Quote:
|
Originally Posted by davem
Of course, we're back to the Manichaean/Boethian thing - is the Ring an external power of evil, which can overcome anyone simply by its overwhelming power, or is it something which brings out the innate 'evil' tendencies in the individual?
|
I am not sure that seeing everyone as being vulnerable to the Ring requires one to firmly take either one view or the other on this issue. One might see the Ring as an external power which is able to corrupt anyone regardless of their virtue. But equally, one can view it as every individual, regardless of their virtue, being vulnerable to it as a result of their being a part of "Arda marred". If Gandalf and Saruman, Maia who came into being prior to the marring of Arda, were vulnerable to temptation, I fail to see how Aragorn, Faramir and Sam could somehow be immune to it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by davem
Why? Well, it seems that the ones who can reject it are the ones with spiritual values & goals which are in direct opposition to what the Ring seems to offer. Simply, the ring can offer nothing to Aragorn, Faramir, Elrond or Sam that they would actually want - they have no desire to 'possess' it.
|
But aren't Gandalf's spiritual values and goals also in opposition to eveything that the Ring has to offer? His raison d'etre (at least within Middle-earth) is to defeat Sauron and he knows that this can only truly be accomplished through the destruction of the Ring. Yet he considers himself to be vulnerable to it. Aragorn's purpose too is in direct opposition to that of Sauron. If it is within contemplation that Gandalf would be tempted to use the Ring to acheive his goal, then I don't see how it cannot be within contemplation that Aragorn would also be tempted to use the Ring to achieve his purpose. The same goes for Faramir. Like his brother, he is opposed to Sauron. The difference between them is that he recognises that such opposition is best pursued through methods other than strength of arms alone. But the Ring could still tempt him by offering him the possibility of defeating Sauron, although the means by which that was to be acheived might be different from those which it offered Boromir. As for Sam, well clearly the Ring does have something to offer him because it does indeed offer it to him. He is tempted, but is able to overcome temptation both through the strength of his will, but also because his exposure to it was limited.
My position is that everyone was vulnerable to the Ring. It had something to offer everyone (because eveyone has desires and goals). The difference between characters like Boromir and Smeagol on the one hand and Faramir, Aragorn and Sam on the other is that they have the virtue and strength of will to resist it for longer, and therefore are able to overcome their moments of temptation. But the more prolonged their exposure, the less able they would be to resist it.
Otherwise, why was Frodo chosen to bear the Ring and not Sam?