Tolkien and philosophy

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Upon viewing some of the topics classed as being "Hot Topics" by the moderators, I noticed one thing common to most of them. Allot of the more popular topics that have many replies, "Canonicity, the book or the reader" being the most recent, seem to follow a lot of philosophical arguments. For example, the free will given to people, what is truth ect. I don’t mean there will be a topic like "If a tree falls in Fangorn, and there is no Ent around to hear it, does it make a sound?" or "What is the sound of one Elven hand clapping".

Tolkien was not a philosopher. That is plain enough. So are we taking things a little far?

Topics such as "Do men and elves worship Eru?" become detoured in most part from what they originally were and we may find ourselves turning it into "Did Eru exist". I may, excaudate, but Do you see what I mean?

Middle earth and all its history is not an Allegorical world. As Tolkien himself says, it is more Applicable.

Manny people mistake Allegory for applicability...
J.R.R.Tolkien Forward to the Lord of the rings

So we can settle many ideas like that. If we begin to get into a deep philosophical discussion, somebody is bound to bring that up and the topic usually tails off...

So Would I be rite in assuming that as the years go on, the Philosophical points viewed in Lort will be changed dew to modern thinking.
In the year 2060 will there be topics with the title "Was the ring some kind of super intelligent trans directional being?" Or will these views stay the same?
Are we seeing things that aren’t really there?
Or was Tolkein secretly interested in philosophy?
Write your answers down now!

[Son of Númenor]

I wouldn't say that any philosophically-oriented topics in these fora are overstepping the bounds of reasonable Tolkien-related discussion. J.R.R. Tolkien may not have been a 'philosopher' in the traditional sense, but he was a devoutly religious, spiritually-attuned & thoughtful person who enjoyed writing about & discoursing on a great variety of philosophical subjects. He strove toward a deeper understanding of the nature of legend & mythology, of literature, of religion, of humanity & of truth. I personally like to think of the philosophical debates that go on here as extensions of Tolkien's ardor for wisdom.

[Lhundulinwen]

I agree with Hookbill the Goomba. Tolkien was deeply religous and I believe that he wrote LOTR to teach the world certain truths and ideas. Of course, he was also out to make a genuinely wonderful novel, which he succeeded, but he also put intertwining themes that run throughout the book. Many people have commented that each time they read LOTR, they learn something new. I believe this is because LOTR has layers and layers and each scene and character has something much deeper to it. It just takes time to get there. Mybe Tolkien didn't mean to put the layers there, but I believe to a certain extent they are there and we are not seeing things that are not there.

Of course people's views will change over the years. When LOTR was published for the first time, most people scratched their heads, and went back and studied it more. They wrote Tolkien letters. They asked fellow LOTR nuts what they thought. And as time went on, I assume we come to what we all believe now about LOTR, each of us adding our own 'seasonings' and ideas to it.

[Saraphim]

I've written this in the "Canonicity" thread, and, as it pertains to this discussion, I'll repeat it.

My viewpoint on Lord of the Rings (and literature in general) is that everyone, being different, has different opinions and beliefs, and those beliefs are reflected upon what they get out of reading LotR.

People with different mindsets see things differently. To some, the departure of the elves from Middle-Earth is seen as depressing, the end of an era and a way of life. but some might see it as the beginning of a new era, a chance for new life.

What does this have to do with the price of wine in Dorwinion? Well, people and mindsets change over the course of time. 5,000 years ago people were worried about where to find food. 500 years ago people were worried about thier feudal Lords and getting those crops in. 50 years ago, people were worried about nearly the same things we are today, and yet, there have been innumerable changes in society even since LotR was published.

People care about different things now. And, the way the trend has been going for the entire of history of humanity, the things people will care about and believe will change drastically within even the oldest of the Downer's lifetimes.

This is true on a personal level as well. A person changes throught thier lives. Reading LotR in grade school won't mean the same to you as when you read it during college.

Everything is different, it just depends on how you look at it.:D

[Kin-strife]

It's like applying freudian psychoanalysis to Shakespeare (i.e Hamlet's supposed oedipus complex). It is how literature lives. Different ages breed different philosophical opinions and these colour our interpretations of writing. Without this the writing doesn't live but becomes rigid and irrelevant. By writing down and publishing his myth Tolkien gave it to everybody and it no longer belonged to him soley. This means that his own stated intention isn't the last word.

