Rocks, Hard Places, etc....

[the phantom]

Alatar explained things pretty well.

You say that there is free will because they can choose the path they go down

Yes.

but then you say that Eru can tweak their souls to make them go down a certain path

Yes.

Let me explain.

First, everyone must have a certain nature. How Eru decides what nature to give someone I don't know (perhaps it's mostly random?), but in certain situations it seems that He adds a little something to someone's nature to ensure that they are more likely to take a certain path.

Also, keep in mind that Eru can see what path their particular nature will lead them down no matter what nature they have.

So it doesn't matter if someone is fated to do a great task or not- Eru can already see the choices they will make. Therefore someone who was "fated" to do a great task was not given any less free will than the guy living next door to him who never did anything. They both had a certain personality and Eru could forsee exactly what their personality and circumstances would lead them to do.

I don't believe that knowing what someone is going to do ahead of time means that the person does not have free will to choose.

[Durelin]

I always just invision one of those chart things you see for tournaments. Like this, only much bigger, obviously...

[drigel]

Nice illustration. I always need to visualize.

This reminds me of L'Engle. We are trying to reconcile a 2 dimensional creature in a 3 dimension universe, and so forth. A line can traverse left and right, back and forth, but will never know up and down. But it's there

[alatar]

Originally Posted by drigel

Nice illustration. I always need to visualize.

This reminds me of L'Engle. We are trying to reconcile a 2 dimensional creature in a 3 dimension universe, and so forth. A line can traverse left and right, back and forth, but will never know up and down. But it's there

And keep in mind that the lines can intersect in places too, meaning that divergent choices can still lead to the same place over time.

Assume that upon meeting Gollum that Sam and Frodo decide not to take Smeagol with them, but after getting lost in the Dead Marshes, reconsider and then accept Smeagol's guidance (who had been stalking them as he always does).

Assume that the decision tree is an n-dimensional spiderweb - whatever that means...

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Fordim is forcing us to make up our minds, because 'Probably both' means 'Yes'.

So you are just sooooo alone Fea.

[Hilde Bracegirdle]

Ah, but Fea's not alone. I see that our beloved pollster has ticked in on the side of NO without comment here.

What say you, dear Mr Hedgethistle? Is this some lightly held belief or one of Blake's 'reptiles of the mind', to quote davem's signature?

[mark12_30]

Mr. Hedgethistle is simply stating the paradigm for his threaded realm. That lidless pug, wreathed in flame, is watching you, Mrs. Bracegirdle. He has already decided your fate.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by the phantom

Also, keep in mind that Eru can see what path their particular nature will lead them down no matter what nature they have.

So it doesn't matter if someone is fated to do a great task or not- Eru can already see the choices they will make. Therefore someone who was "fated" to do a great task was not given any less free will than the guy living next door to him who never did anything. They both had a certain personality and Eru could forsee exactly what their personality and circumstances would lead them to do.

I wonder, would or could Eru, as supreme creator, create a perilous realm that would enable him to experience that unexpected twist of fate called eucatastrophe, which I would think is the unexpected consequence of choice or choices? Would he need or want that jolt of surprise which Tolkien says is the proper state of man in the fairey realm?

If his own creation cannot allow him that, I guess I'm beginning to feel a little sorry for him. Existence must be rather boringly predicatable then, if predictions are possible for someone who sees all time at once and knows all. Or maybe he is just so busy knowing everything in his state of perfection (I assume perfection is the state of Eru, although I could be wrong) that such mundane features which stimulate those with the gift of mortality are not necessary for him? Maybe the thrill of eucatastrophe is like a petit mort for mankind, a rehearsal for the really big shew (paraphrasing old Ed Sullivan here) and so is something Eru doesn't require?

In other words, is free will in Middle earth necessary for Eru's pleasure in surveying his creation or does he prefer the monotony of always seeing his creation turn out exactly as he wants?

[the phantom]

That is an interesting thought, BB.

Perhaps Eru holds all the cards but chooses not to always look at them? Maybe He sits back and watches things unfold and shields Himself from His future knowledge except for in times when it is necessary?

