Curse of Túrin

[William Cloud Hicklin]

No, he couldn't destroy their free will- but he could induce them to choose evil (compare Sauron's cozening of Gorlim). Morgoth of course could work at a far more elemental level than mere deceit.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

I think that Morgoth purposed through Glaurung to bring to naught the children of Húrin - but that was not his only intent - remember: through the workings of Húrin and his children and wife - he brought the destruction of Doriath, Nargothrond, Brethil and Gondolin - indirectly.

But here's the thing: he couldn't have counted on it. The only way he would be sure that Hin Hurin would seriously undermine any of his important enemies would be if he felt confident that his curse was in effect (and a tiny note here - he didn't feel confident at that, at least not all the time; there were times when he thought Turin would overpower him and his fate).

So either that could not have been Morgoth's intent but rather an added bonus, or then you might have to revise your stance on Morgoth's involvement with the fate of Hin Hurin. Otherwise there is a contradiction in your logic. If you meant something different, please elaborate on it as I am interested to hear the theory (even if I might respectfully disagree).

But speaking of the fall of all these kingdoms, I remember this point cropping up in a previous Turin discussion. If these kingdoms did not fall, Earendil would not have sailed West with a guiding Silmaril. Every time I think about it, I can't help but think of this beautiful passage:

'So shall it be! Dear-bought those songs shall be accounted, and yet shall be well-bought. For the price could be no other. Thus even as Eru spoke to us shall beauty not before conceived be brought into Eä, and evil yet be good to have been.'

But Mandos said: 'And yet remain evil

I think this sums up Turin's life moderately well, actually.

Originally Posted by Arvegil

And I still stand firm to my point - ONLY Ilúvatar can "curse" or change the course of the destiny of a certain individual - remember that the Eruhíni were conceived by Eru ALONE - therefore, anyone, even Morgoth, could curse someone, but it would be in vain (at least in my opinion).

Well, we don't have to agree on this point (and we probably won't, which - hey! - is part of the point of this forum), but I just see a few problems with this standpoint. First of all, you assume that people have a pre-designated destiny which, nonetheless, can be altered by someone (ie Eru). I might be a bit overly Spinozean, but this doesn't seem like a legitimate functional model. If your destiny is overwritten by Eru and your fate therefore changes, isn't it then just your true destiny that your supposed destiny was changed? If that was confusing, let me give an example. One of my teachers was very fond of a legend about Rabbi Akiva's daughter. The stars foretold that she would die her wedding night, but during the celebration she gave a platter of food to a beggar whom no one else noticed. Before going to bed she pinned her hair pin into the wall, and in the morning she discovered that with that pin she killed a snake that would have otherwise killed her during the night. The moral of the story was that destiny isn't fixed; humans can change their own fate, like the girl lived through the night because of her kindness the day before. But my argument to the story is that if their really is destiny, then it is what happens. The girl's destiny was never to die that night, but to give food to the poor man and accidentally kill the snake. She was never "supposed" to die that night in the first place, and the astronomers were just wrong on this one - which was part of her destiny and their destiny too. It just doesn't seem right to me that destiny, especially specific destiny, can be decided on by an entity, even a Godly entity. I prefer the perspective that destiny is, well, predestined and you can't change it (because attempts to change it are still part of your fate). I can accept the perspective that there is no destiny and humans write their own fates. I can also accept the view that humans can alter each other's fates. But I just don't understand the point of view where a God-like figure gets to handpick people's fates. If him, why not others? If not others, then why him? Why at all? And he is an entity too - don't you think he has his own destiny? Like the destiny to create puny little Eruhini? (I realize I'm getting into theology and philosophy more than Tolkien, and it's my desire to argue with everything showing through, but I think it would help if you explained why you think this way. Sometimes you think a certain way just because it feels right to you, and I can relate to that - that's how I feel about curses. But I think these are all points worth discussing).

The other major problem (and probably the bigger of the two) I see with this line of reasoning is that we see curses come to fulfillment on several occasions. Curses, blessings, legit prophecies and prophetic lines all exist and all have power throughout the legendarium. So if you dismiss curses as empty words, you have to address those cases as well.

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

I know that - and that is precisely why I am of opinion that Morgoth had no inherent power to alter the will of Ilúvatar - Morgoth, of course, could, and did, make the lives of Elves and Men miserable - but the fact is: Morgoth could NOT affect the free will of neither Elves nor Men (or at least their fëar) - he could only achieve his "curse" by indirect means - through Túrin's and Morwen's pride - and through Glaurung.

Ah, but free will and destiny are not necessarily contradictory. At the point of making a choice, a person has no idea what he will choose. But based on factors of his past and present (personality, mood, inclinations, current and previous influences, etc) he is predestined to choose a certain way. He's predestined to, say, choose vanilla over chocolate flavour in the ice cream booth because of events already in the past (which were shaped by yet older events in turn), but he doesn't know that until he actually orders the ice cream. So he does shape his future in the present, but, from the perspective of the future, he couldn't have done anything else.

