immortality

[Matthew2754]

orcs were mad from elves. elves are immortal. so would it be right to think that orcs are also immortal. i never heard of an orc dying of old age. they may not have the grace and power of elves and are a cheap mockery, but do you think they could be immortal. True Morgoth had the power to corrupt, but could he truly take somethings immortality away from it, and would he want to. orcs that dont grow old sound like a pretty could attribute of an army.

[TolkienGurl]

I don't think orcs were immortal. I'm not exactly sure why I think that, but I do. It just doesn't seem right. Immortality was a gift given to the elves, so after Morgoth corrupted them and made them orcs, I'm pretty sure that the Valar (or whoever) would have taken that gift away. Can you imagine trying to fight an immortal enemy? They also had other weaknesses such as they couldn't be in light (they hated it), etc.

I've always thought that orcs are the OPPOSITE of elves in everything.

[ October 28, 2002: Message edited by: TolkienGurl ]

[Galorme]

I would say that they also had immortal Fae, but their body's were weakened and could not live indefinatly, so eventually they would die and their spirits would go to Mandos for healing.

[burrahobbit]

orcs were mad from elves.

Nope.

Orcs are not Elves. --Tolkien

[Morgoth Bauglir]

i read (i think in the silm) that orcs multiply after the manner of elves.

[elfling]

I thought it said orcs were captured and tortured elves cruelly formed into these horrible creatures. They aren't now elves but they were elves at one time. I find this very sad and I do hope they die eventually and go to a healing place. I would guess they are somewhat immortal like the elves if they were once of elves. Probably weaker due ot their torture and evil existance.

[burrahobbit]

I thought it said orcs were captured and tortured elves cruelly formed into these horrible creatures.

It does, but it's wrong. Tolkien changed his mind about the origin of Orcs later in his life. Pretty much everything doesn't reflect that, though, as pretty much everything was written before he changed his mind. Orcs aren't Elves, so orcs aren't immortal. I can think of some other interesting questions that follow from this, though, and some even more interesting answers.

[Selmo]

It is said in the Silmarillion that the Elves believedthat orcs were originally made from captured elves.
They believed ; they did not know.

The Valar didn't tell the Elves about the origin of the Orcs because they didn't know themselves or they wanted everyone to believe their propaganda that Melkor Morgoth was was incapable of creating anything for himself.
If Melkor did create the Orcs, not just corrupt them, then they would lack the spark of The Flame Imperishable that would give them real life. They would have no immortal soul. They would be wholly evil and irredeemable.

[HerenIstarion]

This is the summary of conclusions reached upon orcs in another debate (here) (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=8&t=000025&p=):

12 Orkish Statements:

1. Orcs have different origins, including beasts, men and elves. Great orcish leaders (Boldog) were orcish hroa inhabited by corrupted Maiar.

2. Those of beast origin need direct control of evil mind (i.e. Morgoth or Sauron) to act with some purpose, otherwise they “stray aimlessly”.

3. The elvish and mannish orcs are capable of independent action in those “good old days”, when Sauron is out of the stage.

4. The elvish and mannish orcs definitely have fear.

5. The elv-orcish fea has a right of elvish one to go to Mandos, repent and rebuild its hroa, yet it is not certain what would be it’s physical appearance – that of an orc, for hroa is rebuild out of fea’s memories of it, or, repenting, it acquires ability to rebuild for it proper purely elvish hroa. On the other side, is has the right to refuse the summons and remain in Hither Lands as houseless ghost or wraith.

6. Mannish fea goes out of the confines of the world

7. Orcs are capable to be interbred with men even in the third age, thus acts Saruman, as well as Sauron, producing new type of “man-orc”

8. Beast-orcs must be considered innocent in a way, for they are just tormented and perverted animals, Kevlar with no free will

9. Elvish and Mannish orcs posses free will, as all the Children of Eru, however suppressed by horror of Dark Lord, therefore they are not irredeemable and must be considered sinners, even those natural born ones, thus being distinguished from beast-orcs. Elvish and Mannish orcs know the Good from the Evil and appreciate the good (see Shagrat and Gorbag converse, were “elvish trick” of leaving companions is evaluated to be bad, and generally ascribed to the other side)

10.All the Orcs hate the Dark Lord for what was done to them, but the hatred is suppressed by horror, and they hate peoples of free and good will still more.

11.Elven-Orcs especially dislike the elves proper, and receive the same feeling from the other side

12.Elven-orcs have usual elven longivety, therefore , for instance, some of them can recall and recognize items of several thousand years of age (Orcrist and Glamdring recognized by orcs in “The Hobbit” smilies/wink.gif


Entry 5 of the above must be altered though, since:

HoME XII, LATE WRITINGS.

