👁️Sauron and 🧙Saruman - The Tragedy of Good Intentions

[d4rk3lf]

I stand corrected then.

Thanks for explanation.

 

[Hisoka Morrow]

Power is not the path to happiness, nor is the ultimate power something able to solve the world's problems. Tolkien's ideal king has little responsibility or impact on the lives of his subjects. He is a caretaker, not a manager, much less a dictator. Freedom, not power, is what should be strived for - but responsible freedom, one in accordance with human role in God's design, rather than the destructive freedom of the Hippie crowd. Humans are fallible, and there are no heroes who will rise up to solve the world's problems. Aragorn becomes a king of Gondor, but all he can do to win the war is offer himself and his men up as a bait in a Hail Mary move to draw Sauron's attention away from the real threat. Frodo may be the protagonist of the Lord of the Rings, but he ultimately fails in his quest to destroy the One Ring - fails at the very end. It is only through divine providence that the quest succeeds. The One Ring, as a representation of sin, is so powerful that no creature can overcome it. Only one who is resistant to Ring's call is Tom Bombadil - an impersonation of nature itself. Yet neither Sauron nor Saruman understood this, and attempted to work alone and against God's design. No matter how good their intent may have been in the beginning, their pride ultimately doomed them to fall.

Well, since real power comes from the loyalty of the leaders' followers, maybe it's up to the source and methods of gaining the power.
Those Marine Kings of Gondor truly maybe not sought, but surely gained much power, however, according to all the Gondor political traits mentioned by JRRT, we could make sure whom led these Kings weren't some slaves pushed by whips from bosses but honorable knights and citizens inspired by leaders always stood with them as brothers. Is this power?Yes, and this is real power. Of courses it's another matter these kings had unhappy lives.
On the contrary, Sauron, well, just like most of the bosses in our real life. XD

... this, both Sauron and Saruman are representatives of modernism, where man is the measure of all things. Both of them abandoned wisdom of the past in pursuit of the ideal future. They - and this is especially obvious with Saruman -...

Correct me if I'm wrong, so the military invention of Numenor and elves couldn't be considered as modernism or not, such as Numenor Rockets Arty(MLRS?), one of the deadliest nemesis against Sauron, after all, it didn't change "God's rule" in ME, right?

 

[Aldarion]

Well, since real power comes from the loyalty of the leaders' followers, maybe it's up to the source and methods of gaining the power.
Those Marine Kings of Gondor truly maybe not sought, but surely gained much power, however, according to all the Gondor political traits mentioned by JRRT, we could make sure whom led these Kings weren't some slaves pushed by whips from bosses but honorable knights and citizens inspired by leaders always stood with them as brothers. Is this power?Yes, and this is real power. Of courses it's another matter these kings had unhappy lives.
On the contrary, Sauron, well, just like most of the bosses in our real life. XD

True - loyalty can be freely given, or it can be forced. It may also be acquired by true acts of care, or by lies.

But with Sauron and especially Morgoth, this went far deeper than that. They had ability to truly corrupt people into following them - not just making them follow of their own free will, through lies, but also to subvert the free will itself.

Correct me if I'm wrong, so the military invention of Numenor and elves couldn't be considered as modernism or not, such as Numenor Rockets Arty(MLRS?), one of the deadliest nemesis against Sauron, after all, it didn't change "God's rule" in ME, right?

Numenor didn't have MLRS outside the Lost Road, and in there, it was a result of Sauron's influence on Numenor, so...

 

[Hisoka Morrow]

...outside the Lost Road, and in there, it was a result of Sauron's influence on Numenor, so...

How about considering the threat caused by Gondor Arty?Does it mean such inventions maintan "God's rule" over ME. Even if gunpowder was a result of Sauron's effect, yet it's threat to Sauron was unquestionable.

