‘Canonicity’: the Book or the Reader?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Lalwende

Everyone makes their own 'truths', this is the nature of us as individuals.

Does this work? What exactly does 'truth' mean in this context? Opinion? can something be considered 'true' simply because an individual believes it? Doesn't it have to be related to 'Facts', to a concept of what is TRUE. Mathematics doesn't work in that way, why should metaphysics? If we're all simply to pick what we like, believe it, & have it generally accepted as 'true' because of that, where do we end up? Its equivalent to people rejecting the established moral code (Ten commandments, whatever) because they refuse to be bound by traditional morality & feel they should be free to determine what is moral & immoral. What we usually end up with in most cases is people constructing a 'moral' code for themselves which permits them the freedom to do whatever they wish & only forbids them to do things that they wouldn't want to do anyway. A Nazi or a paedophile could construct a 'moral' code of their own which declared that death camps or child abuse is 'good', & if we all construct our own moral codes without reference to anything 'objective' or 'transcendent', & determine our own 'truth' how can we argue with them? If we set out to stop them doing what they have determined is 'good' then our only justification would be that our 'truth' (though no more 'valid' than theirs) is backed by our superior strength - they become in their own minds 'martyrs', being persecuted for their beliefs.

So the question is still whether the Good, the True, the Real exist metaphysically, & provide an objective standard by which to judge the individual's own concepts of good, true, real.

In other words, I don't think we can simply dismiss the question by saying that we all determine 'truth' for ourselves (well, not unless we live in [b]H-I[/i]'s cell, or alone on some island.

If there is some metaphysical Reality, Good, Truth on which we can base our judgements, measure them against, then my feeling is that it cannot be experienced directly, in terms of what we call 'facts ' in this world. It could only be communicated through symbolism, parable, metaphor. Now all those things can be perverted to a greater or lesser degree, but that's not inevitable. My feeling is that we have an innate sense of 'Right', 'Real', 'Good', 'True', & that when we encounter it we respond to it. We know that herding people into gas ovens or abusing children is WRONG, not because we have happened to construct our own 'truth' which confirms that, but because, even though we might not be able to cite a long list of 'logical' facts against it (its not like either of those practices is likely to lead to a threat to the existence of the human race - overpopulation is a major problem & any practices which 'thinned out' our numbers may even benefit our survival - let the weakest go to the wall - if the strong go to the wall in defense of the weak, who'd be left to defend the weak: they wouldn't survive long anyway). But we don't think that way, & not for 'logical' reasons.

So, my position is that the Good, True, Real are 'facts', but not 'facts' that can be tested in a lab. They exist & it is possible to know them & to communicate them to others, to speak of them. Clearly this was Tolkien's original intent, at least, & though he seemed to shy away from saying it in his later life, I don't think he ever lost or rejected that desire. Even in his depiction of orc speech he shied away from putting really foul language into their mouths. He wished to communicate his love of the natural world, his values, to us through his 'fiction' but I don't for a minute believe that he felt he had 'invented' those values, any more than CS Lewis did.

His fiction was an attempt not simply to pass on those values, but to 'awaken' his readers to the direct experience of them. Obviously he struggled over the best way to do that, to give a form to those 'Truths' which would make them as accessible as possible. Mythology for him, a self consistent, 'believable' mythology was the most effective way.

The question is not simply how we read the books, what we bring to them, how we interpret them. Its also whether Tolkien was right, & whether that 'metaphysical' reality is true. Has Tolkien anything to teach us that we don't know, or more importantly, anything that we've forgotten?

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

Does this work? What exactly does 'truth' mean in this context? Opinion? can something be considered 'true' simply because an individual believes it? .. Its equivalent to people rejecting the established moral code (Ten commandments, whatever) because they refuse to be bound by traditional morality & feel they should be free to determine what is moral & immoral. What we usually end up with in most cases is people constructing a 'moral' code for themselves which permits them the freedom to do whatever they wish & only forbids them to do things that they wouldn't want to do anyway.

But when Lalwendë talks of "personal truth", she is referring to the individual reader's personal interpretation of a fictional text. That is a world away from actions that impacts upon others or upon society as a whole. I see no contradiction between individuals choosing to interpret a fictional text as they see fit while at the same time considering themselves bound by society's moral and legal values in their interactions with that society and others within it. It is only when they come to share their interpretation with others, either through discussion or publication, that such social values will have any bearing upon that interpretation.

So the question is still whether the Good, the True, the Real exist metaphysically, & provide an objective standard by which to judge the individual's own concepts of good, true, real.

I believe that the concepts you identify can be scientifically explained, while acknowledging that their basis in science cannot be definitively proved. I am not definitively rejecting a metaphysical origin, but rather simply making the point that it is not the only possible explanation.

