Tolkien Top 100 Middle Earth's Top 100
Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Tolkien Forums Homepage → Tolkien Forums → General Lore Disussion → The Adversary
 

Topic: The Adversary

Post Info
Filli
Hobbit from Hobbiton - Rank 4
Status: Offline
Posts: 217
Date: Jun 7, 2009
The Adversary
Permalink  
Hi All

Please forgive my spelling.

The role of Adversary was given/appointed taken by Melkor. Despite his best efforts, he only ever furthered the aims of Eru.

It seems to me that free will was denied to this Valar. Almost as if his appointed role was to unite the free peoples against him.

But here's the question......if Melkor was to refrain, pause stop would this in-action cause the free people to stagnate and weary till death.

Was Melkor the most trusted of ERU's aspects..to ensure this vital force of nature existed.

I do not condone evil....but how can their be paradise without ........the opposite



__________________
Love Light and Peace
Bear
Lord Elrond of Rivendell - Rank 9
Status: Offline
Posts: 2960
Date: Jun 7, 2009
Permalink  
Filli,
An interesting philosophical question as well a literary one.
"I do not condone evil...but how can their be paradise without ...the opposite."
To clarify or paraphrase; "Can there be Good without Evil?"
I am sure this has been debated at the highest intellectual levels.  Socrates and Plato both struggled with the question.
"Many people cling to the idea that they need to live "Good" and "Wise" and live within a solid framework (defined by social and religious boundaries) that keeps their worldview intact. Socrates constantly wanted to question this framework, break it down, so that people could live without self-imposed constraints and social if not false notions of Good and Evil. In a classic war, in which he fought, both sides believe they are Good and Right and the other side is Evil and Wrong. Within the Good vs. Evil framework, one side obviously had to be wrong and normally - then as now - the victor accepts that he was Right and Good, having defeated Evil. Socrates could not accept this; he did not see black versus white, but shades of grey.(as did Tolkien in many cases)
For example people who question the validity of war are, then and now, unpopular. In Socrates' time, the city's fate was intimately linked with the city's patron saint. And it was believed that Socrates' endless questioning of the gods was dangerous, as it might result in Athena withdrawing her full support from the fate of the city. As Athens was already going through turbulent times, the patrons of the city decided to show to the goddess their total and unquestioning commitment to her, and found Socrates guilty of questioning the goddess and her relationship with the city.
Socrates also believed that the best way for people to live was to focus on self-development, rather than the pursuit of material wealth. Where there was division, he felt people should try to concentrate on friendships and a sense of true community ("common ground"), for Socrates felt that this was the best way for people to grow together as a populace. For Socrates, Evil was nothing more than an outcome of Ignorance and an unwillingness to learn about the other side. This, of course, fit in line with his own belief that he was merely wise because he knew that he knew nothing, whereas most people believed they could actually distinguish Good from Evil.
Plato held that Good is the greatest Form. The less "good" something is, the less "real" it is. "Evil is unreal." How can there be Good without evil or bad? To have good, you must have something to distinguish it from...evil. Doesn't that make evil real? How would one recognize light if they didn't have dark to distinguish it by?
Part of the background of Plato's claims about good and evil is a long tradition that good and evil are real, conflicting forces in the world. Plato did not accept this tradition and proposed in its place the idea that good was real, but evil was only the absence of the good. His response to the analogy is that Darkness is not a real thing; it is merely the absence of light. This view reflected a more basic view of Plato that a fundamental harmony was present in the world. If, at the very foundation of reality, a force of evil was in conflict with a force of good, a fundamental conflict rather than a basic harmony would be present. Plato deliberately rejected this view; the fundamental conflict view was too close to a relativist view to satisfy Plato.
So in Western philosophy, evil is usually limited to doing harm or damage to an object or creature. Socrates (in Plato's early work) argued that which we call evil is merely ignorance and that good is that which everyone desires. Benedict de Spinoza said that the difference between good and evil is merely one of personal inclinations: "So everyone, by the highest right of Nature, judges what is good and what is evil, considers his own advantage according to his own temperament..."
The duality of "good versus evil" is expressed, in some form or another, by many cultures.  Those who believe in the duality theory of evil believe that evil cannot exist without good, nor good without evil, as they are both objective states and opposite ends of the same scale.
Carl Jung, in his book Answer to Job and elsewhere, depicted evil as the "dark side of God". People tend to believe evil is something external to them, because they project their shadow onto others. But from a psychological point of view to be evil is to refuse to acknowledge the weaknesses in one's own personality. Jung interpreted the story of Jesus as an account of God facing his own shadow.
(Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy : Foreknowledge and Free Will ; http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/augustin.htm)

I could go on and on.
There are thousands of philosophical references concerning "Good vs. Evil" as every philosopher and religious mentor has dealt with the question.
It has been dealt with several times on the Tolkien Forums.
Try this for an example;
Are people good or bad naturally?
A very simple question at first sight, but perhaps quite a challenging one as one delves deeper into the whole matter at hand.
So my inquiry... what do you personally believe - are human beings good as for example liberals thought in the 19th century or are they rather evil as the conservatives of that time argued? (The Might , Tolkien Forums, Analytical forum - May, 29th , 2008)

Now to the literary points.
You wrote; "The role of Adversary was given/appointed taken by Melkor. Despite his best efforts, he only ever furthered the aims of Eru."
"And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined." (The Silmarillion,  Ainulindale, Music of the Ainur, pg 17 )
What is key in your statement are the words "given/appointed taken".  I think the key word is "taken".
"The first Ainu to be named in the histories, Melkor ('Arises in Might') is described as the most powerful of the Ainur and as knowing much of Ilúvatar's thoughts, including something of each of the primary themes that prefigure the other Ainur. He develops impatience with the schoolish process of thematic elaboration: like a precocious child, Melkor begins thinking of certain musical ideas and themes as being 'all his own', and he feels compelled to develop them apace. Melkor even harbours the desire to externally manifest his ideas (private ideas, as he thinks them) and to become a creator of beings himself. When the choir of the Ainur finally embark on the fully collaborative elaboration of Ilúvatar's grand plan, Melkor participates with all the others, yet he stands forth and inserts his very different thematic adornments, which disrupts the harmony. One reason his music is so different is that he's spent too much time 'alone,' so his themes appear to have a singular, rather than contextual, origin. The 'battle' in the choir of the Ainur rages back and forth with the 'pro-Ilúvatar' music described as "deep and wide and beautiful, but slow and blended with an immeasurable sorrow, from which its beauty chiefly came."(The Silmarillion,  Ainulindale, Music of the Ainur, pg 17 ). Melkor's music, on the other hand, is said to have been "loud, and vain, and endlessly repeated...And it essayed to drown the other music by the violence of its voice..." (Ibid.) But, despite Melkor's best efforts to mar and utterly overthrow the Great Music, his discordant music's "most triumphant notes were taken by the other and woven into its own solemn pattern." (Ibid). {Compare The Book of Lost Tales - Vol 1, "One was very great and deep and beautiful, but it was mingled with an unquenchable sorrow, while the other was now grown to unity and a system of its own, but was loud and vain and arrogant, braying triumphantly against the other as it thought to drown it, yet ever, as it essayed to clash most fearsomely, finding itself but in some manner supplementing or harmonizing with its rival."pg 54.} also compare The Lost Road; "The other had grown now to a unity and system, yet an imperfect one, save insofar as derived still from the eldest theme of Ilúvatar..." pg 158.]
The Great Music of the Ainur progresses thus: Ilúvatar introduces a First Theme to the choir of the Ainur and Melkor 'spoils' it, converting many of the Ainur to his cause in the process. (These fallen Ainur become in the later histories characters like the Balrogs, Ungoliant and Sauron himself.) Next, Ilúvatar imposes a Second Theme, and again Melkor corrupts it. Ilúvatar then proposes a Third Theme that Melkor also corrupts, so that the Music is a raging disharmony. Ilúvatar puts an end to the disharmony with the conducting of "...one chord, deeper than the Abyss, higher than the Firmament, piercing as the light of the eye of Ilúvatar..." (Ibid.) After the Great Music stops, Ilúvatar promptly praises Melkor, chastises him, and then leaves the Ainur for time to their own thoughts. (Wikipedia, Ainulindale)

We are talking about free will and personal choices.
Melkor goes looking alone for the "flame imperishable".  He separates himself from his fellow Ainur and Eru.
He is impatient and feels that his divine creator is ignoring "the Void" and seeks to create his own musical themes.  Eru creates three different themes and Melkor seeks to mar them all.
Eru brings the themes to an end with a mighty chord.
"After the Great Music stops, Eru promptly praises Melkor, (and) chastises him."
The Silmarillion tells us of Melkors reaction; "and Melkor was filled with shame, of which came secret anger." (The Silmarillion,  Ainulindale, Music of the Ainur, pg 17 )

I don't think Melkor is anybodies "right hand man."
He becomes the essence of "Evil" because of his own desire to separate himself from the divine, Eru, and his hateful actions of corrupting the divine Music of the Ainur.  Eru weaves his "evil" into the musical tapestry far beyond Melkor's comprehension or intent.
My opinion?
Love exists without hate.  Hate exists but uncoupled from love.
Good exists without evil.  Evil exist but uncoupled from good.
Tolkien writes of the various and dynamic couplings of these concepts.
And I love to hate evil that does good.
A cup of wine can encourage mirth or provoke painful mis-behavior.
Melkor is greatest of the Ainur.  We have no record of his "good" deeds.
All we have are his deeds of corruption.

