The Lord of the Rings and Philosophy: One Book to Rule Them All

Popular Culture and Philosophy #5

by Gregory Bassham (Editor), Eric Bronson

Can power be wielded for good, or must it always corrupt? Does technology destroy the truly human? Is beer essential to the good life? The Lord of the Rings raises many such searching questions, and this book attempts some answers. Divided into five sections concerned with power and the Ring, the quest for happiness, good and evil in Middle-earth, time and mortality, and the relevance of fairy tales, The Lord of the Rings and Philosophy mines Tolkien’s fantasy worlds for wisdom in areas including the menace of technology, addiction and fetishism, the vitality of tradition, the environmental implications of Tolkien's thought, Middle-earth's relationship to Buddhism and Taoism, and more.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Essays, Books About Books, Pop Culture, Literature, Literary Criticism

240 pages, Paperback

First published August 4, 2003

Reviews

[Jill · Rating 4 out of 5]

Only having had a very brief introduction to philosophy in college, I really wanted to find a better way to understand it. My teacher recommended this series to us, "Popular culture and philosophy". It's a really interesting way to tie philosophy into a subject that you may be really familiar with. I Love the Lord of the Rings, so it definitely worked for me. It helped me to better understand some of the philosophical principles that were foggy, as well as to see the books in a new light.

[Stephie Williams · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is another in the Popular Culture and Philosophy series. In it like the others are a group of philosophers and other academics that examine the popular item in the title. In this case they discuss various philosophical positions based on their reading of The Lord of the Rings. They are grouped into a topical nature delineated into parts. The first part looks at the Ring itself, followed by essays on happiness aspects of the book in part two. Part three examines what the book has to say about good and evil. Then, part four discusses time and mortality as it appears in the book. Finally, the last part looks at what you can learn about what ends and endings can teach us.

I have a number of comments on specific pieces of text. Each is prefaced with page numbers in brackets [] from the Open Court paperback edition of 2003.

[19-20] “For Galadriel, Bombadil, and Sam, the characters who most clearly reject the Ring, who remain uncorrupted by its seduction of unlimited power, their strength comes from their awareness of their own being, who they are and what they can accomplished.” This reminds me of the very first rule: “Know Yourself” in the book Happiness Rules by Mark Hebwood.

[27-8] “Universal assemblers would make matter replicators of the sort found on the TV series, Star Trek, a reality. Theoretically, we could put the design specifications of any object into an assembler-driven replicator, and as long as it was supplied with enough of the right sort of atoms, the replicator would produce it.” Supposedly, they could construct both inanimate and animate things. “Thus, genetic engineering and robotics would be greatly enhanced by the advent of universal assemblers.” This supposes that we could learn how to build one in the first place. Does anyone know if this is not anything but a pipe dream at the present time? I am not naysaying here. I only wonder if the dream is ahead of the reality at the moment.

[50] Gregory Bassham relates a list of things “that contribute to lasting happiness” from the research of David G. Myers. I wonder whether or not these are things are not the result of happiness and not causal factors in having it.

[56] “. . . there is a strong causal connection between goodness and happiness.” (ibid) But, which way?

[64] “. . . Gollum ends up not just in misery but in destruction.” But, he is extremely happy before he falls into the Cracks of Doom.

[89] “Here, Nietzsche suggests, we might be wise to consider great birds of prey who exploit (eat) little lambs for their own purposes.” These birds are not considered moral creatures by most philosophers. I would put an asterisk on this belief because we do not know what level of intelligence and consciousness that these birds possess, which are two important qualifications for moral deliberation. So, this maybe a non-transferable action to human beings.

[90] In note 8 it says in part: “This, his [Nietzsche] atheistic commitment seems more akin to a fundamental axiom than a well-reasoned conclusion.” It seems that this is all Nietzsche does. He just makes statements and grants that they are true.

