Elves and Ringwraiths

[cellurdur]

Originally Posted by Galadriel55

Relativism with good and bad comes when there is a choice between two or more goods, or two or more evils. I doubt you'd say that the concept of murder is good, regardless of time and culture.

No it doesn't. Relativism comes when 'good' and 'bad' are reduced to cultural phenomenons. So for one culture child sacrifice is 'good' and for the other culture it is abhorrent.

Nazism in my opinion (controversial as it maybe) is an example of what can happen when you take Nietzscheism down a certain road.

That's right - people give certain criteria by which to judge. They count up the points, performance, whatever. But that just tells you who scored more points that year, not who is actually stronger.

No by using the criteria the experts have we do make a judgement call on who is strong. The problem with judging things like 'strength of will' is that we lack the necessary information to judge other people. We don't know what they are feeling, we don't know how strong their resolve is and this is why in real life it's probably best to not to be quick to pass judgement even when we know many of the circumstances.

When judging characters 'will' in a story it is a different matter. Depending on the story we get an insight into a character we would never get in real life.

As far as I want to go. Texts are always interpreted. If you choose to interpret everything you read literally, I don't have to follow your choice.

No and that is why you are free to decide that Feanor is really the child of Melkor. I of course will disagree with your interpretation.

But that's just your opinion. Neither Gimli nor Eomer fought to defend Luthien's beauty.

This point makes little sense. Gimli and Eomer never saw Luthien, but all who did are in agreement that she was the fairest that ever lived. Not just characters in the story, but the narrator and Tolkien himself are in agreement with this.

Not the statement about Hurin, but your conclusion.

I am just going by what Tolkien said.

Did I ever say that I do not take Hurin's greatness literally? I said that I admire his strength of will very very very much. And I don't see why I should not also agree about the hobbits' greatness. What I am liberal in reading are superlatives, because I am hesitant to start ranking people and deeds based on pokemon cards.

Ranking people in terms of might does not turn things into a Pokemon game. Tolkien does it all the time in LOTR. Melkor was the mightiest of the Ainur. The Valar were mightier than the Maiar. Maiar are mightier than men. The ranking has always been there and is part of life. Some people have greater will power and strength than others the same way some people are taller and stronger.

The way you look on things is up to you. Denethor was the time to look down and scorn people less gifted than he was. Faramir was the type to show understanding and try and help them.

Alright then. Whose will was stronger, Merry's when he stabbed the Nazgul or Pippin's when he looked in the Palantir? Go, judge, rank. Good luck to you.

Well Merry succeeding to the right thing and stab the Witch King is for me the greater strength than Pippin giving in and looking in the Palantir.

Just, because we are not aware of all the details does not stop as from being able to make a decision. This judgement call is precisely what a judge does when he passes sentence.

Tolkien as the writer of the story has a greater insight into the strength of will needed for certain deeds. So I respect his judgment on such matters.

So you're that keen on having everything laid out from most to least. Why? Why do you need to rank things? Why can you not just appreciate each for what they are independent of any other?

Actually I don't feel the need to rank things and do appreciate them for what they are. The bigger question is why are you so against ranking things? Especially when it's the author laying it out for you. The ironic thing is by judging the Hobbit's resilience as something 'great' you are already ranking it. The use of the word great means you have already ranked it above something you would consider mundane or average.

Then how does this sound to you:

Gandalf - 400 strength -- 550 magic -- 450 mind
Aragorn - 350 strength -- 400 magic -- 400 mind
Boromir - 400 strength -- 300 magic -- 200 mind
Gimli - 450 strength -- 350 magic -- 250 mind

You see what I mean? Do you like LOTR, The Sil, etc when they are laid out like that?

No, because metaphysical things are things we don't have a way of measuring accurately. That being said we the LOTR is clear that in strength of spirit Gandalf is greater than Aragorn and Aragorn is greater than Boromir. To reject that is to reject one of the facts in the books and in my opinion equal to rejecting Eowyn as a blonde.

That applies to both sides, you know.

Of course, but I am not the one arguing that we reject the author's words when there is no contradiction.

It takes away from the appreciation of the reader to have it all laid out and ranked like Pokemon cards. Oooh, this one is stronger, it has more points!

You keep taking things back to Pokemon, but that's never been the way things work in LOTR. However, there has always been a ranking from Melkor at the top down to the Valar and Ainur. The wizards themselves were assigned an order and rank.

Arda has it's own order in it and you want to reject all this. You are advocating a chaos where we are ignorant of that different beings are greater or less, but that's not the world we are given.

Actually, I decided Feanor wasn't the son of Finwe at all, but Miriel had a secret affair with Melkor. This explains everything. She doesn't want to come back from the dead because she's ashamed and afraid. Feanor has skill beyond any other elf. He has quite the character but also quite the charisma. He's so concerned with fighting for his place as Finwe's firstborn son. There's clearly something going on between him and Morgoth when you look at their interactions. Isn't it obvious?

...You realize I'm doing this just for fun, right?

There are some things that are facts. Lorien lies to the West of the Misty Mountains. The Misty Mountains are mountains. Galadriel has golden hair.

