The Scourge of The Dark Side...Tolkien and Modernism

[Hot, crispy nice hobbit]

Despite sounding hopelessly opportunistic, it is certainly not ideals that drove Tolkien's world. It was pre-destination, and a set of debatable moral values. Greed made Gollum save the day. If Gollum had not gloated over his success, the end would have come all the same.

It is certainly another complicated topic whether the characters in Tolkien's Middle Earth were guided by the hands of Illuvator, or their own free will. But ultimate failure of ideals remained: the mercy of Gandalf/Bilbo/Frodo was abused by the greed of Gollum, Frodo finally became disillusioned with the hardships he went through, and was persuaded by the Ring to claim it for himself. (Unless, one forgoes entirely the responsibility of individuals over their own choices.)

Of course, after the fall of Sauron and Gollum, Frodo can feint possession by other worldly powers, and still be hero of the Third Age... (I'd bet that J.R.R. T is turning in his grave somewhere) Certainly, that's not modernism that griped Middle Earth or our Earth. Just hopeless self-interest.

[Gwathagor]

Originally Posted by Hot, crispy nice hobbit

Despite sounding hopelessly opportunistic, it is certainly not ideals that drove Tolkien's world. It was pre-destination, and a set of debatable moral values. Greed made Gollum save the day. If Gollum had not gloated over his success, the end would have come all the same.

It is certainly another complicated topic whether the characters in Tolkien's Middle Earth were guided by the hands of Illuvator, or their own free will. But ultimate failure of ideals remained: the mercy of Gandalf/Bilbo/Frodo was abused by the greed of Gollum, Frodo finally became disillusioned with the hardships he went through, and was persuaded by the Ring to claim it for himself. (Unless, one forgoes entirely the responsibility of individuals over their own choices.)

Of course, after the fall of Sauron and Gollum, Frodo can feint possession by other worldly powers, and still be hero of the Third Age... (I'd bet that J.R.R. T is turning in his grave somewhere) Certainly, that's not modernism that griped Middle Earth or our Earth. Just hopeless self-interest.

First, in what way are you sounding opportunistic? Second, how are moral values (debatable or not) different from ideals? Third, how does the existence of fate preclude the existence of ideals? Fourth, doesn't the ultimate success of the quest demonstrate that, in the end, the forces of good (defined by their virtue and ideals) triumph over the forces of evil, even if by the unwitting aid of their enemies? Fifth, how do the lines regarding the Ring "it would possess him" and "he had no will left in the matter" allow for the possibility that Frodo freely abandoned his Quest in favor of the persuasion of the Ring out of disillusionment with his ideals, as opposed to simply succumbing to the dominating power of the Ring?

[Lush]

Fate plays heavily in the outcome of the novel, not enlightened self-interest.

I think you're right to bring up fate, Morthoron, though I would also remind you that what we are looking at is a world that has been marred, and those who are in it are marred as well. I also didn't say that it was necessarily enlightened self-interest (I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that, so perhaps if you'd like to explain, I would be interested) - just the idea of "do unto others... etc." It is a noble way of thinking, to be sure, but it is also not entirely selfless. Which is alright, really, because that's what human nature (or hobbit nature, if you will) is all about.

[Hot, crispy nice hobbit]

Guns don't kill people, spinning bullets discharged at high velocity do.

It sounds more like a figure of speech to describe Frodo as having "no will left in the matter". A drug addict who did bloody murder to feed his addiction would be just as responsible.

"My Precccioousss." - Bilbo, on tobacco rehab.

It is an accident which saved Middle Earth, just as it was a boating accident which killed Frodo's parents. (Unless, the gossips are true) One flinches at the prospect of pronouncing moral judgement at the death of Frodo's parents, but ascribes divine intervention at the other. Doesn't that seem like moral values are different from ideals?

"I did all that for my Children. It's not right to deprive my cute li' goblins of a land of milk and honey..." - Melkor, on Trial during the First Chaining.

