As a lifelong Tolkien enthusiast I think you have missed a key aspect of his philosophy. His mother converted to a Catholic when he was 8, and from that age he was raised in the pre-Vatican II tradition. That was vehemently anti-utilitarian. The concept of the "greater good" is anathema. There is good, which is outside humanity and is eternal, and there is evil. Humans strive to become good, and join with the angels and saints at God's side. Evil works to prevent this through temptation and appeals to our selfish urges and desires.
The difference between Aragorn and Denethor - note spelling ;) - is that unlike Denethor, he did not let despair overwhelm him. He had faith in the ultimate triumph of good over evil. He understood that the first act in achieving that triumph is to hold strong to that belief. The difference between Faramir and Boromir was that Boromir gave in to temptation, and rationalised it as being "for the greater good". This is the attraction of Utilitarianism. We can use it to justify evil acts because we pretend, or imagine, that such a "greater good" exists. It does not. Good is personal. It's about our individual struggle. An act is either good or it is not. The old way of putting this, which Catholicism taught, was "the end never justifies the means". That is at the heart of Tolkien's philosophy. Gandalf or Aragorn could not take the ring to wield it for good, because it, the means, was evil. It corrupted and twisted the wielder.
We can see the appeal to utilitarianism (as a form of temptation) everywhere in LOTR and in practice in our world. So many acts of evil are justified on the grounds of the "greater good". But, evil acts can never deliver good in the true sense. They corrupt us and they erode our eternal soul. At least, that is the traditional Catholic view - I would say that they do corrupt us, and that they allow us to pretend that selfish acts or short-term expedience can make the world better. In the end, the only way to make the world better is by us all becoming better people. We can only do this by sticking to our principles and values.
Enjoyed. Thanks. My only doubt/reservation is that as I’m sure you know, Tolkien’s legendarium as a whole (of which LOR was a small part), was really a mythology about elves primarily, and he has a kind of metaphysics as well as a politics, in which humans are well advised to realise that they are somehow between orcs and elves in a kind of tacit Neoplatonic emanation. In this sense more could be said about the underlying theories of freedom in play, and how humans being freer than orcs but less free than elves implicates any tacit political theory. It feels like Tolkien thinks there is a meaningful sense in which we become free, rather than merely being free. The absence of democracy is also noteworthy, though there is a nod to it in the way the shire organises itself. Anyway. Well done. 👍
Thanks so much for this Jonathan. I will admit that I have not studied the legendarium at the depth of a proper Tolkien scholar, but I'm certainly interested to explore it more. Thanks for the support
Thank you, Brett, for this lovely imagining. I, too, noticed the strange naming conventions of the tech lords and I much appreciate you putting names right.
Ha ha. Well, sometimes being diplomatic about the old tyrant can help. I'm not particularly interested in demonizing him, because that almost pushes him into the realm of being Sauron, which I think Trump wouldn't mind, because he likes the power associated with that characterisation, and so doesn't care if you think he's the devil, whereas the Dethenor figure is altogether more tragic, and that's one thing Trump does not want to be seen as
You're right. No extraneous demonization required for ageing serial rapists. But let's scratch "clarity" and "honour" as FAR too charitable. The orange fartbag does have moments of lucidity, and even coherence (though fleeting). That's as much as I'll grant you!
What about the ring being the petroldollar?(endless debt spreaded across the world as everybody accept it) One tool to control every tool-servant-corrupted?
Below is a list of similarities between the ring and the financial system, as well as the petro-dollar(a fiat currency that everyone is forced to accept) :
1. The ring makes you invisible; you can act without being seen by others.
The financial system makes people do what it wants (your beautiful metaphore of nervous system..) without revealing who is pulling the strings.
2. The ring corrupts everyone who touches it. It makes you want more and more of it, leaving you with an insatiable craving and consuming you, letting you dry and without any possible different will..
Money does the same: once you get used to using it, you can't avoid it.
Your wishes come true without any effort, leaving you with a sense of chronic dissatisfaction that drives you to ask for more and more without ever feeling satisfied (satisfaction is directly proportional to the effort made).
It transforms you into a filthy creature that would sell his/her mother just to have it, a dry, cold, unempathical creature.
You feel empowered because you command others, but actually you are delegating everything and becoming less and less empowered.
You are no longer able to do things like cook, build a table, walk a few kilometres, project something, etc.
At the same time, the ring demands that you feed it by serving other "bigger" servants.
