Our Sponsor Sideshow Collectibles Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien
Do you enjoy the 100% volunteer, not for profit services of TheOneRing.net?
Consider a donation!

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Reading Room:
Letter #131 Discussion: Heaven or Hell?; And the Golden Pavement on the Road 'South'
First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All

Rembrethil
Tol Eressea


Oct 11 2013, 10:22pm

Post #26 of 43 (132 views)
Shortcut
Thoughts [In reply to] Can't Post

Is Tolkien's evil truly strict? Didn't he say that Melkor wanted to do 'good', but it was his own version of 'good'. In ME, I think that we'd have to agree that Eru is the ultimate 'good', or at least what everyone that is a hero fights for. It is Eru and his plan that coincides with the aims of those that we call good. So evil goes against good/Eru.

Thus Melkor's version of 'good' is actually evil. Also, it is said that the Ring would have given Gandalf power to overthrow Sauron(good) but that Gandalf, in attempting to do good, would be righteous, but that he would be SELF-RIGHTEOUS. This it is in reality evil, because it goes against Eru's good/plan.

So Tolkien's evil, I would say, would be a universal type. One where it is evil by comparison to another standard; one that is perceived as higher/better. In this scenario, you are either with good, or evil. For example, the Ents. Merry and Pippin tried to convince them that they couldn't stand to the side, and by inaction they supported Saruman. They found it to be true, and themselves hurt by their inaction.

Evil I'd say, is anything that doesn't conform to your own standard that you accept as true good. Different people accept different standards as ultimate good, so that's why we have different laws, opinions, and religions.

Just thoughts


Rembrethil
Tol Eressea


Oct 11 2013, 10:25pm

Post #27 of 43 (126 views)
Shortcut
You say some of what I feebly attempted [In reply to] Can't Post

Yes!! I agree.


Maciliel
Tol Eressea


Oct 11 2013, 11:04pm

Post #28 of 43 (132 views)
Shortcut
the ring(s) and fading [In reply to] Can't Post

[curiousg]

In Reply To
My understanding of the Rings is that they enhanced one's power, as they Nine did, but were a conduit for Sauron's mind control over the bearer. So once he completed his control of the Nazgul, he could take their rings back, and they'd remain his thralls. Which in a way seems unfair, since it seems with the rings gone, they should go back to normal, which even Gollum did a little bit, and it was beneficial to Bilbo to get rid of his ring. But unfair it is, and who said Tolkien was fair, anyway?

I'm sure Melkor kicked himself for never thinking up the Ring of Power scheme for ensnaring other races! Sauron accomplished that Melkor was never able to do.

[/curiousg]

i rather think gollum, bilbo, and frodo would all have become wraiths after a whiel. i suspect it was only their hobbitish blood -- hardy, down-to-earth, stubborn -- that kept them from fading.

i'll also add that the men who possessed the nine might have had them for more than 500 years. and who knows at what point sauron took the rings from them.

.


aka. fili orc-enshield
+++++++++++++++++++
the scene, as i understand it, is exceptionally well-written. fili (in sort of a callback to the scene with the eagles), calls out "thorRIIIIIIN!!!" just as he sees the pale orc veer in for the kill. he picks up the severed arm of an orc which is lying on the ground, swings it up in desperation, effectively blocking the pale orc's blow. and thus, forever after, fili is known as "fili orc-enshield."

this earns him deep respect from his hard-to-please uncle. as well as a hug. kili wipes his boots on the pale orc's glory box. -- maciliel telpemairo


Brethil
Half-elven


Oct 12 2013, 1:02am

Post #29 of 43 (122 views)
Shortcut
Art versus power [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To

Quote
The key thing to understand, though, is that Morgoth was a vastly greater power than Sauron. As Sauron's One Ring radiates temptation and corruption, because it hold the greater part of Sauron's power, so too does the fabric of the earth, the vessel of Morgoth's power, do the same thing; all the world is Morgoth's Ring. This means that we are constantly under assault from evil impulses, and our perceptions are under the Shadow (so, for instance, we may even find fault with the Valar's governance of the world!). In effect, the essence of Morgoth becomes an external cause of what theologians call the Depravity of Man.

