# Thing you can't put up with in Tolkien's world



## abdera (Jun 4, 2005)

*Things you can't put up with in Tolkien's world*

Are you really fed up with something in Tolkien's world? Here is the place to say it.

For my part:

- only humans have free will
- Manwe can't comprehend evil (!?*#!!!)
- all humans were tainted by Melkor (c'mon now, ALL? that really sucks!)


----------



## Barliman Butterbur (Jun 4, 2005)

abdera said:


> Are you really fed up with something in Tolkien's world?



I get fed up with all the smallminded petty shortsighted complaints about how Tolkien — in having created this _gigantic masterpiece_ — should have done it differently somehow.  

Barley


----------



## Ithrynluin (Jun 4, 2005)

abdera said:


> - only humans have free will



Why do you think only humans have free will?


----------



## abdera (Jun 4, 2005)

Isnt there some part where it say that the deeds of the Men cannot be predicted by the valar because only they have free will?


----------



## Ithrynluin (Jun 4, 2005)

I don't see how Elves, and the other peoples, don't have free will, as they too have been known to do evil of their free will.


----------



## Hammersmith (Jun 4, 2005)

I dislike his deux et machina moments, where "just as everything looked at its worst..." the orcs randomly massacred each other...er...the eagles showed up. Um...the Vala returned for some reason. Suddenly, Numenor and all of Ar Pharazon's bad guys were wiped out.

It's picky, and I don't grudge him those moments as I recognise his deeper meanings behind them. But they do wind me up sometimes.


----------



## ingolmo (Jun 5, 2005)

I'm not fed up with anything really, though I do believe that Tolkien has been unfair to some animals, and I'm irritated about that. In case you haven't seen it yet, there's a thread about that right here in the hall of fire.


----------



## abdera (Jun 5, 2005)

Ithrynluin said:


> I don't see how Elves, and the other peoples, don't have free will, as they too have been known to do evil of their free will.



I found what I was looking for:


> 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





Barliman Butterbur said:


> I get fed up with all the smallminded petty shortsighted complaints about how Tolkien — in having created this _gigantic masterpiece_ — should have done it differently somehow.
> 
> Barley


You are several times wrong:
- Tolkien didn't intend for us to like necesarily like Gothmog, witchking or Shelob;
- Tolkien was a perfectionist and many (all?) of his works were revised several times and he would have revised them even more if he had the chance (time).

Oh, back to the topic:

Elrond: this guy annoys me twice:
- for goodness' sake, he should have died in Mount Doom trying to destroy the one ring, where is the heroism in this guy?!!??#$%
- (in a most uncool manner) he asks Aragorn to do whatever impossible deed so that he can't marry his aw-so lovely daughter. The last time an elf did that, a whole kingdom went into ruin. This *half*elf should read more history, good thing his crazy idea didn't kill him in some way - if you ask me, putting anything above love is worth getting kicked - hey, at least in Tolkien's world


----------



## Alatar (Jun 5, 2005)

Hmmm.....
Nope, personly I think that tolkein is the only person alive who knew all of his reasons and opions on his writing(like what happens in the New shadow after he smells the evil?).
Though i do think that the elves should lern from warnings such as Gil galad says " hey don't trust this giver of gifts guy" but do they listen? Did turgon listen to tour? Did Feranor listen?
Oh and Turin! Next time you wake up, chek who it is before you gut them.


----------



## Henniden (Jun 5, 2005)

Even if I'm able to understand Tolkien's point of view, I do not like very much his female characters, generally under-developped, and also his concept of love at-first sight.  Now, it is of course quite appropriate for medieval romance style, but still, sometimes I would like to see it born in a more subtle way than just being enchanted by beautiful looks and singing.


----------



## Ithrynluin (Jun 5, 2005)

abdera, that quote does not mean that Men are the only ones who have free will, it simply means that they are not confined to stay in Arda as Elves and the Ainur who entered it are. But then again, they _cannot_ stay in it, even if they wanted to, and their destiny ultimately lies with Eru, so in the end, their fate is no better or no worse than the Elves', it is just _different_.

And speaking of free will, had he tried to wrench the Ring from Isildur, Elrond would have been taking away Isildur's free will, and he was wiser than that, and wiser than Thingol by leaps and bounds.


