Login | Register
 
Message Board | Latest Posts | Your Recent Posts | Rules

Thread: Eru's thoughts (Ainur)

Is this discussion interesting? Share it on Twitter!

Bottom of Page    Message Board > The Silmarillion > Eru's thoughts (Ainur)   << [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] >>
QUite right, Grondy. I remember reading in The LEtters of J.R.R.tolkien that he didn't have any more idea of who STrider was than the hobbits did. (I presume he was writing the bit at Bree).

Quote:
I cant keep up with you guys!!!! Your all crazy!!


No! You silly! You just can't keep up cause you don't comprehend our great minds. Very Big Grin Smilie (Or maybe not.....)
Hmm. Let me make some things a bit clearer. If we consider Eru=Tolkien at all times, I'd say that would be a waste, because that would take away all the beauty of Tolkien's creations. What I have said, is that, maybe at certain situations, where we are unable to find answers as to why something happened, maybe that's the way to go about it. Because, I think, in certain situations, Tolkien has HAD to use the Eru factor to get the story going, with a suitable justification as to why something happened. Now, if anyone thinks that this is a negative point, I don't think so. Look at the situations in Harry Potter. There are so many mistakes and so many unanswered questions in there. Tolkien however, manages to escapse such questions and problems, because he has the base to it all. He has managed to create a world from scratch. He is the master. He knows what happens and he gives us reasons to make us believe in all that happens in his world. There is nothing (more or less) left unexplained that way. Certain things like death, on which we cannot comment with confidence, Tolkien can, because he has created that world. No doubt that it is, in the end, his imagination; but then again, to possess such power of imagination, he is great. To make us actually think like we're talking on something real is where the strenght of his works lies.
Here, here! I agree.
I think LOTR doesn't have the problems HP has, because JRRT is a decent and apt writer, whilst Rowling is not. And i think Rowling includes unanswered questions in her books, so that she can write sequels for all time, and cash in for all time on our beloved little nerd with the owl and the scarf.

Besides, even in JRRT's works there are still unanswered questions and things which are unclear. JRRT had so many different ideas about his creations and kept on changing the complete saga throughout his life.
Quote:
Besides, even in JRRT's works there are still unanswered questions and things which are unclear. JRRT had so many different ideas about his creations and kept on changing the complete saga throughout his life.


It just proves how impossible it is for us to understand an all-knowing god, when not even a talented man like Tolkien can fully understand a world he has created himself!
I agree.

Just wondering though, is anyone going to disagree? I mean, it gets boring when everyone starts agreeing :P

P.S. Thinking about JRRT's works, I think what he's tried to do, is create a reasoning behind everything. But, some things, like the "universal" question, just can't be answered. I think that's why the concept of "god" comes in. The human brain needs reasoning behind everything. Otherwise we wouldn't go exploring the world we live in. JRRT tries to create a world of his own, but somehow he can't complete it. Maybe, it isn't for us to know everything. I don't know. This topic is mind-boggling!!

Oh, and kill off the Harry Potter part. I had just used it as an example.
A tribe of indians in the Amazon thought the World was flat. But what kept the World up? Why didn't it fall down? Ah! Because it was laying on the back of a giant turtle of course!

Quote:
But, some things, like the "universal" question, just can't be answered. I think that's why the concept of "god" comes in. The human brain needs reasoning behind everything. Otherwise we wouldn't go exploring the world we live in. JRRT tries to create a world of his own, but somehow he can't complete it. Maybe, it isn't for us to know everything. I don't know.

Sometimes the need for reasoning lead to a fear of an open question. Which can lead to people being satisfied by answers like "it's not for us to know", "it is just the way it is" or claims that the question cannot be answered. Then people don't dare to pry deeper, or to queston the "Obvious Truths" Then we get the spanish inquisition.

Clearly, if we approch ME as a fictional place in a book, then there is little point in this discussion. Frodo did what Frodo did because the author wrote it that way. End of story. Why did he write it that way? We can speculate, but the chap is dead. He can't tell us his motivations anymore.

