'Which is as Fate to all Things Else’

[Gurthang]

Originally Posted by Nilpaurion Felagund

If it still helps, I found it:

The Knowledge of the Creation Drama was incomplete: incomplete in each individual 'god', and incomplete if all the knowledge of the pantheon were pooled. For (partly to redress the evil of the rebel Melkor, partly for the completion of all in an ultimate finesse of detail) the Creator had not revealed all. The making, and nature, of the Children of God, were the two chief secrets.

Letters 131

Thank's for the great quote Nilp. It's nice to see it in writing. (er, well, text anyway)

Any doubt that I actually had about Men having 'Free Will' outside the Music is now satisfied. Mainly, before, I was holding to the idea that Eru already had a 'plan' for everything, worked out to the minutest detail, and I still do believe that. So when the Books clearly say that the Music is as fate to all but Men, and that they can do pretty much what they want regardless of what it says, it went against what I thought should be. But, as the quote above pretty much states, the Music is not the completeness of Eru's 'plan'. So Men can have 'Free Will', as in outside the Music, while still being held to the course that Iluvatar has set for their existance. I would call that (by that I mean having every bit of your life already set in stone) predestination, and therefore, not Free Will.

Nilp, I did want to ask you:

Originally Posted by Nilpaurion Felagund

Hmmm, let's try not to confuse predestination with the creator's omniscience, okay?

I don't really see much difference. You can make a push that, although God knows what's going to happen, He hasn't done anything to cause it. Sort of like watching a movie you've already seen. But, to me, that just doesn't fit with who God is.

[Raynor]

So Men can have 'Free Will', as in outside the Music, while still being held to the course that Iluvatar has set for their existance. I would call that (by that I mean having every bit of your life already set in stone) predestination, and therefore, not Free Will.

So all the mentioning of free will in various matters (such as the choice of the half-elven between races, the choice of the numenoreans and of Men of old to end their existence, the rehousing of the elven fea) are mere jokes? So there isn't actually but one actor, which rends irrelevant morality, good will or whatever trait of character? Can you support your idea with specific refferences?

What would be the justification of fea, rational soul? Not to mention that any mind can manifest _unwill_ that is free will against invasion - and no one can cross this absolute law, not even the mightiest vala.

I know of only one instance when Men are lacking free will (from the Athratbeth):
"the Elves believed that the fear of dead Men also went to Mandos (without choice in the matter: their free will with regard to death was taken away)."
but even that seems to be just an elven belief.

[Gurthang]

Originally Posted by Raynor

What would be the justification of fea, rational soul? Not to mention that any mind can manifest _unwill_ that is free will against invasion - and no one can cross this absolute law, not even the mightiest vala.

But I am not speaking of one of the Valar. Eru, by any standard, created all of Ea. I'm pretty sure that anything that happens within it cannot exceed what he wills. It completely undermines him as the Creator. It's like a potter making a pot, and suddenly the pot sprouts a handle where the potter did not want one.

But, alas, I do not have the time nor the references to back up my theory, as you have asked. So it shall remain thus, a theory. But I guess one that can be debated.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Gurthang

But I am not speaking of one of the Valar. Eru, by any standard, created all of Ea. I'm pretty sure that anything that happens within it cannot exceed what he wills. It completely undermines him as the Creator. It's like a potter making a pot, and suddenly the pot sprouts a handle where the potter did not want one.

But didn't the Numenorean assault on Valinor 'exceed what He willed'? Yes, he stepped in & stopped them - in a pretty extreme way: a way that suggests that he not only wanted to stop the invasion but also to punish the sinful Numenoreans as a people.

What this shows to me is that Men are free to act not only beyond the restrictions of the Music, but also to act in ways which are totally against the will of Eru - in fact, they are so 'free' that Eru cannot control them at all, & if push comes to shove, the only way He can stop them is by using his superior force.

Which of course brings us to the other great rebellion - that of the Noldor. Was that a freely willed act or part of the Music? My argument (following Flieger) has been that Elvish freedom is restricted to the moral sphere. So, the Noldor will return to Middle-earth in pursuit of Morgoth. They have no option - their freedom is in the way they return. If Feanor had agreed to surrender the Silmarils & sided with the Valar the revolt would not have happened, the Valar would probably have made the decision to go after Morgoth with a large force. Hence, the Noldor get back to Middle-earth one way or another.

Perhaps what we have with Elves is something along the lines of moral/spiritual freedom within physical constraints (ie they can make moral choices about how they will do things, but cannot control what happens to them, only how it happens). Men, on the other hand, have the same moral/spiritual freedomn but with far weaker physical constraints (obviously there are physical restraints on Men - death being the principal one of course, but they have to eat & sleep, they can't just flap their arms & fly, etc). The point is, in terms of action in the world Men's actions are known by Eru but not dictated by Him directly or indirectly, while Elves actions are both known & dictated. Where both races have freedom is in the moral sphere, which even Eru cannot control.

Sorry if I've repeated earlier points - I've only had time to skim the thread.

[Raynor]

If Feanor had agreed to surrender the Silmarils & sided with the Valar the revolt would not have happened, the Valar would probably have made the decision to go after Morgoth with a large force.

