I just read over 25 comments about how you guys forgot mentioning Tolkien's faith or catholizism but not a single one was rude, mean or did use hatefull language. I love this fandom so, so much. He would be proud.
“The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like ‘religion’, to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism.” JRR Tolkien Letter to his friend Robert Murray, S.J. (December 1953)
Wesley, no George Lucas did. That was one of the fundamental philosophies that guided how he made the Original Trilogy and the Prequel Trilogy. The Sequel Trilogy also follows that line of thought pretty well.
@@wesley3300 in the department of Great Quotations it's almost impossible to know Who Said What First but reportedly Mark Twain is who that quote originates from :^D
Too be fair if I served in the Somme Offensive and lived through TWO world Wars and The cold war. I would have a very pessimistic view of the world too.
@Nick White That does would be a contributing factor no doubt. But after seeing men being cut down in droves during the Somme by this new portable "machine gun" would have been absolutely horrifying. Not only that but the new mechanical horrors that arose in those years would have given him huge anxiety for what was to come in the years ahead.
The world has been in a near continual state of war since its founding, so nobody literate should be in doubt of the human propensity toward war and its natural attendants, disease, extreme injustice, and slavery. That's the world we live in, but hopefully, as it is said, the nightmare from which we are slowly awakening.
The section about Sam seeing the star in Mordor is my favorite part of the entire trilogy; taking comfort in eternally beautiful things is a real, powerful protection for the mind and has been my saving grace through some dark, terrible times.
I have always loved this song... Sam is supposed to sing it in Mordor when he is seeking Frodo in the tower... He sings some of it and then Frodo answers him. I wish they had kept it in the movie! In western lands beneath the Sun the flowers may rise in Spring, the trees may bud, the waters run, the merry finches sing. Or there maybe 'tis cloudless night and swaying beeches bear the Elven-stars as jewels white amid their branching hair. Though here at journey's end I lie in darkness buried deep, beyond all towers strong and high, beyond all mountains steep, above all shadows rides the Sun and Stars for ever dwell: I will not say the Day is done, nor bid the Stars farewell.
“The journey does not end here. Death is just another path, one which we all must take. The grey rain curtains of this world rolls back, and all will turn to silver glass. And then you see it: white shores, a far green country, under a swift sunrise.”
Estel means Hope and Trust... In other words, Faith. Considering Tolkien’s strong religious beliefs, it’s amazing that he translated faith in its purest form into his work in such a fundamental way, without triggering dogma or allegories (Tolkien HATED allegories). There is a reason writers that came afterward saw Tolkien as a master of his craft, and this is only one of those reasons.
@@DeadmanRedux In the Foreword to the Ballantine edition of LotR, he states, 'But I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence.' But remember that to Tolkien, 'allegory' is a term of art, in which a thing in the story is a specific and intentional representation of something in the real world. He is addressing people who were, at that time, saying that the Ring was an allegory for the atomic bomb, for example. But in Tolkien's created world, Eru is not an allegory for God - he is a portrayal of God in this imagined world, or, rather, our own world in an imaginary pre-historical time (people make the same mistake about Aslan in C.S. Lewis's Narnia stories. Again, a portrayal, not an allegory). Tolkien adds, 'I think that many confuse "applicability" with "allegory"; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.'
The Children of Húrin, put together by Tolkien's son, is perhaps the most blatant of his tragedies and it's wonderful. I don't think I've read anything that better understands the sacrifice that comes with a true heroic deed than The Children of Húrin. Tolkien always left scars on his characters, and it is true that death is scant in his novels when it comes to main characters, but the tax and the burden are always there. Even when there's hope, it is always a tragedy after all.
Despite it being super tragic, The Children of Hurin actually got me through a rough patch during my early teenage years. Love that people are bringing it up.
Children of Hurin is greatly influenced by the story of Kullervo from Finnish epic Kalevala. And by "greatly" I really mean greatly. Not trying to take credit from Tolkien and his take on the story, but you should know the origins and give proper credit to them...
Is the arrogance of the secular (powered by disinterest and ignorance), atheists tend to downplay religions by numerous reasons, they lack understanding of them and have a condescending attitude to them, they have never given them a chance and studied their depths, because of this, they usually dismiss the impact and role in others life and personality, that's why the stereotype of modern atheists tend to be so hollow and lacking in direction, morals and convictions, accompanied by edginess and replacement of God with either the state or the root of their desires (drugs, products, money, sex/women), Jared is not an angry edgy atheist, but he adapts the views of others to his and secular views and philosophies, failing to call Catholicism by its name. To be fair it happens to every other religion/philosophy, we just tend to point fingers more when, for example, a Jew criticizes a Hindu or a Taoist criticizes a Protestant, etc, etc. Taking the Secular view as the "default".
"I cordially dislike allegory in any manifestation." ~ J.R.R. Tolkien. He opposed any attempt to correlate his work with his religion, which conspired to keep him and his eventual wife apart.
@@AMcGrath82 That is a single out-of-context quote that ignores dozens of letters in which Tolkien referred to his religious inspiration, including: "The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision." The whole crux of Tolkien's moral philosophy presupposes a God - that men "sub-create" in the vein of the original creator, i.e. language, song, poetry etc. is a facet of the Christian concept of The Word or Logos.
@@AMcGrath82 religion in his works aren't allegorical, they're symbolic and metaphorical. Your example of would apply to someone correlating Gandalf to Jesus, but not to correlating the one ring and man's sinful nature.
Seriously. I'm stunned that wisecrack completely swept the man's Christianity under the rug. Even if you take a secular view of someone's religion, that religion will still inform his philosophy, which influences his work. People watching this to learn about Tolkien might think he would be so artless that the eucatastrophe is just a recycled Greek Deus Ex Machina. When in reality, it's an omnipotent Deus himself.
This is good, Wisecrack, but I think it would have been worth mentioning his Catholicism. His concept of Estel is undoubtedly grounded in that worldview.
No doubt. The entropy of sin on the world is, from a Christian perspective, why things will always regress into ruin. I have to think that colors Tolkien's view on history.
@@Seomus there's a comment on here from a guy that wrote the script on this episode. He said that because Tolkien he never explicitly stated it was God making an intervention in his books, even though it's fairly obvious what he was implying. They thought they'd do the same when writing this episode. Also RUclips demonetises religious stuff.
lol, is it bad that I genuinely think they might have excluded that from this video to avoid making some of their other fans unhappy? Like it or not, their R&M videos got a lot of people into the channel, and that fanbase has quite a few "llolol god sucks" types in it. You can even see them in other comments here!
Well, they definitely could have mentioned Nebucchadnezzar's dream, explained in Daniel 2:31-45. Gold, silver, bronze, iron, division, Rock. Hope being synonymous with trust would imply there is someone or something specific which has made a promise.
Solid analysis, but your premise is severely misguided, making your conclusion miss the mark. You are arguing a measurement of "progress" completely different from what Tolkien was arguing. Tolkien, a devout Catholic, was absolutely pessimistic in human progress, just as you said. But because you didn't delve into *why* a devout Catholic would be pessimistic (as Christianity in general is about a non-material source of hope). You forgot to delineate between the material "progress" and the spiritual "progress." This is an important distinction, as magic, a source of power and influence in Middle-Earth, can be wielded for both good and evil. So arguing magic=natural/old/good and orc machinery=new/evil does not add up. So what's so important about magic being seen as an amoral tool and not as a simple stand-in for "good?" Because Tolkien's argument was never that technology doesn't qualify as "progress," but rather the *important* "progress," the type that elevates mankind instead of keeping it stagnant, cannot be materialistic in nature. Basically, through the Tolkien lens, technology and materialistic evolution is purely a tool: good men use it for good, bad men for evil, but the gun/cannon/tank itself holds no moral value. On the MORAL scale of progress, tech does not factor in. So when someone argues how much better the world is because of scientific achievement, Tolkien is not disagreeing with the ability of technology to spread health and wealth; what he is arguing rather is that there is no MORAL progress, and therefore if the QUANTITY of good we can do is increased but moral stagnation doesn't alter the QUALITY of good/bad or doesn't change the individual propensity to dispense good/evil, then all that has changed is the amount of good or evil we can produce has been increased on both sides. While wars have created leaps in medicine out of necessity, that same necessity has borne weapons of mass destruction. You only missed Tolkien's argument (at least in my estimation) because you did not recognize the difference in the two types of progress, and so you were never arguing with the same definitions.
Have you got more info on this? Your comment was such a good read and I'm interested to know more. For instance - how would the world initiate moral progress?
This is why Nietzche called Christians "the first nihilists". It is very dangerous to believe that humans cannot progress morally in the only world proven to exist. It is the very reason that Republicans deny Climate Change and are thus about to commit *multi-genocide* against all species on earth. If there really were a god, I don't think he would be happy about those who mindlessly tortured and killed 100 billion living beings in his name. Words written by talking apes in the desert 6000 years ago should not be the guideline for moral progress in the first place. It is this self-defying complacency that becomes a self fullfilling prophecy. It is not written in stone. It is nothing but a mindnumbing, creativity choking mass psychosis.
@@bobrolander4344 As a disciple of Jesus Christ (and a republican), I'd just like to say: I'm not angry at you for the views you hold. But I would invite you to read the bible (and the book of mormon, for that matter), and to actually consider why it is that so many people still try to live by the principles recorded in those ancient records. Not to convert you, just as an exercise in expanding your understanding of the viewpoints of others before you make comments like this again. I know that when I make the (very active, very intentional) effort to live those principles, I improve as a person, and become better at lifting others around me who are struggling through the often soul-crushing trials of life. Am I perfect? Heck no. I've got a boat load of personal problems and character flaws that are actually pretty significant and that will be life-long battles that I never asked for and never wanted. But I can say from personal experience that those books are absolutely still relevant to dealing with those problems and the problems of the modern era (even climate change, by the way, which I very much do believe is happening despite my voter registration). I 'm also a counterexample to Christians being nihilists. I know my life has a specific, clearly defined meaning. Mine is to tell the cold and unfeeling universe to lighten up a little and stop thinking so much about itself. Another counterexample is one of the core beliefs held by members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We believe that it is God's purpose for us, our purpose as His children, to learn and grow to become like Him. The entire point of us being alive and living through this extremely imperfect world is to take our first baby steps towards the goal of eventually perfecting ourselves through the grace of God, so that we can "pay it forward," as it were. Nietzsche's criticisms regarding early Christianity and his transvaluation of the teachings of Jesus Christ is based on a literalization of biblical passages that are generally accepted as analogical in nature, ironically making many of his criticisms ultimately pointless. Christ's teaching that "the greatest among you shall be [a] servant" for instance is not an elevation of the weak over the strong, as Nietzsche would posit, but in part a statement that many do not understand what it means to be strong in the first place, and an invitation to change our idea of what strength is. Nietzsche is widely regarded as one of the world's most important thinkers, but that does not qualify him as an authority on Christianity. I would recommend not treating him as such. Seeing another of your other comments, I would also like to ask you not to compare entire world religions to the actions of the 9/11 terrorists. That's clearly crossing the line of civilized rational discourse, and is disrespectful to the people who lost so much that day. Pardon my long windedness. I just couldn't read what you wrote and not try to shed some insight with an opposing viewpoint. If you disagree with me, that's fine.
@Bob Rolander How does Christianity deny moral progress? Isn't the whole point for everyone to become more moral and good? Or do you mean the denial of progress in the material world? In that case, yes, it is utterly impossible for humanity to create utopia, only dystopias. Even if everyone had food, shelter, medicine, clothing, friends, family, entertainment, essentially what most people claim they want, you know what would happen right? We would destroy it. As for climate change deniers, of course climate change exists: There was once an Ice Age, now there is not = warmer. The question is not even if man is making it worse, of course we are. The question is if man is the primary cause. Cows, for example, create more greenhouse gases than all the fuel industries in the world combined. And even if we are, your assuming (A) the Repblican party is entirely responsible for environmental policy, that the majority of Democrats taking oil money are not at fault, (B) America is primarily responsible for climate change, not India and China, and (C) enacting necessary environemental policy won't destroy the economy and cause violence, and (D) the government for the rest of the future is never overthrown and replaced by a non-environmentally friendly coalition. Even if you disprove A-C, D is impossible. "those who mindlessly tortured and killed 100 billion living beings in his name." You... do know that's over 15x the global population today? Even combining the European genocide of Native Americans (which was mostly unintentional starvation and disease, not intentional murder), the genocide of Africans (which was more purposeful, I'll admit), the Crusades, the Islamic Age of Conquest, every nation in history ever killing someone for religious reasons, I don't see how you estimated 100 billion dead. With regards to 6000 year old desert apes, you do realize the only reason we have so much tech and resources is because we used the info that the last generation left us, and so on an so forth. If a hundred modern 1st world people were put on an island and had to survive, you bet in 100 years time they'd become utter savages without the luxury of sitting on the shoulders of those 6000 year old apes. Aristotle alone defined all science and knowledge into groups, which scientists and academics still use today. Even Einstein and Newton were too retarded and stupid by comparison to understand anything except physics, let alone us "enlightened, modern humans".