However, philosophy aside, I think that in the world of Middle-Earth people can affect each others futures with words, and the more innately powerful the speaker, the more powerful the words. This does not affect the free choice at any point, just the final outcome. Like Mim's curse on Androg - free will is just marginally involved if you pedantically insist on every instance Androg could have left Turin's gang and avoided the battle - just the outcome is influenced. And what makes this curse more believable is that Androg was mortally wounded twice by an arrow, since with Beleg's help the first time did not come to fruition. Where Turin is concerned, He chose to act as he did, but his choices are not evil or bad - in fact they are remarkably good. It's the outcomes that are disappointing. Raise an army to fight Morgoth? Great! Destruction of Nargothrond? Well crap. Is it Turin's fault? In part, maybe, but certainly not in its entirely. You know what I mean?

[Arvegil145]

I will start with this - Morgoth (meseems) at the end of the First Age was a glorified troll: all his inherent power was, and still is, in the matter of Arda.

And I don't think that the curses are really "curses" - to me they seem more of a foresight, or a conclusion drawn from the current circumstances.

Concerning Ilúvatar - I have always imagined him/her/it not as a person, an individual, but as an ultimate compilation of everything, both in an outside this world, compressed in one form.

If Ilúvatar is omniscient, than he HAS to know what he would do next, for example, and in that he is powerless.

Of Men and their "free will" - I consider this free will as nothing more than an ignorance of what was, was is, and what will to come to pass - the mightier a being is, the more is it bound to the ultimate thread of time - in the sense of knowing what will happen next.

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

I will start with this - Morgoth (meseems) at the end of the First Age was a glorified troll: all his inherent power was, and still is, in the matter of Arda.

That's true, but less powerful beings have cast curses too - even considering Morgoth's fall. Though I like your description of him.

Originally Posted by Arvegil

And I don't think that the curses are really "curses" - to me they seem more of a foresight, or a conclusion drawn from the current circumstances.

...

Of Men and their "free will" - I consider this free will as nothing more than an ignorance of what was, was is, and what will to come to pass - the mightier a being is, the more is it bound to the ultimate thread of time - in the sense of knowing what will happen next.

Fair points, both. I can see where you're coming from now.

Still don't agree with you on Iluvatar. If he knows what will happen, than it will happen. If it will not happen, then he thinks incorrectly and does not, in fact, know. Therefore, if he "changes" fate, then that which he thought was supposed to happen didn't actually happen... See what I mean? If fate turns around, that was just an inherent part of it, not a change initiated by Eru.

[Arvegil145]

Túrin was proud - overproud. He brought his "curse" upon himself - or if we want to go "cosmic", then Ilúvatar himself "cursed him".

The TIME is no different than the SPACE - it has its boundaries, which, inside a finite universe, they are set. If Ilúvatar is omnipotent, he cannot be omniscient, and vice-versa.

And IF Ilúvatar is ONLY omniscient he is bound by his knowledge of both past, present, and the future - therefore, there is no deed which he can do that he didn't foresee.

And IF Ilúvatar is ONLY omnipotent, than he cannot see the future (which includes his OWN actions). But then again, if he is omnipotent he SHOULD be able to see the future (one aspect of omnipotence - ability to do ANYTHING at will) - and then WHAT?

Omnipotence and omniscience are NOT compatible. Unless you are willing to do some really elaborate mental gymnastics. And even then, you would only break your bones.

But that is the atheist and materialist speaking in me. And I digress.


Concerning Túrin - we can only speculate - his story reminds me of ancient Nordic sagas in which FAITH had an integral part - faith, mind you, in the sense of a path set before the individual by forces greater than his own. And, interestingly enough, I subscribe to this view of the world.

Though I do NOT believe in any god (even the God) or any "higher" power, I still think that any deed I have ever done or that I will ever do, is firmly set already in the thread of time.

I CAN NOT change anything - meaning, even if I change something, it would STILL be not a change, but a simple following of the said thread. It is only in my own mind that such concepts as "free will" and "faith" arise - they are but illusions - electro-chemical jesting in my squishy soft lump of fat called the brain.


Thank you for you reply, Galadriel! And I hope you will have patience to read mine too - and, maybe, understand a thing or two I have raved about .

[Galadriel55]

Originally Posted by Arvegil145

Thank you for you reply, Galadriel! And I hope you will have patience to read mine too - and, maybe, understand a thing or two I have raved about.

More like "the homework will have enough patience to wait until after I reply"

Originally Posted by Arvegil

Túrin was proud - overproud. He brought his "curse" upon himself - or if we want to go "cosmic", then Ilúvatar himself "cursed him".

Turin brought the curse on himself - yes. (Which in my opinion does not contradict Morgoth's curse: bad luck and action are separate but can coexist).

(Saying that, though, I can understand where the opinion that Turin's life was his own fault comes from, even if I don't entirely agree.)