'houseless' fea was enabled to rebuild its hroa from its memory became my father's "firm and stable view of the matter", "as appears from very late writing on the subject of the reincarnation of Glorfindel of Gondolin". This is erroneous. This last discussion of Elvish reincarnation refers only to the "restoration", "reconstitution" of the former body by the Valar, and makes no mention of the idea that it could be achieved by the 'houseless fea' operating of itself

and instead of for hroa is rebuild out of fea’s memories will read somehow thus:

The decesion to rebuild its hroa lies with the Valar

[ October 29, 2002: Message edited by: HerenIstarion ]

[Diamond18]

I personally like the idea of Orcs (or at least some kinds of Orcs) coming from Elves, even if Tolkien changed his mind later in life. And seeing as LotR wasn't re-written to reflect his change of mind, there's really nothing wrong with holding to that idea. If I were writing fanfic or adapting the book for movie purposes, I'd probably stick with the "they were once Elves" concept. My reason being that it goes nicely with the concept that there are fates worse than death, which Tokien uses in other places in the story (i.e. Gollum & Ringwraiths).

(BTW, H-I, I consider your above post to be "the last word" on the subject, I just wanted to add my 2¢ worth.)

[Matthew2754]

no. orcs are not elves. but they were made from elves. i belive that is what the quote meant. i don't think JRR changed his mind at all. I never said orcs were elves. That would be like saying Trolls are Ents. But Trolls were made from ents and orcs were made from elves.

[Galorme]

No-one really knows where the elves come from (except perhaps Morgoth himself), but i would say corrupted Elves is a good enough bet. I bought up the idea of how valid all the ideas are in another topic, but it depends under which context you look at it. If you want to know what the Elves thought, Orcs were fallen Elves. If you want to know what other ideas were there in the context of the Histories, you see Men as well. If you want to know what was going on in the mind of Tolkien good luck. Burrahobit that quote only gives his thoughts at one time, and for his thoughts at other times just read some of the histories. But i swear he states they are Elves in a number of his letters.

[ October 29, 2002: Message edited by: Galorme ]

[Legolas]

Whether you think he changed his mind or not, he did.

Reality is not altered by your "opinion" about this fact.

[Diamond18]

Well, yes, he changed his mind, but did he do anything about it? In LotR he never refutes Treebeard's statement about the Orcs. If, later in life, he changed his mind and said, "The Ring wasn't really evil", would you believe it? Not unless he went back and re-wrote the book.

[Golden Tree]

i dont think orcs were imotrta; beacause if they were they would still be in middle earth in some hidy-hole drinking their beer, smoking the pipeweed all that stuff.

[Arwen1858]

i dont think orcs were imotrta; beacause if they were they would still be in middle earth in some hidy-hole drinking their beer, smoking the pipeweed all that stuff.
How do you know they're not?? smilies/smile.gif

[Legolas]

Diamond18:

Well, yes, he changed his mind, but did he do anything about it? In LotR he never refutes Treebeard's statement about the Orcs. If, later in life, he changed his mind and said, "The Ring wasn't really evil", would you believe it? Not unless he went back and re-wrote the book.

In his letters, he states that Treebeard is a character, not Tolkien himself, and does not understand everything...his knowledge is limited.

From Letter No. 153:

Treebeard is a character in my story, not me; and though he has a great memory and some earthy wisdom, he is not one of the Wise, and there is quite a lot he does not know or understand. He does not know what 'wizards' are, or whence they came.

Because of this, you miss the point. The quotes provided earlier were from The Silmarillion, a work compiled and published by Christopher Tolkien without his father's supervision. What CT presented were the most complete ideas, and other writings later on indicate he changed his mind about the matter of orcs and elves. They, too, are published. What do you believe? Logically, the most recent writing.

Your point is valid about Lord of the Rings and the ring, but that analogy does not fit here. Lord of the Rings was a complete work, sent to press by Tolkien himself, thus it was a finished matter. We saw the indications of the ring's evil power. We do not see indications of the orcs' origins, except for Treebeard's comment. Treebeard's comment is not definitive in what was actual in Middle-earth.

Tolkien still had not finished The Silmarillion, therefore we are left with his rough drafts, and the more recent writings that address the matter say orcs were not originally elves.

If, later in life, he changed his mind and said, "The Ring wasn't really evil", would you believe it? Not unless he went back and re-wrote the book.

He obviously intended for the concept of orcs being corrupted elves to be taken out of The Silmarillion, and what we have is, as stressed before, not his final version.

[ October 30, 2002: Message edited by: Legalos ]

[Arwen Imladris]

Another thing is that orcs would probebly kill each other before they got very old.

[burrahobbit]

Burrahobit that quote only gives his thoughts at one time, and for his thoughts at other times just read some of the histories. But i swear he states they are Elves in a number of his letters.

That quote only gives his thoughts at one time after what he wrote in his letters. To put it differently, it was Tolkien's final word on the matter. To put it more glibly, have you read some of the histories? Because that's where I got the quote from.

