Peter Kreeft - Lord of the Rings: Beauty and Language

This lecture loosely encompasses the Lord of the Rings. Here are the Philosopher Peter Kreefts accurately piercing words on one of the greatest homages to Lady Beauty and it is none other then J.R.R. Tolkien's Epic Adventure in the Lord of the Rings.
The mighty and solemn Music is the once controversial Rite of Spring created by the genius of a 20th century Russian Composer named Igor Stravinsky, who some call the Fire Bird after his passionate Symphonies.

[@melkior33]

I also found some of Kreefts biases and snarly side comments annoying but critics of this lecture should remember that he is primarily a catholic philosopher with a catholic audience. He knows a hell of a lot about Tolkien. Tolkien was catholic himself and was good friends with CS Lewis. So Kreefts positions set him up to be sensitive to some of the themes in Tokien which others may be blind too. Plenty of gold nuggets in here which have helped me understand LOTR. With any university lecture, we must be willing to take whatever wisdom and knowledge we can from from it. It is inevitable that a professor will have different beliefs and orientations to the students. Nowadays, Uni students are so sensitive that they will walk out of a lecture if their teacher makes one side-comment that they disagree with. Forget it! Take the gold nuggets, and think deeply about the parts which you disagree with. That is what learning is.

[@HeroOfTime303]

Yeah, I don't know what you mean by "snarly side comments." That just sounds absurd, to me.

[@joshuacooley1417]

@@HeroOfTime303 Same here. This lecture is gold from beginning to end.

[@hermajesty52]

one of my favorite Kreeft talks. I'm just finishing up my 3rd reading of both the LOTR and the Silmarillion. Better and better each time......like War and Peace or Brothers Karamazov or Kristen Lavransdatter. Inspired literature that has greatly influenced my life. We have a world now where it is possible to grow up without ever reading a book at all, just rely on a screen for 'information'. Unutterably sad.

[@joshuacooley1417]

Also one of my favorites, I have listened to it multiple times. Another great one, if you haven't listened to it, is Peter Kreeft's talk on the Cosmic Dance

[@thoughtfox12]

My favourite video on this website. I've listened to this countless times.

[@jbtechcon7434]

Brilliant dude discussing brilliant dude.

[@harveywind2930]

This is why the black and white elements of a written page constitute the most varied and potent of artistic palettes.

[@InternetPilgrim]

Brilliant. While they may not be expressed in the most concise, logical terms, Kreeft’s ideas resonate w/ those of us still aware enough to recognize that there’s an innate, ancient wisdom that we feel & respond to, but usually can’t articulate. We often attribute it to the Spirit of God but it’s both more & less than that. It’s less in that nothing meaningful can exist apart from Him and all that does exist is merely a manifestation of His creative genius; it’s more in that like much of His creation, it takes on a certain life of its own as an integral part of us once He has finished His creation and set it free.

[@nathanexplosionn]

so, I love your use of the rite of spring. masterful......

[@blackwoodbaritone]

Love the Stravinsky opening. ;)

[@MW-bm2fg]

Excellent, thanks for sharing.

[@spasjt]

Rayvvvone As for old vs. new culture Kreeft hits the nail on the head when he quotes from Tolkien in the video at 16:02. "Ours is an age of improved means to deteriorated ends." Efficiency is used as an excuse to kill self expression and individuality. Such a base of operating one's life can be horrifying when applied to a government. Communism and socialism prefer efficiency over individuality for the sake of the state's growth at the cost of a person's individual importance and unique perspective. This does not mean that beauty has to be sunshine and rainbows since even in artworks depicting terrible things such as the crucifixion. 19:40-21:26 is a great place to see how in the Silmarillion and Kreefts commentary can greatly clarify what I just said in this comment.

[@DewiiEsq]

I love listening to this

[@einnaecarg]

Genius! Indeed a 'gentle prophet'.

[@FromAcrossTheDesert]

For a Christian: Proverbs 9:10 "The beginning of wisdom is the fear of the LORD, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding." AND philosophy is literally the love of wisdom. It amazes me that Gorgias was considered a sophist ( a wise person) when he doesn't even believe in wisdom. And the same is true for his modern proteges: How can you be a philosopher if you don't even believe that wisdom exists????? At very least Peter Kreeft is consistent in his thoughts.... wisdom exists and it begins with a deep respect and love of God.

