Quote:
|
Originally Posted by davem
But why is it necessary for the Valar to have been 'created' - they could just as easily have been the creators themselves. If Eru can exist without any origin so could the Valar.
|
That's a good point. In many of the traditional mythologies the setting of the first actions are there already: a host of deities just are (being) and then they will perform a thing or two, resulting in the creation of a middle-earth on the way.
In the beginning of the
Ainulindalë Tolkien writes that the Ainur were the offspring of his thought (God, I still hate that masculine form here, more than earlier indeed). I think it's not too far-fetched to see the influence of the "second creation" myth in the Bible in this (in the beginning of John) and the overall monotheistic view overshadowing the early mythologies the prof wished to renew in a way.
Quote:
|
If Eru can exist without any origin, so could the Valar
|
In the early mythologies, yes, but within thinking that is twisted with monotheism, not. I think here the prof took sides. It was not probably very common of him to do that but one can guess that at the roots of one's most fundamental metaphysical beliefs it's hard to stay calm and not bring one's own beliefs into the play?