[90] “For if God does not exist, it follows that humans have not been divinely created; and if they have not been divinely created, they have not been designed for any specific purposes. Humans thus exist for no purpose. Their lives have no inherent meaning.” This is considered the result of Nietzsche's “death of god.” The apparent purpose when god did exist was to die and go to heaven. Humans have to qualify for gaining access to heaven, so all actions they perform are geared towards gaining this access. But, if heaven is your abode would not an eternity worshiping god become a little bit tedious (a lot, actually). Anyway, it is human beings who determine their own purposes (goals) and provide their life with meaning (what is important).* There is an almost inexhaustible supply of these. I have many goals, so my life is filled with purpose, and there is also plenty of things I find important in my life. Thus, a world without god still contains a lot of purpose and meaning, it just resides in the brain (mind) in us, and not given to us by some inexplainable god.

[91] “Beauty not truth, will be our salvation.” Some mathematicians would find this almost acceptable because I feel these mathematicians would have the sense that a mathematical proof cannot be true if it is not beautiful. What mathematical beauty entails is never explained very well in my opinion from anything I have read.

[91] “To illustrate the meaninglessness of life, Nietzsche puts forward an unusual view of history, a view according to which everything that will ever happen has already happened infinitely many times in the past.” Like his claim for “the death of god,” this is never argued for, or proved by scientific studies.

[111] “For Aristotle, moral virtues are states of character one develops which, as they become more integral to one’s being, help one to lead a happier, more fulfilled life. This means we should not make lists of good or bad actions, or try to formulate general principles that allow no exceptions.” But, one does under this view draw up a list of virtues to instill in our lives. While I would agree that lists where morals are concerned should never have no exceptions, but as guidelines, including these lists seem like a positive contribution to ethics. Virtues and ethical guidelines are not mutually exclusive.

[140] Joe Kraus complains about modernism in the form of Freud, Marx, and Nietzsche. I think he is arguing against straw-men here. These are some of the worst forms of modernism. Modernism that values science and rationality has much to recommend itself for. I do realize that these are not the only things of value in life, but I maintain they are very important, and modern life would not be possible without them, and much poorer if you could actually reject them.

[222] Here you will find this quote from Hegel: “We may affirm absolutely that nothing great in the world has been accomplished without passion.” While I am sure I would not agree with the overall context of this quote, taken as stands it seems pretty spot on. Our emotions and feelings seem crucial to any action, both physical and mental.

[224] This quote by Whitehead sounds good: “Philosophy begins in wonder. And, at the end, when philosophic thought has done its best, the wonder remains.” If this is not the case, then the philosopher has done a bad job.

The book, being an anthology, had both its good and its bad chapters from my point of view. There were both those writers who I could agree with, and those writers that I was in disagreement with. These agreements and disagreements where either in the writers philosophical approach or in the specifics of what they argued for. Overall, I enjoyed this book, partly because it takes as its starting point one of my favorite works of fiction, and partly because of what was actually said. I should mention that this was the second time I have read it.

If you have and interest in The Lord of the Rings and are even a bit curious about philosophy you should enjoy this book. For those who have and interest in neither, I would not even bother to pick it up.


* See my blog “What Do You Mean? @ https://aquestionersjourney.wordpress... for a more in depth exploration of meaning.

[James · Rating 1 out of 5]

I wanted this to have much more depth than it did. It's written in a series template of " and Philosophy." There are ones for the Matrix and several other movies, including the Simpsons. The essays are so light and often not terribly illuminating. Light reads, I suppose, but a gem here and there.

[Stephanie · Rating 2 out of 5]

Some of the essays were good, but a lot of them read like the kind of papers I wrote in college. I had hoped that Philosophy professors would be able to do better. Still, it was a fun read for a Tolkien geek who misses philosophy classes.

[Syki · Rating 5 out of 5]

Pokud jste v životě neslyšeli o Tolkienovi, nejspíš žijete v nějaké bublině. Tento autor je totiž považován za zakladatele klasického fantasy žánru. Tolkien rád vymýšlel fantastické příběhy pro pobavení svých dětí. Každé Vánoce pro ně psal dopisy typickým třaslavým písmem vánočního dědečka a vybudoval tak sérii krátkých příběhů. Nikdy nečekal, že by jeho vymyšlené příběhy mohly někoho zajímat. Na naléhání bývalého studenta publikoval knihu Hobit, kterou původně napsal jen pro své děti. Oslovila však i dospělé čtenáře a stala se tak populární, že byl Tolkien požádán o pokračování. Takhle světlo světa spatřil Pán prstenů. Ten se v minulých letech také dočkal svého velkolepého filmového zpracování. Letos se do kin chystá první část filmového zpracování Hobita.