----------



## abdera (Jun 5, 2005)

I don't get it, the text states pretty well that the music of the Ainur is fate to everything else but the Men. If it is fate, then there is no free will.
And due to what reasons do you believe Elrond to be wiser than Thingol?


----------



## Alatar (Jun 5, 2005)

Lets play guess that Elf!

Farther of the bride number one:
Hey you know those hot headed army that swore to kill anyone who withheld a silmarli? yeh well just to anoy them take one. sure they killed my brothers people when they wouldn't give them their ships but oi'm sure the won't mind us steling whats righfully theres. Do that and get my daughters hand in marrige.

Farther of the bride number two:
Yeh, just fufill your birthright. Thats is, seriously. Then you can have my daughters hand in marrige.


Okay you deside, which of the two has a brain problem, lines close in thrity minutes.


----------



## abdera (Jun 5, 2005)

You are going nowhere with your post, do you see any reason for the mighty *king* Thingol ( & co) to fear those petty Feanoreans?
And of what birthright are you talking about Arwen?


----------



## Ithrynluin (Jun 5, 2005)

abdera said:


> I don't get it, the text states pretty well that the music of the Ainur is fate to everything else but the Men. If it is fate, then there is no free will.
> And due to what reasons do you believe Elrond to be wiser than Thingol?



And the fate of Men is to leave the circles of the world. Then that must mean there's no free will for them, right?

I don't think a simplistic equation need be made. Men, Elves, Dwarves, and what have you, all have free will to their own unique measure.

Elrond was a friend of Men. He harboured the northern Dunedain who were in disarray for millenia, and it was due to Elrond's care that an heir of Gondor emerged in due time. He founded a great refuge in the form of Imladris that would serve as both a homely house and a staging area against the enemy. He was a great lore master and healer. Not only did he _not_ have the hubris of Thingol, he was humble and wise. The only resemblance between him and Thingol is that both had daughthers who fell in love with mortals, but the similarity ends there.


----------



## Alatar (Jun 5, 2005)

I am pointing out that thingol was alot more likely to start a kinslaying than elrond. In fact thingol DID start a kinslaying, unlike elrond.
You have to admit that is thingol had listend to his wife then, the world would bbe a better place.
Though I guess tha doom of mandos and the fate of earanil was caught up in it.

I mean aragorns birthright, sure sauron had to be defeated but Aragorn was the rightfull king.


----------



## YayGollum (Jun 5, 2005)

It is easy to agree with that bit of the Ithrynluin person's post that mentions the possibility that every race had its own bit of free will. Nice idea, but who knows? I would edge towards this abdera person's way of thinking about the humans having free will and not the elves, though. I don't know about the other races, since I don't remember reading much about them being written about with freewill parameters. I would think that looking at freewill and fate and things as just what happens to the spirit when the body dies is a bit too restrictive. I look at it as ---> everything that the elves do has been decided. No changing it, unless the humans mess everything up. Humans were the race that were the closest to Mel's way of thinking, yes? Boundless creativity. Nothing is decided for them, except where their spirits head. Which has not a lot to do with much.


----------



## Alatar (Jun 5, 2005)

Acually Mel had free will, the elves have free will, but will find them selves waqnting to do what the music says, though they aren't forced into doing it.
Wait if the Vaqlar saw the future in the music then how did they forget that fact theat mel rebelled?


----------



## YayGollum (Jun 5, 2005)

Hm. I don't remember reading any of that stuff. But oh well. Let me see here. Yes, where is it written that the Valar types heard everything that would happen in the future while singing their little tune? If Mel had been paying attention, he would have done things much more betterly. No, if anything, they merely knew that humans were able to do whatever they wanted without anyone being able to predict it.


----------



## Alatar (Jun 5, 2005)

When they saw Ea it say's that they saw the world unfold, and in the music Yavana saw the ents, so in the real world they rembered bits of the future, someone here said that but i can't rember who.


----------



## abdera (Jun 5, 2005)

> I would think that looking at freewill and fate and things as just what happens to the spirit when the body dies is a bit too restrictive. I look at it as ---> everything that the elves do has been decided.



I totally agree with that.