Because of the corruption of all matter, Elves' bodies will not last forever, as intended. This is a problem for their souls, which WILL last forever. Hence, elves in Middle-Earth will eventually 'fade' into something very like a wraith. Apparently the Elven-Rings can hold this effect at bay over a limited area. This is what it means when Elrond says that they have great power to preserve all things unstained - they can exclude the Morgoth-taint, so that places like Rivendell and Lorien give us a glimpse of what Arda Unstained should have been like. The failure of the Elven-Rings after the War of the Ring is why all the Elves who could HAD to sail west; to avoid fading.
And that should hold you for now. " -- Reverend's explanation of Morgoth's taint.

What about reviving an philosophic concept which would allow both the one and the three to spring from the same source? That source is illusion. Illusion is both the source of all creativity and art (the elves) and the route of all striving for power (Sauron/Morgoth). Illusion is at the root of being human in essence. Without it we would not be conscious beings. No society would be possible. Everything that we do is based on conceptualizations of reality. Without the concepts we would not be able to conceive of how to build a house or organize a society. For that matter philosophically language itself is a conceptualization of reality.
So pleased Terazed that you brought up the Illusion concept here, in connection with the Rings!
Illusion I think is a primal idea within the legendarium, form the earliest days of the Valaquenta: where the tale of Creation is told to the Valar and the spirits by Eru. They see it as a story "which they first perceived as a drama (that is as in a fashion we perceive a story composed by some-one else), and later as a 'reality'. (#131) Illusion and the perception of the Valar of Eru's plan is I think what we can equate with the drive for subcreation: the mandate of first the Valar, and then of the Firstborn. Creation being defined as 'Art not Power, sub-creation not domination'. So that sense of feeling the Song and the plan, and striving with one's talent to bring it into fruition and existence, to give it 'reality' is the true way in which we honor the Creator in the legendarium; JRRT says that is the real purpose of Creation and of subcreating. The illusion is the drive: the drive to Art, to sub-creation, to honoring the Divine. It is also the force that brings the living divinities to embrace the reality that becomes the world.

And on its opposite hand, we can consider the will of those like Morgoth and Sauron: the drive not to sub-create but the 'tyrranous re-forming of Creation.' The sub-creative will, in which the art of life is enhanced to further the glory of Eru and of the Divine, is instead perverted to instead dominate life and to glorify the self. As in Sauron desiring to be a God-king: the worst failing of faith among all the ranks of darkness. Their use of the 'illusion' is to serve their will primarily, and to shape reality around that will; not to acknowledge the will of which they have intimate knowledge of and accede to it, though that is the reason they ostensibly chose to enter into the Reality of the world from Outside.

Interesting, that this may lead us to another sense of the failing of the powers of Darkness: they deny the very picture that, by entering into the Reality, they were perhaps bound to honor?
Let me return to my usual source of quotes for illustrative purposes. In this song Hans Sachs is ruminating on wahn (a German term meaning illusion, delusion, madness, mania, delirium, craze, or fad). He is a middle aged cobbler and also the greatest of the mastersingers of Nuremberg. He lost his wife and child to the plaque. He is in a position where he can either try to pretend he is young again and start a new family with the the person he cares for the most, a sacrifice for her but one she would gladly make (she willingly took over caring for him after the death of his family). Otherwise he can sacrifice his own dreams and her to someone else to make her truly happy.


