Lord of the Rings and Philosophy @ Concordia University Wisconsin

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

This is psychology; its presumptions are numerous:
(1) being true to oneself is paramount.
(2) being true to one's creator is not important.
(3) there is enough power within the self to "achieve integration".

To posit this Jungian psychological perspective as that which Tolkien really was talking about, is erroneous at best.

1) I don't think I ever said it was paramount. I stated it was necessary.
2) I don't think I said this either. Actually I don't think the two things are not mutually exclusive.
3) I didn't say this either. I simply said it has to start with the individual, & that if it doesn't it can't happen at all.

Thank you for making this admission.

I don't see it as an 'admission' as it isn't actually in contradiction to anything else I've ever said. My approach is to take the text as given, & not to read into it anything from 'outside'. There is no mention of 'eternal damnation' in Tolkien's work, hence, I see no justification (& certainly no necessity) for reading it in. Whether one does or not says more about the reader than it does about the text.

It would be nice if what we prefer is actually the way things are. It is valuable when philosophy itself is the pursuit of understanding reality for what it is, rather than that which may be preferred.

And what is 'the way things actually are'? The point of philosophy (as opposed to theology) is to ask this very question & strive to answer it from experience or logical investigation, not to start from the position of 'assuming that which is to be proved' & trying to make reality fit owns own pre-conceived belief system. I haven't come across any indisputable theory about what 'reality' actually is.