Ithrynluin, you are right about Elrond...you know, the more I think about it, I am just gonna blacklist Thingol too, ... I mean, what did the poor guy do with all that power bellow his bottom? C'mon, he was leading one of the most powerful (_the_ most powerful?) elven kingdom, he had probably throngs of warriors and not to mention the supercool maia wife. And he just stood there on his laisy bottom.


----------



## Ithrynluin (Jun 5, 2005)

YayGollum said:


> I would think that looking at freewill and fate and things as just what happens to the spirit when the body dies is a bit too restrictive. I look at it as ---> everything that the elves do has been decided.



Why has everything that the elves do been decided, but not Men? What do you base this on?

I don't see why Eru would give only Men free will, while witholding this 'gift' from the rest of his children. The gift of Men was death, that they should be able to leave the circles of the world upon death. Many Men could not see this as a good thing which is why they envied the immortality of the Elves and Ainur. 

Thus, it could be said that it is the race of _Men_ who have limited free will as concerns Arda and the Music, but have more free will when they depart from Arda.


----------



## Greenwood (Jun 5, 2005)

It seems to me there is a rather large logical/practical problem to arguing that some races in Middle Earth have free will and others do not. For the moment lets keep the discussion on elves and men. First elves: Is the contention that everything elves do is preordained or is the argument that the Valar are constantly controlling every action of the elves? If elves have no free will then what happens when men come along and start excercising their free will? How can the elves actions keep pace or respond to the free will actions of men? If the elves actions have been preordained by the music of the Ainu, then that means, the actions of men must also have been pre-ordained and that is the end of any argument that men have free will. If the elves have no free will, but their actions are not pre-ordained than that has to mean the Valar are constantly controlling the actions of elves in response to the free will actions of men.

Toss in the other "free peoples" of Middle Earth such as dwarves, hobbits, ents and you have just compounded the problem.


----------



## Gothmog (Jun 5, 2005)

> For the Children of Ilúvatar were conceived by him alone; and they came with the third theme, and were not in the theme which Ilúvatar propounded at the beginning, and none of the Ainur had part in their making.


From The Music of the Ainur.

Judging from this, I would say that Elves and Men had free will as they were not in the Music of the Ainur. My view is that Elves free will was more constrained in that it was bounded by the Music and could not go beyond the Music. Men however had the gift of death and they could shape their lives beyond the Music that was as fate to all other things.


----------



## abdera (Jun 6, 2005)

> If elves have no free will then what happens when men come along and start excercising their free will? How can the elves actions keep pace or respond to the free will actions of men? If the elves actions have been preordained by the music of the Ainu, then that means, the actions of men must also have been pre-ordained and that is the end of any argument that men have free will. If the elves have no free will, but their actions are not pre-ordained than that has to mean the Valar are constantly controlling the actions of elves in response to the free will actions of men.




Why should it be the valar control is the only alternative to the evles' free will? Animals dont have free will, that doesnt mean they are controlled by anything else than their own nature (emotions, experience, and yeah, even their own capacity of reasoning) - and in this manner they can interact with anyone who has / doesn't have free will.



Aherm,,, even if the subject is most interesting, can we please stick to the point? Perhaps a mod can split this thread... I dont know



So, to the point:



Why the heck did the valar allow the kin-slaying at the Alqualonde? It wasnt like this happened in the "distant" lands. Oh, lets just look at CNN, look how this guys slay each other, then we'll toss some curse on them". Very unprofessional.


----------



## Ithrynluin (Jun 6, 2005)

But it was not the Valar's part to stifle the Children's free will in any way, such actions were in the domain of Melkor. Even when the Noldor were leaving, the messenger of the Valar gave them a choice - to stay and prevent many sorrowful things from happening but not get instant gratification in the form of revenge upon Melkor (or so they thought), or to leave against the advice of the Valar and have the way to Aman shut on them. The latter was the closest the Valar came to suppressing the Children's free will.

And why do you think animals don't have free will according to their own measure? We seem to have fundamentally differing concepts as to what free will is exactly.

If the Valar, or even Eru, were to foresee and prevent every evil deed done by one of the Children, where's the free will in that?