If we look at ME as a "real" place, however, then this chatting of ours can indeed enlighten us a bit more. I think for Tolkien ME did become a real place in his mind. He didn't always agree with himself on all the details, but ME as a place was real.

***

Amari said the a,b,c,d,e... theory was simpler than mine. Wrong you are! In order to use a,b,c to deside all the happenings and non-happenings in ME the a,b,c-plan would require a truly horrendous complexity! Mine doesn't require anything - exept that Eru can't be bound by time. If he created the world, time being part of the world, there is really no reason for him to be bound by time anyway. It is just so difficult for us to comprehend a state of being where time doesn't behave the way we are accustomed to.

As I by now is quite used to think in 4 dimentions I sometimes find it hard to understand the trouble others have when trying to do that. I do remember a time when I too found that to be the mother of headache-creaters though. Smile Smilie

Why is time so difficult? Let's start with the other dimentions. Commonly denoted x,y and z. Lets choose, say, the North-South axis as the x-axis. Then the East-West direction (from the point you are in) is the y-axis and the z-axis is straight up and down. When standing up I span 1.8 meters in the z-direction and about 50 cm in the x and y directions. I am with other words in several different (but close) points in space at the same time. I am 5 cm above the ground, 50 cm and 150 cm above the ground at the same time!

With our eyes we can look in all the three directions. Even if we look just in one direction and blocks off the others with walls or something, we can see a lot of different points in that direction at the same time. Here. Over there. Behind there again. And Far Away. In fact we can see an amazing amount of points. All of which together makes up the fabric of space. The ground, the trees... When we can see all this in one glimpse we get what we call overview. We don't just see every point one after an other, that would be really confusing! We see them all at once, and how they fit together. The tree isolated can be a confusing thing. Why does it look like that? But when we see the tree in it's right context it makes sense. The roots spreads out and into the ground, seeking water. The branches go up and out, trying to get as much sunlight as possible.

Now consider an animated movie. It consists of drawings on flat sheets of paper. When we flip the pages fast enough, we see it as the figures on the paper moves around.

Unlike in space, where we occupy many points at the same time, we occupy only one point in time. That point is Now. Now isn't static, it changes. It moves. But it is still only one point. Unlike the other directions, where we could sit still, or move back and forth as much as we wants to and as fast or as slowly as we wants to, time always move in only one direction. It never goes backwards. And it always moves with constant speed.

Not only can we not occupy more than one point in time, but we can only see one point in time also! Like only seeing the place your feet are, never anywhere else. Would it be easy to make sense of our world if we only saw the ground beneath our toes? No way! Same with time. We are struggeling!

Back to the animation. Space is there the piece of paper. Time is the page number. Lets say page 5 is Now. The figure in the space (paper) can perhaps see the whole page. But it can't see page 6 or page 4. Perhaps it remembers stuff from page 4, and perhaps it has a plan for the future that might or might not be fulfilled on page 6, but it doesn't see either of them. We, however, can. We can take all the pages and lay them down side by side on a table. Now we can see page 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9..... all in one glimpse! Because we are not in the space of the cartoon figure (the paper), nor in the time of the cartoon figure(the turning of pages) We are outside of all of that and that gives us powers that the 'toons don't have.

Same in ME. Eru created a world. He populated it. He let them (unlike in a cartoon made by humans) have their own free will. Regardless of their choises he can see all the pages at once. He therefore knows the result without having to intervene and "micromanage" his creatures. Maybe he "leaks" some of his knowledge to one of his creatures as a prophecy? Doesn't that mean that he then force the destiny of ,say Eowyn? No. He just already know what she will do, even before she knows it herself.


As for Tolkiens motivations... ME in general and Silmarillion especially is very influenced by norse mythology. And one thing is for sure: for the norsemen the world was totally deterministic. They believed strongly in fate and destiny. Maybe that means Tolkien wanted ME to be a deterministic place? Or maybe he gave his characters free will, but needed a bit of predestiny to give the right "feel" to it?