__________________

Vocatus atque non vocatus, Deus aderit
Called or uncalled, God is present
Glorfindel
Anarion, Son of Elendil - rank 8
Status: Offline
Posts: 2161
Date: Jun 7, 2009
Permalink  
This is a complicated subject Filli. Here is a link to one of the forums of a game that I play:

http://community.codemasters.com/forum/showthread.php?t=338616&highlight=Tsunami

You'll have to go down to where Beleg of Doriath joins the discussion, which is a long way down the thread (its a long thread). They discuss the ins and outs of free-will, the necessity of Evil and how fate ties into it all. When you have an hour spare, its a good readsmile.gif

__________________

Utúlie'n  aurë!  Aiya  Eldalië  ar  Atanatári,  utúlie'n  aurë! 
Auta  i  lómë! 
Aurë entuluva!
Glorfindel
Anarion, Son of Elendil - rank 8
Status: Offline
Posts: 2161
Date: Jun 7, 2009
Permalink  
Think you'll also find that thread an interesting read, Bear. Tell me what you think when you have the time to read it!

__________________

Utúlie'n  aurë!  Aiya  Eldalië  ar  Atanatári,  utúlie'n  aurë! 
Auta  i  lómë! 
Aurë entuluva!
Filli
Hobbit from Hobbiton - Rank 4
Status: Offline
Posts: 217
Date: Jun 9, 2009
Permalink  
Bear

I like the whole idea that good exists without evil

It makes me happy !

__________________
Love Light and Peace
Bilbo Baggins
Thorin Oakenshield - Rank 6
Status: Offline
Posts: 1109
Date: Jun 12, 2009
Permalink  
Good thread there Glorfindel!

__________________
You want it for Yourself!
Glorfindel
Anarion, Son of Elendil - rank 8
Status: Offline
Posts: 2161
Date: Jun 12, 2009
Permalink  
Managed to read it yet Filli and Bear?

__________________

Utúlie'n  aurë!  Aiya  Eldalië  ar  Atanatári,  utúlie'n  aurë! 
Auta  i  lómë! 
Aurë entuluva!
Bear
Lord Elrond of Rivendell - Rank 9
Status: Offline
Posts: 2960
Date: Jun 13, 2009
Permalink  
Glorfindel 1235,
I read it. 
Such discussions are often part of philosophy classes I teach at the local college;
Foreknowledge vs. Free Will.
Melkor's actions may have been "forecast" not " pre-ordained".
The manifestation of the Music of the Ainur as Arda that Eru creates takes us back again to the praise and reprimand that triggers Melkor's shame and anger. That is not saying that shame and anger are what Melkor sang.

I engaged in a discussion on a thread "Doomed at birth" with Olorin/Gandalf in July 2008.  Begging Olorin/Gandalf's kind indulgence here is an extract;

Olorin/Gandalf,
I think your posting is very relevant.  You say you dont know your even posting.  Id say your intuition is right on.
What we are dealing with here is a deeper philosophical argument that Tolkien wrestled with.
I think that is why we find so many different versions of his works. (which is OK with me by the wayI love his stuff the more the better)

About fate... I once read an article on it, I think, or somewhat alike. There was a nice sentence there, I don't remember it exactly, but it was something like this: "We cannot escape our so-called "fates", what will happen to us, for we do not know what choices we make to reach the "end". The only way to avoid what would happen is to kill yourself."
And yet to that one could say that mayhap the person's fate was to kill him/herself to avoid their fate, which leads to their own undoing...This is a tricky thing. Don't know why I'm even posting this to be honest, it has little to do with the topic at hand, or so it seems to me... :p (Tolkien Forums -> Experienced Fanatics Forum (advanced) -> Doomed at birth? >Olorin/Gandalf > July 16th, 2008 )

Please follow this quote.  It is much more eloquent than my literary endeavor
Suppose it were known, by someone else, what you are going to choose to do tomorrow. Wouldn't that entail that tomorrow you must do what it was known in advance that you would do? In spite of your deliberating and planning, in the end, all is futile: you must choose exactly as it was earlier known that you would. The supposed exercise of your free will is ultimately an illusion. Historically, the tension between foreknowledge and the exercise of free will was addressed in a religious context. According to orthodox views in the West, God was claimed to be omniscient (and hence in possession of perfect foreknowledge) and yet God was supposed to have given humankind free will. Attempts to solve the apparent contradiction often involved attributing to God special properties, for example, being "outside" of time. However, the trouble with such solutions is that they are generally unsatisfactory on their own terms. Even more serious is the fact that they leave untouched the problem posed not by God's foreknowledge but that of any human being. Do human beings have foreknowledge? Certainly, of at least some events and behaviors. Thus we have a secular counterpart of the original problem. A human being's foreknowledge, exactly as would God's, of another's choices would seem to preclude the exercise of human free will. Various ways of trying to solve the problem for example, by putting constraints on the truth-conditions for statements, or by "tightening" the conditions necessary for knowledge are examined and shown not to work. Ultimately the alleged incompatibility of foreknowledge and free will is shown to rest on a subtle logical error. When the error, a modal fallacy, is recognized, and remedied, the problem evaporates. (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy : Foreknowledge and Free Will ; http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/augustin.htm)

The two concepts (i) foreknowledge and (ii) human freedom seem to be utterly incompatible. The challenge, then, i.e. the problem posed by epistemic determinism, is to find a way to show that either
(1) foreknowledge (of human beings' future actions) does not exist;
or     (2)    free will does not exist;
or     (3)    the alleged logical relation between foreknowledge and the exercise                   of  free will is mistaken (i.e. foreknowledge is not incompatible with the
exercise of free will).

Fate is another name for determinism.

There are three distinct versions of determinism: logical, epistemic, and causal. Each has been alleged to pose a threat to the exercise of free will, indeed it has been claimed of each version that its existence is incompatible with the existence of free will.

1. Logical determinism is most frequently couched as the problem of 'future contingents'. The threat to the exercise of free will arises from the thesis that the truth-value (i.e. the truth or falsity) of any proposition[3] is timeless, i.e. those propositions that are true are always true, and those propositions that are false are always false. Thus: If a proposition about some future action you undertake (let's say tomorrow) is true, then it is true now. But if it is true now, then tomorrow you must undertake that action, that action must occur, you are powerless to prevent yourself from undertaking that action. (Note that "logical" in the phrase "logical determinism" is not meant to contrast with "illogical", but instead refers to a particular concept of logic, namely truth itself.)

2. Epistemic determinism has a strikingly similar formulation. Instead of simply attributing truth (or falsity) to propositions about the future, epistemic determinism concerns such propositions' being known prior to the times of the occurrences they refer to. We then get this argument, parallel to the preceding one: If a proposition about some future action you undertake is known (in advance), then (when the time comes) you must undertake that action, that action must occur, you are powerless to prevent yourself from undertaking that action.

3. Causal determinism is the thesis that all events (occurrences, processes, etc.) are the result of Laws of Nature and of antecedent conditions and of nothing else. Thus when a car radiator cracks overnight, it is the consequence of laws pertaining to the tensile strength of iron, of laws pertaining to the expansion of water upon freezing, to the structure of the radiator, to its being filled with water without anti-freeze, and to the temperature's falling well below freezing for several hours.[4]  In the case of human beings' acting, the same scenario is said to obtain.
If whatever one does is the result of Laws of Nature and of one's physical and genetic makeup and one's personal history, then since all these 'factors' are 'set' (or 'in place') at the moment of one's acting you must undertake the action you perform, that action must occur, you are powerless to prevent yourself from undertaking that action.
Three arguments all with the same conclusion, namely that your actions are 'determined' (in one of three different ways) and thus your actions are 'unfree'.
Free will is an illusion.
(Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy : http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/foreknow.htm#section1)
(Tolkien Forums -> Experienced Fanatics Forum (advanced) -> Doomed at birth? > Bear an Elf-Friend > July 17th,2008)

Thanks, Bear, yet another interesting read. Of foreknowledge, however:
I sometimes have dreams, I dream things I don't remember. And then it happens. For example, I was sitting in my chemistry lesson and the teacher was talking and I suddenly realized "hey, I've seen this before!". I got the deja vu feeling and then remember the dream, that I had had the same sort of feelings and thoughts and had seen the same things in the dream.
And mayhap it is so with all human beings, but most don't remember the dreams themselves? That we see things we will do, and then we are going to do it because our mind saw that we will? Who knows, I probably don't remember all the "true" dreams either, but that would, to some extent, explain why we do the things we do. "God", or something else, mayhap our mind itself, sets a "course" while we are dreaming and then we do things out of what we think is "free will" and still reach the "destination" that has been set. (Tolkien Forums -> Experienced Fanatics Forum (advanced) -> Doomed at birth? >Olorin/Gandalf > July 16th, 2008 )

