The Lord of the Bible?

[littlemanpoet]

Lal's on vacation and I can tell.

I'm about caught up with this page of the thread (I admit to not entirely being attentive for a good four of them, and apparently I did myself a favor ).

I'm familiar, Lal, with pretty much all the history you describe, except for the Saxon penchant for rendering the Brits incapable of progeny. It wouldn't surprise me.

The Celtic outlook has, by and large, been more "upbeat" than the Nordic, as you say, Lal.

Now, how did we get here? (LMP scratches head trying to recall the order of the links in the spilled chain on the floor) Oh yeah, that dichotomy.

Originally Posted by Bethberry

Is there a moral basis for behaviour which does not depend upon an end-time scenario? Is this admittedly very modern morality explored in LotR?

Yes and maybe.

As for the 'yes', it seems to be based on survival necessity. As soon as a civilization has reached the point at which its members cease to be primarily concerned about survival (except for the poor of course), morality begins to alter such that it's based on things other than survival. Such as personal inclinations. People of 150 years ago would be horrified at what we just look the other way from or outright tolerate.

As for the 'maybe', what's 'admittedly' mean? LotR is a very modern story. It couldn't have been written before WW One. Its themes have much in common with the so-called Lost Generation. Speaking of which (this is just occurring to me based on having mentioned the 'LG' above), The LG had only the dry husk of a Christian faith which they more or less didn't really take seriously, they had science, and they had their classical education which had long since replaced anything remotely Germanic until perhaps the university level and then only by choice. You may recall that from Renaissance until mid-way through the last century, it was generally accepted that Roman and Greek is Good, Germanic is at best embarrassing. Then here comes J.R.R. Tolkien who has the nerve to write a book in which Roman and Greek are virtually non-existent and Germanic/Celtic/Finnish are glorious! The literati were not pleased (snicker), especially after a Mein Kampf kind of war had just been fought and won or lost depending which side you were on, in which the 'bad guys' had celebrated their German-ness. The nerve of that Tolkien.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Bethberry
Is there a moral basis for behaviour which does not depend upon an end-time scenario?

It depends on what you mean by the end here.

Every action one makes is based on values eg. ends. If you value bildung you go to higher education, you value social hanging around with mates with no questions asked, you go to a football match and the round in the pub required... Every thing you do is done because you have a value which you crave for. An end you see worthy, a value. As philosophers say, an axiologigal choice.

There was a time when most of the people (a majority anyhow) in western civilisation had somewhat similar views of these ends and they included scenarios of the End. People were taught that what you do is waged in the afterlife. Or that the things you do become meaningful only in the light of those last time occurences. There was a view of the common end then.

In the individualistic West today the thing is different. That is a truism, surely. But as a "non-believer" or an agnostic bent to atheism, I can't see how the "believers" could rob us of our morality? I need no compensation of being nice to others or a metaphysical story of the end to guide me acting morally towards others. I just do not see the need of an end-time scenario to act morally. I just believe being human is what it takes...

So is there a moral basis without an end-time scenario? Surely there is. Being good, whatever the consequence. That is moral.