[Diamond18]

Legalos, that was a good answer. I can't argue with it. It really is too bad that we don't have a "true and finished" Silmarillion to consult, but that's the way it goes, I guess.

I am now reminded of Chapter 5 of "The Hobbit" which was revised before the LotR was published. It's sort of along the same lines...he changed his mind on the matter and we now view the latter version as "the true version" though his initial ideas were different.

[elvenchristian]

Burrahobbit and Legolas,

I don't really know if orcs were eternal or not but I'm still of the opinion that orcs were made from elves. I don't know what Tolkien said at the end of his life but if you know some information about his thoughts before death then please tell us where we can find this quote. I don't know if I want to just take peoples word on something that has turned into such a heated debate.

I don't say this as an insult but as a request for information which you seem to have and which no one else seems to have heard of.

[elvenchristian]

OOPS

Forgot one thing. Just because some one doesn't agree with you doesn't give you the right to be rude. Legolas and Burrahobbit have been pretty snippy and I am definitely not inclined to read anything they write when they disrespect the rest of us.

[Legolas]

I do not intend to be snippy, nor does burrahobbit, but I will let him speak for himself.

His responses might appear that way because he is concise.

My responses might appear that way because I take the time to address all questions and/or false notions. I don't mean to offend anyone ever. That's not what any of us are here for, is it?

Diamond18 - I agree. It's such a shame that we have only an incomplete portion of such a great work. At least we can be thankful he left enough behind and shared thoughts with Christopher that we may have what has been published. smilies/wink.gif

elvenchristian - where were we rude? We only negate opinions with actual facts given to us by the author. Such issues are addressed in Unfinished Tales and the History of Middle-earth.

When Tolkien says Fingolfin has dark hair, and your opinion is that he had blonde hair, how can you hope to be right? We're simply teaching the misguided. We wouldn't make up quotes. smilies/smile.gif

[ October 30, 2002: Message edited by: Legalos ]

[burrahobbit]

I don't know what Tolkien said at the end of his life but if you know some information about his thoughts before death then please tell us where we can find this quote.

HoMe 10, Myths Transformed

[Arwen1858]

elvenchristian ~ I love the screen name and the signature!!
Arwen

[Arwen_Evenstar]

About the Orc-Elf thing, when Morgoth mutilated the elves( smilies/mad.gif ) all of their beauty and majesty and all the things that distinguished them as elves went out the window, so if imortality is also an Elvish trademark then perhaps that went bye-byes as well (?) Well, thats my theory anyway! smilies/smile.gif

[Saruman38]

Ah, It may have gone out the window, but how come we read nothing of orcs dieing except in battle? And, too bad about a week ago i was going to do this same topic... bah

[Keneldil the Polka-dot]

Hard to argue with Legolas and burrahobbit. Regardless of what we may think, if JRRT said orcs are not elves, then they aren't. I personally like the idea of them being corrupted elves, or bred from elven stock. It would have been a supremely evil thing to do. Of Melkor's acts perhaps the one most hated by Illuvatar, to paraphrase the Silmarillion. Elvish orcs present a more twisted opponent, perhaps one more able to compete with The Firstborn. Unworthy opponents detract from the story in my opinion.

[Keneldil the Polka-dot]

I also think the point of the Great Goblin recognizing Glamdring and Orcrist is a good one. Do orcs pass that kind of information along or did he actually recognize the Elvish weapons?

[HerenIstarion]

Oroginal post being not appropriate and not quite polite is removed. Sorry for inconvenience

[ November 04, 2002: Message edited by: HerenIstarion ]

[Keneldil the Polka-dot]

Original post removed by author due to inappropriate remarks. My apologies.

[ November 05, 2002: Message edited by: Keneldil the Polka-dot ]

[Palan]

Ok, here we go with my "theory." Hopefully, it makes sense. I don't have any of the books in front of me, so I am working off of memory, forgive me, if I stray.

Orcs are not Elves, Trolls are not Ents. Orcs and Trolls were designed by Melkor as the antithesis (the opposite likeness)of Elves and Ents; their creation is the most heinous of Melkor's acts in Iluvatar's eyes.

Orcs were not of Iluvatar; therefore, immortallity was a gift that could not be received by them (Melkor could not give that which only Iluvatar can give), but they could have extremely long lives (nearing immortallity) if there were an agent of evil that would bind their fear and hate to Middle Earth (during the battle at the Black Gate, those creatures bound to Sauron lose their will when the ring is destroyed). As they were not of Iluvatar their will and strength was not as great as the First- or the Second-born; their strength is in their numbers, and they are easily swayed by fear; they are not defiant to their overlord.

In summary, Orcs are not Elves, but were designed in the anti-likenss (for lack of a better term) of them. They were not immortal, but could have been perceived as immortal.

