Kreeft suggests this book can be used in several fascinating ways: 1. **A Philosophical Voyage:** First and foremost, it's designed to be a good read, a journey into the philosophical heart of Middle-earth itself. It helps you understand _why_ you felt you had touched Truth when you first read _The Lord of the Rings_. 2. **A Research Companion:** It can also serve as a research tool or concordance, outlining philosophical themes through fifty key questions and providing references to _The Lord of the Rings_ and Tolkien's other works. 3. **An Introduction to Philosophy:** Believe it or not, this book can be a fantastic way to get into philosophy! It explores many of the great philosophical questions, not in dry, abstract terms, but as they are lived out and grappled with in the vibrant world of the story. Kreeft even suggests pairing it with works representing opposing philosophies, like those by Sartre or Camus, to highlight the contrasts. 4. **A Bridge to Understanding:** The book provides four helpful tools for each philosophical issue it tackles: - An explanation of the question's meaning and importance. - A key quotation from _The Lord of the Rings_ showing Tolkien's perspective. - A quote from Tolkien's other writings (like his letters) that sheds light on the theme. - A quote from his dear friend, C. S. Lewis, stating a similar philosophy directly. Kreeft notes that because of limitations on quoting, readers are encouraged to look up these passages in the original works. This approach also highlights the incredibly close intellectual parallel between Tolkien and Lewis, stemming not so much from direct influence on each other's _writing_, but from a shared deep respect for the same foundational sources in pre-modern Western thought, philosophy, and religion. They were so close in their shared beliefs and "jihad against the modern world" they could be called "the Tolkie-lewis monster," much like G. K. Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc were known as "the Chesterbelloc monster". **But Wait, Wasn't Tolkien Just a Philologist?** Ah, a fair question! Isn't talking about "the philosophy of Tolkien" like talking about "the politics of Chopin" or "the theology of Euclid"? While Tolkien wasn't a _professional_ philosopher (and perhaps, like most of us, you aren't either!), Kreeft argues he absolutely had a distinct and definite philosophy, a worldview and lifeview – a _Weltanschauung_ and _Lebensschauung_. You see, philosophy isn't just for academics; everyone has one. As Cicero put it, your only choice is between having a good philosophy and a bad one. A philosophy is like the fundamental operating system of your mind, and it permeates _everything_ you do, including creative work. Just think about it: a Hindu, a Marxist, a Cartesian rationalist, or a Nietzschean nihilist would have written a vastly different _Lord of the Rings_ than Tolkien did. It's inescapable! Not admitting you have a philosophy is simply having a bad one that doesn't understand itself or anything else. **What Makes _The Lord of the Rings_ So Great? Its Philosophy!** _The Lord of the Rings_ has achieved incredible recognition, even being voted the greatest book of the twentieth century (and sometimes the millennium) in major polls, much to the surprise of the literary establishment. Why is it so beloved? Every great story has five essential dimensions: plot, characters, setting, style, and theme. Kreeft cleverly renames these: work, workers, world, words, and wisdom. Since "philosophy" means "the love of wisdom," a story's philosophy is one of these basic dimensions. To be truly great, a work of art must excel in _all_ dimensions, just like a healthy body or soul needs health in all its parts. While Tolkien is renowned for his world-building, language, and characters, perhaps the most valuable gift a story can give is its fifth dimension: its wisdom, its philosophy, its insight into life and the world. This book focuses _only_ on that philosophical dimension. It's important to remember that _The Lord of the Rings_ is not an allegory; the philosophy isn't just sitting on the surface. Instead, it's deeply infused within the story, like the light that illuminated the author. This worldview is presented as true and good, fighting against problematic "smelly little orthodoxies," much like the healing herb athelas in the story. **Philosophy and Literature: A Dynamic Duo** Kreeft sees philosophy and literature as natural partners, like the two lenses of binoculars. - **Philosophy:** Argues abstractly, states truth. - **Literature:** Persuades concretely, shows truth. They reinforce each other's vision: philosophy clarifies literature, and literature makes philosophy real. Philosophy shows essences, literature shows existence; philosophy shows meaning, literature shows life. This is distinct from **allegory**, where concrete elements rigidly represent abstract concepts (like Pilgrim being Everyman and Giant Despair being