# The Hypocrisy of the Valar



## Úlairi (Dec 28, 2003)

This thread is fundamentally a small aspect of my future _magnum opus_ (well, it is hoped to be), but I believe I need to discuss this before I consider writing that thread.



> _The Silmarillion:Of the Flight of the Noldor_
> *"But the Teleri were unmoved by aught that he [Fëanor] could say. They were grieved indeed at the going of their kinsfolk and long friends, but would rather dissaude them then aid them; and no ship they would lend, nor help in the building, against the will of the Valar."*



So, it can be established that it was indeed the will of the Valar that the Noldor not leave Aman.



> _The Silmarillion: Of the Flight of the Noldor_
> *"Thrice the people of Fëanor were driven back, and many were slain upon either side; but the vanguard of the Noldor were succoured by Fingon with the foremost of the host of Fingolfin, who coming up found a battle and their own kin falling , and rushed in before they knew rightly the cause of the quarrel; some thought indeed that the Teleri had sought to waylay the march of the Noldor at the bidding of the Valar."*



I could be twisting words here, but the Teleri it seems were given some sort of sense that they were not to help their own kin at the will of the Valar, as the previous quote indicates. It would make another interesting argument that the Noldor were in some way justified in the kinslaying of Alqualondë, but that is not the argument here. 

Now, it is a fundamental mistake by any entity superior to another (and in the cause for good unlike Melkor and Sauron) to deny the lesser it's right to Free Will (but this is only operable provided that that the lesser is a rational being, and capable of making choices for itself). The Valar acknowledged this.

When Sauron arose again in Middle-earth after his first Fall to the sword of Elendil, the Valar decided to send the Istari to help the peoples of Middle-earth. 



> _Unfinished Tales: The Istari_
> *"For they came from over the Sea from the uttermost West; though this was for long known only to Círdan, Guardian of the Third Ring, master of the Grey Havens, who saw their landings upon the western shores. Emissaries they were from the Lords of the West, the Valar, who still took counsel for the governance of Middle-earth, and when the shadow of Sauron began first to stir again took this means of resisting him. For with the consent of Eru* they sent members of their own high order, but clad in bodies as of Men, real and not feigned, but subject to the fears and pains and weariness of the earth, able to hunger and thirst and be slain; though because of their noble spirits they did not die, and aged only by the cares and labours of many long years. And this the Valar did, desiring to amend the errors of old, especially that they had attempted to guard and seclude the Eldar by their own might and glory fully revealed; whereas now their emissaries were forbidden to reveal themselves in forms of majesty, or to seek to rule the wills of Men or Elves by open display of power, but coming in shapes weak and humble were bidden and advised to presuade Men and Elves to good, and to seek to unite in love and understanding all those whom Sauron, should he come again, would endeavour to dominate and corrupt."*



Not much is really said of their 'open display of power', perhaps someone could provide a quote? However, I could find none except the first. Anyway, back to the argument at hand. The Valar sent the Istari to Middle-earth to 'amend the errors of old', but how can this amend them at all? Isn't this absolute folly? The error was not the act of the Valar (well, it was partially), but the consequence of that action, denying the Noldor their own Free Will, which in any myth is completely wrong on the part of good. However, to senf the Istari even to 'persuade' is still an act of denial of Free Will in a sense. If the Istari were never there, then Free Will may have indeed been present on ME, but sending the Istari was completely hypocritical on the part of the Valar. The Valar also denied the Free Will of Sauron, but in a different sense, they 'changed and shaped' specific events to his demise. The original act in sending Eonwë was indeed correct, but using 'fate' (something which they controlled) to their advantage denied even Sauron of rightful Free Will. 



> _The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring: The Shadow of the Past_
> *"'Behind that there was something else at work, beyond any design of the Ring-maker. I can put it no plainer than by saying that Bilbo was meant to find the Ring, and not by its maker. In which case you were also meant to have it. And that may be an encouraging thought.'"*



Sounds like _fate_ to me people! Poor Sauron was indeed denied victory by the Valar. If they sought to remove him, then it would have been better if they sent someone in power to overcome him, and the key aspect of this argument, *should have destroyed the Rings themselves*. 

The very fact that they sent the Istari altered the course of history, and Olórin's interpretation on the finding of the Ring substantiates the idea that Free Will is, in a sense often denied in mythology, even Tolkien (in a way) agrees with me in this sense.



> _The Letters of JRRT: Letter #153 to Peter Hastings (draft): Page 195_
> *"Free Will is derivative, and is therefore only operative within provided circumstances, but in order that it may exist, it is necessary that the Author should guarantee it,..."*



But it is not always guaranteed, and the Author of the World here is Ilúvatar. Oh no! Look what I've gone and done! I've given you too much on my future thread _Free Will — The Farce of Ilúvatar_ away!!! Aargh! Well, here's a taste of it then.

*MINOR NOTE: Please, in any discussion refrain from the Ilúvatar aspect of Free Will, although all this could be and is quite definitely attributed to him, for now, we'll blame the Valar.


----------



## Rangerdave (Dec 29, 2003)

How did you come to the conclusion that the quote...


> And this the Valar did, desiring to amend the errors of old, especially that they had attempted to guard and seclude the Eldar by their own might and glory fully revealed


 Has anything to do with the Valar stopping or not stopping the flight of the Noldo?
This quote references the open warfare between the Valar and Melkor that resulted in the destruction of Beleriand, and the earlier attempt to hide the Eldar. You asked for a quote of the open display of power, but everything that is written is second hand information since none of the Noldor that resided in Middle-earth witnessed the War of Wrath.


> Yet it is said that Morgoth looked not for the assault that came upon him from the West; for so great was his pride become that he deemed that none would ever again come with open war against him. Moreover he thought that he had for ever estranged the Noldor from the Lords of the West, and that content in their blissful realm the Valar would heed no more his kingdom in the world without; for to him that is pitiless the deeds of pity are ever strange and beyond reckoning. But the host of the Valar prepared for battle; and beneath their white banners marched the Vanyar, the people of Ingwë, and those also of the Noldor who never departed from Valinor, whose leader was Finarfin the son of Finwë. Few of the Teleri were willing to go forth to war, for they remembered the slaying at the Swan-haven, and the rape of their ships; but they hearkened to Elwing, who was the daughter of Dior Eluchíl and come of their own kindred, and they sent mariners enough to sail the ships that bore the host of Valinor east over the sea. Yet they stayed aboard their vessels, and none of them set foot upon the Hither Lands.
> 
> Of the march of the host of the Valar to the north of Middle-earth little is said in any tale; for among them went none of those Elves who had dwelt and suffered in the Hither Lands, and who made the histories of those days that still are known; and tidings of these things they only learned long afterwards from their kinsfolk in Aman. But at the last the might of Valinor came up out of the West, and the challenge of the trumpets of Eönwë filled the sky; and Beleriand was ablaze with the glory of their arms, for the host of the Valar were arrayed in forms young and fair and terrible, and the mountains rang beneath their feet.
> The meeting of the hosts of the West and of the North is named the Great Battle, and the War of Wrath. There was marshalled the whole power of the Throne of Morgoth, and it had become great beyond count, so that Anfauglith could not contain it; and all the North was aflame with war.
> ...



But as for the concept that the Valar ever tried to deny the freedom of choice from any of the Noldo, either in their life in Aman, or their flight back to Middle-earth: I find this not to be the case


> No aid will the Valar lend you in this quest; but neither will they hinder you; for this ye shall know: as ye came hither freely, freely shall ye depart.


 Granted, their choice held consequences; namely the ban from Valinor. But the choice was made freely.


As for the assumption that the Teleri were active agents working for the Valar to hinder the flight of the Noldor, this has not a shred of evidence to back it up. What is said is that the Teleri perceived that they should not aid the Noldo with the gift of ships. “As you came hither freely, freely shall ye depart.” With either help or hindrance from any, including the Teleri.
As for the second assumption that the after hosts of Noldo joined the fray because they believed that the “Teleri had sought to waylay the march of the Noldor at the bidding of the Valar." This is only supposition and not proof: the Noldo acted without evidence and weather the Teleri acted under orders or no, is not written in any tale. 



More to follow
RD


----------



## Flammifer (Dec 29, 2003)

Úlairi, it seems that Melkor has sown the seeds of deceit in you!  Your entire point seems to be based on the fact that the Valar attempted to stop the Noldor leaving Valinor, and that they were kept there by force. This is simply regurgitation of the lies that Melkor whispered to Feanor. _Lies_.

Apart from all the evidence that RD has provided (Good work RD), consider the fact that not all the Elves that awoke at Cuiviénen made the Great Journey to Aman. If the Valar really feared that the Elves would surpass them (and thus want to keep them constrained in Aman), then would they not have forced all the Elves to come on the journey?