Nietzsche was also familiar with the armed conflicts that resulted due to the Protestant reformation. There were class conflicts with the peasants normally being Protestant vs. the Catholic nobility. Also the Schmalkaldic Wars (actual name). Do not forget that this led to many factions of religion that quoted the same text differently. Nietzsche may have been thinking of the Calvinist sect. Basically that no matter what your belief or acts, that you were predetermined to go to heaven to hell. Basically God assigned you a role. If you were heaven bound, you were made to act a certain way. If hell bound, no matter what your actions or beliefs were, there was a God made flaw in you that doomed you to hell. Your fate was predetermined and nothing could change it. If you truly have no freedom of choice, what is your meaning in life? Last comment, Christianity beliefs have led to acts of violent. For example, the Irish troubles although primarily sectarian also had some roots of conflict between Catholics and Protestants. The Rwanda conflict where the strongly Catholic Hutus slaughtered the Tutsi. The Russian Orthodox Church blessing weapons that are used against Chechnya and Ukraine. Now this is not a condemnation of the principles of Christianity. It is a statement that even some Christians have used religion as an excuse for conflict and terrible acts.
I know a bunch of comments have said something to this effect but you cannot overlook Tolkein's traditional Catholicism as an influence of his thought and philosophy of history, especially considering he was a medievalist. I know there's a modern distinction between philosophy and theology, but the medieval thinkers - they think philosophy is just a means to knowing God. The first thing that jumped out in my mind that'd be important are the ages many medieval thinkers constructed history. Augustine is the most important - he believed in seven ages roughly corresponding to different biblical periods from the City of God. Like Tolkein Augustine was pessimistic about the age we're living in. People are sinful and just find ways to do worse and worse things. Ultimately Jesus will redeem us and begin the eternal sabbatical, I think this is what undergirds the idea of the eucatastrophe
Tolkiens philosophy was that the modern world is more mediocre than before, less wonderful, but also less horrific It was the land of high elves and gods in the land, but also melkor and numerous dragons including one who crushed mountains and balrogs then the land of high numernorians but also sauron and fire breathing dragons then the remnants of gondor and the shade of sauron and a single balrog then just men
@@fernandozavaletabustos205 it’s in his personal letters that were later published after his death. I’m not going to bother with a link you can just Google it. These letters are all over the web.
It is interesting to hear a secular interpretation of a Christian mans view point. What you call pessimism is actually a pragmatic view of a fallen world, and his hope in the true power of God to deliver him from it.
@@bobrolander4344 It is ignorant to say that all of Christianity is pure evil and denying climate change. I am not religious but I do believe that Christianity has brought forward more than only extremism and crusades. Islam and Christianity partly have the same roots but weird boy Mohammed did add some stuff that you would not find in tha howly beible. Religion is not the the reason that life is being destroyed.
@@nowatcher656 a wonderful comment! I dont know if Im religious or not. I dont even know what beliefs i truly hold to be true. But its nice reading a non biased view on a subject i put great importance on.
If only we would act like Jesus would. Jesus did not condemn Mary of Bethany (prostitute)or the tax collector Zacchaeus (seen as shameful profession). He asked us to treat the poor and the broken as we would treat him. That the pursuit of riches was to be seen as a sinful thing. I know that the quote about the camel going through the eye of the needle is seen as being symbolic more as a camel going through city gates or aa camel hair thread through a needle and not truthful like the creation in a mere 7 days. I do not understand why that is seen as the only allegorical verse is basically saying we should allow the gathering abnormal masses of wealth while ripping off others is acceptable, examples: millionaires not paying contractors for work, the insistence that employees should stay extra and not get paid.
Did you just say that Tolkien thought evil was the most powerful force in the world? No. NO. Tolkien believed evil (Satan) was real and powerful, but he very strongly believed that good (God) was infinitely more powerful and would triumph in the end.
In Tolkien's tale, God (Eru) does not dwell in the world, but outside of it. He transcends it. Melkor (Satan) is often referred to as "the mightest of all dwellers in Arda." Arda is the world. So no, the statement in the video is not incorrect. Also, your idea that evil is a force somehow separate from God and in opposition to Him is not at all in Tolkien's story. Melkor himself is but an instrument of Eru, birthed from His mind like all of the other Ainur, and Eru made it pretty clear what he expected of Melkor: "And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined." He goes on to explain to Ulmo, the Vala of Water, how Melkor's extreme heats would create beautiful clouds and rains, and extreme colds would create snowflakes. The idea isn't that God is struggling against Satan. God doesn't struggle. He tolerates Satan because he has a plan, and Satan is part of it. It's a far more poetic answer to the question of "why does god tolerate evil if he is so powerful?" than any other Christian has ever been able to conjure, in my opinion. Almost makes me wish I believed in any of it, lol.
@@steveripberger1802 You stand corrected, Melkor and evil are not the same thing. Calling evil a force, and then saying that it is the most powerfull in the word is incorrect. Aquinas' theology is very clear that charity is the grestest of virtues and it defeats all vices.
No, I think I made my case rather well. You can't just say "you stand corrected" without actually correcting someone first, lol. Aquinas has nothing directly to do with Tolkien's mythology.. Tolkien *specifically* intended his mythology to not be directly allegorical to Catholic theology or really any theology in particular. Tolkien's world functions *precisely* as I've described. I've provided what should be a fairly compelling quote establishing this. Maybe you need to re-read the Silmarillion? Or maybe just that quote from my post? >.>
@@steveripberger1802 Steve, you are reading between the lines. Your quote is actually verbatim from Aquinas' explanation of the nature of God and Satan. I wouldn't believe it is consecuential to read Tolkien's description which copies Aquinas' on this topic and then proceed and ignore Aquinas' conclusions. Which, as a matter of fact, Tolkien also intended for his audience. When you say that Tolkien was trying not to mirror any particular theology, well it is fairly hard to believe, maybe he intended to say that his myths took different accidental forms. Nevertheless, Catholic Theology and specifically Aquinas' teaching permeate the whole world-building of Tolkiens' world.
It’s honestly just weird that you even mentioned Lewis and yet failed to touch on or identify the driving force behind all of Tolkein’s “philosophies,” AKA his deep faith
@@emmaclarke2885 “All throughout life, Tolkien looked around the world, and between the scouring of his boyhood Shire, his living through a veritable Mordor in the trenches of the Western Front, and later, while writing The Lord of the Rings, witnessing the rise of real Dark Lords in Hitler and Stalin, Tolkien had no reason to look up and reasonably expect good. And yet, through it all, he never faltered in Estel, in trust.” That's the definition of deep faith.
@@paulchapman8023 He mentioned faith, but never Biblical faith. I saw a lot of videos about tolkien's philosophy and only one talked about the fact that it was primarily catholic.
Always love the philosophy videos from your team. Was surprised to not hear about Tolkien’s reasoning behind his “saved at the last minute” worldview. I think some discussion towards his religious motivations would have made this a perfectly well rounded video. Everything else was there.
JRR Tolkien passed away in 1973. Reverse that number and we have 3791. Does that number seem familiar? *Three* rings for the elves, *seven* rings for the dwarves, *nine* rings for men, and *one* ring to rule them all. Have fun with that now!
@@1970HondaCL100 I actually have only visited reddit a couple of times believe it or not. I found this from one of the lectures that my fantasy literature teacher had last semester in college. I just thought it was kind of cool.
His view seems pretty nihilistic to me. Everything gets worse and the past was better. That's pretty much what nihilistic means. Sure he has some deux ex machina to save things at the end but that just makes it worse because it takes away our agency. He sounds like one of those climate change deniers who believes God won't let it happen.
@@Alverant That isn't what nihilistic means, there's nothing in that ideology about the past being better. A nihilistic would probably find this idea to be a doomed attempt to find meaning in the past. Just being negative doesn't make you nihilist.
Do you ever get that exhausting feeling of nostalgia/awe when talking or thinking about Tolkien and his works? For me Tolkien has been a spiritual and mental guide of sorts, he has given me hope in the darkest hour and beauty and joy into the declining world. I feel somehow connected or bound to him. There is something completely ungraspable about the beauty of his works. "For if joyful is the fountain that rises in the sun, its springs are in the wells of sorrow unfathomable at the foundations of the Earth."
That is the mark of a scholar of mythology and languages very deeply read in his fields and very understanding of the point of that kind of writing. He was able to relate his story based on the deepest understanding of what had gone before. The deep grounding of his scholarship is one reason why he will likely remain irreplaceable, as who else has that foundation or the dedication necessary to achieve it? And is then willing to combine and reinvent it for his times in lengthy works? I think Joseph Campbell is a fantastic source for many of the same ideas, but outside of a few works and his interviews with Bill Moyers, nowhere near as entertaining. These days there are people like Jordan Peterson espousing some of the same ideas, or similar, but he is weak sauce compared to people better versed in primary sources and more considered and easily eloquent because of it. Tolkien: like William Golding, something about the lost childhood of the world, but also something positive. Campbell: Follow your bliss, and endure the hardship and unhinging of the spirit necessary to do so; also, you might not come back alive. Peterson: Clean up your room.
According to Lewis, they became friends due to their shared love of myth, particularly Norse mythology while Lewis was still an atheist. Lewis thought Christianity was just another myth, but Tolkien convinced him it was the one myth that was historically true. You guys discussed his view of history being pessimistic but that history will have a happy ending that will come unexpectedly when all seems lost, one might say "like a thief in the night." It seems to me that one would have to go to great pains to mention Tolkien and Lewis' friendship and their shared views on myth and history and fail to mention their shared religious views which is prevalent throughout the writings of both men and was the uniting force of the Inklings. ruclips.net/video/YIKKZjpAA0M/видео.html
@@Richard_Nickerson Lewis says in quite a bit of his work that he was an atheist. Surprised by Joy is entirely about how he came to be a Christian, as well as his allegorical book Pilgrim's Regress.
@@Richard_Nickerson Yes. No true atheist "becomes" religious. As I don't believe any true religious person would really lose their faith and suddenly become an atheist. As much as I can't become religious (it's just not in me, I can't swallow it and I can't have my life guided by faith), I don't think my brother can give up his Christian faith and become an atheist like me. But that's fine. If you need reasoning to explain your faith, it's not true faith, and if bad things happening to you make you give it up, it's not true faith either. Likewise, if fear of death makes an "atheist" turn religious, he/she was never a real atheist to begin with.
@@alexandresobreiramartins9461 It sounds like you're suggesting that a person can't really change their worldview. That's silly.. of course they can. Your argument is an informal logical fallacy known as the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. You're also misunderstanding some basic definitions here. Typically the word "faith" is used in two different ways. The way you seem to be thinking of it is in the sense of believing by will, without reason. That kind of faith is what is known as Fideism. That was how Kierkegaard thought of it. The other way the word "faith" is used is synonymous with trust, in which one has reason to have faith. If someone makes a promise to you, they might say 'have faith in me to fulfill this promise.' This second sense, synonymous with trust, is the sense in which the Bible uses the word "faith." It's a popular idea among atheists today that faith is opposed to reason and vice versa. It's not true. Most of the greatest minds throughout history have believed in God. John Locke, the father of empiricism and most influential over the founding fathers of the United States wrote an essay titled "The Reasonableness of Christianity." I'm in agreement with Locke that Christianity is reasonable.
@@Jul3sTh3Sh33p Here you go, it is from one of his letters: www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/2964059-letters-of-j-r-r-tolkien?page=2#:~:text=*%20In%20The%20Lord%20of%20the,any%20other%20person%20an%20abomination.
As much as I enjoyed this video and its understanding of Tolkien, I believe you did him a great disservice to his philosophy by never once mentioning his faith which ties so deeply to his philosophy. Tolkien was seeing the world fall from the heights of the great greek and roman philosophers and even medieval ones such as St. Thomas Aquinas out of the renaissance and into post modernism which many Catholics (myself included) see as a degradation of society and its morals on the excuse of nothing really matters or ideals pertaining to or residing in nihilism. While yes technology and society (mostly justice in a sense) have moved forward and progressed, mankind in a way has lost touch with morals and we can even see now how much we live in a morally ambiguous time with no real trend to higher morality. Nietzsche declared "God is dead!" and plunged the world into a downward spiral of re-rationalizing and contextualizing the world in our own image and idea and not that of God, whom Nietzsche just believed was something humans created to derive meaning out of their own meaningless existence. His philosophy was extremely influential through the 1900s and even today, and many people use it to justify their ideas and how the world should be (aka the sexual revolution, transgenderism, the gay pride movement, the weird trend to socialism and hate of capitalism, so on and so forth, these are seen by Catholics as key examples to how society has fallen apart and now only sees to indulge themselves) and now we look at the world as trending towards downfall. but there is still God and we can trust in him to shows us the way, much like Estel. god is the way the truth and the light, and he will always be there to help us when we are most in need, and thats were we get stuff like miracles and what not, our own real forms of deus ex machina, divine intervention.(the reality of this comment is I just beat Nier Automata and as much as I really enjoyed the game (I highly recommend it honestly), it is heavily with ideas of nihilism, it even directly quotes Nietzsche, and you determine your existence and death of the author and so on and so forth, which I highly disagree with as I see it is as the rationalization of the Doomer philosophy and the best way to experience and decide on existence for the atheist or agnostic, so Ive just been really annoyed as of late with modern philosophy) sorry for the long text blob, but this video just kinda ironically shows what Tolkien feared, you basically secularized him and left out one of his core views to create a narrative that he just believed there were abstract things like "good" and "evil" so as to not (understandably in this day in age, a testament to the failure of society rn) make anyone unhappy as most people today are atheist and dont like the mention of God or whatnot. I don't mean this too be rude in any way as the actions taken make sense but it is just very disappointing as a long fan of Tolkien and his work and this just did not do enough Justice to him and his work. Other then that this is very comprehensive and good!