Olorin/Gandalf,
Actually in psychiatric circles precognition is not uncommon.  This is especially true in regard to dreams.
Freud called dreams the royal road to the unconscious.  And often patients claim to have lived their experience in their dreams before they experience in the waking world.  It is treated as a normal function of the human psyche and not as aberrant behavior.
It may not be actually living the experience in our dreams.  Very often stress, anxiety, or depression triggers a flood of neuro-chemical transmitters, neuro-inhibitors, or neuro-stimulators which our brain interprets as deja vue, precognition, visitation of a divine being, or even a ghost, or some other phenomena
While the last may seem a little far fetched if we total up these unexplained occurrences they often can become endomorphic.(things like stigmata, sudden graying of the hair, conversion reactions paralyzing limbs or functions such as sight or speech, and even  womens monthly cycle)
Basically my beliefs do not run with idea of a fore ordained anything.  We all have different talents and gifts that predispose us to respond in certain ways.  So we may feel we have passed this way before.  And I think we all have intuition.
We are just beginning to understand the subconscious and the way it effects or social and personal reactions.  But I do believe in may cases that our dreams, feelings, and conscious reaction are simply stimulus and  response.
(but there is still lots of room in watching human behavior that I have no clue.  And I cant rule out that their action or reaction does not come from numinous manifestation or some other brain function.)
(Tolkien Forums -> Experienced Fanatics Forum (advanced) -> Doomed at birth? > Bear an Elf-Friend > July 17th, 2008)

__________________

Vocatus atque non vocatus, Deus aderit
Called or uncalled, God is present
Glorfindel
Anarion, Son of Elendil - rank 8
Status: Offline
Posts: 2161
Date: Jun 14, 2009
Permalink  
I'll post tomorrow about why I disagree with that view Bearwink.gif Haven't got the time for a long post at the moment.

__________________

Utúlie'n  aurë!  Aiya  Eldalië  ar  Atanatári,  utúlie'n  aurë! 
Auta  i  lómë! 
Aurë entuluva!
Glorfindel
Anarion, Son of Elendil - rank 8
Status: Offline
Posts: 2161
Date: Jun 15, 2009
Permalink  
Ok...

You basically covered the points I was going to raise in that post Bear. Anyhow, I'll bring the main one to mind.

Assuming we are taking Middle-earth as the example, rather than our own world, there are many instances of proven foresight. Apart from the big ones like the Dooms of Mandos and the fact that most of the history of Ea is already played out in the Music of the Ainur, we have some examples on a smaller scale that apply to men:

Behind that there was something else at work, beyond any design of the Ring-maker. I can put it no plainer than by saying that Bilbo was meant to find the Ring, and not by its maker. In which case you also were meant to have it.

If Bilbo was meant to find the Ring, it means that it was fated. It was doomed to happen. Either that or Iluvatar sort of 'played around with the environment' to lead Bilbo into that situation. But either way Iluvatar would have had to know what Bilbo was going to do before he did it, and that means his actions were predetermined.

Another example:

That road I will take, nonetheless, said Aragorn. But I say to you, Éomer, that in battle we may yet meet again, though all the hosts of Mordor should stand between.

Here clearly Aragorn has a moment of foresight, placing both him and Eomer in a future, predetermined, position.

Other examples include the foresight of many Elves, including Elrond and Galadriel, and Finrod.

So here in Middle-earth we have solid proof that there is foresight. And foresight only works if the things being seen are fixed. Therefore we have pretty strong evidence to suggest predestination exists in Middle-earth. Therefore the only way we can add free-will into the mix is by making a special case for the foundations of that predestination. Namely in the thread I gave you, CS Lewis says:

Chapter 3: "Time and Beyond Time" This chapter discusses Time as it relates to Prayer. We live through time. In this reality, we flow in one direction with time. All that is behind us is lost to us, except in our memory. All that is before us is unknown to us. What Lewis is attempting to address here is, "How can God listen to everyone in the world praying at the same time?"

1) God created time
2) God exists beyond time ("outside and above")
3) God is not restricted to time
4) We live in this tiny window of Now, the past behind us, the future before us
5) God can see all of the "Now's" all of all time
6) Example of the author writing the book with the character in the book living in a separate, independent timeline.
7) "But God has no history. He is too completely real to have one."
8) In human language we use terms like "foreknowledge," and "foresaw," and "predestined." These terms are all locked into human reason and human language. We really don't have language to adequately deal with God's presence outside of time.
9) Because of God's presence beyond time, He is able to tell the prophets what is in their future because it is not future to God, but present reality. This allows a view of foreknowledge and predestination that does not violate, in any way, free will and human responsibility. Humans retain personal responsibility in light of "predestination" without the two conflicting.'

Mere Christianity Leaders' Notes

Time only exists within the universe. We have the past behind us, the present about us and the future ahead. But God does not exist on the same level. He is above and outside his creation, not subject to Time, which exists only in his creation, the universe. Therefore when we ask the age-old question 'Well what made God then?' it is flawed. There is no 'before' God, there is no 'after', as he exists as one continuing, ageless energy, which has no past or future, it simply is. Therefore when God looks into his creation and see the future of his creation, he is not actually looking into the future. He views the past, present and future all at once, for Time does not apply to him.
Same with Eru. That is why he knows what Melkor will do, and that means that Melkor's actions were predetermined, but that does not mean that Iluvatar cooked up the whole thing and then waited for it all to happen, as explained, he knew it was going to happen because he can see the past and future as a present.

Another quote that has been brought up on these forums:

Frodo deserved all honour because he spent every drop of his power of will and body, and that was just sufficient to bring him to the destined point, and no further. Few others, possibly no others of his time, would have got so far. The Other Power then took over: the Writer of the Story (by which I do not mean myself), 'that one ever-present Person who is never absent and never named'

This means that Iluvatar took over when Frodo failed. But because he exists beyond Time, there is no way of telling when he actually did this act in 'real time', if you see what I mean:/ But anyway, Iluvatar is here called the "Writer of the Story" - pretty solid evidence that Iluvatar is the one that makes all this stuff happen, but in a way that doesn't negate free-will, as explained above.

__________________

Utúlie'n  aurë!  Aiya  Eldalië  ar  Atanatári,  utúlie'n  aurë! 
Auta  i  lómë! 
Aurë entuluva!
Bear
Lord Elrond of Rivendell - Rank 9
Status: Offline
Posts: 2960
Date: Jun 16, 2009
Permalink  

"And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined."
The Silmarillion, Ainulindale


 


Tolkien's fiction is fantasy.

And therefore so is the construct of his universe.

enough said!






-- Edited by Bear on Tuesday 16th of June 2009 01:06:28 AM

__________________

Vocatus atque non vocatus, Deus aderit
Called or uncalled, God is present
Galin
Fundin, Lord of Moria - Rank 5
Status: Offline
Posts: 564
Date: Jun 16, 2009
Permalink  
Jason Fisher reported on a Mythcon Conference (reported in August 2008, from his blog, Lingwe, Musings of a Fish)

Carl Hostetter, 'The Circles of the World': Fate, Free Will, and the Oikumeme in Elvish Thought' Little did we know that this was just the first salvo in what would become the Great Debate around which the entire conference eventually seemed to revolve. More on that in a moment. Carl's paper was less a paper (at present; he's continuing to work it up into one) than a series of quotations from Tolkien on the subject, including about three pages of unpublished notes from late 1968 or 1969 on the Elves' ideas of fate and free will. That was very interesting, and Carl did a nice job explaining Tolkien's sometimes sketchy and confused adumbrations (though it will be even more convincing once Carl has written more of the apparatus to connect the parts). In the final analysis, Carl demonstrated Tolkien's apparent view that the Elves do indeed possess free will. This is the side on which I find myself, too, but not everyone agreed. I also appreciated Carl's disquisition on the Elvish terms ambar and umbar, from the root MBAR; I had touched on this in my last Mythcon paper (two years ago), but I don't think I'd had the relationship between them quite right in my head then.

Jason also began a thread at The OneRing.net 'Do Elves have Free Will?' This is the link (hopefully): please note that the following selections are taken out of their true context, so please read the full thread, especially if one is going to comment on a given selection:

http://newboards.theonering.net/forum/gforum/perl/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_threaded;post=127197;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;guest=8135054


Scholars of no lesser stature than Verlyn Flieger and Carl Hostetter argued the two sides of the point in their papers. Verlyn contended that Elves do not have free will (though Men do), relying on a close reading of the Ainulindalë, semantics, and etymology to back up her claim. On the other hand, Carl argued that Tolkien's intent was clear: to endow the Elves indeed with their own free will. Carl had the strength of some unpublished linguistic notes from Tolkien (written in late 1968 or 1969) on the Elvish words ambar and umbar to back up his position, and we were lucky enough to get to hear about three pages' worth of unpublished Tolkien in his paper. In between and after their two talks, the conversation continued, and the debate was played out again and again in hallway and meal-time conversations over the course of the whole weekend.

