Was Boromir's proposed alternative strategy flawed?

[Elbereth Vala Varda]

(Still running back and forth to hospital where sister is struggling from stroke, so... time is fluid and difficult.)

Prayers for your sister, Ent! I hope she gets better!

 

[Ent]

Yes, @Diemos -
At Council of Elrond:

‘Alas, no,’ said Elrond. ‘We cannot use the Ruling Ring. That we now know too well. It belongs to Sauron and was made by him alone, and is altogether evil. Its strength, Boromir, is too great for anyone to wield at will, save only those who have already a great power of their own. But for them it holds an even deadlier peril. The very desire of it corrupts the heart. Consider Saruman. If any of the Wise should with this Ring overthrow the Lord of Mordor, using his own arts, he would then set himself on Sauron’s throne, and yet another Dark Lord would appear. And that is another reason why the Ring should be destroyed: as long as it is in the world it will be a danger even to the Wise. For nothing is evil in the beginning. Even Sauron was not so. I fear to take the Ring to hide it. I will not take the Ring to wield it.’ ‘Nor I,’ said Gandalf. Tolkien, J.R.R.. The Lord Of The Rings (p. 267). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

Then we have Melkor in AINULINDALË: first in accord, but then ‘conceived thoughts of his own’ in pride and arrogance.

“But now Ilúvatar sat and hearkened, and for a great while it seemed good to him, for in the music there were no flaws. But as the theme progressed, it came into the heart of Melkor to interweave matters of his own imagining that were not in accord with the theme of Ilúvatar; for he sought therein to increase the power and glory of the part assigned to himself. To Melkor among the Ainur had been given the greatest gifts of power and knowledge, and he had a share in all the gifts of his brethren. He had gone often alone into the void places seeking the Imperishable Flame; for desire grew hot within him to bring into Being things of his own, and it seemed to him that Ilúvatar took no thought for the Void, and he was impatient of its emptiness. Yet he found not the Fire, for it is with Ilúvatar. But being alone he had begun to conceive thoughts of his own unlike those of his brethren. Some of these thoughts he now wove into his music, and straightway discord arose about him, and many that sang nigh him grew despondent, and their thought was disturbed and their music faltered; but some began to attune their music to his rather than to the thought which they had at first. Then the discord of Melkor spread ever wider, and the melodies which had been heard before foundered in a sea of turbulent sound. But Ilúvatar sat and hearkened until it seemed that about his throne there was a raging storm, as of dark waters that made war one upon another in an endless wrath that would not be assuaged. Tolkien, J.R.R.. The Silmarillion (pp. 4-5). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

So Melkor too was not originally evil. It was not until he ‘went his own way’ in his lusts and strove against Eru that he injected discord into the harmony of Eru’s creation.

And though Melkor was given chance to repent, as was Sauron, he continued to choose his own way in pride and arrogance.

Gandalf talking to Frodo in the chapter "The Shadow of the past".

Ent does believe Gandalf repeats something quite close to it someplace, sir darkelf type person. Ent is still searching for that one. Hope to find it soon here.


The theme of mankind is always the same. Though 'born innocent' (according to some) it does not take long for mankind to fall.

 

[Deimos]

Yes, @Diemos -
At Council of Elrond:

...

Oh, I replied already in response to SeS saying that the line was spoken by Elrond, and so agree(d) with Tolkien in that "nothing is evil in the beginning."
(But I still disagree with those three statements you made in a previous post 😉)

 

[Ent]

@Diemos - and of course Gandalf says this of Saruman, fitting into the theme.
‘How far back his treachery goes, who can guess?’ said Gandalf. ‘He was not always evil. Once I do not doubt that he was the friend of Rohan;
Tolkien, J.R.R.. The Lord Of The Rings (p. 521). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.

As is said of Galadriel and Lothlorien, 'there is no evil here... except what a man might bring with him. then, let him beware" or something close to that.

 

[Ent]

So hoping this all suffices... and I see you found in your mind the passage specifically referred to before Ent even ;posted... hopefully thsi dispatches "Part A".
We will engage on "Part B" (the 2nd and 3rd conclusions) elsewhere and at an agreed upon time....
But Ent requests it be after a period, when hospital visits for sister and her condition are clearer.

 

[Deimos]

So hoping this all suffices... and I see you found in your mind the passage specifically referred to before Ent even ;posted... hopefully thsi dispatches "Part A".
We will engage on "Part B" (the 2nd and 3rd conclusions) elsewhere and at an agreed upon time....
But Ent requests it be after a period, when hospital visits for sister and her condition are clearer.