[Gwathagor]

Originally Posted by Hot, crispy nice hobbit

Guns don't kill people, spinning bullets discharged at high velocity do.

This is off-topic, but here's a good one: if guns kill people, then silverware makes Michael Moore fat (assuming he doesn't eat with his fingers...which may be assuming too much). Ha!

[Gwathagor]

Originally Posted by Lush

- just the idea of "do unto others... etc." It is a noble way of thinking, to be sure, but it is also not entirely selfless.

This is not strictly true. Frodo's sacrifice of his own enjoyment of the Shire for the sake of his fellow hobbits was entirely selfless. In the end, he had the opportunity to visit Aman as a result, but only retrospect could have shown him that chain of events. Though virtue sometimes does lead to a good end, that end is rarely foreseeable, which is why virtue is always best practiced for its own sake: for the sake of one's soul, as well as for the sake of others.

Perhaps looking after the condition of one's soul could be considered true self-interest, in which case virtue really isn't selfless at all... Though, the condition of one's soul is hardly what most people would term one's highest interest these days, so maybe we only agree because we define our terms differently.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Hot, crispy nice hobbit

Despite sounding hopelessly opportunistic, it is certainly not ideals that drove Tolkien's world. It was pre-destination, and a set of debatable moral values. Greed made Gollum save the day. If Gollum had not gloated over his success, the end would have come all the same.

It would seem that the author disagrees with your cynical take on the ideals of his book...

Originally Posted by J.R.R Tolkien, Letter #181

But at this point the 'salvation' of the world and Frodo's own 'salvation' is achieved by his previous pity and forgiveness of injury. At any point any prudent person would have told Frodo that Gollum would certainly betray him, and could rob him in the end. To 'pity' him, to forbear to kill him, was a piece of folly, or a mystical belief in the ultimate value-in-itself of pity and generosity even if disastrous in the world of time.

As far as Gollum gloating, Tolkien referred to Gollum as a "mad thing" capering along the precipice. At that point in time he was completely insane, because "The domination of the Ring was much too strong for the mean soul of Smeagol." Gollum could do nothing else but gloat at that point in time, trapped in blind ecstasy, a prisoner more so than a failing heroin addict shooting his last lethal dose. His only words were: "Precious, precious, precious!" Gollum cried. "My precious! O my precious!" He was unconcerned with danger, oblivious to the two hobbits nearby, and hadn't the faintest foresight that he was in Sauron's lair and that the Great Eye was upon him. In his madness he failed to see his predicament, and even the ledge looming to awaiting disaster.

Originally Posted by Hot, crispy nice hobbit

It is certainly another complicated topic whether the characters in Tolkien's Middle Earth were guided by the hands of Illuvator, or their own free will.

Fate and predestination are two separate issues. There is certainly a great measure of fate that applies to the book, but predestination (as you are using the term) does not require free will on the part of characters, whereas fate does. You are speaking from a Calvinist view of predestination (where even heaven's elect is a small, finite number), and not a Catholic one (to which Tolkien would certainly adhere). The Catholic doctrine holds Calvinist predestination as heretical because it does not include the free will of the individual to choose good or evil (which is certainly an aspect of Tolkien's corpus). Here is a summarization of the Catholic view (from the Catholic Encyclopedia):

According to the doctrinal decisions of general and particular synods, God infallibly foresees and immutably preordains from eternity all future events (cf. Denzinger, n. 1784), all fatalistic necessity, however, being barred and human liberty remaining intact (Denz., n. 607). Consequently man is free whether he accepts grace and does good or whether he rejects it and does evil (Denz., n. 797). Just as it is God's true and sincere will that all men, no one excepted, shall obtain eternal happiness, so, too, Christ has died for all (Denz., n. 794), not only for the predestined (Denz., n. 1096), or for the faithful (Denz., n. 1294), though it is true that in reality not all avail themselves of the benefits of redemption (Denz., n. 795).