Freud doesn't suggest that Shakespeare intended to portray Hamlet with an oedipus complex but rather that he ingeniously portrayed human character as he observed it within himself and in others. The theories for the cause of this behaviour will always change. The same is true for theories on the nature of god, the cause of existence etc. Of course, the difference with Tolkien is that he created the entire universe that his stories occur in. But this universe obviously has to have been constructed from experience of the real one, so our opinions of the real world will always effect our interpretation of his. This helps to give Tolkien's work a vibrancy and also give endless room for debate in forums such as this one.

[mark12_30]

Hookbill, you wrote:

Tolkien was not a philosopher. That is plain enough.

On what are you basing that statement?

[symestreem]

People philosophize about everything. The basic topics talked about, such as free will, suffering, etc., are relevant to all people, even fictional ones. In a story as relatively similar to us as Lord of the Rings is, is it to be wondered at that we find these topics?

[The Saucepan Man]

Hookbill, many of the issues raised in Tolkien's writings will give rise to issues which one might describe as "philosophical". When discussing the nature and origin of Orcs, for example, it is only a small step to go on and consider whether they were by their nature irredeemably evil. That, in turn, raises issues about the "fairness" of a world where sentient beings (if indeed Orcs were that) have no choice in being evil, but are born as such. Similarly consideration of the "dooms" pronounced upon the Noldor (by Mandos) and Hurin's family (by Morgoth) will inevitably involve consideration of whether they had free will, leading perhaps to more general discussion of free will within Middle-earth and indeed within our own world. And the consideration of good and evil within Middle-earth will often raise questions concerning the nature and source of morality. It is inevitable that questions such as these will arise in a forum such as this.

But never fear, there are ample threads devoted to the consideration of pure factual issues (did Balrogs have wings being the prime, albeit hackneyed, example). Along with threads devoted to the portrayal of Tolkien's works on film, quiz games, creative writing and simply having fun with the books and the films. The list is endless. There is something here for every Tolkien fan, however their interest manifests itself. It is up to you which topics you involve yourself in. If you want to engage in serious philosophical discussion you can, even if (like me) you sometimes feel woefully ill-equipped in terms of learning and experience to do so. Or you can simply move on to another topic. It's up to you.


Tolkien was not a philosopher. That is plain enough. (Hookbill)

On what are you basing that statement? (Helen)Well, clearly Tolkien is not remembered primarily as a Philosopher, in the same way that Plato, Aquinas and Nietzsche are. He is primarily remembered as a great story-teller. But it is clear from a cursory glance at his Letters and some of his essays that he did philosophise, in the sense that he concerned himself with considering, and expressing to others his views on, the weightier issues in life.

Of course, he saw little merit in over-analysing those works which he published primarily as tales to amuse himself and give pleasure to others. He quoted Gandalf's line cautioning against breaking a thing to discover its meaning in this context on a number of occasions. For example, in a draft of a letter to Peter Szabo Szentmihalyi (Letter 329), he stated:


When they have read it, some readers will (I suppose) wish to 'criticize' it, and even to analyze it, and if that is their mentality they are, of course, at liberty to do these things - so long as they have first read it with attention throughout. Not that this attitude of mind has my sympathy: as should be clearly perceived in Vol. I p.272: Gandalf: 'He that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom.'His greatest wish was that people should read and enjoy his tales. And, while he may not have had much sympathy for those who seek to analyse them (and was perhaps concerned that over-analysis might impair the enjoyment), he nevertheless recognised that his stories will have applicability for his readers (that, for many, is part of the enjoyment). And I don't think that he would have begrudged those who are inclined to do so from considering the manner in which his tales are applicable to them and discussing their views with others. Such a process is, I think, bound to lead frequently to discussion of philosophical issues. And I also don't think that he would have objected to people considering and discussing his own philosophical views, as hinted at in essays such as 'On Faerie Stories', and as often explicitly stated in his Letters (which, while he did not intend them for general publication when he wrote them, were generally written for an audience of at least one).

And, contrary to what you say, I don't think that a recognition that his stories were not intended to be allegorical is necessarily an obstacle to such discussions provided that people recognise that they are discussing how Tolkien's works might bear upon philosophical issues, rather than trying to establish a particular philosophical idea or meaning that they believe he might have intended to represent by them.

[HerenIstarion]

To questions posed (even if unconsciously so) in Hookbill's post re:

1. Since nobody is around to hear it, there is no sound of course!
2. The sound of one hand clapping is definitely a 'cl' (or half a clap, as it is naturally to be expected)

Cheers :D

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

An interesting question Hookbill, but an odd one.

