In regard to Hope, Estel, Aragorn’s name as a child, literally means “Hope “. As Aragorn’s mother Gilraen said when she died after giving birth to him, “I have given Hope to mankind but saved none for myself “. This was quoted by Aragorn’s in the movie when he receives the sword from Elrond.
Love this interview, but Prof. Kreet at 23:22 got it wrong. Frodo did NOT push Gollum. They were both fighting over it as they both fell over the edge. So Jackson got that right and Prof. Kreet... with respect... is incorrect.
Except that Jackson still didn’t get it right. In the book, Gollum bites off Frodo’s finger, dances with glee with the ring, and loses his balance and falls. It isn’t caused by his tussle with Frodo.
LOTR is indeed like a cathedral, a superb analogy. However I disagree with Peter K about the brothers Karamazov, it’s starets Zosima who is like Gandalf, someone who personifies wisdom.
So, what explains the comment at 4:40 or so that "ordinary people are , and the critics are not"? You'd THINK that a goal of the publications putting out the critics' material would want to have critics that "resonated" with their readership. What has caused normal market forces to fail to produce such a well-tuned situation?
I would say there is not mere market forces at play, shaping the “criticsphere”; but, like so many other arenas of society, a sort of astroturfing going on, always trying to shape and steer society: a grand vision, but not our vision.
Tokien did not "invent" anything he said himself that he just recorded what he saw in the "secondary world" which was neither real nor his imagination.
Exactly. This is why I love Tië Eldaliéva’s based and balanced video’s especially with that scientific certified shaman guy who’s with her often in her videos. Especially true it part two partly about of Rings Of Power but went deep into awesome stuff and even shared this scholarly bishop who was speaking about Tolkiens works about the imaginary try world doesn’t mean fake or unreal and also how it’s a space between god and the rest of the teams inside and outside of this earth and how we communicate with the great mother and great father that’s both inside of us and outside of us all at the same time via this fluid space
In geneal, a good talk, but gere are the things gotten wrong: 9:54 LotR wasn't an allegory. None of the characters represented Jesus. 18:30 Tolkien didn't create Quenya as a result of war, he himself found it hard to answer why, but finally told that it was because he found it aesthetically pleasing. 20:00 He did not write 'The Silmarillion' but I guess that abhorrent generalization can be overlooked. Aaand lots of stuff later, I'm not gonna watch it all.
@@emiliodijan2194that and It’s important to pair the Sil with Morgoth’s Ring, Children Of Hùrin, Unfinished Tales, Book Of Lost Tales, 12 volumes of history of middle earth. Laws And Customs Of The Eldar, Lays of Beleriand, Of Beren and Lúthien including Christophers awesome writings before they got into the story really adds more depth and understanding to it all! Especially Lay Of Leithien as well. ❤
Gandalf was more a plain angel than an archangel. The Valar were akin to the archangels. Otherwise you have nothing left to call them - Eru was God, Gandalf an angel, and the Valar in between - archangels.
They never pulled rank on eachother often. A maia of battle orientation easily handles Morgoth. Even Eonwë of the Eldar would trounce Morgoth in any of his stages. Same with the maia Tulkas. All are Ainur. It all depends on their dispositions and orientations
@@Makkaru112 Granted; aside from the overtly corrupt ones they were always presented as very "pure of heart." Almost naively so in some cases. It is noted on several occasions, though, that the Maiar were the "helpers" / "assistants" of the Valar. There was a clear distinction.