Quote
Wahn! wahn! Everywhere wahn! Wherever I look searchingly in city and world chronicles, to seek out the reason why, till they draw blood, people torment and flay each other in useless, foolish anger! No-one has reward or thanks for it: driven to flight, he thinks he is hunting; hears not his own cry of pain; when he digs into his own flesh he thinks he is giving himself pleasure! Who will give it its name? It is the old wahn, without which nothing can happen, nothing whatever! If it halts somewhere in its course it is only to gain new strength in sleep: suddenly it awakens, then see who can master it! How peacefully with its staunch customs, contented in deed and work, lies, in the middle of Germany, my dear Nuremberg! (He gazes before him, filled with a deep and peaceful joy) But one evening late, to prevent a mishap caused by youthful ardour, a man knows not what to do; a cobbler in his shop plucks at the thread of wahn: how soon in alleys and streets it begins to rage! Man, woman, journeyman, and child fall upon each other as if crazed and blind; and if wahn prevails, it must now rain blows, with cuts, blows, and thrashings to quench the fire of anger. God knows how that befell! A goblin must have helped: a glow worm could not find its mate; it set the trouble in motion. It was the elder-tree: Midsummer Eve! But now has come the feast of John the Baptist! Now let us see how Hans Sachs manages finely to guide the wahn so as to perform a nobler work: for if wahn won't leave us in peace even here in Nuremberg, then let it be in the service of such works as are seldom successful in plain activities and never so without a touch of wahn.


Notice how wahn (illusion/delusion) is inescapable. The best that one can do is to be cognisant of its existence and turn it to nobler uses or else become an aesthetic and try to pierce the veil of illusion by renouncing the world.

What a sad and pervasive passage here. And again I agree, and it extends the metaphor as you laid out earlier; the ultimately the illusion will be the reality but the operative is choice, and free will. Which way will one choose? This could relate back to the Elves as well, and their fading...the world is the 'wahn': it has become pale, and dim, and holds no promise of light for them. The choice is then of the esthete: to leave the world, piercing the literal veil in their case, and fade from this world...but by doing so, take up their life in another place where the 'wahn' perhaps, cannot follow them. Could this be the difference between the elves use of the three rings and Sauron's use of the one ring? The differences in use would be the two poles of human nature. The elves use the rings to enhance the creative aspects of illusion. Sauron's ring emphasizes the illusion of power. All of the rings would be symbolic of the illusion that make human beings what they are.Perfect summation. Art versus power! Fantastic summary Terazed!


Is there a Tolkien topic that you have wanted to look into more deeply, and write about your thoughts on it? If so, we'd like to hear from you for the next TORn Amateur Symposium- coming in November. Happy writing!





Brethil
Half-elven


Oct 12 2013, 1:10am

Post #30 of 43 (117 views)
Shortcut
Why didn't the Ring get outta Dodge? [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
You're certainly right that the One did a lousy job of getting back to its owner. I can think of a couple possible reasons:

1. The Ring is only partly sentient, which is a polite way of saying it's dumb and not good at its job of getting back home. It seemed to select Deagol as a new owner--bad move. Smeagol was more prone to corruption and came more easily under his influence, but foiled its plans at discovery for centuries. It had all those orcs it could have landed on the fingers of, but it passed them by. Wasted opportunity.

2. There may have been some sense of self-preservation about the Ring that it didn't want to be found by just anyone. At worst, it could enhance a rival to Sauron while he was still putting himself back together, before he was ready to crush that rival, so that would be bad. At best, those interfering Elves might hide it or drop it on the bottom of the ocean and make it wait for the right fish to come along. So, maybe it was trying to hide out until the right time came along. That right time was when Sauron was back to himself in Dol Guldur, not terribly far away, so it left Gollum then, intending to get picked up by an orc, who would be easy prey for Sauron. In that sense, it was being smart. With Gandalf saying that Bilbo was *meant* to find the Ring, and not by its maker, I take that as rare interference by Iluvatar to get the Ring to a hobbit instead of an orc. Hard for the Ring to contest with Eru.

I like your guesses!I agree that to me the Ring has a sort of self-preservation and sentience that is perhaps filtered by the few senses it inherently possesses...probably most of its 'sense' is through the bearer that wears it. So it probably (again, like you, guessing) has only very local knowledge of personas and beings around it, as well as circumstances. And some of the might be filtered through the one who wears it...Gollum for example: focused on hunger, maybe the Ring was not able to perceive much more than that for a long time. That could explain why its not hugely aware of potential routes back to Sauron. And I also agree that 'meant' certainly means a larger power is involved in little Bilbo Baggins' business.

Is there a Tolkien topic that you have wanted to look into more deeply, and write about your thoughts on it? If so, we'd like to hear from you for the next TORn Amateur Symposium- coming in November. Happy writing!