Uhh, well, no we haven't really dispatched with "Part A" , at least I haven't.

You said : No doubt Boromir spent a good ling life convincing others to his ways. Certainly his father, a fellow of very much the same birds nest, had produced a clone of himself. Neither 'started' as evil. Yet both became evil due to their own desires, lusts, choices, and devices.

The hi-lited part is one of the three assertions you made in your earlier post with which I disagree(d).
I wanted to verify the first part about "started as evil", but my immediate (and still current) disagreement with "both became evil", of that I have no doubt.

So I agree(d) with the validity of "Neither started as eviI. "
However, In the strongest possible terms I disagree with the second sentence: Yet both became evil due to their own desires, lusts, choices, and devices.
To state it concisely, I don't think or believe either Denethor or Boromir "became evil."

In any worthwhile discussion (and Tolkien's works are always worthy of discussion😁) the parties engaging in the discussion should define their terms.
Ideas, beliefs, convictions are conceived in the mind and conveyed to others by means of words. For meaningful discussion to take place, the parties must be in, or come to, agreement about the meanings of words, else it is two people trying to talk about something in two different languages.
Hence my request that you define your terms, and I will do likewise.

To begin: As soon as you used the word "became" you entered the realm of ontology.
What do you mean by "became" ?

(No hurry in answering this... I'll be here for the duration...actuarial tables say I'm still good for another 20 years or so 🙂...)

 

[Ent]

What do you mean by "became" ?

Yes, yes... actually there are two words likely worth clear definition here. "became" and "evil".

Ent will get to them later as you suggest, being again on way to hospital. We will start with 'became' as that is your focus, though it is likely in the best sense, 'evil' should really come first. (It is also likely the more controversial, though Ent believes we can come to common agreement on a definition suitable for this case in view.)

More later...today will be a good long day at hospital. Maybe not until tomorrow even. Thank you for the engaging discussion.

We should consider if it's appropriate for this thread as well... perhaps a different thread on 'good and evil in Tolkien's world' would be more suitable for the chat so this one isn't derailed. Ent is uncertain. It's related to the topic, yet focuses attention to specifics and maybe shuts others down from participating with their thoughts on the larger picture?

Anyway, "more at 11" as some newscasters used to say.

 

[Deimos]

Yes, yes... actually there are two words likely worth clear definition here. "became" and "evil".

...We will start with 'became' as that is your focus, though it is likely in the best sense, 'evil' should really come first. (It is also likely the more controversial, though Ent believes we can come to common agreement on a definition suitable for this case in view.)

More later...today will be a good long day at hospital. Maybe not until tomorrow even. Thank you for the engaging discussion.

We should consider if it's appropriate for this thread as well... perhaps a different thread on 'good and evil in Tolkien's world' would be more suitable for the chat so this one isn't derailed. Ent is uncertain. It's related to the topic, yet focuses attention to specifics and maybe shuts others down from participating with their thoughts on the larger picture?

Anyway, "more at 11" as some newscasters used to say.

If you and/or the mods want to move this discussion to a different or new thread, I'm good with that.
(I'd really like to move it to a pub, because these are the sort of discussions that typically take place in a pub near a University😁)

Yes, yes... actually there are two words likely worth clear definition here. "became" and "evil".

We will start with 'became' as that is your focus, though it is likely in the best sense, 'evil' should really come first. (It is also likely the more controversial, though Ent believes we can come to common agreement on a definition suitable for this case in view.)

omg...that is so ironic....(I am dying 😄)
You just articulated (but perhaps it was intentional?) one of the classic "fun" ontological questions:
Does essence precede existence, or does existence precede essence?

 

[Squint-eyed Southerner]

Boromir is a fascinating, if odd, character in LOTR; in a letter, Tolkien cites him as being ignored by early critics who dismissed his characters as simplistically black or white, good or evil. This discomfort has continued, as a notable paucity of index entries for him in critical studies will confirm.

He's "odd" because he's a typical High Mimetic tragic hero, incongruously stuck in a Romance story, where we do expect to see characters fall on one side or the other of the good/evil divide. The tragic hero's arc is like an inverted U: he has a great destiny nearly in his grasp, when at the pinnacle, but the last step is an act which causes his fall, whether through hubris, Aristotle's hamartia, or some other reason. I'd hesitate to use Balrog's word "arrogant" here; to invoke an image popular in the Middle Ages, he is at this point at the top of the Wheel of Fortune, too dizzy to see or reason clearly, until he falls from the height -- a literal height, with a literal fall, in Boromir's case. Only then comes the anagnorsis, the tragic recognition: "What have I said? What have I done?" "I have failed".