One final note, in the earlier versions of Sim, Elves who were captured by Melkor were not physically twisted to evil (unless they were already evil at heart, ie Maeglin), but were tortured and their wills were bound to Melkor's, which continually led them astray. This caused a general distrust by the Noldor to any of their brothers who escaped from Angband.

[Legolas]

A good theory, Palan. smilies/wink.gif

[ November 05, 2002: Message edited by: Legalos ]

[Bill Ferny]

This discussion reminds me of Saint Augustine, who definitely changed his mind numerous times and on numerous subjects. However, the fact that Augustine changed his mind in later life as regards free will and predestination didn't make his later conclusions correct!

There is merit in tackling the former ideas of thinkers, even though they change their mind. From a speculative stand point there is certianly nothing wrong with the conjecture that orcs were derived from elves. The fact that this theory is derived from Tolkien, himself, indicates that it is at least in the spirit of Tolkien, and still deserves a hearing.

The essential nature of orcs, as the antithesis of elves, as well stated above, does not change whether they are derived from elves or not. The fact that they are a corruption does not change either.

From the essential nature of orcs, as the antithesis of elves, it should be apparent that orcs are not immortal. The origins of orcs is margin gloss to the whole discussion.

[ November 04, 2002: Message edited by: Bill Ferny ]

[Keneldil the Polka-dot]

Legalos: Point taken. I am not an administrator. However, what I said in point 3 still applies (or should).

I don't have the referrence material for burrahobit's quote of JRRT about orcs not being elves. Anyone know where that came from? I don't think saying "orcs are not elves" precludes the possibilty that they are of elvish origin.

[Legolas]

Bill Ferny...

Tolkien was the creator of his fictional world, and thus, whatever he thought is how it was.

[Westerly Wizard]

From the essential nature of orcs, as the antithesis of elves, it should be apparent that orcs are not immortal. The origins of orcs is margin gloss to the whole discussion.

Bill Ferny, whether that idea provides the right answer or not, dismissing the origin of orcs due to there nature as the antithesis of elves is a great oversimplification. When the orcs were, in Tolkien's mind, corrupted elves, they would only be able to become mortal at Eru's bidding, because he was the only authority who could change the nature of the Children. Thus, Melkor's intention of making them the opposite of elves cold not effect orcs being mortal because only Eru could do this.

[Bill Ferny]

Legalos,

Tolkien also said that orcs were corrupted elves. Maybe its my training in philosophy and history, or maybe its my staunch anti-fundamentalism, but I do not take any statement as definitive at face value, nor do I accept any fact as a fact until it is thoroughly analyzed. A more engaging discussion would be an analysis of why Tolkien changed his mind. That’s what I mean by leaving the discussion open. Perhaps my example of Saint Augustine should read “the fact that he changed his mind latter in life, doesn’t make his former arguments any less valid.” I think Tolkien’s former arguments are valid points for discussion, just as I think the term “gnome” as used by Tolkien is a valid point for discussion.

WW,

Good points to bare in mind. I’m sorry, my reply was flippant. I liked Palan’s post because it was an argument that transcends dependence on origin. It probably in the end supports Tolkien’s later notion that orcs did not come from corrupted elves; if orcs were polar opposites of elves they could not have their origin from elves (and thus orcs would, of course, be mortal). However, an antithesis need not be a polar opposite. An antithesis can merely be something in opposition to; in this case orcs could be corrupted elves (and thus orcs could, of course, be immortal for the reason you state in your post). Maybe the solution lies somewhere in the middle.

The emphasis in Tolkien, especially in his late letters was that orcs did not come from Iluvatar, as Palan notes. At least I surmise as much from the fact that Tolkien changed his mind about the corruption of elves theme. It seems then, that he is building an opposite type antithesis. Based on this assumption (and I admit its a very speculative assumption) it seems logical to conclude that orcs were not immortal, because immortality would never have been granted to them by Iluvatar in the first place.

[HerenIstarion]

it seems logical to conclude that orcs were not immortal, because immortality would never have been granted to them by Iluvatar in the first place

Bill, it seems to me you evaluate immortality here as some kind of a prize. I read somehow - "and for they were evil, Eru would never have granted them immortality". Maybe I err, correct me if I do. Still, if I don't, I think this is not the case. Elvish immortality is not prize, it's a given feature of elvish nature. So not giving orks immortality in case they were not corrupted elves was not the case of punishment or reward. Being mortal does not matter if they are not elves, and being immortal (within the confines of Arda) is just normal if they are.

[Bill Ferny]

HI,

Accepted. That's basically what I was getting at. "Granted" is confusing. Orcs are mortal, under the observation of orcs as an opposite model of antithesis, simply because they are not elves, and only elves seem to naturally be immortal.

[HerenIstarion]

And here, Bill, we get in at the problem of free will. We stressed on genetics in recent posts, but the main problem of orcs lies not with hroa, but with fea. The immortality of elves is a consequence of their souls being bound in the confines of the world. Hroa dies not, for fea is fated to be here.