despair in _The Pilgrim's Progress_). Tolkien, except for "Leaf by Niggle," famously disliked allegory, feeling it was an author's "purposed domination" rather than leaving room for the reader's "applicability". In non-allegorical stories, the philosophy serves the story, like a frame serves a picture, allowing the story to test the philosophy. Kreeft's personal test? True non-allegory makes _reality_ remind you of the story, not the other way around. Literature can act like a laboratory, testing philosophies by incarnating them in characters and showing the outcome. Bad philosophies (like determinism, which denies free will, or existentialist nihilism, which denies fate/purpose) struggle to produce great stories, while the complex interplay of fate and free will is the stuff of literary greatness. Literature is inherently judgmental, even when it seems otherwise, as any stance implies a judgment against its opposite. **Mapping the Wisdom: The Fifty Questions** The book organizes Tolkien's philosophy into fifty great questions drawn from eleven areas of philosophy, moving from the more abstract and theoretical to the more concrete and practical. This approach, starting with fundamental principles like metaphysics before moving to ethics, is presented as an efficient way to understand the subject logically, even if it reverses how we often learn things inductively. Think of it like learning chess strategy before individual moves, or geometry before studying planets. Kreeft acknowledges this structure is for teaching, not for the narrative suspense Tolkien provides. The eleven areas covered are: 1. Metaphysics (Reality's size, supernaturalism, Platonic Ideas) 2. Philosophical Theology (God's existence, providence, fate/freedom, relating to God) 3. Angelology (Reality of angels, guardian angels, creatures between men/angels like Elves) 4. Cosmology (Nature's beauty, things having personalities, real magic) 5. Anthropology (Death/immortality, romance/sex, identity crises, deepest desire) 6. Epistemology (Nature of knowledge, intuition, faith/trust, truth) 7. Philosophy of History (History as story, tradition, predictability, devolution/evolution, tragedy/comedy) 8. Aesthetics (Glory/splendor, beauty's goodness) 9. Philosophy of Language (Words being alive, words' power, right/wrong words, original language, music's power) 10. Political Philosophy (Smallness/beauty, war's nobility) 11. Ethics (Evil's reality/power/weakness/workings, hard virtues, soft virtues) This isn't a complete list of _all_ philosophical questions, but a representative sample of the most impactful ones. **Philosophy's Impact: A Total Difference** What you believe philosophically makes a _total_ difference to your life, coloring absolutely everything. Kreeft contrasts two fundamental philosophies: 1. **The Older View (Shakespeare, Tolkien, Pre-modern):** Reality is big, full of wonder and mystery. One feels like a child in a large house, expecting "moreness" – terrors and joys. This world can contain dragons _and_ heroes. 2. **The Modern/Post-modern View (Cynical, Skeptical, Reductionist):** There are fewer things in reality than the older philosophies dream of. It reduces mystery to puzzles, love to lust, man to ape, God to myth. It's characterized by doubting everything unproved, treating ideas as guilty until proven innocent. The older philosophy, like Socrates's method, treated ideas (and people) as innocent until proven guilty. Good fantasy, from this older perspective, isn't an _escape from_ reality, but a "flight _to_ reality," showing the true nature of the world through fictional details. Tolkien's descriptions of the vast, deep, high realm of fairy-story reflect this large view of Reality itself. He felt he was _discovering_, not inventing, his world, as if it was "already there," a common experience among great authors. C. S. Lewis shared this, arguing "the proper study of mankind is everything," and the question isn't "Is it real?" but "A real _what_?". **Supernatural Sparks** Tolkien, a Christian, was clearly a supernaturalist. While he kept explicit supernatural elements hidden in _The Lord of the Rings_ to avoid anachronism, he said fantasy naturally deals with the supernatural. Supernaturalism is essential for evoking wonder; a purely worldly, pragmatic view leaves no room for it. It tells us our world has edges, that there is "more" beyond. The flat world in _The Silmarillion_ is a physical symbol for this supernaturalistic metaphysics, pointing to a "beyond," while a round world is self-contained and relative. The world becoming round in _The Silmarillion_ is a divine punishment, symbolically accurate for our worldview shifting from supernaturalism to naturalism. Even in our "round" world, death remains an absolute edge in time. The practical benefit of supernaturalism is hope in **divine grace**. Grace is desperately needed because evil is powerful and we are weak. Frodo, knowing his weakness but trusting