Quote:
Because we are not in the space of the cartoon figure (the paper), nor in the time of the cartoon figure(the turning of pages) We are outside of all of that and that gives us powers that the 'toons don't have.

Same in ME. Eru created a world. He populated it. He let them (unlike in a cartoon made by humans) have their own free will. Regardless of their choises he can see all the pages at once. He therefore knows the result without having to intervene and "micromanage" his creatures. Maybe he "leaks" some of his knowledge to one of his creatures as a prophecy? Doesn't that mean that he then force the destiny of ,say Eowyn? No. He just already know what she will do, even before she knows it herself.



Oh Yes! GrevRev!!!!!! This is what I was thinking when I posted whatever it was I posted about Eru and time........ but you explain it so much better than I ever could.

It makes such good sense. And so simple now.

Wiggle Smilie

Now do the same for black holes, lost socks and pot noodles.
Quote:
I think LOTR doesn't have the problems HP has, because JRRT is a decent and apt writer, whilst Rowling is not. And i think Rowling includes unanswered questions in her books, so that she can write sequels for all time, and cash in for all time on our beloved little nerd with the owl and the scarf.


Hear, hear! Silly old Rowling!
Quote:
Now do the same for black holes, lost socks and pot noodles.


Simple. The socks get sucked into small black holes in the washing mashine where they are turned into pot noodles.

Wiggle Smilie Wiggle Smilie
You don't disappont, do you?

Why weren't you my science teacher at school?
Because the lesser mortals were jealous and would not hire such a person.
He only manages to explain it simpler now so he can prove me wrong. He just needed the right motivation. Wink Smilie Oh and he succeded too.

The last time he talked about this, he talked sheets hangin out to dry and imaginary numbers and left most people saying: "huh?" I sorta understood parts of it, strangly enough. Maybe maths in engeneering aren't as useless afterall.

I meant plan a,b,c was simpler to explain. Of course it is very complex when you think more about it. But I don't like that that theory anymore now that you reminded me why time is not important. I was thinking time wasn't important since he had forever, but there is no forever. There is no spoon.

Yes, the socks get sucked into small black holes in the washing mashine where they are turned into pot noodles. But what is even more shocking: When we loose our socks, we have to buy new ones, and shopping makes us hungry and we want something that is ready in a hurry, so we can go shop some more. So we eat pot noodles, leading to the company having to collect more socks, which leads to more shopping, more noodle eating, more lost socks, more shopping.. It is a conspiracy!

I have started a petition and I am collection signatures, demanding that we who looses our socks can get free noodles in return, or at least let us collect coupons from the noodle boxes so we can get our socks a bit cheeper. Sign here now! Deal Smilie

We just have to find out who gets the pot noodles out of the black holes (so we can send the petition there). As far as I know, nothing can escape black holes, that knowledge could revolutionize space travels and the price of socks.
Socks are physically aligned with black holes and therefore are able to travel freely in and out. My theory is based on observing my daughters' socks over a period of years. My conclusion was that socks will soon find their way to a black hole (my daughters rooms) and will also attract black holes so that where a sock rests a black hole will form from the debris that collects around the sock, eventually attracting more socks. If we all stopped buying socks the result on the universe would be catastrophic - no more Pot Noodle!

Anyway, Stephen Hawking now says that stuff (data I think) can escape from black holes which will be good news in the future for Captain Picard.
Tut tut. Look where we've come. From Eru to Hawking. And speaking of Hawking, (This could be controversial, CM's are welcome to delete this if needed) that fellow is a huuuuge example of research "stealing". That guy puts in a theory. An Indian scientist proves him wrong. Nobody listens to this fellow, because afterall, he's against Hawking. Then Hawking goes to use that fellow's theories and puts in new ones as his own and gets all the credit. Mind you, they more or less contradict his earlier theories. Oh well. Back to Tolkien.

