Strangers in strange lands?

Hi JJ48,

You ask, "How did Tolkien understand these issues"?

My hypothesis about Tolkien's thoughts is that he conceived the Elves as unfallen conscious beings and the Men as fallen conscious beings.

I think there is plenty of evidence that Men are fallen in Tolkien's world (Arwen's comments to Aragorn on his deathbed being the most direct). There is also plenty of evidence that Elves are not fallen. (Including a letter, cited by someone (maybe even you) above in this stream, where Tolkien states that some of the Elves fell in the departure from Valinor by the Noldor, implying that previously Elves were unfallen, and subsequently, most Elves remained unfallen.

I then go on to speculate on why Tolkien believes that immortal Elves, though conscious, can remain unfallen (whereas I had assumed from my reading of Adam and Eve that gaining consciousness caused the fall) and hypothesized that to Tolkien, consciousness plus knowledge of inevitable death caused a fall, whereas consciousness plus immortality did not.

That's about as far as I get on 'how did Tolkien understand these issues'? Oh, I go on a little more to speculate on how Tolkien described the 'fall' of those Elves who he states did 'fall', and on the fall and redemption of Galadriel.

But, everything after that has been little to do with 'how did Tolkien understand these issues'? And more to do with 'how does Flammifer understand these issues"?

I am pretty sure that Tolkien understood these issues more profoundly than I do.

However, I do not have much more evidence or material from Tolkien's works to figure out how he understood these things in more detail.

So, I think my hypotheses about Tolkien thinking that Men are fallen and Elves are (mostly) not, are well supported and insightful, and probably 'true'. I am afraid that when you and Anthony keep pressing me for more and more details about how that might work, you are getting my own speculations, and we are straying far from Tolkien.

Trying to articulate my own speculations is valuable for me. But I'm not sure how valuable it is for you, or the general discussion. It might be better to go back to Tolkien and see if you can decipher more of what he might have thought? You both seem more knowledgeable about the unpublished 'lore' than I am. I mostly stick to TLOTR and the Silmarillion. Can you find stuff there that bears on these questions?
 
Flammifer,

1. You seem to be conflating the definition of 'fallen' in Middle-Earth with that of the Bible. Tolkien specifically avoids this, instead having the fall of Men (and Original Sin) happen off-stage and in the East, not in Valinor (or the Garden of Eden, as you conflate these too) and most importantly, we are not given any details as to what form this fall takes.
Therefore, I dispute your conclusions in this regard. The Archetypes that you cleave to also ignore (or deny) the existence of psychopathy and therefore seem to give those who have it a free pass. Not so simple after all.

2. The distinctions you draw here should be irrelevant: Whether I kill someone accidentally, as a crime of passion, as the result of a coldly calculated decision, or in self-defence or just cause, regret should follow. If it doesn't that's a warning sign. Your own arguments suggest that in all cases your conscience should tell you that this is wrong beforehand and that the subsequent commission of the act is a display of evil. Maybe that's why murder is the 5th, 6th, or 7th of the Ten Commandments (depending on your reference of choice)

3. No: Negative social consequences only means harm to your own social position as a result of your actions. You might personally support capital punishment, but if you live in a society that disallows it then stating your case can have negative social consequences without ever actually harming others. Psychopaths have committed murder when they thought they could get away with it, but refrained when they knew they'd get caught. This in no way gives evidence of a conscience (fluctuating or otherwise). Equally, if you have no conscience and your assessment of the risk of negative social consequences fails to stop you, does that mean you aren't fallen and free of retribution?

4. We agree on elements of this, but I don't see how this denies Manwë a conscience. Manwë displays moral judgement, perhaps imperfectly, but not just crowd pleasing antics. His inability to understand evil doesn't mean he can't understand the difference between right and wrong.

5. We disagree on aspects of this definition. It is entirely possible to perform an action in good faith (conscience) while being ignorant of the true consequences until complete. At this point one's actions can weigh on your conscience, meaning you have a guilty conscience. I hope you'll note that I'm not required to twist my usage or apply false limits to apply these commonplace phrasings to make my point.
A simple example is a person who thoughtlessly (mindlessly, without malice aforethought) mis-aims their kick of a ball for a child in a park, sending the ball across a nearby road with the child pelting after it, into the path of a passing car. Both the kicker of the ball and the driver of the car are likely to have a guilty conscience for any harm done to the child, yet neither of these people would have even the slightest twinge of doubt or guilt beforehand; and neither of them would normally be adjudged as 'evil'.

