth or anyone but himself. He clearly believes that he is not bound by the Music, that he can be free to live his own life, & that's exactly what he does. None of the things he suffers come from Morgoth or even directly from the Music. He is Master of (his) doom - & he is also mastered by it - by his own, self-wrought doom.

This is what happens when you worry too much about destiny, free will, etc... a good lesson to look at Turin!

Cheers!
Lyta

[davem]

Originally Posted by burrahobbit

But I am clearly not a horse.

And I'm clearly not wrong

I'm thinking that Feanor would be so nice, though, that he couldn't even bear to kill an orc if he had to, so he just stayed in Aman with the ladies and the children. Pacifism, you know? Besides, somebody has to be in charge while all of the other leaders are out killing things.

Why are you thinking that? We've no evidence that he would choose pacifism over obeying the will of the Valar. If his fate was to die in Endor he would go there & die, the issue is how he would get there & he clearly had the freedom to choose that. there are many ways he could have ended up there. As an Elf he is bound by the constraints of the Music to do certain things.[/QUOTE]

Thus was the fate of Túrin woven [...] with the fate of the Silmarils and of the Elves -J.R.R. Tolkien, The Silmarillion chapter 21

But who 'wove' his fate? Eru, or he himself?

But Illuvatar knew that Men, being set amid the turmoils of the powers of the world, would stray often, and would not use their gifts in harmony; and ie said, These too in their time shall find that all that they do redounds at the end only to the glory of my work.' Yet the Elves believe that Men are often a grief to Manwe, who knows most of the mind of Illuvatar; for it seems to the Elves that Men resemble Melkor most of all the Ainur, although he has ever feared and hated them, even those that served him.
It is one with this gift of freedom that the children of Men dwell only a short space in the world alive, and are not bound to it, and depart soon whither the Elves know not. (Of the Beginning of Days)

So, Men have the 'gift of freedom' to act beyond the Music within Arda. Their gift of freedom, like the Gift of Death (of which it is probably a part, as I said), is what makes them unique among all the inhabitants of Arda. They are free to act beyond the confines of the Music, but the price they pay for that freedom is that they cannot remain forever within the Circles of the World.

[burrahobbit]

We've no evidence that he would choose pacifism

Of course not. Feanor would never choose pacifism, but that isn't the point. What I am trying to say is that a person can not possibly be free to make moral decisions in a deterministic universe. The two ideas are incompatible. Either a person has a fate/free will or he doesn't. There may be some wiggle room, but if there is no possible way for you to avoid certain outcomes then you do not actually have a free will, and whatever the outcome is it is the desire of whoever/whatever it was the made the decision. The deterministic cosmology of Middle-earth is the land of the Turing Machine.

Originally Posted by burrahobbit

Congratulations, Mansun, you figured it out. You win a cookie. Re: the second half, you gotta break a few eggs to make an omlette.

I always thought this comment was one of disrespect to one's intelligence. It is not wise to aim such things to a young Nutritional Biochemistry Graduate from a world class university who is a Quality Auditor for Coca Cola!

It is perilous to study to deeply the arts of the enemy himself

[davem]

Originally Posted by burrahobbit

More words means you are more wrong.

If I take the road that heads east from here I will not end up in California, unless I turn onto the westward road. Similarly, if Feanor decided to be a peaceful fellow he would not have been killed by balrogs. To suggest otherwise is, to turn a phrase, "retarded.".

So you're saying that they're all just 'robots'? No freedom even of thought? So why would Eru create them at all?

You are amazingly and fundamentally wrong

How so? Sorry, but at least I put forward an argument, & gave reasons for my position.If we're just throwing out opinions as 'statements of fact' without offering the slightest back up I can't see us getting anywhere.

Can you prove, or offer any evidence at all, that Turin was bound by the Music? It seems to me that Men's freedom to act 'beyond' (ie 'outside') the Music while in the World is a function or direct consequence of their mortaility - their fea is not bound to their hroa in the way that an Elf's is. This means that they will die eventually because the union of spirit & matter in them is a temporary thing, but it also means that they are not bound to the matter of Arda (& hence to the 'Rules') as completely.

This, it seems to me, is the only way to account for the statement in Ainulindale - as well as being the only explanation for a 'good' God giving death as a 'gift' to Men - its purpose was bound up with the gift of freedom within the world.

(Expecting a statement like 'You are amazingly and fundamentally wrong',made with no back up, to be accepted as part of a rational argument is a bit like me saying 'You are amazingly and fundamentally a horse.' & expecting that to be accepted in the same way. I think we have to be able to offer some reason for our statements)