@@drewpamon But it contextualizes Tolkien's worldview is what I meant, not that what you said implies that you don't agree, but what keeps Wisecrack from talking about it?
"as it goes against the secular perspective they have." But it's not their worldview they're talking about, it's Tolkien's? It's a real misrepresentation of his worldview to leave religion out of an explanation of the worldview of someone so religious. A secular perspective doesn't mean you have to hide or ignore the truth about someone you're talking about. @@edwardaugustus9680
I don't know about this whole 'everything is getting worse' idea. I read children of Hurin, and let me tell you, Morgoth does stuff that makes Sauron look like an angry kitten. And Shelob's mom makes Shelob look roughly the size of an actual spider. Seems like the evil's getting weaker to me.
The good is getting weaker too though. The elves are leaving, the dwarves are dying out, heroes like Earendil sailing his flying ship and killing Ancalagon the black and the beautifully contructed kingdoms like Gondolin and Numenor, are now gone, and similar heroes doing similar impressive feats and building similar kingdoms are few and far between, once the third and fourth ages come around.
By "worse" he meant less grand and impressive. So by that standard it fits perfectly. The bad guys were more powerful and epic in the past, the cities grander, the good guys were stronger, men lived longer, etc.
How? How can you mention impersonal evil, other forces, and the entire concept of eucatastrophe, without mentioning the strong Catholic faith that drove all three? The conflict between good and evil, and the fall from grace of powerful, great beings, the INTERNAL battle so characteristic of theological philosophy, these are linked vitally to Tolkien’s faith. The fundamental idea of the miracle, of the guiding will of a good force beyond this world, is a Christian concept. You missed the entire point of this philosophy. History declines because evil corrupts it, yes, but it is the combination of good and trust in HIGHER POWERs that make the stand. Fundamentally, there is a trust that the miracle, the eucatastrophe, will happen, and thus history is FAR better than it might have been, and echoes of previous ages come down through time, all the way to us today.
@@delasee1383 Tolkien's works use also Greek, Egyptian, Hindu and Norse mythologies in it, they would have to work twice as hard to cover all instead of giving preference to a small portion of it.
@@DaimonAnimations Do you have an example though? Because I am not aware of any Egyptian, Hindu, or Greek concepts in the Lord of the Rings that cannot also be found in Norse mythology.
@@delasee13831. The one ring ( The Nibelungen ring - Norse mythology) 2. Ainur and the story of creation (Greek Mythology, the creation of Gaia and the Primordials, the titans, the Olympian Gods and Daemons.) 3. The eye of Sauron ( The eye of Horus - Egyptian mythology) 4. the Great war of Morgoth (Hindu Mahabarata the war of the Gods - The Greek Titanomachy and Gigantomachy, War of the Gods vs the Titans) 5. The Nazgul (inspiration from the Valkyries in Norse mythology and Daemons in the Greek) 6. Balrog (possibly Daemon and monsters inspiration from the Greek mythology) Elves (Norse Mythology) 7. The wizards and Sauron (Daemons - Greek mythology) I can give plenty more.
12:27 "Morgoth, who was himself more powerful than all the forces of good in the world combined." Umm, that's not actually true, and is also never stated on Tolkien's legendarium. What is stated though, is that Morgoth was of equal power as Manwë (if not a bit more powerful). Morgoth was "easily" defeated in the War of Wrath.
He wasted his power by reshaping the world at a whim not to mention also he got crippled by Fingolfin & kept Silmarils stuck onto his forehead while they burned him. The only thing Morgoth really wanted was to corrupt stuff & in that sense he succeeded.
Assumably for Tolkien the euchastrophe was god. I believe that tolkien was catholic, and therefore assumably believed in god and his salvation and "second coming"
3:01 I love that kind of thing. The guy's sitting there playing an empty bottle with his eyes locked, deadpan, on the camera. It humanizes someone that lived over a century ago and, just for a moment, transforms that small snippet of what would otherwise be a stark, grey clip into a 3-dimensional moment I can easily imagine myself experiencing. It's not that I don't know things like that happened generations ago, even amidst a world war, but it creates an emotional link. He's more than just a historical figure living his tough, austere life. In fact, I know people like him--at least in terms of his sense of humour.
William Morris had an enormous impact on Tolkien's social philosophy, and I would recommend anyone with an interest in Tolkien to read Morris's essays on politics and aesthetics, as well as Morris's fantasy stories.
As for any inner meaning or ‘message,’ it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical…. I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. - J.R.R. Tolkien
Sam held the ring I lay for a few seconds. Even Frodo was willing to hand over the ring to Gandalf after just a few moments holding it. After a few weeks, he was willing to part with it and place it on the pedestal with hesitation. I believe that the corruption is predominately from using it, not so much from possessing it. Also, it was a Willpower check that Frodo failed, not Constitution. The first Middle-earth roleplaying game was RoleMaster based, not D20. For a D20 version, it would have been a Wit check (or Wit save check in 5e).
"There, peeping among the cloud-rack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach." -- J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King. I have no explanation as to why this line evokes within a powerful emotion within so cold-hearted a person as me.
Indeed. Christ Jesus himself proclaimed that his presence as King in Heaven would be felt by worsening disasters and world conditions because of his kicking out the Devil, and the very last moments before his arrival on Earth for Armageddon would be marked by a "great tribulation, the likes of which has never been seen before, nor would be seen again." So Tolkein having a firm faith portrayed by Deus Ex Machina in the stories about 'history always getting worse' should be noted and considered in any discussion of his philosophy.
Doing C.S. Lewis would be all-out theology. I doubt Wisecrack will go there. Talking about Tolkien without mentioning religion is a pretty incomplete picture, but it's possible. But when talking about Lewis, you'll barely find anything that is not directly linked to christianity. And from what I can tell, when Wisecrack discusses theological themes, it always does so in the context of other contexts. See all the times they mention Kirkegaard.
I call this beauty, the Wang Trade Center, it gets hit by penis planes in the month of shlongtember. Never forget, not a single penis plane hit talleywaker number 7. Jizz fuel cannot melt steel boners.
As others have mentioned, leaving Tolkein's devout Catholicism out of the video was a huge oversight. The "long defeat," eucatastrophe, and estel are all obviously and easily analogous to Christian theological concepts that were the foundations to Tolkein's worldview. I kept waiting for you to mention it after each of these points, and am honestly perplexed as to why you didn't. I mean, Tolkein was famously critical of allegory, but that didn't stop him from weaving in these concepts, because these concepts, endowed to him by his religious tradition, were so fundamental to how he believed the world works. I understand religion can be a sensitive topic, but considering the long-lasting effects and influence Christianity has had on Western philosophy, both directly and adverse reactions, I hardly see how you can talk about philosophy and ignore religion. I mean the two need not go hand-in-hand, one need not be religious to engage with philosophy or ethics, but they very often do go hand-in-hand. To leave it out entirely, and chalk his views up to solely his experiences of industrialization and WWI is just... dishonest? It is possible to talk about it in a neutral, academic way without being preachy. This is all coming from a non-christian who disagrees with Tolkein philosophically despite her undying love of LotR. I love your philosophy videos, usually, but this one was a let-down.
everything decays and fades away and gives room for new things that are destined for the same processes its the single most ABSOLUTE truth in the universe. all things end thats why in all cultures the only place u can achieve an ETERNAL state of perfection/suffering is hell/heaven, a place not bound by the laws of the universe that we know. even the elves in Tolkien's universe fade, Legolas himself says this, all things under the sun will fade, true they will "shift" into another state of existence (the shadow world) and await the end times but they will "change" eventually.
This. All around us is evidence of decay. You can see the ruins of once magnificent buildings, stumps of trees that were alive for hundreds of years, elders who were once young and beautiful. All of this constantly reminding you of the fate your little slice of time will be someone else's past, and their time some else's as well.
Shiiiet, Children you call those cities? In my day, Tirion was the place to be. Now THAT'S a city. Come home at the end of the day, and the dust you kick off your boots was made of diamonds. But more regally, of course.
In a 1971 BBC Radio 4 interview (I think the audio is on youtube), when the reporter said he think that Middle Earth was "this world we live in but at a different era," Tolkien answered "No ... at a different stage of imagination, yes." It seems that later in his life he abandoned the idea of a continuity between his stories and our history. Anyway, thanks for this great video!
Tolkien and I share something in common...aside from being fantasy writers and our love on ancient cultures, histories and mythology. Like him, I also believe that progress is as much a curse as it is a blessing (and I use the second term loosely.) Yes; social and technological advancement has brought us many things like better medicine, easier forms of communication like e-mails, quicker modes of travel and such. But like Tolkien feared; the more technologically advanced we become, the more the natural world dies/disappears. Think of how many beautiful fields of grass and flowers were mowed over to put another Wal-Mart on top of it or think of all the beautiful creatures that have been killed for the purpose of "looking good." Worse still is the fact that technology is reducing human interaction. Thanks to instant messaging, things like Skype or Google Home or cellphones. People think they don't need to talk to people face to face anymore. They think "why get up and talk to somebody, when I can just lie here and do it on my phone?" The biggest sin, to me is the fact people aren't reading anymore. Instead of valuing a good book, they prefer something "easier to read" on a screen and "easier to carry." Personally, I feel a book is much more personal to have than a Kindle. I mean; once an EMP hits and all technology shuts down, what will you do for entertainment or knowledge. So; in the end, advancement is a bit of a double-edged sword. While it CAN do great good for us, it also creates great evil; like Tolkien always feared
Wow you sound unendingly pretentious and punchable. Communication is communication, it doesn't matter if its done face to face, by email, or by carrier pigeon, you're still communicating. I will agree that unchecked industrialism can ruin the environment and we should conserve animals as much as possible, but technology isn't to blame for that. It's the corporations that control the tech. There are plenty of planet-safe alternatives MADE BY TECHNOLOGY that don't destroy the planet. Also, it is a far better world nowadays than it was hundreds of years ago. For one thing, racism and sexism are far weaker than they once were, and we're slowly fixing homophobia one law at a time. Not to mention before all this technology people lived to the ripe old age of twelve and crapped in rivers.
@@ravenfrancis1476 Much of what you say is true...save for the "pretentious and punchable" part. But as of late, I've seen racism and sexism escalating quite highly (in some circles.) One such example I can provide are all those wishing harm upon transgenders because of what they chose to do (namely change their sex.) As for the rest, while you ARE right that technology is helping us live longer and cleaner lives. I've seen people become slaves to it, just like how Tolkien wrote Gollum became a slave to the ring. If he were alive today, I imagine he'd hate how people are forsaking books in favor of more "convenient' means of reading like Kindles or "reading" on an IPad. Nope; for people like me, we'd prefer the actual physical copy of a story than a digital one
Joe actually people are more racist today than ever before, the explosion of contact globally has created racism on levels it was never at before. Examples, Medieval Europeans did not think they were superior to all other races, nor did any other people around the world at that time. Then it was my town, or my kingdom is better or superior. The father you go back in history the less racism there is. Rome and the Ancient Empires are prime examples, none of the saw themselves as racially superior, only culturally superior. HUGE difference, racism is hate, cultural pride/nationalism is about a belief in the importance of your culture. Oh and yes some cultures are better than others, today it is western culture, 1000 years ago it was Chinese culture - most technologically advanced, most benefits for working class and serfs, most opportunities to gain social mobility. Two thousand years ago it was Roman civilization, A thousand years before that the Greek. A thousand years before that Persian and Egyptian. That is in the "old world" Most new world civilizations were more egalitarian and simplistic, the imperial civilizations were often barbaric even if they had advanced sciences and medicines. But actual racism is something that only comes about after the 17th century in the west, a hate and belief that ones own race is superior to others was an alien concept before that. Before that the only other peoples who were truly racist were Muslims, they are the creators of race based slavery, the creators of the idea one race is superior to others. Before them it was again about the town/kingdom/empire one belonged two. Remember Roman citizens came in all colors, and all had equal rights regardless of skin color, it was class that mattered and that held true until the 16th century in the west, and 18th century in the east. Africa though had to deal with the muslim belief that blacks were subhuman dating back to the founding of the religion.
@@sadlobster1 Information is information. Communication is communication. You seek an "essence" in the things you love that goes beyond whatever stories and joys they bring. You're looking for some ineffable quality of "nature" or "oldness" that, by definition, can't be replicated by modern means. Why else would you describe physical copies as more "actual" than digital ones? Is there some magic property of ink-on-parchment that empowers the storytelling process? Do books contain some sort of "soul" that screens lack? When I put it that way, the answer is "obviously not". Books aren't more godly than screens. Plows aren't more righteous than tractors. Swords aren't more sacred than guns. Just because it's old doesn't mean it's more liberating or authentic. At best, a physical book helps you get into the mood. Great. But that's just a preference. There's nothing more "actual" about it because language and stories are a shared delusion, and the only "actual" version exists in the author's dead mind. Everything else is just a copy.
@@General12th All I'm saying is Tolkien and I find a greater beauty and appreciation for the old than we do the new. As you said, nothing that once was cannot be replicated; which (to me) makes them all the more precious. I mean, I've yet to see the same amount of beauty and culture in today's world than what humanity once had in the Renaissance. Maybe what I'm praising IS a matter of preference. But what does reading a book digitally have that would cause people to prefer THAT over a physical book
How do you make a 20 minute video on Tolkein's philosophy without so much as mentioning his Catholic faith which inspired most of his work? That's such a huge fail that I find it hard to believe that this wasn't an intentional omission.