Nice guy. Just read his book and it's not about philosophy. The vast majority of quotes and sources are C.S. Lewis. Lewis is not a philosopher. It's more of an apologetic comparison to Christianity and why C.S. Lewis finds it true. The ultimate truth is Jesus. The ring is the cross. When Christ failed he defeated death. This is common Hellenistic mythology from 300 BCE, a salvation through a savior deity. Not philosophy. Christ is the Logos. No John borrowed that from Plato and wrote a story. I thought this would be philosophy and it claims it will teach you something about philosophy. You get apologetics. Having a belief is great, calling it philosophy is misleading. There is philosophy about truth. None of it involves taking a deity in any mythology and saying "there is truth". That is a religious belief. Just call it the Religion of Tolkien and C.S. Lewis. Why are apologists always using false narratives? Good vs evil doesn't start with the Bible. He barely mentions much of Tolkien is taken from other myths. But it's about philosophy, not myth. And if you describe a religion or myth, you explain the philosophy as philosophy, not religious dogma. If you bought a philosophy book and it said "what is truth" and answered with, "the Quran is truth, God gave us the truth in this text", that is not philosophy. It's a personal belief. You can explain philosophy from any fictional story as philosophy, not as an apologetic to show the story must be true. Philosophy books should not be saying the Quran is truth, or Jesus is truth. A theology or apologetic book already does that, in every religion. The last Tolkien book did the same. All positive hopeful beliefs were Christian, all pessimistic beliefs were pagan. No, the ancient world was sharing philosophies and stories. The Near East had a common wisdom tradition and then became Hellenized and all shared common themes around their own deities. The metaphors they stand for are philosophy, not taking the story literal.
I’ve listened to two of Peter Kreeft’s interviews and it’s just wonderful listening to him. He seems like such a pleasant person.
4:03 "Everyone in the world, except the critics, thinks this is the greatest book of the twentieth century."
27:43 Excellent and thought-provoking and sincere musings on Sauron, human psyche and narrative themes!
Peter Kreeft is an absolute treasure!
In regard to Hope, Estel, Aragorn’s name as a child, literally means “Hope “. As Aragorn’s mother Gilraen said when she died after giving birth to him, “I have given Hope to mankind but saved none for myself “. This was quoted by Aragorn’s in the movie when he receives the sword from Elrond.
Exactly and there are two kinds of hope. Amdir and Estel. Tolkien Lore channel goes into this deeply
Love this interview, but Prof. Kreet at 23:22 got it wrong. Frodo did NOT push Gollum. They were both fighting over it as they both fell over the edge. So Jackson got that right and Prof. Kreet... with respect... is incorrect.
Except that Jackson still didn’t get it right. In the book, Gollum bites off Frodo’s finger, dances with glee with the ring, and loses his balance and falls. It isn’t caused by his tussle with Frodo.
Thanks for uploading
Christopher Tolkien said Jackson had ''eviscerated'' his father's work. I agree.
Thank u for this interview 😍
Thank you..thank you...Thank you 🙏!!!
How about constructing a sentence and expressing a view?😢
LOTR is indeed like a cathedral, a superb analogy. However I disagree with Peter K about the brothers Karamazov, it’s starets Zosima who is like Gandalf, someone who personifies wisdom.
More about the hobbit with Alan Lee’s travels to find the history of them which is quite amazing. The episodes are hard to find.
So, what explains the comment at 4:40 or so that "ordinary people are , and the critics are not"? You'd THINK that a goal of the publications putting out the critics' material would want to have critics that "resonated" with their readership. What has caused normal market forces to fail to produce such a well-tuned situation?
I would say there is not mere market forces at play, shaping the “criticsphere”; but, like so many other arenas of society, a sort of astroturfing going on, always trying to shape and steer society: a grand vision, but not our vision.
Excellent
Interesting to compare Peter Kreeft´s opinion on the movies to that of Harold Bloom.
Thanks for this so much!!
The headline needed to tell us "CS Lewis," too
Tokien did not "invent" anything he said himself that he just recorded what he saw in the "secondary world" which was neither real nor his imagination.