I'm just wondering, if even Tolkien had thought about all this when he wrote all the stuff. Maybe he was just writing as a writer and wasn't really thinking about the scientific aspect. But oh well, as I said earlier, we need a reasoning and so, we're at this point in this conversation!!
Quote:
Amari wrote:
Yes, the socks get sucked into small black holes in the washing mashine where they are turned into pot noodles. But what is even more shocking: When we loose our socks, we have to buy new ones, and shopping makes us hungry and we want something that is ready in a hurry, so we can go shop some more. So we eat pot noodles, leading to the company having to collect more socks, which leads to more shopping, more noodle eating, more lost socks, more shopping.. It is a conspiracy!


It is!!! But for those lonely socks there is a site! There is still hope for them!
Lonelysocks.co.uk


Anyway... GrevBukMcJern thank you for your post!
Quote:

As for Tolkiens motivations... ME in general and Silmarillion especially is very influenced by norse mythology. And one thing is for sure: for the norsemen the world was totally deterministic. They believed strongly in fate and destiny. Maybe that means Tolkien wanted ME to be a deterministic place? Or maybe he gave his characters free will, but needed a bit of predestiny to give the right "feel" to it?


That is an interesting thought. Yes, I agree with you on the norse mythology. But then he looked at other mythologies as well if I am not mistaken. Despite the deterministic view it did not stop the Norsemen from doing what they wanted. The same applies for Tolkien's characters. This needs more thought Smile Smilie
OMG!! More thought? Oh well. Sure, why not? Wink Smilie

I think we need more people to post in here. We need more opinions and more thought, yes!! Big Smile Smilie
Quote:
Despite the deterministic view it did not stop the Norsemen from doing what they wanted.

Actually it did. In a story from Iceland or Greenland 3 men are riding to visit a family in another part of the country. When they are almost there they meet a lone rider from that village. He gives them news, the details of which I have forgotten, but the point being that it would be A Bad Idea to visit right now. The 3 men want to turn around, but they are now uphill from that village and one points out: "All the waters now flow towards *insert name of village*, and so we have to go too". Basically the way the water is flowing is interpreted as a sign from destiny and cannot be ignored, regardless of what they want.
Well they cast their runes quite often as well to see where they wanted to go or do. But historically wise there were also other reasons why for example the Norse raided other countries and left their shores For example that the homeland did held not enough room and land to give all men a decent life. I love Norse mythology!

But Norse mythology holds even the gods for determination and guess what a tree is an important symbol there. It immediately reminds me of the two trees in Valinor, Nimloth on Numenor and her sapling in Gondor...

The goddesses were called the Norns. They were three sisters that lived by the well Urdarbrunnur at the base of the tree Yggdrasil. They kept the tree plentiful and living by watering it each day themselves with water from the Well of Fate. They were very similar to the Greek Fates in that they determine the length of all men's and god's lives. They were therefore known to the be goddesses of fate, time, and destiny. Their decision will not waiver and cannot be swayed. The names of the three are: Urd, Verdandi, and Skuld.

What I find very interesting is that greek mythology also has 3 goddesses. I need to check my books if Celtic mythology had the same. Now back to Tolkien. Who would be the three Valar if Tolkien wanted to pursue this in his universe? All I can think of right now are Vaire, Mandos and ....?
I received a PM from a member who did not know what was meant with Norse Mythology.

Norse Mythology in short: the collective myths of the Scandinavians (Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Iceland). The main sources for Norse mythology, Indo-European in origin, are the Icelandic Eddas. The shaping of Norse mythology itself took place in Germanic Europe, including those elements of the myths which were current in Scandinavia in the millenium before that.

I have found a great link that explains a lot about it. So here it is: All you wanted to know on Norse Myhtology but were afraid to ask Wink Smilie

Norse Mythology
and
Encyclopedia of Norse Mythology

Enjoy the read!
Quote:
I'm just wondering, if even Tolkien had thought about all this when he wrote all the stuff. Maybe he was just writing as a writer and wasn't really thinking about the scientific aspect.


Well I think Tolkien had enough 'trouble' making a world and having God as a character without going against his Catholic believes. He wanted ME to be a now partially forgotten history.

