Grasp The Philosophy Of Tolkien: The Worldview Behind The Lord Of The Rings Originated By Peter Kreeft Depicted In Electronic Format

J. Kreefts The Philosophy of Tolkien is a really good book, While he uses this text to reaffirm his own belief in a Christian god, and these elves are not really Christian, we feel certain that his conclusions are an accurate reflection of Tolkiens own beliefs, for he was a Catholic.
Often, it seems to these elves that Mr, Kreeft while appearing to use logic and reason for his affirmation of his Christian beliefs actually, at the last moment, does a sort of intellectual slight of hand and ends up with faith rather than fact for his final assertions.
However, that doesnt bother us at all, Being lovers of Tolkiens works and having an undergraduate degree in Philosophy and Religion we find this book quite well written and intriguing, even if it is not always logical.
But then, we are elves and Mr, Kreeft is clearly, like Tolkien, a hobbit and our worldviews tend to be different, Still, we know that in sharing Middle Earth with these hobbits we are dealing with good, decent folk, and really what more can one ask for

The Silver Elves authors of sitelinkFaerie Unfolding: The Cosmic Expression of the Divine.

This is the best book Ive ever read on Tolkien, Read Tolkien first. But if you want to read ABOUT Tolkien, and his thoroughly Christian vision of things, I cant recommend this book by Peter Kreeft enough.


Kreeft is a familiar name among Christian philosophers and apologists, He is a very committed Roman Catholic and often points out these aspects of Tolkiens work, But he also presents a fairly sympathetically broad Christian view as well,

The book also serves as a broad introduction to the subject of philosophy and Kreeft often quotes from C.
S. Lewis in making his points from Tolkien, So any Lewis fan should enjoy this work as well,

Highly, highly recommended for those interested in the philosophical and worldview aspects of Tolkiens works, Overall a good book it is brilliant as literary criticism of sitelinkJ, R. R. Tolkien's Fellowship of the Ring trilogy and sitelinkThe Hobbit, It is a reasonably good philosophical work too, though it is written at an elementary level with no assumption that the reader is yet heavily into philosophy.
Kreeft seems to intend his book mainly to be read in an introductory philosophy class, along with other works, owing to his use of formal structure and elementary use of philosophical terms and ideas.
However, the book reads fine on its own and is not otherwise like a textbook, Kreeft organizes most of the book into a series of questions, many of which are obvious philosophical questions i.
e. , Does God exist, Is knowledge always good, Is evil real, etc, though some of his questions are rather unusual or even themselves begging the question Why do humans have identity crises, Why do we no longer love glory or splendor.
I would think some questions, like that last example, would be better left more openended i, e. , Do we love glory or splendor, which would enable Kreeft to say he thinks not, and why, rather than turning off a critical reader with such assumptions built into the work unexamined.
Unfortunately, for some of Kreeft's questions, his "answers" seem more like a politician "answering" a hard question by talking around it, but never actually addressing it.
That said, Kreeft does take on the majority of his questions handily, using examples from Tolkien's works and private letters, and from other sources, especially sitelinkC.
S. Lewis.

Kreeft's greatest strengths seem to be addressing ethics and ethical questions, However, he makes several assumptions that he does not defend, particularly about God and good, If one shares his assumptions, all is well, He will not, though, be converting any from a hostile camp such as atheists with his arguments as stated, unlike, say, sitelinkMere Christianity, which takes nothing for granted and builds everything from the ground up.
Still, Kreeft's analysis of Lord of the Rings as literature is penetrating enough that if someone who did not overtly share Christian beliefs and values enjoyed the books and then read Kreeft's analysis, he must be left asking himself some hard questions.


