The Treason of Isengard: Eru's Plan?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Gurthang

So men live exactly the same as all the other inhabitants of Middle-Earth, only that the choices they make affect their afterlife.

But if Men are in exactly the same position as everyone else, why mention Men's freedom at all?

they should have a virtue to shape their life, amid the powers and chances of the world, beyond the Music of the Ainur, which is as fate to all things else;

This, which I keep repeating, I know, says something specific about Men 'amid the powers & chances of the world' - not outside it. If Men's power to shape their fate within the world is the same as that of Valar, Maiar & Elves, then why mention it?

So men live exactly the same as all the other inhabitants of Middle-Earth, only that the choices they make affect their afterlife.

So aren't Elves & Ainur also judged on the choices they make in life - or are they simply 'robots'?

As regards Saruman - if he was bound by his decisions made during the Music why would Gandalf make such an effort to get him to repent at Isengard? Gandalf clearly believes that Saruman has the ablity to make choices about what road he would take, though not about the 'events' he has to experience - like dying in the Shire perhaps.

Unless you believe that Gandalf also was bound by what he had 'sung' in the Music & had no free will either.

This idea that everything - right down to the moral choices individuals made, even the thoughts they thought - was fixed, makes the whole story a nonsense, because nothing anyone did was a result of free will, & then how can anyone be held accountable after their death.

What I'm suggesting is that Valar, Maiar & Elves have absolute moral freedom to make choicesabout how they live, but not about what they will experience - the Noldor will return to Middle-earth, & Feanor will die there in the way he did - but the way they come to those experiences will be a result of their own freely willed choices - hence they can be held accountable for their actions after they die. Men, on the other hand, are not (because they are not bound to the world in the same way) destined to have those pre-ordained experiences - they have both freedom of thought - as all other races have - & also the freedom to choose what experiences they will have, what events they will be caught up in - as Aragorn could choose whether to go on the paths of the Dead.

But did Legolas have that choice? Was it in the Music that he would go that way? If so, what would he have done of Aragorn had chosen not to go that way? And what about Elladan & Ellrohir? Did the half-elven have the freedom of Men or were they bound by the Music to go?

I think its pushing it to suggest that Men's freedom only comes into play after they die, because we don't know what, or even if anything at all, happens to Men after death. I think if you just read that sentence its plain that its refering to Men's freedom of action within the world, & that 'beyond' in that context doesn't mean beyond/outside Arda, but beyond/outside the plan the Music laid out by the Music:

shape their life, amid the powers and chances of the world, beyond the Music of the Ainur Which is as fate to all things else

If we take this to mean that Men's freedom lies only beyond the world (as opposed to beyond the plan but within the world) then we're saying that Valar, Maiar & Elves have no freedom either during life or after death. They are 'robots' both within Arda & outside it, while Men are only 'robots' while they are in the world.

[burrahobbit]

We know not when the 'pretty quick' part of it came in.

Yes we do: immediately when he entered The World.

As regards Saruman - if he was bound by his decisions made during the Music why would Gandalf make such an effort to get him to repent at Isengard?

Because that's what Gandalf Sang about.

the Noldor will return to Middle-earth, & Feanor will die there in the way he did - but the way they come to those experiences will be a result of their own freely willed choices

If a fellow can freely make moral decisions, can he not make the decision not to point swords at his little brother and get kicked out of his house? I'm thinking, maybe he chooses to give him a hug instead and then they all have cake? Maybe then he wouldn't get stabbed in the face to death later on while he is staying at somebody else's house?

But did Legolas have that choice? Was it in the Music that he would go that way? If so, what would he have done of Aragorn had chosen not to go that way? And what about Elladan & Ellrohir? Did the half-elven have the freedom of Men or were they bound by the Music to go?

Read more about Turin.

[davem]

Originally Posted by burrahobbit

If a fellow can freely make moral decisions, can he not make the decision not to point swords at his little brother and get kicked out of his house? I'm thinking, maybe he chooses to give him a hug instead and then they all have cake? Maybe then he wouldn't get stabbed in the face to death later on while he is staying at somebody else's house?

Feanor chooses his road, but not his destination. Of course, the further down a particular road one goes the harder it is to turn around & go back & choose a different road...

Read more about Turin.