Melkor is stated to be able to mock, not to create, twist, but not make. So whatever basical stuff he used to create orks, changes imposed were minor with regards of the whole thing. Acting on given starting material, he was working on strenghening characteristics useful for his purpose - say, twisting bravery to become violence, self preservation instinct to be cowardice etc. But he was unable to rob "given material" of it's main characeristic, given by Eru - free will. {In case he was, than he was much greater than we imagine, but JRRT states he was not). And elvish free will (btw, take a look at this (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=002229) also) is bound to operate as long as Arda lasts. So, in case orks are elves, they are immortal within the bounds of time exactly as "normal" elves are. Those which are human, die as all humans do. Those which are beasts, are unable to act without direct control of Dark Lord's (Morgoth or Sauron) adn scatter when aforesaid is overthrown.

I'll be so bold to say I guess why Tolkien was so unhappy with elvish origin, though it was so polished and fitting. In case Orks came from elves, somewhere deep down inside they are still Eruhini, and doing what they do, ultimate sinners. Now imagine multitude of those, the condition in which they die, and you get that on every Child of Eru acting in harmony (more or less) with his/her Creator, there are 50 almost (mark - almost) iredeemable orks. It's not so horrible with beasts - well, they are kind of automata, it's a pity something beautiful can be so twisted, but, well, they are just fea-less after all.

well, hasty as I am, I'm unable to back myself up with quotes right away. I'll come back to this later

[ November 06, 2002: Message edited by: HerenIstarion ]

[Palan]

Ah, now it seems we come to the crux of the issue "FREE WILL." Do orcs have it? Do elves and men have it?

It is merely my feeling that orcs do not have a "free will" in the confines of ME. Their wills are bound to a source of evil. But (here may be the controversial statement)I do not believe that man and elves were blessed with "free will." I have not brushed up on my Music of the Ainur in a while, but I believe the gist is that what will be is what is (ie fate); only Iluvatar can know the beginning and the end of the song. The choices that men/elves make are fated, not of their free choice. The prime example of this is Turin. He is cursed (fated to err, he had no control). Melkor actually worries that Turin (especially in the Girdle of Melian) may not sin/err because of his lineage and his true heart, but the curse is a part of Melkor's portion of the Music, Turin's fate is predestined.

Now how does this relate to the origin of orcs and immortality? Immortality is considered a gift meaning you are granted life everlasting without condition. Orcs who seem immortal are not because their long lives are with conditions, conditions which force them to be evil (much to their hate of their master).

One hole I can see is what happens after the Dagor Dagorath. If elves are immortal will they then cease to exist (ie die)? Then it could be said that orcs are as immortal as elves within the confines of ME (as long as evil exists, which it must), and, therefore, orcs do not have to be changed elves to achieve immortality; they only need wills everlastingly bound to evil.

Sorry if this is long and rambling. . .

[Bill Ferny]

I went ahead and read the thread on elven free will. Interesting, but since I'm such a late comer, I don't think I'll post there.

I disagree that Melkor couldn't rob an elf of free will, or any other creature. Free will is a faculty of reason, not the essence of man (or elf for that matter). I, a merely pitiful mortal man, can rob someone else of their free will, simply by drugging them, plying them with drink, or subtle manipulation over time. If I can do it, then Melkor could have done so as well, but with even more powerful effect.

There's more that I would like to comment about, but I have to go to work. smilies/mad.gif

[ November 05, 2002: Message edited by: Bill Ferny ]

[HerenIstarion]

Palan, I advise you to read Orcish Fear (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=8&t=000025) and The Role of Fate in ME (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=000473) threads. Many problems you pose are (succesfully?) solved there


As for your remark, Bill. I'd rather say free will is essential part and not mere faculty. You can force someone , or lure by lies, into doing something. Nevertheless, it does not mean aforesaid someone was not making moral choice on his/her behalf. "I'm killing him because someone else threatened to kill me if I don't" does not rob me of moral choice - free will. To clarify it a bit - free will for me is not "will to do whatever I will", but rather <font color="FF0013">"right to choose between what I'm given". And this kind of free will is always there for orks, if only they are of elven (or human at that)origin. Choosing (however forcibly they are driven to do it) to do evil, they are implying their own moral choice to produce their actions, and therefore are sinning.

[Bill Ferny]

As for your remark, Bill. I'd rather say free will is essential part and not mere faculty.

If it is essential, then it is defining, thus whether or not you are a human is determined by free will. You say that “free will for me is... [the] ’right to choose between what I'm given.’” Fair enough. You would have to concede that in order to make a choice you would have to apprehend something that you perceive as good (those things that you are given), and be able to judge, via reason, which of the given is superior. Choice, after all, isn’t an action that our souls exercise automatically devoid of all connection to mind and body. Free will, accordingly, at its core is an action, which is choice. Choice involves perception, apprehension and judgment. If free will is a defining principle of the human person, the defining principle of man is the act of choice, and all that it entails (desire, perception, apprehension and judgement).