Odd, because it posits the idea of a “philosopher” without really engaging what is meant by that. This is probably coy, but just what is a philosopher, anyway? The only people whose primary occupation these days is philosophy are Professors of Philosophy at Universities. Come to think of it, nobody has ever really been a philosopher, they did philosophy in the course of their lives (even Aristotle had a day job as a teacher and tutor – to Alexander the Great, no less – but I digress. . .) If we allow for a definition of philosopher that is descriptive (that is, one who philosophises is a philosopher) rather than prescriptive (that is, one whose ‘job’ it is to philosophise is a philosopher) then I cannot see how we cannot give the honour of that title to Tolkien. I have been struck time and again by the depth, subtly and intelligence of Tolkien’s engagement with truly profound matters, particularly in his Letters and LotR.

But this is really just a semantic argument. SaucepanMan has already anticipated me in shifting focus away from the question/status of Tolkien as philosopher to his works – in particular, LotR – as philosophical texts. Yes, the tale was meant to entertain, and it is a narrative-fiction with applicability rather than an allegorical treatise (like, say, The Consolation of Philosophy or Dante’s Divine Comedy), but it is not alone among works that pursue overtly philosophical questions in this manner – off the top of my head I can think of several: the Bible (Genesis, Exodus, the Gospels), the Aenied, the Illiad, and two works that were very near and dear to Professor Tolkien’s heart, Beowulf and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight.

Nor do I think that we have to look “deeply into” LotR to see its moral philosophy (sense of right and wrong), its exploration of hermeneutics (how things or human actions become or are rendered meaningful), its phenomenological concerns (how things or human actions gain meaning within a human-social context) or its eschatology (exploration of the meaning that accrues to the mortal time of human existence with reference to the eternity that comes at the ‘end’ of time). This idea of “looking deeply” is also an odd one to me: beneath the text there is only the blank white paper of the page; between the lines there is nothing. Everying that the text ‘is’ or contains is right there in black and white before us. The sense of moving “into” the text is really a projection of our own inner exploration that the text is both catalyst for and partner in.

Tolkien was not a philosopher (in the sense that he worked as one in his professional life) but a philologist – so it would only make sense that his pursuit and examination of philosophical issues would come about through his interest in language. When we start to look at the names that he creates for his heroes, I think it is impossible not to acknowledge not only the scope of his philosophical interests, but their potential profundity as well.

As has been acknowledged elsewhere in the forum (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/showthread.php?p=23016#post23016) Frodo’s name comes from the Old German word ‘frodá’ meaning ‘wise by experience’. Frodo’s journey is very much a journey from innocence into wisdom, which is precisely what philosophy (which is Greek for “love of wisdom”) is all about! The fact that this journey to wisdom is painful and arduous I think only re-enforces the deeply philosophical interest and impetus of the text, for who but a philosopher would know better the difficulty (impossibility?) of achieving true wisdom within the time of human history and experience.

The names of Aragorn and Arwen also point to equally weighty philosophical concerns:

• ‘Ar’ is Old English (the language that Professor Tolkien devoted his professional life to studying and teaching) and has several meanings. When applied to a person it denotes a messenger, in particular a servant or herald of God (angel or apostle). When presented as a quality it means glory, honour, reverence, dignity, grace, favour or pity.

• ‘agorn’ (in OE) means to have or possess, or to deliver and restore; it can also mean to come forth, grow, or approach.

Aragorn’s name therefore has been very carefully chosen by Tolkien to mean the possession, approach and restoration of all that ‘ar’ denotes. This is not allegory (in which case Aragorn’s name would be something like Truth and Sauron’s would be Falsehood), but it demonstrates the philosophical nature of the text from the very groundwork out of which it was built (the names that Tolkien constructed). But this philosophical pattern goes even further when we consider the implications of Arwen’s name. We’ve got ‘ar’ again, but with ‘wen’ a whole new slew of connotations enters the text:

• ‘wenn’ means belief, hope, expectation, and is a form of ‘wenan’ which means to believe in, expect or hope and fear for an outcome

• ‘wyn’ means joy, rapture or delight.

Arwen’s name them means variously the delight or joy of ‘ar’ (so it makes perfect sense that she would love Aragorn) and belief and hope in, expectation of the fulfilment or arrival or ‘ar’ (so it makes perfect sense that Aragorn’s journey is concluded only when he marries Arwen).

The names of these two characters points the way to a whole series of what I think are explicitly philosophical explorations of the manner in which ‘ar’ is brought about, found, hoped for, nourished and realised in human history. This is far more than a simple fairy-tale love story between a hero and his lady – the relationship of Aragorn and Arwen is a dynamic and important part of the overall fabric, which explores the nature of Aragorn’s revelation of his innate wisdom, in relation to Frodo’s slow and painful growth into wisdom.

