Merfy
Far Dareis Mai: Buckland
Company
Registered: Sep
2002
Location: Graduate School
Posts: 34 |
Professor:
You do not stop reading 'til nightfall!
Merfy: Can I read
the Republic?
Professor: You've already read
it.
Merfy: I've read it, yes. But what about reading it
again--did you know there are people on this planet who
haven't read it?
*Prof looks annoyed and turns
away*
Unnamed Grad Student Interlocutor #1: I don't
think many folks care about Republic, Merfy.
Merfy:
What about Apology? Cratylus? Euthyphro?
Symposium? Phaedo? They care about them, don't
they?
UGSI #1: I wouldn't count on it. *rolling eyes,
muttering something like 'that girl is one of the five people
in the world who wants to be a
Platonist...'*
Note: I'm not making fun of
anyone who hasn't read the thing, I'm completely making fun of
myself.
With that pointless interlude out of the
way...
quote:
mel
Merfy, you know, I don't think I've read
any discussions of Frodo and Plato's Republic! Though with
three lost or abandoned threads and counting, going through
the same topics is good! And I don't know about everyone
else, but I've decided to blame memory loss on all those
times hitting my head when swooning. Or ducking to get in
the door of Bag End.
I haven't read any Plato either.
But it sounds like Plato and Tolkien have pretty different
ideas about what motivates people to behave... like in
Plato's world, if you are not being watched you will
automatically behave badly. I don't know. Something about
that bothers me. Tolkien's got plenty of characters who
can't resist the lure of power, but there are others who
have the ability to do pretty terrible things and don't, not
because somebody out there is watching but because it's the
right thing to do. (I'm thinking of Gandalf, for instance,
and Aragorn, as well as Frodo and Sam dealing with the
Ring.) I don't think Tolkien's characters behave because
Eru's watching and will hurt them if they don't... Eru's a
pretty hands-off diety (and Manwe only kicks into gear when
Gandalf needs the Eagle Express).
I think I can relate everything to Plato
(whether or not I should be proud of this...).
This is a mix of my thoughts and my professors'
thoughts. Any errors in the train of thought are mine...I am
nowhere near an expert on Plato--yet. 
Plato
via Socrates is a big believer in molding character via
education---highly regulated education, including censorship,
if necessary. The Republic has this Myth of the Metals
which bascially breaks the populace up into three groups:
gold, silver and bronze folks. His basic idea of justice that
he ends up putting forth is that everyone knows his/her role
and stays there (meaning the "bronze" folks have no chance to
rule). Those who are out of place disrupt the order of things,
and that is bad. There's a lot of predestination, and the
rulers keep watch to make sure everyone is in their place. It
is quite different from Tolkien's world.
The role of
religion is a huge issue here...there's all sorts of
arguments about just how pious Plato was. I was making the
argument this morning that he had Socrates creating piety via
the myths and using that piety as a control mechanism. Then
there's the question of ferreting out the religious undertones
of LoTR and carefully examining them. As mel points out,
neither world is really carefully regulated by its most
powerful diety (Eru or Zeus).
quote:
Ghyste
Of course Frodo's method of receiving
The Ring was important - if it wasn't Tolkien wouldn't have
had both Gollum and Bilbo lie about it. It was fortunate
that the ring came to just the right hobbit in the right way
at exactly the right time. Mind you, ME was fortunate in all
3 of its Hobbit owners. Just think what little Gollum and
Bilbo did with The Ring and then compare it with what Ted
Sandyman or Lotho S-B would have got up to in the same
position. [b]
Awesome point about Ted and Lotho!!
Because my classmates were not familiar with Tolkien, I
couldn't present the comparison of the Ringbearers (but esp.
Frodo) with Gyges, so I instead argued somewhat along the
following lines:
Elves had Rings of Power, but they were
never corrupted. Elves knew the Valar.
Dwarves had Rings of
Power, and though they were lost to Sauron, they were
forcefully taken and the Dwarves were not corrupted. The
Dwarves did not know the Valar in Valinor, but they were
Children of Aule.
Humans never knew the Valar, and many
were distrustful of them after the dealings with Melkor. The
Men who bore Rings of Power fell to Sauron.
I posited that
exposure to the gods, and the firm knowledge that there is
life beyond the physical world (of M-E, in this case), made it
easier to resist temptations. But THEN, I brought in:
the
Hobbits, who have the least knowledge/relationship with the
Valar, yet showed great resistance to the One Ring, a
malevolent creation.
