Historical Value

[Kuruharan]

The term "Dark Ages" is what is in question. It no longer refers to an actual historical period, but to our "dark" or scanty knowledge of the years roughly from AD 500 to roughly AD 900 or 1000 in western Europe. Even this is being changed by recent archeology, and a growing realization of the interconnectedness of other cultures, not the least of which are the Arab, Byzantine, and, more subtly, Chinese cultures. 20th century scholarship increasingly demonstrates the need for medievalists to analyze the diffusion of ideas and technology from the east (well documented in their own right) during this time. In other words, the term "Dark Ages" is too Euro-centric to reflect the direction of modern medieval studies. The term is one of those unfortunate carryovers from the days of Gibbon.

Yes, it is quite true. As a matter, of fact I referenced this in one of my earlier posts (obliquely it is true, I know that I mentioned the Byzantines [Rhomaioi as I prefer to call them]).

However, referring to the historical period as a whole, I think that the term will probably continue to stick in some sense, at least concerning the study of European history.

It is also called the "Early Medieval Period." For the sake of clarity I will refer to it as such in the future. (Even though this is almost a more nebulous term. )

I definitely see the glass half full.

I certainly wish I were you.

These first hand experiences proved to me the validity of Christian optimism: all things are fundamentally good.

I fear that I take a different view of the source of Christian optimism. I was always under the impression that the source of Christian optimism was the resurrection of Christ that promised a way of ultimate escape out of the mess in which we find ourselves in this world, and worse to come. I don’t recall ever seeing anything that says that all things are good. I do remember reading that all things can work to the good, but that does not say all things are good.

There are the seeds of an interesting discussion there, but I fear that if we continue in that vein much longer the thread will be closed down. I’d love to discuss this further in a more private arena if you would be so inclined.

Before I continue I would also like to say that I did not wish to say that generosity and positive impulses do not exist in humanity. I just do not believe that they are the primary and dominant impulses.

But the world will be changed by the few, it always is.

Yes, but this does not mean that they will change it for the better.

For instance, take the 20th Century (please!)

There were four men of the 20th Century who probably had the greatest impact, judged by the number of lives they affected (or afflicted).

They were Stalin, Mao, Hitler, and Ghandi. Of those four only Ghandi was a "nice" guy. The rest were cruel butchers, and yet look at the changes that they wrought in the world.

There were also some other lights like Martin Luther King, but those above four had the greatest impact on the world.

What do you consider a "truly generous impulse"?

That is a reasonable question.

I would answer that a truly generous impulse is doing good because good is something that has value in and of itself.

(Hmm…I think I read something like that in Tolkien’s Letters somewhere, come to think of it. Although, I think that he was talking about Frodo’s pity for Gollum at the time.)

Thus, the reward, whether it exists or not, is irrelevant. You do good because it is good.

So does that make generosity, itself, ultimately selfish?

No.

However, as Tolkien would say, the "Morgoth Element" will almost always come into play, even at times when we are wanting to do right. It is just part of being human.

This has gotten rather abstract all of a sudden.

[Bill Ferny]

I don’t recall ever seeing anything that says that all things are good.

“God looked at everything he had made, and he found it very good.” Gen 1:31.

I don’t think this is as off topic as it can be interpreted. There are plenty of threads dealing with Tolkien and religion, Tolkien and the bible, and Tolkien and Christianity. Christian optimism always existed in the Christian Church, but was developed to its fullest extent by the medieval scholastics. The notion that all things are created good and are part of an economy of salvation, a linear path of history, did much to usher in the scientific and technological age. Catholicism has always stubbornly held onto this notion, putting her at odds with the “sinners in the hands of an angry god” crowd. As a Catholic, Tolkien would have been thoroughly indoctrinated by the notion that God created all things good, and despite the fallen condition of man, man remains fundamentally good and on a path toward divination. Such optimism is the corner stone of Lord of the Rings… apparently insignificant people doing extraordinary things, characters finding within themselves the strength and courage to overcome incredible odds. Evil in Middle Earth is explained along the same lines, albeit in the negative sense: the fall of good creatures into evil (i.e. Melkor and Sauron) and corrupting a good creation by the misuse of sub-creative powers. The "Morgoth Element" is an unfortunate condition, but not the true nature of reality.

For all these negative influences, I’m sure I can come up with just as many 20th century people who have had a positive influence. It’s a circular argument, and depends on your worldview. On the practical level, optimism has certainly made me a more congenial person. At the same time, the world is what it is. Any attempts to apply an elixir that somehow purifies the world and makes it into a perfect utopia is a waste of time, be it education, social justice, or some rule of law. Not even Jesus Christ claimed to do that (not yet, at least). Once again, though, my optimism tells me we are part of a greater design and destined for greater things. All I can do is attempt to teach my children those simple things that will give them a chance to be good people and maybe change the world in a positive way.