Tolkien*
Exactly. This is why I love Tië Eldaliéva’s based and balanced video’s especially with that scientific certified shaman guy who’s with her often in her videos. Especially true it part two partly about of Rings Of Power but went deep into awesome stuff and even shared this scholarly bishop who was speaking about Tolkiens works about the imaginary try world doesn’t mean fake or unreal and also how it’s a space between god and the rest of the teams inside and outside of this earth and how we communicate with the great mother and great father that’s both inside of us and outside of us all at the same time via this fluid space
I think this would have bee much better with just Kreeft.
In geneal, a good talk, but gere are the things gotten wrong:
9:54 LotR wasn't an allegory. None of the characters represented Jesus.
18:30 Tolkien didn't create Quenya as a result of war, he himself found it hard to answer why, but finally told that it was because he found it aesthetically pleasing.
20:00 He did not write 'The Silmarillion' but I guess that abhorrent generalization can be overlooked.
Aaand lots of stuff later, I'm not gonna watch it all.
How do you mean, he didn't write Silmarillon?
His son edited it and published it but Tolkien did all the writing
@@emiliodijan2194that and It’s important to pair the Sil with Morgoth’s Ring, Children Of Hùrin, Unfinished Tales, Book Of Lost Tales, 12 volumes of history of middle earth. Laws And Customs Of The Eldar, Lays of Beleriand, Of Beren and Lúthien including Christophers awesome writings before they got into the story really adds more depth and understanding to it all! Especially Lay Of Leithien as well. ❤
Peter Kraft must not have played Skyrim!
Gandalf was more a plain angel than an archangel. The Valar were akin to the archangels. Otherwise you have nothing left to call them - Eru was God, Gandalf an angel, and the Valar in between - archangels.
They never pulled rank on eachother often. A maia of battle orientation easily handles Morgoth. Even Eonwë of the Eldar would trounce Morgoth in any of his stages. Same with the maia Tulkas. All are Ainur. It all depends on their dispositions and orientations
@@Makkaru112 Granted; aside from the overtly corrupt ones they were always presented as very "pure of heart." Almost naively so in some cases. It is noted on several occasions, though, that the Maiar were the "helpers" / "assistants" of the Valar. There was a clear distinction.
Nice guy. Just read his book and it's not about philosophy. The vast majority of quotes and sources are C.S. Lewis. Lewis is not a philosopher. It's more of an apologetic comparison to Christianity and why C.S. Lewis finds it true. The ultimate truth is Jesus. The ring is the cross. When Christ failed he defeated death. This is common Hellenistic mythology from 300 BCE, a salvation through a savior deity. Not philosophy. Christ is the Logos. No John borrowed that from Plato and wrote a story. I thought this would be philosophy and it claims it will teach you something about philosophy. You get apologetics. Having a belief is great, calling it philosophy is misleading.
There is philosophy about truth. None of it involves taking a deity in any mythology and saying "there is truth". That is a religious belief. Just call it the Religion of Tolkien and C.S. Lewis.
Why are apologists always using false narratives? Good vs evil doesn't start with the Bible. He barely mentions much of Tolkien is taken from other myths. But it's about philosophy, not myth. And if you describe a religion or myth, you explain the philosophy as philosophy, not religious dogma. If you bought a philosophy book and it said "what is truth" and answered with, "the Quran is truth, God gave us the truth in this text", that is not philosophy. It's a personal belief.
You can explain philosophy from any fictional story as philosophy, not as an apologetic to show the story must be true. Philosophy books should not be saying the Quran is truth, or Jesus is truth. A theology or apologetic book already does that, in every religion.
The last Tolkien book did the same. All positive hopeful beliefs were Christian, all pessimistic beliefs were pagan. No, the ancient world was sharing philosophies and stories. The Near East had a common wisdom tradition and then became Hellenized and all shared common themes around their own deities. The metaphors they stand for are philosophy, not taking the story literal.
I'm no. 100 :) (my first 100, ever 😆)
Perhaps our nuclear bombs is Sauron: we can destroy all civilization now
I can argue luck defeats the ring!
and you would have a trash argument