Do you mean, as in sooner than they did? In that case, I would have to disagree:

Originally Posted by Notes on motives in the Silmarillion, ii, Myths Transformed, HoME X

But in this way Morgoth lost (or exchanged, or transmuted) the greater part of his original 'angelic' powers, of mind and spirit, while gaining a terrible grip upon the physical world. For this reason he had to be fought, mainly by physical force, and enormous material ruin was a probable consequence of any direct combat with him, victorious or otherwise. This is the chief explanation of the constant reluctance of the Valar to come into open battle against Morgoth. Manwe's task and problem was much more difficult than Gandalf's. Sauron's, relatively smaller, power was concentrated; Morgoth's vast power was disseminated. The whole of 'Middle-earth' was Morgoth's Ring, though temporarily his attention was mainly upon the North-west. Unless swiftly successful, War against him might well end in reducing all Middle-earth to chaos, possibly even all Arda. It is easy to say: 'It was the task and function of the Elder King to govern Arda and make it possible for the Children of Eru to live in it unmolested.' But the dilemma of the Valar was this: Arda could only be liberated by a physical battle; but a probable result of such a battle was the irretrievable ruin of Arda.
...
The last intervention with physical force by the Valar, ending in the breaking of Thangorodrim, may then be viewed as not in fact reluctant or even unduly delayed, but timed with precision

The point is, in terms of action in the world Men's actions are known by Eru but not dictated by Him directly or indirectly, while Elves actions are both known & dictated.

I don't think that 'dictated' is the best possible label; after all, they do have such 'freedoms' such as the severance of marriage, reincarnation or answering the summoning of Mandos.

[davem]

Ok then, If Feanor had agreed to surrender the Silmarils to Yavanna, thereby avoiding the Revolt & its consequences, & asked permission to lead a force into M-e to confront Morgoth, Manwe would have been free to agree. The effect would have been the same: Noldor in M-e to lead the long struggle against Morgoth.

The problem we face is how to account for the fact that Elves apparently have no freedom to act against the dictates of the Music, but are still moral beings, not robots.

[Gurthang]

Originally Posted by davem

But didn't the Numenorean assault on Valinor 'exceed what He willed'? Yes, he stepped in & stopped them - in a pretty extreme way: a way that suggests that he not only wanted to stop the invasion but also to punish the sinful Numenoreans as a people.

And what's to say that the Numenorean assualt was not a part of Eru's ultimate plan? If all that Men do is already set in stone by Eru, then he had already put into his plan that they would 'rebel'. Which means that it was also his plan to intervene and drown Numenor. A certain flood from the Bible is coming to mind.

[Aiwendil]

Gurthang wrote:

If all that Men do is already set in stone by Eru, then he had already put into his plan that they would 'rebel'.

This assumes that "all that Men do is already set in stone by Eru" - which seems, to me, to be quite unsupported by the text. Even setting aside the (strong) argument that a world without free will contradicts Tolkien's Christian ethos, it seems clear from the Ainulindale that Men are free. This is actually made even more evident in the first version, the Lost Tales "Music of the Ainur", and I see no reason to think that the underlying idea ever changed.

A certain flood from the Bible is coming to mind.

But, on anything like a traditional interpretation of Genesis, the flood was not part of God's original plan. God's original plan was for humans to live in the earthly paradise of Eden.

Davem wrote:

My argument (following Flieger) has been that Elvish freedom is restricted to the moral sphere.

This is one place in which Flieger's argument makes little sense to me. Flieger seems to take it for granted that Elves do not have free will - i.e. their actions are pre-determined. But Flieger clearly thinks that they have moral freedom, and she seems to allow them freedom with respect to their immediate actions (which she must do, because such immediate actions generally follow from one's internal/moral stance). But there are numerous cases in which an Elf's immediate, short-term actions have very clear and direct large-scale results. It seems too far a stretch to me to say that, had Feanor not urged departure at Tirion, the Noldor still would have returned to Middle-earth, or that had Maeglin not betrayed Gondolin it still would have fallen, or that had Thingol not sent Beren on his quest he still would have been slain in a quarrel with the Dwarves.

Flieger's entire argument here seems to be based on the "extra" freedom given to Men in the Ainulindale - from which she surmises that Men have free will and Elves do not. I do not think this is a trivial conclusion. It seems to me that Elves do have free will, moral and actual. There are other ways to interpret the additional freedom given to Men.

[Gurthang]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

This assumes that "all that Men do is already set in stone by Eru" - which seems, to me, to be quite unsupported by the text. Even setting aside the (strong) argument that a world without free will contradicts Tolkien's Christian ethos, it seems clear from the Ainulindale that Men are free. This is actually made even more evident in the first version, the Lost Tales "Music of the Ainur", and I see no reason to think that the underlying idea ever changed.

See my theory (yes, I am not convinced wholly of it yet) that I typed up in post #5.

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

But, on anything like a traditional interpretation of Genesis, the flood was not part of God's original plan. God's original plan was for humans to live in the earthly paradise of Eden.

I will only say that I disagree with you. I think that saying more would lead to a discussion that is altogether not allowed on the Downs'.