Sauron and especially Morgoth, this went far deeper than that. They had ability to truly corrupt people into following them - not just making them follow of their own free will, through lies, but also to subvert the free will itself

Oh, yes, I almost forgot that each Dark Lord were much more persausive then our real world's statesmen according to JRRT's settings.

 

[Deimos]

I'm not sure I understand what is being discussed in the "subversion of free will" sub topic.
Tolkien was vary careful in his choice and use of words.
For starters, he never used words in common parlance and then gave them different meanings, or made up his own meanings.
It is true he used a lot of archaic words, or employed modern (20th C.) words but used older archaic/obsolete meanings, but that is not unexpected in a philologist.

So, what do you all mean (who are participating in this subtopic) by the phrase to "subvert a person's will"?
What is happening in the subversion of another's will? I.e., what is the aggressor (subverter) actually doing, and what is actually happening to the will of the person under attack? Not talking specifics in the story, but the story can be used for examples.
This is important to define because free will plays such an important part, perhaps even a paramount part, in Tolkien's stories.

 

[Aldarion]

I'm not sure I understand what is being discussed in the "subversion of free will" sub topic.
Tolkien was vary careful in his choice and use of words.
For starters, he never used words in common parlance and then gave them different meanings, or made up his own meanings.
It is true he used a lot of archaic words, or employed modern (20th C.) words but used older archaic/obsolete meanings, but that is not unexpected in a philologist.

So, what do you all mean (who are participating in this subtopic) by the phrase to "subvert a person's will"?
What is happening in the subversion of another's will? I.e., what is the aggressor (subverter) actually doing, and what is actually happening to the will of the person under attack? Not talking specifics in the story, but the story can be used for examples.
This is important to define because free will plays such an important part, perhaps even a paramount part, in Tolkien's stories.

There are several ways in which free will can be subverted.

There are magical means, such as whatever the hell dragons do to people they talk to and whatever the One Ring does.
There is control over information - such as lying, hiding things and so on. Mundane means which you can see in the mass media all across history. Example of this would be Sauron presenting himself as a diety.
There is also force (tyranny), such as Sauron or Ar-Pharazon using military force.

But the important thing here isn't the means through which it is done - all of it leads to the same result, which is subjugation of person's will to purposes of another. And so long as you want to control the choices somebody is making, you are subverting their free will.

 

[Deimos]

There are several ways in which free will can be subverted.

There are magical means, such as whatever the hell dragons do to people they talk to and whatever the One Ring does.
There is control over information - such as lying, hiding things and so on. Mundane means which you can see in the mass media all across history. Example of this would be Sauron presenting himself as a diety.
There is also force (tyranny), such as Sauron or Ar-Pharazon using military force.

But the important thing here isn't the means through which it is done - all of it leads to the same result, which is subjugation of person's will to purposes of another. And so long as you want to control the choices somebody is making, you are subverting their free will.

So you mean the actual "hijacking" of a person's free will, such that they no longer have free will? The person can be commanded to do something and becasue they have no choice about it, they MUST obey? Is that correct?

 

[Aldarion]

So you mean the actual "hijacking" of a person's free will, such that they no longer have free will? The person can be commanded to do something and becasue they have no choice about it, they MUST obey? Is that correct?

I do believe that was Sauron's ultimate goal, yes. Hence the One Ring. But as I said, that is not the only way to negate or at least suppress free will.

 

[Hisoka Morrow]

So you mean the actual "hijacking" of a person's free will, such that they no longer have free will? The person can be commanded to do something and becasue they have no choice about it, they MUST obey? Is that correct?

I do believe that was Sauron's ultimate goal, yes. Hence the One Ring. But as I said, that is not the only way to negate or at least suppress free will.

Here're some proof that Sauron's maunplation might be limited, such as Numenor not invading the Noldor states, after all, leaving a thorn behind his back after finishing the Numenor wasn't a wise move, and Sauron would have had the Numenor get rid of such dangerous potential threat, if he was able to brainwash them.