Questions of the nature of evil are relevant to the discussion, as they always are with Tolkien, where a tension between different concepts is ever-present. Shippey talks about this, calling it the difference between a "Boethian" view of evil as the mere absence of good, and a "Manichaean" view of evil as an active force. It's present in the descriptions of the Ring, from the very beginning, when Gandalf asks Frodo to give it to him "for a moment":

It felt suddenly very heavy, as if it or Frodo himself was in some way reluctant for Gandalf to touch it.

It or Frodo; is the Ring actively evil, or does the evil ("sin") come from within the person, drawn out by the desire for the power that seems inherent in the Ring? This ambivalence, or ambiguity, occurs at Bree, and throughout. The first is the view of "the Wise", Gandalf and the Elves; the other is, to use another of Shippey's terms, as a sort of "psychic amplifier" -- a powerful tool, which could be used for good or evil purpose, depending on the user. This appears to be approximately Boromir's view, in which he was mistaken, but understandably so, given the ambiguities surrounding it.

 

[Deimos]

Boromir is a fascinating, if odd, character in LOTR; in a letter, Tolkien cites him as being ignored by early critics who dismissed his characters as simplistically black or white, good or evil. This discomfort has continued, as a notable paucity of index entries for him in critical studies will confirm.

He's "odd" because he's a typical High Mimetic tragic hero, incongruously stuck in a Romance story, where we do expect to see characters fall on one side or the other of the good/evil divide. The tragic hero's arc is like an inverted U: he has a great destiny nearly in his grasp, when at the pinnacle, but the last step is an act which causes his fall, whether through hubris, Aristotle's hamartia, or some other reason. I'd hesitate to use Balrog's word "arrogant" here; to invoke an image popular in the Middle Ages, he is at this point at the top of the Wheel of Fortune, too dizzy to see or reason clearly, until he falls from the height -- a literal height, with a literal fall, in Bormir's case. Only then comes the anagnorsis, the tragic recognition: "What have I said? What have I done?" "I have failed".

Questions of the nature of evil are relevant to the discussion, as they always are with Tolkien, where a tension between different concepts is ever-present. Shippey talks about this, calling it the difference between a "Boethian" view of evil as the mere absence of good, and a "Manichaean" view of evil as an active force. It's present in the descriptions of the Ring, from the very beginning, when Gandalf asks Frodo to give it to him "for a moment":

It or Frodo; is the Ring actively evil, or does the evil ("sin") come from within the person, drawn out by the desire for the power that seems inherent in the Ring? This ambivalence, or ambiguity, occurs at Bree, and throughout. The first is the view of "the Wise", Gandalf and the Elves; the other is, to use another of Shippey's terms, as a sort of "psychic amplifier" -- a powerful tool, which could be used for good or evil purpose, depending on the user. This appears to be approximately Boromir's view, in which he was mistaken, but understandably so, given the ambiguities surrounding it.

Fascinating, indeed... I am not yet caught up in reading Shippey et al, as commentary. I need to get cracking on that.
Thank you for posting this.

 

[Ent]

What do you mean by "became" ?

The quote: "Neither 'started' as evil. Yet both became evil due to their own desires, lusts, choices, and devices."

Sir Deimos: dispatching the question on 'became'....

There are 3 basic meanings of "became" (become).

1. To come into existence. (In Tolkien's Christian theological world, "something from nothing." From its Greek and Hebrew roots, the same.)
2. To come to be. To undergo change or development into. (A transition from one thing into another. "Come to be" does not mean the same as #1 above.)
3. To be suitable to. (as a transitive verb.)

My meaning and application of 'became' in the quote above stems from #3 above, resulting in #2.

One must first be 'suitable to' a thing - that is, have a mental disposition toward it, before one actually 'transitions' to it. The inclination moves into practice.

Both transitioned to an evil state working itself out eventually in their actions, due to their ultimately unconquered desires and lusts, eventually transitioning into their choices, and devices.

Of course, immense external pressures played a part in feeding those inclinations - those desires and lusts... no doubt. However, both men nonetheless fell.
And there's a reason Tolkien pictures this... even with Frodo in the end. It, too, is a result of Tolkien's Christian theology and intended narrative in LoTR.

Any other questions, do advise.
But we do stray from the original posts intent, and like you, would be happy to take this piece of work to another.
Perhaps a thread: "How are Good and Evil displayed in various characters in Tolkien's works, and what are their sources?"