----------



## abdera (Jun 6, 2005)

*sigh* If everyone is happy about talking about two different topics in this thread.... too bad



> But it was not the Valar's part to stifle the Children's free will in any way, such actions were in the domain of Melkor. Even when the Noldor were leaving, the messenger of the Valar gave them a choice - to stay and prevent many sorrowful things from happening but not get instant gratification in the form of revenge upon Melkor (or so they thought), or to leave against the advice of the Valar and have the way to Aman shut on them. The latter was the closest the Valar came to suppressing the Children's free will.



This isnt very clear to me, who are you contradicting, me or Greenwood?




> And why do you think animals don't have free will according to their own measure? We seem to have fundamentally differing concepts as to what free will is exactly.



According to their own measure? There isnt any relevancy in their measure, at least not for us. What is free will in your opinion? 



> If the Valar, or even Eru, were to foresee and prevent every evil deed done by one of the Children, where's the free will in that?



In what sense prevent? Does this mean that the very action doesnt take place or that the effects of their action are countered by the Valar?

However, in both cases we could have free will (unless the Valar could prevent even "free thinking" - which I doubt is the case)


----------



## Greenwood (Jun 6, 2005)

abdera said:


> Animals dont have free will, that doesnt mean they are controlled by anything else than their own nature (emotions, experience, and yeah, even their own capacity of reasoning) - and in this manner they can interact with anyone who has / doesn't have free will.


For the sake of the discussion only, we will accept your contention here that animals lack free will. Thus, I assume, you are saying their actions are controlled by instincts that are wired into them genetically. That they will always respond the same way to the same set of circumstances. Are you saying that the elves in Middle Earth are that sort of creature? That makes them nothing more than pre-programmed robots.

BTW, as for "sticking to the point", your very first post that started this thread said (in part), referring to Tolkien's Middle Earth: "only humans have free will". A number of us are disputing that opening statement. It seems to me we are very much "on point".


----------



## abdera (Jun 6, 2005)

> For the sake of the discussion only, we will accept your contention here that animals lack free will. Thus, I assume, you are saying their actions are controlled by instincts that are wired into them genetically. That they will always respond the same way to the same set of circumstances. Are you saying that the elves in Middle Earth are that sort of creature? That makes them nothing more than pre-programmed robots.



I didn't say their actions are controlled by instincts, I said "Animals dont have free will, that doesnt mean they are controlled by anything else than their *own nature* (emotions, experience, and yeah, even their own capacity of reasoning)"

What I would like anyone to keep in mind is not necessary what I put in paranthesis, as examples, but what I underligned - their nature. And elves have a nature of their own, not necesssarly what we define as instincts.
And *no* I don't mean that a living system not defined by the presence of free will always react in the same way to the same set of circumstances. Living systems' behaviour can best be described by chaos theory, meaning: a very small change of initial circumstances (or input) will triger very significant changes of output. Both humans, animals and even non-living systems can react and do react according to this model - but this alone doesn't mean that all of them have free will. I am waiting for Ithrynluin's approach to free will.

About sticking to the point, I already asked the mods to split up this thread. Until (and if) that ever occurs, I guess we will be discussing here different things than it was intended.


----------



## Gothmog (Jun 6, 2005)

*Mod's Answer*



abdera said:


> About sticking to the point, I already asked the mods to split up this thread. Until (and if) that ever occurs, I guess we will be discussing here different things than it was intended.


The purpose of this site is discussion about Tolkien's works and related topics. When you started this thread you posted the three opinions


> - only humans have free will
> - Manwe can't comprehend evil (!?*#!!!)
> - all humans were tainted by Melkor (c'mon now, ALL? that really sucks!)


When an opinion is posted it is open to discussion, as these were in the opening post They are very likely to be the main topics of question and discussion on this thread. Further to this, the thread is "Thing you can't put up with in Tolkien's world" This in itself will lead to discussions about why any point is posted as there will be differences of opinion on each.

You have opened a thread with a very wide remit. From the start that it has had, I would say that it is shaping up to be a very interesting and long running thread.


----------



## Greenwood (Jun 7, 2005)

abdera said:


> I didn't say their actions are controlled by instincts, I said "Animals dont have free will, that doesnt mean they are controlled by anything else than their *own nature* (emotions, experience, and yeah, even their own capacity of reasoning)"
> 
> What I would like anyone to keep in mind is not necessary what I put in paranthesis, as examples, but what I underligned - their nature.


