Lord of the Rings and Philosophy @ Concordia University Wisconsin

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

He has an obligation to be fully & completely himself. Morgoth's 'sin' was not to deny Eru but to deny himself & his true nature - he is divided against himself - which is why, in the end, he cannot stand. He must, therefore 'redeem himself' & return to what he was (or become what he should have been.

This is psychology; its presumptions are numerous:
(1) being true to oneself is paramount.
(2) being true to one's creator is not important.
(3) there is enough power within the self to "achieve integration".

To posit this Jungian psychological perspective as that which Tolkien really was talking about, is erroneous at best.

Originally Posted by davem

There is no internal evidence for either universal redemption or eternal damnation in the writings.

Thank you for making this admission.

It would be nice if what we prefer is actually the way things are. It is valuable when philosophy itself is the pursuit of understanding reality for what it is, rather than that which may be preferred.

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

This is psychology; its presumptions are numerous:
(1) being true to oneself is paramount.
(2) being true to one's creator is not important.
(3) there is enough power within the self to "achieve integration".

To posit this Jungian psychological perspective as that which Tolkien really was talking about, is erroneous at best.

1) I don't think I ever said it was paramount. I stated it was necessary.
2) I don't think I said this either. Actually I don't think the two things are not mutually exclusive.
3) I didn't say this either. I simply said it has to start with the individual, & that if it doesn't it can't happen at all.

Thank you for making this admission.

I don't see it as an 'admission' as it isn't actually in contradiction to anything else I've ever said. My approach is to take the text as given, & not to read into it anything from 'outside'. There is no mention of 'eternal damnation' in Tolkien's work, hence, I see no justification (& certainly no necessity) for reading it in. Whether one does or not says more about the reader than it does about the text.

It would be nice if what we prefer is actually the way things are. It is valuable when philosophy itself is the pursuit of understanding reality for what it is, rather than that which may be preferred.

And what is 'the way things actually are'? The point of philosophy (as opposed to theology) is to ask this very question & strive to answer it from experience or logical investigation, not to start from the position of 'assuming that which is to be proved' & trying to make reality fit owns own pre-conceived belief system. I haven't come across any indisputable theory about what 'reality' actually is.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

To posit this Jungian psychological perspective as that which Tolkien really was talking about, is erroneous at best.

Why is it 'erroneous at best'?

And what is it 'at worst'?

[davem]

Just a note on the universal salvation or otherwise of M-e. I do have to say that I don't want hellfire & eternal damnation in M-e & its as simple as that. I'm reminded of Tolkien's judgement on Dante:

(he) doesn't attract me. He's full of spite and malice

. I prefer not to drag such hopelessness & horror into my beloved M-e, so I either choose Universalism, or I don't think about it at all.

[littlemanpoet]

(1) By asserting that Morgoth's 'sin' was against himself and not against Eru is tantamount to saying that Morgoth being true to himself - an integrated self - is more important than obedience to Eru.
(2) The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but one takes priority over the other since Morgoth's sin was, as Tolkien says, against Eru.
(3) Perhaps "start with himself" was meant, but it was not stated until now. If one does not hold that there is enough power in oneself to achieve integration, then one must consider integration to be either unachievable, or the necessary power to achieve it to be accessible through some other means. If Morgoth's self-integration is unachievable, then the assertion that his 'sin' against himself was to be untrue to himself falls apart, because he cannot therefore be completely and fully himself once he has committed this 'sin' against himself. If, on the other hand, Morgoth's true-to-himself-ness is achievable through means outside himself only, what other means, and what does this imply?

Originally Posted by davem

I don't see it as an 'admission' as it isn't actually in contradiction to anything else I've ever said.

As shown here, the earlier assertion that Melkor could be redeemed, was the first instance of Universalism. My request that it be defended from Tolkien's writings was met with the admission that such a stance cannot be defended from Tolkien's works.

Originally Posted by davem

And what is 'the way things actually are'? The point of philosophy (as opposed to theology) is to ask this very question & strive to answer it from experience or logical investigation, not to start from the position of 'assuming that which is to be proved' & trying to make reality fit owns own pre-conceived belief system. I haven't come across any indisputable theory about what 'reality' actually is.

As is known by anyone familiar with philosophical paradigms, experience and logical investigation are not alone as the basis for philosophical pursuit. Certain presumed beliefs always underlie them. Any belief that is not admitted at the outset, results in blind spots that do not fail to affect the philosopher's conclusions negatively.

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

(1) By asserting that Morgoth's 'sin' was against himself and not against Eru is tantamount to saying that Morgoth being true to himself - an integrated self - is more important than obedience to Eru.