implicitly in grace, volunteers for the Ring-bearer mission ("I will take the Ring, though I do not know the way"). This mirrors Mary's acceptance at the Annunciation, showing humility and faith. Tolkien showed this powerful implicit religion even without explicit religious practices. **Ideas That Shape Reality? Platonic Echoes** Why do fictional characters or creatures sometimes feel incredibly "real" or "authentic" even if they don't exist in our physical world? Kreeft suggests it's because they conform to **Platonic Ideas**. Tolkien's Elves feel more real than others because they better capture the Idea of Elvishness. Our ability to make value judgments (like calling a cowardly liar less "real" or authentic) also seems to come from being in touch with these kinds of non-physical standards or Ideas. **God's Invisible Light** To those who say God isn't in _The Lord of the Rings_, Kreeft responds that He is _never_ out of it, present like the sun in sunlight. While explicit in _The Silmarillion_ (Iluvatar, the Creator), in _The Lord of the Rings_, God's presence is a pervasion, detected by those who have "eyes to see". This relates to the concept of **divine providence**. God's plan for history is like a tapestry seen clearly only from the front (Thornton Wilder's image), but there are enough clues on the back side – effects of providence – to justify a rational faith, though not compel everyone. God invites, He doesn't force belief. Tolkien interprets the very climax of the story providentially, seeing Frodo's actions, humility, suffering, patience, and mercy towards Gollum rewarded by Mercy, allowing his "failure" at Mount Doom to be redressed as an instrument of divine Providence. The hundreds of providential "coincidences" in the story are presented naturally, making them a powerful, persuasive argument for providence, showing literature can convince where logic alone might not. Tolkien's belief in providence structured his mind, allowing the plot to unfold naturally, even surprising him. **The Dance of Fate and Freedom** Connected to providence is the age-old philosophical puzzle of **fate and free will**. _The Lord of the Rings_ is rich with destiny – events feel patterned and inevitable in hindsight, yet protagonists and readers are constantly surprised. True-to-life stories need both. Kreeft offers philosophical arguments for how both can be true: 1. **Divine Grace Perfects Nature:** God's grace doesn't suppress our nature (like free will) but perfects it and works through it because God invented it. He ensures things happen in the right way – unfreely for non-human things, freely for humans. 2. **God is Outside Time:** Destiny isn't a chain reaction like dominoes because God is not bound by time. He sees all eternity, including our free choices, at once (Boethius, C. S. Lewis). Lewis beautifully describes God having infinite attention for each of us, like an author isn't hurried by the imaginary time in their novel. **Religion: A Hidden Light** While set before Christianity, _The Lord of the Rings_ is deeply religious, a monotheistic "natural theology". Tolkien, a Catholic, stated it was "fundamentally religious and Catholic". His strategy was to _remove_ explicit religion (churches, rites) to make it _more_ religious, absorbing the element into the story and symbolism. Using Aristotle's four causes, Kreeft explains its religious nature: - **Material Cause (Subject Matter):** Not religious; it's not _about_ religion. - **Final Cause (Purpose):** Not primarily to convert, though Tolkien aimed to elucidate truth and encourage morals by exemplifying them. - **Formal Cause (Structure):** Religious in its structure. - **Efficient Cause (Origin):** Potentially religious in origin, perhaps divine inspiration. Tolkien quoted others who felt a sanctity or "light from an invisible lamp" in his work that didn't come solely from him, suggesting it came _through_ him. This image of light from an invisible source is echoed in Sam's description of Lorien, like God running the universe. **Angels Among Us (Kind Of)** The inclusion of Angelology might seem unusual, but in Tolkien's world, beings like the Wizards (Istari) are angels – Maiar sent as messengers (the meaning of "angel"). In _The Silmarillion_, these are the Ainur/Valar/Maiar. They are guardian figures carrying out divine providence, just as in traditional religious texts. The idea of angels helping create the material world (_Silmarillion_) is a theological opinion found in some Church Fathers, potentially addressing the problem of physical evil originating before human sin. Lewis also respectfully mentions this in _The Problem of Pain_. These beings can take on bodies like clothes (_Silmarillion_), another theological opinion with possible biblical backing. The Valar being called "gods" by Men offers a more-than-psychological explanation for ancient polytheism. The close friendship and manuscript sharing between Tolkien and Lewis likely led to