The flip side is: It follows that those who are unable to choose are not human. A physical impediment that renders a subject unable to perceive, apprehend, judge, or even desire could not be defined as human. Thus, someone who is unconscious ceases to be human. This is the danger when we define rational beings, not by what they are, but by what they do. The powers of the rational soul can not be used to define, only to deduce, the nature of the rational soul.

Free will, itself, is doomed to obsolescence. Once man reaches his final end, the ultimate good (for which all particular choices are ordered), then there is no longer any need for choice. Thus, if free will is the essence of man, then man ceases to be man when he achieves his final end.

Free will is pragmatic faculty that belongs to the potency of the rational soul. It is free because man can will or not will, act or not act, and he can will this or that, and do this or that according to his reason. Free will, like any other power, can be affected or corrupted by external influences (accidents). Thankfully, the ability to exercise the power of free will is not what defines us as humans. Likewise, I don’t think the exercise of free will would define elves and elves. Thus elven free will is not bound, necessarily, to operate as long as Arda lasts, and can be hindered, corrupted and even twisted. Even elves can make the wrong choice as is evidenced by the kin strife, and most particularly by Galadriel’s test.

This, however, isn’t supposed to be a thread about free will, but about immortality. I have to do some more research, but I think I’m on to something.

[HerenIstarion]

I assume we can move along to elvish free will thread if bidden. But so far we are here, I’ll post some comments on above said here smilies/smile.gif

This is the danger when we define rational beings, not by what they are, but by what they do The powers of the rational soul can not be used to define, only to deduce, the nature of the rational soul.

Accepted. Definitely. But it seems to me I failed to express myself clearly. Free will exercised is faculty, <font color="FF0013">right to exercise it is essential. Given evidence convinces me that only humans have “right” of free will. And in case of Middle Earth the right is extended to elves (and dwarves) also. Let me further clarify: there is some standard against which “goodness” of “evilness” of any given person is measured. Of course I use rational thinking to judge which of possible actions conform to this standard and which not. This is action. But the right to perform such an action is not action in itself and is what makes me human. If I were stone, there would be no action of choosing whether fall on the ground or stay in the thin air for me. Just obedience. I’m free to disobey. Motto is not “I think therefore I am”, nor “I choose therefore I am”, but “I have right to choose, therefore I am”
Thankfully, the ability to exercise the power of free will is not what defines us as humans. Likewise, I don’t think the exercise of free will would define elves and elves.

Accepted again. Not ability, the right to exercise it would

It follows that those who are unable to choose are not human ... Thus, someone who is unconscious ceases to be human
It follows not. For the right is still there. (condsider series of statements: “all humans have right to be educated” , “one yer study in University costs 20000$”, and “my income is 15000$”. Conclusions? “I’m unable to study at the university”. Is my right damaged? No, for I’m unable to study due to external reasons, but i still retain the right. Not ability, but right is what defines me as a human. Or, to put it differently, broken PC is still PC, though is is “unable to operate”

Thus, if free will is the essence of man, then man ceases to be man when he achieves his final end.

No, because right is still there. I may be quite content with the situation and not performing “act of free will”, so not choosing to change anything. But that does not mean I have no right. Hey, man, the whole Melkor/Morgoth (evil elves, fallen men etc etc) situation occurred because of this right...

[ November 06, 2002: Message edited by: HerenIstarion ]

[HerenIstarion]

well, I'll try to back myself up:

L 153, to Peter Hastings

...having mentioned Free Will, I might say that in my myth I have used 'subcreation' in a special way (not the same as 'subcreation' as a term in criticism of art, though I tried to show allegorically how that might come to be taken up into Creation in some plane in my 'purgatorial' story Leaf by Niggle (Dublin Review 1945)) to make visible and physical the effects of Sin or misused Free Will by men. Free Will is derivative, and is.'. only operative within provided circumstances; but in order that it may exist, <font color="FF0013">it is necessary that the Author should guarantee it, whatever betides : sc. when it is 'against His Will', as we say, at any rate as it appears on a finite view. He does not stop or make 'unreal' sinful acts and their consequences. So in this myth, it is 'feigned' (legitimately whether that is a feature of the real world or not) that He gave special 'sub-creative' powers to certain of His highest created beings: that is a guarantee that what they devised and made should be given the reality of Creation. Of course within limits, and of course subject to certain commands or prohibitions. But if they 'fell', as the Diabolus Morgoth did, and started making things 'for himself, to be their Lord', these would then 'be', even if Morgoth broke the supreme ban against making other 'rational' creatures like Elves or Men. They would at least 'be' real physical realities in the physical world, however evil they might prove, even 'mocking' the Children of God. They would be Morgoth's greatest Sins, abuses of his highest privilege, and would be creatures begotten of Sin, and naturally bad. (I nearly wrote 'irredeemably bad'; but that would be going too far. Because by accepting or tolerating their making – necessary to their actual existence – even Orcs would become part of the World, which is God's and ultimately good.) But whether they could have 'souls' or 'spirits' seems a different question; and since in my myth at any rate I do not conceive of the <font color="FF0013">making of souls or spirits, things of an equal order if not an equal power to the Valar, as a possible 'delegation', I have represented at least the Orcs as pre-existing real beings on whom the Dark Lord has exerted the fullness of his power in remodelling and corrupting them, not making them. That God would 'tolerate' that, seems no worse theology than the toleration of the calculated dehumanizing of Men by tyrants that goes on today. There might be other 'makings' all the same which were more like puppets filled (only at a distance) with their maker's mind and will, or ant-like operating under direction of a queen-centre.

