I’m not sure to what degree a true synthesis is useful, though many have tried it. I’m mostly interested in pointing out commonalities where they exist. A lot of attempts at “synthesizing” the two do violence to one or the other. Still, Nietzsche is kind of the only game in town for modern philosophy, and Christians have to grapple with that
The only part of my politics that I derive from Lord of the Rings is that we have no such man as Aragorn, never have had and never will have. Even if we did, we could not keep him for long.
Tolkien himself in writing and writing about the New Shadow indicates that Aragorn’s own son is as prone to the foibles and weaknesses that afflicted the nation under his royal and stewardly predecessors.
There is as little escape from petty dynasts under monarchy as there is from grasping grafting grifters under democracy. Men will always become dissatisfied with the good from boredom and well-being, and the old and the true will always have to hold them in line, or not.
Tolkien didn't like allegory, but he supported applicability, which is why LotR can be applied in so many ways, including all the ones you seek to dismiss.
Agreed, except that I’m not a nihilist and I don’t think you can just make stuff up and say “Tolkien would have supported this.” If that’s what you’re interested in, why read anything at all?
yep. Neither of those things are at all Nietzschean (Nietzsche was perhaps the greatest critic of managerialism and statism of all time and hated anti-semites)
Good stuff. It seems that what is needed is an imaginative fusion-synthesis between Nietzsche and Christianity a la Tolkien
I’m not sure to what degree a true synthesis is useful, though many have tried it. I’m mostly interested in pointing out commonalities where they exist. A lot of attempts at “synthesizing” the two do violence to one or the other. Still, Nietzsche is kind of the only game in town for modern philosophy, and Christians have to grapple with that
The only part of my politics that I derive from Lord of the Rings is that we have no such man as Aragorn, never have had and never will have. Even if we did, we could not keep him for long.
Tolkien himself in writing and writing about the New Shadow indicates that Aragorn’s own son is as prone to the foibles and weaknesses that afflicted the nation under his royal and stewardly predecessors.
There is as little escape from petty dynasts under monarchy as there is from grasping grafting grifters under democracy. Men will always become dissatisfied with the good from boredom and well-being, and the old and the true will always have to hold them in line, or not.
Rorschach’s “Rings,” indeed.
Tolkien didn't like allegory, but he supported applicability, which is why LotR can be applied in so many ways, including all the ones you seek to dismiss.
Agreed, except that I’m not a nihilist and I don’t think you can just make stuff up and say “Tolkien would have supported this.” If that’s what you’re interested in, why read anything at all?
Well he did partially support all the causes you seek to dismiss, and wasn't too keen on Nietzscheanism.
He certainly did not support gay rights, feminism, or American foreign adventurism lmao
But he did support the West's fight against Nazism and opposed what would latter be called managerialism.
yep. Neither of those things are at all Nietzschean (Nietzsche was perhaps the greatest critic of managerialism and statism of all time and hated anti-semites)