The atrocity of the Akallabêth

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

We need not speculate; there are (or at least have been) societies which accepted death as natural, as a stage of life; some even embraced it. Of my ancestors, the dacians, it is said that they welcomed death, so as they may meet Zamolxe, their god.

There are some strands of hinduism and Zen which preach that God may be met in the last moment of life - if God was the center of one's preocupation. There are monks who center their life's efforts on this ultimate trial; at least for them, death is not a punishment, but the culmination of their strivings.

Fine - but most of us are not in that position, & we are the very ones Tolkien's work speaks to. We are not monks or nuns, we are ordinary 'Hobbits' & death is not a 'culmination' of our strivings. Of course death is 'natural', but so are man eating sharks, MRSA, AIDS, hurricanes & a whole load of other nasties.

Many martyrs, from almost every country, have taken actions which meant their certain death, yet they undertook them because they knew this could bring their cause closer to reality, and because of them people in many places enjoy more rights than otherwise (for the record, I don't agree with suicide bombings ). For themselves, death was an unique opportunity to make a difference; for those who benefited from it, it was a sacrifice revered.

But this is effectively treating life, not death, with contempt - as a means to an end. That is not 'accepting death' at all, it is denying it its right & proper 'respect'.

At least in Tolkien's world, death "as it should be seen" is not something banal; it doesn't change how it affects the person and one's world, but acknowledges that this end is also a begining, or a return of you will -a return which is a bounty that even the Powers and the Immortals envy. They envy it twice, because that fea leaves this world, and joins another one, most likely - Eru's.

Then why are the deaths I mentioned seen (& more importantly felt) as tragedies? Tolkien never implies that those who felt grief at the passing of those individuals were delusional, or 'sinful' (which would be the case if they were merely believing Melkor's lies). Those deaths are presented & perceived as wrong - & more importantly so is Aragorn's by Arwen - & she knows the theory - 'Death is the Gift of Eru to Men' 'Its only a transition' etc, etc. Yet when it comes to it she also knows it is not 'good', pleasant or right - its the opposite in fact.

Ultimate trust, faith, in Eru is required from his Children in both life and death. Trust that "of all His designs the issue must be for His Children's joy".

And the evidence for that trust? Eru does not one single thing to justify it.

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by davem

Fine - but most of us are not in that position, & we are the very ones Tolkien's work speaks to. We are not monks or nuns, we are ordinary 'Hobbits' & death is not a 'culmination' of our strivings.

I am not sure what you recommend to those who are theists; that they should demonise death?

Originally Posted by davem

But this is effectively treating life, not death, with contempt - as a means to an end. That is not 'accepting death' at all, it is denying it its right & proper 'respect'.

It depends; from a theological point of view, if that sacrifice was done selflessly, having a spiritual good in sight, if the cause itself is compatible with religious percepts, then it is not condemnable. "And he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it" Matthew 10.39. Various monks in Vietnam burned themselves to death to protest oppression in their country. Selfless sacrifice for the sake of others is the hallmark of great spirits everywhere, be they Christ, Gandhi, or Bahaullah.

Originally Posted by davem

Then why are the deaths I mentioned seen (& more importantly felt) as tragedies? Tolkien never implies that those who felt grief at the passing of those individuals were delusional, or 'sinful' (which would be the case if they were merely believing Melkor's lies). Those deaths are presented & perceived as wrong - & more importantly so is Aragorn's by Arwen - & she knows the theory - 'Death is the Gift of Eru to Men' 'Its only a transition' etc, etc. Yet when it comes to it she also knows it is not 'good', pleasant or right - its the opposite in fact.

Of the elves, it is said in the Atrabeth:

By the holiness of good men - their direct attachment to Eru, before and above all Eru's works - the Elves may be delivered from the last of their griefs: sadness; the sadness that must come even from the unselfish love of anything less than Eru.)

I would dare say even for Men attachment to anything other than Eru will produce sadness - and grief and loss. As in wordly religions, suffering comes from a wrong attitude - this time, the cause being the object of attachment. Perhaps a certain amount of such an error is pardonable, or even ok; but it would stop being so, when the grief becomes a cause to turn against the Creator.