Which is another major problem - Turin is not bound by the Music. Is Glaurung? Turin is driven (by whom & why?) to overcome his 'fate', but in so doing he actually determines it. I'd say Turin's fate is not in the hands of Morgoth or anyone but himself. He clearly believes that he is not bound by the Music, that he can be free to live his own life, & that's exactly what he does. None of the things he suffers come from Morgoth or even directly from the Music. He is Master of (his) doom - & he is also mastered by it - by his own, self-wrought doom.

We know not when the 'pretty quick' part of it came in.


Yes we do: immediately when he entered The World.

Quote:
As regards Saruman - if he was bound by his decisions made during the Music why would Gandalf make such an effort to get him to repent at Isengard?


Because that's what Gandalf Sang about.

I don't believe they sang about what they would do in each & every individual situation. Certain events were fixed before time, but as I said the way in which those events came about were a result of the moral choices made by individuals. The idea that the Ainur sang not just the things that would happen, but each individual thought & decision they would make seems too much of a stretch - they did not, after all, sing as a choir in unison, but singly or as small groups - at least at first. Then Melkor's themes intervene & there is conflict which prevents any of them seeing the bigger picture. So, some of the things individual Ainur sang would be in conflict with what other's sang, simply because they would not all have known what each other had contributed to the Music.

So, I don't think we're dealing with everything being foreordained down to the smallest detail, but with generalities & specific, unavoidable, events. Cerain things would happen, certain individuals were destined from eternity to do certain things, be in certain places, but, as I said, how & why they would get there would be down to them.

And you also have to answer the really difficult question - maybe the Valar & Maiar were acting out their own part in the Music, but who set out the unavoidable fate of the Elves? That could only have been Eru Himself - & if he did that, & fix their fate in stone, then how could they be judged on their actions let alone on their moral choices?

The Music determines the fate of Arda & the Elves, being bound to Arda are bound up with its fate. Men are not bound to Arda & it is this very fact that gives them the unique freedom to act that they have. Their link with Arda is temporary - they are in it but not of it, therefore its 'rules' (ie the Music) are not so binding on them - if they were they would not be 'mortal', they would not be able to leave it so 'easily'. It is the fact that they are mortal (the 'Gift of Death') that means that they have a freedom to act 'outside the 'rules'.

(I notice that I seem to be at least in part responsible for an unaccustomed verbosity in our beloved Burrahobbit )

[HerenIstarion]

Part 1 (here we partly go along with davem)

Originally Posted by davem

notice that I seem to be at least in part responsible for an unaccustomed verbosity in our beloved Burrahobbit

I liked it more when he was laconic (see my first post on the thread). But since I did take part in poking him into action, let me poke some more and see what happens:

Originally Posted by burrahobbit

Nobody is under Eru's "command," but they all do what He "wants."

Fills the bill perfectly as far as I'm concerned (see below, part 3). But we attribute slightly different meanings to the phrase, or so it seems now.

For me, that would mean that each individual is free in what they do, but whatever they actually choose to do, is incorporated into the whole texture of all events and taken into it to be in accordance with Eru's Will (see part 2 below) and to the Good ultimately. The each derivation of choice does alter the consequent chain of events, but if you look at each chain as a thread, and the world a carpet, derivation of pattern does not alter the existence of the carpet as such, or its ultimate purpose – to adore the wall over Eru’s hearth. (The last phrase being an exaggeration to an extent – equally real purpose of the ‘carpet’ is for each particle of it to be free, love Eru and be loved in return, as ‘of all His designs the issue must be for His Children's joy’ (AFaA))

It may seem that thus the freedom of individual will is rendered meaningless, but it is not so, as individual choice does matter for the chooser him/herself and the beauty of the carpet as a whole.

Per instance:

The Silmarils had passed away, and all one it may seem whether Fëanor had said yea or nay to Yavanna; yet had he said yea at the first, before the tidings came from Formenos, it may be that his after deeds would have been other than they were

And there would not have been the whole lot of ‘stabbing in the face’, but there would have been something else. The Music thus needs not define the smallest events minutely, but define general pattern the threads are woven along of.

Or to quote myself for just another analogy:

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

I'd say I think the Music is pattern World is fitted into. Why it can not be merely its result, is absence of time as we know it in the Halls of Eru. In a sense, therefore, Music is never ceased. So to say, the world is like train moving on rails, with elves having tickets on to the terminal station while Men keep jumping out of windows now and again. (Or, in more civilized mental picture, having tickets on to intermediary stations). Music is rails.

