Thenamir, some interesting reasoning, but - like Tolkien - you do not resolve the essential contradictions that I outlined above. You said ...
Quote:
|
... Eru says that he (Melkor) only need submit to Eru's authority and he will be free to act ...
|
As I described earlier, this pretty much equates to
"do what you want as long as it's what I want". You can't call that 'free' will, and never mind Melkor, no upright and moral human being would consider it
just - UNLESS you accept the omnipotent benevolence of a Creator that transcends human understanding, and therefore submit as an act of faith. And, as I pointed out, submitting through faith doesn't square with a valid axiomatic system of punishment, reward and responsibility for one's own actions.
You address the seond part of the puzzle as follows -
Quote:
|
... (in Tolkien etc.) an all-knowing Creator can foresee and incorporate the volition of evil into his plans for good. The transgression is still a transgression of the law laid down, but it cannot impede or hinder the inexorable march of the will of the Creator. He holds all the cards! He knew the thoughts of Melkor for all the plans he might devise, and planned for his selfish braying in advance.
|
This again I discussed in my earlier post, the philosophical conundrum of how a Creator that is both omnipotent and omniscient can allow Evil without in some way bearing responsibility for that Evil. Again, in Western Christian theology from St Augustine onwards this has been a thorny issue.
If everything has been foreseen and predestined, nothing can be called 'free' will. We may as well be robots, programmed with a delusion of consciousness and unable to perceive that all our acts are guided. Perhaps there is some link here to current developments in artificial intelligence, but I won't go there [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img].
Now, you don't need to to believe in divine intervention to accept that ALL actions are predestined and inevitable. If you simply follow the principle of empirical causality to it's inevitable end it is an unavoidable conclusion that whatever happens is the only thing that could possibly happen in those given circumstances (and all the circumstances leading up to it). In pure logical science there is no such thing as 'coincidence' or 'choice'. But with a nod to Chaos theory, what keeps it interesting is that the multiplicity of variables and precendents to any given moment are generally impossible to account for sufficently to enable US to know what the (inevitable) next step will be.
I should stress I do
not personally adhere to absolutist causal determinism, and I have real problems with the Dawkins 'selfish gene' supposition. But if you are attempting to assert a valid and logical morality in which both divinity and free will play a part, you are going to have to address these contradictions.
And, as discussed, it is only through Faith or through blurring the definitions of words such as 'destiny' that one can accept that free will can exist alongside omniscient omnipotence, or that any negative consequences of free will do not in effect morally tarnish the Creator.
If 2000 years of theology and philosophy have failed to really resolve these issues, I'm not suggesting I can [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img].
But what I will say is that somehow, we CAN and do intuitively accept and understand this dichotomy, and the technical contradictions do NOT invalidate the profound effect of morality. Hume discussed this, the ability to incorporate 'assumptions' into consciousness rather than only accepting empirical absolutes - and in this case, the assumptions themselves are contradictory but NOT irreconcilable with our humanity. This is the great leap of human consciousness, the fluidity of mind and ability to create and dismantle artifice ... and through this we can find Tolkien inspiring, moving and meaningful without needing to, or being able to, entirely rationalise a worldview in absolute and logical terms.
Aiwendil [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]
I have a feeling you've agreed with me more on this post than on any other I can remember! Hopefully my responses above address part of your excellent post, and I take your point about free will and the laws of physics, except that if free will is a 'created' factor and the laws of physics/morality etc. are likewise 'created', then our freedom is constrained by 'moral design' rather than amoral causality, and therefore would require faith to simply accept the constraints as just. If Angels came and interacted with men, I'm pretty sure within a short term some right-minded citizen would take them to litigation on the basis that their ability to fly and pass between dimensions gave them an unfair competitive advantage and led to discrimination [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]
The issue of redemption in itself, is a particularly interesting concept. Are we saying that ALL redemption is contingent on the judgement of the Law giver or Creator? Is it NEVER possible to redeem oneself through conscience, voluntary acts of contrition or compensation? This presents a challenge that has again been addressed in theological studies ... as before perhaps,it is only Faith that can allow us to accept this arbitrary rigor.
I also agree strongly that if you place the discussion within absolute boundaries - how do things work on Middle Earth / what did Tolkien intend etc. - you can straightforwardly accept the fact that within this narrative such axioms ARE, whether or not they can be entirely "valid". But our ability to accept them in a world created by Tolkien AND in 'our' real world is not so different - and our challenges to these assertions here can just as much be made to Tolkien's world as part of this discussion. After all, as I pointed out Tolkien himself was at least aware of the philosophical problems - and I still maintain he did not resolve them.
By the way, I'm enjoying your 'subjective / objective' discussion on another recent thread, and am exercising great self-discipline in not butting in ... we've been there before [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img].
In your articulate reflections on the Manichean vs Boetheian hypotheses you make the point that Tolkien's ambiguity is a strong point. I agree whole-heartedly, and believe that this illustrates the two key points - one, that he did not resolve the philosophical problems into a a dry and mechanistic moral causality - and secondly, that contradictions, ambiguities and mysticism are an essential part of humanity and creativity, as much a given as any empirical absolutes. This is really the thrust of my whole argument ... in relation to the wider issues and in the bubble of ME. That contradictions and ambiguities, in perception, action and morality are what being human is, and are arguably at the root of our creative experience.
Good posts, everyone [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]
Peace
Kalessin
[ November 27, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]