Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle
To answer that, I would like to emphasise the "free" part of free will: freedom implies a lack of constraints, or -- put another way -- an infinitude of possibility. One's will is unfettered by all considerations other than what the will desires.
|
I disagree. Free will is not unfettered in our world and so it can never be unfettered in any fantasy world which approximates to our own. "Free" within this context, therefore, cannot be construed as impying a total lack of constraints.
We necessarily have limited free will because we cannot do whatever we desire. I could not simpy walk through the Alps, even though I might desire to do so. I would have to walk either round or over them (and even then I would not have unlimited free will to do so as I liked). In both our world and in Middle-earth there can be no such thing as unlimited free will, and so the phrase "free will" must necessarily imply a degree of restriction.
Of course, Middle-earth is not our own world, and so free will within it is of a different nature. In many respects it is more restricted, as a consequence of matters such as the existence of Eru's plan, the immortality of the Elves and the various Dooms that are pronounced. But, limited though it may be, free will still exists.
And I would argue that the existence of free will does not preclude the operation of fate. If someone is fated to do or experience something, that does not prevent them exercising their free will in matters which do not impact upon that fated outcome. Even with regard to matters which do impact on it, they still have (limited) free will to choose the path which gets them there. Turin, for example, had freedom of action in many respects, but could not avoid the Doom which Morgoth had pronounced. His free will was limited by his fate. But he nevertheless had (limited) free will.
So I will vote for both.