 

[Deimos]

OK, let me try this another way....
If by "subverting free will" do you mean that someone can so intimidate (bully) a person, or torture someone ---say, through sleep deprivation or constant exposure to bright lights or loud noise **---, that the person no longer acts (or answers) the way he truly believes or wants to act (or answer); but rather he does or says anything just to escape the torture? That is , he freely chooses not to do what he himself really wants to do, but does what the aggressor wants him to do to avoid being hurt/killed or having people close to him hurt (or killed).

Or do you mean actually taking away a person's free so that he a controlled being?
Don't use what Sauron did or didn't do (which is subject to interpretation) to answer this.
I want you, Aldarion, to tell me what you understand the phrase "subvert the will" to mean.
(As the say in class: "In your own words explain [whatever]..." 😉)

**any means of torture, or even threatening torture, like telling someone you will rack him if he doesn't do what you say.

 

[Ent]

OK, let me try this another way....

Deimos, I would like to ask just one question of you, given the history we know.
Do you believe people can be 'brainwashed' and what is 'brainwashing' ?

(I also suggest we need to be careful, because we're starting to move away from Tolkien and his work here, into the 'real world', history, political and military tactics, social and mass media, and other potentially dangerous areas. Perhaps the only 'safe' ground to discuss this in, is in the arena of hypnotism and its tested, observed and categorized results.)

Meanwhile, in a small degree I would suggest it is routine people's will is 'subverted' to one degree or another.. and the fear of pain and punishment is (normally) the driver.

A speed limit sign is the simplest example. My will is to 'get to where I'm going as fast as I possibly can.' But the Law intervenes, stuffs a 35mph sign in place, and forces me into compliance with that... OR, penalty and pain will result. Resistance is futile, and could end up with being jailed.

Has my will been subverted? Most definitely. I can choose to disobey and face the consequences, but still, my will was not 'free'. I needed to accept and bow to the potential of very real adverse consequences.

A forum is another example. Every forum has 'rules'. Here, for example, I would like to freely be able to discuss many tangential things with roads traveling 'outside' Tolkien's works, background, etc. But as the Forum provides no place to do so, my will is subverted into compliance with 'rules,' else I face separation from communication with friends, people with similar and even contrary thoughts on the topics and issues, etc.

Yes, there are 'other places for me to go' to do so, yet here my will has been subverted by the need for 'compliance'.

Any rule any where at any time, in effect, is a 'subversion' of someone's free will. To bring it home, the United States' political system is a two party system of 'majority (or electoral college) rule', where one party is constantly working to subvert the other party to their will. At the same time, members WITHIN the party must subvert parts of their 'free will' because their ultimate candidate doesn't really represent THEM, but represents the party's candidate most likely to be 'voteable,' to win and be able to subvert the 'other party's desires' in favor of the winning party's. It's really 'which tyrannical party will it be this term.'

I don't say this to single out the U.S. - look at every other country. The very existence of politics anywhere, is the result of a process of subversion of will.

In history, let's look at societys going as far as sacrifice of their children to appease their 'god' who was really the local leader. Fear and punishment drive a person to many levels of subversion.

The questiion you ask really stems down to 'do we believe a person's will can be TOTALLY subverted to another's will, so they have no vestage of remaining will of their own at all, and simply do as asked regardless.'

There are three different things here to clarify:
The first: 'What is brainwashing, and can a person be brainwashed.'
The second, "can the conscience be seared.'
The third is 'can an external force of will literally take over another's will'.

Those questions have very different methods, immpacts, and answers.

 

[Aldarion]

If by "subverting free will" do you mean that someone can so intimidate (bully) a person, or torture someone ---say, through sleep deprivation or constant exposure to bright lights or loud noise **---, that the person no longer acts (or answers) the way he truly believes or wants to act (or answer); but rather he does or says anything just to escape the torture? That is , he freely chooses not to do what he himself really wants to do, but does what the aggressor wants him to do to avoid being hurt/killed or having people close to him hurt (or killed).