[@jrgen7261]

I think you misunderstand. Sophist refers to a category of greek philosophers that, as far as I understand, were relativistis, and cynical towards all religious belifs and tradition in general. Many of them promoted things like "might makes right" or the ends justify the means. And some would deviously twist logic, winning any side of any argument. If they are right, they are the wisest men to ever live, following truth is crusal to wisdom. If they are wrong they are among the greatest of fools, denying reality and following lies. I consider them fools, denying truth is madnes, and it creates madnes among all who do so. And if accepting truth is essential to wisdom, then denying truth means denying wisdom. So IF philosopher means wise person, I think no sophist should qualify.

[@jrgen7261]

I'm sorry if I have misunderstod you 😅

[@spasjt]

Rayvvvone As I said before. "The tricky part of this is that he is combining theological belief of the beauty of God and the philosophical understanding of beauty of language and works of art." 13:30 is a good place to start to clarify some small points I will make. The successful hybrid of knowing Beauty as understood through the spoken word (language), as far as I can see, is that Kreeft is asking for people to rediscover the beauty of the spoken word such as it was, for example, in the time of Shakespeare. In addition Kreeft is also trying to outline the abstract form of beauty as a means of determining what is inherently good and bad. Language here is merely a way of studying what true Beauty really is. What is beautiful or rather what makes something beautiful? This may seem a pointless question but it's not. Consider what people consider beautiful today. The understanding of beauty is beyond a technical work of art and a lengthy essay. Beauty by its nature has its roots in what is good. After all nothing that is beautiful is bad. That's why bad works of art are so atrocious. Picasso was a co-founder of Cubism, I've heard the mastery of the style hard to achieve, but is it beautiful? No. While it may be a technical artwork of ingenuity no one would actually call it beautiful because it is distorted, twisted and harsh to look upon. The three defining qualities of this method are naturally negative.

[@daltonlessel907]

good job.

[@roderickblyth2994]

The inscription resembles the Crown of Thorns...

[@TrueAlterReality]

Tolkien himself says that there is no biblical or religious allegory in his works

[@WilliamFBogey]

errrrmmm have you squizzed through the Silmarillion?? Tolkien disliked the term allegory correct However Lord of the Rings is more of an allegory than any allegory could be I don't know what one is supposed to refer to such an epic as

[@paradoxo9111]

@Asabov Sobelo A few years back, I came across a forum discussing this topic, and I think one person said that the notion of Biblical typology would be more accurate for Tolkien. If memory serves, the reasoning was that in allegories, there is a kind of one-to-one correspondence between things in the fictional work, and the things in real life, whereas types do not have this weakness. Aragorn, Frodo, and Gandalf in a way "foreshadow" the Christ whom they represent different aspects of. Is it possible that this is a better fit?

[@M4TCH3SM4L0N3]

This is quite an old comment and I doubt many will read my reply, but I think that Roderick Blyth's observation is being unfairly characterized as implying allegory. It doesn't have to be allegory to resemble something, and frankly the fact that Tolkien recognized the inscription as evil doesn't detract from the resemblance one iota. Resemblance is precisely what Tolkien was talking about when he wrote and spoke about "applicability," which precisely is *not* allegorical. The ring absolutely is a representation of evil and of sin, and what else is Christ pierced by in the Gospel if not the evil and sins of man? Joseph Pearce points out "when Frodo bears the ring it is his cross, when Frodo wears the ring it is his sin." So all of this is to say that I do agree that the inscription *does* resemble the crown of thorns, both visually and thematically, and I am sure that Tolkien would agree.

[@spasjt]

He does have a doctorate. The tricky part of this is that he is combining theological belief of the beauty of God and the philosophical understanding of beauty of language and works of art. This is bound to cause some confusion. His logic may not be foolproof but that is what happens when someone talks about a transcendent form such as what ancient philosophers would talk about. Namely Aristotle, Socrates etc.

[@tioedong]

Uh, your premise is false: The idea of beauty and goodness as the essence of a deity predates Christianity. It's all in Plato. What do they teach children in school nowadays?

[@jgerlett]

Singing a comment is not possible here But that is what I would like to do --- God bless us every one.

[@andrewrsanchez]

Pray for those who have divorced beauty from goodness.

[@spasjt]

"I resent philosophers using their education to do apologetics. It's a sneaky, tricky con job." Interesting I know many a person who would say the same thing about scientists doing theology or philosophy. However the Catholic Faith believes that Faith and Reason can and should work together. So while Kreeft may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, he is trying to unite two broad fields of study. He believes these are not myths but reality, if he's wrong he is no better than you say.

