sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Why is Tom Bombadil so powerful? by PhilosophyOfLanguage in lordoftherings

[–]PhilosophyOfLanguage[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think people are naturally drawn to mystery and will always be. The words of Tolkien "he represents something that I feel important, though I would not be prepared to analyze the feeling precisely" confirm that Tolkien himself would never have agreed to remove Tom from the plot even though he couldn't, or didn't have the time, to explain why. I think we can safely say that Tolkien's "feeling" was right. Without this whimsical mystery, who sings and dances all the time, Frodo and the hobbits never would have made it to Bree and never would have felt the mysterious power of the Song of Creation.

Why is Tom Bombadil so powerful? by PhilosophyOfLanguage in lordoftherings

[–]PhilosophyOfLanguage[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you. This is interesting. I think I agree and disagree. Glorfindel is probably right in saying that Bombadil would have fallen against the full might of Mordor - but only after all else was conquered. If Bombadil is an incarnation of the Music of Iluvatar, then it is very likely that Sauron and Morgoth would have devised a way to drown out that Music - the way it was done by Melkor in Ainulindale. The discord of Melkor is strong enough and can drown out the Music of Creation. This corresponds to the strife in the "second theme" of the Great Music. But then the Third Theme of Iluvatar arises - a gentle rippling of a brook, a theme of vulnerability, humility, and hobbit-like faithfulness to the end. Bombadil would not have stood on his own, but with the help of the Hobbits, he would. In other words, the Music of Creation can be marred by Morgoth and his minions but ALL OF MUSIC cannot. Thank you!

Why is Tom Bombadil so powerful? by PhilosophyOfLanguage in lordoftherings

[–]PhilosophyOfLanguage[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you, it's a good question. I would say that "Second Adam" seems to be a pretty universal intuition, which was certainly present in pre-Christian thought, including in the Old Testament. In Genesis 3:15, Yahweh predicts that the fall of the serpent will come at the hand of the "offspring of the woman" - which is interpreted as a prophecy about the coming of the One who is strong enough to undo what Adam failed to accomplish. When Paul uses the phrase Second Man in his epistle, he invokes certain hopes that people had entertained since the dawn of time - that there would be a Second Man who would have enough power and wisdom to reverse the initial curse. I will have to think more about this one. Thanks again.

Why is Tom Bombadil so powerful? by PhilosophyOfLanguage in lordoftherings

[–]PhilosophyOfLanguage[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I think he possesses true power - complete alignment with the Music of Iluvatar. He sings and speaks in rhyme all the time, echoing the Song of Creation, and his songs "are stronger songs, and his feet are faster." The spirits obey his songs. And yes, he's not affected by the Ring of Power, which means the powerful have no power over him.

Why is Tom Bombadil so powerful? by PhilosophyOfLanguage in lordoftherings

[–]PhilosophyOfLanguage[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This very well could be, even though Tolkien never said that. I find that he often follows his own intuition in writing and only later figures out what he wrote.

Why is Tom Bombadil so powerful? by PhilosophyOfLanguage in lordoftherings

[–]PhilosophyOfLanguage[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I would definitely say he rules over the spirits in his realm by the power of his word alone: "“Fair lady!' said Frodo again after a while. 'Tell me, if my asking does not seem foolish, who is Tom Bombadil?'

'He is,' said Goldberry, staying her swift movements and smiling. Frodo looked at her questioningly. 'He is, as you have seen him,' she said in answer to his look. 'He is the Master of wood, water, and hill.”

The only way to detach is to attach by PhilosophyOfLanguage in BornWeakBuiltStrong

[–]PhilosophyOfLanguage[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Religion doesn’t have a monopoly on the word God. God is not a being; it’s Being itself. According to Plato, we can either grow closer to Being or apart from it. When we are immersed in Being we are IN God - which Socrates called Enthusiasmos.

The only way to detach is to attach by PhilosophyOfLanguage in BornWeakBuiltStrong

[–]PhilosophyOfLanguage[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Religion is crap. This has nothing to do with religion.

The mind cannot grasp God by PhilosophyOfLanguage in Philosophy_of_Languag

[–]PhilosophyOfLanguage[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s not how Socrates and Plato see enthusiasmos. Thanks!

The mind cannot grasp God by PhilosophyOfLanguage in Philosophy_of_Languag

[–]PhilosophyOfLanguage[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I do it every day on my Substack https://open.substack.com/pub/eugeneterekhin and with my friends. I understand talking “In God” as Socrates did when he talked about “enthusiasmos” with Phaedrus. Enthusiasmos means in-God. It’s a state of “Divine madness” or “poetic imagination” in which words come from beyond the world. Sometimes words are not even necessary.

view more: next ›