Originally Posted by davem

And the evidence for that trust? Eru does not one single thing to justify it.

I think I have previously presented various instances in which Eru is an active participant in Ea, albeit not a completely direct actor. His actions prove his love of the Eruhini. Besides them, Tolkien speculates in the Letters that Aragorn in his reign would reinstitute the belief in Eru and his worship (although no temples...)
Edit:
a belief that would provide ways to reconnect - and I believe that it will have beneficial effects on those who will follow it (at least the contrary is true, those who fall further into evil have their lives shortened by various cute means). The belief "system" itself, and the effects I presume it has, are further "proofs". Of course, one has to be open to them.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I don't think that Arda Unmarred is equated with perfection; perhaps the timeless halls of Eru - or maybe just Eru is perfect. If I understand correctly, Arda Unmarred is Arda without the strong element of melkorism: accelerated moral and physical decay. Water would still carve out stone, the general interaction of elements would be preserved and, as far as I see, we are in agreement that good and evil predate Melkor or his rebellion, at least as moral choices. There would still be evil choices, yet evil would not have such a compelling force, tainting the body, and therefore the mind. Indeed, there are no obstacles, if we don't see them: either because we don't consider them as such, when they objectively exist, because we accept them a priori; either because, when they objectively exist, we consider them a mere challenge. The main challenge "there", as well as "here", is achieving our potential; in both cases it requires effort. Esspecially for humans, time is limited, and doing the best with it is always a challenge.

Which would mean that evil is indeed inbuilt by Eru and is not a result of Melkor's rebellion! In fact Melkor would not be necessary whatsoever as evil would still be manifest in Arda simply by dint of it being created by Eru.

Originally Posted by raynor

I would call this a secondary, minor, motivation, if any at all. From what I gather in the Silmarillion, he and the noldor were working out of "delight"; of himself, it is stated that he "was driven by the fire of his own heart only, working ever swiftly and alone". I interpret this as saying that it was the unique creative fire which he had, which no elf ever after had, that was driving him forward. I would dare say that a similar fire drives an artist to create.

I interpret it as Pride. He is driven by his own desire. And this bears a remarkable similarity to the actions of Melkor when he enters Arda with his kin - they work together whereas he works alone, driven by his own fire. We also see the same with the creation of the Rings - Sauron works alone to create the One, as does Celebrimbor to create the Three - and Tolkien does make it seem as though the creation even of these was highly dangerous (and led to naval-gazing, pickled creations such as Lothlorien which may be beautiful but typify the stagnation of the Elves). Tolkien seems to suggest that certainly for Valar and Elves, working alone often leads to bad results; if not this then it is at least not the correct way to go about thins, which seems to be to share and to work together.

Originally Posted by Raynor

if Art is to represent a reflection of God's creation,

That depends if it is. For the majority it is not. It may represent things which others take to be creations of God, but even then the Artist probably does not have that in mind. Even some of the creators of the greatest religious art will have had in mind not God but Aesthetics: colour, shape, language, sound. Look at the care Tolkien took in creating his own work, writing and re-writing to better secure the meaning of a single created word - his work is 99% aesthetics, even more maybe, as any notions of 'God' are so well woven in as to keep all his readers arguing yay or nay for as long as the books will exist.

Originally Posted by Raynor

Why? The elves have experienced death due to violent causes long before they met the Men; they have been enslaved, tortured and peverted by Melkor, their works and houses destroyed.

Men act as an inspiration to the Elves because what the Elves (and the Ainur) experience is not Death. They are not Mortal. They may lose a body but they will get another one. They are tied to the earth but Men are not. Elves know where they are going, Men never will. They may go back to be with Eru, they may not. There are possibilities and mysteries that the Elves cannot comprehend or understand. This is profound and sad, and the sense of urgency, of having just One Chance to get it right, that drives mortals is beyond the understanding of Elves.