Or perhaps He is somehow capable of knowing what is going to happen and being surprised by it at the same time?

Who knows? We're talking about a being who does not operate on the same plane as we do.

It's possible that if Eru himself answered the free will question we would lack the capacity to understand the explanation.

Well, except me of course.

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by the phantom

It's possible that if Eru himself answered the free will question we would lack the capacity to understand the explanation.

That may be the most perceptive statement yet in this whole discussion.

Originally Posted by the phantom

Well, except me of course.

...and that's a good laugh.

[Durelin]

We're talking about a being who does not operate on the same plane as we do.

A being created by one who does, and formed through words we understand. 'Tis always the most interesting and bewildering part to me.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

OK, so why have I voted in the "no" camp (other than to rub shoulders with the lovely Feanor, that is)....

To answer that, I would like to emphasise the "free" part of free will: freedom implies a lack of constraints, or -- put another way -- an infinitude of possibility. One's will is unfettered by all considerations other than what the will desires.

This is clearly not the case in Middle-Earth. In the world of Eru, one does have choice, but it is extremely limited -- do what Eru/Providence commands or demands of you (the "good") or don't. And even then, choice is limited insofar as the Will or Eru or the Providential Plan will still work out to its conclusion.

Throughout LotR, for example, people are presented with a series of either/or options -- for Frodo it's claim the Ring or resist the Ring; for Sam it's be loyal or disloyal; for Aragorn it's follow the Paths of the Dead or not; for Eomer it's help Aragorn or hinder him, and on and on and on. And all of these choices are really the same choice -- choose between good or bad; to follow those who are doing Eru's work or to hinder them. And like I said above, even those who choose to hinder the Plan still end up helping it along -- Saruman bringing Merry and Pippin to Fangorn, Gollum betraying Frodo, etc.

That is why I say there is no free will in Middle-Earth. 'Free' in the sense that nobody is completely unfettered of the plan or design of Middle-Earth's creator. This is, I would add, an essentially Medieval view of the world -- no surprise givien the Professor's imaginative debt to that world. The absolute freedom of the individual to choose to become or to be or to act in whatever way or form as desired by the individual was unimaginable to the Medieval mind: it was much simpler than that -- do good/what God commands or don't. So the will is operative, but not within a very wide or "free" scope.

[mormegil]

Fordim I understand what you are saying but you make each choice seem so cut and dry. Sure Sam had the choice to be loyal or disloyal but it's a choice in varying degrees. The way you have stated it makes it seem that he's either 100% loyal or 100% disloyal. He possibly could have done more or even still he could have done less and still be considered loyal to Frodo. I think you've made each decision too black and white to be truly valid.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

To answer that, I would like to emphasise the "free" part of free will: freedom implies a lack of constraints, or -- put another way -- an infinitude of possibility. One's will is unfettered by all considerations other than what the will desires.

As stated earlier, no actor with the exception of Eru is without some constraints - even Manwë or Melkor couldn't simply wish the other away. Only Eru has the "infinitude of possibility," and I would say that this too is assumed. Never having been a god, I'm not sure if there are not limits even for an infinite being (like not being able to unmake yourself). Maybe the phantom can attempt to explain such concepts as infinite beinghood to the rest of us...

This is clearly not the case in Middle-Earth. In the world of Eru, one does have choice, but it is extremely limited -- do what Eru/Providence commands or demands of you (the "good") or don't. And even then, choice is limited insofar as the Will or Eru or the Providential Plan will still work out to its conclusion.

You, as the observer, may see the choice of one of the actors as limited or even non-existant, but for the person, the perception of free will is more important than even having truly 100% free will. At no time during Sam's journey from the Shire and back did he try to make one choice yet end with the result of a completely different choice.

Assume the scene where Sam goes off to get water in Mordor. Assume that Sam decides that it's not worth the risk, as Gollum or orcs are lurking near, and so he does not get any water.

Bang! Suddenly his mouth is no longer dry, and his and Frodo's waterskins are filled with water. Surely Sam would think that the Lady (or Peter Jackson ) had something to do with this miracle, and would think that it was a good thing, but you and I would see that Sam's decision regarding the water meant nothing - it was just for show.