Visualweasal (Jason Fisher)

In this thread ElanorTX quoted from Peter Kreeft's The Philosophy of Tolkien

pp. 61-65 Are we both fated and free?

[edited for brevity] [itals orig]
"Free will and destiny are always present in every story we find realistic, "true to life." A story without predestination means one without an author or a plot and thus without authority. But a story without free will, a story about machines or falling raindrops, is not a story either. Every story must have free persons making free choices that could have been made differently -- otherwise there is no drama....

"We may not know how destiny and freedom can both be true, but we know that they must both be present in true-to-life stories because they are both present in life."

Kreeft goes on to discuss Boethius' Consolation of Philosophy and its argument that God is not in Time. He also cites Thomas Aquinas, saying man is free because God is all-powerful. "God not only gets everything done that He designs, but gets everything done in the right way: subhuman things happen unfreely, and human things happen freely. Just as in a novel, the setting is not free and the characters are."

Carl Hostetter responded (by first quoting): "A story without predestination means one without an author or a plot and thus without authority. But a story without free will, a story about machines or falling raindrops, is not a story either."

Tolkien makes a remarkably similar point in the unpublished note on "Fate and Free Will".

There is a snippet here concerning where the two scholars disagree a bit (a response to AS): 


"A.S.", you are certainly right so far as you go, that the one sense of "fate" as meaning our "ultimate destiny" is part of what the Ainulindalë passage is concerned with. Tolkien makes it quite clear there and elsewhere (including The Lord of the Rings) that it is in "ultimate destiny" that Elves and Men chiefly differ.

What is tricky, though, is that it is equally clear in the Ainulindalë passage that Tolkien is not thinking only of this, for the passage reads: "Therefore he willed that the hearts of Men should seek beyond the world and should find no rest therein; but they should have a virtue to shape their life, amid the powers and chances of the world, beyond the Music of the Ainur, which is as fate to all things else" (emphasis added). Very clearly this special virtue that Men are given is operative within the World and throughout Men's lives, not merely in their ultimate destiny.

And so I can readily understand Verlyn's take on this: if one uses this passage as the basis upon and lens through which all other published evidence is evaluated, and if one equates this "virtue" with "free will", it is easy to argue that Elves do not have free will. I'm not saying it makes for a convincing or satisfying argument -- after all, none of the Elves ever act as though they don't have free will, and in fact they are often presented as having to make crucial choices with serious consequences (moral and otherwise); while Frodo and other Men are often described as fated (or possibly so) -- but it is an easy and obvious argument to make.

But I begin my paper by noting that Tolkien does not say here that Men have a unique gift of "free will", but rather that they are given a "virtue". Verlyn assumes they mean the same thing; I submit they do not: virtue is ability and strength and efficacy, not merely will (i.e., purpose or intent). Moreover, if Verlyn is right, it is very hard to explain (in addition to the points I allude to above) the existence and content of the unpublished notes I presented, which discuss the Elvish thought on the roles of fate and free will within the World and make no mention of any limitation of free will to Men. What it does do is draw distinctions between what Men mean by "fate" and what Elves mean by it, and as to the "given conditions" within which will is constrained to operate. And that, I think, is what we must do as well: what does "fate" mean in the Ainulindalë passage? What does the Music of the Ainur, which is "as fate", encompass, and so what exactly are its constraints, that Men alone can go beyond? And just as importantly, what does the Music not encompass and constrain? And what are the "powers and chances of the world", amid which the special virtue of Men operates? And are fate and free will really at odds with each other? (As I have said, I submit in my paper they are not.) Tolkien touches on all these points, both in the unpublished notes and in numerous published writings (particularly Letters).

In another response (same thread) Mr. Hostetter wrote:

Man's eternal destiny -- i.e., Heaven or Hell -- is certainly a consequence of his exercise of Free Will; but this very fact demonstrates that Free Will precedes and is therefore distinguishable from this ultimate consequence. In other words, Man does not have Free Will because he can select for Heaven or Hell (and certainly not only because); rather, Man can select for Heaven or Hell only because he has Free Will.

Nor could that definition of Free Will obtain among the Elves and Men of Middle-earth, since so far as they knew, there was no moral distinction, indeed no distinction at all, in the ultimate destiny of Men: all Men departed "beyond the circles of the world", and so far as anyone knew they all existed there in the exact same state regardless of their moral choices. (Similarly, all Elves remained bound within the circles of the world: so Men have no more moral consequence of their actions than do Elves: again, so far as Elves and Men in Middle-earth then knew.)

But in any event it is plain that Tolkien was not speaking only of ultimate destiny: he wrote that Men were given a "virtue to shape their lives amid the powers and chances of the world" (emphasis added), not merely to select for an ultimate destiny beyond the world.

Furthermore, Tolkien's own discussion in the unpublished note on "Fate and Free Will" certainly makes no claim or even implication that Free Will obtains only when there is an ultimate consequence to its exercise. Rather, there, "free will" is defined as obtaining when (and only when, but by implication always when) a determination of course (action or inaction) is made for a "fully-aware purpose", amid the physical conditions and processes of the world (ambar) and the network of chances within "fate" (umbar). As Tolkien says in Letters, Free Will is "derivative" (i.e., I take it, of God's will and of His creation of the world and of rational creatures which He endows with will) and therefore always operates "within provided circumstances". As these unpublished notes explain, these "circumstances" are both ambar 'the world' and umbar 'fate': and these are "provided", of course, ultimately by Eru himself. Obviously, exercises of Free Will so defined can have moral valuation, can even be "sinful", within the world and apart from questions of one's ultimate destiny, since they can either accord with or violate the moral standards of the world that ultimately also derive from Eru.

They can also have moral consequences within the world, not just for ultimate destiny, and not just for Men: consider, for example, when Tolkien conspicuously notes that had Feänor chosen to surrender the Silmarils, things might have gone better for him subsequently, even though in the event he could not actually have surrendered then, since Morgoth had by then already stolen them. Feänor was presented with a choice, amid ambar and umbar, and whichever decision he made had a consequence for him, even though neither choice would in the event have effected the restoration of the Trees. That sure sounds like a moral consequence to me, even if as an Elf it had no (known) effect on his ultimate destiny.

__________

Anyway, not only would I like to read this paper! but I'm guessing Tolkien's notes will also possibly be published in a future issue of Vinyar Tengwar (stress guessing however). Again I hope anyone who is interested reads the thread in context (though I must admit I do not like the format at TheOneRing.net as much as other forums).

For myself I had no idea any such notes existed! but I thought I would mention here that they do exist -- and note that I seem to have missed a very interesting Mythcon too.

wink




-- Edited by Galin on Tuesday 16th of June 2009 11:52:20 AM

__________________
Filli
Hobbit from Hobbiton - Rank 4
Status: Offline
Posts: 217
Date: Jun 16, 2009
Permalink  
Hi All

Nothing fills me with greater dispair than predeterminism. 

Now I know how Melkor felt....perhaps I'll go into the void for eons trying to find the flame imperishable.

Then I can be the master of my own fate.

Failing that , I'll destroy all that is, including myself....if thats all I could ever achieve of my own free will......

Or is that what you expected all along....grrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

Is this the discord during the song?
Is this an attempt at free will ?
Is free will ultimately chaotic, unharmonious and destructive
Versus fate, destiny and order ? 


__________________
Love Light and Peace
mouth of sauron
Samwise Gamgee - rank 9
Status: Offline
Posts: 2372
Date: Jun 16, 2009
Permalink  
A good post Galin! Are you aware by the way, that Carl is a member of these boards?smile.gif

One thing I have rarely seen mentioned in these threads is what actually goes into making Tolkien's universe.

We have the Flame Imperishable at the World's heart. The Flame Imperishable represents freedom, independence. This is what Eru uses to make something with an identity of its own.

Secondly we have the Music of the Ainur, which is the history of that world, Fate and Doom.

Therefore we have two things which in essense contradict eachother, The Ainulindale and the Flame Imperishable, predestination and independence.

Also worthy of note is that Men were introduced into the Great Music with the Third Theme Iluvatar wove to counter the discord of Melkor - the only Theme which rose above the discord and wasn't mastered by it. Thus we could make a connection between that and the quote:

"...virtue to shape their lives amid the powers and chances of the world"

Elves, which were introduced with the Second Theme, do not have such freedom with fate as men do because the theme in which they were introduced with did not master the discord of Melkor (and by extention they didn't escpae the fate that the Music of the Ainur represents). Also Elves were essentially mastered by Melkor almost completely in Middle-earth by the end. And they fade away altogether past the Third Age.