> "But the Teleri were unmoved by aught that he [Fëanor] could say. They were grieved indeed at the going of their kinsfolk and long friends, but would rather dissaude them then aid them; and no ship they would lend, nor help in the building, against the will of the Valar."



I think that this quote implies that the Teleri wanted to obey the Valar, so, like the Holy Ones, the Teleri neither helped nor hindered them, until it came to strife.



> Sounds like fate to me people! Poor Sauron was indeed denied victory by the Valar. If they sought to remove him, then it would have been better if they sent someone in power to overcome him, and the key aspect of this argument, should have destroyed the Rings themselves.



I agree with what Nóm says about the Valar having the right to choose when someone has unfairly abused their free will, but Úlairi does make an interesting point.

It was the fault of Eönwë (and thus the Valar and others who participated in the War of Wrath) that Sauron was not captured/destroyed in the War of Wrath, so really it was the Valar's responsibilty to attone for this mistake by either defeating/capturing Sauron when he came back to Middle-earth or by destroying the Ring. Really it was a bit of a cop out for the Valar only to send some Maiar that weren't even allowed to use their full powers against arguably the most powerful Maiar.


----------



## Úlairi (Dec 29, 2003)

Flammifer said:


> Úlairi, it seems that Melkor has sown the seeds of deceit in you!  Your entire point seems to be based on the fact that the Valar attempted to stop the Noldor leaving Valinor, and that they were kept there by force. This is simply regurgitation of the lies that Melkor whispered to Feanor. _Lies_.



Yes, obviously.   I apologize, you must forgive me, I certainly need to re-read _The Silmarillion_. I understood that the Valar didn't really keep them there, I said it myself, but I could not recall from memory when the Lords of the West openly displayed their power to the Elves. 



Úlairi said:


> Not much is really said of their 'open display of power', perhaps someone could provide a quote?



I will have to re-gather my evidence. 



Rangerdave said:


> ...and the earlier attempt to hide the Eldar.



Perhaps someone could direct me to that? I *really* need to read the Sil again.


----------



## Úlairi (Dec 29, 2003)

*The Hyposcrisy of the Valar Part II (revised)*

Well, I thank you very much RD for steering me on the right track, and I have gone over _Of the Coming of the Elves_ and found much to my liking. The Valar are still hypocritical in every aspect. They fundamentally displayed their power to draw the Elves to Aman, and Mandos even said that this was an incorrect act. 'So it is doomed' he says, and after that many grievances occur. Free Will, as I have said, is the ability to make a choice without divine intervention. My argument of Sauron and the Ring is a very strong aspect of this indeed, and I thank Flammifer for acknowledging that. When it was proposed that the Ring be taken to the West, the reply was:



> _The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring: The Council of Elrond_
> *"'But Gandalf has revealed to us that we cannot destroy it by any craft that we here possess,' said Elrond. 'And they who dwell beyond the Sea would not receive it: for good or ill it belongs to Middle-earth; it is for us who still dwell here to deal with it.'"*



Yet the Valar are willing to send the Istari to counter Sauron, and it seems as although it is for ME to deal with (apparently), the need for the Maia is still existent. Hypocrisy no? Now, one problem with my argument is indeed that the Valar are never mentioned to have to be institutors of Free Will in Eä, so, perhaps they are not hypocritical at all! However, Tolkien makes it clear in _Letters_ that they should be, although he never wrote any text on the matter, with the exception of the letter of course. Ilúvatar alone is indeed the main institutor, and the acts of the Valar, however hypocritical they may be, he must quite literally 'make' Free Will operable in all circumstances for it's existence not to be 'feigned'. However, he fails to do this in the sense that the wills of the Valar conflict with the wills of the others, and hence he is in a predicament (which is why I said to leave Ilúvatar out in this argument, but I am now bringing him in to make a point  ). The greater of his beings must therefore be given the priviledge, but the Valar themselves are also 'supposedly' institutors of the will of Ilúvatar, and if it his his will that Free Will must be operable (which we now know it is, according to Letter #153), then they are hypocritical themselves. And hence, if we were to indeed argue that the Valar were not hypocritical, then we would be saying that Ilúvatar is, which is mythologically and religiously impossible in any circumstance. The reason I did not wish for you to explore the nature of Ilúvatar into it is because he is the ultimate proof of the hypocrisy of the Valar, and if I posted it there would be reason (well, for me) to believe that there would be no argument.  However, acknowledging that you are all clever and intelligent beings (  ), I would be very interested to see what you would use to argue against that. If I were to argue against myself i.e. be on the other side of the argument, I would indeed argue that the sub-creative powers of the Elves had not been completely realized at the time, and can not be acknowledged to be 'rational beings' at their full potential.

But! I may have got it wrong, Tolkien mentions Free Will as a strictly derivatve entity, but I disagree. For in any mythology Free Will is the fundamental quality that makes a rational being what it is, the ability to choose. Undoubtedly Tolkien acknowledges the notion of divine intervention, and to compensate claims Free Will as operable, but merely circumstantial. If it were, so to speak, then in any myth, nay, in the world today (obviously from a religious perspective), then only in specific circumstances can we see Free Will. Keyword: we. 'Free Will is derivative', the words of Tolkien himself. To whom? Who is the observer, the deriver? It certainly can't be Ilúvatar, for he must (as the Lord of Eä) be able to administer Free Will in any circumstance whatsoever. It is us who is the observer of Free Will, and the Valar themselves would have a finite view (although superior to our own).


----------



## Úlairi (Dec 29, 2003)

*deep breath* *sigh*


----------



## Eriol (Dec 29, 2003)

Úlairi said:


> *However, to send the Istari even to 'persuade' is still an act of denial of Free Will in a sense*. If the Istari were never there, then Free Will may have indeed been present on ME, but sending the Istari was completely hypocritical on the part of the Valar. The Valar also denied the Free Will of Sauron, but in a different sense, they 'changed and shaped' specific events to his demise. The original act in sending Eonwë was indeed correct, but using 'fate' (something which they controlled) to their advantage denied even Sauron of rightful Free Will.


How is persuasion the same thing as removing Free Will? And how would the deployment of a military force (commanded by Eönwë) be less restrictive of Free Will?

If there is a choice, there is Free Will. The Istari forced no one; they were despised and ignored by many. How is that limiting to Free Will? Denethor, for instance, had the option to trust Gandalf (and I'm sure a shrewd and informed Númenórean as Denethor would have at least an educated guess regarding Gandalf's origins) or to not trust him. Free Will.

Also, you say the Valar "controlled fate". How? I never read anything to that effect. 

I know you want to keep Eru "out of it", but it is impossible... Eru is the only controller of Fate. When Gandalf says that Bilbo was meant to find the Ring, he's not talking about the Valar. The Valar were likely ignorant of what was happening (they were certainly ignorant of it _at the moment_ of the Ring's finding by Bilbo, while Eru was certainly "aware"). Even if the Valar were "watching" the unfolding of History, they couldn't interfere directly -- because they had to preserve Free Will. It is only by sending advisors that they could influence.

To consider advice as a way to limit Free Will is to overly restrict the concept of Free Will, in my opinion. It does not need to be the "freest possible choice" -- wherever there is a choice, any choice, there is free will.


----------



## Úlairi (Dec 31, 2003)

Eriol said:


> How is persuasion the same thing as removing Free Will?



The very fact that Curumo, Olórin, Aiwendil, Alatar and Pallando (five Maiar!) were sent to counter Sauron, but to persuade the people of Middle-earth to resist him is the removal of Free Will in the sense that the Valar were hypocritical in their actions. If it was the 'job' of the peoples of Middle-earth to counter him, then why send emissaries for aid? The very fact that they went to Middle-earth altered the outcome of history, any action has a consequence. If they had not gone to Middle-earth than the chances for success were indeed far greater for Sauron to achieve conquest.



Eriol said:


> And how would the deployment of a military force (commanded by Eönwë) be less restrictive of Free Will?



Because Sauron is of that order, he was of far greater race than that of his enemies, and the mere fact that he was allowed to exist there was also another denial of Free Will, and hypocritical of the Valar to allow that to occur. For Free Will to function correctly (in this case) it is far better to remove him through means of military action of 'higher mythological beings' such as the Maiar. If Curumo, say, for instance was sent there to counter him in full power and majesty, then Free Will would not be 'removed'. If the _Heren Istarion_ had gone to Middle-earth of their own choice, then Free Will would also 'correctly function'.



Eriol said:


> If there is a choice, there is Free Will. The Istari forced no one; they were despised and ignored by many. How is that limiting to Free Will? Denethor, for instance, had the option to trust Gandalf (and I'm sure a shrewd and informed Númenórean as Denethor would have at least an educated guess regarding Gandalf's origins) or to not trust him. Free Will.



