'The Lord of the Rings and Philosophy'

[mark12_30]

Esty,

I've been picking thru the book rather casually, enjoying enough of it to make the book purchase worthwhile, and shrugging off the rest.

Your quote from Plato struck me afresh:

the immoral life is a worse life than a morally virtuous life because ultimately the immoral life leads to a fundamental unhappiness: mental anguish, the loss of friends and loved ones, and emotional bankruptcy. All the power in the world cannot compensate for the psychological emptiness of an immoral life. The moral person, in contrast, lives a life of integrity and personal fulfilment, even if he or she is limited in power, wealth, and fame. The moral person is at peace with himself.

Frodo initially felt peace when the Ring was destroyed, but that peace faded. Isn't it sad that Frodo cannot remain in the "moral person's" personal fulfilment, but rather slowly and steadily falls into

mental anguish, the loss of friends and loved ones, and emotional bankruptcy

At the Mount Doom meltdown when all is over and Gollum gone, it looks like he'll be okay-- that his victory at Amon Hen will prevail. But slowly, his defeat at Sammath Naur eats him away, and we see him broken, bereft of friends, peace, and health, until he must leave Middle-Earth for any chance of healing.

I wonder how Galadriel would have fared if she'd had to carry the One Ring all the way from the Shire to Mount Doom and try to throw it in. It's hard to compare the two, isn't it? Galadriel passed the test, and didn't accept the Ring; but if she had accepted the burden in order to destroy it and made the journey herself, would she have fared better than Frodo? Tolkien seems to think she would not, nor Sam either; he essentially says in Letters that no one could have fared better than Frodo given his same circumstances.

So the tests differ. Frodo would have passed Galadriel's test, I think, as would Sam.

"I am wounded by sting, blade, tooth, and a long burden." That long burden culminated in the defeat at Sammath Naur, there unmentioned, yet certainly the seed of the self-doubt that gnaws at Frodo more and more with the passage of time. The Sammath Naur defeat was Frodo's ultimate undoing as long as he remained in Middle-Earth, and thus the moral man was worn down to an immorality that he never intended nor desired, and could not by himself escape.

Tolkien never said it was fair...

(edit)

L.O. Angmar, you bring up an interesting distinction between immoral actions and immoral desires. Man can only judge what he sees or understands, and so, judges actions since they are visible; but most men will take desire, or intent, into account when considering mercy. In contrast, I believe God judges desire for its own sake, and then on top of that, considers what actions resulted from the desires.

That's what makes Frodo's case seem so unfair. He initially had no desire for the Ring (unlike Galadriel or Boromir) but due to long exposure, it became his desire (I would say through little or no fault of his own and from the letters I think Tolkien would agree) and that (initially undesired) immoral desire turned into immoral action.

the virtuous and strong-willed person can turn away from a life of evil, a life of almost unlimited power, by focusing on his or her true self.

This to me implies judgement of intent. And according to this definition, what was Frodo's true self? I would argue that Frodo's true self appeared on Amon Hen, not at Sammath Naur. But according to Plato's rule, in Frodo's own conscience rather than being rewarded for Amon Hen, Frodo was punished for Sammath Naur.

Considering all that, I'm quite glad Arwen showed him mercy, and gave Frodo her westward berth.

[ October 17, 2003: Message edited by: mark12_30 ]