Whereas Men, who were introduced with the Third Theme which rose above the Discord (and by extention escaped the Fate that the Music of the Ainur represents), therefore have the ability to fasion their own lives to a degree that Elves cannot.

But if Iluvatar is all-seeing and all-knowing, which I believe he is, then that still doesn't exclude anything from the 'Overall Design' that Iluvatar has, which is above the Music of the Ainur. Therefore the only decent explanation is the one from Lewis, posted above.

Any thoughts?

__________________
My Master Sauron the Great bids thee Welcome....
Bear
Lord Elrond of Rivendell - Rank 9
Status: Offline
Posts: 2960
Date: Jun 17, 2009
Permalink  
All,
I have to tell you this thread is the main reason  I love the Tolkien Forums.
The richness of the posts (references, leads to other sites, logical observation and assumption, willingness to share opposing views) drives me to dig deeper into the scholastic and public writings of Tolkien and multiplies the joy I get from his works.
With humility let me say thank you to  Glorfindel, Galin, mouth of Sauron, for your contributions in depth.
Filli I think your questions and observations have inspired several of us on this thread.  Well done sir !!!
Seeing the willingness to be involved in this topic also eases a nagging concern about lagging participation.
Thank you, thank you, thank you !!!

On to the topic.
The Music of the Ainur seems to lead to many interpretations and suppositions.  For example where in the Music are Elves and Men.  The interpretation that mouth of sauron  gives to the "Flame Imperishable" as freedom and independence is certainly different from how I perceived it.  The same with the "Music of the Ainur" being "Fate and Doom".
I certainly can appreciate his observation; "Therefore we have two things which in essence contradict each other, The Ainulindale and the Flame Imperishable, predestination and independence" (Tolkien Forums > General Lore discussion (standard) > The Adversary > mouth of sauron > June 16th, 2009)
While, I may not agree, I can clearly see that there is much logic behind these observations.  Especially as he has given  interpretive definitions to Tolkien's constructs of the "Flame Imperishable" and "The Music of the Ainur".
"Also worthy of note is that Men were introduced into the Great Music with the Third Theme Iluvatar wove to counter the discord of Melkor - the only Theme which rose above the discord and wasn't mastered by it. Thus we could make a connection between that and the quote: '...virtue to shape their lives amid the powers and chances of the world' "
The idea that Eru had to modify his themes because of the discord sown by Melkor takes the hypothetical construct of predestination and negates it. The quote "And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined." (The Silmarillion, Ainulindale, Music of the Ainur, pg.  17), seems to support predetermination and Filli's original proposition that Melkor is nothing more than a dupe in Iluvatar's grand plan. "The role of Adversary was given/appointed taken by Melkor.  Despite his best efforts, he only ever furthered the aims of Eru.  It seems to me that free will was denied to this Valar. Almost as if his appointed role was to unite the free peoples against him."(Tolkien Forums > General Lore discussion (standard) > The Adversary > Filli > June 9th, 2009)
But as Galin and Glorfindel, (most eloquently), and their references from other sites have brought to the question there are elements in this discussion which transcend just Eru and Melkor,   The destinies,(or predestines), of Elves and Men bring us to a discussion of  "Freedom, Fate and Choice in Middle-earth", the topic at The Tolkien Society Seminar 2008.
(I have only finished about a third of the total discussion, both main and the zillion "off threads." - Bear)
While the perspectives expressed can lead to many opinions and deeper discussion one perspective expressed in particular cuts through many different speculations.
Galin reports Carl Hostetter responding to a thread ElanorTX quoted from Peter Kreeft's "The Philosophy of Tolkien." (by first quoting): 'A story without predestination means one without an author or a plot and thus without authority. But a story without free will, a story about machines or falling raindrops, is not a story either'.".(Tolkien Forums > General Lore discussion (standard) > The Adversary > Galin > June 16th, 2009)
Our discussion, prompted by the questions posed by Filli, really probes more than "free will" and "predetermination." It deals with the psychological construct of "motivation"; of the author and his work, of the races of Elves and Men, of the plot and resolution of conflict within the story, and as Filli puts it; "Nothing fills me with greater despair than predeterminism.  Now I know how Melkor felt...perhaps I'll go into the void for eons trying to find the flame imperishable.  Then I can be the master of my own fate. Failing that, I'll destroy all that is, including myself....if that is all I could ever achieve of my own free will..." the human experience of existence in the world. (Tolkien Forums > General Lore discussion (standard) > The Adversary > Filli > June 16th, 2009)
I believe that our discussion is a circuitous one; a "which came first the chicken or the egg" one.
We can focus on either side of "fate" or "free will" and pretty much line up quotes and references that support either side.
We can redefine our divine construct as inside or outside of time,  We can gift our gods with super powers or mirror them with the attributes found in the pantheon of a dozen different cultures.  They can have the human failings of the Greek and Norse gods or the infallible characteristics of Allah.  There the arguments of "fate" and "free will" roll on and on, unresolved.
But if we add the dimension of "motivation" then we also add the dimension of "choice".  Both Galin and Glorfindel have given us links where there are amazing discussions in depth on our topic.  But these would be useless without our "choice" to read them.
To answer the questions posed by Filli (and here I will encapsulate and begging permission to interpret them) it does not matter if Eru knows who will do what when.
("The role of Adversary was given/appointed taken by Melkor. Despite his best efforts, he only ever furthered the aims of Eru.  It seems to me that free will was denied to this Valar. Almost as if his appointed role was to unite the free peoples against him.
But here's the question......if Melkor was to refrain, pause stop would this in-action cause the free people to stagnate and weary till death?
Was Melkor the most trusted of Eru's aspects to ensure this vital force of nature existed.
I do not condone evil....but how can their be paradise without ........the opposite."
(Tolkien Forums > General Lore discussion (standard) > The Adversary > Filli > June 9th, 2009)
"Nothing fills me with greater despair than predeterminism.
Now I know how Melkor felt....perhaps I'll go into the void for eons trying to find the flame imperishable.
Then I can be the master of my own fate.
Failing that , I'll destroy all that is, including myself....if thats all I could ever achieve of my own free will......
Or is that what you expected all along....grrrrrrrrrrrrrr!
Is this the discord during the song?
Is this an attempt at free will ?
Is free will ultimately chaotic, unharmonious and destructive
Versus fate, destiny and order ? "
(Tolkien Forums > General Lore discussion (standard) > The Adversary > Filli > June 16th, 2009)
What matters is the motivations, choices, and actions of the author, of Elves and Men, and of Filli, and ourselves.
I don't really believe Filli would destroy all.  People who ask questions and propose alternate scenarios are not bound by the concepts of  "fate" and "predestination".
Why?
Because of the existence of "choice" and our reasons, or "motivations", behind them. So the questions become which is of value to us; fate, free will, motivations, choices, or the results of our actions?

__________________

Vocatus atque non vocatus, Deus aderit
Called or uncalled, God is present
Galin
Fundin, Lord of Moria - Rank 5
Status: Offline
Posts: 564
Date: Jun 17, 2009
Permalink  
Are you aware by the way, that Carl is a member of these boards?

Yes, but he has only posted once (I think), and who knows if he looks in here often, if at all lately.

Anyway, I just noted that The Music and the Task: Fate and Free Will in Middle-earth by Verlyn Flieger, and Fate and Free Will J.R.R. Tolkien, Carl F. Hostetter, are both available in Tolkien Studies Volume Six. See Project Muse (if the link works):

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/tolkien_studies/toc/tks.6.html


__________________
Filli
Hobbit from Hobbiton - Rank 4
Status: Offline
Posts: 217
Date: Jun 18, 2009
Permalink  

Hi All

Thanks for your posts.
I have really enjoyed reading them.

Back to subject.....

Can you have any sympathy or empathy for Melkor ?
I earlier expressed how futile Melkor must have found his existence.

It is to me that the author annexed evil from ERU. So that from the point of this separation, ERU's actions are deemed good. Is Eru washing his hands of evil by creating and empowering this aspect to such a lethal extent.

You might say that ERU created evil. That this was necessary.

You might say that Melkor chose to be evil......but that wouldn't deem to fit with Eru's plan.
No discord = no Arda

So  Melkor is evil incarnate.....he could be nothing less....a necessary evil...perhaps just perhaps a necessary force of nature.

If good can exist without evil, why create evil to begin with?
If Melkor was created to be the Adversary, does it absolve him of the atrocities carried out by him and his continuing nature.


Nature vs Nurture on a godly scale




__________________
Love Light and Peace
Filli
Hobbit from Hobbiton - Rank 4
Status: Offline
Posts: 217
Date: Jun 18, 2009
Permalink  

Hi All

Thanks for your posts.
I have really enjoyed reading them.

Back to subject.....

Can you have any sympathy or empathy for Melkor ?
I earlier expressed how futile Melkor must have found his existence.

It is to me that the author annexed evil from ERU. So that from the point of this separation, ERU's actions are deemed good. Is Eru washing his hands of evil by creating and empowering this aspect to such a lethal extent.