[@FromAcrossTheDesert]

For a Christian: Proverbs 9:10 "The beginning of wisdom is the fear of the LORD, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding." AND philosophy is literally the love of wisdom. It amazes me that Gorgias was considered a sophist ( a wise person) when he doesn't even believe in wisdom. And the same is true for his modern proteges: How can you be a philosopher if you don't even believe that wisdom exists????? At very least Peter Kreeft is consistent in his thoughts.... wisdom exists and it begins with a deep respect and love of God.

[@hglundahl]

30:56 Amon Uilos = Mount Oiolosse. Amon like Ah-monn, not like Éamonn. Uilos like OOy-loss, not like wEE-loss. And Laurelin of course first syllable LOW, not LAW.

[@spasjt]

Ah, I see. I'm curious have you ever heard of what Kreeft is talking about in this video before; namely the transcendent form of Beauty?

[@fantasyismyfreedom]

34:10-ish Yes! Yes I definitely do! ("No"? Why do you assume that?)

[@spasjt]

BUT if he is right, as many people believe, then the results could have massive implications for everyone.

[@hglundahl]

23:51 Changed the character of Faramir? How? Was it in Two Towers? Other example of change: Tom Bombadil was left out because to some he recalls "a village idiot". Insouciance or Sorglosigkeit is painted as having power to vanquish evil. What is it in English again? "Casual unconcern" might do (I would not call TB either heedless nor in the modern sense careless). On top of that TB is very popular, earthy, countryfolks minded. Wouldn't do to show that as not growing invisible under influence of ring or of giving it back without a problem.

[@jordanphillips9133]

What does he mean at 22-24 that Peter Jackson left out a chapter because it flew in the face of Hollywood's view of State sanctioned socialism? He brings up Farramir (who is notably different between the book and the movie), and also Sauramon's technologically heavy Isengard. Does anyone see what I'm missing?

[@jordanphillips9133]

+Jordan Phillips I just finished the book and he's referring to the second to last chapter of Return of the King. It's called "The Scouring of the Shire," which was not included in the movie, if anyone is interested.

[@sirbutthurt2937]

Jackson didn't left it out bc of politics though, he left it out bc of pacing issues and long run time.

[@gre8]

Indeed. Though interesting, both the scouring and tom bombadill are understandable omissions in the films.

[@cinnsuamongar]

I understood The Scouring of the Shire but not the Faramir part.

[@WMalven]

Jackson entirely missed the essence of the book, the essential nature of the human spirit and turned the entire saga into a caricature of it's original epic nature--a comic-book version. The Scouring of the Shire was one of the most important chapters in the entire book. Without it, the entire film missed Tolkien's entire underlying message. Virtually all of Jackson's changes lowered the level of the saga into a more mundane generic fantasy tale. The re-writing of Frodo and Sam's relationship on Cirith Ungol diminished Frodo's innate nobility and strength of character. Frodo never succumbed to Gollum's seductive language...the very little in which he indulged. Jackson took the noble and elevated nature of high fantasy and turned it into a mundane and ignoble action-adventure..

[@qhorinshafi5588]

1:03:20

[@hglundahl]

45:50 Names on Cemeteries have a meaning very close on RIP. Have you been to Churches in Paris where those who fell during WW-I ("La Guerre de Quatorze") are enumerated year by year, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and in each year in alphabetic order, of course within that parish? Obviously, some names fighting for France were as German as Kreeft is Dutch or Pennsylvania Dutch.

[@spasjt]

If that's so why are you here?

[@hglundahl]

41:13 "Mathematics, which is the only totally univocal" etc. No. Take the sign "-" followed by the sign "1". Do they refer to: * an operation of subtraction qualified by a "one" as answering how many aer subtracted? or * a number "negative one" which is as much below "zero" as "positive one" is above it? Two very different philosophies of Mathematics, meaning it is not a totally univocal language - you need prose to differentiate between the two notions.

[@madhatter7393]

Hans-Georg Lundahl i think you are confusing mathematics for the symbols of mathematics. -1 might be a representation of two different things but the two different things are still universal principles despite how they are represented in symbols.

[@hglundahl]

It still means the symbols are not univocal but have some equivocality. And since what is concerned with language, this means mathematics is an equivocal language. It does not mean a mathematic concept correctly defined is equivocal - but there are philosophies in which it is incorrectly defined like the philosophy in which you have "a number "negative one" which is as much below "zero" as "positive one" is above it" -( which is nonsense.

[@Pacdoc-oz]

mathematics is a language and just as capable of inventing nonsense as is natural language. More scandalous than negative numbers are negative square roots and symbols like pi which cannot be exactly written in a string of numbers. Natural language talks about infinity, winged horses and dragons.

[@mudhuthanudimmudkahagadulh4657]

All these wonderful words and proper names then you give the messiah a Roman name? That's disrespectful what hebrew galalean has a Roman name? His name was yashua.