Already answered that.



Eriol said:


> Also, you say the Valar "controlled fate". How? I never read anything to that effect.



I used a quote from _The Shadow of the Past_.



> _The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring: The Shadow of the Past_
> *"'Behind that there was something else at work, beyond any design of the Ring-maker. I can put it no plainer than by saying that Bilbo was meant to find the Ring, and not by its maker. In which case you were also meant to have it. And that may be an encouraging thought.'"*


 


Eriol said:


> I know you want to keep Eru "out of it", but it is impossible... Eru is the only controller of Fate. When Gandalf says that Bilbo was meant to find the Ring, he's not talking about the Valar. The Valar were likely ignorant of what was happening (they were certainly ignorant of it _at the moment_ of the Ring's finding by Bilbo, while Eru was certainly "aware"). Even if the Valar were "watching" the unfolding of History, they couldn't interfere directly -- because they had to preserve Free Will. It is only by sending advisors that they could influence.



Which is why I brough Eru 'back into it', but no one has responded to that. The will of the Valar is indeed the will of Eru himself. Then I guess Gandalf was referring to Eru himself. And as I have brought him into it, then I guess the argument still makes some sense, as I agree that he is the only 'controller of Fate'. 



Eriol said:


> To consider advice as a way to limit Free Will is to overly restrict the concept of Free Will, in my opinion. It does not need to be the "freest possible choice" -- wherever there is a choice, any choice, there is free will.





> _www.dictionary.com_
> *Free Will:* _The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will._



The existence of all 'mythological' creatures in Middle-earth at the time of lesser beings was indeed a complete breach of Free Will, as is the existence of Fate.


----------



## Eriol (Jan 1, 2004)

Úlairi said:


> The very fact that Curumo, Olórin, Aiwendil, Alatar and Pallando (five Maiar!) were sent to counter Sauron, but to persuade the people of Middle-earth to resist him is the removal of Free Will in the sense that the Valar were hypocritical in their actions. If it was the 'job' of the peoples of Middle-earth to counter him, then why send emissaries for aid? The very fact that they went to Middle-earth altered the outcome of history, any action has a consequence. If they had not gone to Middle-earth than the chances for success were indeed far greater for Sauron to achieve conquest.


That's a good argument for the point that the Istari restricted Sauron's Free Will . But not the Free Peoples' Free Will. They still could choose their sides. 

I still don't see how hypocrisy removes Free Will _per se_. 

If you have a straight road ahead of you, you have no choice, and no freedom. It is only when an option appears that you have freedom. Removing Sauron forcefully would remove the option of Morgoth worship.



> Because Sauron is of that order, he was of far greater race than that of his enemies, and the mere fact that he was allowed to exist there was also another denial of Free Will, and hypocritical of the Valar to allow that to occur.


The existence of any being opposed to me is a "denial of Free Will" in your interpretation of it. Apparently no one has Free Will but Eru. Even the Valar were denied their Free Will by Melkor. 

Your definition of Free Will is overly restrictive. Sure, only Eru is absolutely free, but if we want a workable concept for everyday people, we must define it in a different way. The salient point of free will in created characters (Eru is the only uncreated) is that their choices are not forced by material constraints. They do not choose Evil (or Good) because of nutrition or environment or culture or any other scapegoat. They choose it, _themselves_. That is the useful meaning of the concept of Free Will. Is that choice free of all restraints? No. But it is still based on ultimate (though restricted by circumstances) freedom on the part of the chooser. No matter how oppressive the circumstances are, there is always a grain of freedom that can't be suppressed. _That _is Free Will.



> The will of the Valar is indeed the will of Eru himself.


But the Valar often displease Eru. Check Morgoth's Ring. 



> Then I guess Gandalf was referring to Eru himself. And as I have brought him into it, then I guess the argument still makes some sense, as I agree that he is the only 'controller of Fate'.


But then Eru is the hypocritical one, and that simply can't be since Eru is absolutely good . But I think no one was hypocritical. What is hypocrisy for you?



> The existence of all 'mythological' creatures in Middle-earth at the time of lesser beings was indeed a complete breach of Free Will, as is the existence of Fate.


And what is the difference between the existence of a mythological creature and a non-mythological creature if both are opposed to my free will? Aren't they both breaching it (in your interpretation of Free Will)?


----------



## Confusticated (Jan 1, 2004)

Ulairi said:


> Because Sauron is of that order, he was of far greater race than that of his enemies, and the mere fact that he was allowed to exist there was also another denial of Free Will, and hypocritical of the Valar to allow that to occur. For Free Will to function correctly (in this case) it is far better to remove him through means of military action of 'higher mythological beings' such as the Maiar. If Curumo, say, for instance was sent there to counter him in full power and majesty, then Free Will would not be 'removed'



But you spoke of the denial of Sauron's freewill. I do not agree that the Istari denied Sauron freewill, but if one thinks that they did, then surely a direct military action against Sauron by the Istari is twice is bad?


----------



## Úlairi (Jan 1, 2004)

Eriol said:


> That's a good argument for the point that the Istari restricted Sauron's Free Will . But not the Free Peoples' Free Will. They still could choose their sides.



But what of those forced into the service of Sauron, that or death. Anyway, paradigms are confines of Free Will, Sauron was certainly one of them.



Eriol said:


> I still don't see how hypocrisy removes Free Will _per se_.



Eriol, c'mon, you can see the context in which _hypocrisy_ is mentioned. And why hasn't anyone replied to the Ilúvatar argument I made above?  



Eriol said:


> If you have a straight road ahead of you, you have no choice, and no freedom. It is only when an option appears that you have freedom. Removing Sauron forcefully would remove the option of Morgoth worship.



I'm sorry, have you read a little book called _The Silmarillion_???  Melkor and Sauron used lesser beings, and Morgoth literally made them subservient to his will, it is mentioned countlessly in _Morgoth's Ring_, which is something that we are all a direct result of, mind you. So, we are 'tainted' by his mistakes, and hence here is another fundamental restriction of Free Will (on the part of the Valar as well! )



Eriol said:


> The existence of any being opposed to me is a "denial of Free Will" in your interpretation of it. Apparently no one has Free Will but Eru. Even the Valar were denied their Free Will by Melkor.



No, of *equal beings*. 



Eriol said:


> Your definition of Free Will is overly restrictive. Sure, only Eru is absolutely free, but if we want a workable concept for everyday people, we must define it in a different way. The salient point of free will in created characters (Eru is the only uncreated) is that their choices are not forced by material constraints. They do not choose Evil (or Good) because of nutrition or environment or culture or any other scapegoat. They choose it, _themselves_. That is the useful meaning of the concept of Free Will. Is that choice free of all restraints? No. But it is still based on ultimate (though restricted by circumstances) freedom on the part of the chooser. No matter how oppressive the circumstances are, there is always a grain of freedom that can't be suppressed. _That _is Free Will.



But all *wrong* choices come with consequence (as with good), but the consequences of the bad choices we make are sometimes punishments. A person with foresight (which is something most rational beings possess) can see the consequences of their actions (especially bad actions). When you murder someone you know that if you get caught, you'll go to prison. Which restricts your Free Will in the first place. The liklihood is that you won't commit the murder. That's just an example nevertheless. The choice is still there to do so, but it is our own minds, and especially the 'conscience' that we all have (which is perhaps the only divine entity within our bodies), which is a direct result of Eru/God.



Eriol said:


> But the Valar often displease Eru. Check Morgoth's Ring.



Hence being hypocritical in more ways then one. Read what I said on Ilúvatar above. 



Eriol said:


> But then Eru is the hypocritical one, and that simply can't be since Eru is absolutely good . But I think no one was hypocritical. What is hypocrisy for you?



I thought I explained the hypocrisy above! What I wrote above is suggestive that he isn't, please reply to that!



Eriol said:


> And what is the difference between the existence of a mythological creature and a non-mythological creature if both are opposed to my free will? Aren't they both breaching it (in your interpretation of Free Will)?



Equality of being. In order for Free Will to function, every being interacting with another must be equal, which is why in theology every man (and woman ) is considered equal in the eyes of God. It is a specific requirement for Free Will to function.



Nóm said:


> But you spoke of the denial of Sauron's freewill. I do not agree that the Istari denied Sauron freewill, but if one thinks that they did, then surely a direct military action against Sauron by the Istari is twice is bad?



No, it isn't, because an equal is dealing with another equal throught force of will. The Istari (in a sense) used the lesser beings of ME to destroy him. Although I have no problem with the lesser overcoming the greater, it was the fact that Sauron, a divine entity, was allowed to dictate his will over others, who were lesser than himself. If Eönwë were sent, then Sauron could perhaps deal with him of his own Free Will, but the Istari on the other hand were supplanting him through means of altering the state of other beings through their very presence. It's hard to fathom, I agree.