It could be argued Morgoth's 'sin' was against his essential (Eru given) nature. Of course, it could also be argued that if he hadn't rebelled the story would have been a very short & very boring one. Morgoth may introduce 'evil' into the the world, but it also introduces rebellion, & introduces the possibility of defying Morgoth himself. If obedience to Eru doesn't involve being an integrated (ie whole) person the individual will remain conflicted & not know peace. Simply, if Morgoth hadn't defied Eru nothing would have happened of any interest to any reader. When Morgoth introduces his dissonance into the Music things start to happen, & the reader thinks 'Right, now its going to get interesting!' Its not simply that Morgoth's existence is necessary its that his rebelllion is necessary too - if only from the persepective of making the story interesting. Morgoth hurts, destroys, introduces cruelty, pain, heartbreak, offends, upsets & is generally a pain, but without him there would be nothing to struggle against, to challenge or be challenged by.

Morgoth is the Dionysian element that stops everything stagnating & being 'embalmed' in a state of 'perfection'. He is the Prometheus of M-e, who steals the fire (the Silmarils) from Heaven, & while he may not give them to Men, he makes it possible for Men to get hold of them - if they are willing to take the same risk he took to steal them in the first place. Because of Morgoth the Light of Paradise enters into M-e (& remains there, in the Air (bound to the brow of Earendel) in the Earth & in the Sea). As I said, Morgoth's rebellion is necessary, & therefore inevitable. He serves his purpose at the most terrible cost to himself - inner fragmentation & exile in the Void. To deny all possibility of return & reconciliation to him seems morally 'iffy' to say the least.....

(2) The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but one takes priority over the other since Morgoth's sin was, as Tolkien says, against Eru.

Well, it was Tolkien's judgement that was the case.

(3) Perhaps "start with himself" was meant, but it was not stated until now. If one does not hold that there is enough power in oneself to achieve integration, then one must consider integration to be either unachievable, or the necessary power to achieve it to be accessible through some other means. If Morgoth's self-integration is unachievable, then the assertion that his 'sin' against himself was to be untrue to himself falls apart, because he cannot therefore be completely and fully himself once he has committed this 'sin' against himself. If, on the other hand, Morgoth's true-to-himself-ness is achievable through means outside himself only, what other means, and what does this imply?

One does not have to hold that view, of course. It is the orthodox Christian view, but then we are back at the whole 'Is the Legendarium a 'Christian' work question. We don't know that Morgoth's self integration was impossible. One would have to prove that M-e works according to Christian rules - which has to be proved, not assumed.

As shown here, the earlier assertion that Melkor could be redeemed, was the first instance of Universalism. My request that it be defended from Tolkien's writings was met with the admission that such a stance cannot be defended from Tolkien's works.

No - we're speculating, because we have no proof either way from Tolkien's writings. One only has to show that 'X' is possible in order to have a debate. I can argue for Universalism in M-e because it is logically possible & there is no contradictory evidence. We come back to a question of aesthetics.

As is known by anyone familiar with philosophical paradigms, experience and logical investigation are not alone as the basis for philosophical pursuit. Certain presumed beliefs always underlie them. Any belief that is not admitted at the outset, results in blind spots that do not fail to affect the philosopher's conclusions negatively.

As long as we acknowledge that our beliefs are unfounded - if we could 'prove' them then we wouldn't need to 'believe' them - & are prepared to give up, or alter, our beliefs if they do not stand up to scrutiny - or accept at the least that other beliefs may be correct & our own incorrect.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Why is it 'erroneous at best'?

To posit this Jungian psychological perspective as that which Tolkien really was talking about, is erroneous at best because one would be saying that Tolkien was most concerned about a particular psychological process, whereas his mythopoeia is far richer than that. I am not, however, saying that one cannot find parallels in Tolkien's works from Jungian psychological perspectives.

And what is it 'at worst'?

I could offer my own opinion, but I prefer not to speculate.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

To posit this Jungian psychological perspective as that which Tolkien really was talking about, is erroneous at best because one would be saying that Tolkien was most concerned about a particular psychological process, whereas his mythopoeia is far richer than that. I am not, however, saying that one cannot find parallels in Tolkien's works from Jungian psychological perspectives.

I could offer my own opinion, but I prefer not to speculate.

We can't know exactly what Tolkien was talking about. The most we can hope to do is to understand what the text gives us by reading it closely and the analysis given does exactly that. I suppose it's a bit of a shame that Jungian analysis so often does get to the root of the issue at hand; just because it gives us the right answer is no need to reject it out of hand.

And it does in this case. Melkor is created by Eru and as such can only possess what Eru gives to him. So if he is not true to himself then he is indeed not being true to Eru, who made him.

Who knows if Tolkien, by creating a set of Gods who were bestowed with their skills and personalities by an omnipotent creator God, and who therefore we must expect were created with the intention of being true to their/their creator's self, did not intend anything psychological by it. It so happens that this is just how things are in the cosmology he created and by happy accident that seems to fit with something Jungian.