Eru Iluvatar certainly knows the entire song that was partially hidden from the Ainur; however, I believe there is only one direct intercession on Eru's part in the entire chronology (when the Valar surrendered their governance to Eru in the wake of the Numenorean invasion). If predestination were a fact and the outcome certain, then the Valar would not have deemed it necessary to send the Istari out to do their missionary work to reinvigorate the hearts of the Free Peoples (it would seem that the Valar would have had at least an inkling of such a doctrinal truth). Iluvatar's interference would have been made manifest at other critical junctures in Middle-earth history if that were Tolkien's means in storytelling. Free will and choices are a foundational aspect of LotR, as are the 'altruistic' views of mercy, and the old-fashioned chivalric values of valor, humility and self-sacrifice (beyond any economy or self-interest).

Originally Posted by Hot, crispy nice hobbit

But ultimate failure of ideals remained: the mercy of Gandalf/Bilbo/Frodo was abused by the greed of Gollum, Frodo finally became disillusioned with the hardships he went through, and was persuaded by the Ring to claim it for himself. (Unless, one forgoes entirely the responsibility of individuals over their own choices.)

Of course, after the fall of Sauron and Gollum, Frodo can feint possession by other worldly powers, and still be hero of the Third Age... (I'd bet that J.R.R. T is turning in his grave somewhere) Certainly, that's not modernism that griped Middle Earth or our Earth. Just hopeless self-interest.

But the insidious nature of the Ring, and perhaps one its greatest evils, is that it erodes free will, to the point where the wise (like Gandalf) would not even touch it. At this point I am wondering if you are merely arguing for argument's sake, or whether you merely fail to grasp the insistent and grave tone Tolkien uses regarding the properties of the Ring. Lesser Rings sent great lords and kings to eventual wraithdom, the One Ring destroyed Isildur and Gollum (and nearly so Boromir), and we marvel at the nobility and fortitude of Faramir for refusing it (well, you don't; I guess you merely consider his refusal as a utilitarian piece of strategy). And here we have Frodo the Hobbit -- bitten, speared and stabbed -- blindly flailing at the air in an attempt to ward off the great fiery circle in his waking nightmare, coming at last to Mount Doom, wherein pulses the apex and pinnacle of the Rings arcane power, and you merely assign Frodo's failure to disillusionment? Sorry, that's just plain silly.

Assigning the psychological crudities of modernity (precluding the evil propensities and the dominating magic inherent in the Ring, for instance) to a fantasy written in a traditionalist mode brings us right back to the demeaning and woodenheaded nature that the intellectuals of the current worldview have for Tolkien, or any classical literature for that matter. Rather than synthesize and embrace various literature and come to terms with the norms presented at the time the piece was written (as well as reveling in the historical intonations reverberating from the past), they instead berate entire eras of literature and parade their own addlepated notions as the end-all, be-all to what is correct and aesthetically pleasing.

*The Dark Elf steps down from his well-worn soapbox*

Ummm...yeah, whatever.

Originally Posted by Lush

I think you're right to bring up fate, Morthoron, though I would also remind you that what we are looking at is a world that has been marred, and those who are in it are marred as well. I also didn't say that it was necessarily enlightened self-interest (I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that, so perhaps if you'd like to explain, I would be interested) - just the idea of "do unto others... etc." It is a noble way of thinking, to be sure, but it is also not entirely selfless. Which is alright, really, because that's what human nature (or hobbit nature, if you will) is all about.

By enlightened self-interest, I meant that a moral imperative such as ""Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" takes on the added dimension of "By doing unto others as you would have them do unto you, you have a better chance of not having others do unto you as they will", (ie., if you don't treat people like crap, they probably won't treat you like crap). The ideal (the one not requiring self-interest) is a goal that not everyone attains, but assuredly I have met those who adhere to it quite remarkably (I, unfortuantely, am too curmudgeonly and lack the patience to be in that rarified sphere of sanctification).