I've lived within half an hours drive of Sarehole for the past two years, and I only got around to visiting it last week. If anyone is ever in Birmingham and you're a Tolkien fan, I recommend checking it out, as well as Moseley Bog - its a surreal, wild and beautiful place in the midst of Birmingham's urban sprawl, and you really get a sense of what Tolkien felt he had lost. On the map it just looks like a tiny, tiny bit of woodland, smaller than most parks - you can walk across it in ten minutes - but it really is quite a special place.
Well I think he was right. There's not a war (not in a global scale at least) being waged in our time, but conflict is everywhere, and worse than it ever was!
Tolkien's entropic view of history fits in very well with Nordic/Danish philosophic views pre-conversion to Christianity. The world will continue to decay from the great works of Rome until the days of Ragnarok.
IIRC the reason for decay over time on middle earth was due to Melkor’s corrupting of the land during the first age and wars. You did a good job of explaining how the things got worse over time but the cause was Melkor’s corruption. Video could’ve used more Silmarillion references but overall good job.
This was very interesting and I learned lots of new things (and words!:) but I think you missed the most important element of Tolkien's philosophy: his Catholic outlook. The Biblical 'Fall' must have strongly influenced his view of the present as always inferior to the past; the force that guided good in the world was Iluvatar (God) and his 'Estel' for a good ending must have been his faith in the final victory of good from the Bible.
Wisecrack, historian of religion here. This was an entertaining video. The colored footage of Tolkien was a special treat. And as many here have pointed out, the absence of Tolkien's religiosity is a severe oversight. Most of what you diagnose as "philosophy" is more accurately characteristic of religion, not philosophy. For example, you (rightly) point out that Tolkien viewed history as a cycle. He abhorred the progressivist historiography that time is a straight line on an upward incline, suggesting that everything, and everyone, is improving, advancing, or progressing. Tolkien instead asserted that a human living a thousand years ago may, indeed, be morally superior to one living today. However, comparing Tolkien's "cyclical" historiography with Ovid or Hesiod is a mistake. These classical pagan writers believed history was literally repetitive, caught in a hellish and unending cycle. Tolkien believed history was "cyclical," but not like a closed loop. It was more like a spiral: history is marked by people and events which parallel one another, but unlike the pagan writers, Tolkien saw history as actually going somewhere and (eventually) ending. And as you hint at in the video, this ending is a eucatastrophe: a consummate triumph of the good, the true, and the beautiful and the complete defeat of all evil. Until the end of the ages, we are embroiled in a world where great evil holds sway, but through it we can glimpse flashes of the inevitable eucatastrophe. Moreover, Tolkien identifies this understanding of history with his religion: “Actually I am a Christian, and indeed a Roman Catholic, so that I do not expect 'history' to be anything but a 'long defeat' - though it contains (and in a legend may contain more clearly and movingly) some samples or glimpses of final victory.” Tolkien's understanding of history is not at all unique. It is a part of his religious heritage. The understanding of history as a spiral resolving in an eschaton is a distinctly Christian idea, first articulated in the writing of St. Augustine of Hippo. You will not find it in pagan or secular societies, except as a token borrowed from Christianity. Confusing this for "philosophy" is a misunderstanding of philosophy, or at least a misapprehension of where such philosophy is sourced. Secondly, forgoing any mention of Tolkien's religion can only be interpreted as deliberate, and represents a great failure to understand Tolkien's own writings. As he said: "The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like 'religion', to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism." Tolkien was no secularist, politely neglecting to mention any religion in his story out of concern for sensitive readers. Rather, as he says, he does not mention religion because his book is fundamentally (and intentionally) religious in character; it is an icon of the Catholic tradition which he observed devoutly his entire life, rendered in fiction. All this to say, you (one suspects, deliberately) mislabel as philosophy what in reality belongs to (and what Tolkien explicitly credits to) religion. This is problematic for a number of reasons: 1. It diminishes representation of religious people, modernity's last faux pas. 2. It mischaracterizes what Tolkien believed in the manner he believed it. 3. It mistranslates and misrepresents Tolkien's work and why he wrote it the way he did.
This was wonderful, high quality as always. But I think now you will have to do another Tolkien video that actually is about how faith/religion influencing his work and philosophy.
Perhaps Tolkien's view of history is pessimistic, but his history extends all the way the the creation of the universe. Just as our own universe in Tolkien's entropy is the driving function of all things. All life will end, all stars will die, everything good will end, and all substance and energy will become diffuse, random, and chaos. However, just like our universe entropy is the driving force to produce all that is good to begin with, as the transfer of energy from low to high (for Tolkien's the eternal clash of the supernatural forces of good and evil, as evil overtakes good) causes eddies of entropy when miracles and goodness can exist, even in an existence doomed to chaos outright.
Me: I will be good. I will limit my yelling despite spending a fair amount of personal and academic time on Tolkien's work. *five seconds later* Me: That is... literally wrong. *continues yelling the entire video* Me: At least they'll mention his Catholicism. Right? RIGHT? *never mentions Catholicism* Me: Wow. WOW. I have seen many interpretations on the philosophy of Tolkien and not a single one of them "forgot" to mention his faith. WOW.
CS Lewis and Tolkien held an Augustinian view of evil. Evil was the absence of good, and the only way to oppose it was to do good. Evil can only last by feeding off of good, and consequently will destroy itself. This is why the good act of sparing Golems life pays off: as Frodo collapses to evil, Gollems own evil causes evil to destroy itself.
They probably could've touched a bit on Tolkien's Christian and/or religious influences, but to say it was hugely central may be a bit of an overstatement - Didn't JRR chastise/criticise CS Lewis for example for being too overtly Christian in his themes and tones in the Narnia series? Like I said, they could've touched on faith playing a part, but the exact level of centrality of faith to Tolkien is up for debate I suppose
The reason why everyone is talking about it is because in a letter, Tolkien stated that the LOTR was fundamentally a Catholic work. The interesting question is how it can be a Catholic work while Tolkien himself also said that he dislikes allegory in any form? To say that his religious views were at the center of his writing is not an understatement, but to try to decipher what he meant is what we all would like to know, and perhaps could’ve been an interesting video for wisecrack. Either way i think it was a solid video. Was it exhaustive, certainly not...to reduce the philosophy of a life to 20 minutes is bound to cut corners, but it was still a great start.
At 5:17. I mean, yeah, Tolkien would DEFINITELY think that our technological progress was making us worse as human beings. He had been born in 1892, at the peak of the Belle Epoque, when things in Europe were peaceful and all these new gadgets were making the world a better place. Then in 1914, when he was 22 years old, he was thrown in the trenches of World War I, which shattered whatever optimism he had with human progress. He was definitely part of the "Lost Generation" when he emerged out of that hellhole at 26 years of age--hard-bitten and almost nihilistic. Then he saw the rise of fascism and the Great Depression, and then the horrors of World War II in his 50s, culminating with the Nazi death camps and the atomic bombs dropped on Japan. His whole adult life Tolkien was seeing civilization destroy itself with more advanced weapons and technology. Clearly this would make him deeply pessimistic about the "progress of history" in general.
From what I can tell, this channel seems to be very open to explicitly pointing out when they perceive well-written stories to subvert religious ideas/expectations/values, but just can’t quite explicitly point out when deeply religious ideas play a key role in such stories - even when they clearly do!
Well said, I've always had trouble finding the words to describe the nostalgic feeling LotR gave me as a youngster. The way the ruins of ancient civilizations in Tolkien's world sparked a longing for grander times, the way it even gave me chills as that eery background music played at the beginning...this video helped understand what it was about LotR that made it so interesting.
Another point about evil is that Tolkien implied that it would destroy itself. This is why it is Gollums fumbling that destroys the ring, and not Smeagol willingly tossing it in a final act of defiance against Gollum.
This video is a Masterpiece!! you are Spot On!! Fantastic job! Also Catholics are pressed. Tolkien's World goes far beyond his religious beliefs and he hated analogies despite the fact that he said that his work has a christian foundation
You forgot to mention that Tolkien was raised by his mother AND a Catholic priest. There are many correspondences where he explicitly states that his faith heavily informed his work. To leave such a glaring aspect out of your treatment seems deliberate.
I just read over 25 comments about how you guys forgot mentioning Tolkien's faith or catholizism but not a single one was rude, mean or did use hatefull language. I love this fandom so, so much. He would be proud.
Wait! I haven't spoken yet.
I sorta ignore that, and focus on JK's racial beliefs.
Max Mustermann
Too late...assholes are here...
@@Surteronarto Get the fuck out of here.
Here is your first idiot ---> John Jordan.
And who would be proud? Tolkien or Jared?
“The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like ‘religion’, to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism.”
JRR Tolkien
Letter to his friend Robert Murray, S.J. (December 1953)
"History doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes"
Bee did Tolkien say that? I like that a lot
Wesley, no George Lucas did. That was one of the fundamental philosophies that guided how he made the Original Trilogy and the Prequel Trilogy. The Sequel Trilogy also follows that line of thought pretty well.
@@wesley3300 in the department of Great Quotations it's almost impossible to know Who Said What First but reportedly Mark Twain is who that quote originates from :^D
Is that a Pratchettism?
going to tuck that quote away on one of my synapse and use it later in some form or fashion...thanks
Too be fair if I served in the Somme Offensive and lived through TWO world Wars and The cold war. I would have a very pessimistic view of the world too.
Is that a Joke I don't understand?
@@tobytaylor5960 No. Tolkien witnessed some of the most horrible things ever committed by humans in the 20th century(first hand in some cases).
@Nick White That does would be a contributing factor no doubt. But after seeing men being cut down in droves during the Somme by this new portable "machine gun" would have been absolutely horrifying. Not only that but the new mechanical horrors that arose in those years would have given him huge anxiety for what was to come in the years ahead.
@@tobytaylor5960 Why would I be joking?
The world has been in a near continual state of war since its founding, so nobody literate should be in doubt of the human propensity toward war and its natural attendants, disease, extreme injustice, and slavery. That's the world we live in, but hopefully, as it is said, the nightmare from which we are slowly awakening.
The section about Sam seeing the star in Mordor is my favorite part of the entire trilogy; taking comfort in eternally beautiful things is a real, powerful protection for the mind and has been my saving grace through some dark, terrible times.
I have always loved this song... Sam is supposed to sing it in Mordor when he is seeking Frodo in the tower... He sings some of it and then Frodo answers him. I wish they had kept it in the movie!
In western lands beneath the Sun
the flowers may rise in Spring,
the trees may bud, the waters run,
the merry finches sing.
Or there maybe 'tis cloudless night
and swaying beeches bear
the Elven-stars as jewels white
amid their branching hair.
Though here at journey's end I lie
in darkness buried deep,
beyond all towers strong and high,
beyond all mountains steep,
above all shadows rides the Sun
and Stars for ever dwell:
I will not say the Day is done,
nor bid the Stars farewell.
“The journey does not end here. Death is just another path, one which we all must take. The grey rain curtains of this world rolls back, and all will turn to silver glass. And then you see it: white shores, a far green country, under a swift sunrise.”
"It is not so bad"
Camilo Andres Lasso Hernandez “No, no it isn’t.”
Easily my favorite gandalf line in the trilogy
Unless you are a servant of evil, for only the void awaits the followers of Morgoth.
@@sandrothenecromancer6810 that is for the Elves only. All men will go to the void and beyond, good or evil
Estel means Hope and Trust...
In other words, Faith.
Considering Tolkien’s strong religious beliefs, it’s amazing that he translated faith in its purest form into his work in such a fundamental way, without triggering dogma or allegories (Tolkien HATED allegories).
There is a reason writers that came afterward saw Tolkien as a master of his craft, and this is only one of those reasons.
Trust and faith are not the same...
I don't think Tolkien hated allegories
@@DeadmanRedux You can find excerpts of Tolkiens writing - can't recall if it's books or letters - where he mentions his distaste for allegory
@@DeadmanRedux His hatred for allegories is usually one of the first things you come upon researching about him ( and his fear for spiders).
@@DeadmanRedux In the Foreword to the Ballantine edition of LotR, he states, 'But I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence.' But remember that to Tolkien, 'allegory' is a term of art, in which a thing in the story is a specific and intentional representation of something in the real world. He is addressing people who were, at that time, saying that the Ring was an allegory for the atomic bomb, for example. But in Tolkien's created world, Eru is not an allegory for God - he is a portrayal of God in this imagined world, or, rather, our own world in an imaginary pre-historical time (people make the same mistake about Aslan in C.S. Lewis's Narnia stories. Again, a portrayal, not an allegory). Tolkien adds, 'I think that many confuse "applicability" with "allegory"; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.'
The Children of Húrin, put together by Tolkien's son, is perhaps the most blatant of his tragedies and it's wonderful. I don't think I've read anything that better understands the sacrifice that comes with a true heroic deed than The Children of Húrin. Tolkien always left scars on his characters, and it is true that death is scant in his novels when it comes to main characters, but the tax and the burden are always there. Even when there's hope, it is always a tragedy after all.
Second this. Children of Hurin is my favorite work by Tolkien, perhaps his most Shakespearean work considering how tragic it is.
The children of Hurin is my personal favorite out of the histories, and I'm glad it was brought up. I think I might go back and read it again.
Despite it being super tragic, The Children of Hurin actually got me through a rough patch during my early teenage years. Love that people are bringing it up.