It's like when parents give a child a false choice where the parent really doesn't care what the child decides as the choice has already been made by the parent. Great way to screw your kids up as you teach them that no matter what they do, it means nothing. You end up with a passive "what does it matter what I think anyway" or and aggressive rebellious destructive child.

Eru is a better parent than that.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by alatar

Great way to screw your kids up as you teach them that no matter what they do, it means nothing. You end up with a passive "what does it matter what I think anyway" or and aggressive rebellious destructive child.

Or you end up with a low-key, idealistic, and remarkably confused one that's out to change the world, but isn't sure whether it would be more of a comfort to have fate on her side, or free will.

I guess what this debate boils down to is not what we think there is in Middle Earth, but what we want there to be. If it is more of a comfort to think that Eru has a master plan and that it will all work out for the greater good in then end, then you're going to vote that there is fate.

If you would prefer to believe in the unimaginable power of each individual that can be used to effect change, be it for good or evil, and without some divine foresight involved... then you're going to want free will.

Or, if you're like me, you're going to want both depending on momentary whims, and you're going to be confused as all heck because you can't, as cliched as it is, have your cake and eat it too.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Feanor of the Peredhil

I guess what this debate boils down to is not what we think there is in Middle Earth, but what we want there to be. If it is more of a comfort to think that Eru has a master plan and that it will all work out for the greater good in the end, then you're going to vote that there is fate.

If you would prefer to believe in the unimaginable power of each individual that can be used to effect change, be it for good or evil, and without some divine foresight involved... then you're going to want free will.

Or, if you're like me, you're going to want both depending on momentary whims, and you're going to be confused as all heck because you can't, as cliched as it is, have your cake and eat it too.

Isn't the reason that we have a God or gods is to feel like "it will all work out for the greater good in the end"? Someone or something is in control, has a plan, will make it all work, will keep the wolves at bay while we sleep at night? Even as adults are we all looking to and for that all-knowing, caring and loving parent that we had or always wished that we had? Is this what we call God?

What a scary thought to think/know that no one is in control, that there is no plan, that it might not work out and only our own vigilance will keep us safe! It's all up to us.

In another thread I posited that Manwë was the worst ruler in Arda. He always seemed too passive and reactive to me ("Oh, look what Melkor has done. maybe we should do something about that..."). Is this because, as one of the original singers of the Music and 'first-born' of Eru, he relied on this music/fate a little too much?

"It'll all work out, and if not, Papa Eru's up there and he'll set thing to rights," said Manwë as he continued to sit on his throne.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle

To answer that, I would like to emphasise the "free" part of free will: freedom implies a lack of constraints, or -- put another way -- an infinitude of possibility. One's will is unfettered by all considerations other than what the will desires.

But this cannot be the case in ANY world that our humans minds can imagine existing. In this world, and pretty much any world that we can fictionally pattern on it, we are constrained.

You say that in a perfectly free world, one's will would be unfettered by ALL considerations. Therefore, in that world, if I so WANTED, all I would have to do is WILL it so that I had whatever girlfriend I wanted. Or say that I wanted to forget a relationship. Zap! It's gone, never happened.

In this world, and Arda, people and their wills are subject to various constraints. The contraints of time, physical constraint (restraint? ), the constraints of money, the constaints of character.

Or, in the context of this thread, the constraints of a human mind, which cannot exactly grasp some things... like free will.

Originally Posted by Fordhim

This is clearly not the case in Middle-Earth. In the world of Eru, one does have choice, but it is extremely limited -- do what Eru/Providence commands or demands of you (the "good") or don't. And even then, choice is limited insofar as the Will or Eru or the Providential Plan will still work out to its conclusion.

I would say that if you feel this way about Arda, you must feel the same way about your own life. If those constraints exist in Arda (of time, physics, brains), they also exist in our world.