Originally Posted by burrahobbit

Yes we do: immediately when he entered The World.

As I do not find the Music as minutely defining as that, I was arguing from the standpoint of ’pure’ evil issue – i.e., as Free Will is not defined or limited as such by the Music, but rather provides it with the rails to run along of, the loss of Free Will comes only when the self is beyond redemption – i.e. when it is no more able of anything other but worshipping its own self and loses the self it started worshipping at the moment of doing so, and is no more able to come back over.

Part 2 (where we part ways with davem)

Originally Posted by davem

The Music determines the fate of Arda & the Elves, being bound to Arda are bound up with its fate. Men are not bound to Arda & it is this very fact that gives them the unique freedom to act that they have

Once again, as with burra’s command/will quote above, I would be glad to sign my name under the statement, but we seem to read it in slightly differing ways. As with my train analogy, the freedom of men is in their ability to leave the train at some point along its route, not in ability to swim parallel to its course in a boat or fly over it in a helicopter, which ‘building their own roads’ seems implying.

Not to repeat myself way too often, please see the ruler analogy:

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

Given the same ruler of Good and Evil, all Children should measure with it their actions in similar way, and the freedom is in the process of measurement, not in different ruler. But one can not measure the same length with same ruler and come out with differing numbers?

Which in itself is rooted in much quoted by me:

Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves and another among Men. It is a man's part to discern them

I’ll elaborate: Eru’s Will may be defined in two ways:

1. In relation to the whole world, His Will is to have complete Arda Remade, by which the Fate is defined and is expressed through the Music. Whatever anyone does, there will be the Arda Remade (further EW1)
2. In relation to individuals, his Will is for them to accord to the qualities He has (Intelligence, Benevolence etc), i.e ‘be like Him’ (paragon - Men are instructed by Eru Himself till they turn their ear to Morgoth and are Fallen) (further EW2)

No individual is able to disaccord with Eru’s Will 1, but each individual is free to disaccord with Eru’s Will 2. Dissacord with EW2 does not affect EW1, i.e. Fate (with capital F) = outcome of the Music = Arda Remade, but does affect the individual fate (ultimate disaccord with EW2 brings the creature into the Void, or, in case of Saruman (yes, I remember it’s the thread with Saruman there in the title), to be a ghost ‘dissolved by the wind’)

But there is something else there too – whilst EW1 is broad and bendable, EW2 is strict – one either conforms to it or does not. I.e. any action may be ‘right’ in one way only – if it accords to EW2. Such a strict restriction does no leave room for ‘unique freedom’ (which seems implying some third alternative) – whatever Man or Elf does, is either right or wrong in relation to EW2, and the freedom comes down to choice inside the dichotomy.

So, in such a roundabout way I come back to titilar topic, or

Part 3: Treason of Isengard: Eru’s will?

Having all the above in mind, it may be argued Saruman was acting in accordance with EW1, and thus indeed, it was Eru’s Will for Isengard to betray the Council and Free Peoples, for whatever is done, the flowing of time brings Arda Remade nearer, and thus Eru’s Will nearer completion, but on individual, EW2 level, Saruman was acting against Eru’s Will

Does it sound like ‘do not ask elves, for they will say both yes and no’? I suppose so, but I have just another analogy, from ‘Was Eru A Sadist’ thread this time for you to ponder over:

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

If I were a parent, my will would be that my children behaved properly and tidied up their room, but my will would also be that they were free. If I were to find the room in a mess, I would certainly have my will contradicted in one way, but carried along in another, since my children were free to mess it up. Furthermore it is question of my priorities, what is it I like best - tidy room or free children. (I would certainly prefer both at once, but if they refuse to clean up?...)

The EW1, or Arda Remade, in this analogy is the point when the parent enters the room with a vacuum cleaner. Those who will, though, still have the time to accord with EW2 and arm themselves with dustbins.

Not to tire you and my own self any longer, let me repeat burra’s quote already given above, for it perfectly fits here, for the Part 3:

Nobody is under Eru's "command," but they all do what He "wants."

The simple explanation might well be that in ME everything happened for a reason, the reason being Eru's will. Consider the Ring: Bilbo was meant to find it, and Frodo was meant to be the one chosen to destroy it. Hence why not extend this further by saying Saruman was meant to become a Traitor, ultimately to the ruin of Isengard AND Mordor? The problem I have with that is that it would be cruel of Eru to plan the Downfall of Saruman like this, that is unless the plan was made after Saruman turned to evil ways whilst he was still part of the Council, even before Bilbo found the Ring.