influences on their portrayal of such beings. Tolkien himself confirmed the connection between Galadriel, Elbereth, and Catholic devotion to Mary. **Elves: More Than Just Fairies** Elves in Tolkien's world are distinct – not pure spirits like Ainur, nor mortals like men. They are immortal as long as the world lasts and can receive new bodies if killed. They represent elevated aspects of human nature: artistic, aesthetic, scientific, beautiful, long-lived, noble. While noble, they aren't perfect; their history includes tragedy and darkness. They envy mortality, and humans envy their immortality. They can be seen as "bad conservatives" trying to freeze time and preserve the past, reflecting a foolish human desire to cling to temporary things. Tolkien connects Elves to the concept of "Faerian Drama" in "On Fairy-Stories," where Elves present illusions so real, humans feel physically present in the secondary world. Kreeft humorously suggests this is why Tolkien's Elves are so convincing – perhaps he had Elf blood! _The Lord of the Rings_ itself feels like such a drama. The widespread belief in beings like Elves in pre-modern cultures (sometimes even today, like in Iceland!) points to a common human intuition, though they were often seen as more formidable/angelic than modern portrayals. Philosophical arguments for angels could extend to beings like Elves between humans and angels. Lewis describes similar beings, the Longaevi, in _The Discarded Image_, highlighting their mysterious, marginal nature and the historical theories about them. **Finding Beauty and Life in Nature** Unlike much science fiction, fantasy uses realistic settings. Middle-earth is our earth, just at a different time, making its setting literally real. One of fantasy's key uses, according to Tolkien, is **"recovery"** – seeing the natural world more clearly, freeing it from the dullness of "appropriation" (taking it for granted). It's like rediscovering the world with fresh eyes, appreciating that a green leaf is wonderful because it _might_ have been scarlet. This helps us return to prioritizing contemplation. Good fantasy, while creative, is also realistic in its fundamental truth, conforming to the real world and acting as a "flight to reality". Tolkien's love for nature is evident; Kreeft suggests the setting itself might be the most important dimension in _The Lord of the Rings_, with Middle-earth as the real hero. Tolkien famously started writing with a map, making the story fit, which emphasizes the world's solidity. Tolkien restores a pre-Cartesian worldview where things, even seemingly inanimate ones like mountains, are more alive and person-like. This contrasts with the modern, reductionist view that sees matter as passive mechanism. Kreeft names materialism, Cartesian dualism, and spiritualism ("Create your own reality") as modern philosophies that kill this older cosmology, arguing they oversimplify reality. While Ockham's Razor (simplest explanation) is useful for science, it's not necessarily true of reality itself, which is far more complex than a map or a formula. **The Two Kinds of Magic: A Modern Crisis** In this more animate, pre-modern cosmology, the abundant life in things might be called **"magic"**. But Tolkien presents two fundamentally opposed kinds of magic. The **Enchantment** of Faerie is a healing magic, characterized by "magic of a peculiar mood and power" distinct from the "vulgar devices of the laborious, scientific, magician". The other kind is the magic exemplified by the **Ring** – a destructive force. These two magics represent opposing forms of potency. Faerian magic has **internal or spiritual potency** (like the Chinese _te_), power over the free spirit rooted in goodness, truth, and beauty. It's the right that makes its own might. The Ring's magic has **external potency**, coercive power over bodies, characteristic of technologism and totalitarianism. It's the might that makes its own right. This conflict is the central drama in philosophies like Plato's _Republic_. Tolkien said the Ring mythologically represents the truth that power, to be exercised, must be externalized and thus passes out of direct control. This helps explain why, despite our technological power today, we might feel weaker than our ancestors. Kreeft argues this makes Tolkien's fantasy incredibly relevant, not escapist. **The Core Theme: Death and Immortality** Readers are often surprised to learn that Tolkien considered the fundamental theme of _The Lord of the Rings_ to be **death and immortality**, not power or domination. While not explicitly discussed at length, reflections reveal death is omnipresent through imagery, character deaths, and the presence of the dead/undead. The theme is absorbed into the symbolism. Tolkien himself only fully realized the theme's dominance upon rereading. The contrast is between true immortality and the "hideous peril of confusing true 'immortality' with limitless serial longevity". Tolkien