Well, then you should not put in paranthesis things that apparently contradict what you are highlighting in bold. If a creature's actions can be decided by their "own capacity of reasoning" then that creature has "free will", to at least some extent. Of course, its "*own nature*" may well place constraints on what it can decide to do (for instance, physical constraints -- a wolf cannot decide it is merely going to flap its wings and fly off). Just as the physical forms place constraints on their behavior, so (to a large extent) do their instincts. And unless a living thing is going to just sit in one place, motionless as a stone, then something must control its actions. You stated animals lacked free will. Then what is controlling their actions? 

To return to your orginal point, you stated in Middle Earth humans had free will and elves do not. You seemed to be backing it up by saying everything about the elves was preordained at the beginning. I still would like to know how the elves can be interacting with men and the changes men are creating in the world if all that they do is preordained?


----------



## Alatar (Jun 7, 2005)

Yes as if that is the case and every thing elves do has been predicted but humans not, than explain what would happen when a elf talks to a human but thew hiuman says somthing unexpected, would the elves head explode? or would he just act like the human had said nothing?


----------



## abdera (Jun 7, 2005)

Gothmog,

As a parent of this thread, I want people to come here like to a therapy hour if you like. I want them to dream about what they will post the next day, and after they post, they become more peaceful husbands, workers, children, parents. And if they see so much debating, aren't they gonna hold back? I want them to post thing like: "Damn I hate that..." "How could that son of do that?" "If I catch that - I am gonna kick him!!!!". That kind of sweet stuff. (you know I'm kidding right? though I enjoyed writing this)



> Well, then you should not put in paranthesis things that apparently contradict what you are highlighting in bold.



There was no contradiction in my initial post because *I even didn't mention instincts*. It was someone else's addition. What I further commented was in order to clear up something that needed clearing after that outside adddition occured. Your comment resembles "stabbing someone" and then accusing them of carrying a knife.



> If a creature's actions can be decided by their "own capacity of reasoning" then that creature has "free will", to at least some extent.



Do computers have any resemblance of free will because of their reasoning? [Let me point out that a modern day computer could be theoretically build using Pascal's *mechanical * machine, (even if that computer would be the size of Texas); if we follow this logic, anything that can perform anything close to "mathematical" operations has free will. I don't think so. Reasoning in itself doesn't imply free will.]




> And unless a living thing is going to just sit in one place, motionless as a stone, then something must control its actions. You stated animals lacked free will. Then what is controlling their actions?



Well: "emotions, experience, and yeah, even their own capacity of reasoning"



> To return to your orginal point, you stated in Middle Earth humans had free will and elves do not. You seemed to be backing it up by saying everything about the elves was preordained at the beginning. I still would like to know how the elves can be interacting with men and the changes men are creating in the world if all that they do is preordained?





> 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



Tolkien himself left no room for logic: Manwe can't comprehend evil even if he rules the world. I don't like that but I have to accept it as a fact in Tolkien's world. And if we want to get philosophical, I would like to quote Kant, who said that human judgement is limited to and by its categories of thought, it cannot transcend them, it cannot see outside them, it is bound by them. And concerning the elves, let us consider thinking and action: yes, they can give very well documented answers or very good thinking connections, but this is a testimony of their capacity of reasoning, not of their free will; nowadays, a well designed information processing system can get a bit close to that perormance in at least several areas. And consider our own mythologies, that say that when gods want to punnish a mortal, that person is "blind", he acts in an automated way - I would say under the power of the inconscious *nature * and this actually lead him to make the 'wrong' decisions - not ones he would take if he had his free will. If we accept fate, then this fate must govern certain areas of creation - and Tolkien wants fate to govern more than rivers and clouds, he wants it to control everything that is not "humans". We are not talking about our world, we are talking about Tolkien's one, which most likely listens to a different logic than that of this world.


----------



## Greenwood (Jun 7, 2005)

abdera said:


> There was no contradiction in my initial post because I even didn't mention instincts. It was someone else's addition. What I further commented was in order to clear up something that needed clearing after that outside adddition occured. Your comment resembles "stabbing someone" and then accusing them of carrying a knife.


I quoted your own words back to you, twice. Not anyone else's addition. If there is a knife involved it is your own.  



abdera said:


> Do computers have any resemblance of free will because of their reasoning?