Není tedy divu, že ke knihám a celém usvětu vznikla řada doprovodných a rozebírajících knižních děl různých autorů. Jednou z nich je právě i Pán prstenů a filozofie. Gregory Bassham je vedoucím institutu Center for Ethics and Public Life a vedoucím katedry filozofie na King’s College v Pensylvánii. Eric Bronson je vedoucím katedry filozofie a dějin na Berkley College v New Yorku. Společně vytvořili sbírku filozofických esejí na téma Tolkienových knih.

Zajímaly vás někdy pohnutky jednotlivých postav? Proč někteří dokázali volání prstenu odolat a jiní ne? Proč se jej Frodo ujal a rozhodl se dokončit svou misi i bez svých společníků, jen aby je ochránil? Proč Sauron v knize figuruje jen jako vševědoucí oko? Co vedlo Sarumana k tomu, aby sledoval jen své cíle? Naopak Gandalf se rozhodl pomoci?

Kniha je souborem filozofických rozborů jednotlivých aspektů Tolkienova světa. Dívá se na příběhy nejen filozoficky, ale také dosti lidsky a zcela zábavně. Zabývá se morálkou jednotlivých postav, jejich vývojem i pohledem na svět. Rozebírá, jak moc dokáže vlastnictví prstenu ovlivnit toho, kdo jej má. A jaký důsledek může mít zničení prstenu na celou společnost.

Překladatelka si s překladem hezky vyhrála. Nevím, jestli je to dáno vtipností předlohy nebo prostě samotným překladem, ale musím přiznat, že se mi kniha moc hezky četla. Některá slova byla natolik trefná, že si je nejspíš budu pamatovat delší dobu.

Už je to nějaká doba, kdy jsem četla Hobita i Pána prstenů. Musím se přiznat, že mě některé opisy děje, či zdravení postav pomalu na pět řádků, nudily. Mnohem stravitelnější se pro mě stala filmová verze. Nejspíš nikdy nezapomenu na sexy Legolase. Nebo uhrančivý pohled Aragorna.

Tak jako tak jsem ovšem nikdy nepřestávala žasnout nad propracovaností Tolkienových světů. Je zvláštní, když se v něčí hlavě zrodí příběh tak silný a zajímavý, že baví celé generace. Kniha mě donutila uvažovat nad věcmi, kterým jsem dříve nepřikládala žádnou důležitost. Nebo si jich naopak ani moc nevšímala.

Přestože jde o filozofické pohledy na celý svět knih, častokrát jsem se při čtení jednotlivých myšlenek musela opravdu smát. Několikrát dokonce i nahlas. Člověk by neřekl, jak může být filozofická kniha zábavná. Obzvlášť se mi líbila pasáž, v níž se rozebírala touha po Jednom prstenu. Esejista došel až k tomu, že je zcela normální jej chtít, jelikož každý z nás má nějaký ten fetiš. Pro někoho to můžou být ženské nohy v punčochách, no pro postavy Pána prstenů to byl právě onen prsten.

Nemůžu jinak a dávám knize plných 5 hvězdiček. Bavila jsem se od začátku do konce a kolikrát žasla nad tím, co všechno se dá rozebrat. Párkrát mi kniha dokonce připomněla postavy, o kterých jsem zapomněla a jejich význam. Takový Tom Bombadil byl ve skutečnosti mnohem mocnější, než bych si zprvu myslela. Knihu vřele doporučuju všem fanouškům Tolkienova díla.


-----------Reakce po dočtení knihy-----------
Kdo by řekl, že filozofický rozbor známého díla dokáže být tak zábavný.

[Eustacia Tan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Despite being a bookworm, I only read Lord of The Rings after the hype passed, when I was 16/17 (and the movie came out when I was, what? 12?) And the only reason I read it was because my friend assured me that once you get past the hobbits, it's not boring any longer. And I really have to thank her, because the book was amazing. So, I'll naturally read any book related to it, such as this one: LOTR and Philosophy.