doesn't condemn the desire for true immortality but sees it as a deep, ancient human longing that fantasy can satisfy (the "Great Escape" from death), leading to the joyful turn of **eucatastrophe**. **Good Death vs. Bad Death** This theme can be framed as "good death versus bad death," or the death of the ego versus the death of the soul. It's linked to the idea (prominent in Dostoevsky and Christian thought) that losing one's life (ego) voluntarily for others is how one truly saves it, while clinging to life selfishly leads to losing the true, larger life God intends. Tolkien's heroes, like Frodo, are seen as "crypto-Christians" – they exemplify the Christian paradox of immortality through death and resurrection of the self via self-sacrifice, even without knowing Christian doctrine. Frodo's self-abnegation (taking the Ring, resisting its lust) is the central point about death Tolkien makes. His courage, suffering, and eventual sadness are present in pagan wisdom, but the unique, mystical power of self-abnegation makes sense only through incorporation into Christ's death. Tolkien believes the greatest spiritual actions are in abnegation. C. S. Lewis contrasts this Christian view of death with Stoic indifference. **Love, Romance, and Self-Denial** The perceived absence of explicit sex is addressed; while partly due to the Ring's corrupting influence (only those untouched by the Ring marry, except Sam), Kreeft suggests it's also because Tolkien wrote from a pre-Freudian culture. Romance is present (Aragorn/Arwen, Sam/Rosie) and shows the essential connection between ordinary life and heroic quests. Tolkien emphasizes this "rustic" love is essential to the theme. In a letter, Tolkien shares his philosophy of love and marriage, praising the chivalric tradition for virtues like fidelity and self-denial, but warning against replacing God with Love/Lady and fostering unrealistic expectations of effortless, permanent "true love" unrelated to will, purpose, or daily life. He stresses that faithfulness requires conscious will and **self-denial** in a fallen world. The rare, "destined" great love is a glimpse of what marriage could be in an unfallen world. He tells his son that the Blessed Sacrament (the Eucharist) is the greatest thing to love on earth, containing romance, glory, honor, fidelity, and teaching the "divine paradox" of death/surrender leading to the reality and eternal endurance of earthly loves. This is a powerful and perhaps surprising connection! **Identity, Archetypes, and the Loss of Self** Characters like Eowyn, who transcends traditional gender roles without rejecting the concept of roles themselves, embody the idea of accepting **archetypes** – natural, eternally rational patterns that help construct identity, as opposed to unnatural, irrational **stereotypes** invented by propagandists. Philosophy also explores what it means to be human. Vice can cause individuals to lose their human nature and become beast-like (Boethius), an idea exemplified by Gollum (an "ex-Hobbit") and the Ringwraiths ("Un-men"). **Longing for Paradise** Though Tolkien didn't explicitly write a Christian allegory, he intended his story to arouse a deep **desire**. This desire is for Paradise, a longing rooted in living in a "fallen, broken world" and remembering/craving another. We are like "disinherited princes" who remember our true home. Fantasy stimulates and satisfies desires for fantasy, recovery, escape, and consolation. **Knowing Truth: Beyond Logic** **Epistemology**, the study of knowledge, asks how we know truth and whether we can trust our knowledge. Kreeft suggests our modern culture's exchange of "ancient wisdom for modern knowledge" is Gollum-like. Tolkien implies that over-analyzing the mystery of Faerie risks losing the key to it. Leaving things unexplained in a story creates a sense of wonder and vastness. Fantasy deals with things beyond scientific explanation, fostering this sense. Kreeft argues for the **wisdom of ignorance**: we are actors on life's stage, not the playwright, so we shouldn't try to know the whole plot. Tolkien's epistemology trusts **intuition** ("the third eye of the heart") alongside reason and sense. However, intuition isn't infallible; it depends on **moral goodness**. This means epistemology relies on ethics – knowledge of the most important things depends on virtue, echoing Christ's teachings that doing God's will leads to knowing truth and that the pure in heart shall see God. C. S. Lewis warns against constantly "seeing through" things, as this eventually makes the world invisible by explaining away the very foundations of understanding. **Faith as Knowing** **Faith (trust)** is presented not as foolishness but as a reliable way of knowing that goes beyond reason while remaining reasonable. Lewis provides rational justifications for faith in his essays. **Truth** is objectively real and discovered, not merely subjectively created. Tolkien provocatively states that