----------



## Eriol (Jan 1, 2004)

Úlairi said:


> Equality of being. In order for Free Will to function, every being interacting with another must be equal, which is why in theology every man (and woman ) is considered equal in the eyes of God. It is a specific requirement for Free Will to function.


I still don't quite understand what you mean by hypocrisy. I can't see it. A definition would probably help. 

As for this quote, you used the example of murder. What is against me if I murder is not an equal being; it is a government. And therefore the government is restrictive of my free will.

As I pointed out, this is too restrictive a definition of free will. It's not that it is wrong, just that it is too restrictive and in the end useless. Everything is a restriction of Free Will then. Túrin had a sword, Mîm didn't, and so Túrin was unlawfully restrictive of Mîm's Free Will. On the other hand, Glaurung was greater than Túrin, but he let Túrin go free -- does that mean that Glaurung did not restrict Túrin's free will?

I just don't get your argument, because free will is defined in an overly restrictive fashion and hypocrisy was not defined (so I don't understand what you mean by it).


----------



## Úlairi (Jan 1, 2004)

Eriol said:


> I still don't quite understand what you mean by hypocrisy. I can't see it. A definition would probably help.
> 
> As for this quote, you used the example of murder. What is against me if I murder is not an equal being; it is a government. And therefore the government is restrictive of my free will.
> 
> ...



Eriol, I have to go because Mum's being annoying. But I do agree that I may be overly restrictive also. I will *attempt* to define my position to you at a later date.


----------



## Arvedui (Jan 7, 2004)

Sorry for barging in so late, but there are a few thoughts that strike me when I read your arguments.

First of all to the arguments used concerning the Valar of Ilúvatar. As Úlairi touched on, the will of the Valar, or in fact all of the Ainur were nothing but the will of Ilúvatar himself. This is clearly expressed in the _Ainulindalë_


> There was Eru, the One, who in Arda is called Ilúvatar; and he made first the Ainur, the Holy Ones, that were the offspring of his thought, and they were with him before aught else were made.


 Some of the Ainur later descended into Arda, to make Ilúvatar's (and their own) image come true. Their will was therefore restricted by what Ilúvatar had in mind in the first place, since they were the offspring of his thought. IMO, the Ainur therefore never had any Free Will, in fact never could have. As a consequence of this, Free Will as a concept was something that only was operative for the Children of Ilúvatar, and Dwarves.

Melkor and Sauron were of the Ainur.

Both of them sought to restrict the Free Will of the peoples of ME. Ilúvatar could not let that happen, and through Manwë, he sought to aid the free peoples of ME (I am strictly talking about the Third Age here, BTW).
They could have sent someone in power to overcome Sauron, as suggested, but there are (at least) two reasons against this: One that RD have already explained concerning the tendency to bring about the destruction of entire continents when they intervened directly. The other reason is that it was necessary to prepare Men for the coming Dominion of Men. 
By sending advisors, and not warriors, Men were able to overcome the greatest evil of the time through their own means, and show to themselves that they were indeed able to dominate earth. through this, Men were given a very good starting-point for their dominion.

To allow Free Will to be a real option for all inhabitants of Arda, Sauron had to be removed. This could ONLY be brought to happed through the destruction of the One Ring. That is why it had to be dealt with in Middle-earth. It had to be destroyed in Sammath Naur, or else Sauron would have continued to exist in power.

As I hope that I have proven, the Ainur did not commit any acts of hypocrisy. At least not in denying anyone from having Free Will.


----------



## Úlairi (Jan 7, 2004)

Arvedui said:


> Sorry for barging in so late, but there are a few thoughts that strike me when I read your arguments.



That's perfectly fine Arvedui.



Arvedui said:


> First of all to the arguments used concerning the Valar of Ilúvatar. As Úlairi touched on, the will of the Valar, or in fact all of the Ainur were nothing but the will of Ilúvatar himself. This is clearly expressed in the _Ainulindalë_ Some of the Ainur later descended into Arda, to make Ilúvatar's (and their own) image come true. Their will was therefore restricted by what Ilúvatar had in mind in the first place, since they were the offspring of his thought. IMO, the Ainur therefore never had any Free Will, in fact never could have. As a consequence of this, Free Will as a concept was something that only was operative for the Children of Ilúvatar, and Dwarves.



Yeah, I agree, but then all I have stated is true. What about Aulë creating the Dwarves then? What about Melkor and Sauron (and all those Ainur) choosing evil? Unless this was the will of Ilúvatar, in which case we are essentially dealing with an 'all-good' being capable of committing evil acts. Therefore none of his judgements can therefore be justified.



Arvedui said:


> Melkor and Sauron were of the Ainur.
> 
> Both of them sought to restrict the Free Will of the peoples of ME. Ilúvatar could not let that happen, and through Manwë, he sought to aid the free peoples of ME (I am strictly talking about the Third Age here, BTW).
> They could have sent someone in power to overcome Sauron, as suggested, but there are (at least) two reasons against this: One that RD have already explained concerning the tendency to bring about the destruction of entire continents when they intervened directly. The other reason is that it was necessary to prepare Men for the coming Dominion of Men.
> By sending advisors, and not warriors, Men were able to overcome the greatest evil of the time through their own means, and show to themselves that they were indeed able to dominate earth. through this, Men were given a very good starting-point for their dominion.



Yes, but the fact that the Istari were to deal with men on this occasion was fundamentally a restriction of their own wills, although the help was much needed. The very fact that Ilúvatar intervened (although subtly), denied the Eruhini their right of Free Will (I know I'm being restrictive, but I ask you to understand).



Arvedui said:


> To allow Free Will to be a real option for all inhabitants of Arda, Sauron had to be removed. This could ONLY be brought to happed through the destruction of the One Ring. That is why it had to be dealt with in Middle-earth. It had to be destroyed in Sammath Naur, or else Sauron would have continued to exist in power.
> 
> As I hope that I have proven, the Ainur did not commit any acts of hypocrisy. At least not in denying anyone from having Free Will.



I hate quoting myself, but here goes.



Úlairi said:


> Yet the Valar are willing to send the Istari to counter Sauron, and it seems as although it is for ME to deal with (apparently), the need for the Maia is still existent. Hypocrisy no? Now, one problem with my argument is indeed that the Valar are never mentioned to have to be institutors of Free Will in Eä, so, perhaps they are not hypocritical at all! However, Tolkien makes it clear in Letters that they should be, although he never wrote any text on the matter, with the exception of the letter of course. Ilúvatar alone is indeed the main institutor, and the acts of the Valar, however hypocritical they may be, he must quite literally 'make' Free Will operable in all circumstances for it's existence not to be 'feigned'. However, he fails to do this in the sense that the wills of the Valar conflict with the wills of the others, and hence he is in a predicament (which is why I said to leave Ilúvatar out in this argument, but I am now bringing him in to make a point ). The greater of his beings must therefore be given the priviledge, but the Valar themselves are also 'supposedly' institutors of the will of Ilúvatar, and if it his his will that Free Will must be operable (which we now know it is, according to Letter #153), then they are hypocritical themselves. And hence, if we were to indeed argue that the Valar were not hypocritical, then we would be saying that Ilúvatar is, which is mythologically and religiously impossible in any circumstance. The reason I did not wish for you to explore the nature of Ilúvatar into it is because he is the ultimate proof of the hypocrisy of the Valar, and if I posted it there would be reason (well, for me) to believe that there would be no argument. However, acknowledging that you are all clever and intelligent beings (), I would be very interested to see what you would use to argue against that. If I were to argue against myself i.e. be on the other side of the argument, I would indeed argue that the sub-creative powers of the Elves had not been completely realized at the time, and can not be acknowledged to be 'rational beings' at their full potential.



Now, I understand indeed Arvedui that you are suggesting that the Ainur themselves have no Free Will, but this would therefore (to me) seem impossible. If the Valar do not have Free Will, then no one does. If the Ainur didn't have Free Will, then their will would be Ilúvatar's (even though it should be even if they had Free Will). If all the 'supposedly' wrong actions of the Valar were the will of Ilúvatar, then that would imply predestination, and therefore denies the Free Will of every being on Middle-earth.


----------



## Arvedui (Jan 8, 2004)

And you are touching on a very interesting point (at least in my mind), that I think have been discussed somewhere around here before. Melkor and Sauron were evil. They were also offspring of the thoughts of Ilúvatar. If 2+2=4, then Ilúvatar also have a dark side, right? And when mentioning Aulë, an impatient side also?

Food for thought, eh?