Children of Hurin is greatly influenced by the story of Kullervo from Finnish epic Kalevala. And by "greatly" I really mean greatly. Not trying to take credit from Tolkien and his take on the story, but you should know the origins and give proper credit to them...
Bilbo, frodo and even sam also ended up carrying the burden of the one ring for the rest of their lives.
Tolkien would have loved Dark Souls' consistent theme of degredation
\[T]/ PRAISE THE SUN \[T]/
But he probably would have hated video-games as decadent and promoting obesity and isolation...or something.
@@jonbodhi he's also a technophobe so I doubt he would ever touch the console
Thats probably what inspired it
@@raptornugget5385 "I don't understand the story, therefore it is shitty"
there you go I fixed your comment
Catholicism: *exists*
Wisecrack: I've never met this man before in my life.
Is the arrogance of the secular (powered by disinterest and ignorance), atheists tend to downplay religions by numerous reasons, they lack understanding of them and have a condescending attitude to them, they have never given them a chance and studied their depths, because of this, they usually dismiss the impact and role in others life and personality, that's why the stereotype of modern atheists tend to be so hollow and lacking in direction, morals and convictions, accompanied by edginess and replacement of God with either the state or the root of their desires (drugs, products, money, sex/women), Jared is not an angry edgy atheist, but he adapts the views of others to his and secular views and philosophies, failing to call Catholicism by its name.
To be fair it happens to every other religion/philosophy, we just tend to point fingers more when, for example, a Jew criticizes a Hindu or a Taoist criticizes a Protestant, etc, etc. Taking the Secular view as the "default".
"I cordially dislike allegory in any manifestation." ~ J.R.R. Tolkien. He opposed any attempt to correlate his work with his religion, which conspired to keep him and his eventual wife apart.
@@AMcGrath82 That is a single out-of-context quote that ignores dozens of letters in which Tolkien referred to his religious inspiration, including: "The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision." The whole crux of Tolkien's moral philosophy presupposes a God - that men "sub-create" in the vein of the original creator, i.e. language, song, poetry etc. is a facet of the Christian concept of The Word or Logos.
@@AMcGrath82 religion in his works aren't allegorical, they're symbolic and metaphorical. Your example of would apply to someone correlating Gandalf to Jesus, but not to correlating the one ring and man's sinful nature.
Seriously. I'm stunned that wisecrack completely swept the man's Christianity under the rug. Even if you take a secular view of someone's religion, that religion will still inform his philosophy, which influences his work. People watching this to learn about Tolkien might think he would be so artless that the eucatastrophe is just a recycled Greek Deus Ex Machina. When in reality, it's an omnipotent Deus himself.
This is good, Wisecrack, but I think it would have been worth mentioning his Catholicism. His concept of Estel is undoubtedly grounded in that worldview.
:'(
No doubt. The entropy of sin on the world is, from a Christian perspective, why things will always regress into ruin. I have to think that colors Tolkien's view on history.
@@Seomus there's a comment on here from a guy that wrote the script on this episode. He said that because Tolkien he never explicitly stated it was God making an intervention in his books, even though it's fairly obvious what he was implying. They thought they'd do the same when writing this episode.
Also RUclips demonetises religious stuff.
lol, is it bad that I genuinely think they might have excluded that from this video to avoid making some of their other fans unhappy? Like it or not, their R&M videos got a lot of people into the channel, and that fanbase has quite a few "llolol god sucks" types in it. You can even see them in other comments here!
Well, they definitely could have mentioned Nebucchadnezzar's dream, explained in Daniel 2:31-45. Gold, silver, bronze, iron, division, Rock.
Hope being synonymous with trust would imply there is someone or something specific which has made a promise.
Solid analysis, but your premise is severely misguided, making your conclusion miss the mark. You are arguing a measurement of "progress" completely different from what Tolkien was arguing. Tolkien, a devout Catholic, was absolutely pessimistic in human progress, just as you said. But because you didn't delve into *why* a devout Catholic would be pessimistic (as Christianity in general is about a non-material source of hope). You forgot to delineate between the material "progress" and the spiritual "progress." This is an important distinction, as magic, a source of power and influence in Middle-Earth, can be wielded for both good and evil. So arguing magic=natural/old/good and orc machinery=new/evil does not add up. So what's so important about magic being seen as an amoral tool and not as a simple stand-in for "good?" Because Tolkien's argument was never that technology doesn't qualify as "progress," but rather the *important* "progress," the type that elevates mankind instead of keeping it stagnant, cannot be materialistic in nature. Basically, through the Tolkien lens, technology and materialistic evolution is purely a tool: good men use it for good, bad men for evil, but the gun/cannon/tank itself holds no moral value. On the MORAL scale of progress, tech does not factor in. So when someone argues how much better the world is because of scientific achievement, Tolkien is not disagreeing with the ability of technology to spread health and wealth; what he is arguing rather is that there is no MORAL progress, and therefore if the QUANTITY of good we can do is increased but moral stagnation doesn't alter the QUALITY of good/bad or doesn't change the individual propensity to dispense good/evil, then all that has changed is the amount of good or evil we can produce has been increased on both sides. While wars have created leaps in medicine out of necessity, that same necessity has borne weapons of mass destruction. You only missed Tolkien's argument (at least in my estimation) because you did not recognize the difference in the two types of progress, and so you were never arguing with the same definitions.
Have you got more info on this? Your comment was such a good read and I'm interested to know more. For instance - how would the world initiate moral progress?
This is why Nietzche called Christians "the first nihilists". It is very dangerous to believe that humans cannot progress morally in the only world proven to exist. It is the very reason that Republicans deny Climate Change and are thus about to commit *multi-genocide* against all species on earth.
If there really were a god, I don't think he would be happy about those who mindlessly tortured and killed 100 billion living beings in his name.
Words written by talking apes in the desert 6000 years ago should not be the guideline for moral progress in the first place. It is this self-defying complacency that becomes a self fullfilling prophecy. It is not written in stone. It is nothing but a mindnumbing, creativity choking mass psychosis.
@@bobrolander4344 As a disciple of Jesus Christ (and a republican), I'd just like to say:
I'm not angry at you for the views you hold. But I would invite you to read the bible (and the book of mormon, for that matter), and to actually consider why it is that so many people still try to live by the principles recorded in those ancient records. Not to convert you, just as an exercise in expanding your understanding of the viewpoints of others before you make comments like this again.
I know that when I make the (very active, very intentional) effort to live those principles, I improve as a person, and become better at lifting others around me who are struggling through the often soul-crushing trials of life. Am I perfect? Heck no. I've got a boat load of personal problems and character flaws that are actually pretty significant and that will be life-long battles that I never asked for and never wanted. But I can say from personal experience that those books are absolutely still relevant to dealing with those problems and the problems of the modern era (even climate change, by the way, which I very much do believe is happening despite my voter registration).
I 'm also a counterexample to Christians being nihilists. I know my life has a specific, clearly defined meaning. Mine is to tell the cold and unfeeling universe to lighten up a little and stop thinking so much about itself. Another counterexample is one of the core beliefs held by members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We believe that it is God's purpose for us, our purpose as His children, to learn and grow to become like Him. The entire point of us being alive and living through this extremely imperfect world is to take our first baby steps towards the goal of eventually perfecting ourselves through the grace of God, so that we can "pay it forward," as it were.
Nietzsche's criticisms regarding early Christianity and his transvaluation of the teachings of Jesus Christ is based on a literalization of biblical passages that are generally accepted as analogical in nature, ironically making many of his criticisms ultimately pointless. Christ's teaching that "the greatest among you shall be [a] servant" for instance is not an elevation of the weak over the strong, as Nietzsche would posit, but in part a statement that many do not understand what it means to be strong in the first place, and an invitation to change our idea of what strength is. Nietzsche is widely regarded as one of the world's most important thinkers, but that does not qualify him as an authority on Christianity. I would recommend not treating him as such.
Seeing another of your other comments, I would also like to ask you not to compare entire world religions to the actions of the 9/11 terrorists. That's clearly crossing the line of civilized rational discourse, and is disrespectful to the people who lost so much that day.
Pardon my long windedness. I just couldn't read what you wrote and not try to shed some insight with an opposing viewpoint. If you disagree with me, that's fine.
@Bob Rolander How does Christianity deny moral progress? Isn't the whole point for everyone to become more moral and good? Or do you mean the denial of progress in the material world? In that case, yes, it is utterly impossible for humanity to create utopia, only dystopias. Even if everyone had food, shelter, medicine, clothing, friends, family, entertainment, essentially what most people claim they want, you know what would happen right? We would destroy it.
As for climate change deniers, of course climate change exists: There was once an Ice Age, now there is not = warmer. The question is not even if man is making it worse, of course we are. The question is if man is the primary cause. Cows, for example, create more greenhouse gases than all the fuel industries in the world combined. And even if we are, your assuming (A) the Repblican party is entirely responsible for environmental policy, that the majority of Democrats taking oil money are not at fault, (B) America is primarily responsible for climate change, not India and China, and (C) enacting necessary environemental policy won't destroy the economy and cause violence, and (D) the government for the rest of the future is never overthrown and replaced by a non-environmentally friendly coalition. Even if you disprove A-C, D is impossible.
"those who mindlessly tortured and killed 100 billion living beings in his name." You... do know that's over 15x the global population today? Even combining the European genocide of Native Americans (which was mostly unintentional starvation and disease, not intentional murder), the genocide of Africans (which was more purposeful, I'll admit), the Crusades, the Islamic Age of Conquest, every nation in history ever killing someone for religious reasons, I don't see how you estimated 100 billion dead.
With regards to 6000 year old desert apes, you do realize the only reason we have so much tech and resources is because we used the info that the last generation left us, and so on an so forth. If a hundred modern 1st world people were put on an island and had to survive, you bet in 100 years time they'd become utter savages without the luxury of sitting on the shoulders of those 6000 year old apes. Aristotle alone defined all science and knowledge into groups, which scientists and academics still use today. Even Einstein and Newton were too retarded and stupid by comparison to understand anything except physics, let alone us "enlightened, modern humans".
Nietzsche was also familiar with the armed conflicts that resulted due to the Protestant reformation. There were class conflicts with the peasants normally being Protestant vs. the Catholic nobility. Also the Schmalkaldic Wars (actual name). Do not forget that this led to many factions of religion that quoted the same text differently. Nietzsche may have been thinking of the Calvinist sect. Basically that no matter what your belief or acts, that you were predetermined to go to heaven to hell. Basically God assigned you a role. If you were heaven bound, you were made to act a certain way. If hell bound, no matter what your actions or beliefs were, there was a God made flaw in you that doomed you to hell. Your fate was predetermined and nothing could change it. If you truly have no freedom of choice, what is your meaning in life?
Last comment, Christianity beliefs have led to acts of violent. For example, the Irish troubles although primarily sectarian also had some roots of conflict between Catholics and Protestants. The Rwanda conflict where the strongly Catholic Hutus slaughtered the Tutsi. The Russian Orthodox Church blessing weapons that are used against Chechnya and Ukraine. Now this is not a condemnation of the principles of Christianity. It is a statement that even some Christians have used religion as an excuse for conflict and terrible acts.
I know a bunch of comments have said something to this effect but you cannot overlook Tolkein's traditional Catholicism as an influence of his thought and philosophy of history, especially considering he was a medievalist. I know there's a modern distinction between philosophy and theology, but the medieval thinkers - they think philosophy is just a means to knowing God. The first thing that jumped out in my mind that'd be important are the ages many medieval thinkers constructed history. Augustine is the most important - he believed in seven ages roughly corresponding to different biblical periods from the City of God. Like Tolkein Augustine was pessimistic about the age we're living in. People are sinful and just find ways to do worse and worse things. Ultimately Jesus will redeem us and begin the eternal sabbatical, I think this is what undergirds the idea of the eucatastrophe
Tolkiens philosophy was that the modern world is more mediocre than before, less wonderful, but also less horrific
It was the land of high elves and gods in the land, but also melkor and numerous dragons including one who crushed mountains and balrogs
then the land of high numernorians but also sauron and fire breathing dragons
then the remnants of gondor and the shade of sauron and a single balrog
then just men
But that is when you only look at middle earth right?
He was gonna write the new shadow set in the 4th age but he quit
the project early because he thought the idea was too depressing.
@@odalfhilter6980 Source?
@@fernandozavaletabustos205 it’s in his personal letters that were later published after his death. I’m not going to bother with a link you can just Google it. These letters are all over the web.
It is interesting to hear a secular interpretation of a Christian mans view point. What you call pessimism is actually a pragmatic view of a fallen world, and his hope in the true power of God to deliver him from it.
@@bobrolander4344 It is ignorant to say that all of Christianity is pure evil and denying climate change. I am not religious but I do believe that Christianity has brought forward more than only extremism and crusades. Islam and Christianity partly have the same roots but weird boy Mohammed did add some stuff that you would not find in tha howly beible. Religion is not the the reason that life is being destroyed.
@@nowatcher656 a wonderful comment! I dont know if Im religious or not. I dont even know what beliefs i truly hold to be true. But its nice reading a non biased view on a subject i put great importance on.