genuine fairy stories must be presented as "true," not just as subjective fictions. The joy in successful fantasy is a "sudden glimpse of the underlying reality or truth". Eucatastrophe is a "far-off gleam or echo of evangelium [gospel, good news] in the real world," suggesting that "All tales may come true" in a redeemed reality that is both like and unlike our present one. Like other great authors, Tolkien felt he was _recording_ truth that was "already there," not inventing it. He explicitly stated a goal was to elucidate truth and encourage morals by exemplifying them in unfamiliar embodiments. **History: A Road, Not a Cycle** A major question in the philosophy of history is whether it is **teleological** – purposeful, providential, a story with meaning – or just random events. The Hobbit's Walking Song portrays life as a purposeful Road one must follow, even without knowing the future. Tolkien's epic exalts **linguistic traditions** and looks to the past for wisdom. He includes over 500 references to past ages. His heroes are humble and learn from tradition; his villains are proud and scorn it, relying only on themselves. Tradition isn't a prison but a lighthouse guiding the future. Listening to the past and responsibility for the future are interconnected. Tolkien isn't a progressivist, nor does he embrace pagan fatalism (history as unending cycles of doom). His Christian philosophy of history avoids both false optimism and false pessimism. He highlights the importance of the unforeseen acts of will and virtue by the "small, ungreat" in world affairs. This shows the mutual dependence between the noble/heroic and the simple/ordinary – each is meaningless without the other. While Kreeft notes Tolkien's skepticism about predicting the future, he clearly believed his own century was spiritually smaller and uglier than past ages, seeing LOTR as a mythical history of how modern times came to be. **Hope in the Face of Tragedy** Despite being a traditionalist, conservative, and temperamental pessimist, Tolkien (like Lewis) had an optimistic attitude towards ordinary life, enjoying simple pleasures. This contrasts with some ideologies that disdain such "bourgeois" joys. Tolkien's optimism came from **conviction (faith)**, not temperament. He believed evil works with great power but ultimately in vain, preparing the ground for unexpected good. This is rooted in faith in God's power and goodness, and the philosophical understanding that evil is parasitic and self-destructive. The better word for Tolkien's stance is **hope**, which persists even when victory seems unlikely, making it all the more precious. Is human life a tragedy or a comedy? (A question posed in the book outline). While the excerpts don't explicitly answer this in detail, the discussion on hope and the triumph of good suggests a movement towards a "comedy" in the classical sense (ending well), even while acknowledging the immense tragedy and suffering. **The Splendor of Beauty** Beauty and truth are deeply connected for Tolkien. The glory found in things and language are intertwined, reflecting the belief that "In the beginning was the Word". Lewis saw LOTR as almost miraculous due to its high style and ability to move the spirit, using words like "piercing," "burn," and "break your heart" to describe its aesthetic power. Lewis's own aesthetic centers on this power to "break hearts". He defined a great book by the quality of reading experience it elicits – wonder and joy, matching Tolkien's stated motive for writing LOTR. Epic style, like Tolkien's, possesses a "solempne" quality – serious but not gloomy, elevated above the ordinary. In a fallen world, beauty can be a temptation. Lewis's **Principle of "First and Second Things"** is relevant: prioritizing moral goodness (first thing) is essential for the health of beauty (second thing). Worshiping art for art's sake harms both worship and art. Feanor sacrificing duty for his beautiful Silmarils is an example. Humans need beauty because they are made in the image of the creative God, acting as subcreators. This principle also applies to beauty and efficiency: sacrificing beauty for efficiency can lead to a loss of efficiency. Beauty can also serve as a "prophet" for goodness. **The Living Power of Words** Tolkien's deep love for **words**, especially names, is central. He saw words as the most beautiful things, a view resonating with the Christian belief in the "Word of God". Giving multiple names to cherished things reflects this love. For Tolkien, words weren't just labels; things lived and had their being _in_ words, coming to us through language. This echoes Martin Heidegger's idea of language as the "House of Being". Misusing language (idle talk, slogans) destroys our connection to reality. Poetry, the "establishing of being by means of the word," is fundamental speech, a creative act. Unspeaking is uncreating, as seen when Melkor forfeits his name. The power of the Ring's words, even