Brethil
Half-elven


Oct 12 2013, 1:15am

Post #31 of 43 (114 views)
Shortcut
Morality - flexible or not? [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
Is Tolkien's evil truly strict? Didn't he say that Melkor wanted to do 'good', but it was his own version of 'good'. In ME, I think that we'd have to agree that Eru is the ultimate 'good', or at least what everyone that is a hero fights for. It is Eru and his plan that coincides with the aims of those that we call good. So evil goes against good/Eru.

Thus Melkor's version of 'good' is actually evil. Also, it is said that the Ring would have given Gandalf power to overthrow Sauron(good) but that Gandalf, in attempting to do good, would be righteous, but that he would be SELF-RIGHTEOUS. This it is in reality evil, because it goes against Eru's good/plan.

So Tolkien's evil, I would say, would be a universal type. One where it is evil by comparison to another standard; one that is perceived as higher/better. In this scenario, you are either with good, or evil. For example, the Ents. Merry and Pippin tried to convince them that they couldn't stand to the side, and by inaction they supported Saruman. They found it to be true, and themselves hurt by their inaction.

Evil I'd say, is anything that doesn't conform to your own standard that you accept as true good. Different people accept different standards as ultimate good, so that's why we have different laws, opinions, and religions.

Just thoughts




I see your point here about evil being what doesn't conform to your internal standard. It seems a bit close to moral relativism which I think wasn't quite JRRT's own thoughts.

I *think* he had an idea that anything involving domination is what was Evil, even in an infantile state: thus 'wanting to do good' may be the start...but if in doing that good the goal is to impose ones own will, the line has been crossed. I think the theological basis for this is that all exists to honor the Divine, and by imposing one's own will one is denying the Divine.

Is there a Tolkien topic that you have wanted to look into more deeply, and write about your thoughts on it? If so, we'd like to hear from you for the next TORn Amateur Symposium- coming in November. Happy writing!





Brethil
Half-elven


Oct 12 2013, 1:17am

Post #32 of 43 (114 views)
Shortcut
Hobbity sense [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
[curiousg]

In Reply To
My understanding of the Rings is that they enhanced one's power, as they Nine did, but were a conduit for Sauron's mind control over the bearer. So once he completed his control of the Nazgul, he could take their rings back, and they'd remain his thralls. Which in a way seems unfair, since it seems with the rings gone, they should go back to normal, which even Gollum did a little bit, and it was beneficial to Bilbo to get rid of his ring. But unfair it is, and who said Tolkien was fair, anyway?

I'm sure Melkor kicked himself for never thinking up the Ring of Power scheme for ensnaring other races! Sauron accomplished that Melkor was never able to do.

[/curiousg]

i rather think gollum, bilbo, and frodo would all have become wraiths after a whiel. i suspect it was only their hobbitish blood -- hardy, down-to-earth, stubborn -- that kept them from fading.

i'll also add that the men who possessed the nine might have had them for more than 500 years. and who knows at what point sauron took the rings from them.





I agree absolutely Telpemairo. I think what the Hobbits refer to as 'good sense" ie: when Samwise rejects the picture of himself as Gardener-overlord when tempted by the Ring, is that lack of will to dominate which is the gateway to falling.

Is there a Tolkien topic that you have wanted to look into more deeply, and write about your thoughts on it? If so, we'd like to hear from you for the next TORn Amateur Symposium- coming in November. Happy writing!





Maciliel
Tol Eressea


Oct 12 2013, 1:21am

Post #33 of 43 (111 views)
Shortcut
i meant also [In reply to] Can't Post

 
that -- tho the hobbitish folk did not fade within the annals of time during which the story unfolded --- if it +had+ gone on longer, any of them (bilbo, golumn, frodo) who would have claimed the ring and worn it would have ultimately faded. gollum is the best example. his was a slow decay, but he did indeed decay. eventually (if he had continued to possess the ring), he would have become a wraith.