You might say that ERU created evil. That this was necessary.

You might say that Melkor chose to be evil......but that wouldn't deem to fit with Eru's plan.
No discord = no Arda

So  Melkor is evil incarnate.....he could be nothing less....a necessary evil...perhaps just perhaps a necessary force of nature.

If good can exist without evil, why create evil to begin with?
If Melkor was created to be the Adversary, does it absolve him of the atrocities carried out by him and his continuing nature.


Nature vs Nurture on a godly scale

__________________
Love Light and Peace
Bilbo Baggins
Thorin Oakenshield - Rank 6
Status: Offline
Posts: 1109
Date: Jun 19, 2009
Permalink  
I would agree with the above posters that there is no good without evil. At least not in the beginning. Perhaps there can be after evil has already existed and made its mark. Thats why its said that the Dagor Dagorath (Last Battle and the Day of Doom) is 'The End of the first Arda'. After the battle is done, Melkor is eliminated forever (and presumably goes back to Iluvatar) and good can then exist without evil in a newly created world. But the inhabitants are now more enlightened than they would have been had evil never existed. Now they have arrived at a new level of appreciation for life and for joy. Things that would have just been 'the norm' had evil not existed and had not taught them why such things are important.

But as for pity and sympathy for Morgoth...the 'Eru Grand Plan' isn't really grounds for that. Its just something that you have to say 'I don't know about this. Its beyond me. I put my faith into Iluvatar'.

After all, thats what faith is. If we could understand all of the complexities of an infallible being like Iluvatar then we would be Supreme Gods ourselves. But we are not. We are slowly learning about the ways of the universe, but there are some things, like these questions in the thread, that we have to just put faith into. To say 'I don't know. I trust that there is an answer and put faith in its guardian'. A vague sentence springs to my mind from a quick glance at a Bible page one day: "You have seen so you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen, yet believed." A key quote: "Blessed are those who have not seen, yet believed". To put faith into something, into someone, without any proof. Thats what faith is. If we had proof then it wouldn't be faith. You don't have to be religious to understand this.

__________________
You want it for Yourself!
Bear
Lord Elrond of Rivendell - Rank 9
Status: Offline
Posts: 2960
Date: Jun 19, 2009
Permalink  
Mr. Baggins,
A very interesting perspective. It is one that shapes a new lens to view both the philosophical "can good exist without evil" as well as the actual story line that Tolkien uses to bring  the conflicting elements of Melkor to resolution.
Your proposal  and comment that "But as for pity and sympathy for Morgoth..the 'Eru Grand Plan' isn't really grounds for that. Its just something that you have to say 'I don't know about this. Its beyond me. I put my faith into Iluvatar." is one that lends itself to the author's imagined perspective as well as a "real life" perspective some adopt to find resolution for "real life" conflicts.
The Biblical quote you present;: "You have seen so you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen, yet believed." is from a story about a disciple who does believe that Christ has risen.
24 Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came.
25 So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!"  But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."
27 Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."
28Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"
29Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." (John 20: 24-29, New International Version http://www.biblegateway.com)
Perhaps that may be more to the point.
I believe what you are saying is that Tolkien infused the construct of faith in the divine figure of Iluvatar, and because of  that certain questions , such as the ones Filli has asked are beyond us.
While I salute your faith and  contribution to the discussion, I find myself at odds with your opinion.
Melkor begins the evil not because of the will of Iluvatar but rather in direct conflict with it.
"But now Ilúvatar sat and hearkened, and for a great while it seemed
good to him, for in the music there were no flaws. But as the theme
progressed, it came into the heart of Melkor to interweave matters of his
own imagining that were not in accord with the theme of Ilúvatar, for
he sought therein to increase the power and glory of the part assigned to
himself. To Melkor among the Ainur had been given the greatest gifts of
power and knowledge, and he had a share in all the gifts of his brethren. He
had gone often alone into the void places seeking the Imperishable Flame;
for desire grew hot within him to bring into Being things of his own, and it
seemed to him that Ilúvatar took no thought for the Void, and he was
impatient of its emptiness. Yet he found not the Fire, for it is with
Ilúvatar. But being alone he had begun to conceive thoughts of his
own unlike those of his brethren.
Some of these thoughts he now wove into his music, and straightway discord
arose about him, and many that sang nigh him grew despondent, and their
thought was disturbed and their music faltered; but some began to attune
their music to his rather than to the thought which they had at first. Then
the discord of Melkor spread ever wider, and the melodies which had been
heard before foundered in a sea of turbulent sound. But Ilúvatar sat
and hearkened until it seemed that about his throne there was a raging
storm, as of dark waters that made war one upon another in an endless wrath
that would not be assuaged" (The Silmarillion, Ainulindale, "Music of the Ainur", pg. 16)

Thoughts? Comments?

__________________

Vocatus atque non vocatus, Deus aderit
Called or uncalled, God is present
lomoduin
Rohirrim of Edoras - Rank 4
Status: Offline
Posts: 396
Date: Jun 19, 2009
Permalink  
In a world were every flower, blade of grass and tree are where they are because a man planted it there, where the landscape is as it is because a man decided that is best, where the horizone is one of the creation of man and it blots out the sun as it sinks behind our skys****ers and business buildings, faith can be a hard thing to come by. We are constantly in awe of our own accomplishments and creations. We span wide waters with mamoth bridges and look at them in wonder, lost for words. We cast down mountains redirect rivers or add one to suit our needs. We determine our lives as successful depending on how much of something we have. So much land, so much money, so much squarefootage in our homes, so many children "we" create and God is lost. His creation is subject to our fancy, our whim. How powerful, how awesome we are! Were we predestined to kill God? Were we fated to lose God in technology and advancement?

We are frightened of our own vulnerability. We are afraid of our mortality and the ease of which our grand schemes can be snuffed out like a small flame in a light breeze by the draining of our precious blood. So we stock pile it and we make God's violent creation, our Earth, more safe by putting up walls and fences that even the awesome power of nature finds hard to pull down. We make ourselves safe from God's whim and fancy and then don't believe it's God that we shield ourselves from. Because we've destroyed God with our science and formulas.

When men worked in the field and prayed for a breeze to cool themselves they gave thanks to God when they recieved one. Now we curse weather patterns and know that the upper jet streams just aren't where they need to be when we don't get one and when we do get one we're glad that a warm front hit cooler upper currents and created the breeze that dries the sweat on our faces. How sad and hopless our society has become.

The meaning of life is to work hard untill we retire then move to Florida to die in a posh old folks home while our children take over the drugery of raising a family and trying to be successful in thier jobs. Where is God or predistination in that? To work until we die, that's what we're predetermined to do? We have no noble cause. We have no noble "Jesus" man to follow and immulate. We find solace, adventure, and men worth following in Tolkien's works. That's why we all love them so much. The romantic notion that the evil nature of Melkor, Sauron, Saruman and so many other nasties of the like are in the end ultimately defeated gives us the hope we do not find in our electricity dependant culture. That still leaves the questions, where is God and are we fated?

When we have pre-cog dreams are our minds already laying a road map for future endeavors or is it God giving us a clue, a bread crumb? I like bread crumbs but I have a faith that is hard to rival. I am not a religous person but I have seen the awesome power of "my" God. I know where God is. God is on the river in the early morning just before sunrise when half of his creation is waking up for another day and half is finding a cool safe place to sleep away the heat and blinding light. When the mist is just rolling back and the first of the herons are taking flight. God is in the energy that you feel when you stand by the edge of the ocean. Where the sand, the water, the wind and the sky meet in such a power that your whole body vibrates with it. Where the horizon is water and sky and you can't differentiate between the two because our eyes are incapable of seeing that far. God is in the rolling clouds that are always moving, changing. In the tiny drops of rain that fall. In the calm that they bring or the destruction they can cause. Be still and listen to yourself breath, to the persistance of your own heart beat. Put a flashlight to your hand and see the blood perfectlly encased and flowing in our fragile bodies.

We are predestined to die. We are pre-desposed to certain behavior and to making certain descions based on the experinces we have had, the culture we embrace and the kind of life we wish to lead. It is said that God made us in it's image. If that is so then I do not believe we are fated or doomed. I do not wish to force my will, beliefs or fears on my children. Why would God be any less concerned with our existance. We live our lives according to what we each need and want. Everything else flows around us and will continue to long after we are gone. The most important thing to know about God is we are not it.

To echo Bear's thought,  Thank you Fili for firing up this forum and helping us to reunite in opposition. lol 

-- Edited by lomoduin on Friday 19th of June 2009 06:15:31 PM

-- Edited by lomoduin on Saturday 20th of June 2009 02:15:36 PM

__________________
The winds of heaven do not blow gentle.
lomoduin
Rohirrim of Edoras - Rank 4
Status: Offline
Posts: 396
Date: Jun 22, 2009
Permalink  

any thoughts, ya'll? Any disagreements?