Or is that just too simple a way to look at it? The posts on this topic are getting very complicated, so a more simple way of explaining things is given here.

[burrahobbit]

More words means you are more wrong.

the Noldor will return to Middle-earth, & Feanor will die there in the way he did

does not equal

Feanor chooses his road, but not his destination

If I take the road that heads east from here I will not end up in California, unless I turn onto the westward road. Similarly, if Feanor decided to be a peaceful fellow he would not have been killed by balrogs. To suggest otherwise is, to turn a phrase, "retarded."

Turin is not bound by the Music.

You are amazingly and fundamentally wrong.

[burrahobbit]

Congratulations, Mansun, you figured it out. You win a cookie. Re: the second half, you gotta break a few eggs to make an omlette.

[HerenIstarion]

Well, burra, let's see what we can do with your attitude:

If I take the road that heads east from here I will not end up in California, unless I turn onto the westward road

But if you walk East long enough you'll land in California, I surmise?

Similarly, if Feanor decided to be a peaceful fellow he would not have been killed by balrogs.

Imagine a scenario - Fëanor says yeah, does not revolt, all elves - Vanyar, Noldor and Teleri remain happy family, there is no Exile, no Prophecy of Mandos and no Siege of Angband and no War of the Jewels. In due time, however, Valar make a council, and there is War of Wrath, just Noldor form the part of the Host of the West this time, they are the saviours rather than remnants of the people to be saved. In a mighty assault Morgoth is defeated, but as his last effort at defending his stronghold, the band of Balrogs issues from the Iron Gate to challange the foremost party of the assailants lead by Fëanor. Ultimately, Balrogs are swept, but Fëanor is killed.

But all of the above is exercise in free modeling, just so. As seen from my previous, my own position is as follows:

each derivation of choice does alter the consequent chain of events

That there would be Fëanor in due course of events, that he'll have certain temper and talents and moods is all in the Music. What exactly would Fëanor do with his talent and temper and moods is up to Fëanor himself

Originally Posted by burrahobbit

Congratulations, Mansun, you figured it out. You win a cookie. Re: the second half, you gotta break a few eggs to make an omlette.

Burrahobbit is that a complement or an insult? If its the latter, I'd have you know that I have a degree from a world class english university in Biochemistry.

Originally Posted by burrahobbit

Congratulations, Mansun, you figured it out. You win a cookie. Re: the second half, you gotta break a few eggs to make an omlette.

I always thought this comment was one of disrespect to one's intelligence. It is not wise to aim such things to a young Nutritional Biochemistry Graduate from a world class university who is a Quality Auditor for Coca Cola!

[davem]

Originally Posted by burrahobbit

More words means you are more wrong.

If I take the road that heads east from here I will not end up in California, unless I turn onto the westward road. Similarly, if Feanor decided to be a peaceful fellow he would not have been killed by balrogs. To suggest otherwise is, to turn a phrase, "retarded.".

So you're saying that they're all just 'robots'? No freedom even of thought? So why would Eru create them at all?

You are amazingly and fundamentally wrong

How so? Sorry, but at least I put forward an argument, & gave reasons for my position.If we're just throwing out opinions as 'statements of fact' without offering the slightest back up I can't see us getting anywhere.

Can you prove, or offer any evidence at all, that Turin was bound by the Music? It seems to me that Men's freedom to act 'beyond' (ie 'outside') the Music while in the World is a function or direct consequence of their mortaility - their fea is not bound to their hroa in the way that an Elf's is. This means that they will die eventually because the union of spirit & matter in them is a temporary thing, but it also means that they are not bound to the matter of Arda (& hence to the 'Rules') as completely.

This, it seems to me, is the only way to account for the statement in Ainulindale - as well as being the only explanation for a 'good' God giving death as a 'gift' to Men - its purpose was bound up with the gift of freedom within the world.

(Expecting a statement like 'You are amazingly and fundamentally wrong',made with no back up, to be accepted as part of a rational argument is a bit like me saying 'You are amazingly and fundamentally a horse.' & expecting that to be accepted in the same way. I think we have to be able to offer some reason for our statements)