[Hot, crispy nice hobbit]

It's nothing personal, but I find it ironic that you should call the modern process of chicken rearing cruel, whereas attribute absolute dominating evil power to the Ring. Nobody really likes the idea of eating cruelly tortured chicken flesh, but then nobody likes the idea of soaring chicken meat prices either. (With that pretty much everything which comes with inflation of commodity prices) On the other hand, the individuals that you mentioned, (Boromir, Bilbo, Frodo) clearly had a choice in claiming the Ring for themselves, failed to resist and yet epitomized heroism and triumph of ideals. (Frodo's utterance:"On Mount Doom, doom shall fall" sounds pretty cryptic... does that mean that he's telling Sam his going to fail?)

Besides, madness (i.e. the mad Gollum) pretty much absolved his guilt in snatching the Ring, doesn't it?

"I pleeeead inssssaaanniityyy...." - Gollum

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Hot, crispy nice hobbit

It's nothing personal, but I find it ironic that you should call the modern process of chicken rearing cruel, whereas attribute absolute dominating evil power to the Ring. Nobody really likes the idea of eating cruelly tortured chicken flesh, but then nobody likes the idea of soaring chicken meat prices either. (With that pretty much everything which comes with inflation of commodity prices)

Your use of the term 'ironic' does not apply to what you are saying. I find no incongruity in my statements; therefore to imply irony is in error. It seems you are saying you condone cruelty and torture when it is expedient to do so. To each his own, I suppose.

Originally Posted by Hot, crispy nice hobbit

On the other hand, the individuals that you mentioned, (Boromir, Bilbo, Frodo) clearly had a choice in claiming the Ring for themselves, failed to resist and yet epitomized heroism and triumph of ideals. (Frodo's utterance:"On Mount Doom, doom shall fall" sounds pretty cryptic... does that mean that he's telling Sam his going to fail?)

Again, either you are simply arguing for arguments sake, or you really do not grasp the concepts of Tolkien's work. Boromir repented of his misdeed, and gained forgiveness through repentance (an integral part of Catholic doctrine). Bilbo? I am not sure exactly where he failed to resist, can you? It was difficult for him to surrender the Ring, but he did so (and with Sam as another example, giving up the Ring of one's own free will must have been a harrowing experience). Frodo? Yes he did fail, didn't he? I believe I've stated that on several occasions, but since you fail to comprehend the mitigating circumstances surrounding his ordeal, then this conversation is irredeemable. I will repost a quote from Tolkien and then refrain from further posting in this thread (unless of course you have an epiphany or someone adds something worthwhile):

Originally Posted by J.R.R Tolkien, Letter #181

But at this point the 'salvation' of the world and Frodo's own 'salvation' is achieved by his previous pity and forgiveness of injury. At any point any prudent person would have told Frodo that Gollum would certainly betray him, and could rob him in the end. To 'pity' him, to forbear to kill him, was a piece of folly, or a mystical belief in the ultimate value-in-itself of pity and generosity even if disastrous in the world of time.

Originally Posted by J.R.R Tolkien, Letter #181

Besides, madness (i.e. the mad Gollum) pretty much absolved his guilt in snatching the Ring, doesn't it?

"I pleeeead inssssaaanniityyy...." - Gollum

No, he was not absolved because he died unrepentant (again, a Catholic doctrine that Tolkien would adhere to).

[Eönwë]

Originally Posted by Hot, crispy nice hobbit

Frodo's utterance:"On Mount Doom, doom shall fall" sounds pretty cryptic... does that mean that he's telling Sam his going to fail?

But Tolkien uses "doom" to mean "fate" a lot of the time so aybe what he actually means is that even if his fate is to go to Mount Doom then whatever happens there is only governed by free will, and he might not even be able to give the ring up, even though it's his fate.

[Hot, crispy nice hobbit]

There seems to be a generally unequivocal stance on the moral implications of choices. But what about the moral implications of having no choice? Let's rephrase the question: Evil is said to be a by-product of free-will, but people do not choose to be born with free-will. And rectifying the phenomenon of free-will (i.e: through slavery, capital punishment and martial law) would be generally considered tyranny (and thus evil).