[@Dostoevskys_Quill]

Except Jesus is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Yeshua 😳

[@mudhuthanudimmudkahagadulh4657]

@@Dostoevskys_Quill actually the Greek translation is Iesous. Look in the strong Bible translation concordance

[@Dostoevskys_Quill]

@@mudhuthanudimmudkahagadulh4657 Jesus, which is the name used by most English-speaking people today, is an English transliteration of a Germanic adaptation, of a Latin transliteration, of a Greek transliteration of an originally Hebrew name, that is simply Yeshua. Point is Jesus is from the Greek transliteration and the ENGLISH of Yeshua, not a Roman name. Transliteration is act or process of writing words using a different alphabet: Their texts aimed to produce a phonetic transliteration of the dialect, using the main languages of the day. Transliteration helps people speak a language by showing the pronunciation in the language they understand.

[@mudhuthanudimmudkahagadulh4657]

@@Dostoevskys_Quill I guess we can agree to disagree, the authority on this is the STRONGS CONCORDANCE which goes against your own research. Jesus is the roman name and Ieosus is the greek translation of the aramaic word Yashua or sometimes spelled yahuwshua.

[@Dostoevskys_Quill]

@@mudhuthanudimmudkahagadulh4657 Jesus is the ENGLISH TRANSLITERATION, transliteration and translation are different processes…the Latin of the Greek is Iesus, the Greek is Iesous….Jesus is ENGLISH not Roman, they didn’t even use the letter J…these names of Yeshua are all transliterations to other tongues using that tongues alphabet to derive the translation of the Septuagint…your interpretation of Strongs is way off base and your statement completely incorrect…blessings. ✝️

[@hglundahl]

44:39 Worshipping horsegods? Not quite new. In Philistine areas Dagon may have been a fish god, but in Athens Potei-Daon (as referred to in Mycenean times) was a horsegod. If you know Hippolytus, you will see how unwise it was of Theseus to take that horsegod for his father ...

[@hglundahl]

34:44 Greek Mythology depends far more on its language! Thank God it wasn't written by contemporaries who wrote cuneiform Hittite! Or hieroglyphic, for that matter!

[@bairdrew]

Good lecture, though the praise of Mother Theresa really doesn't age well at all

[@riversandstones1644]

There is some awesome insight. I liked the platonism, but I sensed to much Christianity in your discourse, it was too much for me.

[@cinnsuamongar]

Why is he attacking Madonna? Is it a Catholic thing?

[@bfkc111]

It is an EXAMPLE of a pop star... Which is a banal, common way of argument. Sanity or rationality comes with not taking every thing absolutely literally... The opposite one sees in all radical ideology and superstition. (It is also doesn't mean I "agree" with him or want to "champion" his argument, and it to "win" at all costs, when I merely explain it.)

[@hglundahl]

1:13:45 I think you are wrong here. I think ugliness is not lack of beauty and the beauty of a frog or a spider is partly meant precisely for its ugliness. Think of some ugly stinking flower, the frog or spider is yuckier still - because it's yuckiness on a higher level of order.

[@domestickenosis5681]

frogs aren't ugly

[@Rayvvvone]

" The tricky part of this is that he is combining theological belief of the beauty of God and the philosophical understanding of beauty of language and works of art." - I know he has a doctorate. I resent philosophers using their education to do apologetics. It's a sneaky, tricky con job. These guys don't even have bad cars to sell, not even sake oil, not even air, Nothing BUT deception, and empty promises. But myths are a good subject for art .If that's his point, give him a doctorate.

[@Rayvvvone]

"BUT if he is right, ..." - right about what, modern culture is bad, old culture is good? I think Kreeft is impossibly trite.

[@bfkc111]

This interpretation or summary is impossibly trite... (Even if I don't think Kreeft is that great overall. But your view is a total null zone of education. He is not talking about "all culture in total ever"... He is talking about very specific points, of course. With his own set of arguments or observations. Urgh, it always feels dirty to explain things to a stupid starting point.)

[@brovold72]

The high praise, slipped in edgewise, for Mel Gibson's repulsive torture-porn "epic" just tells me that this Sophist will claim any popular aesthetic as justification for (his) version of (his) God's glory. And I don't believe his story of some hippie-Marxist straw man of yesteryear telling him "Words are the enemy." Balderdash!

[@Rayvvvone]

"Kreeft is talking about" - His videos do have nice titles, but I don't seem to get passed 5 minutes of his silly theology. The logic is just terrible. And I think this man has a doctorate. That part really gets my goat.