Postscript – Thanks to H-I for clearing those questions up for me. But still: what if the falling tree is an Ent who yells out as he falls (“who put that stone there?”)? Or, is the “cl” sound of the left hand clapping, while the right sounds like “ap”?

[Bombadil]

Perhaps it is so easy for us to apply our life situations to Tolkien's writing because he has truly captured human emotion and behavior. With his study of so many different languages and cultures I believe he gained an overall understanding of the human essence.

What seperates the literature of Tolkien and that of many other fantasies is his creation of languages and geography. Of in-depth history. With this he created a foundation. There was much room for building up from the foundation, but there were still limits, as one cannot build outside a foundation. I see these limits to be of a human nature - that by creating something that is so essential to our living, he laid down a strong foundation that kept him form leaving the reality of humanity.

But to connect this with the thread, I believe Tolkien could've written this applicably symbolic novel without need of trying to, because staying within that foundation created a relationship between the readers and the characters.

(It's very hard to explain what I'm getting at, so sorry if it sounds like a bunch of crazy talk!)

[HerenIstarion]

Thanks to H-I for clearing those questions up for me. But still: what if the falling tree is an Ent who yells out as he falls (“who put that stone there?”)? Or, is the “cl” sound of the left hand clapping, while the right sounds like “ap”?

Easy.

Sound re:

Since the Ent is one to fall, and, at the same time, one who 'is around', he is able to hear himself falling, and therefore there is a sound. If it were not him who were falling, but merely a tree, than he would not be around, so no sound will be there.

Clapping re:

It dependes. Since 'clap' is an English word, and we do write it from left to right in English, it is to be assumed that 'cl' is the sound of left hand clapping, and 'ap' is to be associated with the right hand. The situation, however, would be reversed for those writing from right to left. People writing on a vertical axis would have a preference of having respective sound associated with whichever hand happens to be their upper one in a clapping process.

PS Outstanding post there, Fordim, kudos!

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Firstly, mark12_30 and The Saucepan Man, when I said;
Tolkien was not a philosopher, that is plain enough

The "Plain enough" statement was a reference to Gimli, as he says it often... But that’s not important,
He was not a philosopher by profession but that wouldn’t have stopped him philosophising.

Please stop finding answers to those questions (I.e. "When a tree falls and there is no Ent to hear it... and... what is the sound of one elven had Clapping) They were random extreme examples, I didn't expect any answers, but still the image of an Ent falling over and shouting "Who put that stone there" is amusing, so that make up for it...


Fordim Hedgethistle, Frodo was not originally called Frodo. If I remember correctly from reading Tolkien’s biography, he was called "Bungo" or something (Please correct me if I’m wrong) I have seen many forums where names of characters have been deeply looked into, the only explanation I can give is that Tolkien’s languages are based on existing ones... so it is not surprising that there are hidden meanings...

Back to the point... (Ignore all that earlier stuff)

The comment about Tolkien not really caring about how well received his book was, that is well supported in the forwards and letters, so there is no trouble there. The reference to those who (As was said, for their own enjoyment) look deeply into these matters and that not bothering Tolkien is perhaps a sigh that with creating any imaginary world Philosophical subjects will arise. C.S. Louise’s Books involved an imaginary world and I'm sure there are forums with people discussing similar things. Tolkien was perhaps not intentionally putting these things there, they just sort of came along with it. Probably hiding in a small box so he didn’t notice it.
So when he was being flooded with mail and getting phone calls from America at 5:00 in the morning he was perhaps a little astonished to see how deeply people looked at his tales.

[mark12_30]

Hi Hookbill,

You wrote,

The reference to those who (As was said, for their own enjoyment) look deeply into these matters and that not bothering Tolkien is perhaps a sigh that with creating any imaginary world Philosophical subjects will arise.

Yes, it's true that "with creating any imaginary world Philosophical subjects will arise". I think careful consideration of TOlkien wll reveal that the two ideas were interwove,n. He did treat philosophical ideas rather carefully in his Epic Romance LotR, just as he treated them carefully in his Mythology For England (the Sil.) Do you have a copy of Letters? He discusses his ideas frequently in Letters, and it is very interesting reading. That is why I asked "On what do you base your conclusion" that Tolkien was not a philosopher; I find his letters very philosophical indeed.

C.S. Lewis’s Books involved an imaginary world and I'm sure there are forums with people discussing similar things. Tolkien was perhaps not intentionally putting these things there, they just sort of came along with it. Probably hiding in a small box so he didn’t notice it.