And all of these servants are serving finance.
We could see finance people as Nazgûl spirits, consumed by the ring-money-power.
Maybe the King of the Nazgûl could be Larry Fink, unkillable neither influensable by other man/state, with his access to Aladdin/Sauron's eye etc...
The ring was maybe completed in Jekyll Island...
Isildur retarded the ring's power cutting Sauron's finger, could be seen like Andrew Jackson "i killed the bank" without destroing the possibility to rebuild one, maybe Jefferson too is a bit Isildur...
Brilliant! Resonates deep and true. I find the unwatchable Pentagon agitprop Rings of Power to be an attempt to rewrite Tolkien to conform to their adolescent sociopathic POV. When I realized that Musk was a nastier version of my 16 year old self as an adult (I finished reading LOTR for the 16th time on my 16th birthday) it began to crack open the belief system being shoveled down our throats. This clarified the BS even more. Thank you
As a fellow Tolkien enthusiast, may I humbly suggest a small alteration to the wording of your conclusion? The Shire's titular "scouring" (a word for abrasive cleansing) refers, in my understanding, not to the political and environmental devastation wrought by Sharkey and his cronies, but to the hobbits' reluctant but decisive use of force to get rid of the blight. I'd swap it out with "despoiling" or something similar.
Thanks Ives. Well there is an interesting ambiguity there - Thiel et al imagine themselves as 'scouring' the world but, in the final analysis, they would be the force that needs to be scoured. Perhaps this weekend I can add a line to clarify the ambiguity
Enjoyed this, but…Isn’t it simpler: ‘Palantir’ as a name is a dead giveaway: it’s an evil surveillance/comms system run by a would-be all-powerful evil genius.
Right. If someone opposed to Trump's America had named a company after an occult device which was used by a demon to control the leaders of the West through fear... well I think we can be sure they would have exploited that point very well and we would already be sick of it.
As a lifelong Tolkien enthusiast I think you have missed a key aspect of his philosophy. His mother converted to a Catholic when he was 8, and from that age he was raised in the pre-Vatican II tradition. That was vehemently anti-utilitarian. The concept of the "greater good" is anathema. There is good, which is outside humanity and is eternal, and there is evil. Humans strive to become good, and join with the angels and saints at God's side. Evil works to prevent this through temptation and appeals to our selfish urges and desires.
The difference between Aragorn and Denethor - note spelling ;) - is that unlike Denethor, he did not let despair overwhelm him. He had faith in the ultimate triumph of good over evil. He understood that the first act in achieving that triumph is to hold strong to that belief. The difference between Faramir and Boromir was that Boromir gave in to temptation, and rationalised it as being "for the greater good". This is the attraction of Utilitarianism. We can use it to justify evil acts because we pretend, or imagine, that such a "greater good" exists. It does not. Good is personal. It's about our individual struggle. An act is either good or it is not. The old way of putting this, which Catholicism taught, was "the end never justifies the means". That is at the heart of Tolkien's philosophy. Gandalf or Aragorn could not take the ring to wield it for good, because it, the means, was evil. It corrupted and twisted the wielder.
We can see the appeal to utilitarianism (as a form of temptation) everywhere in LOTR and in practice in our world. So many acts of evil are justified on the grounds of the "greater good". But, evil acts can never deliver good in the true sense. They corrupt us and they erode our eternal soul. At least, that is the traditional Catholic view - I would say that they do corrupt us, and that they allow us to pretend that selfish acts or short-term expedience can make the world better. In the end, the only way to make the world better is by us all becoming better people. We can only do this by sticking to our principles and values.
Enjoyed. Thanks. My only doubt/reservation is that as I’m sure you know, Tolkien’s legendarium as a whole (of which LOR was a small part), was really a mythology about elves primarily, and he has a kind of metaphysics as well as a politics, in which humans are well advised to realise that they are somehow between orcs and elves in a kind of tacit Neoplatonic emanation. In this sense more could be said about the underlying theories of freedom in play, and how humans being freer than orcs but less free than elves implicates any tacit political theory. It feels like Tolkien thinks there is a meaningful sense in which we become free, rather than merely being free. The absence of democracy is also noteworthy, though there is a nod to it in the way the shire organises itself. Anyway. Well done. 👍
Thanks so much for this Jonathan. I will admit that I have not studied the legendarium at the depth of a proper Tolkien scholar, but I'm certainly interested to explore it more. Thanks for the support
Thank you, Brett, for this lovely imagining. I, too, noticed the strange naming conventions of the tech lords and I much appreciate you putting names right.