In short, people like fantasy because "Fantasy is a flight to reality, " locationand elsewhere Kreeft notes the enduring popularity of Tolkien's works among the masses, even while they are sneered at by the selfanointed elites:

Ordinary people still believe in a real morality, a real difference between good and evil and in objective truth and the possibility of knowing it and in the superiority of beauty over ugliness.
But our educators, or "experts" Fr, Richard John Neuhaus calls them "the chattering classes", feel toward these three traditional values the way people think medieval inquisitors felt toward witches.
Our artists deliberately prefer ugliness to beauty, our moralists fear goodness more than evil, and our philosophers embrace various forms of postmodernism that reduce truth to ideology or power.
location

In short, "humanity isn't found in that arrogant oligarchy of utterly outoftouch elitists, " locationKreeft's sense of this works throughout the book to make it a brilliant literary criticism, and resoundingly answers the one question Kreeft doesn't formally pose: "Why do we like these books" The answer, "The deepest need is the need for meaning, purpose, and hope.
" locationTolkien does this through literature and not mere allegory, "Philosophy says truth, literature shows truth, " location"All literature incarnates some philosophy," locationbut, "a philosophy that cannot be translated into a good story cannot be a good philosophy.
" locationKreeft rightly observes that fiction is not neutral, "Literature is judgmental, " locationAnd how do we judge "Human minds seem to be in touch with Platonic Ideas when we make value judgments.
" locationDon't worry, Kreeft explains Platonic Ideas for the uninitiated,

As he moves through his philosophical questions, Kreeft hits upon some fundamental ones, both in terms of how they feature in Tolkien, and also as they impact our daily lives.
Perhaps one of the biggest among these is whether reality is bigger than our understanding, "the philosophy of the poet and of the happy man, for whom nature is a fullness a moreness, and therefore wonderful.
It is the philosophy of all the premodern cultures, . . or that there are fewer things in reality than in thought that most of our thought is mere myth, error, convention, projection, fantasy, fallacy, folly, dream, etc.
This is the philosophy of the unhappy man, the cynic, the pessimist, . . The third possibility is that there are exactly the same number of things in reality and in thought, that is, that we 'know it all'.
" locationSpeaking of reality, Kreeft goes further to note, "We should never ask of anything 'Is it real' For everything is real.
The proper question is, 'A real what'" location

As Kreeft examines the relationship of science and art within reality, Kreeft notes, "Art is very different from science in that it creates worlds it creates meaning and beauty and forms and structures and natures, while science discovers them.
" location

Another major theme of the Tolkien books is Providence, which Kreeft also thoughtfully considers: "It is easy to identify miracles when we see them, whether worked by God or by evil spirits.
But how do we identify divine providence Where do we find it Not in a part but in the whole, in the ordering of the whole, in the relationships among the parts.
" locationAs an extension, when considering free will versus fate, Kreeft explores it thus: "'free causality' is not a selfcontradiction but a uniquely human kind of causality.
" locationFurther, "divine grace, in dealing with anything in nature, does not suppress or bypass its nature but perfects it and works through it.
. . Therefore, divine predestination preserves human free will, because God invented it, " locationHumans are unique from other animals, as, "Our nature is a task to achieve, not a fact to receive.
" location

Kreeft takes on the fact that religious themes pervade the books while religion, as such, is absent: "The main way The Lord of the Rings is religious is in its form, its structure: a of its worldview and thus of its world, its setting, the world of Middleearth b of the plot, full of providential design and cosmic justice and c of the characters as manifesting themes like providence, grace, heroism, hierarchy, glory, resurrection, piety, duty, authority, obedience, tradition, humility, and 'eucatastrophe'.
" locationInterestingly, one unnecessary way Kreeft rationalizes the overt absence of churches and religion is claiming they would be "anachronistic," yet he sees no trouble in the characters using stirrups.
Clearly, time was not the problem for Tolkien, it was as his letters, cited by Kreeft, clearly indicate that he made a conscious choice to imbue his story with Christianity, rather than describe it as a Christian world.


Kreeft observes a hostility toward industry and technology in Tolkien that would make sitelinkJacques Ellul and sitelinkGabriel Marcel proud:

The magic of Enchantment means entering the holy city of beauty, truth, and goodness and letting it conquer you.
Ultimately, it means letting God conquer you, since beauty, truth, and goodness are divine attributes they are what God is.
But the magic of the "laborious, scientific magician" that is, technology or, rather, the philosophy that makes "Man's conquest of Nature" by technology the summum bonum means playing God, like Sauron.
location

Further, "Enchantment's end is the surrender, or submission, of the soul to the beauty of nature and art.
Technology's end is the conquest of nature by power, " locationStill further, "knowledge as distinct from wisdom cannot be the supreme good, for it is compatible with evil, just as power is.
" locationDespite his arguments against knowledge or at least its inherent goodness, Kreeft insists, "Truth is objective, and discovered.
" locationOne is, unfortunately, left with the question unanswered whether we must be artistic cavemen to be happy, or if we may be permitted technology, industry, and other means of efficiently harnessing nature in any form.


