I think that the question of free will has represented a challenge to reasoning and insight on many levels over the ages - philosophical, religious, and scientific - and continues to do so. For example, the current notions of genetic determinism, from Dawkins' 'selfish gene' supposition, to oppositional theories of teleological evolution (Shepherd et al), is a hot area.
So I don't come to the debate with answers, and perhaps not expecting them, either. But in terms of Tolkien's narrative and cosmology, the inherent conundrum of free will within a creation (or subcreation) mythos was something he identified and reflected upon, as shown in the quotes above, and in his letter to Milton Waldman -
Quote:
|
the problem: that (this) frightful evil can and does arise from an apparently good root ... is a recurrent motive (in The Silmarillion)
|
There are a number of diverting but perhaps unnecessary offshoots to the discussion which take us into semantics and chains of causal reasoning - such as the question of whether 'evil' is something one does, or something one is ... or whether within each hypothesis it can effectively be considered either a cause or an effect (or both) ... or whether we should accept that we cannot overlay the subtle and awesome complexity of an omnipotent creator (from world religions or Tolkien [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]) with a man-made system of rationalisation such as logical reasoning, which is so deeply flawed and human, and can only be applied by subclassifying elements which we actually experience as a simultaneous whole ... and so on.
Whilst all of these are interesting (to me, at least), I think it is important first of all to refute as far as possible the notion of a clumsy determinism such as " 'Evil' A murdered 'Good' B, and 'Evil' C murdered 'Good' D, but then 'Evil' A murdered 'Evil' C before being brought to justice by 'Good' E, so A was in fact 'Good' in the end". Does anybody really think life is that simple? We all commit and are subject to small and large injustices and acts of selfishness throughout our lives - if you do not accept that divine judgement takes place then there are no grounds for assuming things are or should be neatly wrapped up or resolved, and if you DO believe in divine judgement then surely it is equally impossible to resolve the vast and jumbled array of positives and negatives that we can perceive.
I have told with some authority that the "inner peace" of any believer comes not from a logical rationalisation of empirically observed incidents, but from a transcendental act of faith and/or moment of revelation. Can we therefore actually say that
redemption is the same as "turning out alright in a causal way in the end"? I think redemption in a spiritual sense is something different from any kind of abstract justice (or return to equilibrium), and can occur as a result of free will - therefore being considered seperately from the notion of a divine plan or inevitable resolution.
The 'toleration' of free will, as Tolkien puts it, even to the extent of subcreation by powerful beings such as Melkor exercising that free will, is half of the conundrum to which he refers above. The concept that, in the presence of a (or the) Creator, free will operates within limited boundaries is not really a workable axiom ... it's a bit like saying
"You can do what you want, as long as what you want is what I want". In the end, free will is either free or not, the concept itself cannot be subject to gradations and still exist as that concept.
But to make matters more complicated [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img], the other half of the conundrum is the only way in which can attempt to address the first! That is to say, how does any evil arise from utter goodness (at any level of subcreation). If something - anything - is complete, consistent and all there is, for example a blank piece of white paper, how do black spots suddenly appear on the whiteness? If they were not there to start with, they must have been created ... even in order to be 'permitted', they must have been created.
The way in which each sub-contradiction addresses the other is that through the presence of free will, evil can arise as a result of good. But for that free will to occur, it must be willed (created) and tolerated. You can indeed argue that an acceptable axiomatic principle cannot be created from two flawed axioms ... and you would inevitably end up in a reflection on
a priori and
a posteriori assertions, or descend into Kantian analytics and synthetics (oh yes, lets [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]).
Behind all this is the logical problem of causality itself. You cannot really logically have a first cause (or final cause) which are somehow exempt from empirically observable causality.
I hope I haven't gone too way out (in other words I think I have). But what my line of argument is intended to illustrate is the irreconcilable nature of causality (which is our only rational means of measuring justice, good, evil and so on) with divinity (which is our only means of rationalising the actual existence of good, evil etc. - if you accept that existence).
It seems clear to me that Tolkien never resolved this level of philosophical problem, or indeed attempted to. And perhaps we could consider that 'contradiction' as an inherent and inevitable state might be something with which we can accept or acknowledge our humanity. And humanity is what the narrative is about .... not a dry system of determinist pinball or
deus ex machina reassurance.
Somebody else say something [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] ....
Peace
Kalessin
[ November 26, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]