The book is divided into 5 parts: The Ring, The Quest for Happiness, Good and Evil in Middle-Earth, Time and Mortality and Ends and Endings. The five parts are quite comprehensive for a book this short, it covers things like the environmental themes, the pursuit of happiness, modernism, etc.

One thing I learnt was about Gyges ring, which Tolkien might have based The One Ring on. This ring was used in Plato's "Republic" as a reason why there's no need to live a moral life. It's actually quite interesting when you think about it; throughout the book, the Ring tempts all with the promise of power (like how the Gyges ring gave the shepherd the kingdom in the end). But perhaps extrapolating from the story, we see that the power from the ring doesn't bring happiness. Gollum is a wretched creature and I don't think many people will want to be Sauron.

So, I could go through each chapter (that was from chapter one) and talk about all the things that I learnt. But then, it'll be way too long and I'm sure you'd rather read the book. But the only other chapter I want to mention is Chapter 14 - Talking Trees and Walking Mountains: Buddhist and Taoist Themes in The Lord of the Rings.

Why in the end, the author does admit the the similarities are superficial, I still don't understand how people would interpret LOTR in a Buddhist way. Tolkien was, by all accounts, a devout Roman Catholic so I would presume that any religious influence would be Christianity. Plus, he was a scholar of Western Mythology so I would think that the Eastern religions are very unlikely to influence his writings. Plus, if you take the whole talking trees and stuff, it actually ties in with Christianity. Like the chapter says, Tolkien emphasises stewardship, a Christian concept that originated when God gave Adam dominion over the earth. And the whole Ents thing, well, is it possible that he was influenced by Luke 19:40 which says " 'I tell you,' he replied, 'if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out.' "? If you've read anything that could shed light, please tell me, I'm actually quite interested in finding out.

(First posted at Inside the mind of a Bibliophile)

[Chris · Rating 3 out of 5]

Wow, remember when I was reading things? One thing I noticed about my period of unemployment was that I didn't do a lot of the things I thought I would do if I had the time to do them. Drawing, for example - I barely drew anything. And reading, too. I hardly picked up a book. I spent a lot of time going out or on the computer, but I didn't read. One reason might be that the only chair I have in the apartment is at my desk, so there's a lot of distraction. But another is just that, when you have all the time in the world to do what you want, you actually find ways of doing it... later.

So, with a return to gainful employment arrived, I've finally finished a book. And it's not a bad one. Much like the Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Philosophy book, this one tries to examine some basic philosophical questions by using examples drawn from the characters and concepts in The Lord of the Rings.

For example - does power really corrupt, and could a good person go bad? Why would the Elves view death as a gift while Men were so desirous of immortality? What are the environmental themes of this book? And is more advanced technology automatically dangerous?

I found that last one interesting, because I view science and technology as being, overall, beneficial to humanity. But is there a point where it becomes too powerful to be beneficial? Just as the One Ring was too powerful to be used for good, might, say, nanotechnology eventually do us harm against our will?

It's a good read if you're a Tolkein fan and have read a lot of his work. If you've only watched the movies, you can still get a good handle on the ideas presented in this book.

[Rafael Escipión Násica Barbado · Rating 4 out of 5]

Me encantó cómo varios profesionales se unieron para hacer una reseña, desde sus perspectivas sobre el señor de los anillos y la filosofía. Me quedo con la cita de J. Lenore Wright en "la aventura excelente de Sam y Frodo: el motivo del viaje de Tolkien": 'En cuanto a algún significado interior o "mensaje", no hay ninguno, en las intenciones del autor(...) Podrían haberse ideado otros cambios de acuerdo con los gustos y opiniones de los aficionados a las alegorías o las referencias tópicas. Pero detesto cordialmente la alegoría en todas sus manifestaciones (...) Prefiero la historia, auténtica o inventada, de variada aplicabilidad al pensamiento y la experiencia de los lectores. Pienso que muchos confunden *aplicabilidad* con *alegoría*; pero la primera reside en la libertad del lector, y la otra en un predeterminado dominio del autor. (cartas a Tolkien). Y esto me ayudó a terminar de aplicar bien los términos acordes, por lo que le pongo 4 estrellas. Me habría gustado ponerle 5, pero no, porque el trabajo de B. Steve Csaki y Jennifer L. McMahon me pareció mediocre por no decir que deficiente para ser filósofos, ni si quiera hicieron por leer más que la trilogía y hasta quizás nadamás vieron las películas. Los demás todavía se dieron la tarea de leer el silmarillion, el hobbit, cuentos desde el reino peligroso, la caída del rey arturo y por supuesto, las cartas de Tolkien recopiladas por Humphrey Carpenter.