I say partially, because I think he wanted to merge the mythologies and gods and heroes he loved so much with his own belief in God. In time we humans have forgotten most of what the elves thought us, but some things remain. Which is why some people now believes there is a one true God (which of course is the correct belief for Tolkien, being a devoted catholic). The Norse and Greek/Roman gods and other religions with multiple gods are a memory of the Valar, where Eru has been forgotten. But still they are not completely 'wrong' to believe that, since the Valar are Erus servants and do his bidding. This is of course coloured by my believes that there is no such thing as a wrong religion, it is just different ways of believing in the same thing.

In the time of lotr, only Earendil is travelling around on the sky. The stars, the sun and the moon are there because the Valar put them there. It is the world of the Valar, out of our reach. At first it annoyed me that a story that is suppose to be in a long forgotten past had such 'mistakes', but then I started thinking. When the humans began to reach for the world of the Valar, Eru changed the shape of the world and moved Valinor out of reach. Which could be why some people thought the world was flat for so long, because it once was. So they were not completely 'wrong' either. Maybe when men began to reach for the stars, Eru changed the shape of the universe and moved Valinor once again to where no man can see or go.

About Norse mythology, I probably should know a LOT more than I do, since it is such a huge part of Norways history. I did find a nice site one day where I began to read about customs and things like that. It was strange how much I recognised from Silmarillion and Lotr. Like the sea goddess is the only god who lives in Middle Earth and she has no mate, just like Ulmo. The Rohirrim burying their dead close to their homes, Boromirs funeral (except they didnt set fire to the boat), Fingolfins grave (covered with stones), all typical ways the Norsemen buried their dead (but of course, so do a lot of cultures). Then there is also the sindarin name for a (burial) mound: haudh. Haug is the Norwegian word. And of course all the dwarven names are from Norse mythology, except Khim, but he is named after his father Mim (also Norse) and Ds.

Yggdrasil, the three of life was important, yes. But I dont think Tolkien would have included faith goddesses since Eru is in control of that in his ME. And there are the beacons between Gondor and Rohan to warn about enemies, we had that. The name Valar, val means god. The various halls for the dead. Hmm I guess this post is long enough for now. Wink Smilie

Nice links, Rhapsody. Smile Smilie Now go here and find there dwarves.: Vlusp Smile Smilie
There's other Dwarf names taking from Norse stuff. And their translations are in an Introduction to Elvish, in fact, a translation from the poem Tolkien got them from. But here are the names and translations:

Durinn (Durin) - Sleeper
Dvalinn (Dwalin) - Torpid
Nar - Corpse
Nainn (Nain) - Corpselike
Dainn (Dain) - Deadlike
Bifurr (Think you've got it by now) - Trembling
bofur - Translation unknown
Bombur - Bulging (Heehee, can see why Tolkien chose that one)
Nori - Peewee
Oinn - Fearful
Gandalfr (Not a dwarf, but in there nonetheless) - Sorcery-elf
Trainn - Stubborn
Thorinn - Bold
Thror - Boar
Fili - File
Kili - Wedge
Fundinn - Found-one
Nali - Axle
Frar - Swift
Loni - LAZY!!!! WHY DID MY ONE HAVE TO BE LAZY!!!!!!
Eikinskjaldi - Of the Oakenshield
Gloinn - Glowing-one
Dori - Borer
Ori - Furious

does that help any of you? I thought it was quite interesting myself.
And don't forget those other famous Dwarves of history: Fidgit, Strutter, Og, Wally and Vermin; as well as Bashful, Doc, Dopey, Grumpy, Happy, Sleepy, Sneezy, Sleezy, Shlepy, and Scroungy.

The latter three were apprentice stand-ins awaiting in the wings* in case something went wrong during the filming of Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, while the leading five, in addition with Randall the boy photographer, were of course, the Time Bandits.

Elk Grinning Smilie

* The actual theatrical term for this job seems to have slipped my mind.
Quote:
There's other Dwarf names taking from Norse stuff. And their translations are in an Introduction to Elvish, in fact, a translation from the poem Tolkien got them from.