That could start with a discussion of definitions of "Good" and "Evil"... and of course there would be HUGE differences of opinion about the 'sources'.... but we would need to be very cautious as such a topic could descend into 'Religious discussion'. (It's very difficult to keep it at a 'theological discussion level based in opinions of Tolkien's position' instead, for many. There are too many opinions about the theology he actually held...and none of us really know, other than that it was of a Catholic bent.)

 

[Deimos]

The quote: "Neither 'started' as evil. Yet both became evil due to their own desires, lusts, choices, and devices."

Sir Deimos: dispatching the question on 'became'....

There are 3 basic meanings of "became" (become).

1. To come into existence. (In Tolkien's Christian theological world, "something from nothing." From its Greek and Hebrew roots, the same.)
2. To come to be. To undergo change or development into. (A transition from one thing into another. "Come to be" does not mean the same as #1 above.)
3. To be suitable to. (as a transitive verb.)

My meaning and application of 'became' in the quote above stems from #3 above, resulting in #2.

One must first be 'suitable to' a thing - that is, have a mental disposition toward it, before one actually 'transitions' to it. The inclination moves into practice.

Both transitioned to an evil state working itself out eventually in their actions, due to their ultimately unconquered desires and lusts, eventually transitioning into their choices, and devices.

Of course, immense external pressures played a part in feeding those inclinations - those desires and lusts... no doubt. However, both men nonetheless fell.
And there's a reason Tolkien pictures this... even with Frodo in the end. It, too, is a result of Tolkien's Christian theology and intended narrative in LoTR.

Any other questions, do advise.
But we do stray from the original posts intent, and like you, would be happy to take this piece of work to another.
Perhaps a thread: "How are Good and Evil displayed in various characters in Tolkien's works, and what are their sources?"

That could start with a discussion of definitions of "Good" and "Evil"... and of course there would be HUGE differences of opinion about the 'sources'.... but we would need to be very cautious as such a topic could descend into 'Religious discussion'. (It's very difficult to keep it at a 'theological discussion level based in opinions of Tolkien's position' instead, for many. There are too many opinions about the theology he actually held...and none of us really know, other than that it was of a Catholic bent.)

1) If you and the other Mods think this discussion should be moved to its own thread, I'm good with that.
2) Will respond soon to your reply

 

[Ent]

1) If you and the other Mods think this discussion should be moved to its own thread, I'm good with that.
2) Will respond soon to your reply

OK. Don't answer until Ent ponders this a little.
Will determine where, and a title, for a different thread, and move the applicable posts there.
UNLESS your questions regarding Ents posts relate ONLY to the Boromir situation.
If it's a broader question of the issues of 'existence, its relation to good and evil' and their demonstrations and outworkings in Tolkien's lore, another thread is in order.
Thanks.

 

[Deimos]

OK. Don't answer until Ent ponders this a little.
Will determine where, and a title, for a different thread, and move the applicable posts there.
UNLESS your questions regarding Ents posts relate ONLY to the Boromir situation.
If it's a broader question of the issues of 'existence, its relation to good and evil' and their demonstrations and outworkings in Tolkien's lore, another thread is in order.
Thanks.

I'm not certain I understand the parameters you are setting with regard to the "location" of the thread.
We are discussing in particular the ontological situations of Boromir and Denethor, but my reasoning ("arguments") would apply in any similar situation of any of Tolkien's characters, indeed to any creature that has free will AND is confronted with the ever present possibility of choosing between good and evil.
So my arguments will incorporate outside examples; that is, given Tolkien's Catholicism, they (my arguments) will also reference Catholic teaching and its parent sources Christianity and Judaism.

Meaning, I'm just sayin' I don't know where you are considering putting the thread, but the discussion will be, I think, more wide than narrow. 🙂

 

[Ent]

indeed to any creature that has free will AND is confronted with the ever present possibility of choosing between good and evil.

Free will: This is one of the tendrils of the discussion about which Ent is concerned, to be frank.

Even within Catholic tenets, there are vast differences of opinion regarding the fundamental issue of 'free will', and we don't know for certain which viewpoint Tolkien held to. Certainly between (and within) every other 'religious' viewpoint, 'mainstream' or otherwise, there are differences on tins point as well.

The insertion of such a comment can set off a wide array of responses.

With great respect, Ent suggests we not engage (at least publicly) in discussing this whole good and evil, 'being' and what its condition is, and related matters. PM would be fine.