highlighted sentencs stand for:

a) Right to use free will is always there (I mean it in general, but we may narrow to Tolkien's myth only as well)

b) Since unable to create souls (fear), Morgoth would have been unable to modify their main charasteristics.

So, having in mind that:

325 From a letter to Roger Lancelyn Green

The Valar had neither the power nor the right to confer 'immortality' upon them

The contrary is assumed to be impossible also, so (if) orcs were twisted elves, they were immortal (within the bounds of the world)

But this if is not essential, since JRRT, not being content with elven theory, gave us "pre-existing real beings" instead


and to summarizeit all, I would like to quote note from HoME X, entitled Orks. I'm giving it in full, for it's not so long, but is most interesting, since who's the best source than the author?


Orcs.

Their nature and origin require more thought. They are not easy
to work into the theory and system.
(1). As the case of Aule and the Dwarves shows, only Eru could make creatures with independent wills, and with reasoning powers. But Orcs seem to hav both: they can try to cheat Morgoth/Sauron, rebel against him, or criticize him.

(2). ?Therefore they must be corruptions of something pre-existing.
(3). But Men had not yet appeared, when the Orcs already existed. Aule constructed the Dwarves out of his memory of the Music; but Eru would not sanction the work of Melkor so as to allow the independence of the Orcs.(Not unless Orcs were ultimately remediable, or could be amended and 'saved'?)
It also seems clear (see 'Finrod and Andreth') that though Melkor could utterly corrupt and ruin individuals,it is not possible to contemplate his absolute perversion of a whole people,or group of peoples,and his making that state heritable[Added later: This latter must (if a fact) be an act of Eru.]
In that case Elves, as a source, are very unlikely. And are Orcs 'immortal', in the Elvish sense? Or trolls?It seems clearly implied in The Lord of the Rings that trolls existed in their own right, but were 'tinkered' with by Melkor

(4).What of talking beasts and birds with reasoning and speech? These have been rather lightly adopted from less 'serious' mythologies, but play a part which cannot now be excised.They are certainly 'exceptions' and not much used, but
sufficiently to show they are a recognized feature of the world.
All other creatures accept them as natural if not common.
But true 'rational'creatures, 'speaking peoples',are all of human/'humanoid' form. Only the Valar and Maiar are intelligences that can assume forms of Arda at will. Huan and Sorontar could be Maiar-emissaries of Manwe. But unfortunately in The Lord of the Rings Gwaehir and Landroval are said to be descendants of Sorontar.
In any case is it likely or possible that even the least of the Maiar would become Orcs? Yes: both outside Arda and in it, before the fall of Utumno. Melkor had corrupted many spirits - some great, as Sauron, or less so, as Balrogs. The least could have been primitive (and much more powerful and perilous) Orcs; but by practising when embodied procreation they would (cf.Melian) become more and more earthbound, unable to return to spirit-state (even demon-form),until released by death
(killing),and they would dwindle in force. When released they would, of course, like Sauron, be 'damned': i.e. reduced to impotence, infinitely recessive: still hating but unable more and more to make it effective physically (or would not a very
dwindled dead Orc-state be a poltergeist?).
But again - would Eru provide fear for such creatures? For the Eagles etc. perhaps. But not for Orcs
It does however seem best to view Melkor's corrupting power as always starting, at least, in the moral or theological level. Any creature that took him for Lord (and especially those who
blasphemously called him Father or Creator) became soon corrupted in all parts of its being, the fea dragging down the
hroa in its descent into Morgothism: hate and destruction. <font color="FF0013">As for Elves being 'immortal': they in fact only had enormously long lives, and were themselves physically 'wearing out', and suffering a slow progressive weakening of their bodies.
In summary: I think it must be assumed that 'talking' is not necessarily the sign of the possession of a 'rational soul' or fea.
<font color="FF0013">The Orcs were beasts of humanized shape (to mock Men and Elves) deliberately perverted converted into a more close resemblance to Men. Their 'talking' was really reeling off 'records' set in them by Melkor.Even their rebellious critical words - he knew about them. Melkor taught them speech and as they bred they inherited this; and they had just as much
independence as have, say, dogs or horses of their human masters. This talking was largely echoic (cf. parrots). In The
Lord of the Rings Sauron is said to have devised a language for them