Pessimists do have an important role to play, especially in identifying the ills that need to be righted. However, even pessimists attest to the optimistic view that all things are fundamentally good. If everything was basically base, rude, evil, and irreparably corrupted, why identifying the ills in the first place?

I would answer that a truly generous impulse is doing good because good is something that has value in and of itself.

I wholeheartedly agree. I often lament the loss of “generosity” as a social virtue in our modern world.

[Gandalf_theGrey]

Bill Ferny:

Hail and well met. * bows an affable greeting, offers you a bit of Southern Star, lights a conversational bowl of pipeweed himself *

With pleasure I've come across this renewed thread after a long absence. You address so many worthy topics ... for tonight I'll choose just one.

Soothly, your post of April 26, 2003 10:15 PM can be answered by an entire book called "Beyond Humanism" by John Julian Ryan, published by Sheed and Ward in 1950.

The author very much agrees with your take on education being a preparation for life as a whole rather than for life in terms of mere paycheck-earning-and-spending ability, as seen in the following quotes:

... we must rid ourselves of bookishness and become once more realistic -- in the sense in which a saint is realistic.

Ryan then goes on to suggest that we shape our teaching around points including the following:

8) That, although ideas are real, they are meant primarily to serve as lenses, enabling us to see the reality of things; hence, they are not so much to be sought and enjoyed for their own sakes as they are to be sought for the focussing of our minds on whole things, that we may not only see these, but may see into them to their nature and through them as specimens of His infinite wisdom and love, to God Himself;

9) That any education is therefore unrealistic, disintegrative, and diabolical which trains a student to study and formulate the apppearances of things as if these appearances had no substantial basis, unity or meaning, and as if the principles governing them were the true and final objects of study, all whole substances being merely mysterious, accidental combinations of these principles, not really meant, not historically meant, by God; that any education, indeed, is tragic which trains him for living only one side of life, the animal, and concentrates his attention on living intensely only certain parts of life (the moments of highest sentimental pleasure, however intellectual) merely coercing him into living as cooperatively as he can without losing his individuality; for nothing could be more unreal than training one part of the student -- the faculties needed for scientific investigation and voluptuous enjoyment -- to deal with one section of Nature, one set of aspects at a time, in order to live a life as a wilful part of the cosmos, and to enjoy, even so, only those parts of his existence in which he is thrilling most intensely to one isolated experience;

The craftmasters of the Shire as you point out are indeed just the sort of teacher that Ryan presents as an ideal and wishes there were more of. I'd add to that, the loremasters and artisans of the Elves, who as one Elvish leader told Pippin, "put the thought of all that we love into all that we make."

Myself, I was fortunate to have a father who introduced me to various hobbies. In particular, to the wonders of the stars by teaching me astronomy, and to the wonders of magical presentation (close-up, stage, mentalism, and everything in between) by personal instruction, until eventually I joined the International Brotherhood of Magicians.

More to come soon.

I look forward to discussing these and other points with you in more depth.

Gandalf the Grey

[Bill Ferny]

Tigerlily, with your post falling last on the previous page, I didn’t notice it until a few minutes ago. That’s unfortunate because you bring up a number of provocative points. Mel Gibson gave an interview about his role in Signs, which was apparently a haunting role for him to play. If I can find the interview on the web, I’ll PM it to you.

we have the capability to accomplish so much, but many of us must be cornered with no way out before we act on what we can do.

I vaguely remember this as aspect of the innovative/creative personality: someone who feels cornered by the world in which he or she lives. I think this notion was in the Revolutionary Aesthetic written by I don’t remember, but I’m sure it was someone of notoriety.

Gandalf, I’m not familiar with John Julian Ryan. I’m sure he’ll be in the library, though. The book sounds fascinating.

…for nothing could be more unreal than training one part of the student…to deal with one section of Nature…in order to live a life as a wilful part of the cosmos, and to enjoy…only those parts of his existence in which he is thrilling most intensely to one isolated experience…

That’s some pretty heavy stuff. I better wait until this summer when I have a bit more time read, and re-read, and re-re-read. It’s a bit more complex than 14th century English land economy.

[Kuruharan]

"God looked at everything he had made, and he found it very good." Gen 1:31.

Well, as you say, that was before the Fall. My statement was regarding circumstances afterwards.

The notion that all things are created good and are part of an economy of salvation, a linear path of history, did much to usher in the scientific and technological age.

I would agree that all things were created good (or at least originally created). However, I believe that the misuse or corruption of things can led to all sorts of stuff (very technical term) that is inherently bad or evil. This is not to say that good cannot be made to come out of the bad. However, it is to say that this "stuff" (think wars, greed, and all manner of suffering, that kind of "stuff") has no inherently good qualities, in and of themselves.

