I have no idea ...
 

I have no idea what I'm doing here. I didn't plan this. But this drunkenness has to stop. Maybe it was at the Dancing Pony. Whatever. My soul lies somewhere else and I intend to end up there. If I break out of this prison of drunks I'm sure, with some help, I can find my way home. I know there will be storms on the horizon, avalanches in the abyss, and Night Riders. But I have nothing to lose now. I just want to go home.

I have no idea either. What the...?
 

Er... yes. Quite.:confused:

Um...WOW!

The poster tried relating his post to LotR, sadly he failed as it's The Prancing Pony, not Dancing!

No, the Dancing Pony is a rival establishment across the street.

Hmmmm...this is sounding somewhat Existential, in this case Atheistic Existentialism and the questioning of God's presence in the world. Let's see if this point is carried forward.

Anxiety, perhaps a bit of dread. Yes, Existential.

Ah, a very Sartre-like premise regarding 'bad faith'. Bad Faith is seen as any denial of free will by lying to oneself about one's self and freedom.

Hmmm...a divergence. Pantheism perhaps? Worship of nature? Druidical worship of the equine as in the great chalk carving on White Horse Hill?

The Existential view of intersubjectivity referred to as the 'Other".

Hmmm...now we're dealing with a more Russian variant of Existentiality, a bit of the Absurd as expressed by Dostoevsky, or perhaps more of a Kafka-esque view of the world as a 'prison of drunks'.

Dread is very evident here. The anxiety virtually seethes in this statement.

Nihilism and existentialism converge as a profound statement on the self.

By the statement 'I just want to go home', does the author imply he is in a self-imposed exile? Where then did he type this missive? Or having drank the bitter dregs of Existentialism and Nihilism, is he in fact pining for the brighter philosophy of his youth? Perhaps the Leibnizian optimism of 'the best of all possible worlds'? I fear without further dialogue, we are left with conjecture.

In any case, welcome to The Barrow Downs, where drunkeness is a token of liberation and preservation (as in Tolkien's Elvish cordial Miruvor), and not the Nihilistic libation of desperation.***

***Disclaimer: No Existentialists were harmed in the making of this post.

ok... i didn't know BD has suddenly transformed into an existentialist philosophy forum.

seriously now, what the hell--

Well then, given Tolkien's ardent Catholicism, would you prefer the post to be analyzed from the point of view of Boethius' Consolation of Philosophy or Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica? Given his philosophical bent, I think Tolkien would have preferred Boethius (more Platonic than Aristotlean).

Umm... I'm confused now. But that isn't uncommon.:rolleyes:

Wow! I had no idea that I was so exposed. I think I'll retreat to Grimwood. It's the Light you see - kinda dazzles me. Not use to it. Oh, don't think I'm some Bog from Scritzenwold. I'm really quite friendly - when you get to know me.

But I think I better have 'one for the road'.

Cue theme from "Twilight Zone."

No don't go.... you have us intrigued now :D

my, i never thought...
 

*digs up old CL 121 notes*

So Catholicism=Boethius? Pardon me, I'm Catholic. I don't like Boethius. I think it's kinda a joke--a very flat view of Poetry, by God! The Muses were pagan, they and the arts catered to sensuous and earthly interests, Philosophy is the true medicine of the soul. I don't think Tolkien would have preferred Boethius. I think he'd prefer old Thomas, compared to Boethius: neither the eternity of the world nor the contrary could be demonstrated by pure logic; the bible provides teh necessary authoritative info on that point. The soul is the form of the body (Aristotelian), but the soul is immortal. All in all, his teaching on this matter is closer to Augustine and his Christian Neo-Platonism.

But I think it's to old Augustine he may be most drawn. Augustine's Christian Neo-Platonism (or was it Plotinus'? Help!) said that the universe is hierarchical,

1. Bodies, which are least unified, many, can always be fragmented into parts, can always perish

2. Souls, also fragmented, but not as badly as bodies. Souls are absorbed into bodies; without it they are weak. Unified they are powerful as they turn to contemplate forms in the intellect above

3. Intellect. Eternally and uninterruptedly contemplates the intelligible forms within it and is thus identical with them (intellect=intelligible world)

4. The One. So unified it cannot be articulated.

--

Now doesn't it sound a bit like Tolkien?

--

My point, which you lot may have missed--and I don't blame you!--the first post is kinda like... a joke.

As a matter of fact, Lindale, I suspect that possibility has occurred to other posters.

Boethius was mentioned a lot at the Tolkien Society Seminar - I must look up my notes on it...

OOOOHHHH. I'd love to hear about it. Unfortunately I haven't been into any Tokien seminar at all. I heard there's a Philippine Tolkien Society, but that was years ago, I don't know if it's still out there.

Anyway I don't like Boethius. *stomps foot like a nasty little spoiled brat*