Originally Posted by Fordhim

That is why I say there is no free will in Middle-Earth. 'Free' in the sense that nobody is completely unfettered of the plan or design of Middle-Earth's creator. This is, I would add, an essentially Medieval view of the world -- no surprise givien the Professor's imaginative debt to that world. The absolute freedom of the individual to choose to become or to be or to act in whatever way or form as desired by the individual was unimaginable to the Medieval mind: it was much simpler than that -- do good/what God commands or don't. So the will is operative, but not within a very wide or "free" scope.

To recap, highlighted are the words I am questioning the most. The plan and design of Eru includes (in Arda) gravity, linear time, and the limitations of sentient minds.

So does this make one have no free will? The same conditions exist in our world, and I would say that I have free will. Would you say that you do?

In essence, that is what I would say this entire question boils down to. If you feel that you, yourself, have no free will, then one would probably say that the inhabitants of Arda have no free will. If one feels, as I do, that he/she has free will, then they would probably agree that those in Arda do. Or so I read it.

So what of it, Master Fordhim: do you say that YOU have free will?

[alatar]

Formendacil's post got me thinking, and this thread is begging the question:

Can your free will be used to negate your own free will? You choose not to choose? I'd place that question with the "Can a god create a rock so heavy that it cannot lift it?" and "Does this make me look fat?"

[mormegil]

By choosing not to choose you still have made a choice...wait didn't rush sing that?

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by alatar

I'd place that question with the "Can a god create a rock so heavy that it cannot lift it?" and "Does this make me look fat?"

I am not qualified to comment on gods (the rain-goddess tag IS a joke ) but I can sadly vouch that it is generally fat that makes one look fat not garments..... (unless they really do shrink in the wardrobe)

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Originally Posted by Formendhacil

So what of it, Master Fordim: do you say that YOU have free will?

Ah, but that's not really the question here is it? I do not live in Middle-Earth so I do not exist under the same conditions as do the characters in the tales (i.e. the omnipresence of Eru in the Plan on Existence).

So whether I have free will or not is irrelevant...

Although I do wish I could visit M-E once in a while....

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by FordHedgethistleim

So whether I have free will or not is irrelevant...

Untrue. I hate to use the word, but here it comes... canonicity. If you see it based on the book, your answer stands. If canonicity is based on the reader's perceptions, then your answer is a well thought out group of meaningless words.

Since canonicity is [and always has been] based on the reader, then I am entirely accurate in saying that there's not a lick of free will in Middle Earth, since that's how I perceive it.

[daeron]

How does one decide? But yes, I would agree there is free will. Elven rebellion in Aman , men turing to the dark side corrupted by Morgoth, Numenorean rebellion etc. have convinced me.

I remember a passage from the Silmarillion where Aule is reprimanded by Eru for creating creatures without free will, which have to sit idle when Aule is busy with other issues. He sets off to strike them down when they bow and shrink, bending in fear of the hammer. Eru tells Aule that this response of the dwarfs is that they have been taken over by Eru and have a free will which Aule was not able to give them.

But another interesting thing I want to discuss. Is everything good attributed to presence of God ( or his will) and every bad to his (or its) absence? ( There was one stupid statistics study in which catastrophies were proofs of God's absence and times of harmony and prosperity as proof of his existence which concluded with a 67% chance of his existance.)

But if Eru's will was present why would he create evil and mar his own creations. Does he wish to see his own creations destroyed just so he could have a good time in his "theatre". No, I think free will was present but Eru did give a nudge now and then to set things right again. Like he let Earendil cross the seas or gave Gollum a push down.

Is a vow made to Eru an act of free will. That was what started the events of the first age. So are all those free will? My answer is yes.

Another doubt. Are the creatures of the dark side under free will or under Morgoth's( or Sauron's) will. Aule, a valar couldn't give free will, so can Morgoth, or Sauron, the Maia? Or are they too under Eru's will?

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Originally Posted by the phantom

They both had a certain personality and Eru could forsee exactly what their personality and circumstances would lead them to do.

I don't believe that knowing what someone is going to do ahead of time means that the person does not have free will to choose.