The original post simply asks how Boromir could be so arrogant... (which does open a HUGE vista of possibility)... to which Ent would simply re-iterate his viewpoint as previously stated.

Stated differently, as it was with Melkor and Sauron, it was their unrepentant choices that took them where they ended up. And if as Tolkien's text postulates in the TEXT, 'nothing started as evil', then transitively Ent's opinion is they BECAME evil based on their inclinations followed by their choices.

One is certainly free to disagree. Even that they 'became evil'. At which point, again, we need to deal with the definition and interpretation of 'evil'.

And perhaps, a part of the quibble is Ent's use of the word 'inherently'... a word he should not have included, as it unfortunately implies things actually outside Tolkien's text as written, and is controversial in itself.

 

[Deimos]

Free will: This is one of the tendrils of the discussion about which Ent is concerned, to be frank.

Even within Catholic tenets, there are vast differences of opinion regarding the fundamental issue of 'free will', and we don't know for certain which viewpoint Tolkien held to. Certainly between (and within) every other 'religious' viewpoint, 'mainstream' or otherwise, there are differences on tins point as well.

The insertion of such a comment can set off a wide array of responses.

With great respect, Ent suggests we not engage (at least publicly) in discussing this whole good and evil, 'being' and what its condition is, and related matters. PM would be fine.

The original post simply asks how Boromir could be so arrogant... (which does open a HUGE vista of possibility)... to which Ent would simply re-iterate his viewpoint as previously stated.

Stated differently, as it was with Melkor and Sauron, it was their unrepentant choices that took them where they ended up. And if as Tolkien's text postulates in the TEXT, 'nothing started as evil', then transitively Ent's opinion is they BECAME evil based on their inclinations followed by their choices.

One is certainly free to disagree. Even that they 'became evil'. At which point, again, we need to deal with the definition and interpretation of 'evil'.

And perhaps, a part of the quibble is Ent's use of the word 'inherently'... a word he should not have included, as it unfortunately implies things actually outside Tolkien's text as written, and is controversial in itself.

I don't disagree with Tolkien (or you) that 'nothing started as evil',. I disagree with your statement that Boromir and Denethor "became" evil.
To put it plainly and concisely, I don't believe they did.
As someone stated (in another thread) Tolkien said that Denethor was moving toward becoming a tyrant; he did not say that he was (became) one.
"Moving toward" is a process toward a state different from that which one started as; "became" is a finished state, the completion of the process.
Also: To change from one moral state to another requires choosing; i.e. free will.
I do not see how we can discuss this without bringing in free will.
We may both have to define our terms; but one must start somewhere, and Tolkien since himself said LOTR was a "Catholic work" it might be good to use the Catholic definition of "free will."
If you want to take this to a PM discussion that's OK.

 

[Ent]

the crux is in the definition of 'evil.' Not in the definition of 'became'.
Let Ent ponder whether he wants to 'go there' publcly, or in a PM. It is inherently a difficult topic.
Thank you for your succinct reply.

 

[Ent]

how we can discuss this without bringing in free will.

With regard to Tolkien's text, Ent accepts the discussion has to be based on the concept of 'free will'.
Thus his response as given (save for the unfortunate inclusion of the word 'inherent'.)

Tolkien's own standpoint probably also derives from the concept that man possesses 'free will'. He seems consistent on the point throughout his work.

 

[Ent]

SO: Let's turn this around and ask you to provide a definition, as Ent provided his for "became".
(Based on Tolkien's probable theological standpoint.)

As you say they 'did not become evil' please provide your definition of 'evil'. Actually, better stated, what do you believe Tolkien's perception/view of 'evil' is. That's probably where we should seek agreement and find common ground..

(Ent will guarantee and concede your definition of evil and his are quite different...though both can be found in various "definitions of evil" in various places.)

Thank you.

 

[Olorgando]

A thought, or proposal:

Boromir and Denethor both succumbed to a temptation, each temptation having its origin with Sauron.

With Boromir it was the temptation that the One Ring presented to all "the powerful" and ambitious, to enhance their power and further their ambition. Which is why the One Ring found so little resonance in Hobbits. Boromir succumbed to the temptation - but was foiled, and so could repent.

Denethor was also tempted by Sauron. While Sauron could not dominate Denethor via the Palantir as he did Saruman, he could tempt Denethor by "selecting" what Denethor saw in it; the temptation, I would think, was to despair, and Denethor succumbed, and did not repent.

So perhaps the question might be how JRRT might have viewed succumbing to the respective temptation: would he have considered this evil?