Kreeft's critique of the industrial continues, "When beauty is sacrificed for efficiency, the result is inefficiency.
When men worship machines, the proper good not only of man but also of machines is sacrificed, " locationThe ultimate conquest of nature is conquest

of fellow men, as quoted from Tolkien's own letters, "the most improper job of any man.
. . is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity.
" location

As Kreeft delves into the very heart of the story, the Ring and what it stands for, the nature of Frodo's quest, the epic battle between good and evil, he notes, "The false immortality requires the death of conscience.
The real immortality requires the death of egotism, " locationThis is seen, "When the object we desire is God, or that which God is truth, goodness, and beauty, the object is not possessable.
And paradoxically, only then are we fulfilled, when we do not possess the object we desire but it possesses us.
" locationSo what is good "Wanting what you should is better than getting what you want, " location

Kreeft quotes one of Tolkien's letters that notes, with many other philosophers and theologians, evil is a distortion of good, but not something with an existence of its own, "evil labors with vast power and perpetual successin vain: preparing always only the soil for unexpected good to sprout in.
" locationKreeft concludes, "The selfdestruction of evil is not just something to believe in and hope for, but to be certain of.
It is metaphysically necessary, necessary because of the very kind of being evil has by its unchangeable essence.
For evil can only be a parasite on good, " locationsitelinkFrédéric Bastiat would be proud! For instance, evil's parasitical nature is revealed, "Evil is limited to power it cannot use weakness.
" location

Kreeft correctly notes the traditionalist bent of Tolkien's works, this being the part of Tolkien's books I found least likable: the good old days are over, magic is disappearing, elves and hobbits and great men are disappearing, it has all the pessimism of Norse mythology and none of Billy Joel's wisdom "The good ole days weren't always good".
Nonetheless, Kreeft makes a valid point when he notes, "The basic argument for tradition is simply that it works.
" locationThis, however, does not negate change or the value of positive new methods, developments, etc, He does note, "All our victories against evil in this world are only temporary, The idea of progress, central to modernity, is simply false, We have not progressed in virtue or wisdom, only in power and cleverness, " locationKreeft seems to be more on the side of the happy cavemen, "in gaining the world we have lost our selves.
" locationYet, whether it is Tolkien's hobbits or the Amish, traditionalism short of man living like animals or cavemen always assumes a certain level of material and cultural progress as the ideal and virtuous, beyond which any and all "progress" is either evil or illusory, and whatever assumption is made, it is always arbitrary.


Kreeft observes Tolkien taking a position for absolutism and against utilitarianism just as sitelinkFriedrich Hayek takes a position for liberty and against central planning: "It is the simple fact that we do not know the future.
We are not God. For these things change. But our marching orders, our principles, do not, They are unchanging and universal, not dependent on time or place, And they are what we do know, " locationKreeft cautions against the reasoning of moral relativism, "What passes for reasoning is often rationalizing, " location

So what are we left with in the end Like Frodo and Sam trudging wearily toward Mount Doom against all odds, hope.
"Hope is like the sky, unconquerable and spread over everything, " locationHope in what "Sincehope's object is always in the last analysis a person, not an abstraction, and sincethat object is also in the last analysis universal and not particular, it follows thatthat object must always, at least implicitly and anonymously, be God, the only concrete universal, the only Person 'I' who is also Being 'am'.
" location

In short, not a long, technical, or difficult book and one well worth reading, It makes a good work of philosophy as tied to Tolkien, and an even better exploration of why Tolkien's fans like the books.
In that regard, it is not unlike sitelinkEdmund Burke defining what is sublime and beautiful in sitelinkA Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful, except I think Kreeft has been even more successful in this endeavor.
So while not without its flaws, on the whole a very good work and one that ought to be on your toread list!.