Well what I said was:
"And of course all the dwarven names are from Norse mythology, except Khim, but he is named after his father Mim (also Norse) and Ds. " Not a good sentece, and now I see Mim had two sons, so I guess 3 out of at least 15 dwarven names are NOT Norse. But Ibun (Khims brother) sounds a lot like the goddess Idun, and dis means mist in Norwegian.

I also gave a link the poem (which is translated into English btw, with explanations). It is quite strange to see all the dwarves listed one by one! It is about the creation of the world and about how the world will end.

Gandr was a staff used for magic, alv/alfr (alv is in the norwegian translation) means elf. Could there BE a better name for Gandalf?
Quote:
Amarie wrote:
Yggdrasil, the three of life was important, yes. But I dont think Tolkien would have included faith goddesses since Eru is in control of that in his ME. And there are the beacons between Gondor and Rohan to warn about enemies, we had that. The name Valar, val means god. The various halls for the dead. Hmm I guess this post is long enough for now.


I loved the post, thank you for that. Already a lot has been said about it so I will not repeat what has been said already. But what intrigues me is why Tolkien wrote Mandos and Vaire. Especially the last Vala who weaved the tales of the history of Arda... so that is making me wonder if Eru maybe has given her more insight on what should happen with Arda. Or did Eru gave her the control over what should happen in the future? What do you think?
Quote:
Especially the last Vala who weaved the tales of the history of Arda... so that is making me wonder if Eru maybe has given her more insight on what should happen with Arda. Or did Eru gave her the control over what should happen in the future? What do you think?

No, only Mandos knows everything what is going to happen, safe the things that are hidden for him by Eru. Vaire only makes tapestries of everything that has happened and happens in Arda. Her husband probably tells her what happens. As she doesn't make any tapestries of the future of Arda, and it is mentioned nowhere in the silmarillion that any Vala has any control over the future, i'd say she controls nothing in the future. Even Mandos doesn't, he just knows the future. He is not Mandos McFly, after all.

She is just an unimportant Vala, not even one of the Aratar. Anyway, if any of the Valier had control of the future, it should be Nienna in my opinion, as she's one of the Feanturi herself. But she doesn't seem to keep herself busy with this, only with grief and mourning.
Going back to Eru and Melkor...Floyd, I thought I would comment on the following from your Journal:

Quote:
If there's one thing I don't like about Tolkien's work, is that he has always assumed the so called "evil" things to be hideous. Why can't they have beauty of their own?


Did the ring not have a beauty of its own? As far as I am concerned, the ring was eros and thanatos all wrapped into one. It had so much desirous beauty (eros) that it brought destruction (thanatos). I believe that the binary oppositions you hate so much in Tolkien's works break down. The good characters have "evil" thoughts and the evil characters have "good" thoughts. Besides, the fluctuations between eros and thanatos are what propel all of us forward in life, bleeding into one another, shifting their boundaries. I don't think Tolkien's oppositional boundaries were as strict as you seem to think. For example, when Aule makes the dwarves, it could have been considered an evil deed, a refusal to follow authority, and yet, Eru was able to evaluate the situation and see the grayness of it all. (There are many examples of the "grayness" in LOTR, but I don't have time to write about them all right now....just look closer.)

Also, the "fire" that Melkor created could also be a symbol for something deeper, perhaps the fire of desire that causes us all to desire objects and become separate individuals rather than accepting the wholeness and unity of the world. The fire brings life and destruction, and perhaps Melkor's evilness was bringing forth the destructiveness from that desire.

Well, I have much more I could say to your post, but that's all I have for now...must get back to work Smile Smilie
Oh...not to mention Fanor...he wasn't entirely good or bad; he was a bit of a gray area.
Quote:
, not to be mindless puppets like Auls dwarves was.


Dwarves have a freewill too! Simarillion (p38) "...And the voice of Iluvatar said to Aule: 'Thy offer i accepted even as it was made. Dost thou not see that these things have now a life of their own, and speak with their voices? Else they would not have flinched from thy blow, nor from any command of they will.'"