Let's hold on there a minute! Since when do computers have the power of reasoning? I don't know whether they will or not in the future, but they don't now.

BTW, having "free will" does not mean that one automatically makes the right decisions. Free will means having the ability to make a decision: right or wrong, smart or stupid, reasoned or unreasoned.


----------



## abdera (Jun 7, 2005)

> I quoted your own words back to you, twice. Not anyone else's addition. If there is a knife involved it is your own



In my opinion, you seem to be confusing the particular with the general in my statements: 
-concerning one's nature: I was trying to make some points and gave some *examples*. After, some asked whether I reffered in my statement to instincts in elves, I said no, and to further emphasise that negation, I clarified my initial statement. [This is splitting hairs, I propose we continue this particular topic on private messages.]
- concerning the lack of free will in mythologies: the 'bad' decision was something particular to those mythologies, not to the lack of free will in general.




> Since when do computers have the power of reasoning? I don't know whether they will or not in the future, but they don't now


If we define reasoning as capacity for logical and analytic thought (and we do find this definition in dictionaries) then certain information processing systems do have this trait. Such a system, even today, actually works on logic, and, at least through statistics, it can produce analyses. And about thought itself, the implementations of fuzzy logics very much resemble the workings of human thought.


----------



## Gothmog (Jun 7, 2005)

abdera said:


> Gothmog,
> 
> As a parent of this thread, I want people to come here like to a therapy hour if you like. I want them to dream about what they will post the next day, and after they post, they become more peaceful husbands, workers, children, parents. And if they see so much debating, aren't they gonna hold back? I want them to post thing like: "Damn I hate that..." "How could that son of do that?" "If I catch that - I am gonna kick him!!!!". That kind of sweet stuff. (you know I'm kidding right? though I enjoyed writing this)


You may have intended a 'Screaming Room' but you have got a fine discussion thread instead. 

It seems that no-one is interested in ripping apart my prior post on the thread so I think I will try again.


Gothmog said:


> Judging from this, I would say that Elves and Men had free will as they were not in the Music of the Ainur. My view is that Elves free will was more constrained in that it was bounded by the Music and could not go beyond the Music. Men however had the gift of death and they could shape their lives beyond the Music that was as fate to all other things.


What we call "Free Will" is in fact only "Limited Choice". We are limited in what we can chose by many things, our physical needs for one. If we choose to live in a place that will not support our bodies then we have to take with us enough of our own environment to allow for us to live there. The Music of the Ainur could not predict the whole of what happened to the Elves as the Ainur did not know enough about them to do so.

What The Music of the Ainur did was to set the limitations of Arda. The 'Free Will' of the Elves was Bounded by (not bound by) these limitations. The Free Will of Men, though still a limited choice, could go beyond the limitations of the Music to some extent, we are not told how far.


----------



## Greenwood (Jun 7, 2005)

Gothmog said:


> It seems that no-one is interested in ripping apart my prior post on the thread so I think I will try again.


Gothmog,

I do hope you did not feel slighted. I would never intentionally offend the Lord of Balrogs. <grovel, grovel, grovel> My lack of direct response was due to being mostly in agreement.



Gothmog said:


> What we call "Free Will" is in fact only "Limited Choice". We are limited in what we can chose by many things, our physical needs for one.


Yes, free will always has limitations. A creature without the ability to fly cannot choose to fly simply because it has free will. In Middle Earth as independent, thinking creatures I believe both elves and men have free will (within the kind of constraints we have been talking about). I think hobbits (who I see as a kind of man), dwarves, and ents also have free will. Even orcs, trolls, and dragons have free will, though they are somewhat more constrained by their evil natures.



abdera said:


> concerning one's nature: I was trying to make some points and gave some examples. After, some asked whether I reffered in my statement to instincts in elves, I said no, and to further emphasise that negation, I clarified my initial statement.


