Tolkien and philosophy

[mark12_30]

Hookbill, you wrote:

Tolkien was not a philosopher. That is plain enough.

On what are you basing that statement?

[symestreem]

People philosophize about everything. The basic topics talked about, such as free will, suffering, etc., are relevant to all people, even fictional ones. In a story as relatively similar to us as Lord of the Rings is, is it to be wondered at that we find these topics?

[The Saucepan Man]

Hookbill, many of the issues raised in Tolkien's writings will give rise to issues which one might describe as "philosophical". When discussing the nature and origin of Orcs, for example, it is only a small step to go on and consider whether they were by their nature irredeemably evil. That, in turn, raises issues about the "fairness" of a world where sentient beings (if indeed Orcs were that) have no choice in being evil, but are born as such. Similarly consideration of the "dooms" pronounced upon the Noldor (by Mandos) and Hurin's family (by Morgoth) will inevitably involve consideration of whether they had free will, leading perhaps to more general discussion of free will within Middle-earth and indeed within our own world. And the consideration of good and evil within Middle-earth will often raise questions concerning the nature and source of morality. It is inevitable that questions such as these will arise in a forum such as this.

But never fear, there are ample threads devoted to the consideration of pure factual issues (did Balrogs have wings being the prime, albeit hackneyed, example). Along with threads devoted to the portrayal of Tolkien's works on film, quiz games, creative writing and simply having fun with the books and the films. The list is endless. There is something here for every Tolkien fan, however their interest manifests itself. It is up to you which topics you involve yourself in. If you want to engage in serious philosophical discussion you can, even if (like me) you sometimes feel woefully ill-equipped in terms of learning and experience to do so. Or you can simply move on to another topic. It's up to you.

Tolkien was not a philosopher. That is plain enough. (Hookbill)

On what are you basing that statement? (Helen)

Well, clearly Tolkien is not remembered primarily as a Philosopher, in the same way that Plato, Aquinas and Nietzsche are. He is primarily remembered as a great story-teller. But it is clear from a cursory glance at his Letters and some of his essays that he did philosophise, in the sense that he concerned himself with considering, and expressing to others his views on, the weightier issues in life.

Of course, he saw little merit in over-analysing those works which he published primarily as tales to amuse himself and give pleasure to others. He quoted Gandalf's line cautioning against breaking a thing to discover its meaning in this context on a number of occasions. For example, in a draft of a letter to Peter Szabo Szentmihalyi (Letter 329), he stated:

When they have read it, some readers will (I suppose) wish to 'criticize' it, and even to analyze it, and if that is their mentality they are, of course, at liberty to do these things - so long as they have first read it with attention throughout. Not that this attitude of mind has my sympathy: as should be clearly perceived in Vol. I p.272: Gandalf: 'He that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom.'

His greatest wish was that people should read and enjoy his tales. And, while he may not have had much sympathy for those who seek to analyse them (and was perhaps concerned that over-analysis might impair the enjoyment), he nevertheless recognised that his stories will have applicability for his readers (that, for many, is part of the enjoyment). And I don't think that he would have begrudged those who are inclined to do so from considering the manner in which his tales are applicable to them and discussing their views with others. Such a process is, I think, bound to lead frequently to discussion of philosophical issues. And I also don't think that he would have objected to people considering and discussing his own philosophical views, as hinted at in essays such as 'On Faerie Stories', and as often explicitly stated in his Letters (which, while he did not intend them for general publication when he wrote them, were generally written for an audience of at least one).

And, contrary to what you say, I don't think that a recognition that his stories were not intended to be allegorical is necessarily an obstacle to such discussions provided that people recognise that they are discussing how Tolkien's works might bear upon philosophical issues, rather than trying to establish a particular philosophical idea or meaning that they believe he might have intended to represent by them.

[HerenIstarion]

To questions posed (even if unconsciously so) in Hookbill's post re:

1. Since nobody is around to hear it, there is no sound of course!
2. The sound of one hand clapping is definitely a 'cl' (or half a clap, as it is naturally to be expected)

Cheers

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

An interesting question Hookbill, but an odd one.

Odd, because it posits the idea of a “philosopher” without really engaging what is meant by that. This is probably coy, but just what is a philosopher, anyway? The only people whose primary occupation these days is philosophy are Professors of Philosophy at Universities. Come to think of it, nobody has ever really been a philosopher, they did philosophy in the course of their lives (even Aristotle had a day job as a teacher and tutor – to Alexander the Great, no less – but I digress. . .) If we allow for a definition of philosopher that is descriptive (that is, one who philosophises is a philosopher) rather than prescriptive (that is, one whose ‘job’ it is to philosophise is a philosopher) then I cannot see how we cannot give the honour of that title to Tolkien. I have been struck time and again by the depth, subtly and intelligence of Tolkien’s engagement with truly profound matters, particularly in his Letters and LotR.

But this is really just a semantic argument. SaucepanMan has already anticipated me in shifting focus away from the question/status of Tolkien as philosopher to his works – in particular, LotR – as philosophical texts. Yes, the tale was meant to entertain, and it is a narrative-fiction with applicability rather than an allegorical treatise (like, say, The Consolation of Philosophy or Dante’s Divine Comedy), but it is not alone among works that pursue overtly philosophical questions in this manner – off the top of my head I can think of several: the Bible (Genesis, Exodus, the Gospels), the Aenied, the Illiad, and two works that were very near and dear to Professor Tolkien’s heart, Beowulf and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight.