However Melkor's creations didn't posses a free will, just mindless puppets... with the exception of Orcs, i think.
DWARVES ARE NOT MINDLESS PUPPETS!!!! Just look at me! Alright, mindless, perhaps, but DEFINITELY NOT PUPPETS!!!!

(Nice avatar, Eruwen.)
No they are not. But they make great tossing material you know Wink Smilie Big Smile Smilie Animated Wink Smilie
Quote:
Dwarves have a freewill too! Simarillion (p38) "...And the voice of Iluvatar said to Aule: 'Thy offer i accepted even as it was made. Dost thou not see that these things have now a life of their own, and speak with their voices? Else they would not have flinched from thy blow, nor from any command of they will.'"


This quote completely missed the point. When Aul created them, they indeed had no free will but were just mindless puppets. Only after Illvatar gave them life on his own, they had free will. Aul was not able to give them life.

Quote:
No they are not. But they make great tossing material you know

Some dwarves are indeed great tossing material. Others, like Grumpy, are not tossable without suffering grievous wounds.
Quote:
This quote completely missed the point. When Aul created them, they indeed had no free will but were just mindless puppets. Only after Illvatar gave them life on his own, they had free will. Aul was not able to give them life.


So when did Iluvatar give them a life of their own? I read that part over again, and it doesn't clearly say he gave dwarves the inner fire. He calls them "the childred of my adoption". Subliminal messages?

He does also mention "...but in no way will i amend thy handiwork, and as thou made it, so it shall be."

so it's possible he didn't add anything to the dwarves, and they had freewill from the start.
I think we have a rather interesting debate. I CAN'T DECIDE!!!!

Quote:
Some dwarves are indeed great tossing material. Others, like Grumpy, are not tossable without suffering grievous wounds.


Don't forget Loni. *cracks knuckles* Just try tossing me. You'll get a pillow in your face!!!!
Quote:
So when did Iluvatar give them a life of their own? I read that part over again, and it doesn't clearly say he gave dwarves the inner fire. He calls them "the childred of my adoption". Subliminal messages


Eru said : 'Thy offer i accepted even as it was made. Dost thou not see that these things have now a life of their own, and speak with their voices?

He accepted Aul's offer by giving the Dwarves a life of their own, which includes free-will. Doesn't look very subliminal to me. I think you didn't see the forest by staring at the trees.
WEll, seenig as there is no SOLID evidence (that I know of) for each argument, this is where common sense comes in. Let's think: Could anyone BUT Eru breathe life into things and make them ALIVE? I think not. But I could be wrong. What does everyone else think?
Eru said to Aul as well that only he could give life or something like that, i'm sure of it, but i can't deliver quotes as i don't have a Silmarilion by hand. So maybe Grondy or Val can provide the necessary quotes.

When Aul created the Dwarves, they were like puppets, they only moved when Aul commanded them to move, etc. They weren't able to live on their own. Eru gave them life, which he mentions in the quote Turin Turambar provide (hey i didn't use accents - whatever).
Quote:
Eru said to Aul as well that only he could give life or something like that, i'm sure of it,


Iluvatar to Aule -

Quote:
Why has thou done this? Why does thou attempt a thing which thou knowest is beyond thy power and thy authority?
The SIlmarillion

And from Letters of JRRT

Quote:
The One rebuked Aule saying that he had tried to usurp the Creator's power; but he could not give independent life to his makings. He had only one life, his own derived from the One, and could at most only distribute it.


So, I assume Aule could put part of his spirit into a creation much like Sauron did with the Ring but in doing so he would weaken himself and it wouldn't be the same as independent life which only Iluvatar could give.
Virumor has it right, until Alu submited to Eru, his Dwarves were only as mindless puppets, after the submission, Eru filled them with a mind of their own. They may have been living, but they had no spark, no soul until Eru gave it to them. Anyway, that's my reading of it.
i agree with you guys now, it was a hazy subject for me, because personally my intrests lie with the Elves, and Men, rather than the dwarves.