I was the one who mentioned instincts, in relation to animals. I was, and still am, trying to clarify your position on free will in elves. You have stated that elves in Tolkien's Middle Earth do not have free will and when asked about that you brought in animals as creatures who do not have free will. I still want to know what controls animal behavior in your view? You have ruled out free will, though you have granted them "their own capacity for reasoning". (I do not see what good a "capacity for reasoning" is without free will and would also like a clarification of that.) Since you say animals do not have free will, I ask again, then are you saying they are governed by instinct? If not instinct, then what? If it is instinct are you then saying elves are similar creatures, governed by instinct? (You made the initial comparison between elves and animals in terms of free will.)



abdera said:


> If we define reasoning as capacity for logical and analytic thought (and we do find this definition in dictionaries) then certain information processing systems do have this trait. Such a system, even today, actually works on logic, and, at least through statistics, it can produce analyses. And about thought itself, the implementations of fuzzy logics very much resemble the workings of human thought.


You are making some mighty big leaps there.  Even accepting for the moment your definition of reasoning, it is a huge leap to claim "certain information processing systems do have this trait". There are still no computers (barring paranoid fantasies of secret government projects) capable of "logical and analytic thought". Computers may crank out statistics but it is there human programmers who are deciding on the analyses to be performed and on the meaning of the statistical results that the computers produce. And as for your "implementations of fuzzy logics very much resemble the workings of human thought", a resemblance is not the same thing as the thing itself. As my wife said to me today, "A Barbie doll resembles a woman, but it isn't a woman."  I am afraid some of your agrument qualifies under a different meaning of "fuzzy" logic.


----------



## Gothmog (Jun 8, 2005)

Greenwood said:


> Gothmog,
> 
> I do hope you did not feel slighted. I would never intentionally offend the Lord of Balrogs. <grovel, grovel, grovel> My lack of direct response was due to being mostly in agreement.


I was not expecting a direct response from you as I could see that we were for the most part in agreement over this. My comment was aimed at those on the site who have argued against free will in Arda on other threads. I hoped that some would join in


----------



## Greenwood (Jun 8, 2005)

Well, us forest types have to be respectful around creatures of flame.


----------



## abdera (Jun 8, 2005)

> What we call "Free Will" is in fact only "Limited Choice".



"Limited choice" is a fact for either those who have and those who don't have free will. Limited choices represent the environment, while free will is something specific to only some parts of the creation. Limited choice is an external factor, free will is an internal one, they are not one and the same thing. 



> The Music of the Ainur could not predict the whole of what happened to the Elves as the Ainur did not know enough about them to do so.



Even if the Ainur didn't know, the fate of the elves was still decided in the Ainulindale.



> What The Music of the Ainur did was to set the limitations of Arda. The 'Free Will' of the Elves was Bounded by (not bound by) these limitations. The Free Will of Men, though still a limited choice, could go beyond the limitations of the Music to some extent, we are not told how far.



This has already been addressed very well by Yaygollum: "I would think that looking at freewill and fate and things as just what happens to the spirit when the body dies is a bit too restrictive. I look at it as ---> everything that the elves do has been decided. " I agree with him on this matter.



> I still want to know what controls animal behavior in your view?



Is this a joke? Do I have to post my answer to this in every post? Here it is: "emotions, experience, and yeah, even their own capacity of reasoning"



> A creature without the ability to fly cannot choose to fly simply because it has free will.



But it can *choose* to search for alternatives and from those alternatives select one and then fly (you name it, build an airplane, fly on something else that flies, so on). 



> Even orcs, trolls, and dragons have free will, though they are somewhat more constrained by their evil natures



Well, at least for some of those, at least at a certain time, Tolkien decided that they have no soul. Do you believe there is free will without a soul? 




> I do not see what good a "capacity for reasoning" is without free will and would also like a clarification of that



Does someone under hypnosis have free will? I would say No. Does he have capacity for reasoning? I would say Yes. If you feel otherwise, please say so and bring some arguments. For my part, hypnosis is an altered state of consciousness, where free will is most likely temporaly annihilated but that person can still make statements and utter judgements. That person will obey any commands and will execute them, during of after the hypnosis.



> If it is instinct are you then saying elves are similar creatures, governed by instinct?



On the first layers, we could see emotions, experience, reasoning (but "bellow" that and "outside" we wouldn't find in them free will). They were created by Eru and directly or indirectly, they listen to him. 

Do you believe computers cannot perform logical complex operations ? And what is the essential difference between their "logical complex operations" and our "logical thoughts"? And given all receive the necessary information, can you name of type of analisys a computer cannot perform but a human can? Can you point the essential difference between fuzzy logics and human thought, if there is one? 
Damn I hate when people are cynic instead of giving a good explanation.