__________________
The winds of heaven do not blow gentle.
Bear
Lord Elrond of Rivendell - Rank 9
Status: Offline
Posts: 2960
Date: Jun 22, 2009
Permalink  
lomoduin,
Beautiful essay and an excellent piece about the spiritual dangers of a society consumed by technology.
Your portrayal of Tolkien as a place of refuge and a spiritual oasis does appeal.
And your question of our world as one of "Intelligent design" has many advocates in many media formats.
I find your resolve to not push your beliefs on your children as noble and heroic.
But, unusually, we find ourselves, perhaps, on different sides of the coin on our views of technology and spirituality.
I don't find Tolkien a refuge but rather a normal expression of the divine nature of man.  From Dungeons and Dragons to computer games and a couple of dozen fantasy book series I see human imagination showcased in the struggle of Good vs Evil and encouraging the exploration of the spiritual dimensions of humanity.
Technology as a springboard has placed at our fingertips the information of the planet, where the opinion of a German  high school student is as valuable to an American  psychologist who is critiqued by a Estonian  writer in a  discussion with a priest from India.( to say nothing of friendships with a Jewish diva from Texas and knife throwing belle from the Florida pan-handle)   From such diversity of cultures and ideas the human spirit is nurtured and a new spiritual depth is our reward.
I share with you the opinion that religion is often a barrier to a relationship to G-d.
Certainly not always but I know the difference and I vote for the personal relationship not the institutional one.

I don't think it is fair on my part to say that G-d is more active in my life. But every patient is preceded and followed by prayer.  A higher power is part of my daily life and prayer happens many times in my day.  Working with the human mind and spirit leaves me as a witness to "miracles" over and over again.
To be fair I also see many consumed by greed and seduced by the sexier,smarter, more attractive, remaking my persona that is part of my culture.

That leaves me really appreciating what you have so beautifully written.
I would like to see others take on this.
Thanks for bringing it up.

__________________

Vocatus atque non vocatus, Deus aderit
Called or uncalled, God is present
mouth of sauron
Samwise Gamgee - rank 9
Status: Offline
Posts: 2372
Date: Jun 22, 2009
Permalink  
Your post certainly illustrates how quantified and catagorised anything 'supernatural', or whatever, becomes these days, Lomoduin. The never ending desire to make everything digestable and explainable, to eradicate faith from the equation. But at the end of the day it doesn't. Some people believe that given enough time, given the right people and the right tools, everything can eventually be explained and understood. Therefore there is no need for faith. BUT thats what they are doing - placing unquestioned faith into the belief that everything will one day be understood if given enough time/right people/right tools. They have merely placed their faith into something else, but its still there.

Most people think you are either religious or scientific. But this is not the case. Science can exist with religion. Just because a God may exist, that doesn't eradicate the facts we have about atoms, weather patterns, electricity, technology etc etc. True, it undermines the Bible's portrayal of God, such as Him creating the World in seven days and all that. But that book was made for the time, not for ever more. Just because we have established that lightning strikes because of negative energy and learnt that an earthquake can cause a Tsunami, instead of God showing his wrath, it doesn't mean he doesn't exist.

If you look on the net you will find that there are quite a few Scientists which are religious and how science can lead one to God, rather than away. There is one British scientist I know of who is pretty famous, but for the life of me I have forgotten his name from the programme I watched lol.

As for Bilbo - that I can well understand. There are some things I think we must follow the lead of the Ainur and simply "bow and be silent" when it comes to God.

__________________
My Master Sauron the Great bids thee Welcome....
Filli
Hobbit from Hobbiton - Rank 4
Status: Offline
Posts: 217
Date: Jun 23, 2009
Permalink  
Hi All

My brother in law is a Catholic Priest...who teaches Physics in a school....

I tease him endlessly about creation, about evolution about science..easy targets

He tells me that religieon is like a tree...that we all can see.
Some people are closer to the tree
Other people see the tree from a different angle.
Same tree

I like that.....his interpretation of God...is a god that transends a book, a story,  a tradition, a religeon and through science we will understand more of his creation.

He tells me that Catholism is a good angle to look at this tree.
I tell him that I'd prefer to try Tantrism
He said in that case, he'd light a candle for me.


__________________
Love Light and Peace
Bear
Lord Elrond of Rivendell - Rank 9
Status: Offline
Posts: 2960
Date: Jun 23, 2009
Permalink  
Filli,
They say that with those candles, even one at a time, can be a sun in a dark world.
Myself I prefer a lantern.
But a brother's love might be the brightest light of all.
God bless him and you.
Bear an Elf-Friend

__________________

Vocatus atque non vocatus, Deus aderit
Called or uncalled, God is present
lomoduin
Rohirrim of Edoras - Rank 4
Status: Offline
Posts: 396
Date: Jun 24, 2009
Permalink  
First, thank you all for sounding off and for saying, so eloquently, what I did not. Second, thank you to Fili for allowing this discussion. I agree that science and G-d (is that more appropriate?) are one and the same persual. Without the perfection allowed by G-d we would not have such an understandable, infalible base from which to base our own fundamental knowledge, base as it may be. And any Catholic Priest willing to teach physics and take the ribbing is, here's an old one for you, worth his salt. Bear, depending on the level of darkness one finds oneself in a flicker can be a supernova. You are defenantly a shining star in the mists of the mind!!

With conviction and faith,

Lomoduin

A weary river spirit from the panhandle,

lol

__________________
The winds of heaven do not blow gentle.
Bilbo Baggins
Thorin Oakenshield - Rank 6
Status: Offline
Posts: 1109
Date: Jun 25, 2009
Permalink  
Yay! Its in the advanced forum now. We must be a bunch of intellects!

__________________
You want it for Yourself!
lomoduin
Rohirrim of Edoras - Rank 4
Status: Offline
Posts: 396
Date: Jun 26, 2009
Permalink  
Yeah, PHD'ed!!

__________________
The winds of heaven do not blow gentle.
Filli
Hobbit from Hobbiton - Rank 4
Status: Offline
Posts: 217
Date: Jun 28, 2009
Permalink  
Hi All

Wow we are clever....one should always hide this fact....

Lets change the subject to

"Who is better ..Sauron or Balrogs"

Back to the subject :-

I have always been drawn to the "baddies" of books and film etc. The complexity and motivations seem more interesting than the square jawed "goodies".

Melkor being a baddie of Biblical proportions. I just love Tolkiens audacity in writing such a character.

We all know that evil can be a relative point of view. One mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist.

The point which I just can't quite express is that perhaps the elves could only concieve Melkor as evil. Yet he was nesscecary.

Infact without him the elves and Arda would not have been. Is this evil?

Perhaps I am reading the song of creation wrongly. But prior to the creation of Arda brought about by the discord of Melkor, there was only a continual NOW!.

Melkor brought about an eternaly evolving and changing NEW! 
Life itself is the constant everlasting fight against the nothing of oblivion of NOW.

Melkor being the physical manisfistaion of oblivion hating this NEW, brings....total destruction..not to rule...not to conquer....not to enslave ...but to destroy...everything...all of it...at the last himself.

To me , the Valar and the firstborns greatest weakness was to try to achieve another state of NOW!....Never changing...a state of bliss..unstained...unblemished ...for ever and ever and so on...removing themselves from a world which Melkor tainted with NEW!
And the West was removed, just as Rivendell and Lorien would do in a lessar extent from the world.

The elves and eventualy the Valar will fade into this perpetual NOW! out of memory into a state of impotance.

Do you think they might just hanker for a reason to be ?
Will the Adversary seem so evil to them ?
It's through adversary that the Valar and firstborn triumphed
Without him.....they fade back to the NOW from where they came.



__________________
Love Light and Peace
Glorfindel
Anarion, Son of Elendil - rank 8
Status: Offline
Posts: 2161
Date: Jun 29, 2009
Permalink  
I think the best thing to do when reading a book, especially something like the Ainulindale, is to forget fate and doom, pretend it isn't there and just read the words in a more plainer manner. Just accept that there is fate buried under those words, but also accept that its complexities are beyond you, and us, to fully understand and don't let them ruin a very good readwink.gif

__________________

Utúlie'n  aurë!  Aiya  Eldalië  ar  Atanatári,  utúlie'n  aurë! 
Auta  i  lómë! 
Aurë entuluva!
lomoduin
Rohirrim of Edoras - Rank 4
Status: Offline
Posts: 396
Date: Jul 2, 2009
Permalink  
I see what Fili is saying though. Why would anyone want to live a perfect, uneventful life? Why would you just want to go about everyday with just the right amount of everything and nothing new to ever happen? With out something to shake things up a bit from time to time how would you know you've got everything you need? Would we become like sheep bleeting and eating grass contented to do nothing other than that all the long days of our lives? Or would we want something more even though we had everything we needed in perfect measure, in bliss? Am I close, Fili?

__________________
The winds of heaven do not blow gentle.
Filli
Hobbit from Hobbiton - Rank 4
Status: Offline
Posts: 217
Date: Jul 2, 2009
Permalink  
Yeah !