Or do you mean actually taking away a person's free so that he a controlled being?

I do not see why these have to be exclusive to each other.

For example: had Elrond attempted to take One Ring from Isildur by force, that - under normal circumstances - will have been an act of subverting Isildur's free will. Of course, this ignores that Isildur only took One Ring because he was under "influence", but as is said - two wrongs do not make a right.

Subverting free will can take multiple forms, as I have already explained: Sauron does it by making the One Ring, but also by presenting himself as a God to people of Middle Earth and by utilizing direct force. Tyranny on multiple levels.

That is why the Istari were forbidden from overt display of power. Even if they did not directly threaten anybody, such displays may still have cowed people into following their lead for reasons other than conviction that what they were proposing is right - thus subverting their free will.

That being said, in my original statement I did make a different distinction:

not just making them follow of their own free will, through lies, but also to subvert the free will itself.

Here, I was talking specifically about the ability to dominate will by metaphysical force: such as the influence of the One Ring or of Sauron's will itself - we see at the Black Gate how the Orcs lose the will to fight the moment Sauron's will is no longer driving them.

Don't use what Sauron did or didn't do (which is subject to interpretation) to answer this.
I want you, Aldarion, to tell me what you understand the phrase "subvert the will" to mean.
(As the say in class: "In your own words explain [whatever]..." 😉)

See above. It is a complex topic.

 

[Deimos]

....

There are three different things here to clarify:
The first: 'What is brainwashing, and can a person be brainwashed.'
The second, "can the conscience be seared.'
The third is 'can an external force of will literally take over another's will'.

Those questions have very different methods, immpacts, and answers.

Your three questions sum it up pretty well.
To answer your question "do I believe in brainwashing, or that someone can be brainwashed" , Yes I do.
When I read the 1984 (and have re-read it many times) the brainwashing of Winston Smith was horrifying, yet very credible.
I'm sure that brainwashing really takes place wherever there are political prisoners of totalitarian regimes.
Maybe it's not always effective, but it does work some of the time.

Not sure what you mean by a conscience being "seared".
I know what it means in the Biblical use of the phrase of "a seared conscience": It means thoroughly hardened or reprobate conscience, making someone impervious to persuasion to be/do good ( good as in moral or ethical, tho' not necessarily religious). To come to that pass, tho' requires a freely made conscious decision by the person, in effect,saying "I choose evil and not good. " And so the person deliberately habituates himself to doing evil.

The third one, well, a person might so cow another into doing the former's will that it is almost like taking over the person's will.
We read about this all the time in domestic situations where one person controls another. But as soon as the victim permanently gets out of the situation, they regain their own will; or rather, they have the opportunity to exercise their own will without fear of being hurt . But this just bullying on amuch greater scale with worse consequences.
But can someone's will truly be taken over by an external (alien) will? If you mean that the person's will is supplanted by another's will I would say No.
And I think (i.e.,imo) that would not be possible in Tolkien's ME either.

.

 

[Ent]

And I think (i.e.,imo) that would not be possible in Tolkien's ME either.

The only question I have here, is what then was the state of those who, once Sauron took his will from them and looked toward mount doom, were suddenly completely bereft of direction, no longer under his control. This group predominantly turned and fled.

And this was where and how Sauron weakened himself, as Morgoth did in other ways… so controlling many all they knew was his venomous hate.

I think Tolkien shows Sauron possessing a level of ‘control of will’ of a nature and extent beyond what is actually possible in the ‘real world’.

 

[Deimos]

The only question I have here, is what then was the state of those who, once Sauron took his will from them and looked toward mount doom, were suddenly completely bereft of direction, no longer under his control. This group predominantly turned and fled.

And this was where and how Sauron weakened himself, as Morgoth did in other ways… so controlling many all they knew was his venomous hate.

I think Tolkien shows Sauron possessing a level of ‘control of will’ of a nature and extent beyond what is actually possible in the ‘real world’.