----------



## Alatar (Jun 8, 2005)

Free will is given to all of erus creatures, but all creatures save made, have their choices all ready made, I mean feanor sure had free will. Man is the only creature able to break the laws of the music, as in beren and tour broke the law of the music or it was already said that they would do it. But if it was said in the music the beren would defeat melkor than i imagine that melkor woul rember it. So i think that the music sortr of missed men and did not speak of them,, save a few(Ie earndil) and the ones who thwe music spoke about( and so phrophies were made about them) had choices like aragorn could ethier rise above all his sires since elendil, or fall into shadow, nothing was sure with men. This is why, in my opion that prophies about man are so apt to have choices in them of as elrond says "a dark shadow lies over land" meaning that he can not forsee as it depends on men, if you understand me.


----------



## Gothmog (Jun 8, 2005)

abdera said:


> "Limited choice" is a fact for either those who have and those who don't have free will. Limited choices represent the environment, while free will is something specific to only some parts of the creation. Limited choice is an external factor, free will is an internal one, they are not one and the same thing.


Free will is simply the option to choose between limited choices. You cannot choose an option that is not there.



> This has already been addressed very well by Yaygollum: "I would think that looking at freewill and fate and things as just what happens to the spirit when the body dies is a bit too restrictive. I look at it as ---> everything that the elves do has been decided. " I agree with him on this matter.


I don't understand the point of the quote you gave. Elves, Men Hobbits, Ents, Orcs They all had 'Free Will' within Arda. However, each had differing amounts. Men had the greatest and in all probability Orcs had the least.



abdera said:


> Even if the Ainur didn't know, the fate of the elves was still decided in the Ainulindale.





> From _The Music of the Ainur_
> For the Children of Ilúvatar were conceived by him alone; and they came with the third theme, and were not in the theme which Ilúvatar propounded at the beginning, and none of the Ainur had part in their making. Therefore when they beheld them, the more did they love them, being things other than themselves, strange and free, wherein they saw the mind of Ilúvatar reflected anew, and learned yet a little more of his wisdom, which otherwise had been hidden even from the Ainur.


The Ainur could not decide the fate of the Elves in the way you say. All that they could do was to set the bounds to their free will.


----------



## abdera (Jun 8, 2005)

> Free will is simply the option to choose between limited choices.



An animal or a computer can choose between two courses of action based on whatever ground they find appropiate (fear or necessities for the animal, an algorithm of the computer). Choosing in itself is found in systems that lack free will - such the mentioned animals or computers.



> You cannot choose an option that is not there



Knowledge isn't necesarily infailible. One can select an option that doesn't exist simply because his knowledge is faulty. Aren't you confusing freedom of will with freedom of action?



> I don't understand the point of the quote you gave



I misunderstood your previous post. My bad. To return to your point that:



> What The Music of the Ainur did was to set the limitations of Arda. The 'Free Will' of the Elves was Bounded by (not bound by) these limitations. The Free Will of Men, though still a limited choice, could go beyond the limitations of the Music to some extent, we are not told how far.




What humans and elves have in common is a certain lack of freedom of action - the limitations of Arda that you reffered to. What humans have in plus is the ability is to shape their lives, to make their own destinies, an ability which no one else enjoys: "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*". *No one is all-powerfull in Arda*, save Eru and _maybe_ Manwe; that is, no-one has total freedom of action. But it is only humans that have freedom of will, the capacity to shape destiny. All other's choices (those choices not made by humans) are already preordained. Yes, even if a human does exert free will, that doesn't necesarily mean that action will occur as intended (or that it occurs!) - but this is a limitation to action, not a limitation to the freedom of will.



> The Ainur could not decide the fate of the Elves in the way you say



It is my understanding that Ainulindale refferst to all the songs, including Eru's and that in Eru's song the fate of the elves was decided - that's why I said the fate of the elves was set in the Ainulindale; if I am wrong, please provide the clarifying quote.



> All that they could do was to set the bounds to their free will



Not to their free will but to their freedom of action. The fate of the elves was shaped by Eru (while humans shape their own fate).


----------