Thanks for the support!
Brilliant essay, though most might take issue with "Trump, like Dethenor, has moments of clarity, and even honour." None spring to mind!
Ha ha. Well, sometimes being diplomatic about the old tyrant can help. I'm not particularly interested in demonizing him, because that almost pushes him into the realm of being Sauron, which I think Trump wouldn't mind, because he likes the power associated with that characterisation, and so doesn't care if you think he's the devil, whereas the Dethenor figure is altogether more tragic, and that's one thing Trump does not want to be seen as
You're right. No extraneous demonization required for ageing serial rapists. But let's scratch "clarity" and "honour" as FAR too charitable. The orange fartbag does have moments of lucidity, and even coherence (though fleeting). That's as much as I'll grant you!
One odd phenomenon about old people suffering from dementia is the occasional moments of exceptional clarity.
What about the ring being the petroldollar?(endless debt spreaded across the world as everybody accept it) One tool to control every tool-servant-corrupted?
Well, that's an interpretation that I'll leave you to write out!
Below is a list of similarities between the ring and the financial system, as well as the petro-dollar(a fiat currency that everyone is forced to accept) :
1. The ring makes you invisible; you can act without being seen by others.
The financial system makes people do what it wants (your beautiful metaphore of nervous system..) without revealing who is pulling the strings.
2. The ring corrupts everyone who touches it. It makes you want more and more of it, leaving you with an insatiable craving and consuming you, letting you dry and without any possible different will..
Money does the same: once you get used to using it, you can't avoid it.
Your wishes come true without any effort, leaving you with a sense of chronic dissatisfaction that drives you to ask for more and more without ever feeling satisfied (satisfaction is directly proportional to the effort made).
It transforms you into a filthy creature that would sell his/her mother just to have it, a dry, cold, unempathical creature.
You feel empowered because you command others, but actually you are delegating everything and becoming less and less empowered.
You are no longer able to do things like cook, build a table, walk a few kilometres, project something, etc.
At the same time, the ring demands that you feed it by serving other "bigger" servants.
And all of these servants are serving finance.
We could see finance people as Nazgûl spirits, consumed by the ring-money-power.
Maybe the King of the Nazgûl could be Larry Fink, unkillable neither influensable by other man/state, with his access to Aladdin/Sauron's eye etc...
The ring was maybe completed in Jekyll Island...
Isildur retarded the ring's power cutting Sauron's finger, could be seen like Andrew Jackson "i killed the bank" without destroing the possibility to rebuild one, maybe Jefferson too is a bit Isildur...
I hope you can implement it or correct it or both.
It'll be boring and sloppy, but i'll try
Brilliant! Resonates deep and true. I find the unwatchable Pentagon agitprop Rings of Power to be an attempt to rewrite Tolkien to conform to their adolescent sociopathic POV. When I realized that Musk was a nastier version of my 16 year old self as an adult (I finished reading LOTR for the 16th time on my 16th birthday) it began to crack open the belief system being shoveled down our throats. This clarified the BS even more. Thank you
Man I love finding someone who just nails it on one of my fave talking points
Glad to hear it Jack
As a fellow Tolkien enthusiast, may I humbly suggest a small alteration to the wording of your conclusion? The Shire's titular "scouring" (a word for abrasive cleansing) refers, in my understanding, not to the political and environmental devastation wrought by Sharkey and his cronies, but to the hobbits' reluctant but decisive use of force to get rid of the blight. I'd swap it out with "despoiling" or something similar.
Thanks Ives. Well there is an interesting ambiguity there - Thiel et al imagine themselves as 'scouring' the world but, in the final analysis, they would be the force that needs to be scoured. Perhaps this weekend I can add a line to clarify the ambiguity
What a powerful ending! Excellent throughout.
Thanks Larry - I'm glad it has roused your inner Ent
Enjoyed this, but…Isn’t it simpler: ‘Palantir’ as a name is a dead giveaway: it’s an evil surveillance/comms system run by a would-be all-powerful evil genius.
Thiel wants to BE the Lord of the Rings.
Right. If someone opposed to Trump's America had named a company after an occult device which was used by a demon to control the leaders of the West through fear... well I think we can be sure they would have exploited that point very well and we would already be sick of it.