The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post

Lalwendë · 03-23-2005, 04:13 AM

This point depends upon whether it is a tree or an Ent which is being described as 'black-hearted'. Surely a non sentient creature cannot be described as good or evil, as it does not have sufficient consciousness to be able to decide. If we say that it can indeed be evil, then this suggests that evil and goodness can be inherent and that we can do nothing about them, therefore there is no chance for redemption etc. It's the thorny (and wormy) nature vs nurture question.

But something else strikes me as interesting in terms of Arda. Were the Ents once non-sentient in some way? Did the Elves 'awaken' their consciousness and therefore their nature as sentient beings? If so, then this might suggest other creatures have the potential to be sentient.

There's a live thread about whether animals could talk, and these tie together at this point, as we have to ask what it is that makes a non-humanoid (for want of a better word) creature sentient or not.

Trying to classify which creatures are evil and which are not is a bit of a minefield but is possible. We could define categories as those which have been bred for the purpose of evil (e.g. fell beasts), those which have been enslaved (e.g. oliphaunts), those which are employed by the good forces (e.g. horses), and those which are unaffiliated (e.g. trees). But I don't like to do this as where do we start and stop? Can we blame the fell beast for having been bred that way (and a creature is a very different thing to a ring)? And what of the oliphaunt, unfortunate enough to be a massive beast of burden and so dragged into conflict against its nature?

My own feeling tells me that Tolkien was trying to say that nature is 'outside' our concerns of good or bad, that it simply exists for its own sake. He shows us where creatures are 'used' or enslaved, and shows us where they fight back; he also shows us that despite what human-like species do, certain aspects of nature will act independently regardless of good or bad. On the one hand there are the moral forces, and on the other, the forces where morals do not matter. This is why I think the trickster figure is best represented in nature within Arda. How are we to say that a tree is good or bad? It is simply a tree. It has some kind of consciousness but it is beyond our comprehension.

03-23-2005, 04:13 AM	#29
Lalwendë A Mere Boggart Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: under the bed Posts: 4,737	This point depends upon whether it is a tree or an Ent which is being described as 'black-hearted'. Surely a non sentient creature cannot be described as good or evil, as it does not have sufficient consciousness to be able to decide. If we say that it can indeed be evil, then this suggests that evil and goodness can be inherent and that we can do nothing about them, therefore there is no chance for redemption etc. It's the thorny (and wormy) nature vs nurture question. But something else strikes me as interesting in terms of Arda. Were the Ents once non-sentient in some way? Did the Elves 'awaken' their consciousness and therefore their nature as sentient beings? If so, then this might suggest other creatures have the potential to be sentient. There's a live thread about whether animals could talk, and these tie together at this point, as we have to ask what it is that makes a non-humanoid (for want of a better word) creature sentient or not. Trying to classify which creatures are evil and which are not is a bit of a minefield but is possible. We could define categories as those which have been bred for the purpose of evil (e.g. fell beasts), those which have been enslaved (e.g. oliphaunts), those which are employed by the good forces (e.g. horses), and those which are unaffiliated (e.g. trees). But I don't like to do this as where do we start and stop? Can we blame the fell beast for having been bred that way (and a creature is a very different thing to a ring)? And what of the oliphaunt, unfortunate enough to be a massive beast of burden and so dragged into conflict against its nature? My own feeling tells me that Tolkien was trying to say that nature is 'outside' our concerns of good or bad, that it simply exists for its own sake. He shows us where creatures are 'used' or enslaved, and shows us where they fight back; he also shows us that despite what human-like species do, certain aspects of nature will act independently regardless of good or bad. On the one hand there are the moral forces, and on the other, the forces where morals do not matter. This is why I think the trickster figure is best represented in nature within Arda. How are we to say that a tree is good or bad? It is simply a tree. It has some kind of consciousness but it is beyond our comprehension. __________________ Gordon's alive!