Ok, now what about Orcs then? They aren't completely mindless puppets, Morgoth put foward some of his might into his creations, so they could have some sort of will? Although though their will was bent towards Morgoths cause.
Quote:
Ok, now what about Orcs then? They aren't completely mindless puppets, Morgoth put foward some of his might into his creations, so they could have some sort of will? Although though their will was bent towards Morgoths cause.


As I understand it the orcs weren't created by Melkor, they were bred from elves and men and were corrupted into what became orcs who probably then just bred more of the same.
Quote:
Ok, now what about Orcs then? They aren't completely mindless puppets, Morgoth put foward some of his might into his creations, so they could have some sort of will? Although though their will was bent towards Morgoths cause.

He created them from Elves, so of course they have free will, just evil free will. Everything they do, is directed towards destroying Elves (an honourable reason of existence, imo) because of Morgoth's will. Sauron did the same with his minions : notice his armies lost direction a bit at the Morannon after their boss got toppled.
I never REALLY understood that bit. I always wondered why the Orcs didn't fight on to avenge their master, like the goblins in the mountains did. Maybe because Sauron was a tyrant, and not one of them, and the Great Goblin was at least a Goblin.
Speaking of free will, I find it amazing how people would follow a leader, even if they don't always agree with him. People always need someone as a leader. I can't fight a real life example like the one in "Fight Club" (Individual organisations, capable of operating without any central leadership). Oh well, maybe 19 years is too short time anyways!!
Most of the time people follow others because they are too afraid to do otherwise; or even if they don't agree, they just haven't devised actions of their own. Also, what individual organization acted without central leadership in Fight Club? The entire organization was based around the central leadership of a schizophrenic or a person with a split personality disorder.
There are many reasons why people follow a leader. Charismatic leadership, the current situation of the follower as a person, company, or country. There are many dynamics here. It is a mix.

For those still in school or selecting new classes for the next semester: try organizational psychology.
Or watch The Experiment on BBC. To the psychologists chock and horror, the participants in the experiment was at the end moving towards a totalitarian, fascist society, and the experiment was aborted.

Short sum up: People in a power-vacuum or situation with a lot of uncertainty WILL ALWAYS seek leadership. They will even accept subjecting then self to an totalitarian dictator in order to obtain systen amd order. Which makes democracy something a lot more fragile than anyone expected.

Aunty Beeb have had a spring cleaning, and I couldn't find the page.
Quote:
There are many reasons why people follow a leader. Charasimtic leadership, the current situation of the follower person, compan, or country. There are many dynamics here. It is a mix.


I agree, there are many reasons people follow others. I was speaking more to the point Floyd made about why people would follow someone they disagree with...fear is the most likely suspect.
Or mass hysteria or dynamics of the mass. We had enough of that when a politician got murdered here... I think our country never got the same after that.
A tiny comment about this:
Quote:
We surely cannot grasp the concept of an infinite universe. Consider this. We make theories about how earth was formed. How our solar system came to be. How the life began on earth. Can anyone ever make a judgement about how the galaxies came to be? The stars, the planets, they're all made of some matter. Can anyone ever explain how that matter came into existance? No.

The only thing we are really cluless about is the nature of life. We know how galaxies are formed. And galaxy clusters. And super clusters, aka "cosmic strings".

The build up of matter is known. (nucleosynthesis) Light can turn into matter (and anti-matter) in a process called pair production. Matter is not quite as solid as we think. It consists of mostly empty space. You have never tuched your keyboard, or anything else for that matter. The macroscopic world we live in has only 2 fundamental forces, gravity and the electrical force. Gravity keeps us on the ground and makes galaxies etc, all else is due to the electrical force. Colour. Taste. Light. Solidity. Opacity. Structure. How something feel. Is it smooth or rough? You never touch it. You only feel the electrical force between your fingers and the object.

I would say there is nothing unexplainable with the natural world. Althoug a lot of the explanations are still hidden from us, there is no reason to think it impossible to find them.

How the human mind works, however, now that is a mystery. Smile Smilie
  << [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] >>