His fiction was an attempt not simply to pass on those values, but to 'awaken' his readers to the direct experience of them.

I do not disagree with that statement. But, as I have said, a metaphysical explanation is not necessarily required for the values which he was seeking to pass on.

[Lalwendë]

My feeling is that we have an innate sense of 'Right', 'Real', 'Good', 'True', & that when we encounter it we respond to it. We know that herding people into gas ovens or abusing children is WRONG, not because we have happened to construct our own 'truth' which confirms that, but because, even though we might not be able to cite a long list of 'logical' facts against it

I was indeed talking of readers' individual responses to texts - it's those darned words again, wreaking havoc...

Our sense of right and wrong is learned. If we did not learn these things then we would exist on the primitive level of survival and instinct alone. As children we are disciplined if we steal, or swear or use bad manners. Witness the unfortunate children who do not have parents or guardians who care to teach them, they do not gain an understanding of what society at large sees as right and wrong, and they act against society. If we did not learn about the horrors of the Nazi regime then we would not know that these things happened and these things are wrong. And the men who were involved in these things, many of them were taught that this was the right thing to do, they learned that they did these things or they would face the cruelty of the regime themselves.

Our 'truths' are learned. The things I have learned and my experiences have resulted in one of my 'truths' being that all religious beliefs are equally valid, and that they are also personal. But many do not think this, even those closest to me, as their 'truth' is different, they have one belief, or no belief and their 'truth' is this.

Recently there was a link to an article which linked elements of LOTR to the Iraq war; many of us found this ludicrous and wondered why this argument had been constructed. But the person who wrote it was applying their 'truth' to the text. While I did not agree with it, I learned something from it (maybe not what the writer intended, though...). And others on the 'Downs also did not agree with it, which showed that there is a consensus about certain 'truths' held by others, that they do not have as much validity as others. This shows that we have our individual 'truth', but that we are also swayed by collective 'truth'.

Edit: And my contribution to the argument, this is part of my own 'truth', and others have different 'truths'. This might seem like philosophical fence-sitting, but this is all part of what I am trying to say.

[HerenIstarion]

With great respect of much common sense and logic displayed in the process, I rather lean to define 'personal truth' of Lalwende's post as 'opinion'.

Remember the murderer and his 'personal truth' of some pages back. I am forced to bring him/her back again, even if it is foricble dragging in of 'real life' into 'bookish' discussion.

For if we stick to the 'personal truth', we loose the right of judgement of any action not by ourselves. If 'personal truth' is what matters, than Nazis (again, mentioned in the previous) were rigth in doing what they've done - their actions were in compliance with their own 'personal truths'. Sauron was right - his 'personal truth' required an order that he only could carry out. Saruman was right, etc, etc. and the whole plot of LoTR degrades down from "Holy War of Good against Evil' down to mere strive for survival, where strongest lives on, taking not fit to the wall. Or, how you judge which 'personal truth' is better? For you will judge it, no doubt about it. Everyone does it on daily basis - Mr. X is better than Mr Y, as the latter beats his wife. But why beating of one;s wife is bad, if 'personal truth' is what matters - surely, Mr Y's 'personal truth' allows for such a behavior?

When one compares something to another thing, he/she inevitably compares both to some standard of 'eternal good', something inherent, built-in. The one which complies more is therefore counted as 'better', any action can be measured against it, and come out more true, less true or as true as some other action.

So, my opinion is as good as yours, and yours as good as mine, if it is only an opinion. Say, I like blue, and you red. Both are equal. But if in pursuit of my warm feeling, I paint your house blue, is it right? My 'personal truth' allowed me to do it. Well, convention tells me that the house belonging to someone else is not mine to pain blue, but if I proclaim that my 'personal truth' does not recognize such a 'bourgeois' and 'Philistine' conventions, and if I insist on my right to paint it blue, I'll end up in jail.

And I would not be able to appeal to justice, for the whole concept of justice is lost if all we have is 'personal truth'. I'd be merely outnumbered by similar 'personal truths' which agreed upon convention that painting other people's houses blue is to be punished by jail sentence.

[Lalwendë]

This thread is sucking me into the quicksand like so many others have been drawn in before me ...

Yes, when I say 'truths' I am talking about our opinions and beliefs (whether religious, political, philosophical) which we bring to the text. I see I should be distinguishing between our moral 'truths' and our opinion 'truths'. Words again...

I still think that as humans we must be taught our way in the world. This does not mean that if someone goes against society that they can get away with any heinous crime just by claiming that 'they did not know any better'. We must put these things into context and while the person is appropriately punished if necessary, we must also ensure that they learn.