Except that when you read some of his own statements, you find such things as "It's about death, the inevitability of death". I do think he was writing a great story, of course. But with a deep thinker in the process of writing a great story, deep themes do bubble to the surface-- precisedly because the man is a deep thinker.

He wrote essays describing his philosophy towards Faery stories and towards Beowulf, and other things as well. If you are not familiar with them, perhaps you would like to check them out.

I think you've raised a question that puzzles a lot of people, because on the one hand Tolkien often did say that Lord of the Rings was "just a story". However, he also said that the Silmarillion was a "myth"-- his attempt at writing a myth for England. And he believed that myths are all shadows of what he called The One True Myth. So there was a lot of deep thinking going on.

Keep asking questions, Hookbill! And don't let the dyslexia get you down; looks like I don't need to tell you that! I like your spunk.

--mark12_30

[Lush]

Tolkien was not a philosopher. That is plain enough. So are we taking things a little far?

Well, any keen thinker is a philosopher in some capacity or other. It's already been mentioned that you don't need to be paid for teaching philosophy to actually practice some form of it, whether in your work, or daily life, or both.

Furthermore, dispensing a philosophy is not contained within writing down truisms on life or beating anyone over the head with a metaphoric hammer of insistence. Writers, I would say, are subtle philosophers in that regard.

And Tolkien, I dare venture, is less subtle than some (well, comparatively speaking).

Are we seeing things that aren’t really there?

In some cases, perhaps, but what is the price we would pay for completely abstaining from that?

I could think of one off the top of my head.

It would be a boring forum. ;)

[Saraphim]

Well, any keen thinker is a philosopher in some capacity or other. It's already been mentioned that you don't need to be paid for teaching philosophy to actually practice some form of it, whether in your work, or daily life, or both.

Saraph agrees with you, Lush. There are some fine philosophers here on the Barrow-Downs, even. I consider myself one, not because I plan on writing a book divulging my opinions on the secrets of life and ect, but because I write fiction with hints of my opinions about life.

This is what all fiction writers do. Lord of the Rings would be a bland, childish story if it didn't have philosophical points ingrained into its very core.

[Lhundulinwen]

The most interesting philosopher I have ever met was a farmer by profession. He made such eloquent arguements on everything from politics, religion and economics. This proves, for me anyway, absolutely anyone can be a philosopher, they just have to think for themselves and be able to express it.

[Bêthberry]

Are we seeing things that aren’t really there?



So Hookbill just wants to have fun? ;)

I would assume that you are of the persuasion which supports the "Entertainment" camp rather than the "Meaning" camp, in reference to HI's recent poll on meaning? :D

[Lyta_Underhill]

Please stop finding answers to those questions (I.e. "When a tree falls and there is no Ent to hear it... and... what is the sound of one elven had Clapping) They were random extreme examples, I didn't expect any answers, but still the image of an Ent falling over and shouting "Who put that stone there" is amusing, so that make up for it... Aw, Hookbill, do we really have to stop? But it is so amusing! And I wanted to add in my answer to "one hand clapping!" (slaps the person who asks the question with one hand--same sound as a regular clap, maybe a little flatter, depending on how well the hand connects...). I actually found this very 'solution' in a Zen koan years later, and ever since then, I've found Zen Buddhism screamingly funny! ;)

But all that aside, perhaps it is the primacy of the philosophy over the story itself in the minds of those who philosophize as a habit, the picking apart, that irritates those who would seek joy in a good tale. I can see see that, and indeed it seems to hold nicely to the idea of 'breaking a thing to find out what it is,' as Gandalf has said. I put philosophy right alongside the 'search for meaning,' and philosophers are just as guilty of trying to pigeonhole concepts as anyone else, to shut out possible meanings to fit their world view. I don't support this narrow view, but rather prefer an open, wider view that 'everything is true.'

With that, I have noticed that everyone is a philosopher to some extent, about just about everything. Anyone remember the philosophy of Sick Boy in the movie Trainspotting? "You get old, you can't hack it, and then you die." A bleak philosophy, and, while he believes it "beautifully illustrated," mainly because of the progress of Sean Connery's movie career, Mark Renton can't buy it at all. That is the nature of individual philosophies, and I wouldn't deny anyone the right to form his or her own views from the wealth of source material. It is a dangerous thing to raise the philosophical process over the simple joy of a good story if it destroys the enjoyment of the story. At that time, it is a good idea to seek out "Philosophers Anonymous" and get some help! ;)

Cheers!
Lyta