Catholicism has always stubbornly held onto this notion, putting her at odds with the "sinners in the hands of an angry god" crowd.

Ah, well, that is probably one of the places where Catholicism and I split ways, although I do not belong to strongly in the "sinners in the hands of an angry God" crowd.

man remains fundamentally good and on a path toward divination.

I’m not sure that Tolkien believed this at all. Overall the tone of much of his writing about people tends (to my ear at least) to be rather pessimistic, at least so far as human beings themselves are concerned.

I must apologize at this point, I don’t happen to be in possession of Letters at the moment, so I can’t cite particulars. I will try to get it back again as soon as I can.

Nevertheless, there is a reference from that book that comes to mind. (At least I think that it was from Letters.)

When he is writing on the subject of the benefits and ills of the chivalric view of women he makes a comment something along the lines of "the chivalric view tends to elevate women too much, to the point that it is forgotten that they too are human and their souls are in peril." That sort of remark tends to make me believe that Tolkien did not think that people were fundamentally good. It sounds like he thought that they were in trouble and in need of redemption.

However, I’m open to other interpretations and passages on his viewpoint. My knowledge of his views is by no means exhaustive. I tend to only read those things that deal directly with Middle Earth and ignore other "stuff."

Such optimism is the corner stone of Lord of the Rings…

Please allow me to disagree (again). I don’t believe that such optimism that is in Lord of the Rings derives from inherent qualities inside the "human beings" (remembering that Tolkien said that the Elves had not "Fallen" in the same sense that man had).

Take, for example, the Destruction of the Ring. While Frodo’s pity was an important ingredient, it only opened the door for an event that was nothing less than divine intervention. That was where the true triumph in the story came in, from outside ourselves.

I’m sure I can come up with just as many 20th century people who have had a positive influence.

But I doubt that they had so great an influence as any of the others that I named. Those nuts killed millions and still shape our world today even after they are gone.

However, even pessimists attest to the optimistic view that all things are fundamentally good.

Not necessarily. It could just be that things are so obviously wrong of themselves.

If everything was basically base, rude, evil, and irreparably corrupted, why identifying the ills in the first place?

As an outlet of frustration. However, this does not mean that things are fundamentally good and just in need of a little fixing. It could just be a search of making the bad things better, but tinker all you will and they will still remain bad (another source of frustration).

[Morwen Tindomerel]

Still Shape our world?

Let's see: last time I looked the Soviet Union had gone flooey and Stalinism was dead even before that. Mao's China has not only turned capitalist but done its best to undo the damage he inflicted and Hitler and his thousand year Reich have been dead and buried for nearly sixty years.

That these Bad men had tremendous and damaging impact on Human history is undeniable but it is the forces that were called up to oppose them that have lasted. It is the reaction *against* their evil that shaped the twentieth century.

[Kuruharan]

Still Shape our world?

Yes.

last time I looked the Soviet Union had gone flooey

Per se, yes it has. However...(and this is really the more important part of what I have to say here)...

Stalinism was dead even before that

The Russia that exists now still rests on much of the foundation that Stalin built on the bones of the millions of his victims.

And currently Russia is in such bad economic shape that I would not be surprised to see them go back to something resembling the NEP that they had back in the early days of the Soviet Union. Putin is an ex-KGB man you know.

And Stalin is still popular with many of the descendants of the people that he brutalized all those years ago. He was even popular while he was alive. Which goes to show two things. One, people can be pretty strange, and two that man did a heck of a job building a personality cult around himself.

This may also show that people like being brutalized, which was a point made by Dostoevsky, but we'll cover this again later if need be.

Hitler and his thousand year Reich have been dead and buried for nearly sixty years.

And live on as people's favorite whipping boys. Anytime anybody wants to denounce anything they tie it (usually pretty implausibly) to Fascism or Nazism.

And then there is how the state of Israel came about partially as a result of the Holocaust, which is another one of their deplorable actions that still resonates to this day.

Mao's China has not only turned capitalist but done its best to undo the damage he inflicted

There is a considerable amount of chrome that the Chinese government has built up around themselves to make the rest of the world believe that they have turned over a new leaf (my complements to their propaganda ministry, although gullibility probably has something to do with it). That is not to say that there are not changes happening in China, there are. However, their government can be (and is) still absolutely vicious toward any form of dissent or resistance. They still at this moment have one of the highest piles of human rights violations in the world, and that pile continues to grow.

That these Bad men had tremendous and damaging impact on Human history is undeniable but it is the forces that were called up to oppose them that have lasted. It is the reaction *against* their evil that shaped the twentieth century.