The difficult thing is that our morals and our opinions can be very indistinct at times, and getting back on topic and tying this in with Tolkien, I can see that he recognised this. The example I often draw upon is the character of Gollum - I could discuss him for a long time and still come to no conclusion about whether he was good or bad.

[davem]

It is hard to be sure of anything among so many marvels. The world is all grown strange. elf & Dwarf in company walk in our daily fields; & folk speak with the Lady of the Wood & yet live, & th esword comes back to war that was broken in the long ages ere the father's of our fathers rode into the Mark! How shall a man judge what to do in such times?'

'As he ever has judged.' said Aragorn. 'Good & ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among elves & Dwarves & another among Men. It is a man's part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house.'

'As much in the Golden Wood as in his own house'. As much in fiction as in 'real' life. Fiction doesn't have different rules, & 'personal truth' is not different in fiction. An immoral act is an immoral act, because our standards of judgement are (or should be) constant.

If I judge the events of 9/11, or the recent horrors in the school at Beslan, to be 'Wrong' & the terrorists who commited them judge them to be 'Right', is that really just down to the way I've been brought up? And is my judgement no more 'True' than Osama bin Laden's? Both equally valid? Yet if they aren't equally valid, then on what can I base my claim that my judgement is better, if not to some objective standard?

This kind of moral equivalence of all views is what produces the Saruman's - why shouldn't one see Sauron's point, surely he is doing what he believs is 'right'? In fact, maybe he is right - its all down to point of view after all, & if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'.

I can't understand this approach of judging fiction (the 'Golden Wood') differently from fact ('one's own house'). This approach - our morality is simply what we've been taught is simply another form of denying the artist has anything to teach us, & that all we find in a work of art is what we bring to it, everything is subjective. But that's the way the Ring corrupts, it convinces you that everything is relative, & your own 'good' is as valid as any other, because all there is is 'survival of the fittest' - ie of the 'fittest' 'good'. But that's where the 'wraithing process' begins, because if there's no objective standard by which to judge (''As heever has judged.') then where's the hope?

Tolkien is stating his position very clearly in this scene, & saying that it is based on an 'objective' standard, & if its 'objective' then (for Tolkien at least) it applies in every 'world'.

Originally Posted by Lalwende

The example I often draw upon is the character of Gollum - I could discuss him for a long time and still come to no conclusion about whether he was good or bad.

Its not a question for me of whether Gollum was 'good' or 'bad' he did some good things & some bad things - ie he made moral choices, & immoral choices at different times, & we can all distinguish which was which, because we judge him not by his moral code, or our own, but by an objective standard, as Aragorn points out.

[The Saucepan Man]

Davem, I think you are misunderstanding what Lalwendë and I are saying. Neither of us is saying that individuals view fiction and reality from two different moral perspectives. Of course, peoples’ morals remain the same whether they are reading a novel or the newspaper.

But Lalwendë's first post on this point (#470) was not discussing morality at all. Rather, it was simply pointing out that different individuals have different perspectives, beliefs and experiences and will therefore react differently to a text and take slightly different things from it. Surely there is nothing controversial in that. I think that the use of the word “individual truth” may have led to this confusion, but Lalwendë has made it clear that, by this, she indeed meant “individual opinion”.

So, to start talking about the road that Saruman went down on top of that seems slightly odd to me. But, since you and HerenIstarian have raised the issue of morality in the context of what she said …

First, I should reiterate that I believe that there is such a thing as a moral consensus (or standard, if you prefer), or at least a consensus on what comprise basic moral values. (There are, to my mind grey, areas, such as the question of capital punishment which I raised earlier on this thread, but lets stick with the basics.) Although I believe that these basic moral values do not necessarily require a metaphysical explanation, that matters not for the purposes of what I say below.

Now, there are undeniably people who will read a piece of fiction such as LotR from a moral standpoint which differs from the consensus (we discussed some of them earlier – the white supremacists). The point that I am trying to make is that, while their moral standpoint will be “right” to them as individuals, it will be “wrong” as far as the moral consensus is concerned. So, they will have to face the consequences (social, legal etc) if they seek to interact with others in society on the basis of their individual moral standpoint.

To use an extreme example, if someone was to read LotR and decide that it justified unprovoked attacks on Arabic people simply because the human allies of Sauron came from the east of Middle-earth, that would be unacceptable from the point of view of the moral consensus.

But, although we can seek to persuade, we cannot (unless we bring in the thought police) force those whose moral outlook differs from the “standard” to conform to it. Now, if Tolkien was, through LotR, seeking to persuade people towards the moral standard, all well and good. I salute him. But there will always be those (including amongst those who enjoy the book) who can, or will, not be persuaded.