.


aka. fili orc-enshield
+++++++++++++++++++
the scene, as i understand it, is exceptionally well-written. fili (in sort of a callback to the scene with the eagles), calls out "thorRIIIIIIN!!!" just as he sees the pale orc veer in for the kill. he picks up the severed arm of an orc which is lying on the ground, swings it up in desperation, effectively blocking the pale orc's blow. and thus, forever after, fili is known as "fili orc-enshield."

this earns him deep respect from his hard-to-please uncle. as well as a hug. kili wipes his boots on the pale orc's glory box. -- maciliel telpemairo


Rembrethil
Tol Eressea


Oct 12 2013, 2:18am

Post #34 of 43 (109 views)
Shortcut
Relevant truth(pun intended) [In reply to] Can't Post

Well, I personally am not a relativist. Not to disparage anyone who is, I only mean to say that I am not.

If you take your bearings from an absolute,(let's call it the Divine) them you have a concrete form of morality to work from. I can take a relevant bearing from a geographical landmark, but if I don't have a fixed reference( a chart/map), then my relative measurement is useless. That's why I am not a relativist, I need a concrete truth, and believe that I can extract more truths from that one truth.

So for dear JRRT, his personal experience, faith, and personality, all gave him fixed points of reference to extrapolate for ME. I don't think he set out to write a philosophy, but the philosophical intrudes of necessarily. You cannot give so much time and effort to a work, and not give it part of yourself.


Brethil
Half-elven


Oct 12 2013, 2:30am

Post #35 of 43 (104 views)
Shortcut
I Kant believe you would make a pholisophical pun Rem... [In reply to] Can't Post

...and take us down that slippery slope! Laugh
(So if the slope in the forest is wet, but no one comes along, is it still slippery?)


I agree with your take on JRRT. I think that even layered in the literary forms, his 'map' as you put it was obvious to him (very much like his world map was under Middle-earth, sort of like a transparency, all the while.) And I think his philosophical map was very present in writing, which is why I found talking about the Valar so interesting.

Is there a Tolkien topic that you have wanted to look into more deeply, and write about your thoughts on it? If so, we'd like to hear from you for the next TORn Amateur Symposium- coming in November. Happy writing!





Brethil
Half-elven


Oct 12 2013, 2:42am

Post #36 of 43 (107 views)
Shortcut
Roots of evil [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
It isn't the good root itself - but rather the combination of that good root with something that misses being good, no?
A preoccupation with "ones' own plans" is probably always a path to evil no matter the intentions because of the way it locks so much good out.
I think that's a great heart of the matter Escapist - and the locking out of the good along the way (excellently put) in JRRT's mind I think was rejecting the divine in everyday life by imposing one's own will.

I feel like there is an added element of arrogance, self-aggrandizement, and an attempt to become as god over others at work in the works of evil as depicted in LotR - I guess that's that "lusting for complete power" part - sort of. I don't think helping to maintain some amount of order within reason for a limited time and purpose is very evil, but attempting to absolutely force it on another sentient being might be. That might be where the line gets crossed. It might be better to think in terms of choices and invitations rather than dominance and power. I think so. and I think that's why Sauron perhaps was one of the closest things to Evil: that need to be a God-king himself. And one of the ways he did this was the subjugating of the Gift of men to his own will, by depriving the Nine of the Gift and instead turning it to his own purposes.

I guess I don't see "benefiting others" and "speedily according to ones' own plans" as being as much the same root as they are two separate roots that intermingle. I'm not saying that this is what I assume Tolkien intended, though. It's just my take on it. Interested here in your ideas Escapist - how do you see them being separated? Is it through intent - that you can still try to benefit others without necessarily doing according to one's own expedient plans?

I think Tolkien's world view is easy for me to get skewed since it is a bit removed culturally and socially from myself. But if I were to take a guess, I would say that the progression from good intention to evil is heavily wrapped up in loyalty, station, and duty so that maybe having power is not an evil in and of itself - but that Sauron owed allegiance to certain of the Valar and to Eru and that is where he failed leading to his fall? I touched on something like this when answering Terazed earlier - that since Sauron, like the other spirits, entered into Arda based on making Eru's vision come true, they violated that very mandate by changing the vision to their own.