> Yes, but the fact that the Istari were to deal with men on this occasion was fundamentally a restriction of their own wills,


 I suppose those whose wills are restricted here, are the Eruhini. If so, then you are right if this is considered 'in a vacuum'. Bringing the Istari to Middle-earth perhaps gave Men and Elves a slightly restricted Free Will, but the alternative was severly restrictions on their Free Will, if Sauron would have been allowed to prevail. It is a choice between a slight restriction or a total restriction, really.

No, I do not imply that the Ainur did not have Free Will. I said it was restricted. At least for most of them. Melkor used his Free Will. Those of the Ainur that followed him also used theirs, although theirs became more restricted as a consequence of following him. 
Manwë and his followers also used their Free Will, although theirs was restricted in that they sought to fulfill the thoughts of Ilúvatar.


----------



## Eriol (Jan 8, 2004)

We're still using the term "Free Will" in an ambiguous fashion. I think we should agree on a definition. I offer my own (surprise, surprise) .

Quoting from a prior post:

"The salient point of free will in created characters (Eru is the only uncreated) is that their choices are not forced by material constraints. They do not choose Evil (or Good) because of nutrition or environment or culture or any other scapegoat. They choose it, themselves. That is the useful meaning of the concept of Free Will. Is that choice free of all restraints? No. But it is still based on ultimate (though restricted by circumstances) freedom on the part of the chooser. No matter how oppressive the circumstances are, there is always a grain of freedom that can't be suppressed. _That_ is Free Will."

So, Free Will would be "choice not forced by circumstances". (This is implicit in the word "choice", but there is no harm in making it explicit). "Not forced" is not "unrestricted". All of us, even the Ainur, are restricted by other free beings, and by material constraints. Yavanna's Free Will was restricted by Fëanor's (showing that it is not a matter of inherent power) when he refused to break the Silmarils. Only Eru is free of all constraints. 

Following this definition, all beings have free will, up to the Ainur. There is no problem of predestination. Eru is not the creator of Evil. In other words, a most welcome result, for me at least . And it also erases the problems you are pointing at, Úlairi, for there would be no "denial" of Free Will by the Istari, hence no hypocrisy. I'm still not sure of what you mean by hypocrisy, but by defining our terms we'll eventually get at it .

If you disagree with the definition of Free Will, let's discuss it, offer something else.


----------



## Walter (Jan 8, 2004)

From an external point of view there is no such thing as "free will" in Tolkien's sub-creation, since all that happens is subject to the will of the creator - J.R.R. Tolkien...

From an internal point of view things are different, but not wholly, IMO.

In the published _Silmarillion_ we learn:



> For it is said that after the departure of the Valar there was silence, and for an age Ilúvatar sat alone in thought. Then he spoke and said: 'Behold I love the Earth, which shall be a mansion for the Quendi and the Atani! But the Quendi shall be the fairest of all earthly creatures, and they shall have and shall conceive and bring forth more beauty than all my Children; and they shall have the greater bliss in this world. But to the Atani I will give a new gift.' Therefore to willed that the hearts of Men should seek beyond the world and should find no rest therein; but they should have a virtue to shape their life, amid the powers and chances of the world, beyond the Music of the Ainur, which is as fate to all things else; and of their operation everything should be, in form and deed, completed, and the world fulfilled unto the last and smallest.
> 
> _Ainulindalë_



The crucial passage here _...the Music of the Ainur, which is as fate to all things else..._ has not been altered significantly by Tolkien, even in the earliest version - in The _BoLT1_ we find:



> 'Lo! After the departure of these Ainur and their vassalage all was quiet for a great age while Ilúvatar watched. Then on a sudden he said: "Behold I love the world, and it is a hall of play for Eldar and Men who are my beloved. But when the Eldar come they will be the fairest and the most lovely of all things by far; and deeper in the knowledge of beauty, and happier than Men. But to Men I will give a new gift, and a greater." Therefore he devised that Men should have a free virtue whereby within the limits of the powers and substances and chances of the world they might fashion and design their life beyond even the original Music of the Ainur that is as fate to all things else. This he did that of their operations everything should in shape and deed be completed, and the world fulfilled unto the last and smallest. Lo! Even we Eldar have found to our sorrow that Men have a strange power for good or ill and for turning things despite Gods and Fairies to their mood in the world; so that we say: "Fate may not conquer the Children of Men, but yet are they strangely blind, whereas their joy should be great."
> 
> _The Music of the Ainur_



Furthermore in another letter we find:



> ...for the point of view of this mythology is that 'mortality' or a short span, and 'immortality' or an indefinite span was part of what we might call the biological and spiritual nature of the Children of God, Men and Elves (the firstborn) respectively, and could not be altered by anyone (even a Power or god), and would not be altered by the One, except perhaps by one of those strange exceptions to all rules and ordinances which seem to crop up in the history of the Universe, and show the Finger of _God, as the one wholly free Will and Agent._
> 
> _Letters_ #156 (p. 204) - my italics



Now the passage from the Ainulindalë and this statement above - together with the statement from Letters #153 (p. 195) - quoted in part earlier in this thread - could suffice to make a case that Eru granted "Free Will" _only_ to his Second Children, and even there it was not entirely "unrestricted" (as e.g. V. Flieger does throughout her book _Splintered Light_), in Eä there was but one _wholly free will and agent_, Eru...


----------



## Úlairi (Jan 8, 2004)

Wow, a lot to address here, but, I will attempt to do so.



Eriol said:


> We're still using the term "Free Will" in an ambiguous fashion. I think we should agree on a definition. I offer my own (surprise, surprise) .
> 
> Quoting from a prior post:
> 
> "The salient point of free will in created characters (Eru is the only uncreated) is that their choices are not forced by material constraints. They do not choose Evil (or Good) because of nutrition or environment or culture or any other scapegoat. They choose it, themselves. That is the useful meaning of the concept of Free Will. Is that choice free of all restraints? No. But it is still based on ultimate (though restricted by circumstances) freedom on the part of the chooser. No matter how oppressive the circumstances are, there is always a grain of freedom that can't be suppressed. _That_ is Free Will."



Well, indeed that sounds like a very good definition of Free Will to me Eriol. But you forget important factors (as you seem to be applying this to the outside world ), we'll stay with Tolkien's world for the moment. One important factor is the deterministic nature of the _Ainulindalë_ itself, that not even the Valar can overcome with their will (with perhaps the exception of Aulë and the Dwarves), however, as has been pointed out by both Arvedui and myself, the will of Ilúvatar should fundamentally be the same as the will of the Valar hence 'restricting' their Free Will. I would go so far as to agree with the 'grain' of freedom that you speak of, but it is entirely circumstantial, and the problem with this grain is that it is always fundamentally against the will of Eru, hence having great consequences, which usually 'restricts', even this small grain from flowering. So, indeed, I would define it as 'possible Free Will', something that I myself only get a small taste of from time to time. But then, I would have to completely disagree, because if Free Will is that suppressed, then it isn't really Free Will.

Now to my definition of Free Will: Free Will is the ability to makes choices without the influence of divine intervention. With both predestination and greater 'angelic beings' in thw world of Tolkien, Free Will almost comes down to naught, and even in instances where we see Free Will (supposedly) like the Flight of the Noldor, even then it would be intended by the mind of Ilúvatar, as all works according to his designs.



Eriol said:


> So, Free Will would be "choice not forced by circumstances". (This is implicit in the word "choice", but there is no harm in making it explicit). "Not forced" is not "unrestricted". All of us, even the Ainur, are restricted by other free beings, and by material constraints. Yavanna's Free Will was restricted by Fëanor's (showing that it is not a matter of inherent power) when he refused to break the Silmarils. Only Eru is free of all constraints.



A clash of Free Will is absolutely fine Eriol, and you yourself know that.  However, I made the point above that this is only acceptable between *equal beings* Elves wills restricting others, Ainur restricting other Ainur, Men vs. Men etc. Elves vs. Men may be acceptable to me. 



Eriol said:


> Following this definition, all beings have free will, up to the Ainur. There is no problem of predestination. Eru is not the creator of Evil. In other words, a most welcome result, for me at least . And it also erases the problems you are pointing at, Úlairi, for there would be no "denial" of Free Will by the Istari, hence no hypocrisy. I'm still not sure of what you mean by hypocrisy, but by defining our terms we'll eventually get at it .
> 
> If you disagree with the definition of Free Will, let's discuss it, offer something else.



Yeah, but predestination is still there, even if the outcome is wonderful beyonf everything else. Although I too, would be extremely glad for all this, I still get the sense that I am being restricted deterministically. As for hypocrisy, I believe that I defined that above, but, if it is really required, I will repeat myself. 



Walter said:


> From an external point of view there is no such thing as "free will" in Tolkien's sub-creation, since all that happens is subject to the will of the creator - J.R.R. Tolkien...



Hey! No freebies! Hehehehe. 