If he supplanted their wills with his, as soon as he withdrew his will (for whatever reason) they would have just stood there like dummies.
They would have lost the only animating force they had ; they wouldn't suddenly get their own wills back. (back from where? where does a will go when its supplanted by another?)
So he didn't supplant their wills. Did he control them? I think he dominated them the way humans can dominate the wills of animals.
Both his will and his intellect were far superior to those of Orcs.
Tolkien describes the orcs' behavior once Sauron no longer held them in thrall: he compared them to insect (ants) whose queen had been killed.
They ran about aimlessly and in terror. They were so habituated to following someone else's commands they couldn't think or act by their own initiative.

Is such a mastery of another's will possible in our world? I think it's possible if a people from the outset are under another's total dominance; that is, if they have never known another way of life and the person in control has both a superior intellect and a very dominant personality.
It doesn't even have to be a lifelong span of time. Remember Jim Jones and the People's Temple.
Some people followed him willingly. Others were dominated by his will, and some by fear, or by both.

By way of contrast the Easterlings (And Southrons?) did not go all to pieces. Some stayed on to fight, others threw down their weapons in surrender.
Both actions manifest a little bit more intellect and exercise of will than the orcs displayed. So did Sauron also "control" their wills?
I don't think he controlled them at all. They willingly fought for him. They decided that both by the numbers and supernatural power Sauron would come out on top. They gambled, and lost. Some stayed on to fight because the ignominy, not to mention the danger, of surrendering was worse; "death before dishonor". They could not believe they wouldn't be killed even if they did surrender. Yet some did hoping for clemency or at least civil treatment.

So, I believe that Sauron "controlled" the orcs not by actually raking over their wills but but sheer dominance of personality (intellect and will).
And he mastered them them from the outset. "Little orcs" (young orcs? "new orcs"?) were immediately aware of this overwhelmingly powerful will telling them what to do, when to do it.
Yet we know that they still possessed some will of their own, enough that they argued and fought among themselves.
He didn't control Men in any sense except promising them reward and threatening (probably with a slow death) if they failed. I.e., he bullied them.
So, no "taking control" of wills.... i don't believe that is what happened.

 

[Ent]

@Deimos:
Your thinking has some charm to it. Certainly in the 'day to day', they had ability to think, argue, fight, and kill one another over the most petty things. (sounds VERY familiar.)

But did Sauron exercize an even greater will over them when he drove them into battle? Did they have any 'self will' in that event?
Looking at the definition of "supplant'....

SUPPLANT Definition:
1: to supersede especially by force or treachery
2 a(1) obsolete : UPROOT
..... (2): to eradicate and supply a substitute for efforts to supplant the vernacular
... b: to take the place of and serve as a substitute for especially by reason of superior excellence or power

Certainly for definition #1, Sauron 'supplanted' the wills of some at times, in my view, until they were driven only by their hatred.
Definition 2a1) I don't think applies at all, as he did not 'uproot' their wills.
Definition 2a2) also does not apply, as he did not 'eradicate' their wills.
Definition 2b) is a bit questionable... did he actually 'take the place' of their wills? Or just the most common definition 1. I think just #1.

Yes, the Easterlings and others served him willingly, as his vassals.

If we contrast Saruman's Orcs with Sauron's, I think we see a significant difference as Saruman wasn't able to control them to the point of almost mindless attack, without regard for tactics, planning etc.

We don't see the same level of control in the attack on Gondor, as those Orcs are being led by the Nazgul.

I suspect the level of his 'supplanting' did not exceed Definition #1 above...
As to whether it's 'differnt' or 'greater' than what we can see in the 'real world', I must say I'm reminded of that Waco Texas event under David Koresch who so mislead many they all killed themselves.

Good food for thought in all this stuff... raising the question: 'how do each one of us make SURE we aren't but a fool following another fool in our thinking and doing.'