Lord of the Rings and Philosophy @ Concordia University Wisconsin

[Lalwendë]

I know which book Durbelethwen refers to, it's The Lord of the Rings and Philosophy, which came out about two or three years ago. It's basically a collection of essays by assorted academics from assorted US colleges on random philosophical themes, evil, free-will, Nietzsche, fetishism etc. It's a real curate's egg, good in parts, bad in others. It's not one of the best books on Tolkien, few collections of essays are. The series also includes books on Buffy the Vampire Slayer & Philosophy and The Simpsons & Philosophy and promises one on Baseball & Philosophy.

The introduction does point out that Tolkien was in no way a philosopher, and that the book itself does not set out to 'find' inner or hidden meanings; it was written by simply asking some academics who also happened to be Tolkien fans to answer some of the questions brought up by LotR against a background of philosophy. So if this course is similar, which I suspect it is, then we're not going to get any definitive answers, just a whole lot of ideas.

[davem]

Was a bit brusque in my earlier post. To Clarify....I think its clear there's no coherent philosophical 'system' behind LotR -it is not a 'philosophical' novel, let alone a work of philosophy in novel form (a la Nietszche's Zarathustra). Hence, I wonder what philosophy has to do with LotR, or what a philosophical analysis is likely to gain.

It seems to me that the motivation behind this approach is to treat the work 'seriously', to analyse it for hidden meanings & subtexts. This, of course, is something Tolkien opposed, breaking a thing to find out what it is made of, telling the reader 'what it all means'.

Of all the possible approaches to LotR I think the 'philosophical' approach is likely to achieve least - a linguistic or mythological analysis will shine much more light on Tolkien's creation - in my opinion

"Dead Marshes: Melancholy-", "Mordor: Personification of hate and rage, a sense of defiance, personification of industrization, seems empty, loud, harsh, ", "Gray Havens: peaceful, change from time to eternity, preparation for a place of rest and healing, poignancy of loss, the experience of death, acceptance of loss,"

This reads to me like the kind of thing you find in beginners books on Tarot: The Fool - innocence, foolishness, Death - a new beginning, The High Priest - wisdom, etc. It all seems too simplistic & most likely to elicit the response 'Well, duh! really! The Dead Marshes is a melancholy place! Who'd have thought it!'

Of course, if you enjoy that kind of thing its probably very cool. Not for me, I'm afraid...

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by davem

Of all the possible approaches to LotR I think the 'philosophical' approach is likely to achieve least - a linguistic or mythological analysis will shine much more light on Tolkien's creation - in my opinion

As someone who makes his living with philosophy I must say I agree with davem here. Even if I think that philosophy or philosophical attitude towards the things in the world one encounters is most refreshing and gratifying, it's not any magic box from where all the right or fruitful questions / answers will stem from automatically.

On the first plane at least linguistics, cultural anthropology, folklorism, history, psychology... you name it, will give us much more interesting viewpoints into Tolkien's work as such. How do we relate to these things and why, what can be argued to exist under all these different approaches, or what unexplicated assumptions do we base our interpretations of Tolkien on? Etc... These are then bending towards philosophical inqueries and I think they're not totally worthless, but making a course of this in Uni would require that we first have the stuff (different interpretations of Tolkien) to ruminate about...

[Child of the 7th Age]

Just a quick side comment....but there was a discussion started by Esty several eons ago on the book that's been mentioned in this thread: Lord of the Ring and Philosophy. Her comments generated a rather lively and extended discussion on Plato's views on morality and how these compared with Tolkien's and how these are reflected or not in the various characters.

See here.

As an ardent baseball fan, I admit I purchased the book on baseball and philosophy and got a kick out of it! But I would definitely not advise anyone to look at baseball or Lord of the Rings primarily in terms of philosophy. However, my first inclination is to shrug my shoulders and say "if it works for you, so be it". In personal terms, I would prefer to take a different approach (which is probably why I didn't post on that original thread.)

[davem]

Ok, so...

1) Did Tolkien set out intentionally, with 'malice aforethought', to write a work of philosophy - Is LotR a 'Philosophical novel'?

2) Did he write a philosophical work without realising it, unintentionallly - (ie the work presents us with a clearly set out, coherent & logical philosophical 'system')?