when unspoken, demonstrates the potent reality embedded in language. Kreeft notes that music is perhaps the hardest aesthetic concept for reason to grasp. **Politics: Small, Free, and Just War** Culturally, Tolkien is a traditionalist and antimodernist. Politically, while complex, he leaned towards **distributism** (from Chesterton and Belloc), a philosophy favoring widespread private property distribution. He was uncomfortable with both big business/military conservatism and big government/secular liberalism. He could be called an anarchist (philosophically, meaning abolition of control) and a monarchist ("unconstitutional" Monarchy). His patriotism stemmed from a deep, almost familial connection to his country, seen as an extension of his mother's faith and sacrifice. Lewis explained distributism's link to the "free-born mind" and economic independence as a check on government control, fearing a future where the State controls education and employment, eliminating independent critics. Distributism aims to avoid the choice between societies with few freemen and societies with none. However, this populism isn't egalitarianism; natural hierarchies exist, and opposition often comes from envy. Tolkien's views aligned with a libertarian tendency against modern totalitarianism. He was wary of anyone seeking to "boss other men," believing few are fit for it. The Ring is applicable here, symbolizing power and control. Regarding **war**, Tolkien avoids simplistic pacifism or militarism, adhering to the traditional **Just War Theory**. This view sees war as a grim necessity against destroyers but doesn't glorify killing or believe the end justifies the means. Faramir embodies this, valuing what the sword defends (beauty, memory, wisdom) over the glory of war itself, a point Kreeft feels the movie adaptation misunderstood. Tolkien uniquely restores a sense of **glory** in a _just_ war. Lewis's arguments against pacifism, seeing war as sometimes necessary and arguing death/pain are not the greatest evils, align with this. **Ethics: The Reality and Weakness of Evil** Morality is presented as "marching orders" in the war between good and evil. Tolkien holds a classical Christian view that goodness is ontologically real, and evil is a _lack_ or corruption of good, not an equal, opposing force (avoiding Manicheanism). Evil is parasitic on being and goodness. While evil is terribly real, it is ultimately not as real as goodness. Life is spiritual warfare against forces beyond "flesh and blood". Tolkien is a **moral absolutist**, believing goodness and evil are absolutely distinct essences, even while acknowledging human moral complexity (most characters are tempted). The war is both external and internal. Moral relativism, by denying absolute good/evil, makes judgments about mixed characters meaningless. Tolkien's view contrasts with pagan gods who are often mixed in goodness/evil, superior only in power. The **Ring** symbolizes the temptation of gaining power through evil, allowing one to control appearances and seem successful, like Plato's Ring of Gyges. Tolkien uses the Ring to contrast Gollum (a small Nietzschean "Overman" figure) with Frodo, and ultimately with Christ. This speaks to the "Will to Power" philosophy, which both Plato and Tolkien refute. What this philosophy misses, according to Tolkien, is the **power of weakness** – strength found in renouncing power, self-sacrifice, and martyrdom, which Nietzsche despised but Christianity values. Tolkien contrasts Plato's philosophical answer to Gyges with the answer of sanctity and charity shown in the story. The **weakness of evil** is that it cannot conquer weakness. It is defeated by the free renunciation of power, by martyrdom. Evil is limited to power, pride, inflicting suffering; it cannot use humility, suffering, selflessness. Good can. Evil cannot create; it only mocks and counterfeits. Ultimately, the "Shadow was only a small and passing thing". Kreeft connects this Christian perspective to historical figures like Corrie Ten Boom seeing Ravensbrook as "small" after experiencing Christ's sacrifice. The terrifying relevance of the Ring today is that it represents placing one's life/power in external objects (technology), which, when exercised, passes out of direct control. Fighting the Enemy with his own Ring turns you into the Enemy. We forge our own "Ring" of natural technology, serving similar ends to Sauron's magic. **How Evil Works: Addiction and Pride** Evil's power is internal, working through our cooperation. It removes freedom, but only when we freely forge the bonds of slavery. The Ring's temptation is **addiction**. Plato saw injustice as enslavement to the passion for power. Kreeft argues power, not pleasure, is the most demanding desire (Kierkegaard). An addict's philosophy is "I've got to have it," making "It" the master. Gollum is believable because we know this addiction. The deadliest sin is **pride**, which involves self-deception and self-righteousness. Denethor's suicide exemplifies this: insisting he is right and reality is wrong, wanting things his way or nothing – the philosophy of a spoiled child, heading towards Hell. This is impenitence, which cannot be forgiven because it refuses to repent. **Hard Virtues: Principled Action** Kreeft discusses the debate between **principled ethics** (justified by prior principles) and **utilitarianism** (justified by consequences). Elrond's advice not to look too far ahead aligns with principlism. Arguments for principlism in LOTR include: 1. **Epistemological:** We don't know the future; only principles are unchanging and known. 