I think that what you are mainly referring to is World War II.

I hate to mention it but Stalin (who was, by body count, worse than Hitler) had more to do with defeating Hitler than anybody else who fought against Nazi Germany. (Sorry US and UK). It was the Soviets who turned around the war at Stalingrad. It was the Soviets who consistently faced something between 80%-90% of the German army most of the time. It was the Soviets under Stalin who "liberated" (ha-ha) the most territory from German occupation (including much of their own). And it was the Soviets, or more specifically Stalin, who reaped the lion's share of the spoils of the war. Although on the other hand they were so thoroughly ravaged by the Germans (and by Stalin, and by a few decades of unrelenting turmoil and suffering before the war) that in the end things still looked a little rough for them.

(And before anyone gets all huffy about my little WW II schpiel, I'm not trying to say that the US and UK were not important, they were. The war probably could not have been won by the Allies if any one of the three main powers had been missing.)

And then following that came the Cold War.

I suppose that could be looked at as starting off as a "reaction" against Stalin. But on the other hand it could be equally looked upon as Stalin trying to gain as much capital off of "his" victory as he possibly could.

Then came Khrushchev, who was sort of a de-Stalinizer (to a point), who also almost started a nuclear war.

Then came Brezhnev, who was sort of a re-Stalinizer, and on and on we go. (But notice how everything was still bouncing off of Stalin.)

But suffice it to say that these men still resonate to this day, like it or not. The world is the way that it is today because of the things that those men did.

*He now looks frantically around to find some way to tie this back to Tolkien...*

[Bêthberry]

If I may, Kuruharan, the letter you allude to in which Tolkien says that the woman, in the courtly love tradition, is "another fallen human-being with a soul in peril" is Letter # 43, written to his son Michael, 6-8 March 1941. Tolkien also says that, even when "harmonized with religion" the courtly love tradition causes men and women to forget that they are "companions in shipwreck." p. 49 in my paperback HarperCollins edition, l995.

[Bill Ferny]

I haven’t time to reply in full. However, I do require some clarification.

Well, as you say, that was before the Fall. My statement was regarding circumstances afterwards.

Kuruharan, are you suggesting that a human act can undue an act of God? I’m not bringing into question the state of a fallen world, but the essence of creation, the very nature of existence. To whatever degree something exists, to the same degree it is good. Good is a transcendental; it is interchangeable with being. This is simple Aristotelian metaphysics. It is also simple Thomistic metaphysics, thus the Catholic/Tolkien connection.

Tolkien’s spurious view of chivalry (I say spurious because chivalry does not necessarily equal courtly romance as he seems to take for granted in the above example), is beside the point. That Tolkien believed in original sin is obvious throughout his writings, no less, I’m sure in his letters. I’ve read enough examples on this forum to be convinced. None-the-less, the Catholic notion of the “shipwreck” of the human condition does not negate the essential goodness of the human person. Once again, no human act can undue an act of God. If there is nothing worth saving about sinful humanity, why save it?

However, arguing Tolkien’s theology is shaky ground, as he was neither a theologian or philosopher. I admit the only grounds for making the above claims is that Tolkien was an educated and devout Catholic. I don’t think a Catholic Oxford professor would be unfamiliar with Saint Thomas Aquinas, nor do I think a devout Catholic would be of a mind to diverge radically from a system of thought that has been the basis for Catholic doctrine since the Council of Trent.

While Frodo’s pity was an important ingredient, it only opened the door for an event that was nothing less than divine intervention.

If I gave the impression that Christian optimism is the same as Pelagianism, I apologize. Even though all of creation is essentially good, in as much as it exists to some degree, the sin of man, according to Catholic theology, is beyond the power of man to heal. Thus, divine intervention, or as Tolkien would call it, a eucatastrophic moment, is not a surprising addition to his mythology.

At any rate, you bring up other points of interest, but unfortunately I haven’t the time to address them with the sufficiency they deserve.

[Kuruharan]

Bethberry:

You certainly may. Thank you very much.

I should be Lettered in the next day or so.

And shipwreck is also rather suggestive.

Bill:

You got me on my timing there.

I must also be brief but I did want to make one observation.

are you suggesting that a human act can undue an act of God?

No, not exactly. However, I do believe that when Free Will enters the picture human beings have the capacity to pervert the good and turn it into something that is bad.

None-the-less, the Catholic notion of the "shipwreck" of the human condition does not negate the essential goodness of the human person.

I'm not sure that I follow you there.

Could you explain in greater depth to make sure I'm understanding properly. The way that reads to me sounds like there is something wrong in the essentials of human beings.

If there is nothing worth saving about sinful humanity, why save it?

I would say love of the Creator for the misguided Created.

Looking forward to continued discussion.