Nor do I think that we have to look “deeply into” LotR to see its moral philosophy (sense of right and wrong), its exploration of hermeneutics (how things or human actions become or are rendered meaningful), its phenomenological concerns (how things or human actions gain meaning within a human-social context) or its eschatology (exploration of the meaning that accrues to the mortal time of human existence with reference to the eternity that comes at the ‘end’ of time). This idea of “looking deeply” is also an odd one to me: beneath the text there is only the blank white paper of the page; between the lines there is nothing. Everying that the text ‘is’ or contains is right there in black and white before us. The sense of moving “into” the text is really a projection of our own inner exploration that the text is both catalyst for and partner in.

Tolkien was not a philosopher (in the sense that he worked as one in his professional life) but a philologist – so it would only make sense that his pursuit and examination of philosophical issues would come about through his interest in language. When we start to look at the names that he creates for his heroes, I think it is impossible not to acknowledge not only the scope of his philosophical interests, but their potential profundity as well.

As has been acknowledged elsewhere in the forum Frodo’s name comes from the Old German word ‘frodá’ meaning ‘wise by experience’. Frodo’s journey is very much a journey from innocence into wisdom, which is precisely what philosophy (which is Greek for “love of wisdom”) is all about! The fact that this journey to wisdom is painful and arduous I think only re-enforces the deeply philosophical interest and impetus of the text, for who but a philosopher would know better the difficulty (impossibility?) of achieving true wisdom within the time of human history and experience.

The names of Aragorn and Arwen also point to equally weighty philosophical concerns:

• ‘Ar’ is Old English (the language that Professor Tolkien devoted his professional life to studying and teaching) and has several meanings. When applied to a person it denotes a messenger, in particular a servant or herald of God (angel or apostle). When presented as a quality it means glory, honour, reverence, dignity, grace, favour or pity.

• ‘agorn’ (in OE) means to have or possess, or to deliver and restore; it can also mean to come forth, grow, or approach.

Aragorn’s name therefore has been very carefully chosen by Tolkien to mean the possession, approach and restoration of all that ‘ar’ denotes. This is not allegory (in which case Aragorn’s name would be something like Truth and Sauron’s would be Falsehood), but it demonstrates the philosophical nature of the text from the very groundwork out of which it was built (the names that Tolkien constructed). But this philosophical pattern goes even further when we consider the implications of Arwen’s name. We’ve got ‘ar’ again, but with ‘wen’ a whole new slew of connotations enters the text:

• ‘wenn’ means belief, hope, expectation, and is a form of ‘wenan’ which means to believe in, expect or hope and fear for an outcome

• ‘wyn’ means joy, rapture or delight.

Arwen’s name them means variously the delight or joy of ‘ar’ (so it makes perfect sense that she would love Aragorn) and belief and hope in, expectation of the fulfilment or arrival or ‘ar’ (so it makes perfect sense that Aragorn’s journey is concluded only when he marries Arwen).

The names of these two characters points the way to a whole series of what I think are explicitly philosophical explorations of the manner in which ‘ar’ is brought about, found, hoped for, nourished and realised in human history. This is far more than a simple fairy-tale love story between a hero and his lady – the relationship of Aragorn and Arwen is a dynamic and important part of the overall fabric, which explores the nature of Aragorn’s revelation of his innate wisdom, in relation to Frodo’s slow and painful growth into wisdom.

Postscript – Thanks to H-I for clearing those questions up for me. But still: what if the falling tree is an Ent who yells out as he falls (“who put that stone there?”)? Or, is the “cl” sound of the left hand clapping, while the right sounds like “ap”?

[Bombadil]

Perhaps it is so easy for us to apply our life situations to Tolkien's writing because he has truly captured human emotion and behavior. With his study of so many different languages and cultures I believe he gained an overall understanding of the human essence.

What seperates the literature of Tolkien and that of many other fantasies is his creation of languages and geography. Of in-depth history. With this he created a foundation. There was much room for building up from the foundation, but there were still limits, as one cannot build outside a foundation. I see these limits to be of a human nature - that by creating something that is so essential to our living, he laid down a strong foundation that kept him form leaving the reality of humanity.

But to connect this with the thread, I believe Tolkien could've written this applicably symbolic novel without need of trying to, because staying within that foundation created a relationship between the readers and the characters.

(It's very hard to explain what I'm getting at, so sorry if it sounds like a bunch of crazy talk!)

[HerenIstarion]

Thanks to H-I for clearing those questions up for me. But still: what if the falling tree is an Ent who yells out as he falls (“who put that stone there?”)? Or, is the “cl” sound of the left hand clapping, while the right sounds like “ap”?

Easy.

Sound re:

Since the Ent is one to fall, and, at the same time, one who 'is around', he is able to hear himself falling, and therefore there is a sound. If it were not him who were falling, but merely a tree, than he would not be around, so no sound will be there.

Clapping re:

It dependes. Since 'clap' is an English word, and we do write it from left to right in English, it is to be assumed that 'cl' is the sound of left hand clapping, and 'ap' is to be associated with the right hand. The situation, however, would be reversed for those writing from right to left. People writing on a vertical axis would have a preference of having respective sound associated with whichever hand happens to be their upper one in a clapping process.

PS Outstanding post there, Fordim, kudos!