Iluvatar "cursed him" - no. Having created what there was to be created, he kind of set back and watched from afar. The only time he interfered with the ways of the world was when the Valar - his "secretaries" - all called to him for help with the upstart Numenorians. That intervention was preceded by an undermining of the good of the world by the hopelessly corrupt(ed by Sauron) and unconvincible nation, and the plea of the Valar who felt this "heresy" to be beyond their scope of work. Curse Turin? For what? His pride? But is that really enough to make his life - and the life of those around him - a drawn-out torture? Would Iluvatar really a) intervene in the first place, and b) still have suffering follow Turin around wherever he goes? If he wants to teach Turin a lesson and is providing opportunities for repentance - ok, but what lesson was he teaching to Beleg and Gwindor and Finduilas and Brandir and so many unnamed others? No, I cannot accept that Turin's misfortunes were a result of Eru's approval, much less his decision.

The other big issue I have with that is related to the Catholic influence on the Eru/Valar roles. One thing that really bothers me in real life is when theological texts or articles or the like portray a monotheistic God as essentially a policeman with a beating stick, handing out rewards and punishments. I feel like if you believe in God, whatever the specifics of this God, it is not because he threatens you with eternal punishment if you don't and with great rewards if you do; it is for greater reasons. Same applies to Eru. I can't see him going, "Turin? Too proud. Assign punishment of magnitude 9 on the Richter scale. Tuor is much nicer, though, I think I'll give him some candy." That's just fundamentally wrong.

Originally Posted by Arvegil

The TIME is no different than the SPACE - it has its boundaries, which, inside a finite universe, they are set. If Ilúvatar is omnipotent, he cannot be omniscient, and vice-versa.

And IF Ilúvatar is ONLY omniscient he is bound by his knowledge of both past, present, and the future - therefore, there is no deed which he can do that he didn't foresee.

And IF Ilúvatar is ONLY omnipotent, than he cannot see the future (which includes his OWN actions). But then again, if he is omnipotent he SHOULD be able to see the future (one aspect of omnipotence - ability to do ANYTHING at will) - and then WHAT?

Omnipotence and omniscience are NOT compatible. Unless you are willing to do some really elaborate mental gymnastics. And even then, you would only break your bones.

If you're referring to the comment at the bottom of my previous post, I think we're talking about different things here. The message I got from your posts was that you believe Eru "cursed" Turin. To elaborate: Turin originally had a happier, or at least different fate; Eru cursed him, thus changing Turin's fate; Turin's fate now sucks. The key word here is "change". From what I gather, I think you agree with me that we don't "change" fates - as you say in #10, free will is ignorance of the influencing factors***, and that any attempted change is actually part of fate. Saying that Eru curses Turin implies that without this curse, Turin would have had a better/different life, and Eru intentionally changed his fate. Also, beyond this hypothetical knot, there's another thing that bothers me here. It chafes me in real religions and it chafes me in your descriptions. You place Eru in a position where he can influence fate, where he has control over fate. He is a being that can interact with the world, and yet he can influence fate. That's equivalent to a referee also being a player. Fate, to me, seems like a thing above all the players - even omnipotent or omniscient ones. It just seems wrong to me that fate is controlled by anyone, because as soon as the tiniest subconscious thought (not to say anything of intention or action) of influencing fate appears, the person already joins the game. They are already a player whose moves are laid out.

Originally Posted by Arvegil

Concerning Túrin - we can only speculate - his story reminds me of ancient Nordic sagas in which FAITH had an integral part - faith, mind you, in the sense of a path set before the individual by forces greater than his own. And, interestingly enough, I subscribe to this view of the world.

I don't disagree with that. I disagree with the view that Eru controls or embodies fate/faith/destiny. I feel like it's a thing beyond even his reach.



*** And on the topic of fate, free will, and God, I'm wondering if you by any chance are familiar with Spinoza? I can't boast to be familiar with many philosophers, but from among those that I've encountered this guy is my hero. I don't align with him 100%, but his conceptions align with my own in many cases. And at any rate, from a historical point of view I think he can be described as an atheist that is actually a monotheist. It's pretty cool. His description of "free" will is very similar to you described it, which is why I'm asking you about it. He says that It's an illusion born of ignorance of the causes of that decision. Once the causes are identified, though, you can see that they come out of the causes and not out of the blue, the present comes out directly from the past, and therefore there is only one possible way things could end up and history could flow.

(And the flip side of that is utter skepticism in any causality, that connections between "cause" and "effect" exist only in our minds and patterns of nature could just be a repeated coincidence. I don't think that's a very viable way of thinking, but it is fun to employ it to sneer at science. Water boils on the stove because it is heated? Oh please. )


Anyways, it seems to me like we actually hold more similar real life views than I thought originally, and on this thread disagree more about Eru's role in Arda's metaphysics than Turin's actual story. I love philosophical debates, and I'm really enjoying our discussion. I can't pass up a chance to talk about Turin and metaphysics at once (and possibly convert more people to "Spinoza-ism")! Thanks for making and carrying on this thread, and I hope I don't scare away other people with my rants.