[Ihor Kolesnyk · Rating 4 out of 5]

Статті різного рівня. Дещо дуже поверхневе і розчарувало, але кілька текстів точно заслуговують на увагу.

[Avery (ThePagemaster) · Rating 2 out of 5]

I only thought a couple essays were ok to read. Nothing against LotR, and the potential philosophies, but I love Lord of the Rings and I just see it as one of the most important fantasies and stories ever written that, yes, has a lesson or two that can be learned/taught, but other than that--the end.

[Gini · Rating 4 out of 5]

A nice overview of philosophy using Lord of the Rings as the basis. The chapters are pretty introductory in nature and certainly not meant to substitute for a real study in philosophy, but it makes a good review or introduction to the topic.

[Jade Cahoon · Rating 2 out of 5]

Best essay was by far the last. The rest were rather disappointing.

[Ali · Rating 5 out of 5]

Philosophical essays on different aspects of the lord of the rings magnificent world. Explains many philosophical views, and their indications in the trilogy.

[Emily D. · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a fun read: a collection of essays on various philosophical topics revolving around The Lord of the Rings. Any analysis of Lord of the Rings is enjoyable, and I learned a little about a few old philosophers as well.

(discussing the differing perspectives of the "gift of mortality" between elves and humans):
"Existentialists such as Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus want us to see that the inevitability of death can be helpful. Because we know that we are going to die soon, we are not tempted to take this life for granted. Our impending death keeps us from forgetting that this life is all there is, and that we have only a short time to live as richly and meaningfully as we can. It takes great courage to live with full knowledge that this is all there is, but death keeps us from thinking that we have forever to get it right."

(discussing the Ents):
"Just as the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein said, "If a lion could talk we could not understand it," no doubt if a forest or ecosystem could talk we wouldn't understand it either. Its perspective would be too foreign to us. But when we anthropomorphize a natural entity, it is not simply to imagine what a thing would say if given a voice, but also to say something about how we can look at the world differently from our own limited perspective."

[James · Rating 4 out of 5]

I glean more about Sam, particularly the depth of his confusion and suffering at the point when Frodo appears to be dead. He does no know what to do. Their journey is apparently over.

Sam penetrates his gloom, "I have something to do before the end. I must see it through, sir, if you understand." But what is there to do? Should he bury Frodo? What should he do about the ring and sword? Sam thinks that if somehow he and the ring-bearer were to finish their heroic journey, they would die in the desert even before reaching Mount Doom; they won't succeed in their quest; They'll never return home.

As Sam becomes aware of his discouragement, his face sets hard upon his duty. His body steels; his will hardens. He will not, cannot fail. After hope, he learns, there remains hardiness in the fight. 'Don't quit.'

[Aaron · Rating 5 out of 5]

Not for the easily frightened, or people who don't like to think too often. The books explores some of the deeper questions behind the Lord of the Rings trilogy, such as "does eternal life get boring?" or "Is death really a curse?"

You'll probably want to split this book up as it's tedium can be quite demanding, but well worth it if you've the patience and time to devote to it.

[Kahraman Kahramangil · Rating 4 out of 5]

Yüzüklerin Efendisi; kitaplarından filmlerine kadar bir fenomen olan fantastik seri. Neredeyse herkesin bildiği bir serinin tanıtımını yapmak saçma olacağı için bu sefer olaya farklı bir bakış açısından yaklaşarak, Tolkien ellerinden çıkan ve yarım asırdan uzun süredir popülerliğini koruyan eserin, felsefe ile olan yakın markajını ele alacağız. Aslında biz ele almıyoruz, ele alınmışı hakkında bir kaç kelimeyi satırlarla buluşturacağız…

Devamı için: http://kahramangiller.com/kitap/filmd...