6. There's a lot to unpack in what you have said here, and I'm not going to address most of it, beyond your bravery in appearing to speak on behalf of Catholics while appear to hold yourself separate from that group (of individuals); and to note that taking an embodied God out of the stories of Arda is about as useful as taking Neo out of the stories about The Matrix: I believe each of these are pivotal characters who cannot simply be replaced by archetypal ideas.


In your most recent reply to JJ48 you say that you think that your hypotheses 'are well supported and insightful, and probably 'true'.'
While it might not be intended this way, your statement smacks of hubris. I hate to say this, but I see evidence of confirmation bias in your postings here.

Beech27 referred to Letter 131 to Milton Waldman, but you don't seem to have either read the Letter (or even the quote from it) particularly carefully.
I'll requote it here more fully with some of the formatting normalised to the publication I have access to:
'There cannot be any 'story' without a fall - all stories are ultimately about the fall - at least not for human minds as we know them and have them.
So, proceeding, the Elves have a fall, before their "history" can become storial. (The first fall of Man, for reasons explained, nowhere appears--Men do not come on the stage until all that is long past, and there is only a rumour that for a while they fell under the domination of the Enemy and that some repented.) But the main body of the tale, the Silmarillion proper, is about the fall of the most gifted kindred of the Elves, their exile from Valinor (a kind of Paradise, the home of the Gods) in the furthest West, their re-entry into Middle-earth, the land of their birth but under the rule of the Enemy, and their strife with him, the power of Evil still visibly incarnate.
(...)
The fall of the Elves comes about through the possessive attitude of Fëanor and his seven sons to these gems.
(...)
They pervert the greater part of their kindred, who rebel against the gods, and depart from paradise, and go to make hopeless war upon the Enemy. The first fruit of their fall is war in Paradise, the slaying of Elves by Elves, and this and their evil oath dogs all their later heroism, generating treacheries and undoing all victories.'

and then in relation to the Second Age:
'The three main themes are thus The Delaying Elves that lingered in Middle-Earth; Sauron's growth to a new Dark Lord, master and god of Men; and Numenor-Atlantis. They are dealt with annalistically, and in two Tales or Accounts, The Rings of Power and the Downfall of Númenor. Both are the essential background to The Hobbit and its sequel.
In the first we see a sort of second fall or at least 'error' of the Elves. There was nothing wrong essentially in their lingering against counsel, still sadly with the mortal lands of their old heroic deeds. But they wanted to have their cake without eating it.'

These excerpts from this one Letter seem to do much to weaken the hypothesis that most Elves are still unfallen because they are immortal.
The first Elven fall was a result of possessiveness, and the second a result of an unwillingness to let go of their social position. Also note that while the date of this Letter is not recorded it is believed to have been written in 1951; before publication of TLotR and so presumably acceptable to you as canon (or canon-adjacent).

I have not found participating in this thread particularly edifying and so, while this thread might continue, my contributions to it will not.
 
Flammifer said:
1. How do unfallen Elves fall? I think we see this process most clearly through Feanor and his sons.
Click to expand...
In the Fall of Man, all humans became fallen. If I'm not mistaken, in Catholic theology even a newborn infant is subject to original sin.

What could be so different about Elves that would eliminate this "blanket" fall and allow them to fall individually, or to individually remain unfallen? If this is truly the way it works for Elves, it seems like it could have something to do with their immortality.

All humans alive today were born after the Fall of Man. But many of the Elves in ME were born before that. Many were born before Feanor first drew sword upon Fingolfin and threatened his life. But plenty were also born later: Legolas, for instance. So I don't think a division of the Elves by birth date works at all.

Did all the Noldor fall at the Kinslaying? Legolas is not descended from any Noldor, so that could explain why he can be born unfallen. But it just doesn't seem to fit: artificial divisions of the Elves don't seem strong enough to determine who is and who is not fallen.

There is no precedent in theology (that I know of) for individuals to Fall on their own. The angels, of course, were divided by their allegiance to God or to Satan, and those latter angels fell. So there's a sort of example. But of course, there is no human theology of immortal but non-angelic beings. This seems to be what you are striving towards.

It's a fun topic to discuss, but consensus seems unlikely. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top