I presented humans and hobbits as
two sides of a coin, but I think I may have been too hasty in
my generalization---the examples that Ghyste provides in TS
and LS-B make me think that I was. LOL
Frodo is
obviously a special guy, and I have to admit that I hadn't
thought about him from this POV.
quote:
elevensies
[b]I agree - I think the fact that
Frodo did not take the Ring himself but rather it was thrust
upon him makes his situation much different. He never wanted
it, he was never tempted to use it for his own purposes
(until Mt. Doom, of course). Yes, his race had a lot to do
with it, as hobbits aren't by nature power-hungry, but even
so he was unique among hobbits. I think of his insistence on
mercy for Gollum, for Saruman, for the enemies at Bywater.
All the other hobbits are ready to lay the smackdown on any
enemies of the Shire, but Frodo seems to have a more global
perspective - there's more to Middle-earth than just the
Shire. And there are principles more important than just
preserving the Shire. Frodo knew he could have used the Ring
to save the Shire, but he knew there was much more at
stake.
Okay, now I'm just blathering. Does any of
this have anything to do with your question?
Yes, it does.  I also think
I have discounted how unique Frodo was even among hobbits in
his resistance to the Ring. Your last couple of sentences
remind me of Faramir. There really are a lot of ties between
those two, aren't there?
quote:
elanorh
I think that Tolkien's Catholicism
definitely informed the way the characters were created as
he wrote them -- in that he believed that humans were
inherently good (though flawed) -- Glaucon's take that
someone with a ring bequeathing powers of invisibility would
not be 'just' in his/her use of the ring, is not necessarily
true, in Tolkien's world .... although we know that Bilbo
used his ring to disappear when he saw Lobelia coming his
way, as well as aiding in 'jailbreaks' etc.
It's
clear that intent mattered to Tolkien; Gollum *took* the
ring, as did Isildur (both after slaying the previous
'owner') whereas Bilbo did find the ring (although later
discovered it was Gollum's, and accidentally used it to win
the riddle game; he stole by omission rather than killing
for the ring). Frodo's intent with the ring was very
different; he acted as a steward for it, not putting it on
but keeping it 'safe' until he had to take it out of the
Shire.
The difference, IMO, is that Tolkien believed
that while flawed, elves/men/hobbits although they would
struggle, would know (if good) what to do with the ring --
that is, Gandalf and Galadriel though tempted, resist;
Boromir strives to resist, and repents; even Gollum feels
remorse (well, Smeagol does anyway ) ..... The different
dynamic which is more overt in Tolkien's work is the siren
call of the ring via the Power it would bequeath, which
doesn't sound as pronounced in the excerpt from
Republic.
I'm just amazed that you were sitting in a
gradschool class with people who *have not read Tolkien*?!!
That's actually pretty amazing in my experience anyway.
I was really sad that more people weren't
familiar with LoTR...I think it would have been a cool avenue
for discussion. 
Bilbo
is a fascinating case with the Ring. A lot of his actions with
it fall in a grey area. I mean, of course he comes out shining
in the end, and his actions just make it onto the edges of the
grey area, but he's not like Frodo at all.
quote:
Ariel
I think your point is spot on, and feel
it is one of the clearer messages in the books - consider
how conflicted Tolks always made Bilbo feel about his method
of acquisition? I always thought 'finders, keepers' myself,
but Tolks made a very strong point of Bilbo's dilemma and
conflict over the riddle game/finding of the ring. I think
that the fact that Frodo was GIVEN the ring was frightfully
important to Tolks and that fact may have been part of
reason Frodo alone was the only one worthy enough to dispose
of the thing the way it should have been.
But there
is also the message that no matter how noble, or how worthy,
there is a terrible price to be paid in war - even those who
are deserving of greater may never get their just
reward.
I hadn't thought of this in relation to
war...I will ponder that further.
I
also can't believe I never focused on the whole 'method of
acquisition' thing before, since as you point out, it was
obviously very important to JRRT. I mean, he makes a huge deal
out of it at the Council...sigh...you'd think after reading
the books so many times...oh well, that's why I love 'em, in
the end!
Ariel, I will read your story very soon, I
promise!
__________________
Protector of the Waistcoat in the
Order of Merry's Garter
Report
this post to a moderator | IP: Logged |
10-07-2002 05:19 PM
And, of
course, Frodo is a prince among hobbits. 
That pic just
always decimates me. Geez louise... 
Though I
did wonder...