2. **Psychological:** Our "reasoning" is often rationalizing, and deeper reason knows this. Moral absolutism is humble; relativism is arrogant. 3. **Theological:** God is our commander; duty is to persons (God, commanders), not abstract principles. Frodo explicitly rejects utilitarian calculation. Gandalf's counsel is simply to "do the deed at hand". 4. **Historical:** The consequences of consequentialism are bad; those of principlism are good. Consequentialism gives up easily; principlism perseveres regardless of outcome. **Heroism, Hope, Authority, and Promises** A **hero** is courageous, a vital virtue in a fallen world. Courage is the form of every virtue at its testing point. Individuals must endure suffering beyond normal strength for the good of the world. Kreeft notes Jesus and Tolkien were not naturally courageous like Frodo, suggesting courage involves faith. The topic of **hope** is central for Lewis and Tolkien. Hope's object is ultimately a person, God, the only concrete universal. Hope is a theological virtue. The book touches on **authority** (is it oppressive? obedience demeaning?) and the sacredness of **promises**. Promises require an "I". Keeping oaths is highly valued (King Theoden, the Paths of the Dead). **Soft Virtues: Friendship and Humility** **Friendship** (Fellowship) is incredibly important in LOTR, a power greater than wisdom. Gandalf trusts the Hobbits' friendship over wisdom. Its opposite, treason, is a great foe. Satan's strategy is "divide and conquer". Lewis wrote beautifully on friendship and his own friendship with Tolkien was crucial to the book's existence. **Humility** is linked to the dependence between the high-heroic and humble-Hobbit-like. Heroes fight to protect ordinary life; ordinary life (the Shire) is the reward. Tolkien saw himself as a Hobbit. Sam, the humble servant, is considered the chief hero, exemplifying raising the lowly. Lewis defines true humility as freedom from self-focus, appearing cheerful and interested in others. Bilbo's (and Frodo's, Sam's, Aragorn's, Faramir's) **pity and mercy** towards Gollum is shown to be essential for saving Middle-earth. Mercy is seen as a strange, vital element present in the Divine nature. It requires different moral scales for self and others. **Charity and Self-Sacrifice** Frodo's final departure shows that sometimes one must lose something for others to keep it. "Love (charity, self-giving, self-sacrifice) conquers all". In a fallen world, achieving the best requires denial and suffering, not just self-indulgence. Faithful love, even in marriage, requires conscious will and self-denial. **Incarnating Truth: Christ in the World** The book concludes by asking if one man can incarnate every truth and virtue. This points to the Christian idea of Christ as the eternal Logos, the light enlightening everyone, present even where not explicitly known (like in paganism). Tolkien, a Catholic, saw pagan myths not as wholly wrong but as "confused precursors" of Christianity. Lewis called them "gleams" of truth in a "jungle". Catholicism's view of pagans following natural law as implicitly knowing Christ aligns with the idea of "general revelation". Kreeft suggests a "sixth presence" of God in LOTR is ecclesial – the presence of the universal ("catholic") Church, an invisible, mystical Body or "fellowship," like the Fellowship of the Ring. Sauron's philosophy leaves no room for failure, but Tolkien's (Christianity) does. The most revealing event was Christ's "failure" and death, by which the Lamb defeated the Beast. Frodo's actions mirror this, and it works because Christ made it real in the real world. Only in a Christian world can this kind of "failure" hold such power. While few pagan sages understood the power of weakness abstractly, they didn't know it would be demonstrated in a literal historical event. Frodo, like some sages, believed without seeing Christ. So, this book invites you on a profound journey, showing how _The Lord of the Rings_ isn't just a fantasy story, but a world infused with a deep, coherent, and challenging philosophy that speaks to the biggest questions about reality, humanity, and the nature of good and evil. It's a chance to see the familiar story in a new light and perhaps, like those first readers, feel that you are touching something true.