The slaves of Sauron and Morgoth are condemned for imitating the characteristics of their masters. And yet, being born under the yoke and thus having known nothing else other than the teachings of their forebears, they were probably the least evil of the lot. Of course, they get tempted by power and prestige like other "Free Peoples", but they should not be held responsible for their evil characteristics like Gollum or Bill Ferny. Aragorn did not hold Butterbur and Bree as ingrates because they did not give the Rangers credit for their protection.

Again, it seems like that the traditional stance did not offer any migitations for evil caused from being granted free will. (I believe Tolkien did write in HoME about having the need of some "Christ" coming to save the Edain under Morgoth, but that certainly did not materialise).

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Fate and predestination are two separate issues. There is certainly a great measure of fate that applies to the book, but predestination (as you are using the term) does not require free will on the part of characters, whereas fate does. You are speaking from a Calvinist view of predestination (where even heaven's elect is a small, finite number), and not a Catholic one (to which Tolkien would certainly adhere). The Catholic doctrine holds Calvinist predestination as heretical because it does not include the free will of the individual to choose good or evil (which is certainly an aspect of Tolkien's corpus). Here is a summarization of the Catholic view (from the Catholic Encyclopedia):

This I find interesting. I do understand that Tolkien's view of faith, or rather, the view expressed in LotR and his other works, is separate from predestination. What I don't understand is why.

According to the doctrinal decisions of general and particular synods, God infallibly foresees and immutably preordains from eternity all future events (cf. Denzinger, n. 1784), all fatalistic necessity, however, being barred and human liberty remaining intact (Denz., n. 607

Is that not an oxymoron? How can God infallibly foresee and preordain all future events and man still be free? This idea I can't even begin to grasp. If God knows all future choices a man will take, how can he then be free? There's only one path for him and it's predestined. Or does this mean that God can preordain all futire events if he wants too, but doesn't, in respect to man's free will? I'd appreciate if you, or anyone else, can help me understand this concept.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Okay, Skip, look at it from your human, synchronic point of view. Suppose you see a car wreck. You didn't cause it, there's nothing you can do to prevent it, you just see it as it happens.

The classic philosopher's answer to your conundrum applies that model to the Deity's infinite vision: seeing everything happen in His omnipresent Now is not the same thing as causing or ordaining it.

[Galin]

I don't know if this will help, but the following is from the Mere Christianity Leaders' Notes over at Opendiscipleship.org, and looks at Lewis' thoughts in Mere Christianity (I can't seem to find my copy).

Chapter 3: "Time and Beyond Time" This chapter discusses Time as it relates to Prayer. We live through time. In this reality, we flow in one direction with time. All that is behind us is lost to us, except in our memory. All that is before us is unknown to us. What Lewis is attempting to address here is, "How can God listen to everyone in the world praying at the same time?"

1) God created time
2) God exists beyond time ("outside and above")
3) God is not restricted to time
4) We live in this tiny window of Now, the past behind us, the future before us
5) God can see all of the "Nows" all of all time
6) Example of the author writing the book with the character in the book living in a separate, independent timeline.
7) "But God has no history. He is too completely real to have one."
8) In human language we use terms like "foreknowledge," and "foresaw," and "predestined." These terms are all locked into human reason and human language. We really don't have language to adequately deal with God's presence outside of time.
9) Because of God's presence beyond time, He is able to tell the prophets what is in their future because it is not future to God, but present reality. This allows a view of foreknowledge and predestination that does not violate, in any way, free will and human responsibility. Humans retain personal responsibility in light of "predestination" without the two conflicting.'

'Now' is a good word to try and describe it, as WCH already has. See also 8 regarding language and etc., as we can only try to describe such a concept.

[Gwathagor]

Divine predestination and human action are two different perspectives on the same thing, but you can't really consider them alongside each other on the same plane. It's as if God is an author writing a story. On one level, He determines everything that happens. On another level, the characters in the story are held responsible for their actions within the story.

This isn't, of course, to say that God is totally outside of the story, as an author is. He is perpetually involved, and that's where my analogy breaks down.