[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by R.R.J Tolkien

I dont pretend to know all of Tolkien's thoughts and understandings, only what he has written. I would recommend reading his letters

https://www.amazon.com/Letters-J-R-R.../dp/0618056998


many of them are just the kind of answers you seek. People ask questions or point out supposed contradictions and he gives them the answer and understanding.

But I'm not asking Tolkien, I'm asking what you think of it. I did not see a contradiction until you quoted the letters. How would you yourself describe the situation if you had to elaborate on it?

But i also i dont think Gandalf totally changed as in a new creation wholly. Tolkien said

"Of course he remains similar in personality and idiosyncrasy"

Ah, and I guess there is where the great debate comes on. Is a person's being (soul, essence, mind, whatever) independent of external factors or behaviours, or is a person only what he does and how he acts? Is idiosyncrasy the most superficial or most deep layer of a person's being?

I have been approaching this question from the angle that one's being is a given constant: a sum of what one is, which may or may not be applied to the outside as personality and behaviour. As such, "enhancing" one's innate power is changing that sum. But if I begin on the opposite side, that you shape yourself and your essence is what you make of your life, then I can see some possibilities. Gandalf, Grey and White, had the same convictions and the same commitments, and as such would remain the same person even if something in his internal workings was altered to give more strength to these convictions and commitments. He'd be the same, but even more Gandalf than previously.

Alternatively, there is a possibility that can apply to either scenario: Gandalf was not altered internally, but rather was lent the power from the outside to carry out his task with a greater authority. Whether the power in question be Manwe or Eru, when needed Gandalf would speak with their voice and their authority, and as such would indeed be enhanced from an unsupported Gandalf. This can be related to The Voice of Saruman, where Gandalf has authority over one who was above his rank - in part because of Saruman's own fall, but perhaps in part because Gandalf carries with him a higher authority than either of them. Perhaps this is the main reason such an authority would be lent - to cast down the previous leader and give the new leader a leader's power - because such authority and confidence is not evident when Gandalf deals with the Nazgul and Sauron generally. I actually rather like this idea but unfortunately it seems a bit of a stretch on the quotes you provided.

He did not go into much more detail so it is guess work from here. Gandalf the grey truly died we know that, and Gandalf the white was an upgrade version perhaps would be best way of understanding it.

Except this is exactly what I have trouble accepting. You don't "upgrade" what is already made. That implies tinkering that which makes them them. It's an unmaking of what was to make something new.

I can't agree more that death can't not make a difference. But to me that difference is passive, a result of the process of death and rebirth. The quotes and your words both imply that the difference was caused not by the mere happening of death, but rather that Gandalf was actively "accepted" and "enhanced". This actually contradicts the first idea, as it implies the change was not due to death and rebirth but rather due to someone's meddling.