3) Is it possible for a reader to use LotR as a 'stepping off' point for a course in Philosophy 101 (ie - 'this character/event reminds me very much of what Plato said about 'x' or 'isn't it interesting how we can apply the medieval theory of Humours/four elements/Jung's psychological types/Tarot suits ...to the four Hobbits?

Well, to 1) I'd say clearly he didn't. We have the letters, the early drafts, interviews, & at no point did Tolkien even imply that he wrote LotR as a philosophical work.

To 2) I'd say no again - even if Tolkien himself had not picked up on the fact he'd written a philosophical novel one of his fellow Inklings would have & pointed it out to him. I think Tolkien was smart enough to know what his book was about & what it ws not about.

To 3) I'd simply ask what novel you couldn't do that with.

I think the problem is that you have two different things here which you're attempting to combine together, but these things are a bit like oil & water - both liquids but they won't mix. You'll either end up sacrificing serious study of philosophy in favour of literary analysis or vice versa. Now if it was 'Zarathustra & Philosophy' you wouldn't face that problem. Zarathustra was a philosophical novel, intended to set out Nietszche's philosophy in 'novelistic' form (yes, I realise that oversimplifies massively, but I hope you get the point I'm making).

Philosophical themes in Lord of the Rings: What is reality? What does reality include? The supernatural or only the temporal? God's actions or only ours? God's purposes or only ours? What is good and evil? What, if anything, is the meaning of history? How do we know things? What is Wisdom? What is beauty and is it connected to goodness/ What is the nature and significance of language? What are some of the most important virtues and vices?

Well, ok - but why pick LotR to analyse? Is LotR a particularly good candidate for philosophical analysis? Was it just picked at random for 'dissection'? It seems to me that such a course is likely to fail to achieve anything - to the extent that you focus on LotR you'll neglect the philosophy, to the extent you focus on the philosophy you'll neglect the story

as story

Literature shows the truth that philosophy talks about.

Well, it may, or it may not - the statement seems a little dogmatic to me - but it seems to imply that that is the purpose, not to mention the intention behind literature. I'm not sure they're the same thing at all (which is what the statement seems to imply). The primary purpose of literature, it seems to me, is not to teach philosophy, or to reveal philosophical truths, or question the ultimate meaning of things, but simply to entertain. It may reveal 'truths' along the way, but that is not its purpose (or when it is the author's purpose the work produced tends to be unreadable). Literature's 'purpose' (if one can put it that way) is to entertain, philosophy's 'purpose' is to enlighten. Now literature may also enlighten, & philosophy may also entertain, but that will be 'accidental' in the main, because generally novels written with the intention of enlightening the reader tend to be boring, & philosophy presented with the intention to entertain tends to be shallow.

Or something....

[Hookbill the Goomba]

After reading through this thread I was struck by how much one can derive from some of Tolkien's works. Not only here, but one has only to look around the Downs to see threads built up out of a phrase or two here and there. With any lengthy work, such as the Middle Earth Legendarium, there are bound to be hidden things, little nods to other things and so on.

Of course, Tolkien wasn't an alien from the planet Zoog, where people have sixty or so faces. The title of this post comes from the Rabbinical traditions of Judaism, some Rabbis used to say (and I belive still do) that 'The Tanakh (the Old testament) is like a gem with seventy faces; each time you turn it, the light refracts differently, giving you a reflection you have not seen before'.
We here on the Downs seem to treat Tolkien similarly; everyone keeps turning the books and seeing something new. In the Rabbinical sense, they also said that even Moses (the recorder of the Torah) didn't understand everything in the books he wrote. Nor did all of the Prophets fully comprehend all that they said. Is it possible then, that Tolkien was not aware of just how many interpretations and arguments would be taken from some of his most innocent phrases (like, 'the shadow about it stretched forth like two vast wings' )?
Tolkien was not a philosopher, of course, and I don't think he ever claimed to be. We all have our own philosophical ideas that we want to get across from time to time (everyone thinks they have the right opinion, otherwise they'd get a new one). Of course, in a work such as Middle Earth where so many mythologies and legends are mixed together, each bringing its own philosophical background and connotations, can we really pin anything down for certain on the professor?

[Rhod the Red]

I don't think they're linked so there's sort of a waste of time and money in operation, in my view. Have fun.