The Scourge of The Dark Side...Tolkien and Modernism

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Gwathagor

I disagree. Within the context of a story, the characters are considered free of will and are held responsible for their action. Nobody blames JRR Tolkien for Saruman's betrayal, but Tolkien gave him that part to play nonetheless.

(Keep in mind that this is an analogy, and as such has its limitations. Don't try to take it farther than it's meant.)

My point is that Sauruman is a traitor every time you read the book. His path has been chosen by Tolkien, not by himself, and can therefore not be held responsible for his actions. If an omnipotent God knows all that is to come, the choices of his characters, like you and me, are also set in stone and there can be no randomness. We can not be held accountable for our choices since God then must be the author of our story, not ourselves. He created us to do just what we do, and we have no free will in the matter.

Originally Posted by Boromir88

What's really amazing is the adaptability of Tolkien's story, and I whole-heartedly disagree with Brin and the others who argue there is no reconciliation between Tolkien and modernism:

I fully agree, although I'm not quite sure what definition of "modernism" this Brin fella uses. I do think too much is made of Tolkien's Catholic faith and his purported "conservatism". While undoubtedly some of his personal values shine through in his books, the values expressed in the books aren't those of the Catholic Church or of modern day conservatives. As for conservatism, it is a word which has taken on many different meanings of course. When I hear the word, I primarly think of value-conservative people favouring God, country and the established authority, while strongly disliking "modern" ideas like socialism, gay-rights, rock'n'roll or abortions. You know the indignated, Hippie-bashing, what-would-Baby-Jesus-think crowd...

I see little or no conservatism of this kind in Tolkien's books. If anything, the ideals expressed is those of Liberalism in it's original meaning, that is "Do as you wish, as long as you don't hurt anyone else". Aragorn, as a representation of a just ruler, never forces anyone to follow him or claims that they should because it's their duty and that he is in the right. He doesn't tell anyone what to do, instead he says: Those who are willing, follow me! This is what I believe in. Invading Orcs or Easterlings will be treated harshly of course, but he makes no claim to dictate their lives as long as they stay away or act nicely. Of course there are no references to for example gays in LotR (thank god for that!) but if there were I'm certain Aragorn wouldn't make any judgement on their liftestyle.

I think a strong message in the books is tolerance, tolerance and humility. You may not have all the answers, Tolkien seems to say, and your will isn't more important than others peoples'. The evil of Sauron and Morgoth is that they try to bend everyone's will to theirs: they have no tolerance for other opinions. Arrogance and greed is also a common flaw among the "good" characters such as Turin, Feanor or Thorin. Are these ideals of tolerance applicable in today's modern society? I would think so.

Those of religious inclination may also appreciete the strong message of faith in a good God expressed in the books. This message is not specifically a Catholic or Christian one however, at least not in those works published by JRRT himself.

[Gwathagor]

Originally Posted by skip spence

My point is that Sauruman is a traitor every time you read the book. His path has been chosen by Tolkien, not by himself, and can therefore not be held responsible for his actions. If an omnipotent God knows all that is to come, the choices of his characters, like you and me, are also set in stone and there can be no randomness. We can not be held accountable for our choices since God then must be the author of our story, not ourselves. He created us to do just what we do, and we have no free will in the matter.

My point (which I evidently did not make clear) is that there are two perspectives on history: a divine perspective and a human perspective. From the former, we see that all is foreordained, and from the latter, we see individuals making choices and taking responsibility for those choices; you have the author, and the characters. They are two sides to the same coin. Consider the characters on their own level, and you will see that WITHIN THEIR STORY, they have what you would call free will.

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Gwathagor

Consider the characters on their own level, and you will see that WITHIN THEIR STORY, they have what you would call free will.

No, if everything is preordained, the characters may belive they make choices and that they are free, but they can't be. To make an actual choice there must be different options available and with a future already decided there can be only one option: that what the characters do. They can do nothing else.

Or can they? Please explain to me how they can. How can the book character Sauruman repent, and do what he was sent to do?

[Gwathagor]

It's a matter of which perspective you take: divine or human.

[McCaber]

Originally Posted by skip spence

If an omnipotent God knows all that is to come, the choices of his characters, like you and me, are also set in stone and there can be no randomness. We can not be held accountable for our choices since God then must be the author of our story, not ourselves. He created us to do just what we do, and we have no free will in the matter.

That assumes that God experiences time in the same way we do. We see the timestream as a flow moving in one direction, but God could see it as an outside observer, like us looking at a drawn timeline; or he could experience all time as Now.

I love tough theological questions.

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by McCaber

That assumes that God experiences time in the same way we do. We see the timestream as a flow moving in one direction, but God could see it as an outside observer, like us looking at a drawn timeline; or he could experience all time as Now.

I don't think it matters whether God sees time as a drawn line or if he experiences all time as now. The key point is whether there is randomness, or if all things can be predicted and understood if you only knew every single factor influencing the event. If the latter is true, and there is a grand equation for all of existance into which an allmighty being can insert all the - for us - unknown numbers, and predict all that is to come until the end of time, I can see how this deity could see into the future without messing with the free will. But then again, he would know everything his children would do at the very moment he created them too, and they would not be free in any actual sense.

Or is it perhaps chaos that governs the universe? Think of the butterfly effect. Every event, although seemingly uninportant, has the potential to change the world. Had fex. Hitler succeeded as a painter the world might have been a very different place. Will a mouse in a maze always choose the same path, given the exact same conditions? If the answer is no, the future must be uncertain, and no amount of omnipotence could get around that.

I love tough theological questions.

I certainly don't know the answers to these questions but they are intriging nonetheless.

[Gwathagor]

You are still confusing the divine and human perspectives, skip. What looks like free will to us looks like something else to God. Two sides of the same coin.