ORIGINAL THREAD, PAGE 1
lomoduin
ORIGINAL THREAD, PAGE 1
lomoduin
lomoduin...that's spot on.....

Got to do things in life that scare you.....love the fear !

The kind of bliss that you refer to is a punishment to me...I'd get kicked out for mischief in no time.

Just like in nature, without adversity there is no winners and losers , no evolution.
Stagnation is the quickest way to wipe out a species.

I ain't no Dodo

Perhaps that's why the Avari refused the summons.
Why Teleporno remains
Why Galadriel hankered for a kingdom to rule of her own.
Why Thingol and Melian hanged around

A state of bliss......that's just morphine for the soul . 



__________________
Love Light and Peace
mouth of sauron
Samwise Gamgee - rank 9
Status: Offline
Posts: 2372
Date: Jul 3, 2009
Permalink  
Thats a subject Tolkien goes into in Morgoth's Ring:

"Beyond the 'End of Arda' Elvish thought could not penetrate, and they were without any specific instruction. (Author's Note 6, p. 341) It seemed clear to them that their hroar must then end, and therefore any kind of re-incarnation would be impossible. (Author's Note 7, p. 342) All the Elves would then 'die' at the End of Arda. What this would mean they did not know. They said therefore that Men had a shadow behind them, but the Elves had a shadow before them.

Their dilemma was this: the thought of existence as fear only was revolting to them, and they found it hard to believe that it was natural or designed for them, since they were essentially 'dwellers in Arda', and by nature wholly in love with Arda. The alternative: that their fear would also cease to exist at 'the End', seemed even more intolerable. Both absolute annihilation, and cessation of conscious identity, were wholly repugnant to thought and desire. (Author's Note 8, p. 343)
Some argued that, although integral and unique (as Eru from whom they directly proceeded), each fea, being created, was finite, and might therefore be also of finite duration. It was not destructible within its appointed term, but when that was reached it ceased to be; or ceased to have any more experience, and 'resided only in the Past'.
But they saw that this did not provide any escape. For, even if an Elvish fea was able 'consciously' to dwell in or contemplate the Past, this would be a condition wholly unsatisfying to its desire. (Reference to Author's Note 8) The Elves had (as they said themselves) a 'great talent' for memory, but this tended to regret rather than to joy. Also, however long the History of the Elves might become before it ended, it would be an object of too limited range. To be perpetually 'imprisoned in a tale' (as they said), even if it was a very great tale ending triumphantly, would become a torment.(5) For greater than the talent of memory was the Elvish talent for making, and for discovery. The Elvish fea was above all designed to make things in co-operation with its hroa.

Therefore in the last resort the Elves were obliged to rest on 'naked estel' (as they said): the trust in Eru, that whatever He designed beyond the End would be recognized by each fea as wholly satisfying (at the least). Probably it would contain joys unforeseeable."


As you can see, the Elves found the idea of their spirits, their identity, simply ceasing to be after the End intolerable. They found also the idea of existing only as spirits revolting. The third idea that they existed as beings but which would only be capable of living in the past, not progressing into the future, a living memory if you like, did not provide any escape.

At last they only had one option, to put their complete trust in Eru in the matter, that whatever He has appointed to them, it would be beyond any comprehension of theirs and be wonderful beyond the state of their current imagination.

-- Edited by mouth of sauron on Friday 3rd of July 2009 10:00:05 PM

__________________
My Master Sauron the Great bids thee Welcome....
xiaoshanzi
Being lies with Eru - Rank 1
Status: Offline
Posts: 3
Date: Jul 12, 2011
Permalink  
Good thread there Glorfindel!

__________________

 

runescape gold
rs gold
runescape money
Jaidoprism7
Guard of Armenelos - Rank 4
Status: Offline
Posts: 764
Date: Nov 15, 2011
Permalink  

Half way through this thread Fili poses: "Can you have sympathy or empathy for Melkor? I earlier expressed how futile Melkor must have found his existence..." then later on that same thread goes on to write: "You might say the Melkor chose to be evil...but that wouldn't deem to fit Eru's plan. No discord=No Arda"

I think that Melkor did not consider himself evil at first, just as Saruman began his task upon Middle-earth with all good intention. It wasn't until Jealousy, Greed and Pride crept into their minds and hearts that these characters seemed to follow a darker path. In the beginning of creation, a la Simarillion, Melkor discorded the music of Illuvatar (in his mind, Jazzing it up a bit). When Eru noticed the discordance and reprimanded Melkor by saying there was nothing he could create that would not be of Illuvatar, the idea was born in Melkor's mind to create something where his discordance was The Music, something of his own where he would not be ashamed for creating. Thus was born possessiveness and his will divorced Eru's. Perhaps in the beginnings of Melkor's desire to create he wished to show Eru his quality like a child who makes something to earn the pride of his/her parent. Had he not felt the stab of shame in the first place would he endeavor to do such things?

As for Melkor finding his existence futile and irrelevant; I think he felt a great sense of relevance and purpose, especially after it came into his mind to dominate. It reminds me of Hitler; He was burnt by his failure as an artist and poet and from what I've learned, didn't do very well with the ladies, this caused him to take it out on the world. I know that is a gross simplification but in some ways relates to Melkor's will.

Melkor's existence proved to be a great literary device as well. To have a quest you must first have a purpose for it and what better cause then to vanquish evil. It helps even more to have a grand central evil figure that gives the malignant creatures purpose and a Will not of the earth. The story of Melkor could be likened to that of God and Lucifer. I believe that to be a direct lateral to the biblical account; while God and Satan cast lots for the souls of all man-kind, Melkor desired everything in creation. Like Lucifer, Melkor became wretched after the jealousy set in...





__________________
Anorlas
Loremaster Elf of Mirkwood - Rank 4
Status: Offline
Posts: 265
Date: Nov 15, 2011
Permalink  


Doesn't Tolkien say that the revolt of Melkor and later Elves like Feanor would bring great sorrow but also gread deeds of courage and heroism and without these there would be no great songs written.

So while we can and do lament the evil done and pray to God it does not continue and that we will grow and progress in spirit, it is these sad events that give us our history, poetry, songs. Just as they did in the Silmarillion, The Hobbit, and the Lord of the Rings.

__________________
I'll not bid the stars farewell
Jaidoprism7
Guard of Armenelos - Rank 4
Status: Offline
Posts: 764
Date: Nov 17, 2011
Permalink  
Well said, Anorlas!

__________________
lomoduin
Rohirrim of Edoras - Rank 4
Status: Offline
Posts: 396
Date: Mar 24, 2013
Permalink  
Something that Jaidoprism7 said made me think of the story of the creation of the dwarves.'

"Perhaps in the beginnings of Melkor's desire to create he wished to show Eru his quality like a child who makes something to earn the pride of his/her parent."

"Now Iluvatar knew what was done, and in the very hour that Aule's work was complete, and he was pleased, and began to insruct the Dwarves in the speech that he had devised for them, Iluvatar spoke to him: and Aule heard his voice and was silent." Iluvatar asks Aule " Why hast thou done this? Whay dost thou attemp a thing which thou knowest is beyond thy power and thy authority?" Aule's response is " I have fallen into folley. Yet the making of things is in my heart from my own making by thee." When Aule takes up a great hammer to smite the Dwarves Iluvatar stops him, having "compassion upon Aule and his desire, because of his humility" excerpts from The Silmarillion, Of Aule and Yavanna, Chapter 2

Is the ultimate sin of Melkor, the unforgivable evil, pride? Is this what keeps Iluvatar from forgiving Melkor and allows Aule the right to keep his dark secret? How differently we precieve the one ainur from the other yet they both have committed simalar "sins".

Pride goeth before the fall?



__________________
The winds of heaven do not blow gentle.
Bear
Lord Elrond of Rivendell - Rank 9
Status: Offline
Posts: 2960
Date: Mar 24, 2013
Permalink  

lomoduin,
And that brings us back to ... motive ...

Aule is contrite and moves to correct his error.
Melkor, even after he has been chastised, commits murders, corrupts other creatures (some innocent and some not),and performs abominations, and is never honestly contrite ...

Motivation ...
I think that is the place to begin the definition of "Evil"!



__________________

Vocatus atque non vocatus, Deus aderit
Called or uncalled, God is present
 
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.
 
Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us
Chatbox

Please log in to join the chat!
Previous poll results (What is the 'Mightiest' weapon in Tolkiens myth?): Gurthang, blade of Turin - 28%, Narsil, sword of Elendil - 12%, Anduril, Sword of King Ellesar Aragorn - 23%, The Mace of the Witch King - 5%, Grond the dread hammer/hammer of the underworld -19%, Black axe of Gothmog - 4, Glamdring of Gandalf - 7%, Orcrist of Thorin - 1% A NEW POLL HAS BEEN ADDED TO TOLKIEN FORUMS Tolkien Forums - The Mythical world of J.R.R Tolkien