There are some things which are opinion-like descriptions. Galadriel is the fairest. Lorien is the fairest. Celeborn is the wisest.

There are some things you take as givens. They are husband and wife. There are some things you take as enhancements of the text and of your understanding. Galadriel is the fairest.

Now this is the crux of the debate. For Tolkien at least the question of spiritual power is not one of opinion. Melkor has the most might out of anything ever created.

If Hurin had the mightiest spirit out of any man, this is not an opinion. This is actually a fact.

Just, because we lack the abilities to judge strength of will in real life, does not make it so in a story.

If Tolkien tells us Turin was taller than Hurin, then this is as much a fact as if he told as Hurin had the greater strength of will to me.

If you claim that Luthien is the fairest, are you then claiming Tolkien lied about Arwen and Galadriel being the fairest? Because that's what you're suggesting. You are picking your winner based on the number of times her beauty is praised, but that doesn't really erase the other two candidates and the statements that clearly say they are the fairest.

When did Tolkien ever contradict Luthien as the fairest? A contradiction is not a lie whether it flows from a desire to have different opinions in a story or a genuine mistake. That being said Luthien is consistently mentioned as the fairest. You may wish for Galadriel to be a fellow competitor for the title, but this is just not there in Tolkien's work.

I do not reject Luthien's beauty, or Hurin's willpower. I do not deny that they surpass most others'. But I also value the subjective things - the situation, the effort, the sacrifice - and take them into account. The problem I have with your approach is that in ranking people and things it takes things out of context and diminishes the value of things that are not the "---est". Moreover, I want to ask you, how far do you want to go? What's next? giving points for number of ocrs killed? Tricks performed? Better weapons? I do not and cannot agree to this approach. I have stated my thoughts on the matter, I hope with enough clarity. If you want to continue discussing this, perhaps we can take it to PMs instead of filling this thread with tangential debates.

My approach does not diminish the value of other great deeds, unless you place importance on only being the best. If you only want to be the strongest or your favourite character to be the most beautiful then it diminishes them.

However, if you value beauty or the greatness of the act itself then what does it matter? Do you look down on a gift a friend gives you, because he gave someone else a more expensive gift? Do you stand and look at a beautiful landscape and think less of it, because years back you saw a more beautiful landscape?

There is beauty and value in all great deeds whether some are greater than others. As I said before by calling something a 'great deed' or saying someone has 'strong will' you have already began to place rank it.

It's best we agree to disagree on this matter.

[Belegorn]

Originally Posted by cellurdur

Nazism in my opinion (controversial as it maybe) is an example of what can happen when you take Nietzscheism down a certain road.

I'd say it's when his philosophy is misrepresented, but not really put into practice. Nietzsche was used as a figurehead thanks to his sister, but the Nazis had as little to do with Nietzsche's philosophy as whatever you can describe as being like oil and water.

[Ivriniel]

@Celludur

Galadriel is a Queen. High Queen, in fact, not of 'all of the Noldor' (and because she is blended of all three kindreds, Noldor, Vanyar and Teleri, and in fact, of Royal lineage of all three houses). She most certainly is a Queen.

Her grandfather was Finwe, and her father Finarfin. Finarfin's mother is Indis of the Vanyar. Eawen, was daughter of Olwe of Alqualonde (not just Telerin, but a Royal Telerin Elf). Earwen wedded Finarfin.

Although she never inherited the High Kingship of the Eldar in Exile after Gil Galad was slain, that's not for lack of legitimacy in title. It's for the patrilineal emphasis in Elven Royalty, who, unlike the Numenoreans, never allowed females to access the High Kingship.

She was, however, most eligible, and arguably, more so than Elrond (he never saw the Light of Aman).

[Ivriniel]

About moral relativism in the Mythology--meh--I see what is being argued, but the mythology does take either of a moral universalist's or moral absolutist's emphasis a about good and evil. Evil is caste more as something tangible, and as an 'essence', and not as the relativists put it in our world, where, for example, 'one man's terrorist is another's hero'.

In the Tolkien mythology, Evil was something that could be 'incarnate'. It was not merely extreme narcissism, or psychopathy, as we often attribute to evil in our world. It was not merely the lust and power and pleasure of killing, or of enslaving, or sadism. Sauron was, indeed, sadistic, and a power hungry freak, bent on invading everyone's will with his own, and controlling everything. A bit like an overgrown tantruming child really.

The evil of Sauron and Morgoth was more. It was something that had 'fell' attributes. It syphoned life, and more. It perverted the essence of life. It rotted, violated, seduced and corrupted. But by these things, we're meaning, for example, the black breath of the Ringwraiths. The paralysing fear created by staring into a Dragon's eye (though that is more magical fear than evil), and the capacity to use magical powers to mar and unmake beauty.....

Moral relativism is very different. In a moral relativist's universe, Mirkwood would not get all scary and nasty, just by having a tyrant take over to install another regime. Magical power, itself, would not be good or evil, it would merely be magical power, but in Middle Earth, certain magical effects were somehow, innately vile.