If only we would act like Jesus would. Jesus did not condemn Mary of Bethany (prostitute)or the tax collector Zacchaeus (seen as shameful profession). He asked us to treat the poor and the broken as we would treat him. That the pursuit of riches was to be seen as a sinful thing. I know that the quote about the camel going through the eye of the needle is seen as being symbolic more as a camel going through city gates or aa camel hair thread through a needle and not truthful like the creation in a mere 7 days. I do not understand why that is seen as the only allegorical verse is basically saying we should allow the gathering abnormal masses of wealth while ripping off others is acceptable, examples: millionaires not paying contractors for work, the insistence that employees should stay extra and not get paid.
@@bobrolander4344 Are you trolling? That is the most oversimplified if not downright perverted interpretation of the Bible and Christianity.
What would you call MLK’s view, given that he was a Christian too?
I mean yea; he believes in Christ and His return. Leaving that out fundamentally misses his philosophy on history IMO
The Return of the King
@@SovereignStatesmanVery apt given alot of parralels between Aragorn and Jesus.
Did you just say that Tolkien thought evil was the most powerful force in the world? No. NO.
Tolkien believed evil (Satan) was real and powerful, but he very strongly believed that good (God) was infinitely more powerful and would triumph in the end.
In Tolkien's tale, God (Eru) does not dwell in the world, but outside of it. He transcends it. Melkor (Satan) is often referred to as "the mightest of all dwellers in Arda." Arda is the world. So no, the statement in the video is not incorrect. Also, your idea that evil is a force somehow separate from God and in opposition to Him is not at all in Tolkien's story. Melkor himself is but an instrument of Eru, birthed from His mind like all of the other Ainur, and Eru made it pretty clear what he expected of Melkor:
"And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined."
He goes on to explain to Ulmo, the Vala of Water, how Melkor's extreme heats would create beautiful clouds and rains, and extreme colds would create snowflakes.
The idea isn't that God is struggling against Satan. God doesn't struggle. He tolerates Satan because he has a plan, and Satan is part of it. It's a far more poetic answer to the question of "why does god tolerate evil if he is so powerful?" than any other Christian has ever been able to conjure, in my opinion. Almost makes me wish I believed in any of it, lol.
@@steveripberger1802 I am well aware of all of that. I just didn't want to write a small essay on the topic.
@@steveripberger1802 You stand corrected, Melkor and evil are not the same thing. Calling evil a force, and then saying that it is the most powerfull in the word is incorrect. Aquinas' theology is very clear that charity is the grestest of virtues and it defeats all vices.
No, I think I made my case rather well. You can't just say "you stand corrected" without actually correcting someone first, lol.
Aquinas has nothing directly to do with Tolkien's mythology.. Tolkien *specifically* intended his mythology to not be directly allegorical to Catholic theology or really any theology in particular.
Tolkien's world functions *precisely* as I've described. I've provided what should be a fairly compelling quote establishing this. Maybe you need to re-read the Silmarillion? Or maybe just that quote from my post? >.>
@@steveripberger1802 Steve, you are reading between the lines. Your quote is actually verbatim from Aquinas' explanation of the nature of God and Satan. I wouldn't believe it is consecuential to read Tolkien's description which copies Aquinas' on this topic and then proceed and ignore Aquinas' conclusions. Which, as a matter of fact, Tolkien also intended for his audience. When you say that Tolkien was trying not to mirror any particular theology, well it is fairly hard to believe, maybe he intended to say that his myths took different accidental forms. Nevertheless, Catholic Theology and specifically Aquinas' teaching permeate the whole world-building of Tolkiens' world.
It’s honestly just weird that you even mentioned Lewis and yet failed to touch on or identify the driving force behind all of Tolkein’s “philosophies,” AKA his deep faith
He does, at 16:16.
@@paulchapman8023 no he doesn't
@@emmaclarke2885 “All throughout life, Tolkien looked around the world, and between the scouring of his boyhood Shire, his living through a veritable Mordor in the trenches of the Western Front, and later, while writing The Lord of the Rings, witnessing the rise of real Dark Lords in Hitler and Stalin, Tolkien had no reason to look up and reasonably expect good. And yet, through it all, he never faltered in Estel, in trust.”
That's the definition of deep faith.
It's also weird that all these people here felt compelled to comment the same thing over and over again.
@@paulchapman8023 He mentioned faith, but never Biblical faith. I saw a lot of videos about tolkien's philosophy and only one talked about the fact that it was primarily catholic.
Always love the philosophy videos from your team. Was surprised to not hear about Tolkien’s reasoning behind his “saved at the last minute” worldview. I think some discussion towards his religious motivations would have made this a perfectly well rounded video. Everything else was there.
‘Now goblins are cruel, wicked, and bad-hearted. They make no beautiful things, but they make many clever ones.’
JRR Tolkien passed away in 1973. Reverse that number and we have 3791. Does that number seem familiar?
*Three* rings for the elves, *seven* rings for the dwarves, *nine* rings for men, and *one* ring to rule them all.
Have fun with that now!
Krist Stevens ... and a redditor shows up in the comments.
What about the 1 though? You totally skipped that number stopppppp it kinda ruins the thing you were going for.
@@1970HondaCL100 I actually have only visited reddit a couple of times believe it or not. I found this from one of the lectures that my fantasy literature teacher had last semester in college. I just thought it was kind of cool.
Ty huh? He said “ONE ring to rule them all”
@@ty8012 I didn't skip the one though. read my original post again. it finishes with "and *one* ring to rule them all."
I'm so happy that we got a non nihilistic philosophy video from you guys. Love Tolkien even more now.
His view seems pretty nihilistic to me. Everything gets worse and the past was better. That's pretty much what nihilistic means. Sure he has some deux ex machina to save things at the end but that just makes it worse because it takes away our agency. He sounds like one of those climate change deniers who believes God won't let it happen.
@@Alverant That isn't what nihilistic means, there's nothing in that ideology about the past being better. A nihilistic would probably find this idea to be a doomed attempt to find meaning in the past. Just being negative doesn't make you nihilist.
Pessimism is better than nihilism?
I'd say it was more "anti-nihilstic" or "hopeful nihilistic"
"it's a great time to be a tolkien fan"
sweet child
so innocent
Do you ever get that exhausting feeling of nostalgia/awe when talking or thinking about Tolkien and his works? For me Tolkien has been a spiritual and mental guide of sorts, he has given me hope in the darkest hour and beauty and joy into the declining world. I feel somehow connected or bound to him.
There is something completely ungraspable about the beauty of his works.
"For if joyful is the fountain that rises in the sun, its springs are in the wells of sorrow unfathomable at the foundations of the Earth."
Well said! Thanks for sharing.
this made me cry. thank you :)
true.
That is the mark of a scholar of mythology and languages very deeply read in his fields and very understanding of the point of that kind of writing. He was able to relate his story based on the deepest understanding of what had gone before. The deep grounding of his scholarship is one reason why he will likely remain irreplaceable, as who else has that foundation or the dedication necessary to achieve it? And is then willing to combine and reinvent it for his times in lengthy works?
I think Joseph Campbell is a fantastic source for many of the same ideas, but outside of a few works and his interviews with Bill Moyers, nowhere near as entertaining.
These days there are people like Jordan Peterson espousing some of the same ideas, or similar, but he is weak sauce compared to people better versed in primary sources and more considered and easily eloquent because of it. Tolkien: like William Golding, something about the lost childhood of the world, but also something positive. Campbell: Follow your bliss, and endure the hardship and unhinging of the spirit necessary to do so; also, you might not come back alive. Peterson: Clean up your room.
No. I don't. Nice films. But boring philosphy. Didn't age well.
.
Considering Tolkien found hope and guidance through his faith in Christ, you may also want to consider Christianity. God bless.
I want a whole trilogy about hobbits in the shire. Never leaving to have adventures, just eating 2nd breakfasts and smoking a pipe for 9 hours
That's what daily vlogs are for
my man here
@@alexlu2737
welcome today's vlog guys and today we're gonna be pulling out potatoes from Mr. Orgos field and do a 3-weed pipe challanege
@@pol8808 sounds about right
Yes indeed. The best part of the Jackson trilogy is the extended opening in The Shire.
Did I miss the bit when Tolkien being a Professor of Anglo-Saxon was mentioned? His interest in Norse legends?
Smoke Longbottom Leaf every day.
Carcaine I prefer some Old Toby
--- Snoop Tookie Took.
Blaze it, dawg
It's all about that Sweet Galenas
Walking down The Road, Smokin Toby, sippin on Old Winyards. (Got my mind on my gold pouch, and my gold pouch on my mind)
According to Lewis, they became friends due to their shared love of myth, particularly Norse mythology while Lewis was still an atheist. Lewis thought Christianity was just another myth, but Tolkien convinced him it was the one myth that was historically true. You guys discussed his view of history being pessimistic but that history will have a happy ending that will come unexpectedly when all seems lost, one might say "like a thief in the night." It seems to me that one would have to go to great pains to mention Tolkien and Lewis' friendship and their shared views on myth and history and fail to mention their shared religious views which is prevalent throughout the writings of both men and was the uniting force of the Inklings.
ruclips.net/video/YIKKZjpAA0M/видео.html
Lewis had been religious and dropped it. Tolkien brought him back to religion. Agnostic would be a better description than atheist.
@@Richard_Nickerson Lewis says in quite a bit of his work that he was an atheist. Surprised by Joy is entirely about how he came to be a Christian, as well as his allegorical book Pilgrim's Regress.
@@Richard_Nickerson Yes. No true atheist "becomes" religious. As I don't believe any true religious person would really lose their faith and suddenly become an atheist. As much as I can't become religious (it's just not in me, I can't swallow it and I can't have my life guided by faith), I don't think my brother can give up his Christian faith and become an atheist like me. But that's fine. If you need reasoning to explain your faith, it's not true faith, and if bad things happening to you make you give it up, it's not true faith either.
Likewise, if fear of death makes an "atheist" turn religious, he/she was never a real atheist to begin with.
@@alexandresobreiramartins9461
I've heard plenty of stories of religious people dropping their faith and becoming atheists
@@alexandresobreiramartins9461 It sounds like you're suggesting that a person can't really change their worldview. That's silly.. of course they can. Your argument is an informal logical fallacy known as the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. You're also misunderstanding some basic definitions here. Typically the word "faith" is used in two different ways. The way you seem to be thinking of it is in the sense of believing by will, without reason. That kind of faith is what is known as Fideism. That was how Kierkegaard thought of it. The other way the word "faith" is used is synonymous with trust, in which one has reason to have faith. If someone makes a promise to you, they might say 'have faith in me to fulfill this promise.' This second sense, synonymous with trust, is the sense in which the Bible uses the word "faith." It's a popular idea among atheists today that faith is opposed to reason and vice versa. It's not true. Most of the greatest minds throughout history have believed in God. John Locke, the father of empiricism and most influential over the founding fathers of the United States wrote an essay titled "The Reasonableness of Christianity." I'm in agreement with Locke that Christianity is reasonable.
"In the Lord of the Rings the conflict is... about God, and His sole right to Divine honour." - Tolkien. Dang Wisecrack missed the mark on this one.
What are you quoting there? Would be thankful for a reference :)
@@Jul3sTh3Sh33p Here you go, it is from one of his letters: www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/2964059-letters-of-j-r-r-tolkien?page=2#:~:text=*%20In%20The%20Lord%20of%20the,any%20other%20person%20an%20abomination.
@@JamesMThayer Sweet. Cheers :)
As much as I enjoyed this video and its understanding of Tolkien, I believe you did him a great disservice to his philosophy by never once mentioning his faith which ties so deeply to his philosophy. Tolkien was seeing the world fall from the heights of the great greek and roman philosophers and even medieval ones such as St. Thomas Aquinas out of the renaissance and into post modernism which many Catholics (myself included) see as a degradation of society and its morals on the excuse of nothing really matters or ideals pertaining to or residing in nihilism. While yes technology and society (mostly justice in a sense) have moved forward and progressed, mankind in a way has lost touch with morals and we can even see now how much we live in a morally ambiguous time with no real trend to higher morality. Nietzsche declared "God is dead!" and plunged the world into a downward spiral of re-rationalizing and contextualizing the world in our own image and idea and not that of God, whom Nietzsche just believed was something humans created to derive meaning out of their own meaningless existence. His philosophy was extremely influential through the 1900s and even today, and many people use it to justify their ideas and how the world should be (aka the sexual revolution, transgenderism, the gay pride movement, the weird trend to socialism and hate of capitalism, so on and so forth, these are seen by Catholics as key examples to how society has fallen apart and now only sees to indulge themselves) and now we look at the world as trending towards downfall. but there is still God and we can trust in him to shows us the way, much like Estel. god is the way the truth and the light, and he will always be there to help us when we are most in need, and thats were we get stuff like miracles and what not, our own real forms of deus ex machina, divine intervention.(the reality of this comment is I just beat Nier Automata and as much as I really enjoyed the game (I highly recommend it honestly), it is heavily with ideas of nihilism, it even directly quotes Nietzsche, and you determine your existence and death of the author and so on and so forth, which I highly disagree with as I see it is as the rationalization of the Doomer philosophy and the best way to experience and decide on existence for the atheist or agnostic, so Ive just been really annoyed as of late with modern philosophy) sorry for the long text blob, but this video just kinda ironically shows what Tolkien feared, you basically secularized him and left out one of his core views to create a narrative that he just believed there were abstract things like "good" and "evil" so as to not (understandably in this day in age, a testament to the failure of society rn) make anyone unhappy as most people today are atheist and dont like the mention of God or whatnot. I don't mean this too be rude in any way as the actions taken make sense but it is just very disappointing as a long fan of Tolkien and his work and this just did not do enough Justice to him and his work. Other then that this is very comprehensive and good!