Have you ever read Aldous Huxley's Brave New World? My signature entertained a quote from the book for awhile, but your words just brought it irrefutably to mind. You say that personality and circumstances lead people to things... in Huxley's book (taking place in a few hundred years) eugenics provides what you're talking about. It's nature versus nurture, only tweaked so that nature is what you make it, and you nurture it into what you want. By the time the "babies" are done being genetically enhanced (for alphas and betas) or conversely screwed up (pouring alcohol into the feeding tube of the fetus for epsilons and whatnot), you've got a load of "people" who are not only absolutely perfect for their lot in life, but who love every second of it, because it's what they're made for.

Sounds rather sinister and messed up, right? But they've got free will, yes, because each "person" can decide what to do each day. Going to work is entirely up to them. They can decide how much soma to take to escape reality. They can choose who their partners will be each day/week/whenever. They don't know any better than what they see before them, so the choices are free, yes? No constraints that they are aware of, so does that make the choice entirely theirs?

Originally Posted by mormegil

Fordim I understand what you are saying but you make each choice seem so cut and dry.

Because it is?

Originally Posted by mormegil

Sure Sam had the choice to be loyal or disloyal but it's a choice in varying degrees.

But surely disloyalty remains disloyalty regardless of the degree?

Originally Posted by mormegil

I think you've made each decision too black and white to be truly valid.

But what about those of us who live in a truly idealistic world where right is right and wrong is wrong (so far as we are able to tell, of course) and you can't grasp concepts that actively contradict themselves? Why else would I drop Calculus? Having a number called 2Infinity negates the concept that infinity is already the biggest. Having fate negates the idea that you can choose your own life down to the last degree.

[mormegil]

Originally Posted by Feanor of the Peredhil

But surely disloyalty remains disloyalty regardless of the degree?

For example what if Sam did everything the same along their journey but didn't feel like finding water that time when Frodo was sleeping. Or what if he just didn't think he had it in him to carry Frodo to Mt Doom. Would we still view Sam as a loyalist or would he now become disloyal? Remember everything else remains the same just two small things change.

[mark12_30]

Loyalty is an attitude of the heart. Fetching water, etc, is a deed that flows from that loyalty, and might be affected by weariness, weakness, distractions... Perfect service is not a faultless indicator of a perfect heart, nor is imperfect service a faultless indicator of an imperfect heart; but in general, they give us a pretty good idea.

If Sam's deeds had measured more or less than they do, we would still measure him by the greatness of his heart. His deeds provide ample evidence of that greatness.

"The greatest among you shall be a servant of all." Frodo served all, and Sam served Frodo. Both show greatness of heart.

[mormegil]

Originally Posted by mark12_30

Loyalty is an attitude of the heart. Fetching water, etc, is a deed that flows from that loyalty, and might be affected by weariness, weakness, distractions... Perfect service is not a faultless indicator of a perfect heart, nor is imperfect service a faultless indicator of an imperfect heart; but in general, they give us a pretty good idea.

If Sam's deeds had measured more or less than they do, we would still measure him by the greatness of his heart. His deeds provide ample evidence of that greatness.

"The greatest among you shall be a servant of all." Frodo served all, and Sam served Frodo. Both show greatness of heart.

Okay I see that my rushed example went a bit awry. It's not a question of his heart it's a question of varying degrees of loyalty or disloyalty. Remember I said in my example that Sam was able to get the water but didn't feel like it. He was not as loyal, in this instance, to Frodo as he is in the text. Therefore, I would still view Sam as a loyal companion to Frodo but to a bit lesser degree.

Disloyalty may illustrate my point a bit more clearly. It was stated that Sam could either be loyal or disloyal and those were his only two choices. Now couldn't he simply have been neurtral from the beginning. Neither wanting to help or hinder Frodo? Many people did that and they weren't considered disloyal. Sam, had he chosen to be disloyal to Frodo could have done many things, turn him into the Nazgul, kill him, go with him grudginly whinning the whole time and refusing to help. Obviously each is being disloyal but a different degree of disloyalty is associated with each choice.

Does this make any sense? I sometimes have difficulty expressing what I think.