The same sort of thing may be said of Huan and the Eagles:
they were taught language by the Valar, and raised to a higher
level - but they still had no fear.
But Finrod probably went too far in his assertion that Melkor could not wholly corrupt any work of Eru, or that Eru would
(necessarily) interfere to abrogate the corruption, or to end the being of His own creatures because they had been corrupted
and fallen into evil

<font color="FF0013">It remains therefore terribly possible there was an Elvish strain in the Orcs These may then even have been mated with beasts (sterile!) - and later Men. Their life-span would be diminished.And dying they would go to Mandos and be held in prison till the End.

[ CT - The text as written ends here, but my father subsequently added the
following passage. The words with which it opens are a reference to
text Vl, Melkor Morgoth (p. 390). ]

See 'Melkor'. It will there be seen that the wills of Orcs and Balrogs etc. are part of Melkor's power 'dispersed'. Their spirit is one of hate. But hate is non-cooperative (except under direct fear). Hence the rebellions, mutinies, etc. when Morgoth seems far off. <font color="FF0013">Orcs are beasts and Balrogs corrupted Maiar. Also (n.b.) Morgoth not Sauron is the source of Orc-wills. Sauron is just another (if greater) agent. Orcs can rebel against him without losing their own irremediable allegiance to evil (Morgoth). Aule wanted love. But of course had no thought of dispersing his power. Only Eru can give love and independence. If a finite sub-creator tries to do this he really wants absolute loving obedience, but it turns into robotic servitude and becomes evil.

Hence 12 Orkish Statemenst above, complied with regards of already published works

*H-Iwipes his brow

finished

[Bill Ferny]

I’ve been researching, as I said above, and came up with the conclusion:

ELVES ARE NOT IMMORTAL!

As the direct quote from HoME is already given in HI’s post just above (talk about a coincidence!), I don’t see any reason to repeat it. Elves had long lives, extremely long lives, but were in a state of fading away. First they are to fade away in ME, and then, perhaps a bit slower, in the Undying Lands.

So no matter which way you might consider the problem, whether you are contemplating the corruption of elves, or the creation of a new animal, orcs are not immortal. It also solves the problem of immortality in spite of fallen nature. I’m very thankful for that, as I was racking my brain trying to come up with an explanation for elves as existing with a fallen nature (because they are given moral choice among lesser goods), but not suffering from a fallen nature (suffering physical corruption).

HI, your thoughts flow more toward ethics than human nature, and in that is probably where our disagreement had its source. While I was busy defining free will, you had already moved toward the ought of free will. “Ought” entails a choice that is ordered to the greater good, and, of course, it can be said that it is every rational being’s right (as in an individual freedom/responsibility, such as the right of free speech) to choose rightly (as in for the greater good). However, I wouldn’t go so far as to make that a defining principle of rational beings. A right, to use the language of contemporary thought, is something that belongs as inalienable to the individual, but only because that individual possesses a dignity of nature that goes beyond an individual’s so called rights. Individual rights logically follows upon nature, not the other way around.

I think, though, that I still understand what you are saying. Simply, the more one chooses rightly, the more one is ordered toward the good, then the more rational, and thus the more human, one is. Conversely, the less one is ordered toward the good, the less one is human. Moral choice isn’t a peripheral of human existence, it is something that makes a rational being more “in being.” It is something that perfects our existence as humans. I agree with this completely.

In regard to orcs, I assumed that they had some degree of rational existence (as well as eagles, etc.). However, I’ve discovered from a thorough reading of chapter ten in HoME, that Tolkien thought orcs were not rational beings, but merely talking animals. (Once again, I’m indebted to HI for doing the cutting and pasting from HoME.) I found this very interesting, and relieving. First, it takes all moral culpability away from orcs. As the minions of evil, they are merely extensions of Melkor’s/Sauron’s culpability. Secondly, it makes the wanton destruction of orcs perfectly alright. There is no need to justify killing an orc, because it can’t be murder. (So, you go, dwarves!) There’s no reason to believe that orcs can be “saved,” to borrow a term from Christianity. The struggle with orc kind is truly a struggle between light and dark, good and evil, and it can be won only with the extermination or complete domination of one or the other.

This actually would ensure the continued existence of men and maybe dwarves in the case of victory of the dark forces. Orcs would not be the kinds of thralls that would satisfy Melkor’s/Sauron’s need for complete domination. Their greatest and most prized slaves would be those who could practice moral choice.

[HerenIstarion]

Mr. Ferny, let me shake your hand smilies/smile.gif

Hope someday we may blow out smoke together for the sake of clearing minds

[Palan]

Well put Bill!!!

By jove, I thinked you figured it out.