Have ye then no hope?

[davem]

And yet, if:

Trust (estel): It is not defeated by the ways of the world, for it does not come from experience, but from 'our nature and first being'.

is correct, & estel has its basis in 'our nature and first being', then if Elves have the capacity for estel, isn't that some kind of 'guarantee' of their ultimate happiness, in that they are not separate from Arda. If Arda is renewed (as opposed to destroyed & replaced by something else) then they too must also be renewed. If Arda was replaced by something else in which they were to have no part, then they would not have the experience of estel, as the ultimate hope from which it arises would not be related to the world of which they are a part.

In other words, there must be some reason for the Elves estel which relates to them as beings in this world.

Unless I'm completely wrong (I'm only just managing to follow my own reasoning here!)

[The Saucepan Man]

Taken to its extreme, though, this concept of "estel" seems to me to be a bit of a cop-out. An Elf might as well say: "Well there's no point in opposing the Dark Lord. He won't win in the end." Or does the concept involve an idea that the their trust will ultimately only prove true if they uphold the ideals of He who they trust in? In other words, one cannot have trust without responsibility.

And yet, doesn't that give rise to a parodox? If individuals have to take responsibility for upholding that which they trust in, then there must be a theoretical possibility that they will, en masse, either avoid that responsibility or fail in their efforts to uphold it, in which case "Good" will not prevail. But, if they trust that Eru will never allow that to happen, then why bother assuming the responsibility in the first place?

[HerenIstarion]

"Well there's no point in opposing the Dark Lord. He won't win in the end."

That's why, I believe, Tolkien hints at Evil as outside force too, not to let such paradoxes arise, for one thing.

On the other hand, if to be Good means to follow some inherent standard put there by Eru, than such an idea on behalf of an elf would be dereliction of duty, i.e. becoming Evil oneself.

theoretical possibility that they will, en masse, either avoid that responsibility or fail in their efforts to uphold it, in which case "Good" will not prevail

And for such cases there is direct intervention, if I may be so bold as to utter the word, reserved. Numenor, per instance.

[The Saucepan Man]

And for such cases there is direct intervention ...

Yet the possibility of direct intervention surely, in theory at least, renders obsolete the need for individual responsibility. Unless there is a co-equal force of Evil which can neutralise or oppose direct intervention for Good ...

[HerenIstarion]

Yet the possibility of direct intervention surely, in theory at least, renders obsolete the need for individual responsibility

Does it? For one thing, nobody knows beforehand if such an intervention is going to happen, and when. For another, it may be easily mistaken for the natural event, as it works usually along natural patterns. For the third, those to derelict their duty and avoid responsibility may be in for some tough time once (and if) such an intervention is afoot.

[The Saucepan Man]

But, asuming that some individuals are able to recognise direct intervention for what it is (and the Elves certainly seem to have done so in their tales of the Downfall of Numenor), then they can rest assured in the knowledge that, whatever they do (or don't do), Eru will prevail in the end.

[HerenIstarion]

Than the motivation may be whether they themselves do wish to participate in the victory? For as they chose to stand aside in battle, they will be left aside in victory.

That is, Eru will prevail whatever anyone does, but which end of it will come to the doer, depends on doer, so to say.