[Alayne · Rating 5 out of 5]

It's wonderful what one can find in op shops! A collection of philosophers (and Lord of the Rings fans) look at the philosophies to be found in Tolkein's works, including The Hobbit and The Silmarillion. Some of their findings, I found, to be more realistic than others. For example, the one subtitled Buddhist and Taoist themes I felt was a bit of a stretch, as Tolkein was a conservative English Catholic who probably didn't know anything about Taoism or Buddhism. But I enjoyed it and it was well worth reading.

[Paul · Rating 4 out of 5]

Over a dozen philosophers cover issues as presented in The Lord of the Rings trilogy. Section headings are The Ring, The Quest for Happiness, Good and Evil in Middle-Earth, Time and Mortality, Ends and Endings. I find it interesting that a majority of these authors are now professionals but they all read this great saga in high school and/or college and are now reflecting on the philosophical issues the book raises.

[Wendy · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was very thought-provoking, which was kind of the idea. It's not supposed to be entertainment, it's an evaluation of a popular piece of literature through a particular lens.

I have to say I didn't always agree with all of the conclusions drawn. But that in itself is valuable, since I hadn't necessarily considered the subject before. Drawing my own conclusions at all means the book did its job.

Seeking out others in the series to read.

[kastle · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a collection of essays by selected modern-day philosophers who double as Tolkien lovers. They all provide an interesting perspective on Professor Tolkien's writings and makes you think a little harder about the underlying lessons and themes of the tales of Middle Earth. Uses primarily as references The Silmarillion, The Letters, and LOTR trilogy on which to base their facts. Fun!

[Bonnie · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Eucatastrophe" - a great word, an even greater experience. This is a good book, an enjoyable and thoughtful book and it ends, like "The Lord of the Rings" affirming eucatastrophe.

[Jenn · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is not a novel, rather a collection of essays. That should be known to anyone before reading it. It is also necessary to have some back ground in philosophy to enjoy this book. That being said it is fun to take a series loved by so many and look at how ancient themes and discussions have lasted so long and are still being found in our writing today.

[May · Rating 2 out of 5]

Didn't tell me much that I didn't deduce already. Couple decent articles, but sometimes messages are forced way too desperately (LOTR and Taoism, really?). Plus, two irksome mistakes - Gollum was NOT a hobbit, he was hobbit-like (difference) and okay, TECHNICALLY you could say that Gandalf had a wand but I'd rather they say staff instead.

[Jimmy Ranieri · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great look into the Lord of the Rings in regards to several different philosophical considerations. The authors clearly understood the Lord of the Rings and appeared to be fans of the books in addition to excellent philosophers. I thought a couple of the chapters missed the mark, but for the most part an excellent book for anyone who loves the Lord of the Rings series and JRR Tolkein.

[Titus Hjelm · Rating 3 out of 5]

I could imagine some of the chapters working well as pop culture intros to (mostly) moral philosophy. The contributions are uneven, however, and some (LOTR and Buddhism/Taoism?) far fethched, honestly. But it's a fun book and recommended for Tolkien fans interested in philosophy--less so the other way around.

[Paul · Rating 4 out of 5]

Addresses basic philosophical issues via a series of essays on the Lord of the Rings.

[Derek Baad · Rating 4 out of 5]

Don't know why, but I really like this series of books. Nothing too heavy, but interested to the connections the various authors make. I enjoyed the first 2/3 of the book best, especially the opening essays. On to Tarantino and Philosophy.

[Kai Crawford · Rating 3 out of 5]

Varied essays relating the Lord of the Rings to philosophical concepts. More interesting was seeing all the differing opinions of each author and how they they agreed/conflicted over major motifs and themes in the Lord of the Rings.

[Chris · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have friends who are really into critical analysis who said this would be superficial and for 'layman fanboy readers'. I personally found it to be the opposite, containing both intriguing and entertaining analysis.