Walter said:


> Now the passage from the Ainulindalë and this statement above - together with the statement from Letters #153 (p. 195) - quoted in part earlier in this thread - could suffice to make a case that Eru granted "Free Will" only to his Second Children, and even there it was not entirely "unrestricted" (as e.g. V. Flieger does throughout her book Splintered Light), in Eä there was but one wholly free will and agent, Eru...



Yes, but then Man's Free Will is still restricted by the determintic nature of the _Ainulindalë_.



Arvedui said:


> No, I do not imply that the Ainur did not have Free Will. I said it was restricted. At least for most of them. Melkor used his Free Will. Those of the Ainur that followed him also used theirs, although theirs became more restricted as a consequence of following him.
> Manwë and his followers also used their Free Will, although theirs was restricted in that they sought to fulfill the thoughts of Ilúvatar.



Yes, agreed. Melkor though is an interesting case, we indeed get the sense that he was acting of his own Free Will, however, this blows that out of the water.



> _The Silmarillion: Ainulindalë: The Music of the Ainur_
> *"Then Ilúvatar spoke, and he said: 'Mighty are the Ainur, and mightiest among them is Melkor; but that he may know, and all the Ainur, that I am Ilúvatar, those things that ye have sung, I will show them forth, that ye may see what ye have done. And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme that may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For thee that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined.'"*



Well, I think that says it all right there.


----------



## grendel (Jan 8, 2004)

All that talk about Free Will makes my brain hurt... I will just observe that the idea of the Valar bringing the Elves to Aman, then trying to dissuade them from leaving, and then banning the ones who did leave from returning, seems rather childish and petulant. If you look at most polytheistic belief systems, though - the Greek and Roman gods come to mind, probably many other cultures - the gods seem to be that way, with mortals caught between their petty squabbles.


----------



## Úlairi (Jan 8, 2004)

grendel said:


> All that talk about Free Will makes my brain hurt... I will just observe that the idea of the Valar bringing the Elves to Aman, then trying to dissuade them from leaving, and then banning the ones who did leave from returning, seems rather childish and petulant. If you look at most polytheistic belief systems, though - the Greek and Roman gods come to mind, probably many other cultures - the gods seem to be that way, with mortals caught between their petty squabbles.



A very good point nonetheless grendel.


----------



## Eriol (Jan 9, 2004)

Úlairi said:


> One important factor is the deterministic nature of the _Ainulindalë_ itself, that not even the Valar can overcome with their will (with perhaps the exception of Aulë and the Dwarves), however, as has been pointed out by both Arvedui and myself, the will of Ilúvatar should fundamentally be the same as the will of the Valar hence 'restricting' their Free Will.



Free Will is relative to the agent. Only Eru has unrestricted Free Will. The Ainulindalë spelled out the history of the first ages of Arda. We agree on this. But I don't see where it follows that the Free Will of the Valar is denied. Restricted, yes, but that is inherent in all created agents. Denied? Even if the Valar were _trying_ to follow Eru's will, they had no direct access to it, and they were not perfect. They could (and did) make mistakes. Whose mistake is that? Eru's? No. The Valar. But if it is a mistake of the Valar, then it is their responsibility, and it is their choice -- in other words, Free Will . 

Implicit in your reasoning is that determinism precludes Free Will (I agree with that) and that Arda's history is deterministic (I don't agree with that, for reasons that will follow shortly). 



> Now to my definition of Free Will: Free Will is the ability to makes choices without the influence of divine intervention. With both predestination and greater 'angelic beings' in thw world of Tolkien, Free Will almost comes down to naught, and even in instances where we see Free Will (supposedly) like the Flight of the Noldor, even then it would be intended by the mind of Ilúvatar, as all works according to his designs.



In that sense, _everything_ is "divine intervention". Again, was there free choice in Fëanor's refusal to break the Silmarils? That example was to show not only free choice in action, but to show that your restriction on "equal beings" can cut both ways. Fëanor was restricting the Valar's will! Is he equal to them? No. Is that "unlawful restriction" then? According to your definition, yes. I can't agree. An elf restricting the Valar is "allowed", and so the Valar restricting Elves should be also "allowed". Anything that happens is "allowed" by Eru. And the fact that Eru is "allowing" it does not mean that he is determining it. 

I would qualify your paragraph above with "_direct_ divine intervention". I don't think that the works of History and Providence are restrictive of Free Will. They are data used for the choice. They don't prevent the choice. 



> Yeah, but predestination is still there, even if the outcome is wonderful beyonf everything else. Although I too, would be extremely glad for all this, I still get the sense that I am being restricted deterministically. As for hypocrisy, I believe that I defined that above, but, if it is really required, I will repeat myself.



I must have missed it . Please repeat the definition of hypocrisy...

Anyway, to the salient point of "determinism x predestination". I don't think they are synonyms. Determinism is the absence of choice; predestination is Eru's awareness of the choices before they are made. I know that the word "predestination" carries with it a tinge of determinism, and this is why I personally prefer "foresight". Eru does not make the choices, he knows about them. He did not make the choice to breed the race of Orcs! It is clearly spelled out in the Sil that this was Melkor's most hateful act to Ilúvatar. Was Ilúvatar hating his own choice there?

No, Eru is _aware_ of the choices. This does not mean that he determines them. There is no logical necessity between knowledge and actuality. Also, Ilúvatar is "outside time". Eru knew that Melkor would turn out evil, and he knew that he would breed Orcs -- he knew that before Melkor knew it, himself. But he did not force Melkor into evil. Melkor chose that path, himself. 

Arda is filled with foresight, and the fact that the "seer" is Eru does not mean that he is forcing anyone. Mandos foresaw treason for the Noldor, but he did not force Maeglin to betray Gondolin. Malbeth foresaw that the Paths of Dead would be used, but he did not force Aragorn to go there.


----------



## Úlairi (Jan 9, 2004)

Eriol said:


> Free Will is relative to the agent. Only Eru has unrestricted Free Will. The Ainulindalë spelled out the history of the first ages of Arda. We agree on this. But I don't see where it follows that the Free Will of the Valar is denied. Restricted, yes, but that is inherent in all created agents. Denied? Even if the Valar were _trying_ to follow Eru's will, they had no direct access to it, and they were not perfect. They could (and did) make mistakes. Whose mistake is that? Eru's? No. The Valar. But if it is a mistake of the Valar, then it is their responsibility, and it is their choice -- in other words, Free Will .



Perhaps, but their will should also be the will of Ilúvatar, and don't you ever pay any attention to what I post? What about the quote from the _Ainulindalë_??? 



> _The Silmarillion: Ainulindalë: The Music of the Ainur_
> *"Then Ilúvatar spoke, and he said: 'Mighty are the Ainur, and mightiest among them is Melkor; but that he may know, and all the Ainur, that I am Ilúvatar, those things that ye have sung, I will show them forth, that ye may see what ye have done. And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme that may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For thee that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined.'"*



Even if they had the Free Will which you refer to, it is all part of the plan of Ilúvatar, and another *ABSOLUTE DENIAL* springs forth. The consequences of our actions should be a direct result of them solely, and those actions allowed to continue the flow of time without a divine being using these events to make everything even more glorious. However, they are _instruments_ of Ilúvatar. That is indeed, my friend, a denial of Free Will if I ever saw one. 



Eriol said:


> Implicit in your reasoning is that determinism precludes Free Will (I agree with that) and that Arda's history is deterministic (I don't agree with that, for reasons that will follow shortly).



OK.  



Eriol said:


> In that sense, _everything_ is "divine intervention". Again, was there free choice in Fëanor's refusal to break the Silmarils? That example was to show not only free choice in action, but to show that your restriction on "equal beings" can cut both ways. Fëanor was restricting the Valar's will! Is he equal to them? No. Is that "unlawful restriction" then? According to your definition, yes. I can't agree. An elf restricting the Valar is "allowed", and so the Valar restricting Elves should be also "allowed". Anything that happens is "allowed" by Eru. And the fact that Eru is "allowing" it does not mean that he is determining it.



I disagree, it was the Valar's will that indeed Fëanor's will be his own, if they had truly desire to restrict his Free Will they would have done so, but as we know, the Valar too, were restricted in domination of the wills of others, and therefore that argument is not applicable here at all. On the other hand, if divine intervention is more direct, then it denies Free Will. 



Eriol said:


> I would qualify your paragraph above with "_direct_ divine intervention". I don't think that the works of History and Providence are restrictive of Free Will. They are data used for the choice. They don't prevent the choice.



Completely agreed, but the fundamental nature of the Music of the Ainur is also inclusive of history already written out, and therefore we are not the cause of our own history! 



Eriol said:


> I must have missed it . Please repeat the definition of hypocrisy...