I wouldn't consider this a dated morality but I would suggest that it gets sadly warped when people adopt it in the absence of an "Eru figure" and end up substituting themselves or something else for that figure - possibly even the ideal of "loyalty" itself in some twisted dogmatic form that makes certain orcs into the most moral creatures possible.
I also think that the very concept of "a morality" is quite dated and not-in-fashion-at-all these days and happily count myself amongst the outmoded (although I am far from perfect, really ... I try and acknowledge that there is a gap between what I am and ought to be and that there is an "ought to be" that matters enough to try for it
).Well said! Angelic


Is there a Tolkien topic that you have wanted to look into more deeply, and write about your thoughts on it? If so, we'd like to hear from you for the next TORn Amateur Symposium- coming in November. Happy writing!





(This post was edited by Brethil on Oct 12 2013, 2:50am)


Brethil
Half-elven


Oct 12 2013, 2:47am

Post #37 of 43 (100 views)
Shortcut
Anarchistic monkey! [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
I personally think murder and all acts of violence should be legalized because they are indeed based on an outmoded sense of morality that thinking, civilized beings should leave behind.

But beyond that, I think Tolkien's strict good vs evil is the more traditional variety, whereas good people slipping into evil is more modern, so he got to fuse the two in his story, and seamlessly, I will add.
I'm trying to think of myths and legends where good people became evil by trying to do good. I'm sure there are examples, but I'm having trouble finding any. It seems more often the case that someone is tricked into thinking they're doing good which turns out evil. Such as: Hero A wishes to save his beloved damsel's life before she dies of plague, and jealous Hera tells him to cut off her head and sew it on again, so he did, but she died, of course. [.I just made that up, but it reminds me of Greek plots.]
Or maybe Hero A leaves his damsel in a cave for safe keeping to protect her from the ravenous Zygorax monster, but the irony (which tragedy is full of) is that he left her in the Zygorax's lair, and she was eaten. So he does something harmful, and maybe crazed with grief in either example he goes on a murderous rampage, and in turn is torn apart by wild dogs at the command of Artemis. But it's still not the same as Sauron or Saruman wanting to make ME a more orderly place and slipping into torture, murder, endless warfare, ecological destruction, and industrial tyranny. Just not the same.




But for a good example is Turin and every woman he tried to help. They all ended badly. So in the sense of that feeling for tragedy in the old-world idiom, JRRT definitely had that sense too.

Sauron and Saruman definitely feel a bit more 'modern' though. And although he decries allegory, their mode of action and fall is the Machine: quintessentially modern.

Is there a Tolkien topic that you have wanted to look into more deeply, and write about your thoughts on it? If so, we'd like to hear from you for the next TORn Amateur Symposium- coming in November. Happy writing!





Brethil
Half-elven


Oct 12 2013, 2:53am

Post #38 of 43 (98 views)
Shortcut
Agree on this point Telpemairo [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
that -- tho the hobbitish folk did not fade within the annals of time during which the story unfolded --- if it +had+ gone on longer, any of them (bilbo, golumn, frodo) who would have claimed the ring and worn it would have ultimately faded. gollum is the best example. his was a slow decay, but he did indeed decay. eventually (if he had continued to possess the ring), he would have become a wraith.


.




Doesn't Gandalf says as much, that if the shard had finally 'killed' Frodo before Elrond removed it he would have become like the Nine, and the greatest torture would have been seeing the Ring on Sauron's hand? (paraphrasing here)

Is there a Tolkien topic that you have wanted to look into more deeply, and write about your thoughts on it? If so, we'd like to hear from you for the next TORn Amateur Symposium- coming in November. Happy writing!





Escapist
Gondor


Oct 13 2013, 6:31am

Post #39 of 43 (96 views)
Shortcut
re: roots [In reply to] Can't Post

I guess I don't see "benefiting others" and "speedily according to ones' own plans" as being as much the same root as they are two separate roots that intermingle. I'm not saying that this is what I assume Tolkien intended, though. It's just my take on it. Interested here in your ideas Escapist - how do you see them being separated? Is it through intent - that you can still try to benefit others without necessarily doing according to one's own expedient plans?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I see "benefiting others" as a kind of empathy / concern / interest in others / attitude or stance that hopes for others' benefit. Intent might be another factor involved. This seems to me to be possible to "be" in either an assertive / willful / intentional way or in a more responsive / accepting / attuned way.

