![]() |
|
|
|
Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
|
|
|
|
#1 | |
|
Maundering Mage
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 4,651
![]() ![]() |
Quote:
I feel Saucepan stated it well in his previous post so I will not repeat that. But what I don't understand phantom, is by your logic the means to an end is justifiable so long as the end is accomplished. By that logic Saruman was well within his rights to join with Sauron, because his was the responsibility of ordering Middle-earth and this could be accomplished by joining forces. This is not a great example but my point is just because something might need to be accomplished or the individual feels that it needs to be done doesn't give them license to commit any act that will help them accomplish that. Feanor took away the rights of the Teleri and stole their property, that's a crime and not justifiable because his actions we not done in rightousness. Now there might be times when stealing a car is needed but not because one feels he needs to go to London that day. Similar to Feanor it wasn't justifiable because the refusal to let him borrow their ships came about as a result of his unrighteous actions.
__________________
“I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo. "So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.” |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Dead Serious
|
I think that you place to much emphasis, Master Phantom, on the Noldor having saved Middle-Earth.
While it is true that they did, we have no way of knowing what would have happened if they hadn't. Like any "alternate history", we simply cannot say that if X did not happen, then Y would not have happened, so Z would have happened. Yes, if X did not happen, then Y (a logical progression from X) would not have happened as we know it, but that is no guarantee that Z, as put forward, would occur. To apply that to this situation, there is no guarantee that if the Noldor didn't come to Middle-Earth that Morgoth would not have been defeated, and that he would have taken over the entire world. I think that you underestimate the power of the Valar. In the War of Wrath, it only took a few Maiar and a host of Elves to defeat Morgoth and his legions of evil. There wasn't a Vala involved. Not one. And remember that Morgoth has been diseminating his power throughout the matter of Arda. Furthermore, I do not think that Morgoth could have subdued the race of man completely. Maybe he could have exterminated it (but I don't think it likely), but the power of Men to "shape their fate" is a pretty powerful thing to fight. So I think that if the Valar had stirred themselves to fight Morgoth, with an Elven host twice as large behind them, and ALL of them marched to war, I think that the weakened Morgoth- unwilling even to leave his throne, would have been defeated. The aftermath, I'll grant, would probably have been worse. But who knows? Perhaps it would have led to a greater participation of the Valar in the world. Yavanna would go around re-planting forests. Ulmo would go about cleansing the streams. And all men- not just a few privaleged tribes might have been taken to a Numenorean paradise. My point is essentially that I feel you are attaching too much importance to this one event. Yes, it was important. Yes, it changed everything thereafter. But just because Feanor's actions led to the salvation of Middle-Earth does not mean that the salvation of Middle-Earth could not have been accomplished any other way.
__________________
I prefer history, true or feigned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 | |
|
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
![]() ![]() |
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
|
|