Fundamentally in restricting the wills of others, and also sometimes disobeying the orders of Ilúvatar in some instances, after it was decided that the Ainur should not intervene with the matters of Men, they wouldn't take the Ring to Valinor, but they would send emissaries to Middle-earth for aid. Displaying themselves in forms of majesty, when they themselves decided that indeed they should not do so. 



> _The Silmarillion: Of the Coming of the Elves and the Captivity of Melkor_
> *"Then again the Valar were gathered in council, and they were divided in debate. For some, and of those Ulmo was the chief, held that the Quendi should be left free to walk as they would in Middle-earth, and with their gifts of skill to order all the lands and heal their hurts. But the most part feared for the Quendi in the dangerous world amid the deceits of the starlit dusk; and they were filled moreover with the love of the beauty of the Elves and desired their fellowship. At the last, therefore, the Valar summoned the Quendi to Valinor, there to be gathered at the knees of the Powers in the light of the Trees for ever; and Mandos broke his silence, saying: 'So it is doomed.' From this summons came many woes that afterwards befell.*





Eriol said:


> Anyway, to the salient point of "determinism x predestination". I don't think they are synonyms. Determinism is the absence of choice; predestination is Eru's awareness of the choices before they are made. I know that the word "predestination" carries with it a tinge of determinism, and this is why I personally prefer "foresight". Eru does not make the choices, he knows about them. He did not make the choice to breed the race of Orcs! It is clearly spelled out in the Sil that this was Melkor's most hateful act to Ilúvatar. Was Ilúvatar hating his own choice there?



What about the above quote from the _Ainulindalë_???



Eriol said:


> No, Eru is _aware_ of the choices. This does not mean that he determines them. There is no logical necessity between knowledge and actuality. Also, Ilúvatar is "outside time". Eru knew that Melkor would turn out evil, and he knew that he would breed Orcs -- he knew that before Melkor knew it, himself. But he did not force Melkor into evil. Melkor chose that path, himself.



Because it was the purpose of Ilúvatar, read the above quote, AGAIN! 



Eriol said:


> Arda is filled with foresight, and the fact that the "seer" is Eru does not mean that he is forcing anyone. Mandos foresaw treason for the Noldor, but he did not force Maeglin to betray Gondolin. Malbeth foresaw that the Paths of Dead would be used, but he did not force Aragorn to go there.



He didn't need to in both instances, because they were going to happen anyway!


----------



## Eriol (Jan 10, 2004)

> Displaying themselves in forms of majesty, when they themselves decided that indeed they should not do so.



This is the closest you have gotten to a definition of hypocrisy, but all of the examples you gave (including this) are examples, not a definition.

I don't recall an instance in which the Valar display themselves in majesty after deciding that they should not do so.

And for all of your enthusiasm about that quote, I don't think it proves anything. It is simply Eru's statement that he governs _history_, not individual wills. In fact it denies that Eru controls wills; as can be seen by a comparison with Aulë. Can you imagine Aulë _warning_ his Dwarves in a similar vein? A "warning" only makes sense if it is issued to free creatures. If Eru controlled the will of his creatures he would never have said that. 

If you attempt to defy Eru, he will make sure that you fail; that's the extent of the quote. But you can't attempt to defy Eru unless you have a free will! He will make sure, yes, but NOT through controlling your will. He will do it by governing History. 

And reread my last quote. When you said "He" I think you are talking about Eru. I, on the other hand, was talking about Mandos and Malbeth.


----------



## Úlairi (Jan 10, 2004)

Eriol said:


> This is the closest you have gotten to a definition of hypocrisy, but all of the examples you gave (including this) are examples, not a definition.



*Hypocrisy*: _The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness._



Eriol said:


> I don't recall an instance in which the Valar display themselves in majesty after deciding that they should not do so.



Well, I worded that wrong, but, the Valar did indeed acknowledge it as an error.



Eriol said:


> And for all of your enthusiasm about that quote, I don't think it proves anything. It is simply Eru's statement that he governs _history_, not individual wills. In fact it denies that Eru controls wills; as can be seen by a comparison with Aulë. Can you imagine Aulë _warning_ his Dwarves in a similar vein? A "warning" only makes sense if it is issued to free creatures. If Eru controlled the will of his creatures he would never have said that.



Oh come on Eriol, wake up and smell the predestination.  If Ilúvatar forced his own will upon Melkor, then Tolkien wouldn't have an _Ainulindalë_! 



Eriol said:


> If you attempt to defy Eru, he will make sure that you fail; that's the extent of the quote. But you can't attempt to defy Eru unless you have a free will! He will make sure, yes, but NOT through controlling your will. He will do it by governing History.



But he'll alter fate to his own accord, what is Free Will if the consequences of our use of it are too, controlled??? 



Eriol said:


> And reread my last quote. When you said "He" I think you are talking about Eru. I, on the other hand, was talking about Mandos and Malbeth.



Nah, I think I got that one right.  It should have read 'They' instead of 'He' though.


----------



## Eriol (Jan 11, 2004)

Úlairi said:


> *Hypocrisy*: _The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness._
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I worded that wrong, but, the Valar did indeed acknowledge it as an error.



But error is not hypocrisy!





> But he'll alter fate to his own accord, what is Free Will if the consequences of our use of it are too, controlled???



It remains free. Húrin's defiance of Morgoth was Free. He remained stuck on that seat for decades, but it was _Húrin's_ choice. He could recant and worship Morgoth at any time.

Eru's governance of history is a fact that has no impact at all on Free Will. No one thinks of History while making a choice. We are finite . Even Elves, immortal, don't put "History" above their own whims. _Whims_ -- free choices. Many people defy Eru's wishes and die rich and powerful after living great lives. The late Númenórean Kings were not miserable and constrained, and they were defying Eru's will -- freely. 

If there is choice, there is freedom. Or, in other words, the consequences of an act are not "controlled" in any tangible sense _within the agent's finite perception_. No one cares that Eru will "fix" history some 60,000 years from now . Right now, when the choice is made, Eru lets the dice fall where they may.


----------



## Walter (Jan 11, 2004)

Eriol said:


> Eru's governance of history is a fact that has no impact at all on Free Will. No one thinks of History while making a choice. We are finite . Even Elves, immortal, don't put "History" above their own whims. _Whims_ -- free choices. Many people defy Eru's wishes and die rich and powerful after living great lives. The late Númenórean Kings were not miserable and constrained, and they were defying Eru's will -- freely.
> 
> If there is choice, there is freedom. Or, in other words, the consequences of an act are not "controlled" in any tangible sense _within the agent's finite perception_. No one cares that Eru will "fix" history some 60,000 years from now . Right now, when the choice is made, Eru lets the dice fall where they may.


An interesting stance that is, despite the fact that Eriol seems to disregard the Ainulindalë to some degree and grant the Eldar "Free Will" too...

But to me this would - especially the first sentence - imply that there is no connection whatsoever between the decisions made due to "Free Will" - and the resulting consequences - and the "Fate" which is pre-defined in the Ainulindalë.


----------



## Rangerdave (Jan 11, 2004)

Walter said:


> But to me this would - especially the first sentence - imply that there is no connection whatsoever between the decisions made due to "Free Will" - and the resulting consequences - and the "Fate" which is pre-defined in the Ainulindalë.


 
Ah yes, what is Fate if not the result of the Free Will of those that came before us. As our choices today will limit the choices of tomorrow.


RD


----------



## Úlairi (Jan 12, 2004)

Eriol said:


> But error is not hypocrisy!



To 'supposedly' be institutors of the will of Ilúvatar, and then to exercise their own over lesser beings than themselves is hypocritical, and the notion of sending the _Istari_ and not destroying the Ring themselves is also, hypocritical. There are a few more examples I can think of.



Eriol said:


> It remains free. Húrin's defiance of Morgoth was Free. He remained stuck on that seat for decades, but it was _Húrin's_ choice. He could recant and worship Morgoth at any time.



 We're talking Ilúvatar here. 



Eriol said:


> Eru's governance of history is a fact that has no impact at all on Free Will. No one thinks of History while making a choice. We are finite . Even Elves, immortal, don't put "History" above their own whims. _Whims_ -- free choices. Many people defy Eru's wishes and die rich and powerful after living great lives. The late Númenórean Kings were not miserable and constrained, and they were defying Eru's will -- freely.



And look what happened to the Númenórean Kings! Bad example Eriol!  So, governance of history is in no way conceivable a denial of free will? Bending the course of time to his designs is no denial of Free Will???  



Eriol said:


> If there is choice, there is freedom. Or, in other words, the consequences of an act are not "controlled" in any tangible sense _within the agent's finite perception_. No one cares that Eru will "fix" history some 60,000 years from now . Right now, when the choice is made, Eru lets the dice fall where they may.



No he doesn't. I thought I made that clear. To our finite perception, we indeed consider our actions to be 'free', they even feel it. I am talking from a divine viewpoint here. 