Someone give this man a medal! 🥇🏅
You really should have mentioned Tolkien's Christianity, as that is a big part of how he wrote all his works and portrayed evil.
Bringing up Christianity is a sure way to get demonized.
@@drewpamon But it contextualizes Tolkien's worldview is what I meant, not that what you said implies that you don't agree, but what keeps Wisecrack from talking about it?
They are trying to write out his religious views as it goes against the secular perspective they have.
@@edwardaugustus9680 If you're implying censoriousness on their part I have to disagree with you, but let's drop it okay?
"as it goes against the secular perspective they have." But it's not their worldview they're talking about, it's Tolkien's? It's a real misrepresentation of his worldview to leave religion out of an explanation of the worldview of someone so religious. A secular perspective doesn't mean you have to hide or ignore the truth about someone you're talking about.
@@edwardaugustus9680
I don't know about this whole 'everything is getting worse' idea. I read children of Hurin, and let me tell you, Morgoth does stuff that makes Sauron look like an angry kitten. And Shelob's mom makes Shelob look roughly the size of an actual spider. Seems like the evil's getting weaker to me.
The good is getting weaker too though. The elves are leaving, the dwarves are dying out, heroes like Earendil sailing his flying ship and killing Ancalagon the black and the beautifully contructed kingdoms like Gondolin and Numenor, are now gone, and similar heroes doing similar impressive feats and building similar kingdoms are few and far between, once the third and fourth ages come around.
Evil is also getting worse
Cole Napier Thus ,for good to become stronger again, evil also must grow stronger, as one cannot exist without their counterpart.
By "worse" he meant less grand and impressive. So by that standard it fits perfectly. The bad guys were more powerful and epic in the past, the cities grander, the good guys were stronger, men lived longer, etc.
Ed oooh.....ok.
How? How can you mention impersonal evil, other forces, and the entire concept of eucatastrophe, without mentioning the strong Catholic faith that drove all three?
The conflict between good and evil, and the fall from grace of powerful, great beings, the INTERNAL battle so characteristic of theological philosophy, these are linked vitally to Tolkien’s faith.
The fundamental idea of the miracle, of the guiding will of a good force beyond this world, is a Christian concept.
You missed the entire point of this philosophy. History declines because evil corrupts it, yes, but it is the combination of good and trust in HIGHER POWERs that make the stand.
Fundamentally, there is a trust that the miracle, the eucatastrophe, will happen, and thus history is FAR better than it might have been, and echoes of previous ages come down through time, all the way to us today.
Its not, Christian believes were created based on the Egyptian/Greek mythologies.
It is a rather odd omission given its significance.
@@delasee1383 Tolkien's works use also Greek, Egyptian, Hindu and Norse mythologies in it, they would have to work twice as hard to cover all instead of giving preference to a small portion of it.
@@DaimonAnimations Do you have an example though? Because I am not aware of any Egyptian, Hindu, or Greek concepts in the Lord of the Rings that cannot also be found in Norse mythology.
@@delasee13831. The one ring ( The Nibelungen ring - Norse mythology)
2. Ainur and the story of creation (Greek Mythology, the creation of Gaia and the Primordials, the titans, the Olympian Gods and Daemons.)
3. The eye of Sauron ( The eye of Horus - Egyptian mythology)
4. the Great war of Morgoth (Hindu Mahabarata the war of the Gods - The Greek Titanomachy and Gigantomachy, War of the Gods vs the Titans)
5. The Nazgul (inspiration from the Valkyries in Norse mythology and Daemons in the Greek)
6. Balrog (possibly Daemon and monsters inspiration from the Greek mythology)
Elves (Norse Mythology)
7. The wizards and Sauron (Daemons - Greek mythology)
I can give plenty more.
12:27 "Morgoth, who was himself more powerful than all the forces of good in the world combined." Umm, that's not actually true, and is also never stated on Tolkien's legendarium. What is stated though, is that Morgoth was of equal power as Manwë (if not a bit more powerful). Morgoth was "easily" defeated in the War of Wrath.
He wasted his power by reshaping the world at a whim not to mention also he
got crippled by Fingolfin & kept Silmarils stuck onto his forehead while they burned him.
The only thing Morgoth really wanted was to corrupt stuff & in that sense he succeeded.
The Lord of the Rings is of course afundamentally religious and Catholic work -J RR Tolkien
Assumably for Tolkien the euchastrophe was god. I believe that tolkien was catholic, and therefore assumably believed in god and his salvation and "second coming"
So in the World of middle Earth, would it be Eru Iluvatar ?
clement boutaric i'm not sure what you mean by that
@@franticranter
Since Eru Iluvatar is somewhat God, is he going to euchastrophe the world ?
clement boutaric maybe the middle earth world
I remember reading that Tolkien explained that Iluvatar intervened in key points of the story, for example causing Gollum to fall into Mt Doom.
3:01 I love that kind of thing. The guy's sitting there playing an empty bottle with his eyes locked, deadpan, on the camera. It humanizes someone that lived over a century ago and, just for a moment, transforms that small snippet of what would otherwise be a stark, grey clip into a 3-dimensional moment I can easily imagine myself experiencing. It's not that I don't know things like that happened generations ago, even amidst a world war, but it creates an emotional link. He's more than just a historical figure living his tough, austere life. In fact, I know people like him--at least in terms of his sense of humour.
I don’t understand how you can go through all of this and not mention the man’s catholic faith.
William Morris had an enormous impact on Tolkien's social philosophy, and I would recommend anyone with an interest in Tolkien to read Morris's essays on politics and aesthetics, as well as Morris's fantasy stories.
"Y'all should hear my dad talk about Gondolin when Turgon was king."
As for any inner meaning or ‘message,’ it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical…. I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. - J.R.R. Tolkien
5:40 I drive past that mill everyday to work! And he's right it looks horrible
It's in sarehole mill, Birmingham, England
Frodo gave in because he had a lower constitution score than Bilbo
He rolled a 1 on his d20 😂
LOL and much lower than Sam, who took the ring and had no issue giving it up, and no longing or temptation to keep it.
Sam rolled a 20.
Why? Was that Havel's ring?
Sam held the ring I lay for a few seconds. Even Frodo was willing to hand over the ring to Gandalf after just a few moments holding it. After a few weeks, he was willing to part with it and place it on the pedestal with hesitation. I believe that the corruption is predominately from using it, not so much from possessing it.
Also, it was a Willpower check that Frodo failed, not Constitution. The first Middle-earth roleplaying game was RoleMaster based, not D20. For a D20 version, it would have been a Wit check (or Wit save check in 5e).
To be precise Sam had the ring for more than a few seconds, in the book it was more than a day.
"Later, Agent Smith doing his best Morpheus impression-"
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA 😂🤣😂🤣😂
"There, peeping among the cloud-rack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach."
-- J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King.
I have no explanation as to why this line evokes within a powerful emotion within so cold-hearted a person as me.
I'd like to add that Tolkien's hope came from his strong Catholic faith.
As well as his pessimism
Indeed. Christ Jesus himself proclaimed that his presence as King in Heaven would be felt by worsening disasters and world conditions because of his kicking out the Devil, and the very last moments before his arrival on Earth for Armageddon would be marked by a "great tribulation, the likes of which has never been seen before, nor would be seen again." So Tolkein having a firm faith portrayed by Deus Ex Machina in the stories about 'history always getting worse' should be noted and considered in any discussion of his philosophy.
Please do C.S. Lewis!
Yes mere christianity
Doing C.S. Lewis would be all-out theology.
I doubt Wisecrack will go there.
Talking about Tolkien without mentioning religion is a pretty incomplete picture, but it's possible.
But when talking about Lewis, you'll barely find anything that is not directly linked to christianity.
And from what I can tell, when Wisecrack discusses theological themes, it always does so in the context of other contexts.
See all the times they mention Kirkegaard.
I saw the two towers 9 times at the dollar theater when I was 11. Lotr was my childhood lol
Is this a 2 towers and 9/11 joke?
eirqiz oh no lol. I just saw it 9 times and I was 11 when it came out.
I call this beauty, the Wang Trade Center, it gets hit by penis planes in the month of shlongtember. Never forget, not a single penis plane hit talleywaker number 7.
Jizz fuel cannot melt steel boners.
Can relate. I was 8 and the tape (lol) we borrowed from the local video store then was watched twice everyday for a week! 😂
Tolkien was a Christian, that's why he believed what he did.
Estel is trust, hope or faith.
That’s one of the more interesting philosophies I’ve learned about on this channel. Good watch!
As others have mentioned, leaving Tolkein's devout Catholicism out of the video was a huge oversight. The "long defeat," eucatastrophe, and estel are all obviously and easily analogous to Christian theological concepts that were the foundations to Tolkein's worldview. I kept waiting for you to mention it after each of these points, and am honestly perplexed as to why you didn't. I mean, Tolkein was famously critical of allegory, but that didn't stop him from weaving in these concepts, because these concepts, endowed to him by his religious tradition, were so fundamental to how he believed the world works. I understand religion can be a sensitive topic, but considering the long-lasting effects and influence Christianity has had on Western philosophy, both directly and adverse reactions, I hardly see how you can talk about philosophy and ignore religion. I mean the two need not go hand-in-hand, one need not be religious to engage with philosophy or ethics, but they very often do go hand-in-hand. To leave it out entirely, and chalk his views up to solely his experiences of industrialization and WWI is just... dishonest? It is possible to talk about it in a neutral, academic way without being preachy. This is all coming from a non-christian who disagrees with Tolkein philosophically despite her undying love of LotR. I love your philosophy videos, usually, but this one was a let-down.
everything decays and fades away and gives room for new things that are destined for the same processes
its the single most ABSOLUTE truth in the universe.
all things end
thats why in all cultures the only place u can achieve an ETERNAL state of perfection/suffering is hell/heaven, a place not bound by the laws of the universe that we know.
even the elves in Tolkien's universe fade, Legolas himself says this, all things under the sun will fade, true they will "shift" into another state of existence (the shadow world) and await the end times but they will "change" eventually.
This. All around us is evidence of decay. You can see the ruins of once magnificent buildings, stumps of trees that were alive for hundreds of years, elders who were once young and beautiful. All of this constantly reminding you of the fate your little slice of time will be someone else's past, and their time some else's as well.
@Tarek Chamas
Do you mean Entropy?
According to Physics everything goes along with Entropy.
That is except Life.
Shiiiet, Children you call those cities? In my day, Tirion was the place to be. Now THAT'S a city. Come home at the end of the day, and the dust you kick off your boots was made of diamonds.
But more regally, of course.
LOL or Khazad Dum in its glory days!
In a 1971 BBC Radio 4 interview (I think the audio is on youtube), when the reporter said he think that Middle Earth was "this world we live in but at a different era," Tolkien answered "No ... at a different stage of imagination, yes." It seems that later in his life he abandoned the idea of a continuity between his stories and our history. Anyway, thanks for this great video!
Where is that World War One footage from? Looks like a movie... maybe War Horse? Anybody know? 3:07
JUST FINISHED SILMARILLION YES!!!
Good for you
Best book ever. Hate that Christopher took out the Final Battle, though.
Just starting it. :3
Me too, beginnig the hobbit
Tolkien and I share something in common...aside from being fantasy writers and our love on ancient cultures, histories and mythology.
Like him, I also believe that progress is as much a curse as it is a blessing (and I use the second term loosely.) Yes; social and technological advancement has brought us many things like better medicine, easier forms of communication like e-mails, quicker modes of travel and such.
But like Tolkien feared; the more technologically advanced we become, the more the natural world dies/disappears. Think of how many beautiful fields of grass and flowers were mowed over to put another Wal-Mart on top of it or think of all the beautiful creatures that have been killed for the purpose of "looking good."
Worse still is the fact that technology is reducing human interaction. Thanks to instant messaging, things like Skype or Google Home or cellphones. People think they don't need to talk to people face to face anymore.
They think "why get up and talk to somebody, when I can just lie here and do it on my phone?"
The biggest sin, to me is the fact people aren't reading anymore. Instead of valuing a good book, they prefer something "easier to read" on a screen and "easier to carry." Personally, I feel a book is much more personal to have than a Kindle.
I mean; once an EMP hits and all technology shuts down, what will you do for entertainment or knowledge.
So; in the end, advancement is a bit of a double-edged sword. While it CAN do great good for us, it also creates great evil; like Tolkien always feared
Wow you sound unendingly pretentious and punchable. Communication is communication, it doesn't matter if its done face to face, by email, or by carrier pigeon, you're still communicating. I will agree that unchecked industrialism can ruin the environment and we should conserve animals as much as possible, but technology isn't to blame for that. It's the corporations that control the tech. There are plenty of planet-safe alternatives MADE BY TECHNOLOGY that don't destroy the planet. Also, it is a far better world nowadays than it was hundreds of years ago. For one thing, racism and sexism are far weaker than they once were, and we're slowly fixing homophobia one law at a time. Not to mention before all this technology people lived to the ripe old age of twelve and crapped in rivers.
@@ravenfrancis1476 Much of what you say is true...save for the "pretentious and punchable" part. But as of late, I've seen racism and sexism escalating quite highly (in some circles.) One such example I can provide are all those wishing harm upon transgenders because of what they chose to do (namely change their sex.)
As for the rest, while you ARE right that technology is helping us live longer and cleaner lives. I've seen people become slaves to it, just like how Tolkien wrote Gollum became a slave to the ring.
