Lord of the Rings and Philosophy @ Concordia University Wisconsin

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

That which is not bolded I have no argument with. How mere existence, by virtue of some good, "no matter how perverted", can be redeemed, is not conclusively based on the information not bolded. How does the perversion not remove the chance for redemption?

Because the 'evil' is absence - what remains in existence is 'good'. I don't say the chance is high, but that it remains. If any chance of redemption (by which, as I stated, I mean return to the individual's original state, not 'salvation' btw) is removed while some part is still 'good' (ie the individual still 'exists' to some degree) then we introduce 'damnation' into the picture - Eru will deny a return to the original state while it is still 'technically' a possibility.

[littlemanpoet]

Since you are using the word "redemption", I assume you know what it implies: namely, payment of a debt, in some form of currency that is acceptable to the one to whom the debt is owed. In the case of evil, what is the currency? Perhaps some law has been broken? Some code transgressed? Whatever the case, what payment are you considering to be possible in this case? What has Tolkien said from which one could deduce a form of currency in terms of this guaranteed redemption of which you speak?

To address another part of this problem, how much good must be left in an entity for that entity to be redeemed? One percent? Less than one percent? An infinitessimal degree, so long as it is just this one little smidgen of good? My reason for asking this is that it stands against all reason and good sense. Consider, would you give a Lawyer's license to a prospect who got one answer out of 100 correct on the bar exam? Would you allow someone to drive who got precisely one aspect of driving correct out of 100? Of course not. Why, then, should one expect a moral code to be some kind of fantastic exception such that scoring 1% on your morality exam passes you into the realm of that one who has set up the exam? It's preposterous.

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

What has Tolkien said from which one could deduce a form of currency in terms of this guaranteed redemption of which you speak?

Clearly the 'debt' is owed to oneself. I was using the word in the colloquial sense of 'redeeming oneself'.

To address another part of this problem, how much good must be left in an entity for that entity to be redeemed? One percent? Less than one percent? An infinitessimal degree, so long as it is just this one little smidgen of good? My reason for asking this is that it stands against all reason and good sense. Consider, would you give a Lawyer's license to a prospect who got one answer out of 100 correct on the bar exam? Would you allow someone to drive who got precisely one aspect of driving correct out of 100? Of course not. Why, then, should one expect a moral code to be some kind of fantastic exception such that scoring 1% on your morality exam passes you into the realm of that one who has set up the exam? It's preposterous.

Its Universalist. I don't see any evidence in the texts that universal 'redemption' is impossible. One can retake tests. Where there's life, there's hope. The soul of each single one of us is sent that the universe may be complete, as Plotinus said.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

Clearly the 'debt' is owed to oneself. I was using the word in the colloquial sense of 'redeeming oneself'.

So Morgoth owes himself redemption? Can he just order it up? I'm really not trying to be facetious, but what you are saying makes no sense. How can Morgoth repay to himself a debt he has made to himself? What debt is this? He has become evil, and therefore owes himself a debt of not-evil? And pays himself by what means? I'm trying to identify some strand of logic in all this.

Its Universalist. I don't see any evidence in the texts that universal 'redemption' is impossible. One can retake tests. Where there's life, there's hope. The soul of each single one of us is sent that the universe may be complete, as Plotinus said.

I'm aware of the philosophical background of what you are saying. I'm asking you to defend it based on what Tolkien has written.

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

So Morgoth owes himself redemption? Can he just order it up? I'm really not trying to be facetious, but what you are saying makes no sense. How can Morgoth repay to himself a debt he has made to himself? What debt is this? He has become evil, and therefore owes himself a debt of not-evil? And pays himself by what means? I'm trying to identify some strand of logic in all this.

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.

I'm aware of the philosophical background of what you are saying. I'm asking you to defend it based on what Tolkien has written.

There is no internal evidence for either universal redemption or eternal damnation in the writings. The former just seems more humane & is what I favour.

[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'?