Well said Walter. 



Rangerdave said:


> Ah yes, what is Fate if not the result of the Free Will of those that came before us. As our choices today will limit the choices of tomorrow.
> 
> 
> RD



Let's stay with the 'divine' here.


----------



## Eriol (Jan 12, 2004)

Úlairi said:


> To 'supposedly' be institutors of the will of Ilúvatar, and then to exercise their own over lesser beings than themselves is hypocritical, and the notion of sending the _Istari_ and not destroying the Ring themselves is also, hypocritical. There are a few more examples I can think of.



Well, we're talking different languages here. Ilúvatar gave Free Will to the Valar. His will, regarding the Valar, is that they use their Free Will. The Valar do not have direct access to the will of Ilúvatar; only Manwë has that, and only in particular occasions. So there is no hypocrisy; if they are (freely) trying to get it right with not enough information, there can be error, but not hypocrisy.



> We're talking Ilúvatar here.



Please refer back to the agreed definition of Free Will .



> And look what happened to the Númenórean Kings! Bad example Eriol!  So, governance of history is in no way conceivable a denial of free will? Bending the course of time to his designs is no denial of Free Will???



What happened to the Númenórean Kings is _that they died in their beds after a life of material wealth and comfort_. I don't think it is a bad example, as you see. I'm not talking about Ar-Pharazôn; I'm talking about the long line of Númenórean Kings who defied the will of Eru and enslaved people in Middle-Earth and shunned the Elves. 



> No he doesn't. I thought I made that clear. To our finite perception, we indeed consider our actions to be 'free', they even feel it. I am talking from a divine viewpoint here.



If you are talking from a divine viewpoint, then you shifted the definition of Free Will, and you forgot about hypocrisy in the first place; or is the great hypocrite Eru? That would be an interesting argument, but it's not what you have been defending here so far.


----------



## Úlairi (Jan 12, 2004)

Eriol said:


> Well, we're talking different languages here. Ilúvatar gave Free Will to the Valar. His will, regarding the Valar, is that they use their Free Will. The Valar do not have direct access to the will of Ilúvatar; only Manwë has that, and only in particular occasions. So there is no hypocrisy; if they are (freely) trying to get it right with not enough information, there can be error, but not hypocrisy.



I guess the quote on Melkor doesn't matter then. I also thought, being 'offsprings of his', that they would do his bidding, as Manwë is not the High-King of Arda because he looks pretty. As for the rest of the Valar, I have always believed that they can perceive some of the mind of Ilúvatar at times. It is hypocrisy with the matter of the Elves. Mandos's words imply that it was an action that was indeed wrong, and it is mentioned that Ulmo thought it best for them to be left alone, for them not to be denied of their free will. If a god came and asked you to live with him, wouldn't you go? The Elves were so enamoured with the raiment of Oromë, he displayed himself in a manner of power to draw the Quendi to Aman. That is more than an error, it was known to them that it was perhaps 'wrong' to do so, but they did it anyway. What's more is that they 'perceive the mind of Eru' (in some ways, as I said), and therefore know that this action is indeed wrong. Where the hypocrisy comes from is that they themselves are supposed to represent 'good' in Arda, they are fundamentally 'perfect beings'. They profess to understand the mechanism of Free Will (as they have it, according to you Eriol), yet they deny the Quendi theirs.

Another thing is what I mentioned of the Ring. Please see above. Also, my argument on _The Valar and Eru_, perhaps one of the best things I've written on this forum and no one replied to it. See above.



Eriol said:


> Please refer back to the agreed definition of Free Will .



Your version?



Eriol said:


> What happened to the Númenórean Kings is _that they died in their beds after a life of material wealth and comfort_. I don't think it is a bad example, as you see. I'm not talking about Ar-Pharazôn; I'm talking about the long line of Númenórean Kings who defied the will of Eru and enslaved people in Middle-Earth and shunned the Elves.



And their ancestors paid the price for their actions, and it is said that these Men too, may becoming wandering _fëa_'s for their actions. Sinking an island beneath the sea because some human beings exercised their rightful Free Will, whether or not that was the Valar or Eru I am unsure, but it is indeed very hypocritical. I should have used that argument a long time ago. 



Eriol said:


> If you are talking from a divine viewpoint, then you shifted the definition of Free Will, and you forgot about hypocrisy in the first place; or is the great hypocrite Eru? That would be an interesting argument, but it's not what you have been defending here so far.



Well, the hypocrite may well be Eru, and I may have shifted the conversation more to him, seeing as that was where the conversation was going (admittedly). However, the argument of the Valar stands on its own if they are supposedly the 'institutors of the will of Eru' which had not been contended throughout the entire course of theis thread until your last post!!!


----------



## Eriol (Jan 12, 2004)

Úlairi said:


> Where the hypocrisy comes from is that they themselves are supposed to represent 'good' in Arda, they are fundamentally 'perfect beings'.



And here lies the entire difference between you and me. I see no evidence to the fact that the Valar are "perfect beings". And I remember some passages from the Letters and Morgoth's Ring implying the opposite. They are "angelic natures", and we know that angels can make mistakes . 

You are holding the Valar to a standard of perfection that they never professed, and that Eru never granted to them. You are being more strict than Eru .



> Your version?



Any version. Whether it is the "grain of freedom" or "action without divine intervention", it applies to this case (Húrin). Of course, your definition is self-defeating when discussing Ilúvatar, all of his actions involve divine intervention  .



> And their ancestors paid the price for their actions, and it is said that these Men too, may becoming wandering _fëa_'s for their actions. Sinking an island beneath the sea because some human beings exercised their rightful Free Will, whether or not that was the Valar or Eru I am unsure, but it is indeed very hypocritical. I should have used that argument a long time ago.



What was the alternative? That they "paid the price" is a speculation. They lived well, and died rich. How can it be said that Eru was constraining their Free Will? If they indeed pay a price after death, well I'm sure they prefer to pay the price than to live with the Eru they hated so much. 



> Well, the hypocrite may well be Eru, and I may have shifted the conversation more to him, seeing as that was where the conversation was going (admittedly). However, the argument of the Valar stands on its own if they are supposedly the 'institutors of the will of Eru' which had not been contended throughout the entire course of theis thread until your last post!!!



Yep. As I said we are using different languages . But we're slowly coming to grasp what the other means. The Valar in my opinion are fallible beings. Just that. They love Eru (with the exception of Melkor) and they want to serve Him, but they are not omniscient nor perfect.


----------



## Úlairi (Jan 15, 2004)

Eriol said:


> And here lies the entire difference between you and me. I see no evidence to the fact that the Valar are "perfect beings". And I remember some passages from the Letters and Morgoth's Ring implying the opposite. They are "angelic natures", and we know that angels can make mistakes .



Perhaps, but being 'offsprings of thought' would therefore imply some level of perfection. They don't really do any intentional 'wrong' in Arda, and can hence be considered perfect as I believe, most of them can't comprehend evil, even the anger of Tulkas is described as being 'the good side of violence'. 



Eriol said:


> You are holding the Valar to a standard of perfection that they never professed, and that Eru never granted to them. You are being more strict than Eru .



And that they *didn't profess* either. Eru granted them perfection, you cannot be less than perfect to dwell with a perfect being, when Melkor became evil, he dwelt in the Void before he descended into Arda, as an imperfect being (i.e. a perfect 'fallen' being), he could not stand being in Ery's presence. 



Eriol said:


> Any version. Whether it is the "grain of freedom" or "action without divine intervention", it applies to this case (Húrin). Of course, your definition is self-defeating when discussing Ilúvatar, all of his actions involve divine intervention  .



I know, hence Free Will not truly existing, only perceived by ourselves, which is a point I'm willing to concede.



Eriol said:


> What was the alternative? That they "paid the price" is a speculation. They lived well, and died rich. How can it be said that Eru was constraining their Free Will? If they indeed pay a price after death, well I'm sure they prefer to pay the price than to live with the Eru they hated so much.



Hah! Even the inherent evil when faced by the Prime Primordial and Perfect Being would indeed desire to be in the presence of Eru, instead of the alternative. Eeek! 



Eriol said:


> Yep. As I said we are using different languages . But we're slowly coming to grasp what the other means. The Valar in my opinion are fallible beings. Just that. They love Eru (with the exception of Melkor) and they want to serve Him, but they are not omniscient nor perfect.



Well, perhaps they are, and perhaps they aren't. As far as I can see it, we could never really prove it one way or the other. Perfect servants, a servant that always does the will of its master is therefore the 'perfect servant'.


----------



## Greenwood (Jan 16, 2004)

I am not going to enter this debate, but I do have one question. Why is this thread in the LOTR forum? Wouldn't it be more appropriate in The Sil section or even The Hall of Fire?


----------