If he were alive today, I imagine he'd hate how people are forsaking books in favor of more "convenient' means of reading like Kindles or "reading" on an IPad. Nope; for people like me, we'd prefer the actual physical copy of a story than a digital one
Joe actually people are more racist today than ever before, the explosion of contact globally has created racism on levels it was never at before.
Examples, Medieval Europeans did not think they were superior to all other races, nor did any other people around the world at that time. Then it was my town, or my kingdom is better or superior. The father you go back in history the less racism there is. Rome and the Ancient Empires are prime examples, none of the saw themselves as racially superior, only culturally superior. HUGE difference, racism is hate, cultural pride/nationalism is about a belief in the importance of your culture. Oh and yes some cultures are better than others, today it is western culture, 1000 years ago it was Chinese culture - most technologically advanced, most benefits for working class and serfs, most opportunities to gain social mobility. Two thousand years ago it was Roman civilization, A thousand years before that the Greek. A thousand years before that Persian and Egyptian. That is in the "old world" Most new world civilizations were more egalitarian and simplistic, the imperial civilizations were often barbaric even if they had advanced sciences and medicines.
But actual racism is something that only comes about after the 17th century in the west, a hate and belief that ones own race is superior to others was an alien concept before that. Before that the only other peoples who were truly racist were Muslims, they are the creators of race based slavery, the creators of the idea one race is superior to others. Before them it was again about the town/kingdom/empire one belonged two. Remember Roman citizens came in all colors, and all had equal rights regardless of skin color, it was class that mattered and that held true until the 16th century in the west, and 18th century in the east. Africa though had to deal with the muslim belief that blacks were subhuman dating back to the founding of the religion.
@@sadlobster1 Information is information. Communication is communication. You seek an "essence" in the things you love that goes beyond whatever stories and joys they bring. You're looking for some ineffable quality of "nature" or "oldness" that, by definition, can't be replicated by modern means. Why else would you describe physical copies as more "actual" than digital ones? Is there some magic property of ink-on-parchment that empowers the storytelling process? Do books contain some sort of "soul" that screens lack?
When I put it that way, the answer is "obviously not". Books aren't more godly than screens. Plows aren't more righteous than tractors. Swords aren't more sacred than guns. Just because it's old doesn't mean it's more liberating or authentic. At best, a physical book helps you get into the mood. Great. But that's just a preference. There's nothing more "actual" about it because language and stories are a shared delusion, and the only "actual" version exists in the author's dead mind. Everything else is just a copy.
@@General12th All I'm saying is Tolkien and I find a greater beauty and appreciation for the old than we do the new.
As you said, nothing that once was cannot be replicated; which (to me) makes them all the more precious. I mean, I've yet to see the same amount of beauty and culture in today's world than what humanity once had in the Renaissance.
Maybe what I'm praising IS a matter of preference. But what does reading a book digitally have that would cause people to prefer THAT over a physical book
"Stories that have been passed down, altered, and inevitably corrupted"
Sounds familiar 🤔
Sounds like history.
@@delasee1383 And Catholicism.
@conan263 "I know we're bad, but have you seen the Muslims?"
Solid comment there Hannity
Sounds like Star Wars😎
Good gracious, that was quite a dance around Tolkein's religious beliefs influencing his works and worldview.
How do you make a 20 minute video on Tolkein's philosophy without so much as mentioning his Catholic faith which inspired most of his work? That's such a huge fail that I find it hard to believe that this wasn't an intentional omission.
Now we need video on Pratchett and progression of the Discworld, to balance it out.
Absolutely!
More, more!!!! This should be it’s own series!
"I give hope to the world but keep none for me" 😭😭😭
I've lived within half an hours drive of Sarehole for the past two years, and I only got around to visiting it last week. If anyone is ever in Birmingham and you're a Tolkien fan, I recommend checking it out, as well as Moseley Bog - its a surreal, wild and beautiful place in the midst of Birmingham's urban sprawl, and you really get a sense of what Tolkien felt he had lost. On the map it just looks like a tiny, tiny bit of woodland, smaller than most parks - you can walk across it in ten minutes - but it really is quite a special place.
Well I think he was right. There's not a war (not in a global scale at least) being waged in our time, but conflict is everywhere, and worse than it ever was!
Tolkien's entropic view of history fits in very well with Nordic/Danish philosophic views pre-conversion to Christianity. The world will continue to decay from the great works of Rome until the days of Ragnarok.
Honestly though, it would suck to be part of the Roman Empire if you weren't Roman
This is beautiful. It truly is. Thank you
IIRC the reason for decay over time on middle earth was due to Melkor’s corrupting of the land during the first age and wars. You did a good job of explaining how the things got worse over time but the cause was Melkor’s corruption. Video could’ve used more Silmarillion references but overall good job.
Beautiful video. It's rare to find someone who really understands the nature of Tolkien's motivations and writing.
Great video! Thanks Wisecrack!
This was very interesting and I learned lots of new things (and words!:) but I think you missed the most important element of Tolkien's philosophy: his Catholic outlook. The Biblical 'Fall' must have strongly influenced his view of the present as always inferior to the past; the force that guided good in the world was Iluvatar (God) and his 'Estel' for a good ending must have been his faith in the final victory of good from the Bible.
No more 8-bit philosophy, i do love the philosophy of videos though
Could have saved a lot of time explaining his worldview by just mentioning he was Catholic.
Wisecrack, historian of religion here. This was an entertaining video. The colored footage of Tolkien was a special treat. And as many here have pointed out, the absence of Tolkien's religiosity is a severe oversight. Most of what you diagnose as "philosophy" is more accurately characteristic of religion, not philosophy. For example, you (rightly) point out that Tolkien viewed history as a cycle. He abhorred the progressivist historiography that time is a straight line on an upward incline, suggesting that everything, and everyone, is improving, advancing, or progressing. Tolkien instead asserted that a human living a thousand years ago may, indeed, be morally superior to one living today. However, comparing Tolkien's "cyclical" historiography with Ovid or Hesiod is a mistake. These classical pagan writers believed history was literally repetitive, caught in a hellish and unending cycle. Tolkien believed history was "cyclical," but not like a closed loop. It was more like a spiral: history is marked by people and events which parallel one another, but unlike the pagan writers, Tolkien saw history as actually going somewhere and (eventually) ending. And as you hint at in the video, this ending is a eucatastrophe: a consummate triumph of the good, the true, and the beautiful and the complete defeat of all evil. Until the end of the ages, we are embroiled in a world where great evil holds sway, but through it we can glimpse flashes of the inevitable eucatastrophe. Moreover, Tolkien identifies this understanding of history with his religion:
“Actually I am a Christian, and indeed a Roman Catholic, so that I do not expect 'history' to be anything but a 'long defeat' - though it contains (and in a legend may contain more clearly and movingly) some samples or glimpses of final victory.”
Tolkien's understanding of history is not at all unique. It is a part of his religious heritage. The understanding of history as a spiral resolving in an eschaton is a distinctly Christian idea, first articulated in the writing of St. Augustine of Hippo. You will not find it in pagan or secular societies, except as a token borrowed from Christianity. Confusing this for "philosophy" is a misunderstanding of philosophy, or at least a misapprehension of where such philosophy is sourced. Secondly, forgoing any mention of Tolkien's religion can only be interpreted as deliberate, and represents a great failure to understand Tolkien's own writings. As he said:
"The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like 'religion', to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism."
Tolkien was no secularist, politely neglecting to mention any religion in his story out of concern for sensitive readers. Rather, as he says, he does not mention religion because his book is fundamentally (and intentionally) religious in character; it is an icon of the Catholic tradition which he observed devoutly his entire life, rendered in fiction.
All this to say, you (one suspects, deliberately) mislabel as philosophy what in reality belongs to (and what Tolkien explicitly credits to) religion. This is problematic for a number of reasons:
1. It diminishes representation of religious people, modernity's last faux pas.
2. It mischaracterizes what Tolkien believed in the manner he believed it.
3. It mistranslates and misrepresents Tolkien's work and why he wrote it the way he did.
You guys always have great discussions on stuff like this. i look forward to it.
This was wonderful, high quality as always. But I think now you will have to do another Tolkien video that actually is about how faith/religion influencing his work and philosophy.
Perhaps Tolkien's view of history is pessimistic, but his history extends all the way the the creation of the universe. Just as our own universe in Tolkien's entropy is the driving function of all things. All life will end, all stars will die, everything good will end, and all substance and energy will become diffuse, random, and chaos.
However, just like our universe entropy is the driving force to produce all that is good to begin with, as the transfer of energy from low to high (for Tolkien's the eternal clash of the supernatural forces of good and evil, as evil overtakes good) causes eddies of entropy when miracles and goodness can exist, even in an existence doomed to chaos outright.
Me: I will be good. I will limit my yelling despite spending a fair amount of personal and academic time on Tolkien's work.
*five seconds later*
Me: That is... literally wrong.
*continues yelling the entire video*
Me: At least they'll mention his Catholicism. Right? RIGHT?
*never mentions Catholicism*
Me: Wow. WOW. I have seen many interpretations on the philosophy of Tolkien and not a single one of them "forgot" to mention his faith. WOW.
This is probably my favorite Wisecrack video!
CS Lewis and Tolkien held an Augustinian view of evil. Evil was the absence of good, and the only way to oppose it was to do good. Evil can only last by feeding off of good, and consequently will destroy itself. This is why the good act of sparing Golems life pays off: as Frodo collapses to evil, Gollems own evil causes evil to destroy itself.
Interesting how this video doesn’t make the connection between Tolkien’s “Estel” concept and his Christian Faith.
The oversimplification is strong with this one...
Please make a Video about Steins Gate.It’s a great series about fate.
I second this! Best anime series ever!
The most annoying part of Steins Gate is how it ends three times exactly the same way.
@@ze_rubenator fuck you for spoiler
good job wisecrack. as a fan myself its something to sincerely enjoy thinking about
I must watch this video at least once a year
Tolkien Philosophy reminds me of the Futurama episode "The Late Philip J. Fry" in some sense.
I think if the title of this video is changed to ‘philosophy of lord of the rings’ it would solve a lot of debates in the comments
They probably could've touched a bit on Tolkien's Christian and/or religious influences, but to say it was hugely central may be a bit of an overstatement - Didn't JRR chastise/criticise CS Lewis for example for being too overtly Christian in his themes and tones in the Narnia series?
Like I said, they could've touched on faith playing a part, but the exact level of centrality of faith to Tolkien is up for debate I suppose
The reason why everyone is talking about it is because in a letter, Tolkien stated that the LOTR was fundamentally a Catholic work. The interesting question is how it can be a Catholic work while Tolkien himself also said that he dislikes allegory in any form? To say that his religious views were at the center of his writing is not an understatement, but to try to decipher what he meant is what we all would like to know, and perhaps could’ve been an interesting video for wisecrack. Either way i think it was a solid video. Was it exhaustive, certainly not...to reduce the philosophy of a life to 20 minutes is bound to cut corners, but it was still a great start.
At 5:17. I mean, yeah, Tolkien would DEFINITELY think that our technological progress was making us worse as human beings. He had been born in 1892, at the peak of the Belle Epoque, when things in Europe were peaceful and all these new gadgets were making the world a better place. Then in 1914, when he was 22 years old, he was thrown in the trenches of World War I, which shattered whatever optimism he had with human progress. He was definitely part of the "Lost Generation" when he emerged out of that hellhole at 26 years of age--hard-bitten and almost nihilistic. Then he saw the rise of fascism and the Great Depression, and then the horrors of World War II in his 50s, culminating with the Nazi death camps and the atomic bombs dropped on Japan. His whole adult life Tolkien was seeing civilization destroy itself with more advanced weapons and technology. Clearly this would make him deeply pessimistic about the "progress of history" in general.
Can anyone tell me if there a name for the music that starts at 4:33?
From what I can tell, this channel seems to be very open to explicitly pointing out when they perceive well-written stories to subvert religious ideas/expectations/values, but just can’t quite explicitly point out when deeply religious ideas play a key role in such stories - even when they clearly do!
Seems like an interpetation of Estel may be the second coming.
How about the philosophy of George RR Martin
Sex and death
It’s similar to Warhammer 40k philosophy. In essence, grimdark
Everyone sucks.
@@spyrosw9 I guess you could see it like that
@Actionbastard well I guess I will be waiting for the next 2 decades then
Well said, I've always had trouble finding the words to describe the nostalgic feeling LotR gave me as a youngster. The way the ruins of ancient civilizations in Tolkien's world sparked a longing for grander times, the way it even gave me chills as that eery background music played at the beginning...this video helped understand what it was about LotR that made it so interesting.
Another point about evil is that Tolkien implied that it would destroy itself. This is why it is Gollums fumbling that destroys the ring, and not Smeagol willingly tossing it in a final act of defiance against Gollum.
3:19 I like how there are no captions for this section because you can't understand what in gods name Tolkien is trying to say...
Catholicism: elista
Wisecrack: l ve never met this man before in my life.
This video is a Masterpiece!! you are Spot On!! Fantastic job! Also Catholics are pressed. Tolkien's World goes far beyond his religious beliefs and he hated analogies despite the fact that he said that his work has a christian foundation
Very impressive analysis! Thank you!
You forgot to mention that Tolkien was raised by his mother AND a Catholic priest. There are many correspondences where he explicitly states that his faith heavily informed his work. To leave such a glaring aspect out of your treatment seems deliberate.