In the absence of directions one way or another, I don't see a problem with self directed efforts to help others. In the context of directions from others, it becomes more tricky and things like jurisdiction, levels of authority involving conflicting directions, and the weighing of greater goods and lesser evils all come into play.

I see the concept of the "root of the will to do good for others leading to evil" as being more of a particular case where a person wills to do good but does so in a way that ignores input from others - especially those you are supposedly trying to help and those directly in authority over you at some level or multiple levels. I would assent that "trying to do good" doesn't quite save a person from straying into evil in this case.



elaen32
Gondor


Oct 13 2013, 11:56am

Post #40 of 43 (88 views)
Shortcut
Imposition of will... [In reply to] Can't Post

Surely not always evil in outcome- it is a case of being able to "fine tune" things. If somebody imposes their will with only good intents, but is too inflexible in that imposition, then it will probably lead to evil. But, if the one imposing their will can be flexible about it and knows when to draw back, the desired good effect can occur. An example- a family live by a very busy road. They ensure that the garden gate is well secured so that their 3 year old cannot run out into the road and get killed (in all likelihood). Thus the parent imposes their will on the 3 year old with the aim of preventing a serious accident. However, if the parent does not let up on that control, when the 3 year old is a 13 year old, the child will not know how to deal with a road, even though they now have the intellectual capacity to do so. The 13 year old will also perhaps have issues socially etc. Thus the original good intention turns to bad. On the other hand, if the parent eases up on the way in which they impose their will by increments, as the child grows older, the outcome should still be good.
I hope this makes sense- my brain is still a little mushy post-op, so please excuse any gobbledegook!Smile


Is there a Tolkien topic that you have wanted to look into more deeply and write about your thoughts on it? If so, we'd like to hear from you for the next TORn Amateur Symposium- coming in November. Happy writing!



Rembrethil
Tol Eressea


Oct 13 2013, 12:23pm

Post #41 of 43 (87 views)
Shortcut
Perfectly understandable!! [In reply to] Can't Post

Mother, don't smother!!!

Imposed will becomes evil when it overrides others, to the point that it MUST have its own way, and when having that authority and powers becomes the priority, rather than helping people. Power corrupts absolutely, and all that. Cliche, but in the main, true.


elaen32
Gondor


Oct 13 2013, 12:38pm

Post #42 of 43 (86 views)
Shortcut
Yes... [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
Imposed will becomes evil when it overrides others, to the point that it MUST have its own way, and when having that authority and powers becomes the priority, rather than helping people. .


That's why it is always important, in the parenting example, to explain to the child why you are imposing your will in this way. "You have to stay in the garden because the road is dangerous" instead of "you have to stay in the garden because I say so" I feel this translates to the world in general and dishonesty of intent, whether being dishonest to one's self or others, is one of the major failings here.


Is there a Tolkien topic that you have wanted to look into more deeply and write about your thoughts on it? If so, we'd like to hear from you for the next TORn Amateur Symposium- coming in November. Happy writing!



Brethil
Half-elven


Oct 15 2013, 12:37am

Post #43 of 43 (91 views)
Shortcut
When helping becomes dominating [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
I see the concept of the "root of the will to do good for others leading to evil" as being more of a particular case where a person wills to do good but does so in a way that ignores input from others - especially those you are supposedly trying to help and those directly in authority over you at some level or multiple levels. I would assent that "trying to do good" doesn't quite save a person from straying into evil in this case.




Thank you for clarifying! And I see how this bit fits Sauron in the earlier days; maybe having his plan in mind and not taking into account anyone else. And o course stray he did!

Is there a Tolkien topic that you have wanted to look into more deeply, and write about your thoughts on it? If so, we'd like to hear from you for the next TORn Amateur Symposium- coming in November. Happy writing!




First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All
 
 

Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.